In the latter part of April, Israel was putting the finishing touches on its peace initiative. The PLO was instructing leaders in the territories to oppose the plan, and serious riots took place in Jordan, led by Islamic fundamentalists. In the course of the rioting, the Jordanian army restored order by the killing of tens of rioters. King Hussein claimed that Israel transferred the Intifadah to his territory. This assertion was rejected out of hand by Mr. Rabin. The defense minister discussed the proposed peace initiative and the reasons for its rejection by the PLO. Excerpts:
Q: King Hussein has claimed that Israel encouraged the demonstrations in Jordan and "transferred" the intifada from the territories to his kingdom.
A: This is absurd, almost ridiculous - assuming that he did indeed make these comments. Firstly, what happened in Jordan bears absolutely no resemblance to the uprising in the territories. There, the problem is being faced by a homogeneous people, and concerns socioeconomic matters. No political problem faced by two peoples is involved. Therefore, there is no resemblance and certainly no basis to this story, assuming that he made the comments.
Q: There is an increase in calls by West Bank and Gaza leaders rejecting Israel's elections proposal. Will elections be conducted?
A: I cannot say with absolute certainty that indeed, the political move, of which the elections are a part - and it is a serious mistake to view elections themselves as a move that stands alone, one which is in no way linked to any development starting from here toward a permanent solution via an interim period, the beginning of which is elections among residents of the territories, by the residents of the territories, of a representation with I which it will be possible to conduct negotiations. I believe that this political outline, with its beginning in elections, is the only way to proceed from a situation of deadlock and status quo to progress toward a permanent solution on the full range of subjects in order to arrive at peace on our eastern border. I believe that this move has a chance - despite the voices being heard today in opposition to it - provided, firstly, that the Israel Government makes a decision on the basis of these principles, which to the best of my knowledge were also presented by the prime minister in Washington: That the elections are only a part of this political move. On the other hand, we will make it clear to the Palestinians in the territories, as well as to the Arab world and to the international diplomatic community, that this is the only direction, and that through other ways we will intensify measures against the violence.
Q: Why should they agree when they don't even know what the format of elections will be? Who will have the right to vote, who will be excluded, and who will supervise the elections?
A: All this can be clarified. Truly, in order to reach decisions in these spheres, this should be done first of all among ourselves, in the framework of the Cabinet. I very much hope and believe - and even more than this, I am convinced -that we must present something that is more complete, with which it will be possible to reach the Palestinians in the territories - but first of all to reach the U.S. so that it may try to assist us in its contacts with those same elements in the Arab world with which it is impossible to conduct a dialogue: That is, first and foremost with Arab countries -except Egypt, with which we can talk by ourselves. We must come with something much more formulated and complete, including all the details that you referred to concerning elections. ( ... )
Q: Why should the Palestinians participate in elections when your plan is accompanied by declarations by the prime minister to the effect that we will continue to reject the PLO and the Palestinians' right to self-determination?
A: Just as no one today prevents the PLO from declaring that its goal is a Palestinian state, or as someone who does not prevent anyone - and as defense minister, I do not arrest any Palestinian in the territories who states, 'I want a Palestinian state.' No one has been arrested for his political views during my term as defense minister. Now, individuals have been arrested Q: You support the "land for peace" formula; the prime minister opposes this.
A: Firstly, the Israel Government as a government has not decided about the "land for peace" formula, but it also has not decided about "Greater Israel." The national unity government exists and will continue to exist until we reach negotiations for a permanent settlement. The substantive gap between the Likud and Labor lies in the approach toward Israel's image and the chances at arriving at peace. ( ... )
Q: How long will we continue to say "no" to talks with the PLO? It has recognized Resolution 242, which means recognition of Israel.
A: I believe - I make a significant distinction between residents of the territories, especially since the uprising began on 9 December 1987. Why? I believe that residents of the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the largest sub-unit of Palestinians. Furthermore, they are living in those areas whose political and judicial status all of Israel's governments refrained from determining unilaterally; they left this to be decided on when we arrive at peace negotiations. In addition, the fate of the 1,500,000 or more Palestinians who live in the territories will be determined in negotiations for a solution to the problem on our eastern border, of attaining peace on our eastern border. It is therefore inconceivable that they will not be central partners to these negotiations. The PLO in Tunisia represents additional elements. Perhaps I would say more than this: It represents, first of all, the Palestinian refugees who live outside of mandatory Eretz Israel. Therefore, their insistence, as well as the demand by residents of the territories to insist on the right of return - the right of return to where? To Israel within the green line. I firmly oppose this.
Q: They recognize the fact that the right of return is only a dream. Don't you think that this demand is simply talk?
A: Absolutely not. I would not advise you to assume that they view this only as a dream. Moreover: You spoke of "noes" and a change in the stand of the PLO in Tunisia. True, the PLO has softened several formulas. But it has not conceded anything significant. It has not forgone the right to self-determination, which means, to the PLO, the establishment of a Palestinian state at least in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and East Jerusalem. It has not relinquished the right of return. It has not given up the combination of these two; whoever dares to accept them actually endangers the State of Israel's future and security. But I am aware that the residents of the territories - certainly those, or some of those, who are elected - will not dare to do things which are diametrically opposed to the [will of] the PLO in Tunisia. I believe, however, as I stated previously, that today, the status of residents of the territories, in their own eyes, in the entire Palestinian and Arab context, has made a complete turnabout. For the first time since 15 May 1948, Palestinian residents of mandatory Eretz Israel, in the territories, are leading the struggle on the Palestinian issue. I will add that they are also the ones who are suffering. Because of this combination, their status - or as the Arabic vernacular has it, between the "internal and the external Palestinian" [element], the weight of the internal has increased. Furthermore, their leaders sense the hardship and suffering that the residents are enduring, and they want - perhaps more than those who live in the villas in Tunisia - to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the beginning of the political process.
Q: But the residents of the territories also see the political gains of the intifada, and they will continue with it.
A: If you wipe off all the media dust, and the flashing of TV [cameras], they know that they have not achieved anything important, except for the U.S.-PLO dialogue. The fact that Yasser Arafat will be meeting with Francois Mitterrand - with all the respect and sympathy I have for the French president; or the fact that the troika of European foreign ministers met with him - the Palestinians are not fools. They know that Europe is not a central factor that can determine [what happens]. They know that not even one thing has moved that is connected with progress in the political process. At the beginning of this interview, we discussed what happened in Jordan. In Jordan, those who demonstrated against the social and economic policies of the government have already attained more in a few days of rioting than the Palestinians have achieved in more than a year and four months of the uprising in the territories. As I see it, the Israel Government will not budge one centimeter from positions to which, in fact, we committed ourselves in the Camp David Accords: progress toward a peace move via, a transition period and an interim settlement, transfer of the day-to-day administration to an elected representation of residents of the territories while retaining control of defense matters and foreign affairs, and maintaining settlements and the responsibility for them. The economic issues are in our hands. We are not backtracking from anything we said at the time. But today there is no one to -talk to, not Egypt and not Jordan. Instead of talking with the PLO in Tunisia, we should talk with Palestinian residents of the territories. Therefore, elections are to take place before an agreement has been reached on the content of an interim settlement.