In a wide-ranging, off-the-record briefing to the members of the diplomatic corps stationed in Israel, the foreign minister reviewed the realities of the new era of modern weapons, mass poverty, technological change, ecological deterioration and serious economic problems. He stated that Israel will address itself to these issues and processes in its relations with other nations. He then spelled out Israel's immediate goals: intensive bilateral negotiations, resolution of the issue of electing the Palestinian negotiating partners, defining the scope and authority of the Palestinian administrative council. On the multilateral level Mr. Peres called fo the creation of an economic and political pillar in the Middle East. He then answered questions dealing with the settlements freeze, the roles of the UN and of Iraq in the peace process and the impact of the Intifada. He stated that while there would be a freeze on new settlements, houses whose construction had been started would be completed Text:
We feel in the country the change which took place all over the world, and like many nations and peoples, we do feel very strongly that we are today at conflict, not on a national base and not on a people base. It is not just a conflict between countries and nations, which is tradition and history. It is also a conflict, or a challenge, or a confrontation between every nation and a new age. We have to face and answer new developments and new processes which are not necessarily national and which are not necessarily state-like, but which are embracing the whole life and the whole world. If I have to enumerate them, I would say:
Number one - the great problem which each of us and all of us are facing is modern weapons: missiles that don't respect frontiers, non-conventional weapons that endanger the lives of so many people. And how to tame it and how to handle it is a worldwide problem, not just a national one, or a regional one.
I do believe that the same goes for poverty, which arouses so many problems, regionally, worldwide, and even in each nation. I do believe that poverty is probably the engine of religious extremacy, wherever you have a failed economy - let's say in the Eastern Bloc - you raise the national flag to cover up for an economic want. Or here, whenever you have starvation, you will return to pray to heaven and become a fundamentalist to overcome that problem.
I do believe the third issue that will become more and more of a telling nature, is the ecological deterioration of other places. Next to bread and maybe for bread itself, it is the fresh air which conditions our life. As one of the famous authors said, the most important commodity in life is being distributed freely. This is the air we breathe, and people don't know how to use it. The air which is necessary for our existence was commercialized and is threatening our life.
It is because of that, from an Israeli point of view, as a must, together with the help of the United States and the Soviet Union which are sponsoring the peace process, and hopefully other nations as well (I shall return to it in a moment), we have organized two major efforts. One, dealing with countries and nations, and the other, dealing with issues and processes.
The bilateral negotiations are an attempt to overcome national conflict. The multilateral negotiations are an attempt to deal with new realities. The bi-national is an attempt to solve ' old conflicts; the multinational is an attempt to build a new region, like each of us has to in the future.
In the bilaterals, we have basically to deal with three or four countries or nations. We have to solve our conflict with the Palestinian people, and I am speaking for a party that has a moral consideration. Namely, we do not want to become a dominator of another people against their wish. Nations have interests. I believe nations have also values, and for us the Jewish people, the values are occasionally our interests, and we cannot overlook it. We don't want under any circumstances to become a dominating people or an occupying country.
We have our problems as a result of it, with the Jordanians. So the differences between Jordan and us are of a limited nature. I think if it wouldn't be for the Palestinian issue, we already would have had peace with Jordan a long time ago. And we have a serious problem with the Syrians because of the Golan Heights. The Syrians claiming it back, and we considering that this is highly important for the security of Israel. And we have our issues with Lebanon, which are of a passing nature in my judgment, since Israel doesn't want to keep neither a piece of land, nor a part of the waters of Lebanon, nor do we have any interest to play a role in the Lebanese politics. We are busy with our own.
Fortunate enough in the Middle East, we have a very important partner, and that is Egypt, which is constantly on the side of peace, trying to carry the Arab world toward peace and keeping its promises, which resulted from the Camp David Accords with Israel.
This is the structure of the bilateral negotiations.
When it comes to the multilateral negotiations, we have five committees. One, for the economic future of the Middle East, another for arms control, a third for the refugees, a fourth for the water issues, and a fifth for ecology. This is in fact an early attempt to build a new Middle East.
Personally, I am convinced that if we shall even have peace with our neighbors, but the region will remain tense, divided, poor, and conflicting, the peace will not hold water. The most beautiful painting we will hang on a deteriorating wall, will fall down. And what we need is not just good paintings, but strong walls to hold them, and the Middle East are the walls upon which we want to hang our paintings.
May I say generally that we are also less in fear of the so-called world diplomatic community. If in previous times, like all of us who are basically oriented and dependent upon the national sides and the question was on whose side are you, today more than the world, on the side of peace. Not on whose side are you, but which future are you supporting. And we feel very strongly that even nations that were far away from Israel, today are sincerely interested to see the Middle East becoming a pacified region, and [that] these very heavy and long clouds which are hanging on the skies of the Middle East will disappear to the relief of all nations.
Our Government has decided to approach the two attempts in a very serious mood, and we are aware that four years is not a terribly long period of time. You wake up one morning and the four years are over. It is very dangerous when you consider the element of time to walk through the time without having a watch on your hand and a calendar in your pocket. And to understand that what we shall not do today, God knows if we shall be able to do in a year's time or two years' time.
So we are serious, and we would like to move ahead as fast as we may.
On the bilateral negotiations, we can say there are already some changes, and I shall enumerate them.
Change number one - in fact we stopped the new settlements. We came to this conclusion out of our own considerations, because we understand perfectly well that you cannot have peace negotiations and added settlements at the same time. As you cannot put water and fire in the same cocktail. It is contradictory in nature and reason. No matter what the rhetorics are, but in fact we have drawn our conclusions.
Number two - in the meeting with Secretary Baker, while he was here, we were happy to agree to have the meetings of the bilateral committees as soon as possible in Washington, at the end of August, and handle it in a continuous manner. Not just in one step, or a few days, and over. But really to try to sit down and use the time to try and reach agreement.
The third change is that we are less concerned with the trivialities of the negotiations, the marginal part of it, and more taken by the heart of the matter. What I mean for us, the venue of the negotiations is not as important as it used to be for the previous Government. We are ready to go to Washington, to Rome, to Cairo - we know the hotels in all those places, and there is room for all of us. Or elsewhere - Istanbul for example.
Then again we are trying to make the representation a secondary issue, and unless it is not in straight contradiction to our national interest, we are trying to look for a solution, to bridge over the differences. I remember that one of the British poets that I like very much defined once a pier as a frustrated bridge. We are not looking for piers, we are looking for bridges. Namely, that begins in one place and winds up in the other place, so you can cross over it. And that is what we are looking for on the administrative side of the negotiations.
Then, already when the secretary was here, we had tackled the main issue between us and the Palestinians. In my judgment, the main issue at the beginning of the negotiations is the issue of elections: when and what for. Would the elections, say, be for the purpose of electing the negotiating partner on the Palestinian side, we would waste a year to elect or to have elected a new delegation on the Palestinian side. And we feel very strongly that once we have already a Palestinian delegation, let it remain as it is, if it is elegant or not, if it is completely kosher or not, we are not going to ask any Chief Rabbi. The fact is that there is a Palestinian delegation and also maybe they are a little bit more open by saying we don't care with whom this delegation is going to consult or be in touch. It is none of our business. We are going to judge what we have on the table. And on the table we have a delegation that we can negotiate with.
Then again, the problem was what should the elections lead to? To elect a legislative council or to elect an administrative council. Would we agree to the election of a legislative council, in fact we would agree to a Palestinian state even before we had had autonomy or we are going to have autonomy? And for that reason, we have suggested strongly, and that is our view, that we have to go and elect an administrative council which will fit the purpose of forming a self-government of an interim nature in the West Bank. And it is also very much in accordance with Camp David.
Secretary Baker has reported to us as though the Palestinian side is willing to accept the two ideas: namely to negotiate first and to elect later. And secondly, to have elections for what is called "AC" - Administrative Council -though we were informed that this is an impression, not yet a decision. And we take it as a signal, not as a formal conclusion. Now I am coming to the second part - of the multilateral negotiations - to describe our approach.
Number one, we would like to have the participation of the maximum [number of] nations as we can. We don't exclude anybody. Whoever wants to contribute, positively, constructively, to these negotiations, why not?
We know there is a readiness on the part of the European Community to play a wider role in it. Welcome. We are not talking just on the financial side, we are talking about the business of building a new area. It is a construction philosophy, and not a collecting philosophy. We are not looking to collect money; we are looking to construct a region that can provide money. Because today to build structures that can improve the economy is more important that just to inject money in the economy itself. I am speaking as a former minister of finance. Money comes hardly and goes easily. The right structures can really improve the lot of the people.
We feel that the continent that we can learn mostly about the future of the Middle East is Europe - frankly. My own historic conclusions are borne from the Europe/European experiment. After the First World War, the European nations came together and tried to do whatever they thought is necessary to prevent a Second World War. The emphasis was on technicalities. To limit the calibers of the guns; to limit the size of the armies; to build small warships. The saying at the time was that a small warship is a small war and a large warship is a large war.
As we know, this was a complete failure. It didn't prevent Hitter from building pocket battleships - so they were called - they were as dangerous as large ships. They assembled a shadow of an army. It was the largest Germany ever built. And to build secretly, not guns, but missiles that have endangered the safety of London and the destinies of so many other people. It was only after the Second World War that Europe came to a different conclusion, turning from technicalities to structures. The Europeans have introduced a common market, creating a motivation for a better economy. Together with the United States, they built the NATO organization to defend their territories. They have built the EEC and many other economic, social, cultural structures, opening the borders and looking upon Europe as a whole in a different age.
I think the same is true for the Middle East. We have to build at least two pillars so the Middle East will change its life: One - an economic pillar; Two - a political pillar. Or maybe before those two pillars, we have to introduce a new approach very much like what was done in the case of the Helsinki Conference, what is called the CSCE - the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe. And telling what is the truism of our life: that if nations want to live better and want to have a better security, they must introduce democracy, they must respect human rights, they must go for a common market, or for a market economy, which is the same. Because democracy is not just the right to elect representatives; democracy is also the right to select commodities. And whoever has a better commodity, has a better chance to be selected, for the consumption of the people.
In the Middle East, this is too necessary. We have to convince all nations, that they should go for their own well-being, to a market economy, to the respect of human rights, to pluralistic institutions, and only if I can use already, democratic institutions. Maybe some kings will not like it. One king has a wonderful sense of humor, and that is King Hussein. He once remarked, that finally in the whole world there will remain only five kings, four in the cards, and one in England. So kings don't have a very brilliant future. But we have to guard our homes and then, to build in the Middle East, a common market, gradually, patiently.
In the Middle East, we have today 220 million people. More or less 150 million on the African side of the story; 70 million people on the Asian side of the story. But for the oil-producing countries, the standard of living is extremely low - from $99-$2,000 per capita. Whereas in Europe it is $20,000. And I am sure that if we can elevate the standard of living for all people, Arabs and Jews, Muslims and Christians, from $2,000 per annum to $10,000 per annum, it won't be just an economic change, it will be as well, a political change. And a political change means that people will become more realistic in their feelings and approaches.
On the other hand, we have to build a political pillar very much similar to the Helsinki Conference: to sit together and look for ways and means to arrest the proliferation of nuclear weapons or the falling of non-conventional arms in the hands of irresponsible leaders; to see what we can do vis-a-vis the missiles, which are carrying dangerous loads across time, and space, and frontiers; to try to open the borders to establish confidence-building measures, a new psychological climate, and to do it with great wisdom and hope.
Those are actually the heart of our policies for the future. A - to cope with the call of modern life. B - to bring the negotiations on the bilateral committees to a successful end. C - to deal seriously with the region as such. We believe that the dangers, as well as the prospects are rather regional more than national. Missiles don't respect borders. And water doesn't go through customs. The maps are maps, the opportunities or the dangers are not following the maps of old politics. So, we have a serious agenda. We are not blind to the difficulties, to the obstacles, to the prejudices. We know there is a time of good will in the world. Maybe it is also a window of opportunity in the Middle East. Surely, we as a party, got a mandate from our people to do those things and we are obliged to do it. We are serious about it. We didn't make promises before the elections to forget them after the elections. Maybe if we shall advance decisively and clearly and promptly, we can achieve our goals.
I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting a remark that was once made by Andre Malreaux who said that mothers who have their boys serving in the air force as pilots are praying all the time that their boys will fly low and slow. They don't understand that to fly high and fast is by far safer.
Questions and Answers
Q: - Regarding UN resolutions 242 and 338.
A: We have accepted it, and we are going to respect it. Our attitude to the resolution is included in the language of the invitation that was sent to all the countries inviting them to come to Madrid. In that invitation, there is a clear reference to 242 and 338, which became part and parcel of the present Government's platform.
Q: - Role of the UN in the peace process
A: We are going to took at the matter. Basically, we feel that the United Nations should come at the concluding part of the story, and not at the early part of the story. We feel it is too heavy an organization to conduct very delicate bilateral negotiations. And I think, to start with, to proceed with, we have already a good sponsorship. But we are going to respect the United Nations, and we don't have any reasons to insult it. Upon the visit of Mr. Rabin to the United States, he will meet with Butrous Ghali and I will do likewise during the assembly in which we will try to reach an understanding about the fashion in which the United Nations will participate in the talks.
Q: Concerning the freezing of settlements, a few weeks ago, there was a still a difference being made between political and security settlements. Now has that been changed ... the word "freeze," is that a temporary arrangement or is it a more permanent arrangement?
A: We have here two problems: one is what to do with houses that were already started by the previous Government. We feel that by contract and reality we are not going to dismantle them. We are counting the number of the houses, we don't know exactly how many are they. In our talks with the Secretary here, we were extremely careful not to mention numbers because we weren't aware ourselves about the exact figures. But anyway, what was started, will be accomplished.
Then there is the second issue, and this is about the thickening of the existing settlements, which results from the daily life. If you have more children, you need more kindergartens. And we are not going out officially to stop a settlement which is alive to build what is necessary for its living, within reason.
Then when it comes to the third issue, and the distinction between political and security settlements, may I remind you that we have also announced a change in the national priority: namely, that we are not going to invest more money in the territories, but we are going to invest the money in the absorption of the immigration. So the language is a little bit richer than just one definition. And in fact, we do not intend to build, at least not at the time, the settlements in the West Bank or in the Gaza Strip. May I remind you, that we were together with the Likud in a National Unity Government, and in six years, we have constructed only six settlements in fact. And that may show something about our inclination. Since then, we didn't become richer.
And we have informed the United States out of our own free choice, that if we shall get the loan guarantees, it will be totally devoted for the absorption of the new immigrants, and nothing else, and we mean it.
Q: On the issue of building settlements, can you tell us, have you reached an agreement with Secretary of State [Baker]... on the definition of ... political and security settlements?
A: I think we reached an understanding on the realities; we didn't reach yet an understanding on the definitions, Now we are working on the definitions. I think when Mr. Rabin will visit with the president of the United States, we shall have, I hope so, an agreed definition.
Q: - Possible escalation against Iraq and the peace process
A: Well, I wish there wouldn't be an escalation, as I wish we wouldn't have a problem by a name of Saddam Hussein. He is a pain in the neck for everybody, and for the Arab countries. Let's not forget the political side of the Gulf War. It was for the first time, that you have had a coalition made of Western forces, the Soviet Union, Europeans, and Arab and Moslem countries. It was a coalition that was established like never before. And I am sure that Arab countries wouldn't go to fight the Iraqi army if they would feel that this is against the Arab interest and against the Moslem interest. So I hope it won't endanger the peace process. May I say that the existence of Saddam Hussein and his policies are more of a danger to the peace than the attempt to stop him to get rid of this problem.
Q: I have the impression that ... the accent of your foreign policy toward the peace process, the new Government is accentuating more in the direction of the Palestinian issue ...
A: To look for a settlement of the Palestinian problem will be a very painful experiment for the Israeli side. In all those negotiations Israel will have to give up things which are tangible and get back things which are intangible. Land is tangible. Peace is intangible. The same goes for Syria.
We felt that to deal simultaneously with the two issues is a little bit too heavy for our people, and we would prefer frankly to start with one, and then go to the other. But, we have to also face facts of life. The fact of life is that Syria was invited. So it is a different situation. Before it was invited, it was one situation, after it was invited and to reject it is a different situation. So we have decided not to exclude the Syrians from the negotiations.
We shall be very careful not to tie up the Syrian issue with the Palestinian issue, and we made our message clear. The Syrians were asking why did we forget in the guiding lines of our Government to mention 242 and 338, and our reply was, well you have it in the Madrid invitation. Furthermore, we said, since you could have come to Madrid upon this invitation, why do you need more to continue the negotiation. You already have in the invitation, the language which was accepted. Secondly, we made it clear to the Syrians, that we are ready to talk and negotiate the problems without prior conditions. They can put on the table whatever they have on their minds, and we shall do it, whatever we have on our minds.
Then, I believe, we have nominated a person to head this delegation, who is both
a real authority on Syria and a man who is looking for openings in the situation. I do hope this may improve the relations.
So, we are not going to reject the Syrian opportunity, though I must admit very frankly that we see a problem in Syria. In Syria, it is worthwhile to negotiate with one person who is not very approachable, who is not a man of an open mind. The rest is an assembly of guesses and speculations. And I don't say that there are not speculations and rumors coming from Syria, but we know it is dependent upon a single man who keeps all the cards close to his chest, and is very economic on his expression, and who prefers a poker-play upon any other game. So, we see the difficulties, yet we understand that we have to make peace with Syria too.
Finally, peace is indivisible. It must comprise all nations, and it must embrace all issues. And if we shall have a window of opportunity, we shall not miss paying attention to it.
Q: The saying goes that the Arabs don't miss an opportunity to lose an opportunity ... do you think at this time they will lose the opportunity again?
A: I think you rightly mentioned, there is nothing like an Arab policy, there are nations with different policies. They may have the same language, the same tradition, the same religion. But not necessarily the same policies. Even when we are talking about fundamentalism, I would say that the fundamentalist in Jordan, and the fundamentalist in Algeria, and the fundamentalist in Um-el-Fahm in Israel, are not of the same fundamentalist approach. It means different things in different countries.
Now, what we are a little bit disappointed again, the demand is that Israel will go into what is being called confidence-building measures. We did it, in the way we handled the settlements, in the way we have opened the institute which is headed by Faisal Husseini, in the way we have handled the conflict at An-Najah University, "But we wonder, if on the Arab side, if there are any confidence-building measures. Even confidence-building measures must be of a mutual approach.
We are hoping that a change in the settlement policy will bring an end to the Arab boycott, or 'at least part of the Arab boycott. Nothing has happened. We hope that the Arab side will take a deeper interest In the fate of the economic situation in the West Bank and Gaza. There too, the Arab world could be of great help not to Israel, but to the people who reside there. And may I tell you with very deep conviction, it is not to our interest or desire that the people on the West Bank and Gaza will suffer. It doesn't give us any joy or satisfaction.
So confidence-building measures must be of a mutual nature, because don't forget, we have to answer our people too. And we cannot appear all the time as a giveaway party or a party that is all the time being asked from and never giving as a compensation for these policies.
Q: [Inaudible] ...
A: Well, human rights and its complexities are a result of the Intifada. I don't believe that this is our own free choice. Or this is really the way we would like to face our Palestinian neighbors. And I do hope that the negotiations will be continued and proceeded, so terror will subside and the human rights in Israel will reach the level we are interested in reaching. I believe this is a very open answer to your question.
Q: - Statements of settlers to build against Government policy
A: Right now it is more rhetorics than enterprises. and as long as this is a rhetoric threat, we shall guard our tongue. We have enough on our shoulders. If it will become a problem, we shall handle it. Because we look upon the settlements in the West Bank with a double eye, or with two eyes. One eye is about the national priorities: to give priority to the absorption of immigration ... momentum of settlements is in contradiction with the momentum of peace.
Q: [Unclear]
A: We welcome the agreement with EFTA which will be signed in the middle of September officially. We appreciate very much this agreement. Today, Israel has three different agreements, economically speaking. One is with the United States of America - a Free Trade Zone. The other is with the Common Market - being an affiliate member. And the third is with EFTA, which is very similar to our agreement with the Common Market. The paradox of the situation is that we are, we have closed frontiers with our neighbors, and open frontiers with faraway countries. I hope we shall reach the same situation here.
Now, we are doing quite extensive business with the EFTA countries, as well as with the European countries, the Common Market. I believe it is, more or less, 30% with the United States, maybe 35% or 40% with the Common Market, and another 20% with the EFTA countries. And we are a serious importer, not just an exporter. We hope it will be developed, and eventually in the long run, we hope the relations will be between markets more than between nations. Because we live in a world where markets are as important or even more important than countries.