The occasion for the interview was the sixth anniversary of the signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Mr. Peres assessed this event and discussed Israel's attitude to current developments in the region. He felt that among the Palestinians living in the area, there were many who wanted to move ahead and reach an agreement with Israel. While he did not regard the Murphy mission as a breakthrough, it is part and parcel of an on-going process of consultations between Israel and the U. S. Text:
Q: This week saw the sixth anniversary of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. It's known that since you took office you have made major efforts to improve relations with Egypt, yet there has been no significant improvement. Why?
A: We have to do more work. Not everything can be accomplished in a day or overnight. The cultivation of relations may be likened to the cultivation of a garden: It's not a one-time job; relations are affected by political seasons, they have to be irrigated, they have to be cultivated. But I definitely haven't despaired. I said yesterday that when we opened the negotiations with Egypt the gap between us was as large as the Sinai desert, whereas today the gap is as small as Taba.
Q: You said that we should conduct negotiations with Egypt on the totality of relations between the two countries and not just on Taba separately. Does Egypt also accept this view?
A: It's still too early to judge, but I do not rule this out. The difficulty in the relations between us and Egypt lies in the fact that we have to concede things that are tangible, such as land, and make irreversible concessions, such as a conceding of land. For example, if you have an ambassador, you can recall him and return him; when you return land, it's returned. When you improve relations it's not a tangible improvement; but again, when you return land, that is extremely tangible. I believe that the peace is between the peoples: Between the Egyptian people and the Israeli people. I believe that both peoples are very much in need of it. I am certain that most Egyptians, like most Israelis, are convinced that to fight another war would be futile bloodshed.
Q: With respect to President Mubarak's ideas, you said that our 'yes' to a direct meeting with him reinforced the 'no' to a meeting in the U.S. without us. How do you view the Egyptian move today, does the initiative still exist or has it been disrupted?
A: The opening had momentum. Now the matter has entered a rather more routine track; it will take more time. I wouldn't describe it as a 'disruption'. I would describe it as a move that must now be outfitted with a uniform of time and a character of negotiations.
Q: Israel has responded positively to the idea of direct negotiations with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, provided the [Palestinians] are not PLO members. The question, sir, is who the people are that can represent the Palestinians and also be acceptable to Israel.
A: A great many people in Judea-Samaria, a great many people in Gaza: recognized leaders. We are looking for people who do indeed represent the spirit and the desires of the inhabitants of the territories, but without terrorism and without shooting and without boycotting Israel and without a desire to destroy [Israel).
Q: Will such people be capable of representing the Palestinians in the absence of political backing?
A: A great deal depends on them. It's a matter of courage. Leadership must be taken, not just received. I know that many of them want such negotiations - and not just a good many of the leaders but many of the inhabitants themselves have wearied of all the delays, all the negations, all the rejections.
Q: Will the visit of U.S. envoy Richard Murphy to the region possibly lend momentum to the peace process, and do you think the U.S. might propose new ideas such as dialogue with Syria?
A: I would say that Murphy's visit comes within the framework of known diplomatic routine which enables contacts to be maintained. I don't regard it as a breakthrough, nor would I want to pin too many hopes on it prematurely. The matter of Syria doesn't depend on America; it depends on Syria - and Syria, in my view, remains a very extremist country. I see no possibility of negotiations with Syria looming on the horizon.
Q: Regarding the situation in Lebanon: Within a few weeks the IDF is to deploy on the international border according to a cabinet decision. How will he cope with the terrorism of the extremist Shi'ites, and can we reach understanding with the Syrians regarding the new situation in Lebanon after we leave?
A: I don't think there is anyone today who can say whether the Shi'ites will persist with their terrorism or not, or will intensify it or not, after we leave Lebanon. In my estimation the Shiites have their own problems. The Shi'ites are engaged in two battles simultaneously: On the one hand they want to transform Lebanon into a Shi'ite land - against the will, let us say, of the Druze or the Christians - and therefore they are employing mounting violence; while on the other hand, within the Shi'a itself there is a competition for the leadership, a situation which also causes radicalization. So I don't think there is any expert who can tell you whether or not we will face heightened terrorism.
Q: What will the Syrian reaction be to the situation after we leave Lebanon?
A- I believe that the Syrians are aware of Israel's sensitivities, the security sensitivities, and it's my assessment that at this time the Syrians haven't reached the conclusion that they can prevail over Israel. Therefore I tend to think that the Syrians will act within parameters that won't cause escalation or a threat to themselves.
Q: The government's decision speaks of a security zone with IDF backing. Is it already clear what the character of that zone will be, and how the SLA will integrate into it?
A: I think the picture is clear. Last time, too, the security zone was actually a combination of a 'good fence' on the one side and local forces on the other side. Naturally, if terrorist bases are created, the IDF will act against them without hesitation. On the other hand, the SLA was in the past and will be in the future a force based on the territory and the residents, and a force that will seek to ensure their wellbeing. Israel has decided to leave Lebanon of its own will. In general, I would say that the problem is not to go to war unless you have no choice, and to get out of the war when you have a choice. 'No choice' is only when you are attacked; if there is a choice - we do not want to conquer other peoples.
Q: What is Israel's stand regarding UNIFIL - we know that Lebanon is seeking to have UNIFIL troops enter southern Lebanon.
A: Objectively, UNIFIL could have two missions: One, as a buffer zone between south and north: Between the local forces in the south and the agitated forces in the north. And secondly, UNIFIL could serve as a certain defense of the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. I see no substantive role for UNIFIL in southern Lebanon.
Q: In other words, Israel will oppose such an idea?
A: Israel will express its opinion that there's no need for such a force in southern Lebanon.
Q: As for relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel - 'Land Day' passed yesterday relatively quietly as compared to previous years. Do you think there is any connection between this and the new policy vis-a-vis Israel's Arabs?
A: I am not ready to justify violence in any situation. But if there has been an improvement, and it was reflected during Land Day yesterday, I am definitely pleased. The Arabs of the State of Israel, who are citizens in every respect, are invited to equal and honorable dialogue. We want to regard them as citizens with equal rights who feel that they are far removed from any humiliation, any suppression, any discrimination. They are Israeli citizens in every respect and that is how we shall act towards them. I definitely invite our Arab citizens to a full and open dialogue - I am also certain that it will prove fruitful.
Q: The government you head is trying to change policy vis-a-vis the Israeli Arabs, as been reflected in the abolition of the office of the Arab Affairs Adviser. Beyond this step, can we speak of a new policy?
A: I would say that we have all reached a stage of maturity in the fabric of relations between Jews and Arabs. We have all matured, some of us have even aged, and we can't behave like little children. The intention is not only to abolish the position of Arab Affairs Adviser but also to integrate Arabs and Jews into the system of decision-making, to hear what they have to say before decisions are made, and I am certain that this is a development in the right direction.
Q: About Judea-Samaria: The government has taken several decisions to improve the quality of life in the territories. We haven't yet seen the results of these steps: We haven't heard about a new bank or a new hospital, and the mayors haven't yet been replaced. What is your reaction?
A: My reaction is that with respect to a bank, the government can issue a permit, but it cannot establish the bank -and we have issued the permit. With respect to hospitals, the government can issue a permit to build a hospital, it does not build hospitals in the places proposed by the initiators in this sphere. [As for the mayors,] we have discussed this and are ready to replace the IDF officers who are today serving as mayors in four municipalities with local residents, if we reach agreement regarding the suitable candidates.
Q: This week marked the six months since the establishment of the national unity government. Can you say that this government has lived up to expectations?
A: Before the government was established, people said it could never be established; after it was established, they said it wouldn't be capable of making decisions; now that it has existed for six months they say it hasn't made enough decisions. So we see that the expectations weren't generous, but the results are somewhat better. The government was established, took some very fundamental decisions - on Lebanon, the territories, the economy - and I hope that we shall go on making correct decisions that will change both the situation and the atmosphere in Israel and abroad.
Q: Can the government also take political initiatives?
A: Beyond any doubt. I think, for example, that our withdrawal from Lebanon is a political initiative; I think that a change of policy in the territories is a political initiative; I think the manner in which we responded to President Mubarak's proposal is a political initiative.
Q: And as regards negotiations with Jordan?
A: The government is united in its readiness to open negotiations with Jordan. I don't know what will happen after the negotiations commence - differences of opinion could well arise. But in the initial stage the answer is unequivocal -and positive.