The initial reaction of the West Bank leadership to the Hussein speech of 22 February was one of great disappointment. They cited the official line, which said that only the PLO was the authorized Palestinian spokesman in any future negotiations. In his reply to a number of motions to the Knesset agenda on the peace process, Mr. Peres called on the residents of the areas to consider joining with the Jordanian monarch in pursuing negotiations. He thought that the King had left open the door for negotiations. Excerpts:
We are faced with real problems mainly in two areas. One not to destroy the Jewish and democratic nature of the State of Israel, and the other - not to open a gateway to a policy of the gun. Israel has preferred and prefers - and I hope that we shall adopt in the name of all the parties a policy of an open door and not of a shooting gun. These things are reflected, in my opinion, in the PLO policy, to which I will relate later in detail.
I would like to repeat the three basic guidelines, which must not be deviated from. The first is that the solution of the Palestinian problem and the peace settlement between Israel and Jordan cannot be enforced by compulsion. Neither international compulsion, nor Arab, nor ours. We are not seeking a way of a compulsive solution. We are seeking a way of real dialogue.
The second guideline - just as it is impossible to solve the problem by force of coercion, it is impossible to reach a solution by coercive force, be it terrorism or war. No terrorism will lead Israel to a solution, no war will solve the problem. There is only one way, and this is the only basic guideline, in my opinion, that negotiations must be held. To the best of my knowledge, several countries share this opinion: The U.S., Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. We have reached at least this chapter, and I suggest not to retract from it. Therefore, it is not that I underestimate the idea of an interim settlement, but I do not suggest that settlement be a prelude to negotiations.
As for the residents of the territories, we shall not impose a solution upon them, neither by force nor by force of orders. We shall only make use of force and of force of orders for the needs of self-defense. We shall invite them with due respect to sit together, to act together in order to settle the problem. We shall offer them the most liberal options so that they can conduct their daily life, express what is on their minds in speech and practice - up to a limit, and the limit is violence. We shall not permit violence. Ideas - please, opinions - please, stands - please. We do not demand that every Arab or every Palestinian accept our opinions a priori. He can hold any view he sees fit. To hold opinions - yes, to hold arms - no. This is Israel's limit.
Hussein has no complaints, neither as regards the international conference, nor regarding the international escort, nor anything else. He claims that the PLO has not fulfilled its promise. I too read the answer of the residents of the territories. Members of the Knesset: There is no value in making a democratic appraisal of public opinion when there is no democracy among this public. I would really like to see what the opinion of the residents of the territories would be if not for the threat of terrorism. Also tonight, two cars were burned, pressure is being exerted, threats are being applied. What public opinion is there? There is a tragic terrorist dictate here to Arab leaders and representatives of the territories, and I know the distance. There are two languages. One for public needs, and one from the heart and the head in a closed room. What do you think, that they are so content?
I know how Arafat tried to exert pressure so that various persons identify themselves [with the PLO]. The victims of Arafat's position are the Palestinians, more so than anybody else.
Neither do I agree with you that there has been a change in the PLO position on Resolution 242. It's not true. The PLO demands that 242 be changed, not that it will change its attitude towards 242. The PLO demands that 242 be changed.
What sort of change in attitude is this? It calls for an addendum relating to self-determination to be included in or attached to 242. 1 have already said, not self-determination of the people, but of a state; contrary to its agreement with Hussein. We were not the ones to reject them, it was Hussein who did so. What kind of change is that?
I absolutely agree that Israel, in my opinion, does not aspire to the establishment of a bi-national state, but rather to the establishment of a democratic Jewish state, based on justice and striving towards peace. And here, in our opinion, is where negotiations begin.
What was Israel's threat - direct negotiations without preconditions? What kind of a threat is that? But in contrast, Arafat himself acknowledged that he was acting under two other threats: One, a far-reaching historical threat, full of wisdom, that his organization split. In fact, he abandoned the Palestinian cause for the sake of his organization's unity. it is true that the second threat against him, the Soviet one, was a real threat: To retract from what he had agreed to. And indeed, he did retract.
I want to tell the residents of the territories, as all have said: We shall not impose anything on you. If you want an open door - it will remain open; you wish to conduct your own civilian affairs? Fine. Remember, when it comes to violence, you will find Israel determined and united, and no shooting will change our desire for peace and our instance on those security interests in the absence of which the State of Israel will be endangered.
In the system of relations between us and the U.S. - and I will put this rule first as it is crucial - it is agreed that representatives to the Jordanian- Palestinian delegation must be acceptable to the parties. Any other formulation is almost meaningless. Some will say one thing, others will say another, but Palestinian representatives must be acceptable to us. Don't forget this for a moment.
Second, the argument is not quite as you say. The Americans said that if the PLO does three things, namely: Refrains from terrorism, recognizes 242 and 338, and recognizes Israel's right to exist, they will sit with the Palestinians [at the negotiation table]. They said so of their own accord, not of our accord, by the way. What has changed? There is no difference.
Incidentally, I read Hussein's speech in its entirety. Hussein does not say they should invite the PLO separately. He says - and, in my opinion, it is justified from his point of view, from the aspect of the Americans' understanding - that if the PLO had recognized these three things, the U.S. would have been in have been in favor in inviting the PLO to a Jordanian-Palestinian conference. Why is it surprising? It does not mean that we have agreed, and we still have the power of veto.
Israel will not go to any conference that will take upon itself the power to impose or will deprive us of the full right to defend our positions. This is the problem, and I don't know one Israeli who would agree that we go to an international conference, and the Russians decide instead of us or in our name, or that they threaten us. What does it mean they will threaten us? With all due respect to the Soviet Union, let them just make the slightest attempt - Israel will stand up and leave the conference. Will they hold a conference without it? - Let them. If they want to reach an agreement with Russia, let them. If they want to reach an agreement with Israel, they will be able to do so only via negotiations with Israel. We have no replacements, we have no deputies. International support - willingly, I see no reason to object to it. This was my stand, and it remains my stand.
King Hussein made an important speech. To my mind, the importance of the speech lies in two things: One - that he placed the blame on the true culprits, and there is only one culprit - only the PLO. MK Ran Cohen, don't include us, don't include anyone. Second - that he said in fact that the door to negotiations remains open. We shall maintain an open door, not because we want to serve Hussein, not because we wish to serve the Palestinians, but because we seek to serve the interests of the Jewish people, of the State of Israel, of peace in the region. If there are difficulties, we shall not hide them. But what did Roosevelt once say? - There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. I am not one of the desperate people.