|
Mar 12, 1993
Interview: ’LET THE PARTIES NEGOTIATE FACE TO FACE’
By David Makovsky
On the eve of his meeting with President Clinton, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave an exclusive interview to The Jerusalem Post’s David Makovsky. Rabin discussed the current state of the peace process, American aid and domestic issues including unemployment, education and economic growth.
You’ve made it clear that the peace talks will not succeed unless there is prior coordination between the US and Israel. How can your trip now boost the prospects for reaching an accord with Syria? Will such coordination take place on the more conceptual, strategic level or more on the technical level?
The US has declared its readiness to be a full partner: the meaning of full partner, to the best of my knowledge, is not to replace the first responsibility of the parties. Full partnership is not to come instead of the parties, it is not arbitration, it is not mediation, it is creating the kind of atmosphere, the kind of assistance that will enable keeping the face-to-face negotiations … I am sure that the visit of the secretary of state {Warren Christopher} created an entirely different mood in the region that … would bring about the resumption of the peace negotiations.
In return for the Sinai II accord in 1975, you obtained from the US substantial funding and technology, such as F-15s and F-16s, as well as aid. However, there is a new climate in the US, more emphasis on some domestic issues. Do you think it is possible to offset security risks on the Golan by obtaining greater US assurances? Can you be as specific as possible?
I will not discuss before my meeting with President Clinton any details of the talks that I intend to conduct with him. I will not go beyond the known positions of the government of Israel. The purpose of the visit is a need to create a better understanding, to see the options. But I am not coming with a blueprint for a solution — no maps.
I will not discuss, now, compensation or anything of this kind. I am interested to find a solution to peace. I believe that peace cannot be achieved without compromises on both sides; and from Israel’s point of view the peace has to give us security because peace that doesn’t give security to Israel is no meaningful peace.
Are you ruling out any discussions with the US on offsetting security assurances on the Golan?I said what I will discuss; I am not going to say what I will not discuss. I am open for discussions, for an exchange of views with the president. I don’t know what he will bring up.
Peace talks with Syria
You have repeatedly said that you are not going to get into the issue of Golan withdrawal until the Syrians discuss what is the essence of peace. But, as you know, you cannot divorce capabilities from intentions. Can you envisage a situation whereby Syria will agree to the type of peace Israel would like but won’t deal with security issues such as the redeployment of Syrian troops between the Golan and Damascus, or perhaps even reducing the Syrian standing army? How central are those issues for Israel?
You are trying to enter into details related to very important issues for the security of Israel. But I am in no position now to discuss this first before knowing, when the Syrians speak about peace, what kind of peace they have in mind. To what extent the peace is based on a bilateral agreement; to what extent it is related to the advancement on the solution in the negotiations with the other Arab countries. There are many issues that will be clarified only during the process of negotiations.
No one shows his final positions from the very beginning. Therefore, there is a need for negotiations in which — on a bilateral basis — we and the Syrians, we and the Palestinians, we and the Jordanians, the Lebanese, will have to reach certain progress at a certain stage, as happened in the past when the gap is narrowed and not as deep. We saw it happen at Camp David, we saw it happen in other ways in which there is room for an additional partner to participate — not to come instead of the parties but to be as an assisting partner to bridge the gaps.
At Camp David, there were no tripartite meetings. There was walking from one to the other, sitting between Israelis and Egyptians, Israelis and Americans, but all of them were together at the highest level.
Are you saying that after Arabs and Israelis narrow the gap, there might be another Camp David?
It’s one of the options.
It would be a three-way summit? {Israel, Syria, US}?
I don’t know, three or more. It is one of the options that I believe should be left open, not at this stage. We have to narrow the gaps by bilateral negotiations and explore more thoroughly how to understand one another, to understand what are the limits of every one of the sides that participate in the negotiations; and the same applies vis-a-vis the Palestinians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese.
You used to say, "it is forbidden to go down from the Golan Heights." Some people have noticed that your tone has changed. Do you still believe what you said before?
Well, I did say it. ’Not to go down’ was interpreted by some of the settlers to mean sticking where we are. This is not the meaning that I gave to it, and I will not elaborate about it. At present, our position is as it was. We accept Resolutions 242 and 338 {as being} applicable to the achievement of a peace treaty between Syria and Israel. The meaning is withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces on the Golan Heights to secure and recognized boundaries, which will be defined once we know what we get in return.
But you used to say ’{withdrawal} on the Golan and not from the Golan.’ Will you say the same thing again?
I’ve said what I’ve said.
The Palestinians
With all the violence now going on between Jews and Arabs in the territories, do you really believe in your heart of hearts that there can be a coexistence between the settlers and the Palestinian population after an autonomy accord?
During an interim agreement for a transitional period for five years, we will continue to be responsible for the security and welfare of the Israelis who live in the territories and to the security of Israel. How to mitigate between the two, it’s not so simple. But by goodwill, this is the only way.
Is the Allon Plan still your guide for final-status talks?
I don’t want to annex the bulk of the 1.8 million Palestinians, which are a different entity than us. I want Israel to be a Jewish state and not a binational one. Which means I am ready, once I have decided to set this as the principle that guides me vis-a-vis the permanent solution, I am ready for territorial compromises which will include the areas where the bulk of the Palestinians reside.
At the same time, {I favor} the kind of territorial changes vis-a-vis the lines that existed prior to the Six Day War that will give Israel more security and fewer Palestinians.
Would you say the Allon plan is your inspiration?
Generally. I don’t want to describe my maps. This is the principle. No doubt Jerusalem must remain united under Israel’s sovereignty. It is the capital forever.
What about a US document on Palestinian self-rule? Can you envision another document like the Reagan Plan of 1982?
I don’t believe that at this stage it is needed. I will say, at this stage it will not contribute.
At the same time, let’s face it, what was the Madrid peace conference? It was a formulation of letters of invitation on which the Americans consulted all sides; there are letters of assurance by the Americans to Israel and … to the Arab parties.
There was a lot of work and I would not advise changing the basis and the format of the negotiations. Even though, I must admit, that since the Madrid peace conference no agreement has limited its scope — as with the Armistice Agreements in 1949, the disengagement agreements of ’74, the interim agreement of ’75, no doubt the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel: all of them were reached when we talked one on one with one Arab partner at a time.
This is the first time that an effort to negotiate peace is made in the form of a conference, a peace conference. We see, on one hand, the disadvantages; at present, Hamas dictates to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians — by being afraid of Hamas — might affect Jordan. Jordan might affect Syria and Lebanon. Hopefully, it will not happen.
But we have seen in the past, whenever we have to negotiate at the same time and at the same place, bilaterally, with more than one Arab party, unfortunately they have to adjust to the more extremist element among them.
At the same time, there are also advantages: because, when you negotiate centrally with more than one Arab partner, there is also a positive effect. If you succeed to advance with one, {the rest} will not be in a position, or will not desire, or will not be interested in being left alone.
Can you have a breakthrough with the Syrians that is not linked to an accord on Palestinian self-rule?
I believe that the purpose is a comprehensive peace — at least with the neighboring Arab countries and the Palestinians in the territories — which must be based on bilateral agreements. That stands every one on its own.
Both the agreements and implementation of each must be separate?
Separate. Then we will have a comprehensive peace. There might be different timetables for different agreements.
So is it fair to say that an accord with Syria has to be reached independently of any accord with the Palestinians?
Or with the Palestinians. It is very difficult to say that the Jordanians can have an agreement with us before at least the beginning of the solution with the Palestinians.
US-Israel defense cooperation
Carl Ford, who was a senior Pentagon official under the Bush administration, gave a speech on October 1, in which he basically said that the US can go a lot further on US-Israeli military cooperation if Israel is not wedded to the principle of no US protection; and he noted that Germany and Britain for example have such a contingency planning arrangement. Do you think that it is maybe time to review Israel’s opposition to contingency planning for US protection perhaps as part of a broader deal? Is a US-Israel defense treaty realistic?
Well, I believe that the principle that has guided governments of Israel for a long time was that it will be a mistake of the part of Israel to ask the US for a defense pact. The reason is very simple: it would put the US in a position that whenever Israel is attacked, American soldiers would have to come and fight our wars. Thank God, Israel has got the capability to defend itself against any threat that can come up, and against the Arab countries, at least in the foreseeable future.
If one condition will be fulfilled, we will have the means by which to defend ourselves. The limitations on Israeli military capability today are not the number of people in Israel, not the quality and professional capabilities, but mainly either means or hardware. Let me say that Israel, this tiny country, has never asked any American GI to shed one drop of his blood for the defense of Israel. This constitutes one of the moral pillars for Israel’s friendship with the US. I believe that Israel has to be proud of the fact that we don’t want to drag the US into any military conflict, and to drag American forces to fight in the context of an Arab-Israeli war.
If you are talking about hardware, does this mean enhanced US prepositioning of military equipment in Israel?
There were understandings between the former administration which are respected by the present administration about prepositioning. I will not go into further details.
Domestic issues
You made remarks about the bureaucracy last weekend that most Israelis share. What is your plan to follow up on that criticism?
I believe we first we have to change legislation; it is a long process. Parts of it are in the process of being changed. Second, we have to make sure that there is more coordination in the activities of those agencies or bodies of the government that have to make decisions about permission for building the roads, interchanges, pipelines, sewage, to quicken {the pace}. Thirdly, we need to bring to public attention that the demands of the public should in many instances overrule the inconvenience of individuals. Otherwise, you can’t change and modernize the Israeli infrastructure. You must bear in mind that when Israel started no one believed there would be five million or seven million or eight million Israelis.
On the domestic front, people wonder about reform. Privatization has stalled, banking reform seems stalled, there is no electoral reform. Considering that political momentum is not endless, I believe you have often said, ’What you don’t do in the first year, you don’t do.’ Can unemployment go into single digits by 1994? What are your domestic priorities?
On the issue of the first year, I referred mainly to the question of the peace. What I see as the {domestic} priorities — one, infrastructure, mainly transportation and whatever goes with it. Second, human infrastructure, increase the appropriation of money for education, basically higher education. Third, assistance to increase the national economic cake, the revenue. Privatization, unemployment and everything has to be judged by the achievement of the three.
I mean that to cope with unemployment we will have to find an intermediate solution …
By avodot yezumot {government "make-work" jobs}?
Yes, including this. I hope for 1993, the test will be ’will we succeed to create 70,000 new jobs?’ When I say new jobs, I mean mainly for the Israelis and not for the Palestinians from the territories.
What percentage of the jobs would come from government-backed "make-work" positions?
I don’t make any distinction. I said 70,000 new jobs this year. I’ve found that in the pipeline there are many projects that the government needs to invest nothing in, yet they remain not approved. Here the government can produce jobs without having to initiate. {Also}, the more we succeed to privatize, it will rescue money of the public.
American Jews and US foreign aid
You are going to be meeting American Jews during this trip. The overwhelming number of American Jews are not going to come on aliya. So, what sort of a value-oriented message comes out of Israel? How do you inspire American Jews?
By proving to the American Jewish community on one hand that we are doing the utmost to achieve peace without risking Israel’s security. Second, that we have wide national priorities, the kind that I have described. Third, that we bring reforms to carry out these national priorities. Fourth, we will sustain all our needs without being dependent on assistance from the outside with the exception of the defense program.
Can I understand from what you are saying that Israel needs the $1.8b. in military aid indefinitely, but can agree to the phasing out of the $1.2b. in non-military aid?
I don’t want to talk about it. There is still a long way to go.
Until you phase that out?
Yes.
You will be speaking to AIPAC. I don’t need to tell you how they and others felt after your {negative} remarks about them last August. What role do you think that organizations like these have in assisting the US-Israel relationship?
I believe that Israel, even though it is small, is an independent and proud country. Israeli interests vis-a-vis the US have to be represented by the Israeli government and its embassy. AIPAC, the Jewish community which I believe is committed, devoted and concerned about Israel as the Jewish state, has to speak to their government as Americans who are concerned with the future of Israel.
 |
NEWS
- Sharon: 'His personal history did not start with Oslo' Nov. 14, 2005
- Rabin's bodyguard gets another chance with Sharon Nov. 15, 2005
- Clinton attends Tel Aviv memorial rally, urges continuing Rabin's path Nov 13, 2005
- Rabin memorial fails to unite Labor Party leaders Nov. 13, 2005
- Baker to lead US delegation for Rabin memorial Nov. 10, 2005
- Bar Ilan faculty rip panel on Rabin aftermath Nov. 10, 2005
- 50% say Rabin was right on Oslo Nov. 9, 2005
- Halutz: Lessons of Rabin's death not learned Nov. 7, 2005
- A decade later Nov. 3, 2005
OPINION
- A decade on Nov. 3, 2005
- Pragmatic visionary Nov. 3, 2005
- What legacy? Nov. 3, 2005
- Tribal tensions Nov. 3, 2005
- The ultimate Sabra Nov. 3, 2005
- Another Arlosoroff affair Nov. 3, 2005
- One lesson learned Nov. 3, 2005
- The beautification of Yitzhak Rabin Nov. 3, 2005
- Commemoration vs denial Nov. 2, 2005
- What have we learned? Nov. 2, 2005
- The lesson for the peace camp Nov. 2, 2005
FEATURES
NOVEMBER 4, 1995
SHALOM, HAVER
IN HIS WORDS
FIVE YEAR ANNIVERSARY [ ARCHIVE ]
LINKS
|
 |
|
Get JPost Toolbar! 
