In 1986 the Knesset adopted a law which in effect banned any contact between Israelis and members of the PLO and other terrorist organizations. Since then there were some contacts, even at a high level, but only one Israeli was sentenced to a prison term for such meetings. Now, the Government no longer saw the need for this law, though proclaiming that it has not changed its policy and attitude towards the PLO. 'The justice minister thought that the law was anti-democratic and proposed that new legislation be enacted in the Knesset. This move was seen as a significant step on the road that would lead in September 1993 to the Israel-PLO mutual recognition and Declaration of Principles. Excerpts from the press conference follow:
Mr. Libai: As you all know, around six years ago, the law in Israel was changed to the effect that any contact with a member of the PLO or any other terrorist organization would constitute a seminal offense, and the accused might be sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Five or six years have elapsed and by now we can draw some conclusions from this provision in the law. No saboteur has been put to trial nor anyone who really risks or harms the security of the State of Israel. Those who live here know very well the names of Abie Nathan, Yael Lotan, Latif Dori and David Ish Shalom. It seems to me that not one of them really troubles the security organs of the state. Nevertheless, there are those who have been put to trial - and Abie Nathan even served a prison sentence. Now we came to the conclusion, and speaking for myself - as I am of the same opinion with this bill introduced in the Knesset - that there is no need whatsoever for this provision in the law. This ordinance just wants to prevent terrorism. This section is really in contrast to the basic concept of criminal law and also, from my point of view, it's against the principles of democracy. Because here the effect of this section is that the Government, if it wishes, may have contacts with the PLO or any political contacts with any other terrorist organization, However, those who are in the opposition are not allowed to do the same, and they can be put to trial for doing the same things that the Government might do if it wishes to. This amounts to [an attempt] to try and force a political view on individuals; that is to say, if one believes that meeting somebody else, or having contact with somebody else, may improve the situation or may even lead to having better chances of having peace, then he is not allowed to do it according to the law, by these restrictions of the penal law. If contact is allowed to the Government, why shouldn't it be allowed to the opposition or to any other individual? So as a matter of principle, from the point of view of democracy, and the basic concept of criminal law, we thought we should repeal this offense. However, that is not to say that we are changing, that this Government of Israel is changing its policy with regard to the PLO. Because the policy does not stem from a section in Criminal Law, whether it's defined one way or another, and you should know that in our criminal law, there is a sanction, sanction number 114, which prohibits any contact with a foreign agent. And a foreign agent is being defined as anybody with whom there is reasonable cause to suspect of being a member of a terrorist organization. So even if he is not a member, but you have a reasonable cause to suspect that he is a member, you are not allowed to have any contact with him unless you have a reasonable explanation for doing so. So first, you have to prove that he has no reasonable explanation for having this contact, and secondly, it's written in section 114 that nobody will be convicted of this crime if it was proven to the court that he did nothing, or didn't intend to do anything, which might harm the security interests of the state. So in order to prove this offense, the prosecution must show that one either had no reasonable explanation for having this contact or secondly, that he had intention to harm the security interest of the state, or in practice he harmed the security of the state. So the background and the reason for having this offense is to defend the best interests of the security of Israel. What we are saying is that the other offense has really nothing to do with the security of the state, and simply puts restrictions on the freedoms of individuals without any connection to the security risks. In addition, I would make two remarks about what happens in reality, as you already noticed. Quite recently, there have been some contacts with PLO members. Members of Knesset have immunity, so they were not really put to trial; they might be investigated, but none of them have been put to trial. Even in this regard, you could notice - because of some reasons, maybe good reasons - the Jewish members of Knesset were not even interrogated, while the few Arab members of Knesset have been summoned by the police and have been interrogated. That's a kind of inequality in breaking the law. Secondly, you know that some who are connected with the police forces have met with PLO leaders. Yet none of them have been brought to trial, because we don't prosecute the police forces. Others have been summoned to the police and interrogated. All this only shows that maybe there is no real justification in having this section on our book of law. Anyhow, today, we are submitting a bill to repeal it, and I do hope that we have the majority to do so. And so well continue to live in Israel without this provision, and by repealing it, say to this Government that we are not in any way harming the security of the State of Israel.
Q: What are your chances to pass this law without any real objection in the Knesset?
A: We know that the right-wing opposition objects to a vote against this bill; however this Government has a majority in the Knesset and as far as we know the majority are part and parcel of the coalition, and would vote for the bill. Anyhow, it will pass now to the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.
Q: Does the Government still object to the U.S. renewing its dialogue with the PLO and if so if you basically allow Israeli individuals to meet with the PLO, why shouldn't the U.S. resume its dialogue?
A: First of all, even from now on, as you heard, the Israeli individual will not be allowed to contact the PLO without any restrictions, because as I say it's still an offense if there will not be a reasonable explanation for this contact. So they might be investigated about their reasons and the substance of the meeting and certainly without any question the answer to your question is yes. The Israeli Government as before and still now objects that the U.S. Government would have contacts and negotiations with the PLO. And the reason is that the Israeli Government is of the opinion that the PLO is an obstacle to the peace process. They have no interest in having an interim agreement. As you know, they are interested in establishing a new and independent Palestinian state in the territories and this is not the object and not the present policy of the current Government of Israel. So from our point of view, the negotiations should continue along the lines of the invitation to the Madrid conference. That is to say the partners in the negotiations would be from the side of the Palestinians, the leaders of the Palestinians who are living in the territories and not the PLO.
Q: You and Professor Amnon Rubinstein have said a number of times over the past few years, that there's nothing like the existing laws in the democratic world. I'd like to be clear on this point. Can a Spaniard have contacts with the Basque separatists with impunity? Can a British subject have contacts with the provisional IRA? Or an Italian with the Red Brigades? Or in other democracies where this or that liberation front is trying to chop up a section of the country and gain independence? I ask this question - I'm trying to be fair to the Likud - because to many of the public here in Israel, it does seem reasonable that one shouldn't be permitted to hold contacts with the PLO.
A: As far as I know, and as far as comparative research has been done, there is no parallel, and there is nothing like the offense we have and are now attempting to repeal, in any other state. Even in the days when Great Britain fought against the Nazis during World War 11 - as far as I know - there was no offense to the effect that you are not allowed to meet with persons who are citizens of the enemy country. None whatsoever. You always have to prove that you have an intention to harm the security of the state, or to in effect harm the security of the state, or at least offer a reasonable explanation. But every innocent contact, any innocent contact with anybody who belongs to the other side, this in itself would constitute an offense that you could be sent to years in prison for it? As far as I know, there is not such an offense.
Q: If this is an anti-democratic law, how come your party didn't oppose it six years ago?
A: I am sorry and I regret very much that my party, as you have said correctly, part of my party, several members, voted for this law. I have said all the time, from the beginning, this is anti-democratic. I always opposed it, I voted in the Knesset against it. From my point of view, there is no change whatsoever, and as you can see, Prime Minister Rabin chose me to serve as minister of justice, and it's quite natural that I will continue to try and implement my thoughts on certain areas of the legal code.
Q: (...) How long will it take for the bill to pass? In the existing legislation which you spoke about, what would constitute a reasonable explanation for meeting with the PLO or not, and how is that decided?
A: It's hard for me to say how long it would take until this bill would pass and be enacted as law. From my point of view it would be within one month. It's up to the chairman now of the constitution committee of the Knesset. As you know, my colleague Dedi Zucker sits in this position.
(...) As to your second question, I know there is no decision of the court which would clarify this, so it's up to the attorney-general of the state to decide whether the reason and explanation given by the individual are sufficient, whether they are reasonable. If they would seem reasonable, then of course we would not put this person to trial. It seems to me that the attorney-general would consider, or would analyze, the situation with regard to the possible harm to the security of the state; and not as it is now, with regard to the political views of the one who makes or tried to make contact.
Q: In August, when Prime Minister Rabin was in the U.S., he was unhappy with the publication of news that Israel was going to change the law.
(...) He then ordered it moved to the cabinet, when it normally would have gone to the Knesset. Now it's been released from the cabinet to the Knesset. Why was it moved to the cabinet, why the delay by Mr. Rabin, and now, what changed and enabled it to move to the Knesset now? Was it the new administration in the U.S.? There's a lot of speculation about that.
A: On the one hand, the reason for repealing this law, or this offense, is basically from legal points of view, legal reasons. However no one is so naive as to think that someone cannot, or would not, try to draw political conclusions from this legal step. It was the view of the prime minister that in order to explain and let the other parties concerned -those taking part in [the peace] negotiations - and especially the government of the U.S. (...) and let them have an understanding for the reasons. In those days the idea was to wait until the elections in the U.S. and knowing who might be in the White House and so on. After giving the Foreign Ministry a chance to relay the information, the prime minister felt that this was the right time to submit this bill.
Q: Did you receive any assurance from the U.S. administration that they would not use this opportunity to renew dialogue with the PLO?
A: It seems to me you have to present this question to my foreign minister and I will not answer this question.
Q: Beyond the legal aspects of this question, you mentioned earlier that Israel is not interested in addressing the PLO as a partner to negotiations. What would it take for Israel to look at the PLO as a potential partner to the dialogue, and are you, or is the Israeli Government, trying to signal the Palestinians that in fact there may be a change that they would want the PLO to participate in a more direct manner in that dialogue?
A: It seems to me that this kind of question really should be presented to the foreign minister and I would not like to comment now on this issue. As far as I said, from the Government's point of view, there is no change in the policy now. In what way or when this policy might be changed, is not for me to say here now.
It is the policy of the Government of Israel not to negotiate with the PLO, to give the chance to the local Palestinian leaders to lead the way and to try to explore all the avenues to peace
Q: Looking back on the more than 30 years before the present law existed, can you be confident that the change you are going to make now will take the whole issue out of the realm of controversy, because in the early years of the state it wasn't fashionable to have contacts with the PLO. It is fashionable now. Will you now have a situation where there is no problem, where it will be clear when it's harmless, and when someone is engaged in espionage or whatever. (...) In the period before the present law existed, was it clear in the past that either someone had to be prosecuted or shouldn't be? Was there wide consensus supporting the attorney-general's decisions? (...) Will the change which you are introducing put the subject to rest, or are we facing a different situation now, that will remain controversial?
A: After amending the law, from my point of view again, we will be more sane regarding this issue.
Q: Would you say that meeting with the PLO is a way of encouraging the peace process?
A: No. (...) The PLO position now is an impediment to peace and that's the kind of experience and information we have; that without the PLO, there are much better chances of making progress in this process and that's why we also expect the U.S. government to leave the PLO outside these negotiations.