Israel believes peace will eventually prevail in Middle East
The following is the full text of an exclusive written interview conducted by The Jakarta Post with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday.
Question: Your warning to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat that he should not unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state and that you have "had a plan in the drawer" to counter the measure is seen as a serious threat that could disrupt the peace process in the Middle East. Mr. Arafat, however, has repeatedly said that he would make the declaration despite Israel's opposition. If this happens, what would you and your government do and under what condition would the Israeli government accept a Palestinian state?
Answer: A declaration by Chairman Arafat of a Palestinian state would be a lethal blow to the Oslo agreement which forbids such unilateral steps. It would spell the end of the process and leave Israel no option but to defend itself against the threat that such a state would pose.
The whole purpose of the peace process is to reach agreement by mutual consent. An arbitrary, unilateral decision by the Palestinian Authority to declare a state will in effect destroy the process.
Q: Given that your government has made substantial concessions to the Palestinians regarding the Hebron withdrawal, what other moves would you undertake to achieve a comprehensive peaceful settlement to the Middle East problems.
A: The concessions we made in Hebron were in accordance with the Oslo agreements which we had pledged to honor. We shall continue to follow the moves prescribed by the agreement. But we also insist on reciprocity.
The American "Note for the Record," which is part of the Hebron agreement, lists the Palestinian commitments we expect to be fulfilled. The continuation of the process depends on this fulfillment.
Q: Since the creation of Israel state, living in peace has been the greatest dream of its people, who have now accepted the agreement on Hebron. Don't you think that one day they will not hesitate to buy an everlasting peace at any cost even if they have to see the Palestinians have their own sovereign state?
A: Living in peace with our neighbors is indeed an Israeli dream. This is our deepest wish for our children and for Palestinian children as well. But first we must make sure that we survive. We believe that the establishment of a Palestinian state will threaten our survival.
Q: Could you elaborate your vision of the greater state of Israel, and how the Palestinians could fit into this vision along with their territorial claims?
A: The term "Greater Israel" is cruelly misleading. I wonder how many of your readers realize that the distance between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean -- the outer limits of what is known as "Greater Israel" -- is less than 50 miles. If we accepted Palestinian demands, Israel would be 10 miles wide.
We believe that Jews have the right to live anywhere they choose; and most certainly throughout the Land of Israel. It is unthinkable that we would not be able to build homes in areas which are the cradle of our civilization, culture and religion.
But we do not wish to rule another people. The existence of a large Palestinian population in Judea, Samaria (the "West Bank") and Gaza has prompted us to withdraw from the areas in which they live so that they can rule themselves. It is a barely known fact that following the withdrawal in Hebron, almost 99 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza live under Palestinian rule.
We envision a "permanent status" solution in which the Palestinian will have maximum self-rule, but without the power to endanger Israel. This means that they cannot have a large army, nor heavy arms and non-conventional weapons. They should not be able to form military alliances nor control air space over our country. Not should they control our water resources, or bring hundreds of thousands of refugees and park them at our doorstep to terrorize us.
I believe we can reach a solution which will allow the Palestinians a considerable measure of independence, while leaving overall security in our hands. On this basis, it is possible to reach a stable agreement within the next few years.
Q: Israel has maintained a high level of military readiness and alert, and is recognized as having the most modern army in the world. Given the recent progress of peace negotiations and the end of the Cold War, do you believe that armed conflicts with the Arab states, such as those in 1967 and 1973, could erupt again in the near future?
A: Mankind has experienced wars since the dawn of history. Some experts, including former U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, believe there is a great likelihood of major armed conflicts in the near future.
The only way to prevent war is to make the price to the potential aggressor unacceptable. That is why we must retain our superior military capability, as well as the topographic and geographic advantages which the Golan heights and the mountains of Judea and Samaria give us.
Q: How do you envisage a "land for peace" deal with Syria. Would it follow the same route as the negotiations that resulted in the Oslo peace accords? And as Israel -- on various reasons -- is still controlling 20 percent of Hebron, and 40 percent of the Gaza Strip. Would you apply the same policy on the Golan Heights?
A: When we begin negotiations with the Syrians, we will put our demands on the table and so will they. The problem in Lebanon should be relatively simple: we want to leave, provided we have adequate safeguards, and the Syrians and Lebanese presumably want us to leave. I find it puzzling that despite this basic agreement the Syrians refuse to discuss a Lebanon withdrawal. Strangely, an Arab regime refuses to discuss the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Arab soil.
The reason for such a paradox seems plain: the Syrians want us to stay in Lebanon so that they can bleed us there with their proxy army -- the Hizbollah. They want us to commit unconditionally to retreating from both Lebanon and the Golan before the start of negotiations. This pre-condition is, of course, unacceptable.
We have strong historical and emotional links to the Golan, but the main point is the security question. Those who compare the Golan to the Sinai, which we relinquished in the agreement with Egypt, seem to forget that the strategic depth of the Sinai extends to 200 kilometers, while the Golan can be traversed in hours. Strategically, the Heights are invaluable. They dominate the whole northeastern part of our country.
There are those who claim that strategic territory is not important in the missile age. Missiles are important, but they can only devastate, they cannot conquer and occupy. Tanks and infantry are still the main strategic threat, particularly when they move toward you from higher ground. In some respects, territory has become more important, since the other side's ground forces now also enjoy the support of surface-to-surface missiles which can disrupt our reserve system and make it harder to defend our borders. And for intelligence purposes, high ground assumes special importance.
Q: When you signed the Hebron accord what did you think: You had been outsmarted by Arafat's patience or by the United States pressure?
A: The Hebron agreement is far superior to the original Hebron section in the Oslo agreement, which was no more than a framework. Both sides can gain from well-defined parameters of conduct and meticulously worked-out security provisions. In the agreement we also established the principle of reciprocity, which the U.S. endorsed, and that only we can determine what areas we should evacuate in the redeployments.
Q: The late Mr. Rabin made a tacit rapproachment with Indonesia when he, in his private capacity, called on President Soeharto in Jakarta two years ago. Would you and your government undertake similar measures, considering Indonesia's growing role and influence in the Asia-Pacific region and among the Moslem countries?
A: I am most eager to continue developing our relationship with Indonesia from the point that the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin left off. I believe a strong relationship between Israel and Indonesia can benefit both countries economically and politically, and I am sure it can contribute immensely to solidifying peace in the Middle East. As I have stated many times, we have no quarrel with Islam. On the contrary, I believe Judaism and Islam can establish a relationship which can serve as an example of tolerance and coexistence for the whole world. I fervently hope that Indonesia can help us in establishing this relationship.
Q: Considering that Israel will never be able to live in peace if the 100 million Arab people within its neighborhood would remain its enemies in the 21st century, don't you think that the future of Israel depends more on its neighbors (the Arabs, with whom you can have secured peace and economic cooperation) than on Europe and the United States?
A: The future of Israel undoubtedly depends to a great extent on its relationship with the Arab and Moslem world. We will do whatever we can to make a peaceful and prosperous relationship possible.
Q: How do you see Israel's survival if the present no-war-no- peace situation drags on while the Arabs are developing into advanced nations?
A: We do not wish the present no-peace-no-war state to continue. We want peace with security, and we'll do whatever possible to achieve it.
Q: How do you envisage Israel's roles and position in the next millennium?
A: I believe Israel can achieve both peace with its neighbors and significant economic development. But we do not wish to dominate anyone economically. We would rather serve as an example. If we free the economy from excessive government intervention we will be able to realize our superb human potential and create dramatic and rapid growth in Israel's economy.
Already our GDP per capita is US$17,000, the European average. I believe we can double our GDP per capita within 10-15 years.
Equally, Israel is rapidly becoming a technological force. We have more scientists and knowledge workers relative to population than any country in the world. We have over 1,000 new business start-ups in the field of high-technology, second only to the U.S. In the last two years, we have had more foreign investment than in the previous 30 years.
In short, I expect the whole pattern of our existence in the Middle East and the international community to change. We will become a genuine and equal partner, an international player of the first order.