Ten months after the start of the Madrid Conference peace process, virtually no agreement, let alone a breakthrough, has been achieved. In the following speech, the prime minister explained the issues involved, the foundations of the Madrid mechanism and the differences of the approach of his Government to that of Prime Minister Shamir. The main difference was the "Peace for Territory" concept instead of the "Peace for Peace" idea. Mr. Rabin said that he was prepared to consider an interim arrangement with Syria. Israel will adhere to the Camp David Accords and the Madrid Conference framework. Excerpts:
(...) The intention of the government (...) is indeed to exhaust the great prospects towards the realization of peace with Arab countries, with the Palestinian residents in the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, while maintaining the security [of Israel].
In my opinion, peace constitutes a very important component as a factor to guarantee the security of the State of Israel, [since] a peace without security is meaningless to me. However, a true peace increases the security of the State of Israel, and allows it to focus on the central tasks that the Zionist movement set for itself as a goal in its third return to the land of Israel,
This Government, indeed, makes use of the framework established by the previous Government, and I am referring to the Madrid Conference and other conferences, as means of negotiations. (...)
The present Government does not intend and does not want to dry out the Madrid framework, to empty it of its content. When using this framework, the Government indeed tries to extract the chance to achieve peace that will provide security for the State of Israel, whether in peace negotiations with Syria or in negotiations towards an Interim arrangement for a transitional period. To my deepest regret, the term "autonomy" did not appear in the written invitation to the Madrid Conference. Instead, another concept was included which in content at least, from the Israeli point of view, is anchored in [Israel's] international commitment bound by the Camp David Accords. Our intention is to exhaust the chance not through the assumption that peace is granted in exchange for peace, when referring to Syria, and certainly not to repeat the precedent set with the peace [signed] with Egypt.
The Government and its delegates to the negotiations with Syria demanded peace, a contractual peace, and they are prepared for what was laid down in the principle of the letter according to which the Madrid Conference was convened, also with the opinion of the previous Government, that peace is based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
There are no longer peace negotiations with Egypt. We came to the Madrid Conference in order to conduct negotiations with Lebanon, and as you know, no territorial problems exist therewith; moreover, an international boundary exists which is recognized by every Israeli Government. The problems with Syria is a [a matter of] peace, and according to the Arab demand, perhaps territory as well. The negotiations with the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation is divided into two tracks: a peace treaty with Jordan with which almost no territorial problem exists, and negotiations with the Palestinian residents from the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, on the establishment of an arrangement towards self-rule in the territories, autonomy or any other name. (...)
We proposed peace to Syria on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338, which have different interpretations. [Our interpretation] is completely clear. We, as I said, need no references. (...) I would like to quote [the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin] during the debate on the Law of the Golan: "From a political perspective, I declare in the presence of every member of the cabinet sitting here, that at the moment the Syrian president says he is prepared to conduct negotiations with Israel towards a peace treaty, the negotiations for a peace treaty with Israel will commence at that exact moment, and no obstacles will stand in our way."
The second aspect is that we are also ready for an interim arrangement, not necessarily territorial, and I will not go into details. (...)
In the Palestinian channel of the negotiations with the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, we presented two directions in which we can move forward and achieve the establishment of autonomy. An autonomy that will permit the Palestinian residents of the territories to run their own affairs while Israel will keep under its authority the responsibility for the security, the responsibility for the Jewish residents residing in these territories, the control of foreign affairs and other issues.
We, presently, still have strong differences of opinion with Syria too, yet, a beginning of talks has developed. We intend to do the same with the Palestinian delegation: to steer the talks to the core of the problem, [in other words], to [find the] way to establish the autonomy, and to deal less with the symptoms of the current situation without having reached an agreement.
We hope and believe that it will possible to reach the same kind of agreement for a transitional period which will strengthen the peaceful coexistence and will allow us to seek a permanent solution in accordance with the fixed timetable as set forth in the Camp David Accords, with the hope of reaching a solution for the [existing] problems between us, the Arab countries and the Palestinian residents in the territories, an objective of utmost importance for the security, the future, the prosperity and development of the State of Israel. (...)
The Government and its peace policy will continue to act towards the exhausting of chances, and I believe that the chance exists in the promotion of the realization of peace in the format of the framework of the Madrid Conference and its consequences, in different settings that will guarantee the peace and achieve security for the State of Israel.