Appearing before high school students in Tel Aviv, the defense minister explained his goals regarding the peace process and the reasons why he belonged to the government of national unity. He thought his presence there would enhance the peace process. Excerpts:
Q: How can you function as part of the present government, which opposes any negotiations with Palestinians, when you prefer a political solution for the uprising?
A: I belong to those who are convinced that when the two sides of the coin of Israel's life - peace and war - are in question, it is impossible to reach a situation in which we are obligated to go to war without a wide national consensus, and I do not believe that peace can be attained without, wide national consensus. Therefore, I was among those members of my party, the Labor party, who worked toward the establishment of a national unity government, including the present one. In my opinion, the guidelines of the government enable - with the wide agreement of its various members - progress toward peace in the eastern sector. I will explain the reason: What do the guidelines consist of? Two 'nays,' with which I agree: Opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and East Jerusalem. I agree with this opposition. The second negation stems from the first: Opposition to negotiations with the Tunisian PLO.
On the other hand, there are four 'yeas.' Firstly, regarding actions which advance the chance for peace as the central objective of the government. Secondly, progress toward peace in the eastern sector through a period of transition which is linked to a timetable for a permanent solution, according to the Camp David principles. I agree with this, for I do not believe that it is possible to move in one fell swoop from the present situation to peace on our eastern border. I also believe that it is forbidden even for peace, according to my perception as a member of the Labor party, to return to the 1967 borders and to agree to a sovereign partition of Jerusalem. Why not return to the 1967 borders? I was the last IDF chief of staff who was responsible for defending the State of Israel within these lines. I do not want another IDF chief of staff to feel in the future what I felt on the eve of the Six Day War; how it is to defend the State of Israel when within cannon range it was possible to hit Tel Aviv, as was done.
Similarly, I will not support the sovereign partition of Jerusalem, and I will insist that Jerusalem remain unified under Israel's sovereignty and as Israel's capital. There is no Arab today - in the Arab countries or among the Palestinians, in the territories or in Tunisia - who is prepared for peace in exchange for less than this. Therefore, today, whoever advocates not a progressive transition but by "one fell swoop" is calling for either total surrender or unlimited breakup and deadlock. Therefore, the second 'yea' is progress by means of a period of transition.
Thirdly, government recognition of the fact that the 1.5 million Palestinians who live in the territories - which is, incidentally, the largest sub-unit of Palestinians - have to be partners to the peace process. It is worthwhile to note where these Palestinians are: Over 700,000 are Israeli citizens, living in the sovereign territory of Israel. These are the Israeli Arab residents of Israel. Between 1.5 and 1.6 million live in the territories, while 1.2-1.3 million are Jordanians, that is to say, Palestinians in Jordan with Jordanian citizenship. Some 3.5 million Palestinians live in Israel, the territories and Jordan. There are a total of another one million Palestinians around the world, of whom 500,000-600,000 are refugees in Lebanon and Syria.
The fourth affirmative is to encourage representatives from among the residents of the territories to participate in the peace process. On the basis of these I am convinced - as a member of the Labor party, as an Israeli citizen, as a. member of government - that an opportunity must be given to the entire government, to all or most of its members, to make a reasonable and feasible proposal for advancement toward peace.
It is possible, of course, to attack one another in [interparty quarreling]. We know that there is a chasm that separates us from the Likud where a permanent solution is concerned. We insist first of all, in times of peace as well, on a Jewish democratic State of Israel. This means not absorbing most of the 1.5 million Palestinians, since in absorbing them and transforming them into citizens of the State of Israel living in its sovereignty, Israel would be transformed into a bi-national country, not a Jewish one. This is in accordance with our perception.
( ... ) But let us put off the settlement between (Labor and Likud]; let us search, at least within ourselves, for the level at which we can concur on moving the peace process along, to bring about a situation in which we will propose to the Palestinian residents not a private proposal of the defense minister, but a proposal of the Israeli government; that following a period of calm we will enter negotiations with representation of territories' residents, for the establishment of a transitional period not exceeding five years, during which they will establish an authority for self-government, will manage their affairs - apart from defense and foreign affairs - and will secure the existence of the settlements. No later than three years after the establishment of this extensive autonomy, these Palestinians, ourselves and Jordan, as well as Palestinians from overseas who receive confirmation, will enter negotiations for a permanent solution. Each side may come forth with any proposal that it desires. This does not oblige the other sides to accept it. I believe that based upon these principles, following a basic agreement on the course of these four stages, it will be possible to reach a period of calm, and I then propose free democratic elections for a political representation - not just for mayors - from among the territories' residents, by them, for negotiations according to the present policy course of a transitional period and a distribution of the functions as I have described it here.
It has taken the Palestinian leadership 41 years to accept U.N. Resolution 191 on partition. Had they accepted it in November 1947, who knows; the Middle East could have flourished and prospered in peace. They rejected it, they went to war against us and lost it, as they did all their wars against us. Today, 40 years later, they have remembered to accept it. I hope that this time they will be wiser and accept the proposal in the direction which I have described, which has not been proposed to them by any Arab government. Remember: from 1948 to 1967 - 19 years - the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip were under Arab rule. There was no demand, no-attempt to offer the Palestinians the establishment of a state, autonomy, or any kind of self-government. This is the first time this kind of opportunity is being offered to them, by us. ( ... )
Q: Would the IDF enter Lebanon again if Syria were to invade that country.?
A: ( ... ) Today the policy regarding Lebanon is based not on the illusion that we will uproot terrorism, but in preventing the terrorism which exists and operates from Lebanon from achieving its design. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers operate along the border in the security zone together with SLA soldiers day and night in order to attain this objective. We did not demand as a condition for our departure and termination of our massive military intervention that the Syrians withdraw. As long as they do not descend to a certain line southward toward the border of Israel and Lebanon, as long as they do not introduce and operate specific weapons in Lebanon which are liable to endanger Israel's security, I do not care if they sink in the Lebanese mud and we do not. I do not mind that 35,000 Syrian soldiers are currently present in Lebanon. ( ... )