Time to Take a Gamble

Jordan's King Hussein, 41, has an unforgiving memory. Interviewed by TIME Correspondent Wilton Wynn last week in Amman's Raghadan Palace, Hussein was smiling and relaxed through most of their conversation. His mood darkened only once, when talk turned to the possibility of Palestinian guerrillas ever again operating from Jordan against Israel. Those activities prompted Hussein to expel the fedayeen from his country in 1970, and he has no intention, he told Wynn grimly, of opening his doors to them again. On the other hand, he argued that a Palestinian delegation should participate in proposed peace talks in Geneva this spring, although he himself would decline to represent the Palestinians if they decided not to attend. Excerpts from the interview:

Q. What is the status of your reported dialogue with the P.L.O.?

A. We have always said we are ready for a dialogue and we have indicated that we are willing to discuss any topic--with the exclusion of anything that might remotely suggest that we intend to tolerate or accept the conditions that contributed to the 1970 disaster here in Jordan. What happened between 1967 and 1970 is something no one here can tolerate in any form or permit to come back. It is not a question of Jordanians v. Palestinians, but a question of chaos and anarchy against law-and-order. We are not prepared to go through that experience again.

Q. Are you optimistic about a peace settlement with Israel this year?

A. We have to be extremely cautious not to give people the impression that we are on the brink of a solution, but I do believe this year will give us an opportunity for another attempt to establish a just and durable peace.

The realities are that Israel still occupies Arab territory and it is still unclear whether Israel has made a definite choice between peace or continued occupation. Both are impossible. Militarily, Israel is stronger than it has ever been, whereas the same cannot be said of her neighbors, even compared with 1973. Israel must evolve a new courage to break away from the fortress mentality to a willingness to take a gamble on peace.

I believe this is the only hope for Israel and all of us. Otherwise, prospects remain dismal and if this year passes without definite signs of progress, the fact that hopes have been raised so high will result in despair. We will face a rise of extremist attitudes and turbulence.

Q. Is it possible to convene a Geneva conference this spring? And will Jordan insist on P.L.O. participation?

A. There certainly is a possibility for a Geneva conference. It is imperative that

Palestinians be a party to any solution to the Palestine problem. They must speak for their rights and be heard.

Q. If the P.L.O. decides not to attend, would you negotiate on their behalf?

A. This was an option until the Rabat summit in 1974. We are still interested in doing all we can. But unless the whole scene changes in terms of the Arab position, I don't see how there can be a substitute for Palestinians at the conference dealing with Palestinian problems. I for one cannot bargain on Palestinian territory and rights. Before Rabat, I tried to recover territory lost in 1967, to put it under U.N. auspices and give the Palestinians the right of self-determination. But at Rabat, they put the responsibility for recovering territory and regaining Palestinian rights on the Palestinians themselves. I don't see how I can now transcend that decision.

Q. If a West Bank--Gaza state were established, what links would you accept?

A. In view of the closeness of the people of both sides, we are willing to look at any possibility, but the people of both Jordan and the West Bank would have to express their views in absolute freedom. Some years ago we had the vision to suggest a federation of Palestine and Jordan [which was rejected by other Arab states]. Now maybe this plan will be looked at again.

Q. What is your feeling about the future of Jerusalem?

A. I feel very strongly that Jerusalem must be the symbol of peace, the city of believers in God, and I don't believe it can be an Israeli city. It must be a city for both sides, and a return of sovereignty over the east side to the Arabs is a necessity. But it can belong to both, the capital of the Arabs of Palestine as well as of the Israelis.

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