There should be a historical debate
about whether, with hindsight,
this entire Oslo policy was right from the Palestinian point of view.
I think this debate has not yet ended.
It reminds me personally of the debate between Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle.
Ferdinand Lassalle was the father of the German Socialist Party -
during Marx's time,
and while the latter was living in London, there was a fundamental argument between them,
Lassalle said: 'We need to establish a force of workers −
professional associations, consumer associations, and we will fight and we will bring about the revolution'.
Marx said: 'No, this is a terrible mistake, because once you establish factories
you will have an interest in the current situation and you will not be revolutionaries,
and without realising it you will be collaborating with the regime'.
History vindicated Marx,
but the debate was a debate.
Oslo, from the point of view of the Palestinians, presented the same problem.
The people who objected to Oslo, the Palestinians,
claimed from the outset: 'Once you settle in the occupied territories,
whether you want to or not, you will become collaborators of the occupation.
There will be many people who have an interest in the current situation,
who would benefit from that, and the revolutionary passion will disappear'.
In my opinion, this has not yet been determined;
there are many arguments for and against.
In Gush Shalom, we had a great argument.
I think it took place in the hall at Tzavta,
I'm not sure, and there were objectors. I truly endorsed Oslo
and I advocated the theory that once the Palestinians had put down roots
in the land of Palestine,
this would inevitably lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state,
as Rabin told me when I met him:
the first step towards the Palestinians will inevitably lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state,
which he at that time opposed.
I believed it then, and I still believe it now, although not completely.
There was the opposite opinion, too, the 'Marxist' one,
that once Palestinians come here and establish the Palestinian Authority
they will have an interest in the status quo
and the Palestinian revolution will end.
Today, I am not quite sure which of the two sides was right.
Anyway, I greatly supported the Oslo Accords,
perhaps because I knew Rabin pretty well, I think,
from my many conversations with him about the Palestinian cause.
I was convinced that the same logic that Rabin brought to Oslo
and which he explained to me − I think I've talked about it −
the same logic would lead him towards a Palestinian state.
Indeed, the relationship between him and Arafat, which at the beginning had been lukewarm,
really strengthened and he invited Arafat to his house, and more.
The assassination of Rabin put an end to this debate.
We don't know what would have happened if Rabin had lived.
I think that if Rabin had remained alive,
in a year or two or three we would have achieved peace
with a Palestinian state alongside Israel,
and possibly even the acceptance of the Arab peace plan,
which was more or less identical to Arafat's viewpoint.
It all came to an end with the murder of Rabin
which was really, although everyone says so it is true,
it really was a turning point in Israel's history.