Sunday, March 17, 2002

President Mubarak's interview to the Israeli Television (Channel I)


President Mubarak's interview to the Israeli Television (Channel I) Mr. Presedent; The situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis has become very grave. and the question now is: while Egypt plays a key role in calming down the deteriorating situation, first: is there any way out of this grave situation The second question, which is related to the first, is whether you have thought of paying a personal visit to Israel in order to address the Israeli and Palestinian peoples directly on what is due?

** I can answer the second question. If I want to address the Israeli people, I can do so through the TV; I needn't go there personally. However, nobody can recommend any visit at a time when killing and bloodshed are rife everywhere. I know, beforehand, that it is futile to talk with Israeli Prime Minister.

Earlier, I sent our foreign minister in an attempt to reach a way out, but no use. He asked for a 7-day ceasefire on both sides, but I told him this would not happen for 7 days as certain powers do not want to stop these acts, shall we remain then captive to this (situation)? I see that such actions have led us to a very critical situation. Killings are on the swing, not only killing of Palestinians, I say, but also killing plain Israeli citizens, who do not feel secure or safe internally.

* In such case, the number of suicide bombers will increase! ** This is the result of an awful sense of frustration among Palestinian citizens.

* On both sides Mr. President. The Israeli people do not trust Abu-Ammar. ** Nor do the Palestinian people trust Sharon.

* What's the way out? ** The way out is to get both sides together; they must show flexibility and talk frankly in the presence of the Americans and any other party. Then we'll see what we can do. But if the either side continues to act on its own, heedless of any advice, this will lead to a catastrophe. What I want to say and would like the Israeli citizen to understand is that had the current incidents occurred 20 years ago, peoples and generations would not have seen them, but at present there are satellite channels and TV stations everywhere in the world. Even in villages in our country, many people, many households have satellite dishes and they can watch everything in depth; killings, funerals, etc,

* On both sides!

** Yes, on both sides. But the channels give more coverage of the Palestinians, because they are the ones who face more killings. Frankly speaking, I sympathize with the Palestinian and Israeli citizens, who helplessly die! By so doing, you (Israelis) are deepening hatred and creating a new generation of Arab youth who… Should things go on this way for 10 or 15 years, the time will come when you will face 400 million persons who hate Israel. What will you do then? Can you face 400 million persons?

* This is a simple question, Mr. President. In Camp David, Barak offered Arafat suggestions that were different from previous ones, but he refused them all. I know people closely associated with Arafat, they told me that they had told Arafat in Camp David that he would be committing a big mistake if he did not accept these suggestions, and this would drag the whole region into a catastrophe.

(Mubarak, interjecting): Let me say something.

* They lost trust!

** Wait. Let me say something; you have heard from "a closely associated person" who had heard from another " closely associated person". But the truth is something different. The truth is that Clinton had phoned me saying that Abu Ammar wanted to take a critical decision, but he needs your support. This critical decision was to approve Israeli sovereignty over Al Haram Al Sharif. Regardless of any talk about closely associated persons or not, let us be more frank, nobody in the Islamic world would ever accept Israeli sovereignty over Al Haram Al Sharif, (Laughs).

I told both Clinton and Barak before that they (the Palestinians) will be warring for 100 years, as long as there remains something related to religion and extremists multiplying and terrorism will be operating against you and against anybody else. You have to think logically. Another issue tackled in Camp David was the right of return. They came back here with nothing reached. Forget about what those “closely associated persons” said. Everybody is keeping you busy to show you he is supporting you.

I can't believe that talk. When they returned from Camp David, I found out the question of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Clinton came here and I met him at 6.30 am. When I told him that nobody would accept this suggestion, he understood this because the whole thing has to do with religion. Then Clinton suggested a deal, you remember, take it all or leave it all. This's impossible. We invited the Palestinians to consider their own decisions, because we don't take decisions for them.

They discussed the matter and came back with 22 remarks. I told the US President that as he listened to the Israeli government, he had to listen also to the Palestinians, so that his decision or action would be fair. After a while, he invited the Palestinians and received them in the US and understood they had the right to that (question). It isn't a matter of their refusal in Camp David. No, no; let's be realistic rather than dupe ourselves; no body could accept that. he who told you if he were in Abu-Ammar's shoes, he would have accepted, could never do it. Then, they came back from the States and met here in Taba, the Israelis and Palestinians. They both made concessions. It's my belief that had it not been for the short period remaining of Clinton's term of office, they could have reached an agreement. But the problem with you is the lack of confidence.

Earlier, Netanyahu signed the Wye River (agreement); he implemented only a part and didn't honour the rest. Barak signed in Sharm El-Sheikh in the first time, but he implemented only one third, procrastinating about the rest. Even if we came to an agreement in Taba, he said, we wouldn't implement it. There is no confidence, you don't trust them and they don't trust you. What is the solution then? Will you go on killing Palestinian civilians and will they go on killing Israelis?

I can't understand! It is the duty of leaders to protect the interests of their peoples and security of their citizens. But at present, there is no security for citizens on both sides.

* You have a past record full of surprises with Abu-Ammar. In 1995, he didn't want to sign the maps to the interim agreement in Cairo. Recently, he was about to pull Egypt's leg in the smuggling of Iranian weapons via Suez Canal. The question now is..

** Wait a minute. Let's discuss point by point. First, when he refused to sign, he wanted to show his people that this was the best he could reach on that point.

Then he signed.

As for involving Egypt in the weapons shipment, where did you get that from?

I myself don't know about Egypt being involved in anything. Any ship transiting through the Suez Canal produces a "manifesto" of its load of general merchandise or weapons and its destination. As long as we have no information about any violation, the ship will be given clearance. otherwise, we'll have to inspect each and every ship transiting the Suez Canal. But it's you that explicitly mentioned the name of Egypt.

* Egypt could have stopped the ship if it were trying to transit the Suez Canal.

** How could we know it had weapons on board? Had it requested clearance and sent a notice stating that it carries merchandise, it would pass as usual, as long as we have no prior notice or information on that specific ship. If you had this information, why didn't you tell us? Or is it that you want to create a problem with us? Well, it didn't pass through the Sues Canal, and you seized it. However, you weren't satisfied, so you forced in the name of Egypt in. You don't want to talk frankly and deal openly.

* But the Americans have gathered evidence that the Palestinian Authority was involved in the case of Karin A.

** This is one thing and involving Egypt is another thing. You do want to involve Egypt. Had you told us the ship had weapons on board, we would have stopped and inspected it. But if we inspect every ship, no ship will use the canal. Later, the Americans proved that. But before the ship passed and until you seized it nobody told us anything, you need not onvolve Egypt's name into the affair. Every now and then, you like to involve Egypt into something. This was the case when you raised claims of smuggling weapons across the Egyptian borders.

This is quite bizarre, because you have border guards as we do and weapons can be smuggled across any borders. Another issue is the tunnels; we blocked them at our end, why don't you do the same at yours? Every now and then you repeat the story, as if we were the ones who dig such tunnels. This is quite strange!

* There is substantial appreciation for the role of Egypt in calming down the situation.

** We are working on calming down the situation, but your leadership does not respond; I dispatched our foreign minister hoping to feel some flexibility on the part of the Israeli Prime Minister.

* But you have felt some improvement in your relationship with Sharon; there have been several phone calls?

** Not several phone calls, it was just one, made shortly after he assumed office, from a general to a general as he said; and only to say how are you. The second one came after Prince Abdullah's initiative and of course the phone call was an attempt to seek contact with Saudi Arabia. He said to me," I want you to arrange a meeting with Prince Abdullah,” though his office denied this, but I assure you that he said that.

I wondered :"With Prince Abdullah ?!" I see that this is quite difficult. Anyway I'll convey the message, and I can do nothing else but to convey the message. And I did but I did not expect a reply; because I already know the reply.

You have to acknowledge the people's feelings there are people who cannot tolerate bloodshed and killing. In my last phone call with Sharon, he told me that he decided to skip the seven-day period, I replied: “Very good, but negotiations need flexibility failing which it can never work”.

He answered: “You will see” and he spoke in a very good tone. The next day, I saw nothing but destruction, blasting and occupation of Ramallah. So! Are you fooling us or what?

Let us be frank with each other, if you need our help to calm down the situation, we want peace, we want to see the whole region living in peace and in cooperation. It is quite dangerous to see on TV unarmed Palestinian citizens killed, it is as well dangerous to view the unarmed Israeli citizens die too.

* The Israelis side found themselves facing an upsurge of suicide-bombs, and what's more is that the Palestinian side didn't show any flexibility.

** Flexibility about what?

* About abandoning some major demands which are blocking the way to progress. For example, if a Palestinian official reiterates what was said by Serri Nessaiba, the official in charge of the Orient House: “that there's no avail of the right to return back home". If you Palestinians want peace with Israel, let 's leave this matter now and go on with serious negotiations. We see that the Palestinians go to Saudi Arabia demanding to include item 194 into the Saudi initiative while I see that it does not include this item on the refugees and the Syrians require that the word “normalization” be deleted.

** They deleted the word normalization, and what did they include instead?

* “Full peace.”

** So what?

* Full peace might be a frozen one.

** Can you show the difference between the two? What's a frozen peace?

* Comprehensive peace.

** My dear friend, let us start,even with a frozen peace, and it will move automatically forward, you want everything all at once. God has granted us minds to think. If one tells you he wants comprehensive peace, this means he agrees to comprehensive peace. With good intentions on the Israeli side along with the other side, things will develop forward.

When we had peace with you, you also said: It's a cold peace. Then, when Rabin took over, we moved forward and businessmen were moving back and forth here and there. When Netanyahu came, things could not go further.

When Barak assumed power, it was no better. We would have liked relations to get better; it is not a matter of comprehensive peace or full normalization. Suppose you said full normalization and it did not occur, what would you do? Would you fight Saudi Arabia or whosoever else? Peace is not much more different from normalization. They're no more than words forged for one reason or another. As for the right of return, it was raised in Camp David. I talked, then, with Barak and with Arafat. We offered some suggestions but do not ask me about them, as I won't disclose them in the interest of bilateral problems. We set the proposal aside till we get a practical plan.

At least the right of return is a psychological matter. I mean that if there's a Palestinian citizen who has lived in America for 20 years, and his kids were educated in America, and all of them obtained the American nationality, and all his wealth is kept in America, do you think such a person would like to return back to live in your country that's fraught with battling and wretched life?

Of course not. But psychologically, there must be that right of return, to guarantee for me to live. Are all those who live abroad willing to get inside Israel?

* Same thing Mr. President concerning the word “normalization”. It's a psychological phrase. As it was once included in the Saudi initiative, or any other initiative, it gained positive reaction in Israel. Then, they omitted it; a step backward!

** To satisfy you, they didn't say full normalization, did they? You refused it the following day; the entire initiative.

* No.

** Sharon declared he refused it.

* He changed his mind later on, and said…

** (Interrupting): Are we playing hide and seek (kidding)?

How would he change his mind? One should keep his word and adhere to it. Now, one disagrees, then, later he comes and say please I do accept it, how could that be?

* The reason is quite simple. No body saw the initiative. It was just an article on the press.

** The initiative said “We're ready to normalize relations with Israel if it would pull out from all occupied lands.”

* They omitted the word “normalize”.

** When was it omitted?

* Recently under pressure is it still there.

** Now, do you want to get everything and do nothing in return? If we want to reach peace, we've to be frank with each other, and stop playing hide and seek with each other. Such a game won't work. I say to you: You'll drive all the peoples to hate you. Time will come after some years when you'll face 300 or 400 million persons full of hatred against Israel because of its current policy.

The issue relating to normalization is a controversial one that will be discussed in the coming (Arab) summit. Again, comprehensive peace or complete normalization, what's the difference? Comprehensive peace involves normalization and guarantees everything. What matters is good intentions. Do you have good will? I doubt it, in view of what I witness everyday.

I have (no problems) with Israel in as such. On the contrary, I keep good relations with Israelis. I wish ties would develop as it started under late Rabin. But it was you that put it to halt. You were the reason, not us. You cause things to stop.

You say that one Palestinian told your that Abu Ammar had said, but using the "reported speech" form won't work. That won't do, as simply Abu Ammar is the symbol of the Authority. No one takes decision for Abu Ammar. I believe if there was a good will, we could have achieve everything. But you don't trust them in the same way they don't trust you.

* For the Palestinians, Abu Ammar is the symbol of armed struggle. Yet, as such, he cannot offer concessions and proceed towards a compromise. Your Excellency, being an expert in Palestinian affairs, isn't it high time for the Palestinian leadership to be shifted from Arafat to the next generation of Palestinians? Maybe, they can offer more flexibility.

** So, you do want a private (Israeli)-style chief for the PNA!

* No, not that.

** So what then? You want to head the PNA yourself?

* Some compromise.

** Compromises? Compromises are made in an agreement. You don't have to say: remove that chief and instate that! What do you have to do with them? Can you guarantee that the new one would grant you concessions? You want someone to give you concessions in everything. Please look also at your people. As you sow so shall you reap. You'll turn the whole region into hell. You want someone else to replace Arafat; who?

You cannot determine. If you fetch some other one of your own they'll brand him as a traitor. Believe me no solution will materialize unless Arafat is there. No one would be able to lead the Palestinian people after Arafat. Arafat has so far been in office for 40 years.

It would take a long time to get someone else who would gain the trust of the Palestinian people inside and outside the homeland. In the meantime, both of you would be involved in life-consuming fighting. Is that what we really want?

As for the refugees problem, I said it could be solved. Regarding comprehensive peace, you are sticking to petty words. The question is that you want to abort resolution 191. Such problem has a solution that was accepted by both parties; every thing can be solved.

* Mr. President, the Israeli people want peace. Sharon himself said he is ready to offer painful sacrifices for the sake of peace.

** After Rabin, I heard of many painful sacrifices, no painful sacrifices have so far occurred at all. What concessions do you want Arafat to make? What kind of concessions? To give up every thing? You want him to surrender Jerusalem to you?

* The refugees problem…to sign.

** I said the refugees problem had had a solution. I told it to both parties and they both agreed. You have got nothing to do. You want the current position to go on; killing and destruction?

I understand. Don't you ever think you can evict Palestinians to Jordan. This'll be the gravest danger to Israel. I here warn you. I understand and you as well understand. It is the greatest danger against the entity of Israel to expel Palestinians out to Jordan or anywhere else. You'll suffer bitterly. I here advise you for the sake of peace and stability. Never think of that. It's a great danger. All will turn into terrorists against you. Do you want to live for 100 years more without stability?

* I know of no official in Israel who seriously thinks of such matter.

** I am telling this now and they hear and understand me.

* Can there be two states: one Israeli and the other Palestinian, as Sharon himself said, that co-exist peacefully together in the presence of the present Palestinian leadership? Can such solution be achieved under Arafat and the current leadership as far as you know them? Is it possible?

** Do you think any leadership can stay over forever? Would Sharon live for 200 years or Arafat would live for 200 years? Change is the law of life. But you do not ask for change. One always suspects your intentions. When you ask for a change in leadership, one immediately feels suspicious. I mean there's lack of confidence.

* I do not ask to change the leadership.

** That's what a plain citizen feels. What sort of concessions you want? You want everything in return for nothing? Is that credible? Just bear in mind that there are peoples not only leaders. We represent our peoples and no one can ever swim against the current.

* Mr. President, as you see it, have we reached the no-return point?

** Still peace can be tenable, only if there's flexibility on the Israeli side. As for the Palestinians, they are overpowered. You strike them by F-16 aircraft, by helicopters and by tanks.

* And they by suicide-bombs.

** They also will use their own secret weapons. Guerrilla war is much fiercer than all your forces. You cannot hold any comparison. You possess a lot of modern weapons and planes in the face of one using Klashinkov machineguns and such simple things.

It's you who drove things to that point. If you behave more logically, there'll be calm. If there's flexibility on your part, on the Israeli part, it would be much better for all. Whosoever wants to see bloodshed and killings every day?

I think neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian peoples wish it. If the leaderships here or there are fond of shedding innocent blood, I swear peoples on both sides will bid them goodbye.

* Let's now move to another topic, that's the northern danger facing Israel. I mean “Hizbollah”. Your Excellency said once, when the Israeli army was in Lebanon, that Hizbollah operations are legitimate.

** Is it only me! The entire world said they are legitimate. Because there were occupying forces, naturally they would resist occupation.

* The Israeli army withdrew to the international borders. Yet, Hizbollah still launches frequent operations and threatens to use long-range missiles, possibly setting the whole region in a minute in flames. That's because Hizbollah acts under instructions from Tehran, rather than from the Lebanese government that does not want to break out fire. I think it's the Syrians who are after it.

** No, the Syrians do not want fire to break out. Let us talk honestly. It's you who are talking about breaking out of fire. I do not see that Hizbollah is launching strikes against Israel. Why should they? I haven't heard of such strikes so far.

If it ever happens, it is made intentionally to turn countries against each others. God endowed us with minds to think. Why don't you contact us as you contact the Americans? We'll be ready to help in this regard if you proved good intentions. But if Hizbollah wants to drag the whole region into war…would you go and occupy Lebanon? That's a thing of the past. Just listen to my advice.

Such heedless acts will lead the region to an abyss and let Israel suffer badly. Just think of the coming generations whether in the Arab world or in Israel. You are giving the gravest example for the coming generations; you are sowing the seeds of hatred in the hearts of the Arab and Muslim peoples. You are driving the Israeli people to an extremely difficult situation.

The Israeli citizen also wants to live safely, and does not want to have everyday fighting. Now everybody is scared to cross the street lest death should be waiting. Everybody now is afraid to go to the supermarket lest it should be blown up. People are suffering a terrible sense of frustration. People grew desperate.

* But these suicide bombs are against Islam. Islam does not approve them !

** Suicide attacks occur when one becomes fully desperate and unable to feed his family and does not have a job. It was one of your mistakes that you have fired 120 thousand Palestinian workers who earned their living in Israel, thus acting as an appeasing force for the Palestinian people. However, you dismissed them all. Now, they are against you. Believe me, you will never defeat them with weaponry.

They have nothing to lose. They may do anything out of frustration. Any desperate person who cannot sustain his family can do anything. Who could have imagined that an American University female graduate could blow herself up to kill some Israelis! that young woman called Wafaa and many others. You must contain the situation. Make peace and security for your people, but do not forget the other people.

* Do you believe that Hizbollah poses a sort of danger as it reiterates calls for supporting the Palestinians? It also has weapons that may put central Israel in danger, thus giving Israel no chance for strong reaction. This may drag the whole area...

** Are you fishing for lame excuses?

* No.

** Are you fishing for lame excuses? If Hizbollah does anything, there would be many people to talk to them. Both Lebanese and Syrian governments and the whole world will argue with them in case they commit any violation. Yet, someone, who wants to set the area ablaze, may do anything. You have to be reasonable. Are you going to strike everywhere if someone fire out a rocket or so? Time of oversweeping territories is bygone.

This attitude creates grudges hard to remove. I told the prime minister(Sharon) that you are nurturing hatred among young generations. Each one of them says that Israel is practicing killing, since they see nothing else. You are doing a very dangerous thing. You are going to destroy the Israeli people as well.

* As for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, out of my understanding of the situation, I think that a US strike is unavoidable since the Americans have evidence that Saddam is involved in building missiles and weapons of mass devastation. Should the US strike Iraq, according to your own understanding of the situation, would Saddam Hussein target Israel as it happened in the past?

** I have not heard of any statement by Saddam Hussein that Israel is targeted at all. Israel is mentioned only in the context of its conflict with the Palestinians, but not beyond this point. As for the American strike, this is a matter that we, as well as Arab states, discuss with the Americans. I do not want to touch on this matter, since it does not concern you much. I do not think Saddam wants to strike you. They destroyed everything there. Why would he strike you?

He sympathizes with the Palestinians as a people. In fact we all sympathize with them since they do not possess the same military power you have. Also, you are creating a climate that makes peoples got bored of you. You are striking with F16s, helicopters, marine weapons and tanks. When Arab citizens see such acts, with the other side having nothing but a Klashinkov or hurling stones, then they naturally have a very bad reaction against you. You do not know how to gain public opinion that may protect your people. Wasn't it for security and safety that the current government came to power?

* Are you still optimist that a solution is possible?

** A solution is possible if there is flexibility. If there is a will, there is a way.

* Is there any chance for Zinni to succeed in the region?

** I do not want to talk about Zinni. I hope he will succeed. He won't succeed unless both sides, the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership have the will.

* Since you have contacts with the Palestinian side, do you feel that they have the will to calm down the situation?

** I believe they have the will. They had the intention before and we were helping till your incursion took place. Invasion is so dangerous. After Sharon phoned me, the next day you laid siege on Ramallah. You are creating hatred against yourselves. With those people and children we see being killed on the TV., do you expect people won't sympathize with them?

* The Israeli people found themselves in vertigo of war.

** The Israeli people found themselves facing war because of you. You are occupying land. Give them their land back!

* Through negotiations not violence.

** You do not want to negotiate, I bet. I swear by God you don't. Do not make me say more. You don't want to negotiate.

* Barak was trying to negotiate.

** He was carrying on with negotiations and then signed agreements.

* And they [the Palestinians] refused everything.

** Barak could not implement them due to threats around him. Even the agreement he signed at Sharm el-Sheikh, he could not implement because of the pressures on your side. There are extremists on your side, or do you believe they are angels?

* I personally believe that they haven't accepted Barak's proposals until today. They see them as insufficient.

** I have talked with Ben Ami the then foreign minister. We talked about the right of return and Jerusalem and the like. Later, you said something about the package and I asked Barak to send envoys for me to discuss the matter.

They came to Sharm el-Sheikh. I discovered that what they were saying was totally different. Every time I asked them, things were different. For example, there is a tunnel alongside Al-Haram Wall, the Wailing Wall, do you know it?

* Yes, I know it.

** That tunnel which made a problem when Netanyahu was in office. I wondered what was the use of that tunnel? They said nothing. Did it have any religious significance? They answered, no. A tourist one? They said no. I urged them to do something jointly with the Palestinians. Show them your good intentions since you are living together. Why do you fight each other? If you continue this way, you may continue fighting even for a hundred years. It is the Israeli and Palestinian peoples that will pay the price.

* Will Your Excellency allow me one last question; would the upcoming Arab summit show trends towards the calming down of the situation?

** Calming down!

* Calming down the situation. Or would it be a summit for continuing war or inflaming feelings?

** The Arab summit has never called for continuing war. I would like to remind you that the 1996 summit in Cairo came up with a unanimous resolution that peace with Israel was a strategic target for the Arab nation. Is there any thing better? The upcoming summit won't call for fighting Israel.

* Will this be the same in the Beirut summit?

** This is an existing resolution. When Prince Abdullah said if the Israelis withdraw (that's more), there would be normalization, the next day you refused it.

* Is the Saudi initiative going to be discussed in the summit?

** Yes, of course. You ‘re telling me they said comprehensive peace! So what?

What you want is more than comprehensive peace. Comprehensive peace is the normal end of things when feelings calm down and you'll see people cooperate with each others. You are fishing for lame excuses to refuse anything. Will you keep on refusing as the Palestinians were doing for some time? Then, we'll remain entangled in the same vertigo and there will be a catastrophe.

* You have said a very important word.

** My words are all important.

* It's the psychology of peoples. When people hear the word "normalization", most Israelis get ready to offer concessions for the sake of peace. When they hear Arab leaders say that the word "normalization" is not involved, in terms of the psychology of people, this is a step backward.

* Ah! You have a people while others don't. They have their people too. Normalization or comprehensive peace, what difference does it make? We have comprehensive peace with you. Normalization is agreements to be concluded. If there is sincere will, we will achieve everything. Shall we go on arguing whether it is normalization or comprehensive peace? Argument may go on for a decade, during which time half of the two peoples would have been killed.

Be tactful and think about it objectively. I have a people to care for and to protect their rights. The other side also has a people to care for. So, let's consider the best solutions. I am telling you that when I talked with Ben Ami about the question of Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem and similar items, there was some sort of understanding. I wish if the Israeli Prime Minister could start where they stopped in Taba when Clinton was in power. He refused. Then, are you going to start from square one? Square one again! This means we'll start quarrelling anew!

* I wish the two phone calls I had with Sharon would have indicated the start of a new dialogue for help.

** Otherwise you can't play hide and seek with me, You phone me today, then the next day you occupy Ramallah and besiege Arafat, claiming you have given him freedom of movement and when Zinni comes, he "Arafat" will go out. The next day, I see you surround him and wreak havoc everywhere. What is that! I don't like you to fool us. Don't tell us something and then do something else. I like people to honour their words.

* Mr. President, thank you very much for this interview.

** Thank you.


     Print this page
     Mail this page