|
Q: Mr. President, what was
the nature of Omar Soliman’s mission to Israel? What outcomes have
been reached? Will it be followed by further meetings?
A: This mission came in light of my meeting with the political
ministerial group to discuss the current situation of the Middle East
issue. In that meeting, the latest developments of the situation were
probed and it was agreed that Egypt should not detach itself from
current events but should be as active as usual amidst the perseverant
peace-oriented efforts. Otherwise, this must be a serious mistake. On
the other hand, the Israeli prime minister, from time to time sends to
us his intelligence chief. In this context, I sent our Intelligence
Chief Omar Soliman to Israel. There, he met with Foreign Minister
Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Benjamin Eleizer. He also met with
Ariel Sharon himself and some officials of the Israeli presidency .
Then he met with the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. In the
course of his meetings with the Israeli officials, the intelligence
chief found Sharon extremely, even, too adamant.
Although
he knows quite well that violence can never be stopped as long as the
occupation existed ; he insisted that violence should be first totally
stopped. If at present there is a state of relative calm , such
situation cannot be guaranteed to persist for the time being or in the
future. For violence to come actually to an end, the Palestinians
should feel that there is life breathing on the ground; that there is
hope for them to have some day a state and an entity of their own ,let
alone other rights. But persistence of occupation is something
categorically illogical. It is no logic, I tell the Israeli prime
minister, to indefinitely keep your military troops within Palestinian
towns and villages.
Our
intelligence chief discussed the situation, with all perils involved,
with the Israeli prime minister but found him opposed to any step that
may get the situation moving. Instead, he wanted violence to be
totally stopped first; he wanted to have reforms to the Palestinian
Authority the way he alone understood and wished. You can of course
imagine how this will look.
Q:
Including, for example, removal of Abu Ammar (Arafat )?
A: Yes of course, including bringing in a new Palestinian leadership.
Here, let me tell you something, that I wonder whether the Israeli
government already realizes this or not. In my estimation, the Israeli
officials do not understand that insistence on bringing a new
Palestinian leadership is quite difficult; it is hard to find a
replacement to Abu Ammar, I have reiterated that Abu Ammar has a long
and deep experience of this cause and things should be settled with
him in order to attain a final and real peace.
Q: Would
Arafat give up power in a year?
A: As I have mentioned in my interview to the New York Times, I think
that Arafat, perhaps in a year or more, would leave power. But what I
meant was that he might do so after reaching peace agreement, but the
Israeli are unable to understand that there is a difficulty for any
replacment to Arafat to run a dialogue and negotiate with Israel.
Q: What is
your estimation?
A: I see that it is difficult to find a substitute to Arafat; it is
better to keep things unchanged until reform has taken place. But as
you know to make reform, withdrawal and many other things are
required, as the question here is that how can Arafat make reform
while his lands are occupied? Arafat cannot even call his ministers to
gather to take oath because he is comletely isolated while his peole
live under destruction, seige and killing just to mention a few of the
restrictions imposed upon the Palestinians.
Q: What is
the effect of that on the course of events?
A: I am afraid of future developments, as the stance adopted by the
Israeli government would lead to anarchy in the Palestinian
territories and more violence at home and abroad. In response to the
continuation of the Israeli stance, extremist groups adroad will
sympathise with other elements causing chaos in the Palestinian
territories and the situation will become worse and more complicated.
Q: But
hasn't the Intelligence Chief yielded outcome?
A: What they have agreed to was that Israeli foreign minister would
start contacts with figures from the Palestinian Authority (PA) as a
step that might lead to something. I assume Peres has already met with
the Palestinian ministers of finance and interior on Monday.We are
awaiting the outcom of these meetings. But I feel that there is a
wrong idea occupying the mentality of the Israeli government, which is
keeping Arafat isolated, an idea that will never lead to a solution as
they think.
Q: In your
opinion, how such an idea was formulated?
A: I do not know. I see the current situation as grave. I tell the
Israelis that it is extremely difficult to find a person or a group as
a replacement to Arafat that they can negotiate with. No group from
either the West Bank nor Gaza or even from abroad can replace Arafat
because the Palestinians would not consider any such group as their
representative. Q: What are Arafat’s demands from Egypt?
A: The question is not demands, we have talked with him on reform in a
bid to help the PA, and I do not help Arafat as a person, but rather
as a leader of the Palestinians, because I know that he (Arafat) is
the only person now to deal with as PA president.
Q: What is
your comment on the intricacy of the crisis and the conflicting
interests?
A: To me, the first interest is the Egyptian people, and I pay full
heed to the interests of the Egyptians in taking any decision. Of
course the crimes Israel perpetrates stir the sentiments of all of us,
but still the only fact that imposes itself is that just peace is for
the sake of the whole nation. Egypt maintains its interests and it has
a crystal-clear stance in this respect, and at the same time we will
keep supporting the Palestinians until they regain their legitimate
rights. Scenario of war is well known; destruction, blood, tears. We
rushed into wars, and following October victory we started
negotiations. That is why I say to both the Palestinians and Israelis
that there is no other way around it but to go to negotiating table.
We should not also forget that Arafat doubles as Chairman of the PA
and that of the executive authority. If he is removed as chairman of
the first, he is still chairman of the second. I reiterate that
removing Arafat will harm all parties including the Americans.
Q: In line
with that comes a draft law that prohibts selling lands to non-Jewish?
A: This would definitly be a form of racism that would give rise to
bloodshed everywhere in the world. The Israelis need someone to
explain to them the grave consequences of such a situation. I believe
that they do not want to understand, relying on military supremacy and
the US support.
Q: There
has been talks in Washington on new constitution for the Palestinian
state, what is the link between such constitution and the statute
enacted by the PA to run its work?
A: The Palestinian Authority (PA) has its statute, Israel itself works
through a statute and several countries take such a measure as a
substitute for constitution. Washington sees that Arafat should
appoint one or two persons to be responsible for negotiating with
Israel. Within this context, I can safely expect that if Israel
isolated Arafat, and picked up other persons to negotiate with, those
persons will either reject to negotiate with Israel or they will
consult Arafat. And I quote a British newspaper as describing Arafat
as the father of the Palestinians.
Q: Would
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan attend the quartet meeting to be held
in New York this month? Is there any contradiction between such
meeting and the resolution of the Arab follow-up committee?
A: Of course Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan would attend the meeting,
and thus Israel will not attend as Saudi Arabia is taking part unless
US convinces Israeli of attending the meeting. The meeting, in my
opinion, would not focus on setting the peace process into motion,
rather it would concentrate on rebuilding the Palestinian
infrastructure that have been completely destroyed. There should be a
mechanism to implement what has been included in Bush’s statement.
Q: What is
your estimation for the current situation after Bush statement? and
why did you asked for clarification?
A: In my opinion, President Bush statement called on the Palestinians
to take specific measures to be followed by some Israeli steps. What
urged us to ask for clarification is that the statement called on PA
to make reform, but the Israeli withdrawal is a must at least to
conduct electoral campaign. If we call on Palestinians to take some
steps, Israel also should take some measures.
Q: Back to
the quartet meeting, would such meeting discuss topics included in
Bush statement on security, political solution and economic
conditions?
A- I don’t believe that such meeting would discuss security or
political issues because neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are
in, there will be four donor countries to offer help for the
Palestinians.
Q: Talks
now are only confined to security. What is your comment?
A: We are not against any move that would maintain stability and
security in the region, but this should take place according to a
timetable and a specific mechanism.
Q: Has the
idea of holding an international conference been ruled out?
A: Good preparation is required to hold such conference to identify
its goals, and I told US President that his Foreign Minister Colin
Powell should visit the parties concerned to bring viewpoints closer,
otherwise the result would be a conference without outcome.
Q: If the
international conference is to implement Bush statement, should it be
held?
A: First, we have to consider the current situation in the region then
talk with the Americans and Israelis on what could be implemented now
and what should be followed. We have to talk with each other if we
want to realize peace.
Q: What is
Egypt’s stance on Sharon’s ideas to establish Palestinian state
without borders, to oust Arafat and to postpone final settlement
negotiations for some 10 or 15 years?
A: Postponing the solution for 15 years would further complicate the
issue, and ousting Arafat will never lead to peace. We want to discuss
the essentials of just and comprehensive peace. But what is going on
right now deepens hatred.
Q: Mr.
President you described Bush’s statement as “balanced” despite
it included no mechanism? Is there anything new in this regard?
A: I described the statement as “balanced” because it in required
both the Palestinians and Israelis to take steps but demanded
clarifications and an implementation mechanism. It is not clear
whether the Palestinians would do all that is required on their part
while the Israelis still insist that Arafat should be removed first
before any step be taken on their part. I assert that Arafat is the
father of the Palestinian cause. Any alternative leadership that is
imposed will be considered unpatriotic. We want to evade tension in
the region as this will affect the whole world.
Q: Egypt
was frequently mentioned in Bush’s statement on the Middle East.
What’s your comment on that?
A: Egypt is the biggest country in the region. Egypt has great
potentials and can help in the peace process only when the demands are
logical. Egypt always acts wisely, rationally and out of careful
calculations. We strongly reject to be forced to take some measures
that we find illogical. We do not accept to act against our will. Let
me be more specific, during my last visit to Washington I was not
seeking a statement by President George Bush or specific outcome. Our
talks mainly tackled the status quo in the region. I explained to him
all the aspects of the situation and we reached agreement regarding a
lot of points. But Sharon upon knowing of my visit, requested his
visit which came a day following mine with a view to change the
Administration’s conception and gave reasons which -regardless of
being true or not – succeeded in convincing the Americans. On our
part, we are keen on sparing the region clashes, bloodshed and chaos
because we are deeply convinced that chaos will harm us all. As known
and expected the Jewish lobby was a supportive force to Sharon’s
visit. But such a lobby must think logically if it seeks the stability
of two states- Palestinian and Israeli- as President Bush states (one
of the positive points in his statement). It is my belief that there
is still an opportunity for the US Administration to capitalize on the
positive points and establish a mechanism by which hurdles stumbling
the beginning of dialogue between the parties concerned can be
overcome.
Q: Mr.
President what is your message to the Palestinians and Israelis during
the current phase of the peace-building effort so as to achieve
stability in the region?
A: I call upon them to be logical. If we are really looking forward
towards achieving peace we must try to find a mechanism for what
President Bush has said. I advise them to return to the negotiating
table if they want to achieve peace and stability and raise the
standards of living of their peoples. The solution comes from inside
not from outside and out of their conviction not by depending on
others.
Q: Mr.
President you announced that Egypt does not object to participate in
the rebuilding of the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. What
is the scope for such cooperation?
A: Egypt provides expertise in establishing the Palestinian
constitutional institutions through providing training courses fro
cadres. Egypt is the first country to practice administration on the
banks of the Nile.
Q: Is
Egypt ready to undertake security tasks in the Palestinian
territories? Is there any written pledge by late President Anwar Sadat
that Egypt will interfere security-wise in the Palestinian
territories?
A: This is the first time I hear of such a written pledge. I reiterate
that there is no such pledge at all. Sadat had not written anything of
this sort in his life. Secondly, I cannot dispatch forces there while
the Palestinian and Israeli forces are engaged in fighting. Nothing
can compel me to get my forces involved in such fighting. Security
measures are to be arranged between the two sides.
Q: King
Abdullah II refused the proposal of a US congressman that Egyptian and
Jordanian troops would go there for keeping security till Palestinian
security forces are formed?
A: Every one is free to say whatever one likes. We have our decision
that goes with our interests. We hear many things from news agencies
that should not be believed. Most of these news is just test balloons.
On our part, Egypt has always been thinking logically in a way that
achieves out interest. I always seek the opinion of experienced
persons, who are a lot in Egypt, and the political group for
discussion as well as various opinions to ensure that a decision is
sound.
Do not
ever believe that there are secrete annexes in Camp David Accord or
with Israel or the United States. Such so-called secrete annexes, if
any, would have been revealed in a few minutes and be known to every
one. I know nothing about secrete annexes. Yet, this is the habit of
some people for twisting facts. It is like those who claimed,
"while in Washington, the President agreed with Bush to oust
Arafat." That has never happened. You have followed up the press
conference after my talks with Bush. What I have said in that press
conference was the same in my talks with him. It is unbelievable that
I talk with him of ousting Arafat and declare the opposite in public.
Bush himself would not believe me. I have never spoken in two tongues.
I never hide anything. There are no secrete annexes.
Q: Mr.
President, you are making continuous contacts with world and Arab
leaders in an attempt to protect the Palestinian people. What are the
expectations and hopes concerning this matter?
A: Egypt is a key and pivotal country in the region, right. But, it is
not the most powerful in the world. We talk with and convince the
others. I must do my best; yet, I am not supposed to achieve full
success. I exert effort and explain the situation for one reason;
Egypt is a significant part of the region that affects and gets
affected by the current happenings. So, we are acting and talking with
all parties concerned for convincing public opinion of the facts.
Also, I am travelling to France late this month. I may also visit
another country.
Again, we
are talking with all concerned parties about the situation in the
region as we are living side by side with the Palestinians and the
Israelis. We are willing to extend helping hand in the peace process
and put an end to tension. We have a great experience in this field
with our farsightedness. What we see now is that in case there is no
solution to the situation, it would be more complicated in the future.
We do not want it to reach that far. I will give you an example of
misunderstanding. The US Administration got misleading information
that Arafat signed a cheque of financial aid to the martyrs of
Shohadaa Al-Aqsa [Martyrs of al-Aqsa] group. Arafat has been
financially helping the families of the martyrs along 25 years. These
families do not only get financial aid from Arafat, but also from many
countries. This is a humanitarian act. The wife whose husband blew
himself up must be helped instead of getting homeless with her
children.
Q: There is a kind of imbalance in the US dealing with Egypt and
Israel. The time many voices in the Congress call for turning military
aid to Egypt into civil ones, the States approved $131.9 million for
upgrading a Israeli missile, besides additional $200 million as an aid
instead of annual reduction from US aid to Egypt and Israel. Then
where is the balance?
A: We all know the nature of the special relation between America and
Israel. Also, Israel has stronger influence on the US political stage
than that of all the Arabs there. I have talked with the US president
and many Congressmen about this matter. I thing the States would grant
Egypt aid, yet, we have to wait till the Congress approves it.
Q: Every
now and then, there are attempts for defaming Egypt, such as the Dabaa
nuclear station for peaceful uses, and that China helped Egypt in
developing nuclear weapons, a piece of news denied by the ambassador
of China in Egypt. Nevertheless, some people are stirring this matter,
besides the story of the missiles from North Korea.
A: I would like to refer
first to an important matter, which is that whenever the Israelis see
Egypt heading towards any action, they misuse it. For example, they
abused the incident of the driver who opened fire in Los Angeles, who
might have financial problems with the Israeli company. Yet, they made
it a daily story. He has been already in the States. What does Egypt
have to do with this? We told them all the information we have about
him and that he does not belong to any extremist group. He has been
living and working there. A lot of people other than him live in the
States and Europe. What the ado is about?
They say also that Egypt is
searching for uranium in Sinai in cooperation with China. I wonder, is
there any such a thing that happens behind my back? In fact, we have
recently signed an agreement with China for the peaceful use of
nuclear power. Once its implementation date is due, they launched this
propaganda.
As for the story of the
missiles from North Korea, I reiterate that Egypt does not get any
missiles from North Korea since we are not ready to spend our money on
missiles. What would we do with missiles?
They have to tell us when did
we receive these missiles just for my knowledge. We have not got any
such a thing. This matter with North Korea had come to an end long
time ago.
As for searching for uranium,
we are asking ourselves, where. Could such a thing remain under cover?
There are no longer secretes in the world. It is just a propaganda
they are using against us. We used to hear such rumors. It is just
like the solar tower they claimed would be built on the
Egyptian-Israeli borders. This is untrue. There was US-Israeli
cooperation for the establishment of a solar energy station in Al-Koraymat
where the Americans were supposed to contribute to its establishment
through Israel.
I said, whoever wants to
build a power station, for free, it is OK, but without any demands.
Also, they wanted once to build a nuclear power station in Sinai, on
condition that it would provide Israel with a portion of energy. I
told them, "no thanks", build it in your state. I do not
want any pegs here. We have got rid of such pegs.
Q: What about deploying UN
monitors for protecting the Palestinians?
A: We demanded for the
deployment of UN monitors. We shall continue our deman in coordination
with all Arab countries and peace- and stability-lover countries,
which have interests in the region. Nevertheless, as long as Israelis,
backed by the USA, say they want reforms in the PA before thinning of
the matter, while there are a lot of reforms that would take along
time, many obstacles would face this move. We have frequently asked
for this for securing protection for the Palestinians and reliving
their suffering, yet, Israel did not accept it.
. |
