In mid June Mr. Peres travelled to Stockholm for a meeting of the Socialist International. He found there growing support for the Israel peace plan. But in his meetings with a Soviet official, the latter refused to budge from his country's insistence that Israel talk to the PLaMr. Peres also said that the United States was engaged at the time in trying to persuade the PLO to allow elections in the areas according to the Israeli peace plan. Excerpts:
Q: During your talks in Stockholm at the meeting of the Socialist International, did you get the impression that there is support for the Israeli peace initiative?
A: I think so, yes. Not everyone is well acquainted with what you call "the Israeli initiative." The idea of elections -1989 is the most important year in human history, in which the victory of democracy and the victory of elections are being celebrated. The USSR, after 70 years of Communist revolution, has decided to turn to elections. Unbelievable. In Peking, China, hundreds of thousands of students demonstrate. They are not asking for increased wages. They want elections, they want democracy. Even the French, who have begun the celebrations commemorating the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution, are beginning to ask: "Who knows if we really needed that revolution? It was too costly in human lives." When I got up at the [Socialist International] Congress and said: "All of you seated here are democrats and socialists. Are you against elections? Do you prefer that we conduct negotiations with a group of people who actually were elected by riots rather than conducting negotiations with a group of people who will be elected at polling booths? Is it not more logical to take the path of democracy, even from the point of view of the Palestinians themselves? Take the PLO. How do they decide there? Sometimes, someone pulls out a gun. We have to go over to majority rule, in all senses of the word, each side individually, as well as in relations between us.
Q: And you believe that 1989 will be an election year in the territories, too?
A: I did not say this. I do not know if this can be done so quickly. I believe that in 1989, there is a chance to make such a decision. And I also think that the Palestinians themselves, even the PLO, have not yet given an authoritative answer to this proposal.
Q: From your meeting at the conference with a senior Soviet official, what was your impression of the Soviet position on the initiative?
A: Firstly, I was impressed by the entire tone of the Soviet representative. A completely different tune from what we are accustomed to, much friendlier, much more open, much more open to persuasion. The primary issue they were insistent upon was self-determination. Could we include in our initiative the granting of self-determination to the Palestinians. And I told him: "I do not understand way you are insisting on the PLO. The PLO is an organization. We recognize the Palestinian people. Is the PLO not a part of the Palestinian people? Is the Palestinian people a part of the PLO? We recognize a people. Why do you want us to insist on an organization?" Secondly: "Not only do we recognize the people. We recognize that it has legitimate rights. That it has just demands. That it even has the authority to participate in determining its own future, according to Camp David." And I explained to the Russian, I said: "Why may [the Palestinian people] participate? Because there are two peoples. Not only one people. There is two-fold self-determination. Each side can participate in its own self-determination.
Q: What was the Soviet official's response?
A: He said that things are very difficult for the Palestinians, and that they need people to relate to the permanent solution. I told him: "I remember that we talked a few years ago. Under similar circumstances. What did you say? "How can the PLO recognize Israel? How can the PLO recognize [U.N. Resolutions] 242 and 338? This is their last bargaining chip." Look what has happened. They recognized 242 and 338. Has the PLO been weakened as a result? You are wrong about one thing. Being a moderate is a very powerful thing. A moderate Palestinian position in my opinion, as well as from the Palestinian viewpoint, is much weightier than an extreme Palestinian position. I also reminded him that one of Israel's most senior officials said that autonomy is almost self-determination.
Q: If elections are held, the Arabs and the PLO want international supervision, IDF troop withdrawal from population centers and voting by East Jerusalem residents. Is there room for flexibility?
A: Firstly, none of the above three items was included in the document known as the Israeli initiative. Why? Because we have not yet actually decided in favor of this or against it. The issue remains open. Now, some of us have expressed support for granting voting rights to East Jerusalem residents, although not within the city, but outside it. This is also an indication. Regarding international supervision, this brought a smile to everyone's lips. I said to them: "Tell me, did the fact that there were two supervisors in Panama, Carter and Ford, make Panama a more democratic country than it is? Will the fact that in Israel there will not be two presidents make Israel any less democratic? After all, it is an open country with hundreds of journalists, night and day, free to go anywhere, free to speak at any hour of the day or night. What will supervisors add?" I don't understand this. Now the custom is, as was done in the 1976 elections, that on election day, the army is not stationed near the polling booths. Why should we not do this as well this time?
Q: The Americans are continuing their dialogue with the PLO. We have heard of a resident of the territories by the name of Saftawi going abroad, perhaps in order to begin negotiations. He has his own plan. Is this not indirect negotiations between Israel and the PLO?
A: You are asking me to give you a literary description. The political description is correct. The Americans are talking with the PLO. They are talking with us. At the same time, they deny that this is indirect negotiations. Any description you want - but actually, I believe that the Americans are attempting to pave the way to elections in the hearts of the Palestinians. And if we are to speak truthfully, they want to remove the PLO objection to the elections in order to enable the residents to participate in the elections. Many of us have the feeling that without the PLO's preventing and sometimes threatening, most of the residents would participate in the elections. The Arab world will gain from democracy. They have already tried everything. They tried monarchy, republics, even tried Khomeini. Now the time has come, and I say this as well to the Arab viewers, to try the rule of democracy, majority rule, decision by majority, not killing one another. Not threatening each other. And I am sure that if we succeed in holding the elections, it will be the beginning of a revolution throughout the entire Arab world, and that it will be to the Arabs' benefit and will benefit peace and relations between us.
Q: Is the holding of elections dependent on a cessation of the intifada?
A: I expect that if there are elections, there will not be violence, because one contravenes the other. [...]