In the week following the expulsion of the Hamas activists, Arab delegates suspended the peace negotiations in Washington. Israel was condemned by the Security Council and by a number of friendly nations. Intensive efforts were undertaken to resume the peace process and to start the resolution of the issue of those expelled Israel agreed to receive the special representative of the UN Secretary General, James Jonah, to limit the length of the expulsion term, to return a number of sick suspects and to pacify the situation. It appeared that all parties were marking time until the inauguration of President-Elect Clinton. In his opening statement, Foreign Minister Peres made reference to these developments and answered questions. Text:
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: The main message is that the peace process will be continued with full force and attention, that the feeling prevails among us that on the eighth round of negotiations some progress was done, particularly on the Jordanian negotiations. I think there was a closing of some gaps between us and the Palestinians, and we feel that the last word was not yet said in our negotiations with the Syrians.
While maintaining the peace process as the major purpose of the present Government, and while trying to bridge over the differences between us and the different parties with whom we negotiate, one must admit that both the Palestinians and us have to go through very difficult tests - neither simple for the Palestinians, nor simple for us.
For us, the problem is clear. Israel is a democracy, there is the rule of majority, and though maybe our views are divided, everybody without exception takes the rule of the majority as the decision-making process.
But then there is a continuing effort to kill the will for peace, to diminish the trust and the Arab goodwill by killing innocent people, by trying to introduce a sense of outrage in the Israeli population. We try to handle it with great care and patience, and only on very rare occasions do we have to take unusual steps to deliver a message - that Israel is not going to bend to the attempts to stop the peace process.
We can see the problem on the Arab side, on the Palestinian side. We can understand that the Palestinians, very much like us, are divided. It is normal. We are divided, they are divided. But they lack the machinery of decision-making. Whereas in Israel we have the rule of the majority, we are very much afraid that, in the Palestinian case, there is the rule of the rifles, of violence. Not who represents the majority, but who can overpower the majority by violence.
May I say as a personal impression, in my judgment, the majority of the Palestinians are in favor of negotiations, and are in favor of peace. Furthermore, I do believe that most of them, at least many of them, do not see today a better alternative for the Palestinian cause than to go and negotiate and find a solution. The problem is, there is a movement that opposes peace that uses arms. Would they only oppose peace, as a matter of opinion, it will not be too dangerous. But the minute they are trying to assassinate the people who are negotiating, to threaten the party that negotiates, to make a charter in order to kill the peace, in order to threaten Israel, it is a problem both for the Palestinians and for us.
We feel that Hamas is this sort of a movement, with the declared aim to kill people in order to kill the peace process - and to kill people both on the Israeli side and on the Palestinian side. Not only Sergeant Nissim Toledano was assassinated in cold blood, but by luck we prevented the assassination of Palestinians including the life of Faisal Husseini and the lives of young people in schools in Jerusalem. I believe that the Government of Israel is left without a choice but to stop this brutal attempt to decide with terror, to introduce terror, and to frustrate the peace movement on the Palestinian side and on our side.
It wasn't an easy time, neither for the Palestinians nor for us. But as the dust is subsiding, may I say that our deep feeling is that the peace process will go on, and I only add that some official spokesman - like the president of Egypt, King Hussein, the spokesman for Syria - did announce that the peace process will be continued. After all, this is the only way out of the present difficulties.
We believe that the peace process will be renewed once the Clinton administration will take up its place. We were impressed by the declaration of President-Elect Clinton yesterday afternoon. We have answered positively to the call of the secretary - general of the United Nations to send his deputy as an envoy of goodwill to the Middle East, and we shall try to do whatever we can to pacify the situation, to open the road to peace, to look for creative solutions so as to cover the gaps which still exist between us and the various delegations, and to work as hard as we may to build a new Middle East for the benefit of all people, without exception - Arabs, Jews, others. A Middle East for the people, not a Middle East for the rulers. A Middle East of peace, not a Middle East of confrontation.
Q: I'd like to know if the Israeli Government will press the United States to ask Saudi Arabia to cease its support of Hamas, and whether Hamas will be made illegal.
A: The Hamas is outlawed already today, and Israel appealed to everybody not to support an organization which has sworn to kill people and to kill the peace process.
Q: First of all, what is your feeling about the Government decision and do you support it? Second, the Palestinians would like to see the U.N. envoy speak about a return of the deportees. What would you like to see the U.N. envoy do here?
A: On your first question: I am a member of the cabinet. The Israeli cabinet is based on collective responsibility. I share fully the responsibility. The rest is totally irrelevant.
On your second question, the United Nations is not a supergovernment. It cannot change a decision of the Israeli Government because we consider our decisions as legally accepted.
Then, may I say, there are still some options for each of the deportees, if he wants to use, in a legal and reasonable way. Each of them, as a matter of fact, has the right to appeal before a committee, put his case as he sees it. If he is innocent, he has all the chances to come back home. So the deportees still must choose between the legal role and the political impression. The road is open to them legally, because Israel is a legal-oriented country. Let's not forget that they weren't deported forever. They were deported up to two years - from nine months to two years - and whatever legally can be done, is open to them.
Q: Could you answer though what your expectations are of the U.N. envoy's business?
A: I think that we can clarify to the U.N. envoy, what are the options open to the deportees, what are the steps necessary in order to guarantee the continuation of the peace process. The secretary general of the United Nations, in his call made by phone, described the mission of the envoy as a mission of goodwill, and we accepted it in that spirit. We shall really participate and cooperate in renewing the goodwill in the Middle East.
Q: Mr. Peres, you were quoted in today's "Yediot" as saying that there should be no geographical or organizational limits on the Palestinians with whom Israel negotiates. Could you explain what you were talking about precisely? Were you calling for negotiations with the PLO?
A: What I meant is that the differences in the Palestinian camp are not characterized by geographic dimensions, but by political ones. I can see some people say, today in Tunisia, who may support the peace process - some persons, individuals, not the organization.
The present position, which is unchanged, of the Israeli Government is as follows: We are not ready to negotiate with the PLO, because the PLO is still supporting violence and because its sole aim is to create a Palestinian state. On the other hand, we are ready to negotiate with the delegation which is in fact accepted by all parties, here and abroad, and we said it openly and clearly that the Palestinian delegation has the right and the opportunity to consult with whomever they want.
Let me say the following: Suppose we had a choice - either to go into the intricacies of changing the negotiating team, or to go into the possibilities of closing the gaps between us and the Palestinians. To go into the merits, or to go into the administration. We feet very strongly that the time at our disposal should be used clearly to close the gaps in the political sense, to work on the merits; because administratively speaking, there is a delegation. We are aware that the delegation is incomplete and faces a lot of problems, at home and abroad.
We strongly recommend to the Palestinians, without making specific conditions, that they will go and elect their leadership. That is the only chance, in my judgment: to substitute violence with elections; to replace bullets with ballots. We didn't make it a condition. But we recommend to the Palestinians, out of our own experience: go and elect your leaders. We said: the election of the leaders will be a political election. The leaders will not be administrative appointees. They will be politically elected people. They will have to report to the people who will elect them. We are ready to do it in a very short while. Because the Palestinians, too, must ask themselves: how are they going to impose the wish of the majority upon the threat of the minority, that has rifles and submachine guns.
Q: You just said that Israel is a legal country, it has a legal method. Why was it necessary to deny these 415 individuals the right to appeal to the High Court, which has been afforded all previous deportees? Why was it necessary to take them in the middle of the night and deny them that right?
A: We didn't deny them the right. The right was given for the duration of 60 days.
Q: What kind of elections are you referring to? When will this be? Who will be able to participate?
A: Every person that resides in the West Bank or Gaza will have the right to participate in the election. We have estimated that the elections can take place in a matter of two to three months, or four months. We don't condition the date of the elections upon a complete agreement on the autonomy. We are ready that they will have elections first, and then to continue the negotiations. Namely, the elected people will have a double capacity to represent the Palestinians in the negotiations, ard then to become the management of the self-government arrangements. It can be done soon, it can be done politically and fairly.
Q: What about Jerusalem?
A: On Jerusalem, the Government didn't deal yet with the right of the Palestinians who are Jordanian citizens who reside in Jerusalem. The Government did not yet deal. with this problem. In the past, there was a suggestion of an absentee election. But right now it didn't come on the agenda, and I cannot tell you what the decision will be.
Q: You seem to be suggesting now that if somebody is elected who is clearly a PLO representative, that you would accept it.
A: Let me make it clear. If the PLO is an idea, we are not going to censor ideas. If the PLO is a violence, we shall not permit it. What is the PLO? If the PLO is a movement that says: "We want to have a Palestinian state." Everybody is free to advocate or to stand for whatever legally he wishes to do. The problem with the PLO is, first, of all, that they are engaged in acts of violence, and even some acts that took place quite recently, unfortunately, were either directed or supported by the PLO. Even the head of the PLO did not call for an end to the violence. We are not going to censor the view of any Palestinian; and every Palestinian, no matter what his view is, provided he doesn't kill, he doesn't shoot, can vote and can be elected.
-Q: Would you sit across the table from Faisal Husseini?
A: I met Faisal Husseini in the past, and it's not a matter of individuals. It is not for me to nominate Arab leaders or to elect them. I don't understand: Why is there a request that Israel should nominate or elect the leaders of the Palestinian people? Let them do it. They didn't do (so], because they never had elections.
I was the defense minister in the '70s. In 1976 there were elections in the West Bank, honest and fair, without a single complaint. And it was implemented in the best possible way. I am speaking out of experience. We say: Go ahead and elect your leaders. It is not for me to nominate Faisal Husseini, to reject Faisal Husseini, to elect him, or anybody else. Let the Palestinians do their own election. Let the Palestinians have their own choice.
Q: A Palestinian residing outside the West Bank, like in Jerusalem, Faisal Husseini; or like in Tunis, a certain Mr. Arafat. Could they be elected?
A: About Tunisia, it is out of the question, because the elections are concerning the people who reside here. About Jerusalem I did answer that no decision has been taken, and I am not ready to use this press conference to make the decision. There are many other issues that no decision was yet reached. The sense of the negotiations is to negotiate and to look for solutions. We are not looking for difficulties. We are looking for ways to overcome them. I feel that on many occasions we are successful in overcoming the differences and the difficulties.
Q: The expulsions have won the condemnation of practically every Palestinian in the world, from moderates to Islamic fundamentalists, even Israeli Arabs. How do you figure that this is going to help you, the moderates, or the peace process?
A: It Outs the truth not only before us, but also before the Palestinians. I would ask every Palestinian: How are you going to guarantee that if your own people, a majority of them, are in favor of peace, how are you suggesting to prevent the killing of the wish of the majority? By hand grenades, by rifles, by mines? What is your suggestion? After' all, the Palestinians cannot just complain. They must tell us, as a partner. The Palestinians have to tell us how are they going to impose peacefully the wish of their own majority upon their own people. Otherwise, a tiny little minority can kill the wish of the many.
Q: But even the moderates are saying: Why deport them? Why not put them on trial?
A: Some of them even said: Why not send them to death? This country has never had a death sentence, but on one occasion - in the case of Eichmann. In Israel, too, you have an argument. Some people say: 'Let's have capital punishment." And we say: "Look, we prefer the deportation, as difficult as it may sound, rather than to execute people." What are they suggesting? How are we going to defend our own people? Because there was a terrible outrage in this country. Five, persons, one after the other were assassinated, and then again. The information that reached us was substantial: To kill children, to kill leaders. What should we do? What is the Palestinian proposal? The Palestinians cannot have that luxury, just to criticize or complain. They must have the obligation to suggest a serious alternative.
Q: You said there is a need for appeasement now, and I assume you meant appeasement towards the Palestinians. What specifically is Israel going to do to appease the Palestinians?
A: There are many suggestions on the agenda, like for example opening up the territories to a more active economic policy; to facilitate investment in the West Bank; to make the crossing of the bridges easier, financially and otherwise; to introduce a sense of respect and safety among the Palestinians as well. I believe it is to our interest that the Palestinians residing in the West Bank and Gaza will feel at home, will feel safe, will be convinced that they are dealing with a party that is seriously interested in seeing them arriving at peace, arriving at a point when they can run their own lives. The self-government proposal is a clear departure from the present situation. It is an invitation to emerge to another destiny for the Palestinian people; whereas Israel is trying to introduce as much goodwill and assurances as we can.
Q: Why were these measures not taken before - the economy, the bridge restriction - and this will isolate the Harnas movement even before the deportation?
A: The Hamas movement is not connected with the realities of the situation in the West Bank. It has some theoretical desires, including the elimination of the State of Israel. They are in the domain of a purely religious fanaticism, and at a point where reason stops and unreasonable assumptions are beginning to take over.
Since the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union, we consider Khomeinism as the greatest danger that the Middle East is facing - not only us, but the Arabs as well. It has many of the characteristics of Communism: It is fanatic, it is ideological, it is religious, it claims, like Communism, that the goal justifies the means - that you can kill, that you can bribe, that you can threaten. It has the same inclination to export their ideas; they have a finger in every pie. They are trying to introduce instability in Lebanon with Hizballah, in Somalia, in Sudan, in Egypt, in North Africa. They are quite rich, like the Communist state, which is a rich state though the people are poor. Iran's oil income is $15 billion a year, and they have an ambition to get a nuclear option. I think this is a menace to many of the Arab people.
We do not identify Islam with Khomeinism. We distinguish clearly, not only us but even King Hussein in his latest speech referred to it, and if I'm not wrong even King Fahd had a reference to this distinction. So we have a common problem, and Iran is financing largely the activities of Hamas.
Q: The 13 months of the negotiations did not bring anything to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
A: No. Let's distinguish between tactics and content. There was a great deal of progress in the negotiations, though the Palestinians occasionally, on many occasions, are putting on a dissatisfied appearance. But I'm afraid that this is part of their tactics in the negotiations. We have offered to the Palestinians what we call a "mixed model" - namely, that the self-government authority is not just in reference to the authority of the government, but also in reference to the infrastructure, namely land and water. I think we have suggested a more than fair proposal. I have reason to believe that many of them thought that Israel was very advanced in her proposals.
Q: Are you talking about changing the sequence of Camp David? Are you talking of elections ahead of the autonomy agreement?
A: Yes, that was offered to the Palestinians. There is nothing in Camp David that says that the elections should take place after the full agreement. The elections can precede the full agreement.
Q: Your coalition partners in Meretz have asked the Government to complement the deportations by opening a dialogue with the PLO. I understand what you said about the need for elections among the Palestinians, but what will you answer Meretz about opening a dialogue that might have allowed you to ask the Palestinians what they would like you to do about Hama?
A: If I was listening carefully to what Meretz has suggested, they expect also the PLO to change and not just to change the attitude toward the PLO. May I say that we have a delegation to negotiate with. It is not a situation that we do not have a partner. We do have, and the partner is fully recognized by everybody, including the PLO. So why all of a sudden invest all of our energies and ingenuity to change the negotiating team, instead of doing by really trying to find a solution for the remaining problems.
Q: You had your delegations in Washington a few days ago when this whole crisis was developing in Israel. Why didn't you ask your delegations in Washington to speak to the Palestinians and ask them what they thought about this idea of deportation, and to speak with the Lebanese and ask them what they thought about the idea of receiving 400 deportees?
A: It would be a wonderful idea if the delegation in Washington will be in charge of the Hamas. But to the best of my knowledge, the Hamas is trying to destroy the delegation, its purposes and the people they represent. So it was simply the wrong address to ask what to do.
Q-. But you said before that you wanted to ask the Palestinians what they think should be done with their own people?
A: Provided they will give an answer that will stop violence. If the answer is: "Let's talk and shoot" - it's not an answer. Then we shall continue to talk, but it is our duty to stop the shooting.
Q: The reports from Lebanon say that the deportees are now effectively blockaded. If the question of getting food and other needs arises and Israel is the only source of this, will the Government agree to some kind of arrangement? And secondly, you talked at the outset about progress having been made with Syria and Jordan. I wonder if you could tell us any more about it?
A: On the first question, they are under Lebanese rule, and it is really for the Lebanese to decide to open or to close the ways needed to support the deportees.
On your second question, actually we did agree with the Jordanians on an agenda. In my judgment, it was more than an agenda. It was a blueprint for a possible peace. The Jordanians wanted some corrections or improvements. Then we tried to have a meeting of minds. I do believe we are not too far away from reaching an understanding. In addition to that, while having more or less an umbrella, formal or informal, we started some practical negotiations on issues of water, environment, economy, and other issues. Our feeling is that there is an atmosphere of business and goodwill. If the opportunity will come, I would say we have more of an agreement than of a disagreement with the Jordanians.
Q: You were out of the country when the vote was taken in the cabinet last week, although I presume you were consulted. Are you absolutely convinced that deporting these Hamas people was the only way, the actual best way to deal with the situation?
A: I was out of the country, I wasn't out of the Government. I said already that I share full responsibility for the decision.
Q: Prime Minister Rabin said yesterday that he ordered the shooting of mortar shells to scare the Hamas, the deportees. If they choose to go back toward the security zone, will Israel use force to prevent them?
A: I think Israel would try to prevent them from doing so with the necessary care not to have casualties among them.
Q: You started your remarks by saying that you were confident the peace process would continue. Could you tell us why you are so confident, given that the Palestinians themselves are saying that the process has been dealt a death blow by these deportations, and that they would not go to negotiate unless you adopted some very specific measures?
A: King Hussein said the negotiations should be continued. The Syrians said they will attend the negotiations. President Mubarak called upon the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table.
The Palestinians could clearly, surely, can adopt the Hamas position - and then what? It is not only that Israel thinks that her best alternative is peace. I believe, the Palestinians, too, don't have a better alternative. But to accept the Hamas position, to become a camp of refusal, and again to miss a real opportunity to move ahead toward their own destiny? Sure, everybody can help himself. But does it make sense for the Palestinians to remain alone, outside the negotiations, and wait for what? Could the Palestinians seriously control the Hamas? Or if they cannot control the Hamas, should they agree that the Hamas will control them? It doesn't make any sense.
Q: I wasn't aware that King Hussein said he wanted to continue the talks.
A: He appeared on two television interviews in the United States, yesterday and the day before yesterday.
Q: Since you have this new military order, are you going to deport more Palestinians in the future?
A: Deportation is not our policy. Deportation is an exception to our policy. We wish we could have avoided this particular act. Deportation is a reaction, is a measure to stop a terrible danger. It is not a choice, and it is not a policy, I hope wholeheartedly that there will be no need to return again to this sort of a measure.
Q: Did I understand correctly you saying that these expulsion orders are actually between nine months and two years?
A: Yes.
Q: So deportees could come back in nine months?
A: Some of them, yes.
Q: Does each have a specific time?
A: Yes, each of them has a specific time, and each of them has an individual right - I repeat it - to appeal to a committee of appeals that has the full power to change the order of deportation. It is open to them.
Q: On the deportee's return in two years, if that's the outside. Is that conditional, or do they absolutely have the right to return?
A: Absolutely. It is limited to two years. It is 'not a permanent deportation.
Q: General Yatom said yesterday that it was conditional on their not engaging in terrorist activities.
A: The applies to everybody. Whoever will participate in terrorist activities will be arrested, automatically, no matter where he is.
Q: There was a Palestinian press conference with Faisal Husseini just a little while ago. He said that it would not be out of the question for the Palestinians to take up armed struggle since the peace talks are in such a static state. What would you answer to that?
A: I hope that Faisal Husseini will be convinced, like all of us, that the best for all parties, including the Palestinian party, and us, is to negotiate. There were five wars between us and the Arabs. The Arabs didn't win any war. We won all the wars, but we didn't win a solution. The only solution that was reached is in peace negotiations, not on-the battlefield. It is in the negotiations between the Egyptians and ourselves. And I strongly recommend to Faisal Husseini to prefer reason and to look at history.