15 Press conference by Prime Minister Netanyahu at the National Press Club- Washington- 10 July 1996

Sonja Hillgren, Nation Press Club President (moderator): Almost a half century ago, Israel became the first tiny island of democracy in a vast unfriendly region. Our guest today is Israels first nationally elected Prime Minister, his predecessors having been chosen by votes of the Knesset. He leads a nation that has been swept by four wars and continuous terrorist attacks since 1993.

Binyamin Netanyahu has been the leader of Israels conservative Likud Party and once described himself as a fan of Ronald Reagan. In some ways, our guest is a product of the United States. He spent 16 years here as a student, management consultant and diplomat. He holds two degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After serving five years as an officer in Israels defense forces, our guest held a long list of diplomatic and political posts, among them ambassador to the United Nations and Israels deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has a deep interest in terrorism, having written books on the subject. His brother Jonathan Netanyahu fell victim to terrorism as the only Israeli killed in the raid that rescued the hostages at Entebbe.

Israelis often refer to our guest, affectionately and sometimes not so affectionately, as Bibi. Still in his 40s, he is young for a head of state. But his great historic challenge is to pursue peace in the Middle East, and yet to reduce terrorism and guarantee security. Some predict he will be more conciliatory and more flexible than he was as an opposition leader and candidate. But so far in his visit to Washington, he has stood firm, insisting on security, reciprocity and democracy in the Middle East. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to this National Press Club luncheon the Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Thank you. Thank you very much. I have to conclude that if you just stood up, you didnt have lunch. And if you had lunch, then I well, I doubly appreciate that very kind gesture. My wife and I are very happy to be here, and the members of the delegation are very happy to be here. But I feel that I owe you something. Youve heard one speech too many today, so Im not going to make speeches, and Im going to ask you to launch your missiles at me directly so I can respond to them. And the sharper they are, the better the response. Please, Im waiting for the first question, and if youd like to ask it, Ill try to respond to it.

Ms. Hillgren: What is your vision for Israel: an epic struggle against implacable foes, or an inevitable partnership with your Arab neighbors transcending ancient struggles?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: What do you think I want? We all want peace, and we all are working for peace. And I was elected with a mandate to achieve peace. There was a, shall I say, a strong feeling in the electorate in Israel that what we had received was not real peace. Now, youd ask, why would people think that? Well, for one reason, if youd imagine periodic savage explosions of the kind that youve had now in Dhahran with the tragic loss of American servicemen there, think about a situation where you would have that happening recurrently, time and time again in your major cities in Tampa or in St. Petersburg or in Cleveland or in Washington, and in New York, and so on and so on and so on and so on. People would say this is not working.

What the people elected me to do and what we formed this government to do is to make a peace that works. And a peace that works in our part of the world is based on the understanding that peace and security are intertwined, that they cannot be separated. And this is what we seek to achieve, and Im confident that we can achieve it, and with good will that I hope to see forthcoming from our negotiating partners, we will achieve it. And this is the mandate, and this is what we hope to achieve: peace with security with each and every one of our Arab neighbors.

Ms. Hillgren: If Israel, with all its military skill and power has been unable to control terrorism, how can you expect the fledgling Palestinian Authority to do it?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Well, again, its one of those statements that you have to parse out. If Israel was not able to control terrorism, how could you expect the Palestinians to do it? Well, wait a minute. Just wait a minute. I didnt say that Israel was unable to control terrorism. Were fighting terrorism. When you fight terrorism, you cannot stop every single terrorist act, but theres a curve. You can see how Israel did, and you can see how the other side did. We did not hermetically seal but we did fairly well. In the 10 years preceding the transfer of responsibility to the Palestinians in their domains, we had far fewer terrorist attacks and terrorist casualties per year than we had after this arrangement. And, in fact, when the Israeli army was pursuing terrorists, there was much fewer terrorist incidents, much less for frequency and much less lethal attacks in balance. It is a fact that since Oslo, weve had as much terrorism in 33 months as we had in the entire previous 10 years. So obviously somebodys not doing their job, which is what the government of Israel said, the previous government said after the spate of suicidal bombings four months ago. They said to Arafat, "You must do better. And if you dont do better we cant progress." And he started doing better. Not good enough. Still partial, still incomplete, but hes doing better.

And thats what we expect Arafat to do: to act upon his obligations, to curb and prevent terrorist attacks from the areas under his control, and to do so on a consistent and permanent basis, not on an episodic but changing pattern. And that is our expectation, and I think its now commonly accepted in Jerusalem and I believe in many circles in Washington that he has shown that if he wants to, he has the demonstrable capacity to prevent most of the terrorism and the most egregious forms of terrorist attacks against us. And thats what we expect of him. And I think we have a right to expect that: its part of the deal. And as I said in Congress, agreements are made to be kept. Let him keep his side of the agreement.

Ms. Hillgren: So you believe that you can only make peace with a democratized Arab world?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Nope. Thats not what I believe. But I believe there are there are two kinds of peace. I believe theres peace opposite democracies, and I believe there is a peace opposite dictatorships, undemocratized countries. I think this is the most important lesson of the 20th century. I think that in the first half of the 20th century the democracies failed to understand the distinction that Ive just put forward. They failed to understand that when you have a non-democratic partner opposite you, the only way to maintain the peace is to have the deterrence of war, to be able to deter war or aggression. There is a vast difference between dealing with democratic neighbors and dealing with undemocratic neighbors. With democratic neighbors you need do nothing: the peace is inherent. It comes out of the system of government. It comes out of the fact that electorates would punish a government that would be adventurous with the lives of their children in military escapades. It comes out of the fact that governments democratic governments inherently eschew violence, and, in fact, resolve their differences precisely as were doing here. They do it in Congress. Ive seen on television, on CNN, some violent parliaments around the world. But that is not the normal characteristic.

How do we resolve problems in a democracy? We debate, we argue, sometimes we shout, but we dont shoot. And what governments tend to do, what democracies tend to do on the inside, they tend to do towards the outside, towards the outward resolution of conflicts. So democracies have shown, certainly in the modern post-colonial period, democracies dont initiate aggression against other countries, against other democracies or non-democracies. Democracies tend towards peace. For the same reasons, except inverted, dictatorships tend towards war, because what they do inside is resolve conflicts not by debate and not by ballots, but by bullets, and after theyre strong enough and totalitarian enough, by the threat of bullets; you dont even have to shoot well, periodically you do. And what they do on the inside is what they tend to do on the outside. There is no internal inhibition. Saddam Hussein didnt really think what the electorate in Baghdad would think about before he devoured Kuwait. And in order to stop him devouring Kuwait, an external force was needed to prevent it.

Now, what Ive just said at some length, but still capsulized, is the central idea of how to achieve peace in the 20th century. And what Im saying is there are two kinds of peace, not one. If the Middle East were democratized, then the issue of defense and security and territories as defense assets would be irrelevant. But Israel is facing, in fact, around a 360-degree periphery, were facing non-democratic regimes. Some of them are becoming more pluralized, like Jordan. Its the most advanced Arab society moving towards greater pluralism and greater acquisition of human rights. But on balance, we have an undemocratic neighborhood. And opposite non-democracies, the only way that you can maintain peace is by maintaining your strength to deter future aggressions. And if somebody says to you,"Ah, but we will give you peace, and for that peace, give up your capacity to defend yourselves, give up your capacity to deter future aggression," that piece of paper will not hold for very long. And so our view is that we must couple the peace, the kind of peace that we have in our part of the world, the peace opposite non-democratic regimes, with security, meaning with our ability to defend ourselves and defend the peace. And that is what we shall do.

I must say that this policy has been a great success. If in the first half of this century the democracies, as I said, failed to make that distinction and practice a peace of democracies opposite dictatorships, well, they got the worst war in history and the worst catastrophe in the history of the Jewish people and of humanity. But in the second half of this century, the democracies learned a lesson, and opposite a far greater dictatorship, armed with atomic weapons, the Soviet Union, they practiced the peace of deterrence, the peace of strength that Im talking about, and they were successful, there was no war for 50 years. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, now that it tends towards democratizing, well, other kinds of peace are possible, and the states of Eastern Europe and Central Europe are now being talked about as being part of NATO in some kind of association, loose or direct.

Well, when we have democratization around us, you can come and ask me about the other kind of peace. But until we do, I dont give up on the idea of achieving peace with our neighbors. Im just insistent on the right kind of peace; the responsibility of statesmen in this century and in the next, as long as the democratization process has not been completed in our world, to insist to first of all to understand the two kinds of peace and not to confuse the two, apply the right kind of peace to the Middle East, a defensible peace.

Ms. Hillgren: The House International Relations Committee is presently holding up aid to the Palestine Authority, despite the Senates approval of aid to the Palestinians. Will you ask Congressman Ben Gilman to release his hold on this aid so as to improve the economic well-being of the Palestinians?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Ive said that Im all for the policy of openness, and I certainly dont want to squeeze in any way the well, make harder the already hard conditions of the Palestinian population that has borne about the lack of curbing terrorism. That would be our policy. The question that youre asking me relates to an American decision. And the American decision is based on the idea of compliance. I think when the that is, does the Palestinian Authority comply with its commitments under Oslo which America was an important party to the agreement? And I think that has to be answered in practical terms. At the time when this allotment of aid is scheduled to be given, well be happy to make known to the American Congress our views on compliance. But its the decision of the American Congress to make. Theyll make the right decision, I am sure.

Ms. Hillgren: What exactly must the Palestinians do to combat terrorism before you will meet with Yasser Arafat, withdraw Israeli troops from Hebron on the West Bank, or lift the border restrictions that have kept thousands of Palestinians from work?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: I come back to the idea of reciprocity and the fulfillment of mutual obligations. I think we should we have every right to ask the Palestinian Authority to do what it undertook to do; that is to maintain security, to fight terrorism; to close down its operations in Jerusalem, which contravene the Oslo agreement. And we have every intention to fulfill our obligations, again, with a view of maintaining security for Arabs and Jew alike. This is what we want. I use the opportunity that you ask me this question to bring to your attention that we have flagrant violations in Jerusalem. Im not sure that youre familiar with the Oslo agreement and how specific and how explicit it is vis-a-vis Jerusalem. And for that purpose after this heavy lunch that I had in the House of Representatives we are fortunate to have here Mayor Ehud Olmert, the mayor of Jerusalem. And I thought maybe wed use the opportunity, Ehud, for you to describe to the people assembled here what it is that we face in Jerusalem.

And what Im saying and bracketing in advance, Jerusalem, for us, is the heart of the Jewish people, and we want to see Jerusalem united with access to all three faiths under Israel. And its only been that way under Israel. I, at the same time, think that there is an issue here of keeping agreements, and we have every right to ask the other side to keep its agreements. An agreement that is kept only by one side and violated systematically by the other side is not an agreement that will hold for very long. We want something that will hold, so we want compliance on their side, and they have every right to expect compliance on our side, beginning with Jerusalem. Ehud, please? Mayor Ehud Olmert of Jerusalem.

Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert: Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen. I doubt that I can add much to what the Prime Minister said already, but Ill briefly elaborate on the specific aspects of Jerusalem. As you know, the famous Oslo agreement, the one about which everything revolves, is the same agreement which stipulated very clearly and very explicitly that the Palestinian Authority will have no presence and will be allowed to have no activity in the city of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem will remain that the status of Jerusalem will remain a subject for further negotiations at the latest phase of negotiations. Now, let it be very clear, we, this present government, are not in particular love with the Oslo agreement in general, and with that section referring to the future negotiations about Jerusalem, in particular.

But, as the Prime Minister said very explicitly before the elections, and he had to argue with some of his best friends and convince them, that this is our obligation to carry on the commitments that were accepted by the government of Israel and were then approved by the Israeli Knesset. So, much as we dont like certain parts of this agreement, we are absolutely committed to carry on. But it must be on a reciprocal basis.

Now, in the course of the last three years, there was continued violation of the spirit and the content of this agreement regarding Jerusalem. The Orient House of course is a symbol. There are many Palestinian Authority offices which are active within the Orient House in violation of the agreement. There are many offices outside of the Orient House in the city of Jerusalem which are in violation, offices of Palestinian Authority, branches that are in violation of the agreement. The security forces of Gibril Rajoub are acting within the city of Jerusalem in violation of the agreement. The housing regulations, zoning regulations of the city of Jerusalem are bypassed, violated by Palestinians, as a result of inspiration, instigation by the Palestinian Authority. And all this is done in clear daylight, every day.

Now, the dilemma of the government and of the city, the municipality of Jerusalem, is that we need to take action against these violations. However, once we take action against these violations we are endangering the world exposure and also an accusation that we are trying to upset the very delicate balance which was created. However, if we will not react, then there is a danger that the reality of life that will develop in Jerusalem. This has developed in Jerusalem, in one of the most sensitive areas of this attempted penetration, in the education system of Jerusalem, the east part of Jerusalem, where the Palestinian Authority is trying to impose a different curriculum, that which tries to tell the whole story of the history of the conflict between Jews and Arabs in an entirely different way, which is very provocative and which is inciting emotionally against the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

So, if we let it just go, there is a very serious danger of creating a reality that will become a fait accompli, very irreversible. We have to do something about it. So the I think I can speak on behalf of the Prime Minister, who sits next to me, that we have a very clear and explicit demand. Its not subject for any negotiations or bargaining. This is our demand, that all the violations of the agreement regarding Jerusalem and Im speaking now within that context will stop immediately, and that no one can come to us and talk about the fulfillment of this agreement and the commitments which are part of this agreement without first doing everything in order to keep their commitments. Thank you very much.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: In this regard, I wanted to congratulate the American Congress for making a decision to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Its something that all governments in Israel support. Thank you.

Ms. Hillgren: You want to embrace a market economy and reduce dependence on U.S. economic aid. Can you do that without increased economic cooperation with your Arab neighbors?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Well, I think I think there are some misunderstandings about the nature of the economic world that were entering, and in fact that were already in. I wish that the economic progress that weve seen in Israel was shared by our neighbors. Unfortunately it isnt. I dont know if you know, but 90 percent of our exports go to the United States, to Western Europe, to Japan and the advanced Asian countries 90 percent, over 90 percent. I predict that percentage is going to go up to 95, 97, maybe 98 percent. Not because we dont want trade with our Arab neighbors. I do. And Im going to foster a climate of openness, openness and not closure, with our Arab neighbors, including the Palestinian Arabs, to the extent that security will allow.

But the Israeli economy is surging forward, and its going to surge even more forward, towards a high-tech future. You know, I instructed the Cabinet members in Israel on a very Draconian rule. When they come in we have the highest per capita use of cellular phones in Israel. And I said, when you enter a meeting, thou shalt not use a cellular phone. And that applies to stationary phones as well. I have the speakers gavel to ensure compliance with the phone.

We have when I say that, by the way, that we have the highest per capita use of cellular phones in the world, its telling you a number of things. First of all maybe Jews like to talk more. Could be. But it is also a fact that we have a very vibrant information and technology economy, and we are seizing the future. And with the reforms that were going to introduce and with the fiscal policy that weve already begun to introduce, we are going to be one of the fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing post-industrial economy anywhere on earth. I dont think that anyone will grow faster or achieve greater results in the coming years. And if somebody does, Ill just give all the kudos that they deserve.

So, Israel is surging forward. Unfortunately, we have only about 20 percent of mankind participating in this move towards a post-industrial economy. Eighty percent of the world is not part of it. Very large tracts of Asia, some of them are part of it. Most of Africa, all of Africa, is tragically not part of it. And it has to be resuscitated and rescued, so we dont see the terrible misery that weve seen there, which you remember the television coverage. But its out of it, with a growing population.

Parts important parts of our world, our region, are out of it. And they have to move to an industrial phase before they can get to a post-industrial phase. Some of them are still in the agrarian even in the pre-agrarian phase. Now I will do everything that I can with the Palestinian Authority, with Jordan, with our Arab trading partners. Well help in any way we can. Well certainly foster an economic policy of openness. But we are part of that very advanced world, and were going to be more so, because our economy is lurching in that direction. Its really moving in that direction.

And therefore, the question is not how Israel will fare economically it will fare very, very well the question is what can be done to buttress the economies of our neighbors and, specifically, of Jordan and the Palestinians, whom I would like to see advance and close the gap with us. And that is it is not easy. There are no facile answers, no simple answers for this. But we will give it considerable thought. It will be an important element of our policy of peace, because I think that economic well-being, if not prosperity, are an important addition to a real progress towards peace. And this is what I will do.

Ms. Hillgren: Can you expand upon your remarks to Congress about reducing Israels need for foreign aid timetables and the kinds of aid?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: I was afraid youd ask that. Well, Ive just had an opportunity to speak about that in Congress to a number of the leaders of Congress. I am seeking to move Israel into a policy of economic self-sufficiency. I think it is achievable. Im not saying its immediate, around the corner, next year. But I have said that I believe that if we pursue the twin policies of fiscal responsibility and rapid privatization, we can achieve economic independence and self-reliance within the foreseeable future. I said that Israel has reached the end of childhood and that it will now work towards maturity.

But I dont want you to get your hopes too high too quickly, because between childhood and maturity, theres adolescence, as you know. And we have taken very, very tough cuts this year, very tough cuts which we still have to pass in our Knesset, in our parliament, and I believe well pass them. But that obviously puts a great strain on our budgets. We cut 4.9 billion shekel out of a budget that is not all that big. Its a very, very large cut, almost historic in proportion to anything that weve done up to now. Weve done it, by the way, in two weeks. It usually takes two years.

But it shows our determination to achieve this self-sufficiency. I dont think it can be done this year or next year, but I said that within this term of office, my term of office, we will begin in consultation and after consultation with the American government, with the American Congress, we will begin in this term the process of reducing American financial aid to Israel. When and how and how much that will be within this four years, is something that remains to be seen. The more our economic program succeeds, obviously the more disposed we will be towards doing it earlier. But I am committed to begin this process in this term of office, and we shall do it.

Ms. Hillgren: I think Im maybe I can anticipate your answer to this one but if Israel decreases its economic reliance on U.S. aid, should the U.S. likewise cut Egyptian aid?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Well, Im not asking for cuts in aid to Egypt and certainly I havent raised it anywhere in our conversations here in Washington. Ive asked, as you know, for additional aid to a number of important projects, including our neighbor Jordan. But I do not link, in any way, our own internal policies of eventually reaching self- sufficiency, with whatever decisions the United States decides to make the government and the Congress vis-a-vis aid to other countries and to Egypt. Thats an American decision. I leave it as such.

Ms. Hillgren: With your arrangements with the religious will your arrangements with the religious parties change the social fabric of Israel? What of the rights and future of reform, conservative and secular Judaism?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: I realize this is a point of interest to many in the Jewish community in the United States. It happens to be something that we thought about at great length in the formation of the coalition. As you know, 23 seats out of a coalition of 66 seats were gained by the orthodox parties. Thats no mean achievement. Its quite significant. We have one way to resolve the problem of the potential conflict between the secular and the orthodox community in Israel, and that is to understand that there is no unitary principle that can unify or resolve the problem of conflicting views on how to run the country. So weve adopted all governments have adopted the policy of the first government, by David Ben-Gurion. And he said, basically, "You cant solve this problem."

So what you say is theres a status quo. Status quo slowly evolves, for example, as you have a more orthodox community, more religious community, in one place and it becomes almost homogeneous, you dont drive there on Sabbath. And as you get a more secular, younger or less orthodox or less religious community in another place, cinemas are open on Saturday. And that is a slowly evolving, incrementally evolving status quo, and that is basically what has characterized all Israeli governments.

Now we said in our guidelines in the formation of the coalition we will keep the status quo. Thats our policy, and we will keep it. Were not going to deviate from it. We are not immune. Were not were not were aware of the concerns that you have, and that is also part of our consideration. The only way to maintain the unity of the Jewish people inside Israel and outside Israel is to proceed on this matter very, very carefully. And we are going to proceed very, very carefully, maintaining the status quo and not changing it.

Ms. Hillgren: If you were to remove Israeli troops unilaterally from Southern Lebanon, would Syria lose a pretext for keeping Hizbullah guerrillas there? Is this the kind of bold action a Labor government wouldnt have been able to do? Or will you insist that Syria first remove the Hizbullah guerrilla bases from the Bekaa Valley?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Well, were often told that if we simply pull out of Lebanon, there wouldnt be any attacks. I gather theyre trying to whisper in her ear so she would whisper in my ear that this is the last question. So Ill save the link-up of communication and tell you this is the last question. Were told that if we leave Lebanon unilaterally, the Hizbullah wont attack us. But Hizbullah Hizbullah ostensibly is attacking us in order to get us out of Lebanon. Well, that is only ostensibly, because Hizbullah says all the time by its major spokesmen that their battle with Israel is not over Israels presence in Lebanon but over Israels presence, period, in the Middle East, and that their real objective is to get to Jerusalem and liberate it from the Zionists. Thats us. So obviously we have no confidence that if we were to simply walk away out of Lebanon you know we have no territorial claims on Lebanon whatsoever and were there only because we need a buffer zone to prevent Hizbullah from penetrating our border and striking at our towns and villages in the north.

We are concerned with the possibility that if we get out of Lebanon unilaterally and Hizbullah remains intact that it would simply move up to the border, up to the fence and rocket, in this case, not just our border villages, which are fairly dispersed, but will be in range of hitting major urban areas like Safed or Haifa. And this is obviously of great concern. This is why successive Israeli governments have maintained the security zone in Lebanon: to keep a distance some distance of the Katyushas and at the same time to prevent ground penetration of terrorist groups.

I think the only way that that could change is if Syria decided or was made to understand that it must dismantle Hizbullah. And Syria right now is in the mode of using Hizbullah as a proxy tool to wage a proxy campaign of terror against us. And I think it has to be disabused of this notion. And I think you can understand our problem and our need to defend ourselves and defend our soldiers as long as we dont change the this basic equation in Lebanon. I would like to change it. I repeat, we have no territorial claims in Lebanon whatsoever. But we have one claim and one responsibility, and that is to provide security for our citizens. And it is something that I think is at the heart of the idea of government: its to provide security for each and every one of the citizens of a particular government. I want to assure you that we will continue this quest for peace with security.

I once told Chancellor Kohl when I visited him he told me, actually. He said, "You know, when I was elected, people said This is a catastrophe for peace. It will be terrible. It will render asunder, it will just break apart the slow and subtle relations between East Germany and West Germany, and it will cause a conflict in the heart of Europe. And as you know, the very opposite happened." I said, "Well, I can give you two other examples." One was in this country when President Reagan I think you referred to President Reagan before. When Reagan was elected, it was said that his election would bring a catastrophe to East-West relations and, indeed, that there would be a major conflagration between the Soviet Union and the United States because of his so-called hard-line policies. Well, the very opposite happened. And it turns out that the necessary mutual concessions took place only when a firmer government, a firmer policy was installed here.

And I can give you the third and final example, and that is of a Likud government led by the late Menachem Begin. When he came to power, it was said I must say, in large cover stories, hauntingly similar, of major news magazines it was said that this would bring a catastrophe to the Middle East. And you know that the very opposite happened. For the first time that we had the historic breakthrough, peace between Israel and Egypt, Israel and the first Arab state, was under a Likud government led by Menachem Begin. Now I think there are two reasons why this common wisdom is always confounded. It is, first, that there is, I believe, a clear rule of history operating in modern times, and that is that those governments that pursue peace at any price pay a very high price indeed and do not get peace. And those governments that pursue peace prudently and stand on their security and their vital interests theyre the ones that ultimately attain this peace, because the other side recognizes that it too must make the concessions so necessary for durable peace. And theres a second, and final, reason, and that is that a strong government, a government that insists on firmness, on reciprocity, on security such a government enjoys the overwhelming support of its population when the time comes to make peace, when it comes time to make that give and take of bargaining, of mutual compromise in a peace negotiation, in the conclusion of peace treaties.

We want to change the conception of the negotiation process. Somebody said to me that the Arab parties have got used to a pattern of negotiations that is like collective bargaining: We bargain; they collect. And this will change, for the betterment of all of us, for the betterment of peace. I thank you very much.