At the conclusion of Mr. Rabin's visit to Washington, no joint communique was issued. The Prime Minister assessed the results of his talks in a press conference during which he expressed satisfaction with what was achieved Mr. Rabin stated that Israel would prefer to negotiate on a bi-lateral basis with the Arab states and would, in future talks with Egypt, ask for non-belligerency in return for territories. Mr. Rabin also stated his view that since the Arab states were not ready to move in one phase from war to peace, limited agreements should be sought through the good offices of the United States. Excerpts:
Mr. Rabin: As you know, today I end my visit to Washington. I would first like to thank President Ford, President of the US, for extending an official invitation to me to come to this city and discuss with him, Secretary Kissinger, Secretary of Defence Schlesinger, and Secretary of the Treasury Simon a wide range of outstanding issues between our two countries. I would like to thank the President for taking so much of his time, to participate in three working meetings with me, in which we were able to discuss in depth all the issues that Israel and the US have in common vis-à-vis the Middle East, and on a bilateral basis.
As you know, Israel's policy has been, since its creation, to seek peace; peace with security. On the other hand, Israel always has wanted to be independent when it comes to its capability for self-defence. I believe that during the discussions with the President, we reached an understanding about the need to continue the search for peace in the Middle East and we reached an understanding about our ongoing military relationship, in a concrete way with concrete results.
I would say that, regarding other issues, we have exchanged views on economic aid and on major issues that the Middle East will face and in which Israel has an interest. In the meetings with Secretary Kissinger, we went into all the issues at length, including the issues of emigration of members of the Jewish community from the Soviet Union, -and the problem of the Syrian Jewish community. I think, as an opening statement, that is enough. If you have questions, I will try to answer them.
Q: Why was there no joint communiqué issued?
A: I tell you quite frankly that I haven't asked for one. I don't believe that it is a tradition, when the Prime Minister of Israel visits Washington, to have a joint communiqué. We prefer to deal with the issues. We prefer to deal practically with all subjects rather than to issue a communiqué.
I think that if somebody really wants to move toward peace, it has been proven (since the War of Independence in 1948, when we started negotiations about an armistice, until today), that the best way is to negotiate on a bilateral basis, and the best solution is, that once you succeed in achieving an agreement with one of the countries, the others know that you are ready to negotiate with them, and achieve agreements with them, too. Any attempt at multilateral negotiations proved to be a complete failure and an invitation to return to the kind of rhetoric situation with which the Middle East is so acquainted....
Anyone who will try to smuggle guns or explosives, especially in connection with terrorist organizations, will be dealt with in accordance with the law, regardless of his position. Therefore, Archbishop Capucci will be tried just as everyone else....
The way I see it is that the Geneva Conference is a framework within which there are different ways of negotiating. The main purpose is to bring about bilateral negotiations. In the absence of a readiness on the part of the Arab world to participate in a dialogue with us, negotiations must be held through a third party, preferably the US. Once the situation is right, and understanding is reached, the last phase can be held within the framework of the Geneva Conference. As an example, you can take the negotiations on disengagement between Syria and Israel. When almost everything was worked out, the two missions moved to Geneva, concluded the final stage of the negotiations and an agreement was signed within the framework of the Geneva Conference. I believe that this procedure will be the best that is possible if one is really eager to move towards peace....
The focus and the purpose of a move from the present situation is a move towards peace. I don't believe the Arab countries are ready, today, to move, in one stage, from the present situation to a total settlement. You have heard statements by Arab leaders that even for a total Israeli withdrawal, they would agree only to non-belligerency, and would leave the question of peace for the generations to come.
I believe that the first move from war to peace should include non-belligerency. This is Israel's position....
I don't believe that simultaneous negotiations will lead anywhere. The best way is to deal with each country on the issues that divide us, or maintain the present situation.
I have asked the US to continue its policy of arms deliveries to Israel, to maintain the kind of balance of power that will allow Israel to negotiate from a position of strength and to make it possible for us to defend ourselves. We discussed the problems of the immediate future as well as those of the long term....