Responding to the Likud decision, Mr. Rabin felt that one particular clause, that of insisting that talks do not commence before the Intifadah ends, "severely harm the chance of realizing the peace initiative. " The possibility of talks with the Arabs have now been "neutralized. " The defense minister was against dismantling the National Unity Government at that stage and recommended that his party wait a while. Excerpts:
Q: Do you still feel that you can continue being a signatory to the "Shamir-Rabin" peace initiative?
A: I am proud about my part in the peace initiative decided upon by the Cabinet, and about the fact that I was a partner in formulating it and passing it in the government. At the same time, I cannot be blind and deaf to the grave implications of the Likud central committee's decisions on the chances of realizing the peace initiative and enabling it to take off. I will attempt to explain why. The initiative will succeed or fail over one issue: Will a partner to dialogue be found from among the Palestinian residents in the territories, who together with Israel, after discussion with him and agreement on his part, and following negotiations with him, will allow the elections to be hold? If such a partner is not found, there is no significance to the initiative, and the rest of its clauses constitute an embellished declaration of intentions, but not a practical test. In reality, the decision was made by the Likud that negotiations will not be held with the Arabs as long as the intifada has not been eliminated, which is different from the decision made by the government concerning the initiative - a decision with which I agree - that elections cannot be held except under conditions of calm and the absence of terrorism. For it will be impossible to arrive at elections without dialogue with the Arabs.
What is the significance of the decision? Are we to talk only with the Americans?
Beginning today we do not talk with the residents of the territories and do not attempt to convince them? If there are those among them who rise and say that they accept the government's peace initiative - do we not conduct negotiations with them? Elections must be held in an atmosphere devoid of terrorism and violence. But [how can it be that] we are forbidden to talk today? Therefore, I believe that what the Likud central committee accepted, first of all regarding this issue, in reality states that the possibility of bringing about the take-off of the peace initiative decided upon by the government, is neutralized.
Q: Perhaps there is an unintended challenge in this for you?
A: I am not interested. in what has been intended or not intended. This is in opposition to the government's decision regarding the peace initiative.
Q: What are the conclusions to be drawn?
A: I have no doubt that the Likud's decisions, certainly regarding the Likud, severely harm the chance of realizing the peace initiative. It seems to me then, that we must not be hasty, without obscuring this point, and I will recommend to the Labor ministers: That which the Likud decided, is relevant to the Likud, and is in no way relevant to the Labor ministers. We must attempt in the upcoming weeks to display much initiative in dialogue with the residents, in order to convince them that there is a chance, to present to them the Labor positions, which are different from the Likud's stand, in all of the issues, and to attempt to convince them. Secondly, we must ensure that there will be no settlement whatsoever established in opposition to the government decision and the coalition agreement. Thirdly, in our dialogue with the U.S., we must examine the possibility of using its good offices for the purpose of causing PLO-Tunis not to terrorize the residents in the territories. Then, perhaps through dialogue between the residents of the territories and the Labor ministers, it will be possible to find a partner with whom we can talk and attain an understanding that we will bring before the government for a decision.
Q: From your words it is obvious that you recommend remaining in the government, at least for the upcoming weeks.
A: I will recommend at this point to wait, I do not know if for days or weeks, and to examine our ability to motivate the peace process in accordance with the peace initiative decided upon by the government, without any connection with or consideration of the Likud central committee decisions. If this will be impossible, I - who have been of Labor's leading ministers and who worked hard for the establishment of a National Unity Government, first and foremost so that peace can be given a chance and so that we can leave behind the distress in which we find ourselves and attain peace and security without forfeiting any one of the positions outlined in the government's guidelines - will also doubt the possibility and sense of the existence of the National Unity Government and of Labor's participation in it.
Q: Were you impressed ' during your meeting yesterday with Labor ministers that your opinion is shared by Labor leaders?
A: First of all, I think there are those [who agree] and there are those [who do not]. It is only natural that there were initial positions expressed. I believe that a position will be formulated today in the meeting of Labor ministers. Not everyone is forced to agree with each other, but I believe that we will succeed in arriving at a common denominator. It will on one side recognize the gravity of the harm dealt the chance of the peace initiative according to the government's decision - not according to Labor's position - to take off, and the obstacles placed by the Likud central committee's decision in the way of the peace's chances; perhaps the decision torpedoed it altogether. Of course, another opportunity - not within a long period (and definitely not months), but a limited and reasonable time period -should be given in order to examine whether we, as Labor ministers and in accordance with the government's decisions, not according to the Likud's interpretation, can bring about the advancement of the peace process.