Israel's Peres: Of Stones and Bombs

Whoever holds the Defense portfolio in Israel's Cabinet must plan the defensive and offensive postures of a state with perhaps the most insecure borders in the world. In support of that awesome mandate, he must also make periodic shopping trips to Washington to buy the American weapons that account for most of Israel's military strength. Last week Moshe Dayan's successor as Defense Minister, Shimon Peres, 51, made his first shopping trip to Washington.

Dynamic and eloquent, Peres seems well suited for the job. In the last Cabinet of Premier Golda Meir, he served as Transport Minister. Before that, Peres had been director general in the Defense Ministry, as a protege of Premier David Ben-Gurion, then became Deputy Minister of Defense to Dayan.

On his first U.S. visit as Defense Minister, Peres assaulted the Pentagon with a massive five-year $7.5 billion plan for U.S. military aid to Israel. After meetings with Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Peres described himself as "encouraged" over getting the bulk of his requests. Before returning home he talked with TIME Diplomatic Editor Jerrold Schecter about Middle East developments that bear on his requests. Excerpts of his views:

ON MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Israel does not possess tactical nuclear weapons, and Israel has always objected to the introduction of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. There is enough tension with conventional weapons. Adding nuclear weapons is simply too dangerous, and any responsible party must be against that.

ON A U.S. REACTOR FOR EGYPT. Under normal conditions, safeguards are good enough, but the problem is what would happen if the Egyptians should decide to expel the Americans in the way that they expelled the Russians? Then they would have the radioactive materials and no control. This is a global problem, and a world answer must be found.

ON THE PALESTINIANS. The Palestinians are represented in three ways: by the Jordanians, by the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, and by the Palestine Liberation Organization. We refuse to talk to the P.L.O. because they are not necessarily representative of the Palestinian people. They are a small group of armed terrorists who impose themselves on the rest of the population. There is an African saying that if you put a stone in a basket of eggs, you had better worry. We consider the P.L.O. a stone in a basket of eggs. They are basically against a compromise by the Palestinians. They see a Palestinian state as the first step in a long road to overthrow Israel. Yasser Arafat, leader of the P.L.O., is heavily oriented toward the Soviet Union. I cannot think of any Israeli who will agree to have Russian experts and Russian missiles at the gates of Jerusalem or the entrance to Tel Aviv.

ON PALESTINIANS AT GENEVA. The Jordanians can and will represent the Palestinians at Geneva. I think in Geneva the only way to negotiate meaningfully is if the participants are countries, not organizations. More than 50% of the Jordanians are Palestinians. If we can reach an agreement with the Jordanians, that is all right. The other option is for the people who are living in Israel and experiencing a social transformation to have their expectations expressed in democratic institutions. An agreement on federal rights along Canadian and Swiss lines--a confederation--might be possible.

ON CONDITIONS FOR GENEVA. We have given up real estate and moved on the geographic map. Now the time has come for the Arabs to move on the political map. Egypt is a key and test for the diplomatic option in the Middle East. We would like to see an end to belligerency as a policy that includes boycotts and threats. We would like to see an inward turn, the development of Egyptian cities along the canal and the opening of the canal.

ON DETENTE AND THE SOVIET ROLE. For meaningful detente between the superpowers, the Soviet Union must agree to detente in the Middle East. On the local level, this means seeing in negotiation a philosophy of compromise and not an addition to the military option. The Soviets are increasing the military option all the time. I think the Soviet Union would gain by taking a moderate position and having relations with both sides, but we have not reached that point. The Soviet Union is taking the most radical views and supporting the most radical organizations. Nor have they given up in Egypt.

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