In this interview, Mr. Dayan answered questions concerning the cabinet's decision on settlements, its impact on the autonomy talks in particular and on Israel-Egypt relations in general. He also dealt with the possibility of Palestinians joining the peace talks as stipulated in the Camp David accords. Excerpts:
Q: In your opinion, should all areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, where there is state land be settled?
A: No, the government decision states that there are several needs that require the allotment of state land and also that it is not obligatory on us to settle and work an the state lands. The three needs that the government decision addresses itself to are:
1. Settlement of refugees, primarily in the Gaza strip.
2. Military needs, and in the main if there is a change in the military disposition as a consequence of an autonomy agreement (and you perhaps know that it is mentioned that there will be a new deployment) to apportion for that purpose land.
3. For Israeli settlement. But there is no necessity to settle all the lands, but in my opinion it is important that our public know that there is a lot of state land, in large amounts, where to establish settlements.
Q: Where should there be settlements?
A: I can answer with respect to two considerations.
One consideration is that it is not good to establish a lone Jewish settlement, let us say, in the Jordan Valley. To that everybody agrees, and I certainly agree that it should be settled, that we must establish there a bloc of Jewish settlements;
Then, from Beit Shean, from Tirat Tzvi till Jericho - all the Jordan valley. If the lands are state lands it can be like the Beit Shean valley or like the Jordan valley comprising the Degania settlements; Jewish settlements in a continuous area. Also on the hill tops that are important to us from a security viewpoint due to its elevation for early warning stations etc. The essence of the matter is: It is best that military camps or military installations be placed in areas in whose proximity there are also civilian Jewish settlements. And we do not find ourselves establishing military installations in the midst of an Arab population, not only due to the danger of the matter but also that it is in bad taste as if the army, so to speak, rules over the surrounding population.
Therefore, also in the Gaza strip, an area that had several settlements (the idea is) to enable that block to expand in the same area in the event that there is available land. It is better to have three settlements than two, and better yet seven than just four, if one is close to the other.
Q: What of Samaria?
A: The hilltop area is Samaria.
Q: Also in areas that are dense with Arab population?
A- I don't know this criterion, it is part of the Labour Party ideology. Is the Gaza strip not densely populated with Arab population and yet the Labour government did establish settlements there. I don't know the meaning of that criterion and I doubt if they know. That criterion was set at the time as a guide line for the Allon plan. The Allon plan would leave in the hands of an Arab state, those areas that have a dense Arab population and would try to attach to Israel those places that will not bring the inclusion of many Arabs into Israel. In principle it sounds very good. But then, it has to be examined as to it's significance. On the Jordan valley there is no disagreement. But the Etzion Bloc: Do we have to remove the settlement there, and it certainly is in an area that had a relatively dense Arab population that is between Bethlehem and Hebron and all the surrounding villages? Then does the proposal that we don't settle in an area that there is dense Arab population say that we remove the Etzion Bloc? Anyway this criterion is not acceptable to me.
Q: Aren't the settlements today an obstacle to the autonomy talks and the peace process with Egypt?
A: In the peace process with Egypt, certainly not. The peace process with Egypt today is the implementation of an agreement that has already been reached and the Egyptians are keen to be precise in the implementation of this agreement in order to get to the day which they await when the last Israeli will leave the Sinai. So if we do or don't establish settlements, the Egyptians will not want to see this as a pretext or a cause to bring to an end our withdrawal from Sinai.
Q: But they are protesting against it in their statements?
A: I didn't say that they are for the settlements, but you asked about an obstacle. I don't think that they will slow in any measure the functioning of the wheels or the implementation of the Israeli-Egyptian agreement, that is the evacuation of the Sinai.
Because of the settlements. And if they truly saw this as a condition, whether as a condition for the Israel-Egypt agreement, or as a condition for the implementation of autonomy, they would have written this. They proposed it at Camp David. Israel rejected it and they had the choice that is: Not to sign on Camp David agreements as long as Israel does not undertake not to establish settlements or to expand existing ones. Israel did not agree. They brought this demand and the Americans sided with them. Israel refused to accept these conditions, and they signed the Camp David agreements, not only the Israel-Egypt peace agreement, but also the issue of autonomy without any sort of restriction on settlements. There is no Israel promise not to add settlements or not to expand them.
Q: With respect to the autonomy talks, don't the settlements act as a jam in wheels of the talks?
A: The talks, as we read in the papers, presently deal with technical and juridical matters.
The Egyptians have expressed their opposition to the settlements again, but they never said once that if Israel does not stop the settlements they will cease the talks on autonomy.
Q: Do you think that a solution to the Palestinian problem will be found in talks between Egypt and Israel, in other words are you satisfied with the autonomy talks that Israel is conducting with Egypt?
A: Obviously, nobody is satisfied that two partners who should be part of the discussion are absent, because they refuse to join and they are Jordan and representatives of the Palestinian population. We wouldn't have invited them if we wouldn't have considered them as partners to the talks. If there was no need for it. Of course, I'm not satisfied. The question is: Because the Palestinians or Jordan are not participating, should we stop our initiative in the talks with Egypt or continue? As Sadat says: Let us come to an agreement between ourselves. This agreement will be a framework agreement; we will pave the way and when we come to agreement on autonomy, Israel, Egypt and the U.S., the Palestinians from that point on will have to carry it out. There is a point from which no one but the Palestinians themselves can do it.
First of all the elections. What will the autonomy be? The autonomy, in my basics, is a dissolution or a removal of the military government, and its replacement by elected bodies of the residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Assuming they haven't participated and will not elect these officials to administrative councils, then the military government will not be dissolved. It will remain in force. Nobody else except the Palestinians can elect their representatives. It is clear that we will reach a certain point where either the Palestinians will come in and do their share, or they will not. Then if Israel does not adopt a different policy (and that is totally different question) then, the present situation will remain in effect that is the continuation of the military rule.
Q: If the Palestinians don't join in, must Israel adopt one-sided measures towards them?
A: The question is not only if the Palestinians don't join. If there is a freeze, for whatever reason, at a certain stage, Israel must prevent this freeze by adopting one-sided measures. It won't be an agreement that others will sign.
The principle element of these measures will be turning the military rule to civilian rule. That is, the removal of the military command headquarters that we have today in the Arab cities and the keeping of the services to the Arab population, services that we as a government must continue to provide. For instance, agriculture, health, education, police responsibility for order and security of the Arab cities. The police should include as many Arab policemen as possible. But there is nothing wrong in also having Jewish police there. But to turn the military rule to civilian means, that there will be no more armed soldiers to circulate in Arab cities and settlements and in their place there will be the local police that can include Israelis, Jews. This, unless if after we do this, or before, a situation arises where the PLO dominates these places and turns them into terror bases. In that case the army not only must remain there, but must return to those places.