RABIN: DEFENDING THE HARD LINE

"What else could we do? Give everything for practically nothing?" With those rhetorical questions, Israel's Premier Yitzhak Rabin defended his country's stance during the Kissinger negotiations and placed the blame for the breakdown on Egypt during an hour-long interview last week with TIME'S Jerusalem bureau chief Donald Neff. Other points made by the Premier:

ON KISSINGER'S ROLE. Kissinger showed great wisdom, worked very hard and used his great talents to try to bring the two sides together. But he was right not to come up with U.S. proposals. He tried to bridge the gap between the two sides. But the positions of the two sides on some key issues were irreconcilable. He had told us that Israel faces two options: to have an agreement or not to have an agreement. And he said that each one of them involved risks to Israel. I must admit that this did not come as news to us.

ON THE CHANCES OF WAR.

There is increased tension. Israel will maintain all its obligations under the disengagement agreements with Egypt and Syria and the cease-fire resolutions with Lebanon and Jordan, but on one condition--that it be done on a mutual basis. If any of the countries decide not to renew the [U.N. forces] mandate, it will serve as an indication that their intention, either militarily or in the long run, is to bring about a deterioration of the agreements themselves.

ON AN ISRAELI PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE. We are not seeking war. We are trying to bring about movement toward peace. I don't believe at this period that it is advisable to say what will happen once one side violates the agreements.

ON EROSION OF U.S. SUPPORT. I hope there will be no erosion of the U.S.'s understanding of Israel's position. Israel is a real democracy that shares the basic principles, morality and free way of life of the U.S. I believe that a strong Israel is an asset to the U.S. in the Middle East. If I look backward, I see that the support of the various administrations has not harmed the U.S. in this region. I'd say the opposite. Despite the U.S. supply of arms to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, the gates of Cairo and Damascus later were opened to an American President. The Arabs realize that the U.S. is a factor in any effort to bring about a real political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

ON U.S. LEVERAGE WITH ISRAEL. It would be a mistake to assume that either the U.S. can dictate to the Israelis what to do when it comes to the vital interests of security or that the Soviets can dictate to the Arabs. Israel is a sovereign state, responsible for itself.

ON EGYPTIAN MOTIVES. I think they consider only two options in dealing with Israel: 1) military or 2) to flirt with the U.S. to achieve the same ends [Israeli withdrawal without Egyptian political concessions]. As long as their basic philosophy is that these are the two options open to them--and they don't have to deal directly with the Israelis to reach a compromise--I doubt if we will really move toward peace.

ON THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. The fact that the negotiations were suspended does not mean that this method to move toward peace is finished. If it is found that there is no hope for resuming the talks, other avenues should be tried. We could go to Geneva. I don't see much hope there because everything will be much more complicated. Talks will not be related only to relations between Israel and one other country. They will be related to relations between Israel and all Arab countries. But it is possible during the course of the Geneva conference, another possibility for an interim agreement might be reached, or maybe even before that.

ON HIS OWN MOOD. I'm realistic. I'm realistic enough to see the dangers, the difficulties. But realistic enough to also know Israel's strengths and determination --on the one hand to go on toward peace, on the other to prepare itself in case war will be forced on it. A threat of war will not change our basic positions.

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