Rabin: 'Any Time, Any Place'

By Donald Neff, David Halevy

"Sadat can make peace with TIME if he wants to," said Israeli Premier Yitzhak Rabin, glancing at a copy of the magazine's interview with the Egyptian President (TIME, Nov. 29). "But if he wants peace in the Middle East, he must do it with us." In a conversation last week with Jerusalem Bureau Chief Donald Neff and Correspondent David Halevy, Rabin said that he is ready to negotiate "any time, any place, with any Arab leader." He also explained the reasons for Israel's strong warnings to Syria last week and reaffirmed its opposition to Palestinian representation at a Geneva peace conference. Excerpts from the interview:

Q. What is happening in Lebanon now that has caused the current crisis atmosphere?

A. Over two divisions of the Syrian army, disguised as an inter-Arab force, are taking over most parts of Lebanon, except the south. Politically the question is whether the Syrians will limit their activities to helping the President [Elias Sarkis] restore Lebanon as a political entity and independent country. Or will the Syrians try to annex Lebanon to create the beginning of a greater Syria? Militarily the present deployment of the Syrian army puts it in a much weaker position against Israel than if it were concentrated where it used to be around Damascus and the Golan Heights. But this is really only a temporary situation. Israel cannot tolerate a return to the dangerous situation of a year and a half ago, when terrorists used southern Lebanon as a base for their attacks against Israel. We want a neutral zone in southern Lebanon--not a buffer zone--in which no forces exist except Lebanese forces--not U.N. forces--that keep the security and tranquillity.

Q. If there is no immediate threat from the Syrians in Lebanon, then why has Israel issued such tough warnings?

A. I believe it is better to make clear positions beforehand in order to prevent any misunderstanding. You have to bear in mind that we don't talk directly to the Syrians or to the Lebanese. We have to make clear that we cannot tolerate any change that threatens the basic security interests of the state of Israel, either through Syrian movement to the south or the return of the terrorists. [But] we don't mean to threaten anyone. We are not asking for the change of one millimeter of the line between Israel and Lebanon.

Q. What is a reasonable timetable for Middle East peace initiatives?

A. Any time is the proper time for negotiations. I am ready to meet every one of the Arab leaders, separately or together, to negotiate either an overall peace or limited agreements. I believe the preferable objective of a limited agreement would be the end of the state of war. I don't want to go into details of what [that] would mean, because if I did, you would say, quite rightly, that I am putting preconditions. Realistically I know that without an initiative by the United States Government, no such framework for negotiations can be achieved. I assume therefore that in 1977, when the new Administration enters office, initiatives will be taken by the United States to bring the parties together, because the responsibility for effective peacemaking lies mainly on the shoulders of the parties to the conflict.

Q. How do you feel about Kissinger's departure?

A. Regardless of some disagreements in the past with Dr. Kissinger, I personally had a very good relationship with the Secretary when I served as Ambassador to the United States and later on as Premier. I believe the United States will continue in the new Administration to try to achieve the basic goals that Kissinger tried to achieve--that is, deterring war in the Middle East, doing whatever possible to achieve peace and continuing to support the state of Israel in the political, financial and military-aid fields.

Q. What about your relationship with Egypt?

A. I wish I could say I have a good relationship. Unfortunately, there are no political relationships whatsoever, because Egypt refuses to have them. Once there were an agreement between us, Egypt and Israel could play a major role in changing the destiny of this area. Egypt [is] the biggest Arab country and it is also the leading Arab country. Israel represents the country which is most advanced and progressive in technology and social concepts. The combination of the efforts of these two countries could again bring the Middle East to what it once was--the cradle of Western civilization.

Q. Why should a Geneva conference not include the Palestinians?

A. The Geneva peace conference should be for the countries directly involved, namely Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon on the one hand, Israel on the other. The so-called P.L.O., which is the representative of the terrorist organizations, is not a partner for negotiations for the simple reason that the basis of its policy and philosophy is nonacceptance of Israel, of its right to exist. On the other hand, I accept that there could be representatives of the people who live in the West Bank attached to the Jordanian delegation to a peace conference or as a part of the Jordanian delegation.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.