In his first interview after assuming the office of the Prime Minister, Mr. Rabin evaluated the Disengagement of Forces agreement signed between Israel and Syria on 31 May 1974. He also indicated that Israel's next diplomatic move would be to seek further agreement with Egypt, to be negotiated, as long as Egypt refuses to. deal directly with Israel, through the United States. Excerpts:
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, this is your first appearance on Friday night television as Prime Minister. Can you tell us how you feel?
A: You have asked me a very difficult question, because I have been Prime Minister for only four days. I accepted the position with awe and not a little anxiety. To come after a Prime Minister like Golda Meir is not a simple matter, certainly when one looks ahead and sees all the trials that the State of Israel will have to face, both now and in the future. I only wish for myself, for everyone, that I, the government, and the entire nation, succeed in joining together and in meeting all the difficulties, in the hope of fulfilling the great prospects which I believe we have the possibility of fulfilling.
Q: Along with this week's changing of the guard, a Separation-of-Forces Agreement was signed. Perhaps symbolically, the outgoing Prime Minister presented you with an agreement with Syria. In your estimation, does this agreement signify a milestone in the relations with Syria, particularly with respect to the future peace talks in Geneva?
A: As we all know, the negotiations with Syria were very lengthy, very difficult, a fact which points up the difficulty of arriving at a dialogue with the Syrians. Nevertheless, the agreement was attained. Only yesterday I was privileged to be present at a moving - a very moving - scene of the return of the prisoners-of-war. Today, on the first Shabbat that they are with their families, I send them my best wishes, and wish them a speedy return to their lives in Israel.
And as for the agreement itself. It deals with the separation of forces. We all hope that, like the agreement with the Egyptians, it will lead to a relaxation of tension. It is not a peace treaty. It states explicitly that it is a first step towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.
What is this agreement, like that with Egypt, expected to give? It should first of all result in a total cease fire between ourselves and Syria. It creates a smaller buffer zone than that between us and Egypt. It calls for a thinning out of forces on both sides, thus reducing the chances of a sneak attack. But in my opinion it concludes the chapter begun on October 6, with the Yom Kippur War. It opens new prospects, even though many risks remain.
The big hope in these agreements is that if they are carried out - to the letter - then in the agreement with Syria, as in the agreement with Egypt, not only the military part but the civilian part will be implemented as well. And if in Egypt we see the reopening of the Suez Canal, we see the rebuilding of the cities. We see the fact of the country turned to development, to social rehabilitation, to raising the standard of living, and the same in Syria then I am almost positive that such a trend in itself reduces the risk of war.
But at the same time we are living in the Middle East, and we must remember that a great many unexpected things have happened to us in the Middle East. And, side by side with hopes, we should also remember the dangers. Therefore, while striving to progress towards a further stage on the road to peace agreements, we must establish our military power as a condition for our existence and for strengthening our chances to achieve peace.
I hope that in the not too distant future, once we have seen how the agreements are implemented, we will be the ones to initiate - we will not sit back and wait, but shall seek ways of achieving a dialogue - and first and foremost with Egypt. Why with Egypt? because Egypt is the principal country in the Arab world. Without her not a single war was launched against Israel; without her not a single war against Israel even ended.
I also believe that no significant conflict of interests exists between the Egyptian people and ourselves. A vast desert separates us. Egypt is beset by problems which do not conflict with Israel's existence. There is no conflict. In fact no link whatsoever. Nor is there any conflict between the solution of those problems and the continued existence of Israel, and the preserving of normal relations. But this is a dream, a hope, and we must look for every way of realizing it. But we must approach solutions with caution.
Therefore, I think, first of all, that after a certain period of time, we will have to look for a way, together with Egypt to take a further step towards peace. It would be very desirable to arrive at a stage in which the state of warfare would be abolished, and not only with Egypt. And by this too I mean not only an understanding but also a search for ways of giving this understanding practical expression, and afterwards, after we have seen if that is possible to progress further with Egypt or with other countries, such as Jordan and Syria.
Q: Mr. Rabin, can one say that the disengagement agreement and the political contacts that preceded them, leave room for Israeli initiatives? Isn't the situation in Israel one wherein the great powers determine the framework of relations and the rules of the game?
You mentioned earlier a possibility of Israeli initiatives with reference to the next stage with Egypt.
A: In the present situation, I would prefer it if we could arrive at a two-sided dialogue with each of our neighbours. I said earlier, it is obvious that, first and foremost, this should be with Egypt. If this cannot be done directly, it seems to me preferable to do it through the United States. The fact of the matter is that through the United States we were able to obtain the Separation-of-Forces Agreement.
I would prefer to try to reach an understanding with the United States with respect to the timing and the direction in which we should move, so that the United States could serve as a kind of go-between, transmitting our positions to Egypt.
I feel that in the way the Separation-of-Forces Agreements were achieved the United States did the right thing, the sensible thing, for they did not set forth positions. They tried to submit the positions of one side to the other, and to clarify them, since the Arab states were not prepared to talk with us directly.
Therefore, it seems to me that this should be the way in future, too.
Q: (Further to his questions, the interviewer asked the Prime Minister for his views on the forthcoming visit of the President of the United States, who was due in Israel a week later.)
A: I think that, first and foremost, he will endeavour to sum up what has been achieved so far. He will also try to achieve bi-lateral relations between the United States and those Arab states with which no regular relations have existed up to now.
As for Israel. The friendship between the United States and Israel is a fait accompli. For many years now the United States has shown great understanding for Israel's various problems. We have been aided by the U.S. in our political moves and especially in the dialogue with the Arab states. The United States has enabled Israel to purchase considerable armaments and, as a result, to achieve a level of strength without which I doubt whether the Arab states would have been willing to reach a Separation-of-Forces Agreement and perhaps show the first signs of a change in their actual, even if undeclared attitude.
And of course the United States has given us considerable economic aid. Thus I feel that Nixon's visit will be mainly a consolidation of what has already been achieved, and perhaps the beginning of a new stage as well. Of course, as I have already said, we will have to let time run its course. There are many problems in international relations for which time is one of the best solutions.
Q: Since the war a new system of relations has developed between the United States and the Arab states. Have these relations not in some degree or other, influenced what we feel we can expect from the United States?
A: I myself at any rate have never believed that an improvement of the relationship between the U.S. and the Arab states has to come about at Israel's expense. The Americans must have learned from past experience - and I hope they remember it well that by strengthening Israel - by maintaining relations that are friendly, even demonstratively so - with Israel, the United States managed to improve its position in the Arab world more than when it refrained from doing so.
That is why I think the United States understands that the existence of a strong Israel is a condition for the continued improvement of its relations with the Arab states. This does not mean to say that a "strong Israel" in American terms means the same as a "strong Israel" in Israeli terms. We will have a struggle with the United States over this. We have struggled in the past and were successful. We can continue to struggle with the United States when our vital interests seem to us to be affected, and this will not necessarily impair the friendship which is so deep between the two peoples and the two countries.
Q: When you speak of a deep friendship between Israel and the United States, are you referring to the long-range American commitment to supply Israel with arms, economic aid, and so forth?
A: I have every reason to believe that the United States will continue to do all those things which will make Israel strong, whether it terms of political support, military aid or economic aid: Perhaps not everything we want, but I think a major part of what we want, and almost always more than what they had intended to give.
Q: Aren't the two - the bi-lateral relations between ourselves and the United States, and the role of the latter is now playing in the Middle East - contingent upon each other?
A: I don't think such a contingency exists. But generally speaking, when two countries cooperate with each other, when they conduct negotiations, one side cannot always be completely satisfied. Therefore, one must distinguish between what is important and what is expendable. And we have always known how to protect our relations with the United States.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, in closing I would like to refer to your speech in the Knesset this week, where you touched on a number of issues. Could you tell us what you consider to be your government's scale of priorities?
A: The first priority will continue as in the past to be Israel's security, and by that I mean two things: first of all to ensure our military strength, and secondly to continue to strive for peace. For in the final account, genuine peace is also the greatest security, but this is still in the nature of a dream.
And therefore, to arrive at peace, and to do so safely, we must be strong militarily.
That is why the effort to arrive at peace will consist in building that military might Israel requires in order to maintain what she maintains today, and in order to achieve a signed and sealed peace.
The second thing is to bring about a true and complete unity of the people. When I say complete unity of the people I propose, first of all, to see to it that the disadvantaged groups living under conditions that are below the national norm, should be advanced and at an accelerated pace. Our internal strength, our fortitude, lies in the fact that every one of us, every group, can feel that everything is being done to provide them with the chance to live under conditions which are on a par with the Israeli average.
We must therefore concentrate our efforts in awarding priority to the disadvantaged groups - in education, in housing and in preserving their income level, in addition to efforts concerning security. All this - of course - requires us to see to it that other people or groups living under better conditions will not be able to further their own standard of living. For otherwise we shall not be able to carry out the first part (security) which is more important than everything else.
The third thing is to preserve the atmosphere of national unity. We live In a democratic state, and every democratic state - and most certainly a Jewish, democratic state - has many differences of opinion. Each one of us feels differently about things. The focal issue, especially in the times in which we live, is to preserve a unifying framework, to safeguard that bond that has always protected us.
Therefore, we must prevent developments which give rise to outbreaks of violence, unlawful behaviour, taking the law into our own hands. We are living in a state where the safeguarding of a national framework is vital to us, now more than ever.