The interview was devoted to the state of talks between Israel and Syria.
The prime minister repeated his broad ideas of what the key elements of an
Israel-Syria agreement should be. He linked symbolic withdrawal on the
Golan to parallel progress in normalization of ties with Syria. He
reiterated that in the final analysis, the Israeli people will have to
decide on a peace treaty with Syria which would involve withdrawal on the
Golan Heights. This could be done in the form of a referendum or in the
context of general elections. Excerpts:
Question: Now that this cork has been released, what is going to come out
of the bottle?
Answer: We are dealing with neither corks nor bottles. We are engaged in
serious negotiations with the goal of both achieving a peace treaty with
Syria - that will give us peace, that is, in itself, a main component of
peace - and of course, agreeing on four components with Syria. The first
component is the peace border. There is no agreement between Syria and
Israel on where the peace border will be. The second component is the
duration of the withdrawal to that peace border, which has yet to be
agreed upon, how many years it will take. The third component is the need
to meet the normalization test over a number of years. That is, a symbolic
withdrawal on the Golan Heights and putting the Syrians to the test,
vis-a-vis the need - after this withdrawal, in the framework of the
overall agreement - to implement normalization, i.e., an embassy in
Damascus, borders open to the movement of people and goods. The fourth
component is security procedures that will ensure that everything that
happens is indeed implemented in a series of demilitarized zones, areas of
reduced forces, early warning procedures, a presence which will supervise
the military appendix of the peace treaty, as we have in Sinai, regarding
our peace treaty with Egypt. What has been agreed to now, concerns the
fourth component only, the security procedures.
Question: In your set of four components, this is fourth, last. Was this
according to a list of priorities: peace border, duration of
withdrawal...?
Answer: No, each of them, or - to be more exact - in regard to an
agreement between Syria and Israel that covers all four components, they
are the conditions for signing a peace treaty. It is impossible to deal
with each component separately. At the moment, the agreement between us
and the Syrians - an agreement that was achieved through the United States
- deals with security procedures, because they are very important, in a
reality that is not yet based on peace, for example, like between us and
Egypt and between us and Jordan.
Question: Mr. Prime Minister, can the overcoming of this obstacle ensure
that in the coming stages it will be easier to reach solutions?
Answer: I think that experience has taught us that we should address
matters as they can be assessed, at the same time that we talk, that we
talk among ourselves. I very much hope that we will build confidence and,
if successful, achieve an agreement on security procedures. This could
make things easier in other areas. But why deal in speculation? The test
for any political issue is when you achieve, or do not achieve, an
agreement with that Arab side which is negotiating with the objective of
putting an end to wars and violence and establishing peaceful
relations.
Question: Then, it is possible to say everything is now open, the players
are returning to the field: the officers, in order to discuss security
procedures, with the opening point being that there is no agreement on
demilitarization, force limits and warning stations.
Answer: From our point of view, the obstacle up to now has been the Syrian
demand to define - something we agreed to - what the goals are and what
the framework is. The Syrians wanted to determine in advance that the
principle of parity - which, in the overall view, means that each
arrangement must give security to both sides - would also apply to
geographic considerations.
Question: And on this point, did we really get what we wanted?
Answer: On this point. This is not to say that the Syrians did not insist
on it in the negotiations, but the framework does not require agreement in
advance on parity.
Question: You previously mentioned the building of confidence, at least
officially. In its information efforts, Syria continues to maintain a very
harsh - even extremist - line. This latest achievement is being touted as
an Israeli capitulation.
Answer: So? We are used to the fact that, occasionally, when an Arab
player agrees to something, he must present it as an achievement. It does
not matter to me if they have such achievements in the future too.
Question: There is at least the impression that a war of nerves has been
conducted for some time, behind fortified positions, until someone - you
or Assad - shows a crack, some sign of a willingness to compromise, maybe
weakness, depending on how you look at it. In this war, assuming that that
is what it is, how will you instruct our officers, who will soon be
leaving for Washington?
Answer: As you will remember, in the first stage, the officers' talks
began in the autumn of last year. There was a meeting between Syrian Chief
of Staff Shihabi and Lt.-Gen. Ehud Barak, then Chief of Staff. There was a
series of conversations which continued for eight hours, in which both
sides presented their views regarding the security procedures. In fact,
some of what was agreed to, was based on those same conversations held
previously and are meant to complete them, in order to enable the talks to
continue.
Question: Now, Mr. Prime Minister, there is a strengthening of the
domestic front against you. The Golan communities are again threatening to
escalate the war against the agreement and are saying that they will bring
you down, before you bring them down from the Golan Heights.
Answer: I realize that there is a debate and that the debate is
legitimate. I only want to remind the Israeli public that as Prime
Minister, I made it known and I reiterate, that the agreement - if it
leads to a significant withdrawal, without my defining its territorial
scope - will be presented to the people for a decision in a referendum.
That is, if and when we achieve a peace treaty that satisfies the
Government, the Government will present it to the people and the people
will decide if they are for or against the agreement. I think that such a
thing has never been done, even when - for example - we withdrew from all
of Sinai and uprooted the entire Israeli presence in Sinai, in order to
sign a peace treaty with Egypt. I think that that was a very important
decision that was to the credit of the then Prime Minister, the late
Menahem Begin, who had the courage, the imagination and the ability to
make that decision, whose benefits - positive benefits from Israel's
political and strategic standpoint - we are enjoying today.