Foreign Minister Peres was travelling in South America and in his place, Minister Ezer Weizman had to deal with the growing media criticism of Israel. A special task force was set up in the foreign ministry to devise guidelines on how to deal with the situation. Mr. Weizman met, on 16 December, the Egyptian ambassador who asked about the measures taken by Israel to restore normal life to the areas. In the following interview, Mr. Weizman said that first of all, "we must make the territories tranquil. " He realized that this time, while Israel was not surprised, there was growing internal political pressure in the territories to advance to a political solution. Text:
Q: In your position as acting foreign minister, you met last night with Prime Minister Shamir to discuss Israel's international standing in the wake of the recent events in the territories. Don't the basic differences in outlook prevent the two of you from formulating policy?
A: We didn't determine policy yesterday, we exchanged opinions. There certainly are differences of opinion, no question about it. But I would like to point out something which I heard this moment: the criticism over what's happened and is happening in the territories during the last few days, is not just from abroad, it's also from inside Israel. It's sufficient to read the criticism in the Israeli press to see that, in Israel, too, the criticism is flowing and growing.
Q: Egyptian newspapers wrote yesterday in their lead stories that Israel's behavior in the territories is 'barbaric abuse that surpasses the actions of the Nazis.' Does that sound as though the Egyptian papers were simply waiting for a ripe opportunity?
A: The most convenient thing is to dismantle relations with Egypt. Lickety split and you finish something that was built over the course of 10 years; in a moment of heated speech and sentiment, you finish 30 or 40 years of military struggle. The situation with Egypt is the most delicate, because it is the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with us. They feel a joint responsibility, and rightly so, for what is going on, because they signed the Camp David accords, signed by both Sadat and Menachem Begin, in which it is stated that the Palestinian problem must be solved; this is an issue that has not been dealt with properly during the last eight years.
Q: Do you believe that Egypt would be willing to take the Gaza Strip, as Shimon Peres suggests?
A: I believe that Egypt would not take the Gaza Strip, I believe that Egypt, together with us, must solve the problem over which we signed an agreement in 1979.
Q: If you had to explain Israel's policy in the territories, could you do so with dignity?
A: The issue of dignity is very relative. [Inaudible]... I would first of all sit down with the Israel government and come to conclusions on several issues, and the issue is difficult. I think that what has happened in the territories is a process that has already been going on for some time. What is happening today in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is enormous pressure of residents who have already seen 20 years of attempts by several governments to solve the problem as a political problem. Let's not forget that in the 1960's, after the Six Day War, Yigal Allon made a proposal on how to solve the problem of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and afterwards came the Camp David accords, etc. I don't want to go into detail on the long history. There is a serious political problem: What will be the final status of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and, obviously, of their inhabitants? And when the issue is drawn out, and after Egypt signs a peace treaty, and there is no progress on this issue, it is no wonder that from time to time there are waves of unrest.
Q: I asked whether you stand behind Israel's present behavior in the territories.
A: There is no question that we must, first of all, make the territories tranquil, There is a dispute over the method and the way. I am not going to say what I would or would not do, because it is not relevant at the moment.
Q: There is also a dispute about what is actually going on in the territories. The definitions range from civil revolt to hot-headed youths.
A: It is certainly not hot-headed youths. I have said, and I repeat, there is enormous political pressure in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and we must advance more quickly toward a political solution on the deep, difficult issue between us and the Arab world: What is to be the future of the Palestinian issue?
Q: It has become clear that it is the PLO, not Jordan, that is dictating to people in the territories how to behave. What conclusions can we draw from this regarding future negotiations?
A: As for future negotiations, we don't have to conclude anything that hasn't already been stated. We will sit down with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. Egypt, Jordan, and Israel will decide who the Palestinians will be. In the future we will sit down with Syria as well. Therefore, I repeat what I said before: if the PLO were to come forward today and recognize [U.N. Resolution] 242 and 338, declare a cease-fire, and were prepared to sit and talk with us, we would be able to reach the day when we could sit down and talk.
Q: Both major parties agree that Jews have the right to reside in Jerusalem. What objection can be made to Ariel Sharon's exercising that right?
A: We also have a right to settle in Nablus; why do we not settle in Nablus? We have a right to settle in Khan Yunis; why do we not settle in Khan Yunis? True, there is an enormous difference between Jerusalem and Khan Yunis. I do not question this right. I question the provocative aspect of this step. But I do not think that the problem right now is whether Arik Sharon is living on his farm, at the Plaza, or in Jerusalem. The problem is a great deal deeper. The problem is that in the Middle East right now, there is an enormous opportunity that we have not had for a long time, after [the summit in] Amman, the Iran-Iraq war, the rapproachment between the U.S. and the USSR, the entire world's desire to fire less and to talk more. And we are missing this chance.