Opposition to the Israeli peace initiative was building up in the Likud, causing concern in the Labour Party over the fate of the government's initiative. Meanwhile, terrorist activities in the areas intensified. This was seen by the defense minister as a reaction to the possibility of the success of the peace plan. He did not want to comment on developments in the Likud, but thought that the demand to link political process with the eradication of the Intifadah was inconceivable Israel could not renge on its plan at this stage. He also discussed the various measures undertaken to stem the Intifadah. Text:
Q: Have you any indication of developments among Likud opponents of the peace plan?
A: No, I am not involved in internal Likud affairs, except insofar as they affect the National Unity Government's ability to survive. We must remember that the present government is a National Unity Government. I was among those who worked within the framework of my party, the Labor Party, to establish it. It must grant expression to the two principal parties, and one [party] cannot force its positions upon the other. The peace initiative, as it was accepted by an overwhelming majority in the Cabinet meeting, in essence enables the National Unity Government to advance together in the peace process, at least in the first stage. I considered this to be very important, and I still do. I should add, perhaps, that according to what I have heard - if I am not mistaken, and if the media reports are indeed accurate one of the preconditions [set by Likud opponents of the initiative] for carrying out a political move in accordance with the Cabinet's initiative, which it decided upon in its meeting, is the eradication of the intifada. I simply do not understand: Is it necessary now to inform the U.S. Government that the [initiative] presented to it by the prime minister is no longer valid and no longer exists? What is the meaning of delaying the political moves connected with the Cabinet's peace initiative? It is inconceivable that the prime minister, in keeping with the demand implicit in what was supposedly suggested following last night's meeting [of Likud opponents of the plan], would have to go and tell the Americans, the world and the Israeli people that everything he has said is invalid.
Q: Is your opinion, is this precondition of the eradication of the intifada not necessary, or not possible?
A: My assessment is that the government is currently operating on two axes, on each one separately and on the two of them together. One axis is the peace initiative directed at the residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. They are the sole address for the Cabinet's peace initiative. The second axis is in accordance with the government's basic guidelines - and it is worth noting that the guidelines were not written four years ago or a year and a half ago, but six months ago, after the uprising in the territories has already been going on for a year - and they do not contain a definition of the eradication of the intifada. This expression seems literary to me; it reminds me too much of the "eradication, liquidation, uprooting of terrorism from Lebanon," which led us into the most unsuccessful and wretched of the wars initiated by Israel. Therefore, the IDFs mission, as it has been defined, is to bring about calm and to maintain the functioning of the systems - the Civil Administration and the local authorities - which in combination mean the maintenance of law and public order for the entire population. The IDF does this with one restriction: [that its actions be] within the framework of the law. These are the two axes of operation, and one must not be made conditional upon the other.
Q: Jurists will surely say that that your intention to institute harsher measures - such as preventing those who are to be expelled from appealing to the High Court of Justice, and destroying houses without allowing their owners to plead their case - damages our basic principles as a democratic society.
A: Firstly, I have only defined the operational needs as I understand them. This is not my first appeal on these issues in the past two or three weeks to Israeli judicial elements, who are supposed to deal with legislation. 1, as defense minister, am not the minister of justice or the attorney general or the government. I must present the needs as they appear to me. I did this many months ago, and I have done the same thing now. This time it got released to the media, on previous occasions it was not,
Q: According to media reports, the justice minister will oppose your requests, especially the one regarding the demolition of houses.
A: I do not discuss matters with a fellow Cabinet minister through the press. When we meet we will discuss the issue. I will not discuss with the media; I will only say one thing. I believe that the defense establishment, the IDF and I as a minister should be given the tools which will enable us to deal even better, in order to attain the objectives as I previously defined them, and I know that they have not yet been achieved.
Q: Do you not sometimes feel that, as a result of the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, you should deviate from your own basic principles?
A: At this stage I have not deviated, nor do I not intend to deviate from basic principles in which I believe, I am referring only to putting into action what exists in the Defense (Emergency) Regulations: 1945, which fortunately, were not altered regarding Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1979-1980, when they were largely neutralized in connection with sovereign Israeli territory, and especially East Jerusalem.
Q: There were newspaper reports this morning that you rejected the request by the prime minister's bureau to return the weapons of students from the Tomb of Joseph- Yeshiva?
A: I first heard about this episode at 07:00 hours this morning. Until I heard it this morning on the news, I was not aware of such a request. Since then, I have looked into the matter, and have found out that a certain minister appealed to someone in the prime minister's bureau to look into the matter. There was no appeal made by the prime minister's bureau; an appeal was made to examine the issue. Since this involves the weapons of students at the Tomb of Joseph Yeshiva, which were used not for purposes of self-defense but for the purpose of an action which is not within their jurisdiction, the army reacts as it has in all previous cases, by withholding the weapons pending completion of the investigation.
Q: Your assessment yesterday was that the attack on Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir at the Rosenfeld funeral was a planned provocation by the extreme right, which fears any progress regarding the political initiative. Do you think that as the initiative develops, the provocations will too?
A: I did not say such a thing. I said that in my opinion, I am witness to the fact that in the past few weeks, a polarization and radicalization have taken place. It is partly a result of the security situation, which is uncomfortable for the residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. But I believe that in addition to this, there is another element which is influenced by both the extreme right in the Israeli political system, and by the residents of the territories who identify [inaudible], not everyone, who have given a push to and have exacerbated the [situation), based on the fear that the Israeli peace initiative, which has received recognition and support from the U.S. Administration and Congress - 95 out of 100 senators have expressed their support for it and have called on the U.S. Administration to assist us - and in my opinion, from many of the Palestinian residents of the territories also. As a result of the fear that this initiative will indeed succeed, there are those who are attempting to sabotage it, either directly or indirectly.
Q: Do you think that the sabotage will increase as the initiative advances?
A: I hope very much that it will not. I believe that the people of Israel ultimately desire peace, and want to give peace a chance, but a peace move also entails risks. But it seems to me that regarding the peace initiative which the Cabinet decided upon, the margin of risk is smaller than, for example, with the peace with Egypt. That peace was not attained by exchanging territories for peace, but rather all of the territory for peace, the destruction of Yamit and the uprooting of all the Sinai settlements. We will not repeat this.
Q: You seem to be in an unenviable position: you do too much in the opinion of the left, and not enough in that of the right. Do you feel despair sometimes?
A: No, I do not feel despair; I have a sense of mission. When I took over the position of defense minister a little less than five years ago, I knew what I was faced with. I knew that my first mission was to get the IDF out of the Lebanese quagmire, which we were stuck in as a result of the demagogic slogans about "uprooting terrorism, destroying and eradicating terrorism." We failed; those who wished to do these things failed. I am happy that I got the 15,000 IDF soldiers out of Lebanon, without hurting the real mission of peace for the Galilee. IDF soldiers still die in order to ensure peace in the Galilee. I knew that I would have to make an unprecedented slash in the defense budget in order to save the national economy when the National Unity Government was established in 1984, and I assisted in this. Today I know that I am involved in a struggle whose implications for Israel's future are significant: for Israel's future in terms of peace and security, and for its ability to ensure the unity of the nation, by means of the National Unity Government.