In October the Likud sponsored a petition calling on the government to annex the West Bank. In the following excerpts, Mr. Rabin explained the governments position on this issue and on the status of the West Bank in general.
Q: The Likud is holding a tremendous canvassing campaign which calls on the government to decide on the annexation of Judea and Samaria under Israel rule. How do you react to this petition, seeing that it is expected to be brought to the Knesset for voting?
A: As I have said - the meaning of the petition is a deviation from the policy adopted by all governments, since the end of the Six Day War. Its meaning is to say in advance, before the beginning of negotiations, before it is known what the other side is ready to do and what it is not, that the state should adopt a policy of "not one single inch", not one single inch of withdrawal, even in the case of a peace agreement, in Judea and Samaria.
Actually this means that there is nothing to say about these areas, as opposed to the policy of the government which says - we are prepared for peace negotiations. We are not imposing pre-conditions and we shall not accept pre-conditions from the other side, but at the same time stipulate in respect of Judea and Samaria, that if a peace agreement requiring territorial concessions in Judea and Samaria is reached, no such agreement will be signed before the issue is brought to the nation for decision in elections.
Maybe the signing of the petition, which is definitely not a naive action, denotes a political significance. It aims at bringing about such a resolution at the Knesset - a goal which I feel confident will not be reached. It is an attempt to force a view and say there is no possibility for conducting peace negotiations. I view this as both being a serious deviation and having a grave significance. Because in practice, it will result in the world condemning us and saying: The State of Israel is closing down the way to peace. Because this is significant not only in respect of Jordan, not only in respect of Judea and Samaria, it will, of necessity, have implications on the extent of Egypt's readiness to go to peace with us, on the extent of the readiness of the world to understand our problems, on the extent of the readiness of the world - that is the limited part of the world which is still ready to assist us to continue and lend us a hand.
Actually, this is a policy which puts an end to all prospects for peace, and a policy which invites war.
Q: A political act such as this occurs in a given situation. Is not this taking place within a vacuum, since the government's policy on this subject of settling is not defined, nor is it expressed in a practical manner? Is that not the situation which caused this political. act?
A: On the contrary, the government's policy is clear. We say: We are prepared to negotiate a peace, without prior conditions. We are prepared to meet with every state in order to discuss peace terms. We are not prepared to withdraw to the lines of 1967. The objective has to be peace, a united Jerusalem. But they are not told: Come and sign concessions for each inch beforehand. Therefore it is my opinion that the policy of the government is a correct policy - a call to negotiate, a call for peace, without pre-conditions.
A decision such as that contained in the petition in my opinion closes off the road to peace. I will not say that by adopting the present policy we are certain to bring about peace, but I will at least tell myself - or the government can tell the nation: We have exhausted each and every possible chance and if we go to war we do so because the other side is not ready for peace - and not because we stipulated prior conditions which the other side could not accept.
Perhaps I should add this: I know that the future of Judea and Samaria is something that concerns each and every one of us. We all have mixed feelings on the subject. Thus the policy of the government states with certitude: No agreement will be signed before the. people decides. But if a settlement is signed and until that time, the government's policy is open to dialogue.
Q: My earlier question referred to the internal significance - not the outside one. What I meant was the contention of the supporters of settling in Judea and Samaria, namely, that not enough is being done and the government is not implementing its decisions on this matter.
A: First of all, the decisions of the government - as expressed in the basic principles of the government formed by Mrs. Meir after the Yom Kippur War - stated that the government would take action for the establishing of settlements in accordance with the government's decisions.
I believe that the government is doing this in keeping with its policy - it is acting in accordance with what is required. The settlements on the Golan Heights, those along the Jordan Rift, are being settled and strengthened: The settlements and quarters in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the settlements in the Rafiah Salient - all these are being strengthened.
I will say in all candour: The fate of the State of Israel, its borders - these will be determined first and foremost as a result of Israel's military might, the ability to insist on a policy of peace, but backed by might and economic strength. Given the conditions in which we live, these are the things which - more than everything else - will determine the location of the border if peace is attained. And if war breaks out - we will know that we went to war not because we held Sebastia or any other site but because the other side did not want peace.