Although the Palestinians rejected his plan, the defense minister felt that the rejection was of temporary nature, hearing from some of their spokesmen that there were certain positive elements in his plan. He has not yet presented the plan to the cabinet, waiting until international reaction is gathered by the foreign minister and until domestic conditions are ripe for its presentation and approval. He stressed that the first stage would not involve a discussion about a permanent settlement. This will be left to the end of the process with the Palestinians being equal partners with Israel and Jordan in the negotiations determining a final settlement. Excerpts:
Mr. Rabin: I believe that it is precisely I as defense minister, responsible for over fourteen months for dealing, first and foremost through the use of force, and by administrative and legal measures, with violence by residents of the territories, at the time I did it, I had to put into practice what I had been saying throughout that period: You, the residents of the territories, want a solution: Let's sit down, your representatives and Israeli representatives, at the negotiating table. A solution, whatever it may be, will be achieved only through negotiations. You will not obtain anything from Israel through violence.
Q: There is opposition to that plan from the PLO and from residents of the territories. Hasn't it already died?
A: I would recommend primarily to the residents of the territories - I mean the Palestinians living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza - that if you look at the map of the Palestinians, this is the greatest concentration of Palestinians: 1.5 or 1.6 million. In Israel there are between 700,00-800,000 Palestinian Arab citizens. In Jordan, there are between 1.2-1.3 million. Altogether, in Israel, the territories and Jordan, there are 3.5 million Palestinians, that in fact, if they come together for a dialogue, there is a chance. Therefore, the plan is not dead in my opinion. I hope very much that -residents of the territories, who are the primary bearers of the struggle and the suffering, are therefore the ones who should be our partners in talks. They won't learn from the PLO, which took 41 years [sic] to return to U.N. Resolution 181. If ih 1947 the Palestinians had accepted Resolution 181 and the State of Israel and the proposed Palestinian state had been established peacefully, maybe the Middle East today would have been one of the most flourishing corners of the earth. What they missed - they went to war, they brought disasters, chiefly upon the Palestinians. It would be better if they learned from the past. Today they are being presented with a proposal, my proposal, which views them as the people to address.
Q: But they rejected that proposal, Mr. Rabin. To whom are you thinking of offering it?
A: They have rejected it for the time being. If I remember your program of last week, I heard, even from some of their more extreme members, that there are some positive elements in my proposal. Their problem, the problem of residents of the territories, is to reach the point where, being the greatest concentration of Palestinians today, the vanguard in the struggle, they should also be in the driver's seat, and not listen to all kinds of things said in the villas in Tunisia.
Q: But why should they agree to such a plan when, in their opinion, they can make gains through the intifada and obtain the world's support, including that of the U.S.?
A: What is important is that they understand that it is true that the intifada, as they call it, has had worldwide repercussions, has focused international attention on the Palestinian problem. Therefore, it also obligates us, though without an essential change in our position, but at the same time they should look soberly at the fact that with all the sympathy they receive here and there in the media, there is no actual diplomatic movement. If they are building their dialogue on the levelof the U.S. ambassador to Tunisia with minor PLO representatives, and they think
that in this way they will achieve salvation, they will continue with the same illusion for many more years to come. And if they think that it is a political achievement if two or three European foreign ministers meet with Arafat, they must remember one simple thing: There is no element besides Israel that can give an answer to their problem. They should understand, and also listen to the voices of those in the U.S. administration: There are no more imposed solutions. The major powers have learned that it is not in their power to impose a solution. The major powers today prefer that the parties to the conflict take the steps that will make a solution possible, and the major powers place on the parties to the conflict the responsibility for achieving a solution. And therefore, it may be that - along with my proposal to residents of the territories, along with the use of force against violence, with the hope that there will be no violence and we won't have to use force - it may be that we will have to prove to them that the PLO in Tunisia, with the dialogue with the Americans, with the meeting with European foreign ministers, will not advance their cause until Israel is willing to be a partner, together with them.
Q: Do you intend to place your plan before the Cabinet so that it can be approved or rejected?
A: My proposal relies on the basic premise that as far as Israel is concerned, going to war, or arriving at a situation which can lead to war or to peace - in both these critical circumstances, there must be a broad national consensus. In political terms, a broad national consensus means a draft proposal, a line of thought, which is anchored in the basic guidelines of the present government, in which the two central political bodies are partners. There is not a single item in my proposal which is not anchored in the basic guidelines. At the same time, I believe that at this stage it would not be advantageous for me to submit it to the Cabinet for discussion. I am convinced that the foreign minister - and certainly the prime minister, in his visits to Europe and the U.S. - should be given the opportunity to get a feel for how much room Israel has to maneuver. In my opinion, Israel does have room to maneuver in the direction I proposed, and I am certain that it could have American support. But I am not going to submit it now.
Q: Is that because you fear that the Cabinet will reject it?
A: No, I have no such fears. I would like to create conditions, or to help in creating conditions, in which, first of all, there will be several partners [to the plan) among the residents of the territories.
Q: Are there such people?
A: In my opinion there will be. There will be, once they realize that this proposal views them as the people with whom to talk, affords them the possibility to choose, themselves, from among their ranks, in genuinely free elections, political representatives, not mayors, political representatives, who would negotiate with us on a political process that would not achieve a permanent solution in one fell swoop; it is impossible to solve the problem[...
Q: Mr. Rabin, one of the criticisms [ ... ]
A: Excuse me, this proposal exists; the second thing is to prove to them that with stones, Molotov cocktails and strikes they will bring one disaster after another upon themselves. They will not get anything from us by force. The third thing is to
prove to them that with all the repercussions and understanding for their problem that they have created worldwide, the PLO and Arafat will not obtain any practical achievements in the international political arena, Even if there are one or two more ceremonies in his honor, the U.S. will not impose a solution on us; Europe does not have the ability to exert any significant influence on us.
Q: One of the criticisms leveled by figures in the territories is that your proposal is a trial balloon, somewhat amorphous. They want to know that the Israeli government supports your proposal, so that they can take it seriously. What would you say to them?
A: I Would tell them simply, that if a group of [Palestinian] figures - as individuals or in groups - tells me: 'Look, we've heard the direction you are going in, the ideas and the stages involved, we wish to make the following comments"; and if they are accepted, the main thing is that at this stage, we are not going to talk about a permanent solution. We will leave this for negotiations at the conclusion of the process, with them being equal partners with Israel and Jordan in negotiations on determining a permanent solution. Each party has the right to submit any proposal it wishes. Let them tell me that they are prepared to accept particular amendments, then I will go to the Cabinet. [ ... ]