Additional clarification of the government's position regarding the future of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was provided by Mr. Allon in this interview, excerpts of which follow:
Q: Mr. Foreign Minister, what is your reaction to a possible raising of the question concerning the future of the population of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, putting this question to them, in form of a referendum or by some other similar manner?
A: So far the Israel government has not yet decided upon the future map of the State of Israel. But, concerning those populated areas on which the government is prepared to compromise when the time comes for negotiations, it will of course be necessary to hear the opinion of the population. Incidentally, King Hussein, for example, has recently also said on more than one occasion that he would want to allow those of the populace who might possibly become part of the Kingdom of Jordan, the right to decide on the regime they want. At this stage, however, the question is still theoretical.
Q: At any rate, there are questions on which the cabinet did decide at its session early in the week. How would you today interpret the definitions which are perhaps far from clear - a Palestinian entity, a Palestinian state, Palestine rights?
A: Actually, the cabinet's decision is perfectly clear. The government did not even have to recognize the existence of a national Palestinian issue, since such an issue does exist and is taken into account. But the decision of the cabinet was a correct one - and to publish it was a good thing-namely, that the Palestinian issue or shall we say the problem of the Palestinian identity, will find its solution within the framework of a Jordanian-Palestinian state east of the State of Israel, within borders to be determined in future negotiations. This decision is unequivocal. Hence the inference is also that said Palestinian-Jordanian state is also the Palestinian state, knowing as we do the extent of the affinity and kinship, both ethnic and historic between, say, the Arabs of Samaria and Judea and the Arabs of eastern Jordan.
Q: Mr. Foreign Minister, regarding the deletion of the paragraph rejecting a third state in the region - the same paragraph that had appeared earlier in Mr. Rabin's remarks and now no longer appears in the cabinet's decision taken at the beginning of the week does this hint at the possibility that we might perhaps be prepared for a third state to be established in the area after all?
A: This deletion is of stylistic and diplomatic - rather than substantial significance. We decided to encourage the establishing of a Palestinian-Jordanian state only, which would be situated to the east of the State of Israel. We were in favour of a solution of the Palestinian issue by establishing a Jordanian-Palestinian state east of Israel within borders to be determined in negotiations amongst themselves. Thus there is no need to add any negative statements on what we would not agree to, if only to abstain from unnecessarily bestowing an image of inflexibility upon Israel, a sort of Khartoum image which will benefit no-one.
Essentially we do not desire, nor do we see any justification for the establishing of a separate and independent Palestinian state, also because this means splitting up that ethnic group between whom and the group across the river there is a great affinity - familial, historical and cultural. Secondly, such a Palestinian state may very likely incline towards extremism. It might well be irredentist - towards both Jordan and Israel, and might perhaps even serve as an additional base for Soviet infiltration. Therefore we gave priority to the Jordanian-Palestinian solution. Of course, we are not prepared to give a monopoly to King Hussein also to be responsible for solving the Palestinian issue if in exchange he asks a price that Israel is not prepared or cannot pay.
Q: Sir, this decision taken by the cabinet was to a great extent new from the aspect of its touching upon this subject. That is to say, the Palestinian subject, and yet, nevertheless, the Egyptians are saying: Israel is reverting to her old ways. In the U.S., too, there was disappointment at this decision. How do you explain this?
A: This decision is formulated quite clearly. The novelty in all of this subject is, that the government held an overall discussion on the Palestinian question, which it had not done for a -long time. But I would look upon this decision as a clarification of policy, rather than an attempt at imposing or enforcing this or some other solution on the Palestinians. From this aspect, then, this decision is important, both from the point of view of readiness for initiative on peace negotiations with Jordan, as well as from the point of view of the desire and the aspiration to seek a just solution to the Palestinian problem, as regards its identity, and this is important. Egypt has no justification for criticizing our decision. After all, the Sadat-Hussein declaration on the same section that we are dealing with does not differ greatly from what we decided. Witness the severe criticism of the Sadat-Hussein statement voiced by the organization calling itself the Palestine Liberation Organization, who are even demanding that the Arab summit meeting be put forward so as to censure these two leaders on their decision, which is not to the liking of the extremists among the Palestinians.
And as for the United States - no news of any criticism of our decision has reached my ears. On the contrary - it is my impression that this is a hopeful sign - especially for Jordan, with whom Washington has had friendly relations for many years. There might be some criticism in the press. It is their right to criticise, and it is our right not to become excited by such criticism.