A number of motions to the agenda were presented in the Knesset by opposition members dealing with the new situation created by the failure of the Hussein-Arafat talks. Right wing members claimed that the Jordanian option was a non starter, while left wing members felt that Israel should deal directly with the PLO. In his reply, Mr. Peres argued that Israel has made no concessions and that peace cannot be imposed on any party which opposes it. He focussed his attention on the situation in the territories. A new Israeli policy was emerging, based on local West Bank and Gaza leadership, who it was hoped, together with King Hussein, would for the future delegation with whom Israel could negotiate, thus barring the PLO from the process. Highlights of the prime minister 's reply follow:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Knesset - I think I have to look out for the honor of Mr. Menachern Begin, since MK Michael Eitan offended him severely. He said that I was pursuing peace and not attaining it, whereas Mr. Begin did not seek peace but attained it. How can you describe Mr. Begin like that? After all, Mr. Begin said that the agonies of peace were preferable to the costs of war. Why do you suddenly depict Mr. Begin as not being a pursuer of peace? I think you erred. To the contrary, so much did Mr. Begin pursue peace that he evacuated all of Sinai [though] I'm not so sure whether MK Geula Cohen supported that. He also gave definitions regarding the Palestinian issue, so that I don't understand why MK Granot is complaining. He recognized it as the Palestinian people - it is recorded in the Camp David Accords - he recognized their legitimate rights, said that the Palestinian problem in all its aspects should be solved. We needn't obscure this, and we needn't detract from anything that Mr. Begin did. He also said that autonomy is a solution for five years only. Then we have to see what next.
MK Michael Eitan (Likud): After that the government of Israel will decide.
Peres: The government of Israel along with partners. At all events, it makes no difference that the matter is temporary. And now I want to tell you: What did we lose by pursuing peace? For example, regarding Lebanon: What price do you pay for not being in Lebanon? That there are fewer victims? I want to understand. That is to say, this government is pursuing peace and I confess to this "sin." That our people aren't being killed in Lebanon - what did you lose by it? That Israel's international standing improved so greatly - what did you lose, did you really pay so much?
I also believe - and I want to disappoint MK Geula Cohen - that relations will improve with the Egyptians as well. It will take time? - Let it take time. It may be a great calamity, but they'll improve. That we left prospects for solving the problem in the future - I see no price in this.
MK Geula Cohen, I don't know what you call concessions, but if you think as you said perhaps without noticing, that if we tighten control over the residents of Judea and Samaria, what will this bring, peace? Should we supervise the schools? I don't see what that will bring, what benefit it will bring. But before we get any further into the debate itself, I want first to explain that I see nothing of failure in the stands I have taken. What I said was something I had estimated from the outset: that the negotiations between Hussein and Arafat failed dismally, and I repeat this now as well. I did not say, nor do I think now. That the negotiations between us and Jordan, and perhaps between us and Jordan and a Palestinian delegation, failed dismally. No. The negotiations with Jordan will continue.
I believe that there is no solution by force of arms to the problems of the region or to the Palestinian problem. We will not solve this problem by military force, and the Palestinians will not solve this problem by force of terrorism. Violence will not engender a solution.
Moreover, and this is my second point, I do not believe in an imposed solution. We cannot impose a solution on Jordan and the Palestinians, and the world cannot impose a solution on Israel. A solution without force of arms and without force of coercion: If we arrive at a solution, it will be only through dialogue.
Furthermore - and this is the third point I want to make at the outset - I am not an advocate of a plan, I am an advocate of a goal. In my opinion the goal of the State of Israel is a dual one: To ensure security and to ensure peace. I will find acceptable any plan leading to that goal; unlike very many doctrinaire people, who are so attached to a plan that they forget what it's actually supposed to bring about.
The fourth point: I do not see any failure in talks with Jordan. Those talks haven't yet begun, but I hope they will. We on our part are ready, and I am speaking in the name of the entire cabinet. Talks without violence, without coercion; a serious, honorable dialogue.
In my opinion the failure of the Arafat-Hussein talks - and I will say clear things as I see them -- stems from the following reasons: Heavy Russian pressure on the PLO. The pressure is also [exerted] through means: The Russians evidently told the PLO that they will reduce their support for it, their aid but there is also ideological pressure.
I want to say to MK Elazar Granot: I don't yet know who supports a Palestinian state. I know who doesn't support a Palestinian state. Jordan doesn't support a Palestinian state, Egypt doesn't support a Palestinian State. Arafat signed [a
document stating] that he forgoes a Palestinian state and prefers a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation. It is the Soviets who are today pressuring Arafat with respect to a Palestinian state.
The second thing that transpired, in my opinion, is that Arafat himself still prefers to maintain the integrity of his organization above any other solution. Here I want to say once more to MK Elazar Granot: Today I heard a new interpretation of self-determination. Is self-determination a people? Self-determination is a state. Does the Palestinian people need approval from us in order to be a people? Is that what the debate's about? Self-determination, according to what MK Granot said, is self-determination for the Palestinian people. That's not what the debate is about. The Palestinian people does not need our approval for self-determination. Self-determination is a Palestinian state - that's what the debate is about.
MK Granot said, correctly, let's say from his standpoint, that they have claims to the area and we have claims. We have rights and they have rights. If so, the debate, according to your outlook, [holds] that only one of the two peoples deserves to determine to whom the area belongs. That is exactly why a sentence was inserted into the Camp David Accords stating that the Palestinian people also will take part in the determination of its own future. The word "also" stems from the fact that you stated. Yes, we, too, are a people. We, too, are a state. We, too, have security problems. Therefore there is no problem here of determination for one people. Therefore it was really stated in Camp David that the Palestinians may take part in the determination of their future, and that is the logic.
MK Eliezer Shostak (Likud): The Palestinians and not the Palestinian people.
Peres: Mr. Shostak, I am very sorry, I am not ready to dupe people. The English version states: "Palestinian People." Mr. Begin in fact saw the flaw and requested of President Carter that where the English states "Palestinian People... the Hebrew should state "the Arabs of Eretz-Israel." I must say that Carter agreed. [As] the Ben-Yehuda of the Hebrew language and out of a wealth of knowledge of Hebrew, he agreed.
I want to remind you that the official language of the Camp David Accords is English. And in English "Palestinian People" is not "the Palestinian," "The Palestinians" or "The Palestinian Residents."
Now I want to tell the Knesset [about] the other factor, besides the split within the PLO, besides the Soviet Pressure: There is no doubt that there is also Arab pressure on the PLO. At this stage Arafat has preferred to remain a myth rather than a leader. A legend instead of decision. Vague stands instead of clear decisions.
Now I want to add that in my opinion we have an interest in speaking the truth to the residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. I want to explain, because here things can become confused and entangled. In my view, Hussein tried to hint the following to the residents of Judea and Samaria: In fact the PLO leadership is a leadership made up of people who were not born in and not represent the territories. Most of them came from the territories that are today the State of Israel. He tried to introduce into the PLO leadership person from the territories, such as Milhem, Kawassmeh and others, in the hope that these people in the PLO leadership would divert the PLO to deal with the issue of the territories instead of dealing with Israel.
That attempt was unsuccessful. Now, after the dialogue between Arafat and Hussein has failed totally, Arafat called on people with influence in the territories and said: Go and tell the residents of the territories that it's not true, it didn't fail. Why? Because he too is beginning to understand that he has to offer the residents of the territories some sort of solution. The solution that he will continue to be the leader of the PLO is no solution.
The PLO has an interest in telling the residents of the territories that the negotiations are continuing. Because if they tell them the truth they fear, and justly, that the residents of the territories will turn their backs on them. From their standpoint, and not just from their standpoint, the real victim of the negotiations underway or that is ending are the residents of the territories. They will pay the price. They have already paid the price, and they are the only ones who understand that if Arafat continues to conduct such apparitions, such illusions, they have no future, no prospects and no solution. Therefore the PLO is disseminating in the territories and among us there are also people who are abetting this - groundless rumors. The PLO has failed totally.
Therefore it is Israel's obligation to tell the residents of the territories the truth: Arafat has finished the negotiations with Hussein, and you have to decide what you want. To let time to its work? I admit that time is working against a solution, against all the sides, and I am speaking the truth, the truth as it seem to me.
We see the developments in Judea and Samaria - and I do not speak as one who is happy about them. I have always thought that people like the Mufti and Arafat are a disaster for peace, and a disaster for the Palestinians. All those who are trying to hard to understand the PLO - and there were some who tried to understand the Mufti - it's futile. These are extremists, people who are politically dense - I do not speak of them in personal terms. To say that I am happy - no.
I want to say to MK Geula Cohen that she has simple solutions, I don't. I believe in aliya yesterday, today and tomorrow - not just when I go to the airport - and I am working for aliya no less than I am working for peace. But I look at an area such as the Gaza Strip. There are 560,000 Arabs living in the Gaza Strip today. Their numbers doubled in the past 20 years. The entire area of the Gaza Strip is 360,000 dunams [4 dunams= I acre - ed.] of which 100,000 dunams are state land. All told, the residents have 250,000 dunams at their disposal. Within 20 years there will be over one million residents there. There are MK's who have a 20-year perspective.
I ask: What will Zionism do on these 250,000 dunams? What will it do with one million Arabs there without passports, without sources of employment? May we ask ourselves such questions, or should we sweep them under the carpet, close our eyes? I am not among those who want to impose a solution - and we will not impose a solution on anyone - but I am not among those who do not want to seek a solution. Those are two different things.
As regards the residents of the territories, if there are terrorist acts - and this refers to a very small minority among the residents of the territories - we will act against terrorism, we will not act against the residents of the territories. The minister of defense, I read, estimated elsewhere that 95% of the population of the territories do not support terrorism or violence, and I agree with him.
Until the negotiations begin - and I can imagine that there are more possibilities that were not discussed in the Knesset and other possibilities that are pending the relevant question is: How will be behave in the interim period? In the interim period there are some things that depend on us, there are some things that depend on the residents and on their desire. I repeat to the residents of the territories that we do not intend to impose on them anything they do not want. But it is our intention to bind ourselves to the things we desire. That is we laid down policy. The policy is to maintain a clear line of separation between the great majority, which hates terrorism and hostile actions, and the handful that engage in terrorism.
As regards the great majority: Granting maximum facilitations in all areas of life, within the framework of the existing administration. Within that framework: Encouraging civilian economic activity and developing projects in economic, educational, health and other spheres, while maintaining, naturally, the interests of the State of Israel. Within the framework of this policy: Reducing to a minimum intervention of the Israel interest, and basically the interest of Israeli security; reduction to a minimum of the intervention of the military government in the conduct of day-to-day life in the territories, and the maximum expansion of the various activities of the public, private and local sectors; maintenance of an open bridges policy.
Within the framework of the policy I have outlined the following acts have been carried out: restrictions have been removed on the transfer of private monies via the Jordan Bridges. Since I May about $1 million per day from private sources is being transferred into the territories in order to develop them: municipalities and other bodies have been encouraged to bring outside investments and no restrictions are being placed on them. Approval in principle has been given to establish a bank for the residents of the territories. Approvals have been granted to international bodies to initate and execute projects, establish cooperative organizations, and operate in the areas of professional training.
A number of important projects have already been approved, and I shall mention several of them: Wadi Farah, a project worth $11 million-$12 million which is intended to replace the open canals with irrigation pipes and to take better advantage of the water; oxidation pools have been built in Kalkilya; the fishing industry in Gaza is increasingly being developed through the construction of cooling, marketing and docking facilities; approval has been given to export citrus fruit from Gaza to Egypt without the mediation of the Council for Citrus Marketing, this at the residents' request; export encouragement via Agrexco has been given to the Arab agricultural settlements mainly in the Jordan region, since in terms of modernization Arab agriculture has reached the same level as Jewish agriculture; direct and international dialling in most West Bank towns, and we intend to extend this to all the West Bank cities by the end of the year; direct telex service to the entire world has been installed; negotiations are underway for the establishment of a telephone company in Judea and Samaria; Jenin and Nablus have been hooked up to the electricity grid, and the price of electricity in those cities has dropped by 15%-30%; dozens of Arab villages have for the first time been hooked up to an electricity grid, and dozens more will be hooked up soon; approvals have been given for the construction of two hospitals in Hebron and Ramallah; about $1 million has been invested this year in the Gaza hospital in order to build one of the most sophisticated operating theaters in Israel; the health budget in the territories has been doubled; courses are underway for professional training for doctors in areas where a lack was felt; collection of taxes has been intensified, and these of course are fed back into the territories, thus enabling the growth of the development budgets; civil servants in the territories received a 10% increment. There are some 17,000 civil servants in the territories, of whom 200-300 are Jews, no more. The rest are residents of the territories themselves.
An open door [policy] has been instituted by the military governors, so that every resident of the territories can have his say; the legal system has been strengthened and revitalized. The activity to rehabilitate refugees is continuing. To date some 8,000 families in Gaza have been transferred from refugee camps to permanent housing, and now an attempt is underway to construct high-rises in order to house the remaining residents in the camps. The Bedouin tribes in the Judean desert have been given permanent sites: Baptism sites on the Jordan have been developed for the Chrisitan communities. Permits for free movement are given meticulously to the residents of the territories in general and to members of the Jordanian Parliament in particular. The number of banned books has been reduced; there still are some. We are doing all this because it depends on us and does not depend on approval of the residents of the territories.
At the same time, we are proposing to the residents of the territories on an optional basis - we will not obligate them, we will not force them, and I do not call this a permanent solution - we are giving them the option of a devolution of powers from our administration to their administration. This is not meant to replace a permanent solution, as I said. But in the interim period I am very much in favor of this.
What are these things, so that they will not be vague? Here, too, I shall spell them out clearly. In the municipal sphere, to complete the appointment of the Arab mayors in Judea and Samaria. A mayor has just been appointed in the largest city, Nablus. There are three more cities in which mayors are to be appointed: Ramallah, El Bireh and Hebron. This depends on the negotiations with the residents. Here, too, we will impose nothing. Not by force of arms. We are ready to grant the mayors the powers that they think they require in order to administer life in the cities. We are ready to transfer the administration of civil life in the spheres of health, housing, commerce, tourism, and so forth to Arab administration. If they want, they can have it.
Their own affairs, yes. We do not want to run the life of the Arabs. We are proposing this not as a permanent solution, but so that they can truly run their own lives according to their own style, according to what they are accustomed to. We are proposing to intensify economic development in the spheres of industry, construction of industrial plants. Once more, we will not force anything. If they wish, we will encourage. We will facilitate as much as we can the ties of these residents with the Arabs world where culture is concerned. In matters related to the Arab world, as much freedom as possible in all areas - religious, cultural, social, community.
The same holds for the religious sphere. Everyone who is familiar with the religious problem in Israel, knows that there are places which areas of strife: Sometimes between Jews and Moslems, sometimes between Moslems and Christians, sometimes amongst the Christian themselves, and sometimes amongst the Moslem themselves. Sometimes the police do in fact enter in order to protect one religious right against another religious right - there is no choice. We have nothing against this. We are proposing the conditions I have mentioned. Therefore I prefer to term it: devolution of powers.
So I want to say that the term "unilateral autonomy" is misleading in two ways. The connotation of "unilateral autonomy" is as though we were saying to the Arabs: You must accept it as it is. Whether you like it or not we are imposing these things on you - but I don't see that we have to say that. We want to offer an option. If they want it, fine.
The second thing is - so there will be no confusion - I am not proposing to remove the IDF from Judea and Samaria in the present stage, perhaps not in the future either. So I say that the term "unilateral autonomy" is misleading. Because if we withdraw Israel's security protection, neither freedom nor demilitarization will follow in our stead. In our stead will come PLO terrorism. That is the problem. If we were to propose, for example, to leave Hebron, PLO terrorism would enter tomorrow.
[Following interjections:] What the State Department spokesman said does not conflict with Camp David. We recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinians in the Camp David Accords, and the United States like us, like Jordan and like Egypt, is not proposing a separate Palestinian state.
I call on the residents of the territories to see the truth: That Arafat has again blocked the path to negotiations, from his standpoint, not the entire path; and he is disseminating things that are groundless, including what Seniora said, and deliberately. I have authoritative information which is not to be doubted, that the negotiations between Hussein and Arafat did not succeed. I did not say, nor do I say now, that the negotiations between ourselves and Hussein have ended - they haven't yet begun.
We shall continue vigorously, with rotation or without rotation, to strive for peace and we will not go into the future with eyes closed. We will conduct negotiations with whoever is ready to conduct negotiations with us, without terrorism, without coercion, without belittlement. That is the policy. Once again we propose to Jordan to conduct direct negotiations, without prior conditions and with international accompaniment - with Jordan alone or Jordan with a Palestinian delegation. The PLO said not Jordan and we say to the residents of the territories that there is a PLO no.
We shall go on striving to improve relations with Egypt, and we will not be frightened by any declaration either in Egypt or in Israel, because we are dealing with a serious matter. Until then we shall relate to the residents of the territories from our point of view with maximum liberalism; from their point of view, with the degree of responsibility they want to assume. This is the proposed policy. It contains no moods, no changes, no leaps. It contains precise definitions which I have put on the table.