The Prime Minister argued that peace was crucial for Israel because of its location in the Middle East. There was an urgent need for peace between governments while peace between people was a matter for future generations. He said that the opportunity must be seized before Iran became a nuclear power, and if the process failed, there would be a danger of inter-ethnic violence similar to the situation in Bosnia. Peace would also have a positive influence on Israel's economic growth. Text:
J.P: What strategic environment do you envision here in the Middle East in the next five to ten years, and how does this affect your decision-making in the peace process?
Prime Minister Barak: I see a continuation of the tension between the Lexus neighborhoods and the Olive Tree neighborhoods, as (New York Times foreign affairs columnist) Thomas Friedman called them (in the title of his recent book the Lexus and the Olive Tree, contrasting trends of transnational economic integration in developed
regions with trends of nationalism in less advanced areas). Clearly, we are an olive tree neighborhood and, in a way, Israel is a force which is leading, or pushing for, change in the Middle East.
Reality here is characterized by three things: One. A strong Israel. Very strong. The strongest in the region.
Two. This is a hard environment, an environment of the olive trees, not the Lexus. This is not western Europe and not North America, that is, this is a place with no second chances, with no compassion for the weak. Therefore, for years, even after we have peace agreements with everyone, we will still have to remain strong. Strong in all ways: militarily, diplomatically, economically, scientifically, educationally and in terms of our ties with the Jewish world. This strength will be our guarantee for our continued existence, and will allow us to stand here until the point, until the time comes when we may, in fact, become a neighborhood like North America... This could take three or four generations.
Three. There is a window of opportunity here which opened up when the Soviet Union fell apart and will close in, say, five or six years when it is possible there will be a regional leader, a dictator with nuclear capability and the means to launch it. This will add to the unrest and the question is, what do we do within this time frame? I say, we don't close our eyes to the difficulties, but we should carefully make the correct decisions right now.
We face three threatening circles. The closest is the terrorism circle within us and on our borders. After that, there is the circle of increasing regional conventional weapons. Finally, there is the circle of increasing regional non-conventional weapons.
Our influence on the largest circle is limited, and, to some extent, it exists without any relation to us. Take Iran for example: when Iran looks east, it sees nuclear powers all the way to Irkutzk. Pakistan is nuclear, China is nuclear, India is nuclear, North Korea is nuclear. This is the scene they see and we don't have a major part in it. At the same time, we don't have a strategic interest in pushing ourselves as the symbolic and apocalyptic pole in the fight between good and evil. And by the way, Iran also looks westward and sees Saddam Hussein trying to develop nuclear power. So therefore, we need to put the situation into perspective.
We have to push in the right direction, but this should not blind us to the needs in our own backyard, over which we can have an influence. In my mind there is a clear conclusion here: from our position of strength and confidence, within this window of opportunity, within this tough neighborhood, we can diffuse the immediate mines of the conflict, which are also those things that affect us on a day-to-day basis. Also, in a more long-term context, this will help to diffuse the long-standing base of belligerency towards Israel.
I don't see how Iran and Iraq will be able to keep up that belligerency if we manage to reach peace deals with the Syrians, the Lebanese and the Palestinians. My vision of the future Middle East is realistic. This is not western Europe, not Benelux.
J.P: With regard to your vision of the various circles here, are you saying that Israel needs first to make peace before there is a change in the balance of power in the region?
Prime Minister Barak: There will be a change in the reality here, not exactly in the balance, because, of course, calibrating the balance is so complex. We are not interested in having some crazy man get control over nuclear power. Who needs that?
We are forging stable, political accords that reflect the recognition of the leadership as to what the alternatives are - either agreements or going toward a Balkan- or a Belfast-type situation and getting into a new conflict. When faced with this alternative, we prefer agreements.
In reaching these agreements, we will both, on the one hand, have to recognize that each side has its red lines - its interests that cannot be touched - but on the other hand, we will know that there is space in which it is possible to look at and work with our partners' interests. With the Syrians, I believe this is possible. I don't know if this will happen. Maybe [Syrian President Hafez] Assad won't want it to happen, and so it won't, but it is possible. With the Lebanese, it is definitely possible. With the Palestinians, it is more difficult, but I think we have already taken a big leap forward by coming up with a deadline for reaching an agreement on principles.
Why? Because if we are not able to reach a framework agreement within five months, then we won't manage to reach a final agreement even within five years. Even if we manage partially - that is, to identify those parts on which we can, in principle, reach agreement, and those parts that will require long interim agreements, or those for which we can see the permanent status but which require a long time to arrive at - we will have done the right thing.
What are people talking about when they say I am being hasty here? Look, we are six years after Oslo, almost 15 years after the intifada. We are 35 years after the establishment of the PLO, and 100 years after the beginning of the conflict. What is new here? What more can we learn about our positions? The only thing we can do more of is bury more Israelis and many more Palestinians, and then we will come together with the same maps and the same historical background. Who knows better than me? For me it is like pulling out an arm, to think about giving up parts of this land. I have been tied to the land since the moment I was born, I don't remember myself any other way.
The thought of giving up land around Beit El, not even Beit El itself, or in the area of Shilo, Ma'ale Levona or Beit Horon, tears my heart. I have an emotional and physical attachment to each and every one of these places.
J.P: Is withdrawing from Beit El a possibility?
Prime Minister Barak: No, definitely not the settlement. But ask me about the region around Beit El. Ask me if we will be forever in Deir Dibwan: I don't think so.
J.P: Does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat understand that he will not get 100 percent of the land he wants?
Prime Minister Barak: I don't want to speak in his name but I am sure he does. Of course he won't say that. If you interview him there is no doubt he will say he wants everything, but I am convinced that he understands that, if he wants an agreement. If he doesn't want an agreement, that is a different story.
It will be very tough. The final agreement will be a book that is so heavy that it would be a real problem if it fell on your foot, but it can be written up in a few months. The principles? On every issue all we need is a page.
How do I know that we won't make the wrong concessions? Because I have promised to take any final agreement to a referendum, and the people will not approve of the wrong sorts of concessions.
I used to meet for years with Likud voters and I would ask them, which one of you has been recently to Asirra Shemaliya (adjacent to Nablus)? Who even knows where it is? It is not a small place. It is a large village. And who has been recently to Mazra el-Sharkiya (north of Ramallah)? I can give my car keys to some of the most ardent Land of Israel loyalists, and they won't know the way to (Hebron's) Shuhada street, the center of all these conflicts.
J.P: How do you envision separation from the Palestinians?
Prime Minister Barak: It is not easy to create a fence around the 400 or 600 kilometers of a Palestinian entity. But I think, in the end, there will be a generation in which separation will include a fence. Not a fence to ensure that no one ever gets through, but rather one that people pass through according to certain regulations, and not one that allows every madman to come in with explosives. When there are fences, we can also close them sometimes when necessary. We need to find solutions to all this, and we are committed to certain agreements. I see, for example, great importance in the bridge from Gaza to the West Bank. Not only will it create work, it will cost $600 million, probably some $150-200 million. will go to the Palestinian side and on our side a Palestinian contractor can work, but more importantly it will give the Palestinians continuity.
In Gaza there are 1.5 million people, in the West Bank there are another 1.5 or 1 million. There needs to be a connection. I am for beginning to build the bridge right now, finding some big international contributors who want to participate and getting help from governments to do it. Build it within four years, for, according to the agreements, we need to leave one passageway open at all times. How will we be able to do this without such a bridge?
J.P: Will terror attacks derail the peace process?
Prime Minister Barak: We have to understand, the Palestinians and ourselves, that we have a common interest. Terror can derail the process. One should not have any illusions about this. Therefore we have a common interest. Likewise, the terror from Lebanon could put a halt to the process with Syria, and therefore, Assad and I, so I think, have a common interest in stopping Hizbullah terror.
J.P: Are you saying there is linkage between Hizbullah attacks and the Syrian negotiations? Does the fact that the arms pass through the Damascus airport mean that one cannot simply say that extremists are trying to halt the peace process when Assad himself is permitting such things?
Prime Minister Barak: Everything is complicated. Assad, I think, knows that Lebanon, which was traditionally a burden for Israel and an asset for Syria, is now a liability for both sides. Experience shows that when there are talks, there is only a low level of Hizbullah attacks. If the Syrians are smart, the same thing will happen now. If this does not happen, then the developments will be affected.
There is a school of thought, advocated by an American academic, Daniel Pipes, which says that when it comes to the peace process, Assad enjoys the process more than the peace. The process provides him with many side benefits in dealing with the US and Europe, while peace itself could unleash centrifugal forces of liberalization that could undermine the very foundation of his regime.
J.P: What is your view?
Prime Minister Barak: There used to be a school of thought that said that what Assad is afraid of is the "Ceaucescu syndrome". What did [former Romanian leader Nicolae] Ceaucescu do? He opened the window so as to let in a little air from western Europe. Suddenly, in came a hurricane and threw him out the window. Assad saw this. He knew Ceaucescu, he knew his wife, Yelena, and he saw the students, whom he didn't know, shooting them.
It was a personal experience. I estimate that Assad understands that if he does not want to become another Albania, he has no choice. He must open up carefully and intelligently in a way that will preserve his historical lesson and legacy, and he wants to do this.
J.P: And there is no indication that he is stepping away from his oft-stated positions regarding Israel's opposition to returning to the June 4th borders including withdrawal to the Kinneret?
Prime Minister Barak: There is no indication, and he has no reason to do so until he knows there will be an agreement. I believe the talks will be re-started. I have no way of knowing whether they will culminate in agreement or not.
There are two schools of thought regarding the advisability of making peace deals with an older generation such as Assad or Arafat. Those who say "make peace with the older generation" say that only the older leaders can make historic compromises and their word will be accepted by the younger generation as sacred writ. Those who say "make a deal with the younger generation" say that the younger ones are the ones that Israel has to live with, so it is better to wait.
J.P: Which school do you prefer?
Prime Minister Barak: I believe in the former - dealing with the older (leaders). The leaders who were there when their states were being established are the ones who can take the big decisions today. Assad is the symbol of the revolution there; he molded the state. And Arafat is also, in a way, the one who molded his people. Therefore, these leaders hold the sort of authority and perspective that allow them to make the hard decisions.
A new-generation leader has to take a few years to gather strength and consolidate power. Then they need to take a few years to prove that they are as tough as the previous generation, and only then can they turn their attention to other things.
[The late Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat, for example, was never considered by the observers to be the sort of leader who could take historical decisions. As it turned out he made historical decisions. But anyway, he, too, what did he do when he came to power? He spent a good few years consolidating his power: there was the War of Attrition, the Yom Kippur War, and then he went towards compromise. The saying, "let's wait, maybe the next one to come will be better", is something of a cop-out and a bit naive. We are not any marginal power. We are the major power in the region, we are the strongest power 1,500 kilometers around Jerusalem... Here I am, having coming to power with a big victory, saying that I will lift every stone so as to reach peace agreements that will strengthen Israel.
J.P: What about those who say that your campaign promise to leave Lebanon in a year will impact negatively on the talks?
Prime Minister Barak: No, it will have a positive influence. Actually, it will take much less than a year if we want to reach an agreement, and if we don't, six years won't help us either. We have been there for 17 years, and we have not left yet. There is no point dealing with the question, what if July is coming up and we still don't have an agreement with the Syrians? If the time comes and this is the case, we will deal with it then. Meanwhile, I believe that, in a few weeks, we will find a formula which will allow us to renew the talks with Syria.
J.P: What if there is no deal with Syria?
Prime Minister Barak: I don't have to start planning for other hypothetical situations. I am not afraid of dates, we are not speaking about a contract here. If the soldiers come out of Lebanon in ten months, I won't ask for a medal, and if it takes 15 months I don't plan to jump off any tower. I say half a year for reaching a framework, if it takes five-and-a-half months, it is fine.
J.P: With regard to the General Security Services and the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of force in GSS investigations - how do you, with your dual responsibilities as prime minister and defense minister, see Israel resolving that conundrum?
Prime Minister Barak: I have called for a high-level task force to investigate and try to find a solution. It is clear that a way has to be found, and I really don't think the Supreme Court disagrees... [that when there is] a ticking bomb, exceptions need to be made. You can have in hand someone who might know where that bomb is located and, tick, tick, tick, it is going to blow up, so that sitting him down for a cup of coffee and asking him nicely about it is implausible. You don't know who you may be burying the next day.
In addition, there is the question of the ticking bomb in its more metaphorical sense, that is when you uncover an organization and you know they are planning things. You don't know if there is a bomb but what about if, God forbid, there is. It is clear that in Israel there is a need to allow force, under certain circumstances, with thought and under the correct supervision. We are not a barbaric country, but it cannot end with coffee and pats on the back. We need to find a way to do it and we will do so.
J.P: What about the complaints that you are working alone, or, at most, with a very small group of advisors, leaving your ministers out of the loop?
Prime Minister Barak: Not at all. Everything is on the table. There is no mystery here. There was never more cooperation. Did (founding premier David) Ben-Gurion include (then Foreign Minister Moshe) Sharett more?... There has never been better cooperation than now, between myself and David Levy.
J.P: Isn't it strange that you forgot to invite him to your dinner with Arafat last week?
Prime Minister Barak: It was a mistake. Can't there be mistakes?
J.P: What about your campaign pledge to deal with the problem of old ladies in the hospital corridors? In general, what about the domestic promises you made before you entered office?
Prime Minister Barak: I know exactly what I am doing, and I will do all the things I promised I would do. Test us in four years. Everything is a process. A process. I have spoken about the blossoming of the cherries. You can say, I want cherries, you promised me cherries, and now it is January, February, where are they? They are not even blooming. A disgrace, a failure, you promised. But why are they not blooming? Because first you need it to be cold, you need the whole winter to pass. Everything in life is a process.
Look, I went everywhere with my election pledge card, on which my commitments are written down. Look,
1. Bring the final agreements with the Palestinians and the Syrians to a referendum. When they are forged, that is what I will do.
2. Bring the soldiers out of Lebanon. I tell you within nine-and-a-half months they will be on the international border.
3. Create 300,000 new workplaces within four years. I will create those jobs in four years, four. Give me time, because that is what it takes.
4. Appoint an interior minister for whom all are equal under the Law of Return. We have already done this, but it seems the public has already forgotten.
5. Give first-degree students low-interest loans. We have started it this year, and will continue to expand it in the coming years.
6. Cancel the extra payments for doctors' appointments and medicines. For doctors' appointments it is already being done, for medicines it will start next year.
7. Exempt newly released soldiers from paying income tax. We are starting it this year.
I mean everything I say.
J.P: What about sequencing? Are you saying that first you are focused on peace, with domestic reform only later?
Prime Minister Barak: There is internal logic. at work here. The peace is the basis of it ail. Without peace, there is no growth, and without growth the government has no money to do what it wants. We are a strange country. In a normal country, the public throws out the government that wants to impose taxes and spend, and the government that wants to please [the public] is stopped by the lawmakers. Here every thing is topsy-turvy. People don't seem to understand that the money we spend here does not grow on trees, and it does not come from America - it is their money, the money they paid in taxes. The moment they understand this, they will stand up like bulldozers against any wasteful spending.
A government is not a panacea. People need to take themselves in hand. Every school and every neighborhood has to do this.