Washington Institute for Near East Policy
April 19, 1996
We just concluded an operation in Lebanon, as you know, fighting against a guerrilla force. It was already said that fighting a guerrilla is like trying to eat soup with a fork. It is not a very simple experience. I shall make my remarks extremely brief so to really allow time for questions.
As I see it, in the coming four years, before the end of this century, there is an ongoing race of very serious consequences: On one hand, the fundamentalist movement that bases itself on poverty on one hand and the mysticism of heaven on the other hand, trying to impress a very large group of people, using terror; trying to attain a nuclear capacity; and using all the tactics that Machiavelli has offered to subversive groups, namely, the idea that the goal justify means. So, they permit themselves to cheat, to lie, to kill, to undercut. And, in our case, there is a country that serves as a headquarter -- Iran. There are several organizations -- while taking orders from Iran -- the Hizbullah, the Jihad, the HAMAS.
On the other hand, there is a coalition for peace and progress, comprising already several Arab countries and Israel; all of us are hoping that we can enter into the 21st century in peace and prosperity. Generally, we are going over from a world of enemies to a world of dangers. Enemies have borders and flags and armies and fronts and sovereignties and a specified area, whereas dangers are floating around without being stopped at borders, without being identified by flags or fronts, without wearing uniforms of armies, and they may arrive and kill indiscriminately men and women of all parts of a country. It is either us or them to win the race. The time is not very long.
What we can contribute in this race is to bring an end to old and, in my judgment, not necessarily existing conflicts. We try, as a matter of strategy, to make peace with our enemies, former enemies, one by one. We started with Egypt. Then we touched one of the most complicated issues of our time, the Palestinian problem. We're on our way to make peace with the Palestinians. I do hope that on May the 5th this year, before the Israeli elections, we shall start the third and probably the last stage of negotiations with the Palestinians in order to reach a permanent solution.
We are trying to make peace. We did make peace, first of all, with Jordan, which is rather a successful peace. We are trying to make peace with Lebanon and Syria. If we shall attain it, there will not remain a single reason for the ongoing belligerence and hatred in the Middle East. We also understand that it is not enough to bring an end to war; you have to introduce a beginning for a different economic standard of living. When I wrote my book, "A New Middle East," I suggested to the Mediterranean countries to take an example from the European Common Market. And the criticism was: "How can you compare the state of affairs in the Middle East with the state of affairs or the standard of affairs in Europe?"
Were I to write my book today, I would suggest to take an example from Asia, from the Far East. Look what's happening there. Countries that were backward, dormant, poor, belligerent changed completely their destinies and achieved in a rather short while a profound change. A Muslim country like Indonesia, a Buddhist country like Thailand, not to speak about the Five Tigers. Look what's happening. And nobody sent them a Marshall Plan with money. They simply have adopted a market economy. They send their youngsters to be educated. They stopped the former skirmishes. And they brought a new hope and light to their people. That's what should happen in our case as well.
Nowadays economy is not a matter of domination but a matter of competition. And the real change in political terms is that if in the past, leaders tried to politicize their economies, now they understand they have to economize their policies, because policies are the pleasures of leaders, and economy are the needs of the people. And many people are sick and tired to see us leaders standing in the television all the time seeking a photo opportunity and ignoring what is so hard and difficult and demanding on the part of the people.
It is a dual change serving the same purpose. May I say that we are very lucky that at the head of this necessary change stands the United States of America. The United States of America stood against the danger of Communism. Today it stands against the danger of fundamentalism, of terror, of violence, of the spread of nuclear capacities in the hands of irresponsible countries, of mafias, of people, and is supporting the dual -- or leading, actually, the dual effort on the one hand to bring an end to wars, whether in Bosnia or in Haiti or in the Middle East, and to prevent from the subversive forces to stop it or endanger it. It is a difficult road. It's like hiring a car or buying a car and embarking on an unpaved road that leads to peace. You start to drive, and you have a problem with one of your wheels; so you stop, you repair it. You continue; you find a stone, you stop and you put aside the stone. You go on and you have a mine and another mine; you have to clear the road from mines. But while you are clearing the road from mines, never forget the horizon. Never forget the destiny, which is peace and prosperity for all people. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Mr. Prime Minister, if I can open up and ask you the first question. If you could look at the aftermath now of Operation Grapes of Wrath and look forward to hopefully a new relationship with Syria, what sort of peace relationship with Syria do you envision as your goal of negotiations?
PRIME MIN. PERES: What we have learned from the last operation is that you can reach an agreement with Syria, but to say that this is an easy experience would be highly exaggerated. I think that Secretary Christopher did a splendid job and has shown stamina and patience to a very great extent. But, you know, better to have the difficulties in order to attain peace than the comfort by not negotiating.
Q Prime Minister, I'd like to ask you to put yourself in a Palestinian's shoes in Gaza or in Jericho or somewhere else in the West Bank and tell us what you think the message Palestinians should draw this week from your party's decision last week about permitting language on a Palestinian state, from the PLO decision on changes in its charter, and from President Clinton's invitation this week for the first time for the Palestinian Authority leader to come to Washington uncoupled with any other peace ceremony or other leader from the region.
PRIME MIN. PERES: Well, peace does not mean that one party accepts the dream of the other party. Even when you make a compromise it is not on dreams but on positions. I had a press conference together with Chairman Arafat, and one of the journalists said, "Mr. Arafat, how dare you are saying in front of Mr. Peres that you are for a Palestinian state and Jerusalem as the capital of that state?" And Arafat replied by saying, "I have the right to dream." And I remarked that the difference between a dream and an agreement is that for a dream it is sufficient to have one; for an agreement, you need two. So we are talking about agreements, not about exchanges of dreams.
Now, I think the Palestinians won in their negotiations with us more than have ever experienced in their relations with the previous rulers of the West Bank and Gaza. Let's not forget that the West Bank and Gaza was under Arab rule. Never did the Palestinians enjoy autonomy, authority, responsibility. And we did it not because anybody pressed us. We handed over willingly the six major cities, 450 villages. We tried to be supportive.
At the beginning, I believe Mr. Arafat thought that they can reach an understanding with the HAMAS. He has learned that the HAMAS bombs in Israel are endangering the agreement between him and Israel. And furthermore, he has learned that this is a danger to his own authority, to his own existence. For that reason, I believe that today Arafat understands that he has to fight terror in the area, in those areas which are under his jurisdiction. And I think in a way he understands that what we are doing, including the closure, is not an objective preference, but a must in order to defend the land from further bombing or bombs.
Yet we have an agenda, and I think it's more or less agreed. I think we have expected him to change the covenant, to delete from it all those articles that calls for the destruction of Israel. And I must say, he did it, and we appreciate it. We have to be fair. I think also he'll start fighting terror again. We appreciate it. I think what he expects from us: that we shall continue to fulfill the agreement, and we shall do so. The most important event in this agreement is to start the third stage of negotiations, namely, the negotiations over a permanent solution and that we shall do in an opening occasion on May the 5th. We were supposed to do it on May the 4th, but May the 4th is Shabbat, so they have to postpone for a Sunday. And we have to release more prisoners, as we have promised. We have to continue with the redeployment in Hebron. We have to agree on dates and ways. But what looked at the beginning as an impossibility is becoming more and more a reality, I do believe, to the benefit of both sides.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, if understood you correctly, you said that there will not be a single reason for belligerency in the Middle East should the Arab-Israeli conflict be resolved. Are you implying that the threat of fundamentalist Islam and the other problems of the Middle East will somehow go away if the Arab-Israeli conflict is resolved?
PRIME MIN. PERES: I think I should have been more precise by saying that won't be any reason for a conflict between us and our Arab neighbors. But I see in fundamentalism the most dangerous movement after communism and fascism. And I think it doesn't have responsibilities, it doesn't have any discriminations, it doesn't have any restraints, it doesn't have what is so basic in all religions: a respect for human life. Even the suicidal terrorists represent a lack of respect for human life. And it addresses a very large audience. Many of them are poor. It is not the first time there are evil movements in history; it is the first time in history that an evil movement may get hold of nuclear weapons or missiles. And this combination is catastrophic.
Deep in in my heart, I think what would have happened if Hitler had acquired an nuclear bomb. What would the face of this century have been? And for that reason, I believe the earlier we shall intercept this danger, the less victims and the less damage will be caused. I do believe the United States is trying to do their very best. I'm not so sure that all of the European countries will follow suit. They have employed something that they call a critical dialogue. Now I don't see how can you have a dialogue, even a critical one, with people that don't have any obligation to tell the truth.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, about the agreement, last week's agreement of understanding, is it a matter of concern that it wasn't signed, wasn't even initialed; Syria isn't a party, the parties are Israel and Lebanon; and of course, it doesn't stop the Hizbullah attacks. Is there something here to be concerned about, or is it a 100-percent, throw-your-hat-in-the-air triumph?
PRIME MIN. PERES: I think it has a very delicate reason. The Syrians do not claim that they control Lebanon, but just inspire it. And as an inspirational force, they're reluctant to sign. Then I don't think the Hariri would probably sign himself, feels that he can do it on his own. The problem of Lebanon, for the time being, is that they're caught between the killing of the Hizbullah and the inspiration of Syria -- something that limits very much the territorial integrity of the land and the capacity to maintain an independence. As far as we are concerned, we would be happy to see an independent Lebanon, and we have indicated to the Lebanese, once you will have one armed authority, your land will no longer be divided. When you have two armed authorities and each authority shooting in a different direction, you shouldn't be surprised that you lose the integrity of your land.
Now, I think what was shown in the agreement is that there is a real Lebanese interest to have the Hizbullah stop shooting and for that reason stopping the restoration of the Lebanese life, and I think -- and Syria felt that they carry a certain responsibility. I think the fact that this is in writing, though it's not signed and it was initiated and carried out by the United States, is the best bet we could have achieved under the present circumstances. I know though Israel is a very large country, but I am afraid that in the eyes of Syria, America is even a larger country. And if they want to make peace, it's first of all with the United States and then with Israel. So an American document, in my judgment, has a very heavy commitment in the eyes of the Syrians.
Q Prime Minister, unlike other leaders in the region who are in the peace convoy, it seems that President Assad is not too eager to see you reelected. Are you sure that he is committed to peace? And will you resume negotiations with him even before the elections?
PRIME MIN. PERES: Well, may I say that the difference between me and the other leaders in the Middle East is I confine my campaign to the borders of Israel. They have a much larger interest. So I didn't try to mobilize, for example, President Assad to play a part in my elections.
Q Can you share with us your outlook in terms of the upcoming election counts?
PRIME MIN. PERES: Well, I don't have a way to know, because the French are saying about the polls that it is like perfume; nice to smell, but dangerous to swallow. But we have a month to go, and I would -- I wouldn't take anything for granted. A month is a very long time. And the polls are really like a weather forecast; it may hold for 24 hours at least. Right now I am in -- I have an edge. I have had a much larger advantage. I had 16 percent before the bombing started. I must admit that four events, the four explosions, two in Jerusalem and one in Tel Aviv and one in Ashkelon, reduced very much my advantage. That's the reason why there is such a temptation to intervene in our elections.
Then I was faced with the situation in Lebanon. I didn't invite it. And contrary to some very knowledgeable journalists, they say I did it for elections. If I would have to do for elections, I would rather prefer tranquility than confrontation. But once your country is attacked you have to put aside the electoral campaign and defend your people. You have to answer not just to the voters but to the citizens. And when a rain of Katyushas is falling upon the heads of your people, you have to defend, finish. Whether it's good or bad, I don't know.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, last night there was a rather remarkable display of friendship between the United States and Israel.
PRIME MIN. PERES: Is there something wrong with it?
Q No, not at all. What I wanted to ask you is if you could discuss your views on the future of the U.S.-Israeli strategic relationship and whether and when you think it might be appropriate to formalize this in a special document or a treaty.
PRIME MIN. PERES: In the most objective terms, if I can say I know you are having a campaign as well, I feel that President Clinton was the first president in the last 75 years in the United States that has had to introduce a new agenda in American foreign policy, because for all the presidents before him for 75 years have had a clear enemy -- the Soviet Union. And when you have a clear enemy, you can mobilize money, you can mobilize the people, you can say clear things. And all of a sudden, without asking for your permission, communism collapsed, and he was the first president without a clear enemy. And you know if you don't have an enemy it's very hard to conduct a foreign policy. You need it.
So the president, in my judgment, tried to develop an alternative, and this is not a combat against an enemy, but a combat against the new dangers of our time, like fundamentalism, like terrorism, like pollution, like the spread of nuclear weapons. And furthermore, to really try and pacify wherever you can. If it wouldn't be for the American intervention, for example, in Bosnia, maybe the fights in Bosnia would go on; or Haiti; and for that case, in the Middle East. It is easier to call to arms than to call to reason. To call to arms is very heroic and you become immediately a hero. But when you want to save life, you meet all the complications of life. And to create a coalition for peace and life is very complicated.
Now, in this struggle we are a member of the coalition. We want to bring peace not only to us but to our neighbors. We understand that you cannot have peace without having an economic development, market economy, democracy, understanding, patience. And you know peace, too, is in a way a battle. You have to fight. You have the unpleasant occasions. You have the terrible dilemmas. In order to have peace, you have to stop the forces who are trying to destroy peace with arms and bombs and terror and suicidal people. It is not a simple enterprise. And for that reason, while we are grateful to all American presidents and to the American Congress for standing on our side when we were alone, isolated and in danger, we are today very grateful to the United States for enabling us to be a member in this new historic coalition that tries to pacify the globe so the globe will not be just a global village, but a global peace.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, the first peace partner, Egypt, seems to be kind of sour these days toward Israel. How do you analyze the reasons for that sourness? And what do you think might be done to reverse it?
PRIME MIN. PERES: Well, any analysis of sourness sounds very sour, so I'm not so sure that I would like to go into it. I do hope that our relations with Egypt will be enriched and improved, and there too, you need patience. You know, basically what I've learned in my experience is when you talk about peace, many people think that in order to have peace, you have to have the proper plan. I'm no so sure, because a plan without a partner is just a theory. What you need first is a partner. And if you find a partner, you can develop a plan.
The so-called military alliance [between Israel and Turkey] is more of a technical nature. It is not that we have joined in forces to fight an enemy or to defend something, but really to exchange information, to learn from each other. It is not aimed against anybody, against any other country. And when I see the nervousness, I don't understand, why should they be nervous about it? Neither Turkey nor us aim to attack anybody or even to pose a threat. We want to cooperate to develop our countries. We have a common interest to see that fundamentalism will not win the day. And I think I read somewhere that Turkey has 16 agreements like it with different other countries. So I do not see any reason for worry.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, from the pictures on television and in the newspapers that we've seen there was an enormous amount of destruction in southern Lebanon throughout the past two weeks. Would Israel be prepared to come up with some sort of reconstruction plan for that area or suggest an outline for how that area can be brought back to its former state?
PRIME MIN. PERES: Let me first of all say about the size of the destruction. We did destroy targets in villages that were clearly positions of the Hizbullah or homes of the Hizbullah. I don't think it included more than maybe one building in a village. Otherwise, we were careful to keep the villages intact. It wasn't our intention at all to cause any destruction. There was a problem of electricity, and again, we didn't bomb the power station. We destroyed a transformer after they have destroyed a transformer in Kiryat Shmona. And also, we did it with great restraint, as much as we could.
Now, if the Lebanese will be ready to, we are ready to consider to help to reconstruct the part of southern Lebanon. I want to repeat: The Lebanese are not our enemies. We don't want to make their life miserable or difficult. On the contrary, for many good years we have had a very -- a very friendly relationship, even informal, until the beginning the PLO came in and became a state within a state, and an army within an army, and now the same stories with the Hizbullah. Looking at the future, we really hope to cooperate together, to open our borders, not to disturb, and if we can, help to restore, the economy and construction of Lebanon. And we really, out of our good will, we don't have any other intentions.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, you've spent a lot of time talking about the threat of fundamentalism from Iran, and you've been mentioning the nuclear situation in particular. Israel has bombed a research reactor in Iraq before when it posed a threat. If Iran makes sufficient progress toward a nuclear weapon, would Israel consider taking preemptive military actions against Iran?
PRIME MIN. PERES: The hope of Israel is that there will not be a need for it. I think the best way is to stop it from happening, and to the best of my knowledge, President Clinton tried to impress President Yeltsin with the need not to create a situation where they may acquire a nuclear capacity. And if I'm not wrong, I think they have agreed that the prime minister of Russia and the vice president of the United State will continue the deliberation. Then again, I would rather see a coalition that can exercise economic pressure against Iran so to stop the Iranians from spreading terror and hatred and killing and from trying to acquire a nuclear bomb. This is, in my judgment, the best bet.
Q The tragic assassination of Prime Minister Rabin reminded us of how important it is for Israel to preserve its internal peace as it moves toward peace with its neighbors. Would you say a word or two about how you intend to pursue that objective as you move towards a final peace settlement with the Palestinians and also with Syria in the months ahead?
PRIME MIN. PERES: I think the art of politics is to unite a nation without paralyzing it, because you can easily say in order to unite the people, do nothing, though if you shall do nothing, we shall endanger our people. There are times for change, and I must admit that while many people in principle are for change, when the change arrives, they feel at loss, because most of us prefer to remember rather than to think. Now, the art of leadership is not just to serve as a barometer and to represent a mood of a nation, but also to serve as a pioneer, to adopt your own country to new ages and new opportunities. And my own mentor said, "I don't know what the people want, but I know what they should want." And occasionally, leaders must take a controversial position, as the late Yitzhak Rabin did, not because he likes controversy, but because he felt very deeply, as I feel, that there is an opportunity for peace, and that peace is like a galloping horse. When it passes nearby your home, either you mount him, or you lose the opportunity. And that's what he was doing, and that's what we are continuing to do.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, with respect to the multilateral peace process, and particularly the working group dealing with regional security, it's been over a year since those talks have been in plenary, and it appears to many people that the issue has failed -- the Egyptian insistence on linking the entire agenda to the nuclear issue. Late last year, it appeared that there was an agreement between yourself and President Mubarak, but as of earlier this month, Foreign Minister Moussa restated the Egyptian position that there would be no progress on the agreement on security issues until something was done in short order on the nuclear issue. Why do you think Egypt's taken this position, and what can be done to sort of restart those talks?
PRIME MIN. PERES: I'm not sure that I can explain why did Egypt take this position, because when the Camp David agreement was signed, the Dimona nuclear installation was at the same place, at the same situation. Nothing has changed. It is clear that if some countries in the Middle East cannot stop that threat of war against Israel, cannot stop the shelling and bombing of Israel, cannot stop the nonconventional arms that exist already, like chemical and biological, we have to defend our lives. We have emerged from five wars -- very difficult, many of them. We were outnumbered, outgunned, and there must a fairness. And then also Israel -- at the beginning, the saying was "Land for peace." We gave back all the land. Did we get all of the peace? And as long as Egypt or us or anybody cannot stop the Iranian strategies and threat, why should anybody think that Israel has to undress ourselves naked and say to all the countries that want to destroy her, "Don't you worry; you can destroy us"? We don't intend to become a collective Salman Rushdie, even if somebody will suggest us to do so.
Q In the recent cease-fire negotiations, the French foreign minister's presence may have complicated arriving at a conclusion to the talks. In your view, is there a role for the Europeans in future steps in the peace process? And if so, what is it, or is it not?
PRIME MIN. PERES: I think there is a role, and we welcome the role. But I do believe the best way to exercise it is in coordination with the United States of America. All the peace agreements that were reached, from Camp David on, were really guided and followed by the United States. It so happened that the United States, in our times, is the only country that has the mechanism and the national will, if you want, really to prevent the war from becoming insane, from becoming aggressive.
Now I know that the United States is ready to cooperate with Europe, and I do believe that Europe and the United States will find the necessary language and mechanism not to create a conflict in order to solve conflicts. And the last agreement has a French introduction in the monitoring committee. The president told us yesterday night that he's quite happy with it. And we have nothing against a French taste added to the process of peace.
Q Prime Minister, looking across the last 20 years, responsible Israeli officials, citing the relative tranquility that has prevailed on the Golan Heights, have often said that however wretched or oppressive the rule of Assad may be, once he makes a commitment, he honors it. Yet the events of the last few weeks involving the Katyusha attacks against Northern Israel would appear to constitute an explicit abrogation of commitments that Assad made via Secretary Christopher a few years ago. So my question is, what conclusions do you draw about the credibility of Assad's current commitments based on the recent Katyusha attacks?
PRIME MIN. PERES: Well, like the negotiations under Kissinger, so the negotiations under Christopher; both of them has found it is very difficult to reach an agreement with Assad. But once he agreed, as you said, he respects it. Now we have one experience on the Golan Heights. I hope that a second experience will follow suit.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, do you favor a U.S.-Israel defense treaty? If so, when, how, under what conditions?
PRIME MIN. PERES: Well, we are talking about two different things; one is an agreement on anti-terror combat. I think the time is ripe for it, and I do believe we are going to sign it. Then, there is another proposal to have a defense pact. It has certain advantages; it has certain problems. I do not see any reason to decide on it in a hurry. We have time to study it. And I do believe that the United States and Israel will decide, in a study group, to have a good look in the pros and the cons to have it. Our relations with the United States are different from any other relations with many countries in the world. Usually, when you have a defense pact with another country, you send your boys, your soldiers. We do not ask for for American soldiers to come and defend Israel. So, that's a major difference under any pact.
The maximum we can think of is to have, maybe, American technicians watching a peace agreement; like the case, for example, in Sinai, where the United States is participating in the multilateral group to guarantee the peace between Egypt and Israel. It became such a daily event that nobody pays attention to it. I think most of the Americans have forgotten that you have several hundred troops in Sinai. They are of a technical nature.
Then there is also a problem of the scope of the agreement. You know, as in the anti-terror agreement, I do hope it will be open-ended; namely, if other countries would like to join in a pact against terror they will be welcome, because as I see it today, the dividing camps are not Arabs and Israelis, but pro-terror and against terror. The same goes for a pact. If you ask me, my real desire would be to have a defense pact with all countries in the Middle East, to stop war. So I do believe we shall begin now to have a good look what will be the best way to do so, the best timing, and the best framework. To conclude, I would say on the anti-terror story, time is ripe to sign. On the defense pact, time has come to check.