Discussing Israel's decision to pull the IDF out of Lebanon, Mr. Rabin asserted that Israel still had a problem with terrorism and the fact that there is no government in Lebanon is a central feature of the situation. He thought that Syria was the dominant factor in Lebanon and that the Lebanese authorities, bowing to Damascus' demands, are unwilling to enter into any arrangement with Israel to ensure a peaceful transfer of authority and to ensure that terrorists do not re-enter the area to be vacated by Israel. Once Israel is out of Lebanon, there could be a possibility of warmer relations with Israel, he said, and a possibility of expanding the peace process to Jordan. Text:
Q: Before invading Lebanon, Israel had one active enemy, the PLO, threatening its northern border. Now there are many more, notably the Shiites. How do you propose to ensure security on your northern border when you withdraw from Lebanon?
A: We realize that the war in Lebanon, even though it delivered a setback to the PLO, has not put an end to terrorism. The problem for the Lebanese, for us and, I believe, for the whole region is the fact that there is no government in Lebanon. Therefore, it's a paradise for terrorists. But once we complete the three-phase redeployment, we are determined to maintain a security zone adjacent to our border, manned by friendly Lebanese forces backed by Israel. And we hope - but it is not more than a hope - that at least some of the communities that today carry out terrorist activities against us, like the Shiites, will lose the motivation to do so.
Q: Who will fill the vacuum left by the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon?
A: We have warned the Lebanese government and the United Nations in the last few weeks. There is enough time to arrange an orderly transfer of the territory from our responsibility to theirs. We are not asking for anything in return. We just want to prevent any possibility of a blood bath and massacres in this area. And if that happens, it will be the responsibility of the Lebanese government and international organizations.
Q: Don't you feel you have any responsibility for what may happen after your withdrawal?
A: Not at all. The Lebanese government's delegation at the Naqura talks demanded that we withdraw immediately. We are doing that. But under the dictate of the Syrians, the Lebanese government is not ready to cooperate with us to bring about an orderly transfer of the territory. We are not making any conditions for our withdrawal, we just want to do it in a proper way.
Q: Israel's invasion of Lebanon has been described as a total failure by many. What lessons has Israel learned from the experience of this war?
A: The main lesson is that there is a limitation to what the armed forces of Israel can be used for. There are certain goals that can be achieved by the use of our military might. And there are certain goals that are not attainable through the use of force.
Q: Do the Syrian gains in Lebanon give it a substantial edge over Israel?
A: Its military presence in Lebanon gives it leverage, and Syria is dominant politically [in Lebanon]. The Lebanese government can't do anything without its approval. But practically [speaking], I don't believe that Syria can really dictate to every Lebanese sect what to do. And I tend to believe that Syria knows that alone it's not a military match for Israel.
Q: Do you think that the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon will usher in a new stage in the broader peace process in the Middle East?
A: On the assumption that terrorist activities will be reduced, I believe that with less friction in [Lebanon] - and if the peace between Egypt and Israel will warm up and the Arab world will back Jordan so it can join the peace process -there is such a possibility. The [problem] is the Arab world's lack of readiness to support King Hussein to join the peace process that has started between Egypt and Israel.
Q: Do Egypt's improved relations with Jordan and Iraq give Israel any hope of expanding the peace process?
A: If the realignment between Iraq, Jordan and Egypt will isolate Syria politically with the message "We are not interested in the use of force as the main instrument to bring about the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict," then it will be a positive development. So far, however, there are no clear signs that this is their purpose.
Q: What can Israel do to draw these countries into peace talks?
A: We must end our military involvement in Lebanon. We must do what can be done, if it will be done on a mutual basis, to warm up the peace between Egypt and Israel. And we must show that Israel can overcome its economic crisis and project the image of a strong country. Then, I hope, there will be a possibility of expanding the peace process to Jordan. Syria is not a candidate. Lebanon is under Syrian control. Therefore, I don't see that in the foreseeable future they will partners to peace.
Q: Do you see room for compromise with Egypt over the Taba border dispute?
A: Yes. And if there will be a real readiness on the part of Egypt, not just to solve the Taba problem but to make peace instead of just [not being at] war, then we'll really make the peace that the man in the street will sense.
Q: Last month your government approved six new settlements on the West Bank. In the face of extreme economic problems, can you afford them? And doesn't that close the door on a negotiated solution to the West Bank?
A: It was more a political decision than a practical one and was made without knowing where the budget would come from. It has yet to be proved that settlements have served as an obstacle to peace. I can't recall that President Sadat looked at settlements as an obstacle when he started meaningful negotiations with Israel. When we decided to have peace with Egypt, we uprooted settlements. It's an excuse for those who don't want to make peace not to make it.
Q: You won a promise of $400 million increase in military aid from President Reagan - less than what you had asked for. Are you dissatisfied?
A: The fact that it is an increase of $400 million and all in grant, no credits - and bearing in mind the problems that the United States faces now in deciding on its federal budget - we see the aid as a sign of understanding and sympathy by the president toward the defense needs of Israel.