Since he took over the Defense Ministry, Mr. Sharon has been busy planning new measures for the administered areas. He was considering liberalizing the military administration in order to involve more local leaders in the autonomy process. In September a plan was announced calling for the separation of the military from the civilian authority in the West Bank. The Cabinet approved the plan and a new civilian administrator was appointed. He pursued a policy of dealing mainly with a new body called the Village Leagues, which would counterbalance the influence of more radical elements in the population of Judea and Samaria. In the following interview, Mr. Sharon evaluated the progress of his plan. Excerpts:
Q: It looks as if your new policy in the Administered Territories is causing increasing unrest, after a period of relative quiet. Perhaps this policy should be reconsidered now?
A: The answer is no. The unrest is primarily a result of the new policy. Policies are not measured in the short term. Patience and perseverance are required. The new policy's main line is that it acts against the supporters of the terrorist organizations. Several days ago, Bassam Shaq'a wrote in "Ash-Shaab" that the self-administration that has been established is even more dangerous than autonomy. there has been no statistical rise, but there is without doubt unrest and disorder. If we compare (today) to 1976, and we remember the news-clips of IDF soldiers being chased into the alleys of Nablus by Arab mobs - this isn't happening and it won't happen.
Q: After these two months, is there greater willingness to participate in establishing autonomy?
A: In our actions in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, we are not seeking ways to turn the inhabitants into Zionists, nor are we seeking collaborators who will agree to our remaining in the area. We are concentrating efforts on strengthening those people who consider the terrorist organizations and their leadership the real danger. The willingness is growing among these people, for the first time in years, for people to dare to make themselves heard - not only in the rural sector, but in the cities as well.
Q: Do you think that this policy will increase the chances of willingness to participate in the autonomy - to vote and be elected?
A: In my opinion, yes. If we compare the situation today to that of a month ago, the readiness for dialogue - one must be optimistic and patient. In my opinion, the dialogue will increase. We are encouraging the people who view the terrorist organizations as the real danger and who desire coexistence and peace, despite the fact that some of these people have differing opinions as to the way to a political situation.
Q: When will this policy bear fruit?
A: This is a continuing process. I would not want to fix a date. The process of building relations between peoples after 30 years of war and close to 100 years of struggle between Palestinian Arabs and the Zionist movement is not a short one. It can take months until we get to the stage of dialogue. Building relations is a prolonged process that can also take years.
Q: You speak of building relations, but the houses in Beit Sahur belonged to families that coexisted de facto with Israel. Was not the punishment in this case exaggerated?
A: First of all, Beit Sahur was always a center of terrorist activity - there were terrorist cells of Communist-oriented terrorist organizations there, and, in general, I would suggest not to regard the Christian Arabs as less extremist in their attitude towards Israel than others. As for the punishment, there is no alternative to a policy that says that the populace - even if it does not support Israel and does not want Israeli rule - that is willing to live in peace will enjoy the maximum easing of restrictions, while at the same time, an all-out battle must be waged against the terrorist organizations and every disturbance of the peace. And this we are doing.
Q: But when you blow up the house of an Arab who wants to live in peace with Israel, and his son may throw a stone or even a Molotov cocktail, you are actually destroying the relations you are trying to build.
A: I suggest you be precise. We never destroyed the house of parents of a youth who threw a rock. As to the use of the term child, I would like to remind you that in the case of the little Arroyo children, murdered in Gaza in 1975, the thrower of the grenade was a 15-year old boy.
Q: What are your proposals for compensation for the residents of Yamit?
A: I was sent by the Cabinet to investigate the situation in the Yamit district, in an attempt to try and reduce the tension'. In our opinion, the most serious thing that could happen is the use of force. There is nothing easier than to bring in an I.D.F. unit and evacuate everyone there. Every effort must be made so that Jews will not be fighting Jews.
I want to add a personal note: In my youth, my father told me one thing (this was at the time of the internecine strife between Jewish undergrounds): Do anything you want to do in life ... but never lend a hand to a war that pits Jew against Jew. This testament remains with me...
Q: You used tear gas and Israeli police to forcefully disperse a demonstration of Israeli youth against the closure of Bir Zeit University.
A: I want to reiterate that order will be maintained, and that in this matter there will be no discrimination between Jews and Arabs. This is how we acted at Bir Zeit. In general, with regard to Jews joining Arabs, I am ready to accept one Arab calling another Arab a quisling, but when a Jew calls an Arab who is willing to fight terrorist organizations a quisling, this is a grave phenomenon, whereby we are destroying ourselves.
As for Yamit - (this is) a difficult, complex problem, a terrible tragedy, a heavy price we are paying for peace. We must find a way to conclude the matter. Some of the demands are just, some are exaggerated ... I will report to the Cabinet and will tell it to find any way to solve the problem peacefully...
I admit that the situation is uncomfortable ... and anyway we'll be faced with a very complicated problem prior to the evacuation. In my opinion, a struggle of as short a duration as possible is preferable to one that might go on for several long months.
Q: There are those who say that the Cabinet is dragging out the negotiations in order to show the world the difficulties Israel faces in implementing the peace treaty...
A: There is no basis to this whatsoever. I don't think there is anyone in the world who doesn't understand the tragedy involved in people leaving their homes and the fruits of many years of their labors. We don't need to demonstrate anything to anyone. Even the Egyptians know that Israel is faced with a tough problem but they also know that the government signed a peace treaty, and will carry out the treaty it signed.
Q: Do you think that the evacuation of Yamit will go smoothly?
A: The Government will make every effort that it go smoothly.
Q: Would you order troops to evacuate residents who refuse to go?
A: I hope that the residents will not resist and that we will not have to resort to force.
Q: What about the movement to stop the withdrawal from Sinai people who have arrived recently in Yamit?
A: You must remember that the Government adopted a resolution at the time to the effect that life in the Yamit district should go on normally until the closest possible date prior to carrying out the treaty. In my estimation, when the people who have arrived there realize that the district must indeed be evacuated - and I believe that peace will endure after April '82 as well - they will evacuate when the government calls on them to do so on the date that the Government stipulates.