Defense Minister Rabin, about to travel to the United States, explained once again the differences between Likud and Labour on the nature of the final settlement. Since that was not an immediate issue, the National Unity Government preferred to produce a plan that would start apolitical process and hopefully, reduce violence in the territories. He was not dismayed by remarks made by the prime minister, since the views of the Likud were well known. He explained in detail why the plan was aimed at the Palestinians, the only viable partner, since they are the object of the discussion. This meant that Syria, Lebanon and Egypt were secondary factors, while Jordan remained a key element for the success of the plan. Text:
Q: Israel wants to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. Wouldn't this be an appropriate time for some sort of declaration or steps aimed at reducing tensions in the territories?
A: Frankly, I must say that I feel more freedom to use whatever we see as possible within the limits of our laws, to cope with the violence - at a time when we are offering a concrete political solution through negotiations to those with whom we are in confrontation. But this is my personal view, and is in no way intended to express the government's positions.
Q: But isn't it true that the response of the Palestinians depends on the atmosphere in the territories? Maybe it's time for some goodwill gestures.
A: I have no doubt of what the minimal demand on the part of the Palestinians in the territories is - if they were able to achieve it. I see their goal, I hear it from them: the establishment of an independent PLO-Palestinian state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. They can forget about the achievement of such a goal.
Israel is powerful enough to prevent it and not to allow any development in this direction.
The violence in the territories and the whole uprising is not about human rights or civil rights or economic demands. Its purpose, its goal, is a far-reaching political one which, to my mind, can endanger Israel's future and security.
Therefore we must block the uprising, we must overcome their illusion that in this way they will achieve what Israel can never accept. It helps to bring them [closer) to the realities of life.
Therefore, I don't see any contradiction between, on the one hand, what is offered in the government's initiative and, on the other, our responsibility to create tranquillity, and achieve law and order in the territories. I see one as complementing the other.
Q: But this will create more hardships for the residents of the territories, with some losing their source of income. And this at a time when we want the Palestinians to join the peace initiative. Is there a sense that getting tougher towards the population will spur them to join?
A: Look, Israel has to work in a parallel way, along two main lines.
I assume that if the Israeli peace initiative is accepted by the Palestinians in the territories, it will, by itself, bring a sharp reduction in the violence. Because those who decide to join us in the effort to achieve a solution - and a solution means achieving peace, which can be done only be negotiations around the table - will be interested in reducing the violence. There will be no reason for them to continue with it.
But at present, and as long as we haven't received a positive response to the peace initiative from the Palestinians, it's our responsibility to use whatever we are allowed, within the limits of Israel's laws, to push ahead to the achievement of our goal, which is tranquility.
Q: There was an announcement on Wednesday that henceforth Gaza workers will require special permits to enter Israel - and that the arrangement will soon be applied to the West Bank as well. Has there been a decision to close off the territories?
A: I said a few weeks ago that we view the right of the Palestinians from the territories to work in Israel as a benefit. I would not deny that Israel also benefits from their work in Israel. It took us time to prepare all the administrative facilities, methods, how to make it work.
We have taken several measures to make it clear to the Palestinians and to everybody else that we distinguish between those Palestinians who would like to continue their activities in the normal way - regardless of their political aspirations or views - and those who participate in violence.
Therefore we have introduced two types of identity cards - a reddish one, the normal one - and a green one. Those who carry the green one are not eligible for free movement outside the territories in which they reside, whether Judea and Samaria or the Gaza Strip.
Now we have almost completed preparations to bring about a new arrangement in which people will have to have special permission to leave the territories - either for work or business. It won't be on a daily basis; it will- depend on the kind of business, etc. We intend to introduce it, perhaps from the end of this month, in the Gaza Strip. It will take two to three months until it is introduced (in Judea and Samaria).
It's easier to do in the Gaza Strip, which is surrounded by a fence and a ditch .and there are certain openings, controlled ones. It will be more complicated to do it in the West Bank, for the simple reason that there is no clear-cut line distinguishing the area which is under military government and the sovereign soil of the State of Israel.
I believe that, in addition to the security considerations, these measures will eliminate unregistered work. The situation now is that the employer doesn't notify the income tax authorities that these people are employed; the payments are not reported and they don't pay income tax. This is not the major reason why we are introducing [these measures]: the main reason is better control, for security reasons, of the movement of those people who are entitled to leave the territories to work in Israel.
Q: Isn't it also a form of punishment?
A: For an innocent citizen, it won't be a punishment. Because we, as a matter of principle, believe that Israel needs their work, and they need the work [available in] Israel.
Just to give you a figure, in 1987 at least $700m. was taken back by those workers in Israel to the territories as salaries, while exports from the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and through Jordan to the Arab world were around $ 100m. - a seventh of the income gained from working in Israel.
Q: Why are you doing it now? Surely it could have been done in the past?
A: It takes time. We sensed that there was an increase in terror attacks inside Israel by Palestinians coming form the territories to work.
Q: Prime Minister Shamir said on Wednesday that Israel would give "not an inch" to the Arabs, and that East Jerusalem residents would under no circumstances participate in the elections...
A: The present government of Israel is a national unity government. We have long known the Likud position concerning a permanent solution on our Eastern border - the whole Land of Israel. You know the Labour Party position: That our main goal is to achieve peace on our Eastern border and maintain Israel as a free, democratic Jewish state - which in essence means that we cannot swallow the bulk of the one and a half million Palestinians who reside in the territories.
As a result of this point, in Labour there is a readiness for territorial compromise. Not to return to the Six Day War lines, not to bring about the redivision of Jerusalem from the point of view of sovereignty.
Because there is a unity government, the government of Israel today cannot be a government whose policy is either the whole land of Israel or territorial compromise. At the same time, each of the two major parties has its own policy. It's not the government policy.
I believe that the U.S., the Arab countries, everybody knows the different policies of the two major parties when it comes to a permanent solution.
Q: You have offered a formula for the participation of East Jerusalem residents in the elections, a matter which the U.S. and the Arab countries view as crucial. Do you think your formula will ultimately be accepted?
A: I don't know. The peace initiative states that there will be political-regional elections, and not municipal elections. I believe that before going into details, some important, some less important, we first have to find a partner with whom we will negotiate the details of the elections, or know if we have a partner.
If the partner comes with certain proposals, we will have to talk to him about them. I believe there are differences between the two parties about the issues of the elections, but I don't believe it is advisable today to deal with them before we know whether there is a partner at all.
Q: About a partner - are you worried about the growing isolation of Israel in terms of the attitudes of confirmed friends of Israel, who say not that the PLO is a partner, but that Israel should simply test the PLO's word? By this initiative, will we now deflect this kind of criticism?
A: I believe that in this peace initiative we have offered something concrete. It would seem very strange to me if it were not interpreted as a forthcoming, unique opportunity for the Palestinians to start a peace process - a gradual one, by phases, which has not been offered to them by anyone in the past. This is what we will tell the Europeans, the U.S., the Arab countries.
Did the Jordanians or the Egyptians offer any such proposals to the Palestinians when they were in control of the territories? No they didn't.
Q: Why wasn't Syria mentioned in the peace initiative? Have we given up hope of peace with Syria?
A: Who are the other partners? Lebanon? There is no government there; the country is in total chaos. Syria seems to be maintaining a hostile policy towards Israel, and has not showed any readiness to enter into negotiations with Israel about peace. But if Syria changes its policy tomorrow and agrees to negotiate, to have peace with Israel, I am sure we will respond positively.
In 1982-1983, Egypt decided to stop leading the political process, also in relation to the establishment of the autonomy. In July 1988, Jordan - which I at least had hoped would lead the political process - decided to stay out. Whoever wants to bring about a political process has to have a partner.
As a result of the decisions of Egypt and Jordan, we have one choice: The Palestinians.
There is almost a national consensus against talking to the PLO. I am against it for the simple reason that the PLO, in the PNC, in the statement in the General Assembly in Geneva, in Mr. Arafat's press conference, stressed two major goals: the establishment of a Palestinian PLO independent state in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, and the right of return of one or one and a half million Palestinians to Israel within the Green Line.
If Israel says that it is ready to negotiate with the PLO, for all practical purposes, this is almost acquiescing to these two positions as a basis for negotiations. I believe that these two demands of the PLO, from which they have not dissociated themselves, are totally unacceptable to Israel.
Q: How far is their initial "no" final in your view?
A: I am not a prophet. I believe that many among them understand that the tragedy of the Palestinians all through their history has been - and perhaps, still is - that either they achieved their goal or refused to accept anything less. It took them 41 years to accept resolution 181 of the UN General Assembly on the partition of former Mandatory Palestine. And it seems to me that PLO policy continues to be: either all or nothing.
This policy has brought one catastrophe after another upon their heads. I have heard from some of them that they believe this is a unique 6pportunity, but the real problem is the threat of terrorism. In my talks with some Palestinian leaders this week, they questioned the possibility of maintaining free democratic elections.
And I asked them: in 1976, we had municipal elections. Weren't they free and democratic, at least on the part of Israel? And if there was intimidation - from which direction did it come? It didn't come from the Israeli side. And more than one of them admitted that at least, when it came to the 1976 elections, this was the case.
Therefore I feel that the real problem is the amount of freedom they have from the threat of terror, assassination, outside pressures, and from certain extreme elements from the inside. Unfortunately, they are not really free - although the pressure is not ours - to decide in any way they like to accept our move.
I hope-that many of them will overcome this kind of threat. This is my hope.
Q: The settlers in the territories have been getting more and more vocal, there have been more and more incidents, and there have also been many more incidents by Jews in Green Line Israel. Doesn't this express a lack of confidence in the defence establishment? And secondly aren't you concerned about a loss of control over the population?
A: Under the present circumstances, we cannot deny that we have not achieved our goal in sharply reducing the violence in the territories. We have not reached tranquillity there.
There is no doubt that this causes difficulties for the settlers in the territories. There have also been some terrible acts of terror within Israel. [But] no one can justify such acts, regardless of the problems and emotions surrounding them.
I believe that the government, responsible leadership, Israel's various parties should try their best to prevent violence on our part, even when it comes as a result of provocative violence by the Palestinians. Because people taking the law into their own hands might undermine the integrity of Israeli society.
Q: What is your reaction to the Newsweek report two weeks ago that the intifada is causing a serious deterioration in the fighting capability of the IDF?
A: I am surd that the deterrent capability of the IDF, vis-a-vis military threats from the outside, is very effective.
I believe it might even be more effective than before. One of the major elements of IDF deterrence is the Israeli Air Force, which has not been affected in any way be the uprising in the territories.
I believe many people, including those on the other side of the border, know that we have improved the quality of our weaponry when it comes to land forces - and I am glad that they don't know how much we have improved it.
In the last four years, since Israeli forces were redeployed along the Lebanese-Israeli border and the security zone was created, we have succeeded in coping very effectively with the terror that we failed to eliminate in Lebanon.
The number of terrorists was even increased as a result of the war in Lebanon. There were no terror groups such as Hizbullah and Amal before the Lebanon War. In the last year, the number of attempts made by Palestinian terror groups to infiltrate into Israel was bigger than in the years before the war in Lebanon - and all of them failed.
Which means we have proved our ability to cope with terrorism without keeping 15,000 soldiers in Lebanon, and without paying the high rate of casualties, including fatalities for being in Lebanon.
We have not yet succeeded in overcoming the popular civilian uprising in the territories. But I don't believe that either the terrorist groups outside, nor the leaders of the Arab countries that are still in a state of war with Israel, measure Israel's military strength by the way we operate in the territories. They know that we are not using the air force, artillery, our tanks, and all the improved sophisticated weaponry that will be used, on a large scale, if they dare to force war on us.
They know the difference better than Newsweek, and better than some Israeli politicians who spend their time shouting along the same lines.
At the same time, there is no doubt that keeping our regular forces, our reservists, involved in activities in the territories might, for a while, hurt their training for war, But you have to bear in mind that these are all reserve soldiers who have done three years of national service. They are trained as tank crews, artillery crews, infantry.
The budget which would compensate for our expenses in dealing with the uprising has not yet been given to us. We could have produced, in Israel, more sophisticated weapons that we have developed, and we could have contributed items we know we need to research and development.
Q: What effect does the reintegration of Egypt into the Arab world have on the overall situation?
A: I see it as a good sign promising many things for the future. Let us not forget why Egypt was boycotted, banned, ousted from the Arab League: For doing what was unthinkable in the Arab world - signing a peace treaty with Israel. Unfortunately, it took 10 years for the Arab world to realize their mistake.
Egypt is returning to the Arab League without giving up any part of its commitments to Israel in accordance with the peace treaty. It sets a precedent that the Arab can accept: a courageous Arab country deciding to put an end to the war with Israel and establishing peace.
Q: What will be the impact on Israeli society, on the morale of young recruits, if the Palestinians reject our plan and the uprising continues?
A: We are only a few days after the cabinet decision. I look to the future with hope - hope that the Palestinians will realize that Israel is offering them a unique and forthcoming proposal. I don't want to deal now with a possible negative reaction on the part of the Palestinians. After three or four months, if and when that happens, I will be ready to give you another interview.