The defense minister revealed that Cabinet Secretary Rubinstein was in the process of formulating the government's peace initiative. He said that the reason for a two-stage process was to avert a clash within Israel between the "land for peace" formula and the "Greater Israel" one, which could wreck the plan and to prevent an explosion in the Arab world. He explained his views on the participation of residents of East Jerusalem in the elections. He felt that the American reaction to the Arafat statement that the Palestinian Covenant was "null and void" was mistaken. Text:
Q: PLO head Yasser Arafat stated in Paris that the Palestinian covenant is "null and void." The prime minister said that this is a lie, and that it has no significance. Do you agree with him?
A: As for the conclusions regarding Israel's policy, I see no reason to alter our position that we do not and will not conduct negotiations with the PLO. There are two reasons for this. Judging by the Palestine National Council's [PNq decisions in Algeria, [Arafat's] address to the U.N. General Assembly in Geneva and the press conference, the PLO's stands remain the same: The establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and the right of return to Israel's sovereign territory for a million and a half Palestinians. These are its positions. In my opinion, any agreement to negotiations with it while these are its stands would be a grave error from Israel's standpoint. ( ... ) Many claim, however, that the uprising in the territories damages Israel's declared stands, but causes no harm whatsoever to the PLO's positions. The fact is that despite the uprising, despite the pain and distress because of those murdered and injured, the State of Israel has not changed its stands in the slightest, while the PLO is forced to do acrobatics and resort to lies about its moderation. I view the PLO's constant need to find deceptive gimmicks, to mislead and delude, as a sign of weakness. After all, according to a certain clause in the Palestinian covenant itself, it is stated precisely that only the PNC - and if I am not mistaken, with a two-thirds majority - is capable of nullifying the covenant. [Arafat's] statement, therefore, is another false gimmick, which Q: How do you explain the fact that the U.S. State Department spokeswoman welcomed Arafat's statement?
A: In my estimation, the Americans' goal - albeit mistaken, in my opinion is to lead to an additional erosion in the PLO's stands.
Q: This evening we reported that you and Cabinet Secretary Elyakim Rubinstein have prepared a comprehensive peace proposal, which will soon be submitted for Cabinet discussion. What are the proposal's main ideas?
A: Without making reference to your report, the prime, minister returned after presenting his four-point plan and initiative in the U.S. Following his return, it was necessary to take care of the details beyond what he presented, in order to formulate a government stand. He assigned this task to the Cabinet secretary, who came into contact with various elements, naturally including the Defense Ministry; after all, the Defense Ministry bears overall responsibility for running matters in the territories. A discussion was held on the fourth point of the prime minister's four-point plan and initiative. Of course, this matter still must undergo clarifications in various forums before it is adopted as the government's position. I will not say here what the status is of the detailing and working out of the various drafts, and what has been completely agreed upon and what remains a matter of dispute. I will refer only to my stands, irrespective of your report.
Q: Does the prime minister accept these stands? Is he aware of them?
A: I will discuss my own stands. Ask the prime minister about his positions. The basis is the prime minister's plan and initiative, as he presented it to the U.S. and brought it back to Israel.
Q: There is a wide gap between the prime minister's proposals in the U.S. and your stages plan.
A: Without elaborating, I do not believe that your comment is accurate with regard to what the prime minister presented in the U.S. But let us deal with the heart of the matter. The problem facing the State of Israel is how to move, how to start a political process that will bring us, in the eastern sector, from the current situation to peace along our eastern border with Jordan and a solution to the Palestinian problem within this framework. This is the goal. The stages are stipulated in the Camp David Accords. That is, the first stage is an interim settlement for a transition period, and the second stage is negotiations and the finding of a permanent solution. The connection between the two stages, or what the Americans call the "interlock," is in the timetable - so that no one will raise suspicions about Israel, as the Palestinians and others do, that our only objective is to arrive at an interim settlement - just as determined by the Camp David Accords, which are based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. ( ... ) The stages in the implementation of this plan: First of all, agreement must be reached among Jordan Egypt and the Palestinians in the territories in order to start the move, whose first stage would be preparations for elections. There is no point in viewing the elections in isolation from the move, because in the elections a Palestinian representation will be chosen which will have three functions: To negotiate with us on the implementation of an interim settlement during the transition period. The second function of this representation: To become the authority for self-government which would handle the Palestinians self-administration; its third task would be to serve as the local Palestinian component in negotiations on a permanent solution. There will not be three elections. Elections will be held once for these three tasks.
Q: Is the principle of "land for peace" a central foundation of your plan?
A: This national unity government cannot continue to exist either on the basis of a "land for peace" government or a "Greater Israel" government. The whole logic of the plan, to get to the heart of the matter - I do not believe that it is possible today to move from the current situation to the permanent solution in one move. Any attempt to do so will lead us to a deadlock, if not to an explosion with the Arab world. I believe that the government in its current composition can certainly enter into the first stage of the move, the stage of the transition period and interim settlement, since we, the Palestinians and the Arab world would retain the right to present any stand when we reach negotiations on a permanent settlement, but not before that. Each side will be free to present any of its positions; well wait and see what occurs during the negotiations. The problem is to move the political process. Even in this proposal the Palestinians are being offered what no Arab country ever proposed to them: Not Jordan when it ruled over Judea and Samaria, and not Egypt, when it was in control of Gaza. Anyone who tried to go in one shot, through hocus pocus, from the current situation to a situation of peace, to the determination of sovereignty and borders, would be making a grave mistake. ( ... )
Q: You say that the success of the plan that you and the prime minister are formulating is conditional on the consent of the other side. Who is this other side?
A: The government's basic guidelines include, on the one hand, an aspiration for peace on the basis of the principles of Camp David, even if they are not mentioned by name. On the other hand, there is also opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan, and opposition to negotiations with the PLO. Residents of the territories are the right address. The dialogue, when the Cabinet makes any kind of a decision, whether similar to what I have presented or slightly different - I hope it will be similar. The decision will have to be presented to the U.S., Jordan, Egypt and residents of the territories. No political process is conceivable without the consent of the other side. I have always said, and I will reiterate it here: Along with a proposal for a political plan, we must continue with security activities in the territories in order to illustrate to the Palestinians that they will attain nothing from us through violence - even if Jews are still being murdered and injured - and that Israel will not alter even one iota of its positions, based on the government's basic guidelines.
Q: So the PLO's agreement or lack of agreement is not a consideration?
A: Not from our standpoint.
Q: Perhaps we should hold a referendum.
A: We will not hold a referendum. I believe - of course, there can be differences of opinion on this - firstly, that even when the Cabinet makes such a decision, or a similar one, it will first of all be possible to state clearly what we are intent on doing, both to the world and especially to the Palestinians and the Arab countries. What stages? What is the essence of each stage? Who are the participants? I believe that the residents of the territories want to see the light at the lend of the tunnel. I believe that it is no coincidence that during the last month and a half there have been more attacks among the Palestinians by Palestinians. This stems from the desire to instill fear and terror so that elements do not arise and say, "We want" - I know ( ... ) that there are those among them who would want to enter into such a move. They are terrorized by fear. ( ... )
Q: What would be the format of elections in the territories?
A: This will certainly be discussed. I can state my opinion. Since the goal is political negotiations, the elections must be political, not municipal. Our desire to stress that we are talking here about a political move is what determines in principle the nature of the elections. It must be remembered, however, that elections will not be conducted before the entire outline is agreed upon. ( ... )
Q: What is your stand on East Jerusalem Arabs' participation in elections, and international supervision of elections?
A: I am simply "on record" [on this issue], as they say. In 1981, when then-U.S. Secretary of State [Alexander] Haig visited, the subject was extremely relevant. The Labor Party bureau conducted a discussion; we were in the opposition. Back then, I favored their participation. Today, my opinion has certainly not changed: [I favor] the participation of the residents of East Jerusalem, or sovereign Jerusalem, in elections - not in Jerusalem, but in Bethlehem and in Ramallah. My argument is simple: I support the Allon Plan. I never agreed, and will not agree, to withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 borders, even in exchange for peace. The Likud's position is certainly even more far-reaching than my own. ( ... ) I want to create a situation in which a Palestinian can be a resident of [Israel's] sovereign territory and vote in another location: Either in Jordan, or in the current instance - for the interim settlement - for the elected Palestinian representation. I consider this the creation of a precedent which is similar, to a certain extent, to the American system of absentee voting. I believe that it is important to create a precedent in which a Palestinian resident who is not an Israeli citizen and does not vote in Knesset elections can live in sovereign Israeli territory, but vote elsewhere.
Q: Do you intend to make gestures, such as the opening of schools or release of detainees, in preparation for the implementation of the plan?
A: I have no intention of making any gestures, unless they are in direct connection with the security situation. The current security reality - even though we thought of making some gestures toward the end of the Ramadan holiday, for the Id al-Fitr holiday - does not justify them. The security consideration is the determining factor, not appeals from outside elements or from certain inside elements. ( ... )
Q: As you recall, then-Prime Minister Menachern Begin submitted the Camp David Accords for Knesset approval, though he was not obligated to do so. Should the peace plan that you have outlined here be submitted for Knesset approval
A: I do not believe so. I also do not believe that Cabinet approval necessarily has to be obtained for the plan; I believe that approval should be given for the prime minister, and whoever he chooses to continue the moves on the basis of this outline. ( ... ) Mr. Begin submitted the Camp David Accords [for Knesset ratification] after they were signed by Israel and Egypt. Something that is in the stage of being examined does not have to be approved by the Knesset.