In a wide-ranging interview, Mr. Rabin explained his views about the Shamir plan and the election clauses contained therein. He opposed the creation of a Palestinian state and thus negotiations with the PLO. He discussed the two-stage plan now on the agenda and said that he made a distinction between Palestinian leaders who identified with the PLO and those who were active members in that organization. The latter will not be allowed to stand in the proposed elections. He also rejected Minister David Levy fears that the elections in the areas could become a time bomb that will ultimately lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Excerpts:
Q: In light of your recommendation to hold political elections in the territories, were you mistaken in opposing any type of elections, ever since your stint as prime minister? We all recall that you voiced severe criticism against the very notion of holding the 1976 elections. Where did you go wrong?
A: The 1976 elections were of no political significance. They were strictly mayoral elections, and were not connected with a political plan.
Q: Then why didn't you suggest political elections as early as back then?
A: Do let me finish. There is talk now of a two-stage political plan: a period of transition - via an interim settlement -and after a defined period of time, negotiations on a permanent solution. Elections, as such, do not suffice. They will take place only if there is a consensus among the residents of the territories to go along with both parts of the political move. What has changed today is the status of the residents of the territories. Their weight, as compared with the weight of those living in Lebanon, Tunisia or Baghdad, has changed significantly. The residents of the territories are the leaders of the struggle on the Palestinian issue, they are the ones who suffer from the struggle, and it is therefore possible to offer them what was impossible to offer them two years or 12 years ago.
Q: Political elections in the territories do not constitute a "time bomb," as Deputy Prime Minister David Levy said, that will ultimately lead to an independent Palestinian state?
A: Every political process involves a risk, just as the absence of a political process entails greater medium- and long-term risks.
Q: Does your acceptance of the possible hazards involved in any political process mean coming to terms with the risk that this political course will end up with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state?
A: I opposed, and continue to oppose, the establishment of a Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan. I therefore opposed, and continue to oppose, negotiations with the PLO, as an organization. I believe the plan I proposed, the same plan that Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Shamir arrived at in his own way, allows maximum guarantees of forestalling the possibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Q: Your political plan will allow the residents of East Jerusalem to participate in the political elections. Wouldn't this contain the danger of a formal, renewed division of the capital?
A: Absolutely not. In a discussion held in 1981 by the Labor Party on the issue of the autonomy talks, I also supported the participation of East Jerusalem Arabs in elections for the municipality and for self-administration. I am a believer in the Allon plan for a permanent solution. I wanted to have a situation in which a Palestinian resident in sovereign Israeli territory - in East Jerusalem or in the territories that would be included. in Israel's sovereign territory - would be able to hold Jordanian citizenship, or other citizenship, if he refused our offer of Israeli citizenship. It would not bother me if such a person did not vote in Knesset elections, if this is what he wants. There are precedents for this in the U.S. And since I oppose uprooting settlements - including the Israeli settlements that would remain under foreign sovereignty - I want to establish reciprocity: residents of those settlements, too, should have the right to remain Israeli citizens and to vote in the Knesset elections.
Q: How would you deal with a Palestinian candidate from the territories who runs in the political elections and declares in the course of the campaign that he is a PLO member?
A: A candidate who declares his membership in the PLO would go to jail. Membership in a terrorist organization is against the law. On the other hand, even today a person, a Palestinian, who publicly declares, "I want to attain the establishment of a Palestinian state," or "I view the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people," would not be tried or arrested. No one has been tried and no one has been arrested for expressing opinions. Declarations to the effect, "I am a PLO member," are against the law, and people should be tried for such statements.
Q: The distinction you are making is one of semantics: [distinguishing] between. membership in the PLO and identification with the PLO.
A: The distinction I am making is between thoughts of identification with the PLO and membership in the organization.
Q: That is, you would not reproach someone who said, "I identify with the PLO."
A: The PLO expresses a political view. But it is no less a terrorist organization. Therefore, I distinguish between expressing political opinions identical to the PLO's and support through illegal action, such as terror and violence,
Q: Isn't there a danger that the distinction you are making here will a priori frustrate any practical chance for free elections in the territories?
A: Many of the leaders in the territories and East Jerusalem do not speak about identification with the PLO. They speak about ideological-political support for the PLO; they say that the PLO is their representative, but I have not heard them identify with terrorist acts. They know that public expression of incitement to terrorism is against the law.
Q: And the PLO minus terrorism is "kosher" in your eyes?
A: Is there a PLO without terrorism?
Q: Is such a PLO inconceivable?
A: Ill believe it when I see it.
Q: Why did you backtrack from your initial demand that the intifada be stopped as a condition for holding elections in the territories?
A: Sometimes my words are taken out of context. I explained that elections do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of an agreement to a two-stage course of progress, form the current situation to a permanent solution. If the residents of the territories agree to a process, of which the elections are the beginning, calm will come in any event.
Q: Why has the defense establishment, under your leadership and responsibility, not succeeded in putting an end to the intifada?
A: The defense establishment is acting with a view to bringing about calm and to fulfilling the role of the Civil Administration and the systems of local rule. The only restriction in achieving this goal is maintaining the law. There are no political restrictions. It seems to me that what has been done thus far is the most and the best within the framework of the law. ( ...)
Q: At the beginning of the intifada you promised to "eliminate" the uprising within a week. What happened?
A: I never said that it would be possible to "eliminate" it within a week. I had hoped that it would be possible to bring about reasonable calm. It is true that I had a different assessment regarding the Palestinian population's willingness to hold out for long in a situation of many casualties - people killed and wounded - and of economic suffering. My assessment has changed in the course of the uprising.
Q: When the intifada erupted you were on a lecture tour in the U.S. Why didn't you cut your visit short and return to Israel immediately to deal with the situation?
A: I had my considerations. The question is irrelevant now.
Q: During the intifada you made the assessment that the Palestinians would not make political gains. In fact, the opposite has occurred.
A: I said that the Palestinians would not extract from us political gains that deviate form the Labor Party's positions and the government's basic guidelines.
Q: From their point of view,. are not the political elections that you are now offering to the Palestinians in the territories, a political gain that is one of the results of the intifada?
A: The elections are a result of the desire to reach a political solution in the eastern sector according to the principles of Camp David. They are being offered against the background of the fact that in 1982, we did not succeed in reaching a settlement with Egypt on a format for autonomy and the establishment of autonomy, and in the wake of Jordan's withdrawal from the role of being a leading state in the negotiations for a solution on our eastern border. In the absence of Egypt and Jordan as the leading states, the Palestinian partner should be seen as the leading partner on the way to a political solution. And since I am opposed to negotiations with the PLO, the partner is the residents of the territories. It bears recalling that the Camp David Accords also speak about free elections for self-government.
Q: There is no mention in the Camp David Accords of political elections.
A: Of course they are political. What else could the meaning be?
Q: Are you not disturbed by the diminution of the IDFs moral image as a result of its suppression of the intifada?
A: I am disturbed by the nature of the task that 1, as defense minister, assign to the IDF. It is a vital task, no less so than the war against Lebanese terrorism or the means of deterring a war - if it is forced upon us - with any Arab army. I am certainly disturbed by the character of the confrontation that the uprising in the territories has forced upon us. This is not a confrontation between combat forces in the accepted sense of the term. This is a confrontation between people in uniform and a civilian population that includes women and children. Out of a deep conviction that the goals of the uprising are far-reaching and dangerous to the future and the security of Israel, I see a vital need to employ the IDF. I know the difficulty facing soldiers in such a mission.
Q: Don't you have moments of indecision, of regret, of acknowledging errors, when you receive the daily reports on the number of people killed in the territories?
A: More people have been killed in wars. Many more. Even in limited wars such as the Lebanon War more were killed. In the major wars a large number of people certainly fell on both sides. The difference this time is that those killed are not soldiers and are not terrorists in the sense of the word now familiar to us. But if this is the kind of war that the Palestinians are attempting to force upon us, we must withstand this difficulty, even if it is sometimes burdensome. This is not comfortable. It is even difficult. We are struggling and contending here on a matter of existence for the State of Israel.
Q: And the possibility that you have erred on some point or other does not cross your mind?
A: I always check myself, my decisions and the way in which they are carried out. We have certainly learned lessons and learned from mistakes in the course of the 14 [sic] months since the uprising began. There have been mistakes. There is no confrontation or war without mistakes.
Q: Are you prepared to mention one of your mistakes?
A: Opening stores in the territories was a mistake. We learned the lesson and we are [no longer] doing this. ( ... )