Following are selected excerpts from interviews by Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon to the Italian news agency and the Brazilian newspaper Falho Sao Paulo during his visit to Latin American to attend the 39th General Assembly of the Organization of American States in Honduras:
On relations with Latin America; reason for the visit:
Historically, Israel has enjoyed very friendly relations with Latin America. We still remember in 1947 how most of these countries voted for the reestablishment of Israel in our homeland in the Holy Land in Israel.
Since then, we have had embassies in Latin America, more embassies here than we had in many other parts of the world, even though the distance is great. Our relations are very close.
We have many things in common. First of all, the most basic thing is our values, our respect for human rights, for justice, without violence, for the Judeo-Christian heritage. This is the foundation of the relationship. And on top of that, we have many common interests in terms of trade and homeland security. We have a lot of expertise in that, which we would like to share. We also hope to intensify cooperation in science and technology, culture, information-sharing, and anything that gives more volume to the bilateral relations.
Our priorities are throughout the continent, but first and foremost, we recognize the leadership and importance of Brazil, with which we have always enjoyed good relations. We are strengthening the relations with Brazil - reopening our consulate in Sao Paolo. And El Al now has direct flights to Brazil, Sao Paolo or Rio and other countries in the region.
There's compatibility between the Brazilian economy and the Israeli economy - both are advanced and based to a large degree on hi-tech. We would also love to help and to introduce the innovations that we have been developing in the areas of agriculture, medicine, public health, the environment, energy conservation, water development and purifications, and so many others.
The foreign minister is scheduled in July to visit Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Argentina. And then there'll be other visits, bilateral visits. And of course we welcome many businessmen, scientific people, and politicians as well. So my coming here is just the beginning of a better, or let's say more intensified relationship.
On Iran in Latin America:
While it is true that what's happening with the Iranian attempt to penetrate into the continent is of concern, it should be mainly, I think, the concern of the continent. So I wouldn't necessarily tie my visit here with the Iranians.
However, we are very much concerned with Iran's continuing flagrant violations of its obligations under the NPT, under the Security Council.
We are here on a positive note to develop relations with the continent and with the individual countries. However, having said that, it is true that we notice a very dangerous shift that has been going on in the last few years, certainly from Venezuela and Mr. Chavez. We know he visited Tehran, maybe seven or eight times, and I don't believe he went there for sightseeing.
There have also been high-level Iranian visits in Venezuela. We know that there are flights from Caracas via Damascus to Tehran. And we know that there are many Iranian agents that come and visit and probably use Venezuela as a base for their operations here in the region.
Now, it is worth noting that Iran is a country led by a regime which is the most dangerous in the world today, not only in terms of their relentless attempt to achieve nuclear capability but, also, they are very aggressively and actively spewing, disseminating hatred and incitement against what they call the infidels, - they push Islam in a very radical way, and they are also engaged in terrorism.
Only a month ago, a very broad network was exposed in Egypt; it was Iran and Hizbullah. Morocco broke relations with Iran because of some subversion there. Iran is helping Hamas against the Palestinian Authority. It's helping the Hizbullah against the Lebanese government. They are everywhere. And this is why having them here could be, I think, very dangerous for all the regimes in the region.
Now, we know that Iran was already active here in 1992. Iranian agents blew up the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. In 1993 they blew up the AMIA, the Jewish Federation building, also in Buenos Aires. Since then they have increased - they are pretty much all over here. So this is mainly a Latin American issue; you have to deal with it.
On diplomacy as a way of avoiding crisis in the Middle East:
Engagement is always the preferred mode of operations. There have been attempts by the United States, by Europe, for more than a decade to engage the Iranians. But the Iranians do not agree. The only demand made on them was that they suspend their enrichment activities, which are illegal, which are against all the obligations they took upon themselves as members of the NPT. And they're also against the UN Security Council Resolutions. So they are in breach, very flagrant breach, of all the commitments. And they have never agreed to engagement, even now. We very much appreciate President Obama's new approach, and we hope that he will succeed in engaging the Iranians. But, of course, to do that the Iranians have to play ball and, so far, they have not agreed to the engagements and they are racing to get nuclear capabilities.
Now, we have to understand that, if Iran becomes nuclear, it's the end of the world order as we know it, because not only will it give them impunity to continue with very aggressive actions, and nobody will dare deal with them when they have nuclear [power] - they will be able to send squads of terrorists with nuclear material all over the world. And it will start an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the region. Also, they will be able to control oil flow, oil prices. It's very, very dangerous. And, of course, they can proliferate. If they have the [nuclear] capability, they can help their friends, even on this continent.
So engagement is important. This is something that we are looking to see, if the Iranians will really agree to engage the Americans. So far we do not see that. This is, in my mind, a last-ditch attempt to bring the Iranians down from this very tall tree that they climbed because, if not, I think the atmosphere will be conducive to really bringing upon the Iranians very strict sanctions. And with strict sanctions by the UN Security Council, this regime will not be able to survive because Iran is a very vulnerable country. They don't have industry; their economy is in very bad shape. They need the subsidies from the oil, petrodollars. But with serious sanctions, they will have a real dilemma - to continue with intransigence, with the violations, and risk the survival of the regime, or to change. And I think they will change because [the regime] will not want to fall.
So it's high time to have a unified approach against Iran. And we hope that there will be a realization of the Iranian threat to world security and peace and also to the continent and, as a result, a consideration of a new approach towards Iran.
By the way, the Sunni regimes in the region are threatened by Iran in the same way that Israel is. So there is really a convergence of interests of all the countries in the region against Iran and its allies. Who are the allies of Iran? Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad - all the terror organizations.
The Iranian threat is a threat also to the Palestinian conflict because they do not want a resolution of the Palestinian conflict. They sabotage, they terrorize, for, they reason, it's divide and conquer, and they want hegemony of the entire region in their own extreme Jihad way.
On the Palestinian conflict:
Now, Israel wants to solve the Palestinian problem because it's also our vital interest. Israel is ready for peace, as it has been ready all along. We made many, very big concessions for peace. When we had a good partner, like Sadat, in Egypt, we gave the entire Sinai for peace. In Jordan, the same thing. We have full relations and very peaceful relations with both Jordan and Egypt because there was a quid pro quo and there was delivery and a philosophy, strategy for peace.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case with the Palestinians so far. If you look from 1993, when the peace process started… We left Gaza altogether, including settlements, and it didn't bring peace to the country; Hamas was there. There was an offer from Ehud Barak in 2000: We will evacuate all the settlements and make peace. Ehud Olmert did the same thing six months ago.
On Jewish settlements and outposts in Judea and Samaria:
The settlements are not really an obstacle to peace - from 1948 to 1967 there were no settlements, and still there was no peace and there was terror all the time.
We made a commitment to take down the unauthorized outposts. All this we are willing to do. We are willing to do everything possible to move forward with the Palestinians. But there are a lot of problems with the Palestinians, unfortunately. You have Hamas in Gaza, which is re-arming to the teeth, with the help of Iran and Hizbullah. In the West Bank you have still a very volatile situation. But, nevertheless, we will move forward.
On the Israeli government's policy:
We have a plan: to move simultaneously on all tracks. What are these tracks? First of all, to facilitate capacity-building - to help the Palestinians build security forces that can fight terrorism, and also build democratic institutions and establish the rule of law, because we don't want to create another terror state or a failed state in the region. And, of course we expect them to stop all the incitement and hatred vis-à-vis Israel. This is one track.
The second track is an economic track whereby we want to attract investments from all the Arab countries. They have trillions of petrodollars. We would invite them to invest and create jobs for the Palestinians to build the economy.
The third track is political dialogue. And we are ready to start a political dialogue tomorrow without preconditions. But, unfortunately, so far, the Palestinians don't come to the table, and they try to put pressure on us and they try to again focus on the settlements. But I hope this is just a tactical positioning issue, because we are very much interested in the accord.