Following his talks with President Ford, Secretary Kissinger, other members of the administration and Congressional leaders, Mr. Rabin declared that since the breakdown of the talks in March, new and positive developments have taken place in the Middle East that have created better conditions for resumption of the talks. Although no agreement was yet in sight, the general outlines of an agreement were beginning to emerge. Excerpts:
Q: How does the situation now differ from what it was when the Kissinger "shuttle diplomacy" collapsed in March?
A: When the talks were suspended, we took it just as it was described and defined that they were suspended. I think too many people took it then as a collapse.
In the two-and-a-half months that have passed, I think that the fears then projected by many people did not materialize. I would say that there have even been positive developments in the area that create better conditions to resume talks.
Allow me again to stress: I'm not saying that agreement is at hand, by no means. It's going to be very complicated to reach an interim agreement.
Q: Concretely, what are the issues, in your opinion, on which Egypt must be more forthcoming to justify movement on your part?
A: I would say that basically there are three points: I will mention "duration" as one. When I say duration, I mean for all practical purposes we want to know what is the minimal period that a new agreement will stand, regardless of what happens in the relations between Israel and the other Arab countries, and in the efforts to bring about an overall settlement.
We have learned, over the last year, that the real factor that decides the duration of an agreement is for how long the mandates of the United Nations forces that are in the buffer zones would last. There is only one way to measure the attitude of either Syria or Egypt towards maintaining their obligations: They are ready to have the U.N. forces remain in the buffer zones.
The second issue is whether, in an interim agreement, there is any change in the state of war. If the state of war is unchanged, and Egypt claims all the rights of a belligerent power, we cannot give up our defense line on the Mitla and Gidi passes in the Sinai.
The third point is that in a step towards peace, even if it is a small one, there must be some symbolic acts that show that we are at the beginning of a movement towards peace.
Unless Egypt is ready to deal on these issues, I doubt if Israel will change its position.
Q: What kind of Israel is the U.S. committed to support, Mr. Prime Minister? The Israel before the war in 1967, or the Israel holding onto land taken in that war?
A: To what the United States is committed, it's better to ask your own officials. I hope and I believe that the United States is committed to the cause of peace in the area with Israel living there as a viable and secure state. Now, I don't believe that at present there is any American declared position on what the final settlement should be, at least I am not aware of it.
I believe that the best way is to pursue what President Johnson said immediately after the 1967 war: That the parties to the conflict should be the parties to the peacemaking process. And if the purpose is to achieve a real peace, the best way is to encourage a dialogue between the contending parties. I would not consider it a real peace unless it is worked out, negotiated, signed and maintained by the parties to the conflict. I don't believe that peace can be imported from the outside, and by no means can it be imposed.
Q: Another question on the Palestinians: Would Israel accept a Palestinian state on the West Bank?
A: Israel believes that in the context of an overall settlement, the Palestinian issue should be solved. We believe that the solution of it is that within the original Palestine of 1918 there should be two states - Israel, the Jewish state, and east of it a Jordanian-Palestinian state.
Where the boundaries will be is a matter of negotiations.
Therefore, we make these distinctions: First, the Palestinian issue has to be solved and can be solved. Second, the PLO cannot be a partner for negotiations. And third, there is no room for a third state between Israel and Jordan.
A Jordanian-Palestinian state - we believe this is the solution to peace between Israel and Jordan, and the solution of the Palestinian issue.
Q: What does Israel want in an overall settlement?
A: Israel's position is we want peace, a real one. We want boundaries of peace that will make Israel capable of defending itself by itself. We have never asked guarantees of other countries, including the United States, because we believe that a peace agreement must stand on the merits of the agreement itself, and not be dependent on somebody outside coming to defend it.
I would say more than that. I think an agreement based on the possibility of dragging major powers into local conflicts is a wrong concept. That doesn't help to keep peace; in fact, it endangers world peace. What we want is to be capable of defending ourselves, even after a peace agreement is reached.
We do not want a peace agreement that ends up as peace on a piece of paper. We want peace based on the realities of relations between the peoples of all the countries involved in the area.