12 Address by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the National Press Club- Washington- 21 January 1998

I hope that we can shed some light on the quest for peace in the Middle East.

Your statement, Mr. Hickman: number one, that I am the Saddam Hussein of the western part of the Middle East was my way of describing my being characterized by some in the international community and in the press community, but that is not my characterization of myself. I never got Saddam's numbers in any election. I have to say that I find the discussions about Israel and the peace process unilluminating in general, and incorrect, which leads me to your second question: we don't have to bring an update to anyone here. I think we do, and that's my purpose. So, I begin with what it is that we're doing here.

The Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, or the Palestinian leadership, signed an agreement four years ago. The thrust of that agreement was an exchange of some territory for some pledges on the part of the Palestinians. Israel would give territory, and as my predecessor, the late Yitzhak Rabin, said, the Palestinians would promise, first, to fight terrorism from within that territory. That was the heart of the Oslo deal.

The second foundation of Oslo was to create a psychological change as well, a change for peace in the Palestinian community, by making demonstrative actions, such as the annulment of the Palestinian Charter that calls for Israel's destruction. I would say that these were the twin commitments undertaken by the Palestinians - annul the charter, fight terrorism. There are many subsidiary commitments, but they derive from these two basic fundamentals. Israel would cede some territory, in an interim step, and then negotiate a permanent settlement. This was Oslo, on its bare essentials.

When we took office, that structure had collapsed, simply collapsed. It collapsed because the covenant wasn't annulled. There was a first step that was taken, that was inconclusive and incomplete - an agreement to have a legal committee of the Palestine National Council convene and decide which elements of that charter should be revised, and then, of course, a formal approval by the body, 700 people of the Palestine National Council, to actually annul those provisions that call for Israel's destruction. The legal committee wasn't even formed. It hasn't met to date, because it doesn't exist. So four years down the line after Oslo, the charter remains on the books.

As for the other matter, terrorism, we had an explosive growth of terrorism following the establishment of the Palestinian Authority's areas.

Now the things that I'm telling you now are very inconvenient. You don't want to hear this, because truth is inconvenient, especially if it doesn't quite work out. What happened was that 250 Israelis died, mostly from terrorist attacks emanating from the Palestinian authorities after the agreement to end all terrorism. That's the equivalent of 10,000 Americans dying on the streets of the cities of the United States after you sign an agreement with an organization that's supposed to end terrorism.

That was the situation when we took office. The people of Israel said to us, "Put this back on track. Get those basic commitments fulfilled. Have the Palestinians annul the Charter. Have them fight terrorism. We've already given them territory - roughly 27 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Before you give them additional territory, have these commitments fulfilled."

We had plenty of chances to exit from Oslo. We had all the opportunities to scuttle the deal. We had riots instigated by the Palestinian Authority - in which they used guns that we had given them to fight terrorists - against our own people and killed our own people. We could have done an end to the agreement at that point. We had terrorist attacks, one in Tel Aviv, two in Jerusalem, claiming many lives. We could have exited then. We didn't do that.

Instead, we made a deal a year ago, in which we gave the Palestinians more territory - in fact, 80 percent of the sacred city of Hebron. It's the second most important city in Jewish history and for the Jewish people, after Jerusalem. But here we said, "All right. We will give you 80 percent of Hebron, and we're prepared to continue the process of Oslo, but we want to codify the fulfillment of your commitments. We're prepared to carry out our outstanding commitments in an interim settlement leading to a negotiation of a permanent peace between us."

Now I hold in my hand that agreement in Hebron and I suggest that you read it. Now I know you're not going to read it, so I'm going to read it for you very briefly. It won't take long.

It says that the two leaders - this is a signed document, signed by the United States, underwritten by the United States - it said the two leaders reaffirm their commitment to implement the interim agreement on the basis of reciprocity. We each fulfill our obligations under the agreement, the principle of reciprocity, and in this context, we conveyed the following undertakings to each other. Now follow the Israeli responsibilities:

Israel: one - the first phase of further redeployments will be carried out during the first week of March. By March 1st, we had decided in the Israeli Cabinet on a further deployment. This was applauded by the United States government. It was rejected by the Palestinians. But under the terms of reference between us and the U.S., all we had to do was decide on a redeployment applauded by the U.S. We carried out our commitment.

Second is prisoner release issues. We were supposed to release first women prisoners that the previous government had promised to release. These were terrorists, women who had killed innocent people. I didn't like it, but we released them because this was a commitment undertaken by the previous government. We keep our commitments. We released them. This was carried out by Israel.

Third - outstanding interim agreement issues for negotiations. We negotiated. What it says is, "negotiations on the following outstanding issues from the interim agreement will be immediately resumed. Negotiation on these issues will be conducted in parallel." We immediately resumed negotiations on all these issues. The list is as follows: safe passage, Gaza airport, Gaza port, passages, economic, financial, civilian and security issues, people to people. We negotiated in each of these committees in earnest. Most of these negotiations have been completed. The Gaza airport is ready to be used. The southern route of the safe passage - virtually ready to be used. The industrial park - ready to be used. All of that is being held up artificially by the Palestinians because they want a permanent crisis. But we negotiated in good faith, and even though there's no deadline here, we began immediately and we completed, on our side, the negotiations. There's very little to negotiate.

Fourth is permanent status negotiations. Permanent status negotiations will be resumed within two months after the implementation of the Hebron accords. Within two weeks of the Hebron accords I said, "Let's start permanent status negotiations now." In fact, I said, "Let's accelerate them."

We fulfilled every one of the commitments under the Hebron accords. I know that this is not fashionable again, because the line is that Israel is not carrying out its commitments. We carried out our commitments.

On the other side - Palestinian responsibilities.

One - complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter. That tells you, number one, it hasn't been revised. It hasn't been completed. What has been done up to now? Nothing.

Number two - fighting terror and preventing violence. The first thing is strengthening security cooperation. One of the Palestinian apparatuses is on strike. They just don't fight terrorism. Forget about talking to us. They say that they're on strike. And the others have been derelict in the necessary security cooperation: preventing incitement and hostile propaganda in the Palestinian-controlled press. It's more controlled in the Israeli press. Palestinian spokesmen talk about terror. In fact, in the last few days they've been saying unless Israel accepts this or that, Palestinians dictate that there will be more violence and more terror. I can think of no greater reward or no quicker reward to terrorism than to acquiesce or to take seriously these things or not to condemn it outright. But, in fact, Palestinians - the Palestinian Authority - has been derelict in this by using official Palestinian media for continued incitement of violence and terror.

Third - combat systematically and effectively terrorist organizations and their infrastructure. The opposite has happened. The Hamas organization's infrastructure has grown and grown and grown in the four years of Oslo to the point where we now have TNT-producing factories in each one of the cities. That's our assessment. We just uncovered one. We uncovered it. But there is more, and now we're graduating to the point where this infrastructure can make car bombs with hundreds of kilograms of TNT as opposed to the earlier and lesser deadly forms of terrorism, which were deadly enough.

Fourth - apprehension, prosecution and punishment of terrorism. You've heard of the revolving door; people are brought in under pressure from us or from the United States and immediately exit. Since Secretary of State Albright raised this issue several months ago with the Palestinian leadership, 300 such terrorists have been released, 50 of them central ringleaders and involved with various terrorist attacks. So the opposite has happened.

Fifth - request for transfer of suspects and defendant, that is, people who are accused of murdering Israelis. That has not happened. There are 34 such extradition requests. I've brought with me a distinguished delegation from Israel that I'll introduce in a minute. But there are two very brave women with us, Judith Shahor and Sigal Megedish. Judith Shahor is the mother of a young man who was murdered while hiking near Jericho two years ago. His killers are in Jericho - his killers, sipping coffee under the Jordan Valley sun, completely free. Sigal Megedish is the sister of a young man who was also murdered. His killers are serving in the Palestinian Police, giving interviews, boasting about their act, scot-free. The fact is, I could have brought here 32 other family members of people who were brutally slain by people who are completely free or in semi-confinement, coming in and out of the Palestinian jails. So what we have, again, is a gross violation of this account, as well.

Finally, confiscation of illegal firearms. You can tell me - because you look at CNN, and you can see - you can see these rallies, vast rallies, where you have the Hamas raising Kalashnikov rifles, talking about destroying the State of Israel, this in full view and often with the connivance and direct support of the Palestinian Police. None - N-O-N-E - none of the provisions promised by the Palestinian Authority in the Hebron accords - in exchange for our withdrawal from Hebron, in exchange for our release of the women terrorists, in exchange for our decision on the first redeployment - none of these have been fulfilled.

Then there is a third commitment: the size of the Palestinian police will be pursuant to the interim agreement. That stipulates 24,000. There are at least 30,000, probably 34,000, Palestinian police under arms. They have a lot of police, contrary to the agreement. They don't use them to fight terrorism.

And finally, the fourth commitment is to prevent Palestinian governmental activity inside Jerusalem. They have such activity in the Orient House and elsewhere. So we play a cat-and-mouse game with them - trying to close them down. That is another violation of the agreement.

I am sorry I am so tedious. I am sorry I am boring you with this detail. But the next time that I hear that Israel is in violation, or both sides claim that they're in violation, I won't throw a tantrum, I'll simply read you this agreement.

Now, there is a corollary to this agreement: the letter of Secretary Christopher, that speaks of additional redeployments from the West Bank in exchange, of course - or on the assumption - that all of these commitments were carried out.

The Palestinians are coming to Washington and they're saying, "What about those additional redeployments?" And we say, "What about this? You haven't done anything. And you ask us to give you more territory which would become additional bases of Hamas terrorism?"

So our first request is that the previous agreements will be kept before we make additional agreements. This is the principle of keeping pacts or keeping contracts, which is essential to any kind of contractual arrangement.

The second request that we have is that these commitments that were made to the United States have meaning. We want - we welcome - the United States as our partner in the quest for peace, but we think that from a substantive point of view - not only from a legal point of view - it would be very difficult indeed to progress towards a real peace if these violations, especially in the field of terror, continue unabated, because if we have terror, the peace process collapses. So, both from a legal point of view - the keeping of contracts - and a pragmatic point of view, the cessation of terrorism is a prelude to further progress on the peace. We must have Palestinian compliance. That is the first issue I discussed yesterday at some length with President Clinton.

The second thing that we have been talking about is Israeli redeployments. We said we're serious about that, too. Since it is understood and articulated in Secretary Christopher's letter to me and to Arafat that Israel will determine the size of those redeployments in accordance with its understanding of its security needs, we proceeded in the Israeli government in the last few months to determine what are our security needs.

We had many deliberations, in which we decided effectively not to draw maps but to define what are our security needs. Israel is a tiny country. The distance between the Mediterranean and the old border is narrower than the width of Washington, DC. The distance from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, all of this "Greater Israel", is less than the distance from Dulles Airport to National Airport. Israel can be thought of as a ribbon along the coast, where 75 percent of our population lives in a very fragile and indefensible condition. That was Israel up to 1967. In 1967 we pushed the border across a stone wall 1,000 meters high called the Samarian and Judean Mountain Ridge, what is called the West Bank, and moved it to the Jordan River - not a river, a stream - but with a big mountain between us and any potential invader from the East. That made peace possible because, for the first time, nobody could go and snip the ribbon.

The victory in the Six Day War made the conquest of Israel - the physical conquest of Israel - virtually an impossible feat. It made the peace treaty with Egypt possible. It made the peace treaty with Jordan possible. It made the peace with the Palestinians possible. It will make the peace with Syria and with Lebanon possible as well, because an Israel that cannot be conquered, that cannot be overrun, is an Israel with which the Arabs make peace. For lack of a credible war option, the peace option is the only thing on the table. This has guided successive Israeli governments, I think up to Oslo. And it certainly guides our policy today.

We say this: if you ask us to withdraw from that wall, we know the whole peace process would collapse, because Israel would revert again to a narrow band along the Mediterranean that will invite aggression and a future conflict. We must strike a balance between the Palestinians who live on that wall, about a million of them, and Israel's need to defend itself and defend the peace.

What we have been talking about in the Cabinet in the last few months is to determine what it is that we must keep, what is it that is most important, in order to know what is less important and what we can be flexible about. Indeed, we have made that determination.

Therefore, the territory that we can cede is territory that doesn't impinge on the vital requirements of safeguarding that protective wall that is so essential for the future, the survival of the State of Israel in a very inhospitable environment, an environment that includes Iraq with a very large army, Syria with an even larger army; Iran that is constantly embroiling matters and agitating the Hamas who live on this wall, and who are committed to our destruction. We must have the minimal buffers to protect the Jewish state today and tomorrow.

When I talked to President Clinton yesterday, I said, in addition to the issue of compliance, we have the issue of defending Israel and ensuring that it has secure and defensible boundaries, and that is the second principle.

The third issue we talked about is how to combine the two. How to combine Palestinian compliance with a possible Israeli withdrawal - how to time it. We talked about it. But I think that I've given you a fair description of what it is that we talked about.

I think that every person in Israel is prepared to take action for peace. I'm certainly here for that purpose. I'm prepared to make a redeployment. I'm prepared to take actions which are not easy. I am not prepared to put Israel at risk and to jeopardize the survival of the one Jewish state.

I think within these limitations it is possible to make progress. I think we made some progress. There's more work to be done. It will probably be done in the next two weeks. But I think that I've outlined for you what I think are the elements of an agreement that could be struck. When we have this exchange of Palestinian compliance for a partial Israeli withdrawal, we can proceed to what I think is the real business at hand, and that is determining a permanent peace settlement that will address the needs of Palestinians and Israelis alike: the Palestinians need to have control over their lives, the Israelis need to make sure that we protect our life.

I believe that such a balance is possible. I believe that our government is the one that will strike it. And I am confident about the future without being pollyannaish about it. There are a lot of obstacles, but I think we were elected to overcome them, and I think we will.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, I was a little bit confused by some of the things that you said in your opening statement, only because I am quite sure I am not familiar with some of Israeli law.

You've discussed extradition of people that you want from the Palestinians. It seems to me, I recall just a little while back, we had a considerable problem here in this local area with a young man from Maryland, whom the United States wanted extradited. And there was a problem there related to Israeli law. Since you discussed reciprocity at the top of your statement, is there a mechanism by which there would be extradition of Israelis to Palestinians that would match what you're asking the Palestinian Authority for?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: There is no extradition arrangement between Israel and the United States, and in fact that underscores what I am talking about.

Here you had a young man who is accused of a horrendous crime - I think from Maryland, is that right? - who fled to Israel. And the United States put "very strong pressure", if I can use the term bluntly, to have this person extradited to the United States, despite the fact that there is no extradition arrangement. We went to considerable lengths to find a way to respond to this American request. We understand the grief of the families and the desire in the United States to see this person brought to justice. So we went to unusual lengths, and our attorney-general has tried, and is trying, to actually respond to them. I think there is a good chance that we'll succeed using these legal channels.

In another case, you continually apply - I think for over a decade, actually, for close to 12 years now - you have been demanding from Libya the extradition of two people accused of the Lockerbie bombing. You have no extradition arrangement with Libya, but you absolutely insist that these people be brought to trial, and you will not relent. And, by the way, you deserve praise, appreciation, from all those who believe in the rule of law and in fighting terrorism. So the United States' position is very much our own position: that killers should be brought to justice, that terrorists should be brought to the dock.

Now, in our relations with the Palestinians, we have an extradition arrangement. It's not called an extradition process, because extradition is between two sovereign states, and the Palestinians, as you know, are a non-sovereign entity; but nevertheless, the equivalent of an extradition document. I read it to you. It is under that arrangement that the Palestinians refuse to respond. They have not asked us to extradite, we have asked them, because the killers kill and flee to them. Now, they have a way of escaping that. They bring to trial the killers, put them in jail for one day and then release them. And they say, "Well, we put them on trial." The requests are from us to the Palestinians, not the Palestinians to us.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, is there a mechanism under which the Palestinians would be able to request extradition.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: I believe it's a reciprocal arrangement. I'm not sure. I'll get this to you by the end of the session. As far as I understand, it's a reciprocal arrangement. But it's not a reciprocal demand, because we have no killers sitting, walking about. We try killers. We put them in jail permanently.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, until very recently the goal has been to move from the interim status to the final status as quickly as possible. Now it seems like the plan is to extend the interim status into more redeployments from the West Bank before going into the final status. I was wondering if you could tell us why this is now the take, why this is wise, and what Palestinian compliance issues would be tied to each of the smaller redeployments, and if you could just end speculation now and let us know if you'll be meeting with Chairman Arafat before you return to Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: I have no plans to meet him on this visit. On occasion I meet him, as you know, and I speak to him quite regularly. But it seems to me that the mechanics of the meetings are less important than the substantive tracks.

You're quite right. There is Palestinian assistance on these interim agreements, not because they insist on carrying out all the provisions that they haven't carried out. That is pushed aside. There is a convenient mind-set that has developed in the international community, and it is unfair, it is unjust, and it is very dangerous: namely, that agreements are only to be kept by Israel, not by the Palestinians, and that an Israeli insistence on the basic, most decent things - like the extradition of murderers or the annulment of a charter of hate - that these are delaying tactics, that these are extraneous. There is a very peculiar and patronizing approach to the Palestinians, saying they are not worthy of the agreements that they signed and so on. When you think of it, when historians will look back at this, they will absolutely be astounded at this one-sidedness and its shortsightedness.

So I think that when the Palestinians insist on carrying out the interim agreement, they mean only the Israeli side, those additional further redeployments, but none of these things.

I think that they have a choice to make. They can either leapfrog, leap over this interim arrangement and go to a final settlement - and I've suggested that; they've rejected it - or they can do the interim agreement, but do it. It's one or the other. And if they choose the interim agreement - and they apparently have chosen it - then the issue of Palestinian compliance becomes all-important. This is where we are right now.

Now how to adjust certain provisions of Palestinian obligations to specific actions on the part of Israel - of course we're discussing that. We discussed it into the late hours of the night last night with the President. But I'm not sure that it would be useful or productive to get into that here. It's just that conceptually, what is important to understand is that we are prepared to carry out an additional redeployment, providing the Palestinians genuinely carry out what they promised us a year ago in Hebron, and what they promised us, in fact, four years ago when they signed the Oslo Accords.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Arafat says that you're not complying with the Oslo Accords, which he says prevents Jewish housing developments in the occupied territory. What is your response? And a follow-up question. Mr. Arafat wants the peace process to move forward based upon compliance and reciprocity. Will you honor his request?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Yes. Well, I can answer that very quickly. There is no limitation on the building of houses in Judea and Samaria and the West Bank under Oslo. Rabin was very proud to proclaim that in front of the Knesset when he presented Oslo, and he was right. There is no limitation on Jewish housing. There's no limitation on Palestinian housing. What is this idea of limiting, freezing communities? You freeze life. You begin a process of decay and death. And since this is precisely what is contested in a final settlement, Oslo left this question open.

Equally, there was no limitation on any Israeli activity in Jerusalem, where full Israeli control of that city is guaranteed under Oslo, up to the final decision of a final settlement. In fact, the only limitation on any activity in Jerusalem, in Oslo, is limitation on Palestinian activity. They have been violating that as well, as I said.

So in Oslo, there is no limitation on settlement activity, even the creation of new settlements, as Rabin also proclaimed to the Knesset. We're not building new settlements, but we are allowing the natural growth of existing communities, which means that people get married, they have children, or people move. We're not busing people into the territories and we are not giving the settlements, these urban communities, benefits that are any different from the development towns. In fact, there is a gradation within the territories, because those communities that are close to Tel Aviv shouldn't deserve the kind of subsidies that more distant communities have.

Market forces are at work, market forces determine this, and private contractors build.

How much do they build? The Palestinian charge is that we are preempting the final settlement by grabbing chunks of land, huge chunks of land in the West Bank. The total built-up area taken up by the settlements is eight-tenths of one percent. The incremental housing does not come to one-tenth of one percent. So what we're talking about is one-tenth of one percent, one one-thousandth of the West Bank. There is at least an equal construction on the Palestinian side in their various communities, including illegal construction in places where according to the treaty - the Oslo Accords - they're not allowed to build. And again, there is this bogus argument, which you will hear, presumably from Palestinian spokesmen, that Israel is violating Oslo because it is building in the settlements. It is not in violation, neither of the spirit of Oslo or the letter of Oslo. In fact, effectively in the field, this construction is doing very, very little.

I don't say that happily, by the way. I'm just saying that as a fact. It is doing none of the things that the Palestinians say that we're doing. So we're not in violation there, either.

As far as reciprocity, I told you - if Arafat accepts that principle in practice, I'm all for it.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, in your discussions with President Clinton and Secretary Albright, have they put forward anything which you would describe as an American plan or American set of ideas that are meant to break this deadlock? And a corollary to that, in this visit or in this whole process do you feel yourself under any kind of American pressure?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: The United States has not put forward a plan. The President has put forward a number of ideas, as have I. We had a rather nimble discussion. It wasn't straight jacketed by public pronouncements. It was, I recall, free-form. We tried in various ways to see how we can put these pieces in place. I think some of these ideas are promising, some of them are more difficult. We're trying in a spirit of partnership that, by the way, is not reflected in some of your reports, to put it mildly, to try to solve this problem. I felt that we had made an effort in two meetings that I would characterize as good meetings and, on the whole, productive. I think we've narrowed some of the gaps, but we still have a way to go.

Question: Sir, following up on that Sheinbein question, there is another case of Alex Odeh, who was murdered in California. He was the West Coast director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The two suspects in this case are apparently in either Israel or settlements of Israel, in Kiryat Arba. This was in 1985. The FBI has posted a $1 million reward in this case. Will the government of Israel begin cooperating to seek justice in this case?

If I might also, vis-à-vis the Holocaust matter, the Holocaust Museum: Yasser Arafat has said that he is eager to go to the Holocaust Musem. Isn't it time that you recognize the unique pain of the Palestinian people, as well? Why not acknowledge, as we approach 50 years of Israel, that pro-Israeli forces drove out Palestinians from their homes in 1948?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: I am not familiar with extradition requests concerning the murder of Alex Odeh. But I am sure that if those would be brought before me, I would look into them. Again, we have a problem for lack of an instrument, of the legal instrument. But our policy is to apprehend murderers. I don't mean that we only act on the murderers of Arab Americans, we apprehend murders of Israeli Arabs or Palestinian Arabs, and we act on it. As far as I remember, though, the Manning couple wanted for the murder, were extradited. Am I right?

Question: Right. There was a Manning couple, and one of them was extradited on another murder that they were involved with. One of them was mysteriously killed, just as they were coming to the United States, under rather mysterious circumstances. But there are still two individuals...

Prime Minister Netanyahu: He died of cancer, I am told. That is not the same as killed. But go ahead.

Question: Well, died under mysterious circumstances. It wasn't clear. But Keith Fuchs and Andy Green are, apparently, still in Kiryat Arba. And what we've been told, since we're the organization involved in this, is that the Justice Department has not received full cooperation at all from the Israeli government on this matter.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: I assure you that our policy is to cooperate fully with the law, and we don't make a distinction, sir, between the murderers of Arabs or Jews. Innocent blood is innocent blood; that is our policy and will continue to be. You asked another question.

Question: Yes. Regarding 1948...

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Well, you asked in the context of the Holocaust. First of all, let me acknowledge that the Palestinian people have suffered and are suffering. One of the things we can try to do is to try to alleviate that suffering by having a solution that would give them the ability to live their lives and to form their destiny alongside our ability to maintain our lives and protect our future.

I think that the great tragedy of the Palestinians has been that, from the 1920s, their politics have often been commandeered by radical leaderships that have sought to eliminate the Jewish presence in the land, and have brought them a succession of disasters. That policy continues - was enshrined, in fact - in the PLO Charter.

We seek to see its removal. And I think that unless there is a full-fledged accommodation with the Jewish people, that radical strain in Palestinian politics will not disappear and, in fact, will predominate.

Again, there has to be unequivocal statements, which is why we want that charter revised, not in a letter to President Clinton or to Prime Minister Blair by Yasser Arafat, but in an act, a constitutional act, where the official bodies of the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people meet and tear up that paper. I think it would have an immense effect on the feeling in Israel that, as we make the decisions to accommodate this peace between us and the Palestinians, that strain of radicalism, and escapism from the reality that we live in this land as well, that has finally been buried. For so much of our common history in the last 20 years, and especially in the last period from Oslo, there has been at once a saying on the part of the Palestinian leadership that they accept the State of Israel, and yet at the same time, a continual reference to this charter to the phased plan of destroying Israel, saying, "We talk about reconciliation, but we don't really mean it."

So I think that the first thing to do is to accept the fact that we're here, that they are here, and I've done that in our acceptance of Oslo and our willingness to negotiate a final settlement of peace. As far as the comparisons to the Holocaust, this is one of the most painful things, not only for Holocaust survivors, but also for Israelis. Often our policies are compared to Nazi policies.

Question: (inaudible)

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Well, let me respond to this. I think it's important. People ask well, what should be the Palestinian policy? Number one is stopping the false symmetries to the Nazis. Whatever the slings and stones of the Israeli military administration, which is now ended, of Palestinian territories, it cannot be compared to throwing into ovens six million innocent people and a million babies included in them. There simply cannot be this degradation of language or the memory of victims to create this false symmetry. Under any measure of comparative military governments in this century or a military government that has ended in the territories, Israel's must be ranked as among the most benign. The Palestinians have their own problems in securing human rights and freedom. But I believe that that should include the respect of the Holocaust and the ceasing of degrading its memory.

We constantly find references, anti-Semitic references in official Palestinian media, including these false references to the Holocaust, that I think should be done away with. If Mr. Arafat wants to turn a new leaf, I think that the best thing that he can do is to stop this stream of anti-Semitic propaganda. That would resonate very powerfully with the people of Israel and the Jewish people worldwide.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, nobody accepts terrorism, but you repeated so many times that 250 people died as a result of terrorism after Oslo was signed. What is missing from this equation is that there has been a dynamic. These people were killed because of activities of Jewish extremist groups and Muslim extremist groups. It was not the Palestinian Authority targeting Oslo; it was extremists on the two sides targeting Oslo. This is one point.

The second point is that the Palestinians are complaining that while the houses of Palestinians who commit acts of terror in the territories, as you describe it, the houses of their families are destroyed, the houses of the Jewish extremists were not destroyed. What do you say about that?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: The growth of terrorism in Palestinian areas was usually the result of neglect. That is, the Palestinian Authority did not discharge the fundamental responsibility of fighting terrorism along the detailed provisions that I described, that they had signed in Oslo and again in the Hebron accords. So as a result, Hamas began to grow and grow and grow. And the more it grew, the more difficult it became to confront them. And the more the Palestinian Authority waits, the bigger Hamas will get - eventually, in my opinion, devouring the Palestinian Authority. Obviously, their goal is to devour us, but coincidentally, they will also pose a problem and a threat to the Palestinian Authority. So we think that action should take place.

Equally, I can tell you that beyond neglect, there was often collusion. For example, Ghazi Jabali is the head of the Palestinian police charged with policing and fighting against the Hamas terrorists, and he himself led a network of Palestinian police who fired at Israeli vehicles with children, with innocent people. Those police are still in place. He is still in place. He's still the head of the Palestinian police. That hardly bodes well for the kind of effective fight against terrorism that we wish to see.

As far as the homes, the destruction of homes, yes, that is a technique that we use, although understand that anyone can resort to the Israeli Supreme Court. Many Palestinians who have been implicated in these terrorist activities have had such appeals, and they've been blocked in the Israeli Supreme Court, depending on the legal situation.

In Israel, those people - and there are not many - but those people who have murdered Palestinians or Israeli Arabs - well, obviously, it makes no difference, in our mind - are put in jail. They're not released; there is no revolving door. They're sitting in jail. And when I was asked, "Should they be released?" I said "no". Killers are killers are killers. I don't care if they kill Arabs or Jews; if they kill innocent people, they belong in jail.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, how has the support you have received from the Reverend Jerry Falwell, evangelical Christians, and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill strengthened your hand in dealing with the Clinton administration?

Prime Minister Netanyahu: It's not to strengthen my hand. I think I have a pretty strong hand, not because I exercise regularly, but because I come here with the full convictions of a country and a people that wants peace and recognizes that that peace will only be sustainable if there is a strong Israel. So this twinning, if you will, of peace and security is what gives me the strength to come here and state my case and be confident in the justice of our cause.

By the way, I cannot think of peace without security. I don't understand what an insecure peace is. It certainly doesn't hold for very long in our part of the region. When people tell me, "Ah, yes, but the real security is peace," I say, "Maybe, maybe in the West, not in the East." In the East, we have, all the time, conflicts and outright wars that break out between countries that are technically at peace with one another. They have wonderful peace treaties with each other. Understand, there is nothing more that I would like to achieve than additional peace treaties, a final settlement of peace between us and the Palestinians and a peace treaty with Syria and with Lebanon. But I do not delude myself that such a peace treaty will hold without the bulwarks of security that deter future attack.

This is so fundamental. This describes essentially the other kind of peace that is possible in this century, the peace that you had with the Soviet Union for 50 years that prevented another world war. It was a peace that was based on your security arrangements in Europe, on NATO. That's what preserved the peace. If you had no such defenses vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, it is unlikely that the peace would have held for 50 years. Now that you have a different society in the East, you can change NATO. You don't need such security arrangements. This is our conception of a peace. As long as we have undemocratic regimes around us, the only peace that will hold is a peace that can be defended, and we insist on those defenses.

Question: Reverend Falwell.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Oh, I'm sorry. Reverend Falwell, indeed. Very important. As far as the friends we have in the United States, we have many friends, many, many friends. I think - if there is such a being as the "average American" - the majority of the American people instinctively understand the truth of what I've been saying here. They may not know the details, but they instinctively understand that Israel, this small, beleaguered country, wants peace and insists on security as a condition for peace. They understand our fight for this peace, they understand our battle against terrorists who threaten us and threaten the peace. And I find that support across the country.

I met with some of the representatives of the sections of American society that support us; indeed, leaders of the Christian community - Mr. Falwell is one of them; Representatives of the House - I met Mr. Gingrich and I met Mr. Kennedy, and I'm meeting today Republicans and I'm meeting Democrats, as all Israeli prime ministers have, and presumably as all Israeli prime ministers will. Equally, we have met, of course, representatives of the Jewish communities, leaders of the Jewish community, and leaders of other segments of American society as well. This is natural. It represents this broad-based support. I intend to see all our friends. We don't have that many around the world; we have a great many in the United States, and we appreciate and respect their friendship.