July  24, 2002

Mubarak gives interview to "Le Figaro"

Q: Are there difficulties in attaining a unified outcome among the three peace plans aiming to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israelis; the plan that President George W. Bush outlined in his speech on June 24, the Saudi initiative and the Egyptian proposal?

    A: There are no such three plans. All work towards the same goal so as to agree on a formula that leads to the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, adding that if every side backs a different plan there will be no opportunities to reach the common goal that is crystal-clear and aims to find a way out of the current stalemate. It is frustrating to keep repeating the same phrases during the 50-year-old struggle. The alternative is so simple. It is either dialogue or war. The region has fought several wars and no country in it wants more.

    Q: What about the amendments made by US President to his peace plan ?

    A: Bush’s speech is balanced and goes in line with the talks the two leaders held in Camp David on June 7-8 and the US President supports the establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel within secure and internationally recognized borders. Bush’s speech includes some ambiguous points that need clarification. Such clarifications would help move to the following phase where mechanisms would be set with a view to translate the initial ideas into a real plan.The Egyptians and the Arabs consider removing Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat from the Palestinian Authority (PA) is a grave mistake.

    Q: Have you convinced the US President to change his stance towards Arafat ?

    A: I never said that Bush has made changes to his plan, pointing out that Bush made clear during talks that “Arafat is not the problem”. Some political circles apparently tried to convince Bush of removing Arafat.

    Q: Is Arafat still the legitimate Palestinian President?

    A: Arafat remains the democratically elected leader by the Palestinian people regardless of what others think.

Once negotiations are resumed Arafat would be the only person who dares to make the necessary concessions because he knows that the Palestinian people support him and that Arafat is also the only person capable of convincing his people to accept such concessions. Without Arafat no progress would be made in the peace process.

    A: Arafat’s rejection of the proposal made by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak in the summer of 2000, is it not the biggest mistake Arafat made?

    A: Such allegations are “Israeli propaganda"; the Israeli government under Barak proposed to concede %96 to the PA while keeping control on Jerusalem and its suburbs, the Jordan River Valley, settlements, ports and military sites of the Israeli army, thus reducing the %96 to %40.

    Q: Israelis persist that removing Arafat would open the doors for a new generation that is modern and more efficient describing such as a risk that must be taken to get the Plaestinian-Isreali conflict out of its current stalemate, what do you think?

    A: I do not support a person but the cause of peace and stability.
Resuming the peace process requires that Arafat remain in power till the process is complete and that a new generation would emerge following the resumption of negotiations. Removing Arafat now would result in chaos.

    Q: Do you want to say that removing Arafat would give rise to “extremists affiliated to Hamas or Al-Jihad Al-Islami?

    A: No one could tell what may happen but regret over Arafat’s absence may be soon felt.

    Q: What do you think about the American-Israeli proposal that Arafat would become the Palestinian honorary president as is the case in the United Kingdom?

    A: The political culture of the Middle East does not absorb the concept of a president with no power and that the president is linked to his people by personal ties be him elected or not. Following the 1967 War when late President Gamal Abdel-Nasser announced he would relinquish power, Egyptians flooded to the streets in millions demanding his stay, stressing that in the Middle East region the leader cannot be a mere symbol.

    Q: On the real intents of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and whether he agrees on establishing a Palestinian state or still advocates the so-called “The Biggest Israel”, what is your estimation?

    A: While US President Bush has told him that “Sharon is a man of peace”, this has to be evidenced on ground where only tanks can be seen and bombs heard.

    Q: On the peace agreement Egypt concluded with former Israeli prime minister Menahem Begin in 1978 in Camp David, a man who started his political life as a terrorist , would the same scenario be possible with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?

    A: "Begin" was tough but he was a man who keeps his promises, adding that unlike Begin many others started as terrorists but did not become remarkable statesmen of the type of Begin and General Yitzhak Rabin who became a successful politician. Sharon at the time being is only an excellent military leader.

    Q: You have reiterated the necessity of drawing up mechanisms turning the Arab and American thoughts a course of establishing a Palestinian state, what is your opinion on the suggestions calling for charting a formula of a Palestinian constitution and elections?

    A: My main concern is not the declaration of a Palestinian state but halting violence then seeking means of pursuing political negotiations. Once the negotiations are resumed, the two parties will be able to define where, when and how the Palestinian state could be established existing side by side with the Israeli one.

    Q: What do you say on Washington's condition that Palestinian reforms should be carried out first before establishing a Palestinian state ?

    A: I said it before and repeated that reforms are required ; making decisions can not be an individual process ; Arafat should establish the state’s institutions; he should pursue that march ; I have sent an envoy to him and I’ll send more to advise him.

    Q: What and the priorities Arafat should be committed to?

    A: There are three priorities: first security; Arafat should put an end to the multiplicity of security bodies; a central authority should take over the responsibility of keeping order and national defence. Second, the budget; the state budget has nothing to do with the private capitals; the public expenditure should be included in a budget with rules defined by law. The third priority is justice; there should be a constitution organizing electians between the Palestinian authorities, and training for efficient judges.

    Q: What about the Palestinian elections?

    A: Certainly they will take place, but this requires, in the first place, the Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian lands; nominees should move freely; and so is the case with for the electorate.The same problem exists as to the reforms; Israelis must not ask for reforms and modernizations of the Palestinian authority while their weaponry strike police stations, ministries and administrative offices; no Palestinian reforms could be carried out under the threat of the Israeli cannons and tanks!

    Q: Does American president realizes that retreating from the Palestinian territories is a fundamental condition?

    A: The US president said that he realizes the problem. While the Arab governments require the Israeli withdrawal to the borders of 1967 according to the UN resolutions, Bush does not require but the withdrawal from the lands that the Israeli forces re occupied on the 28th of last September only. For him, the rest is included within the framework of peace negotiations.

    Q: Does Bush really want Palestinian elections? Taking into consideration Sharon’s rejection to withdraw his forces, there are many American journalists seeing organizing elections to find a substitute to Arafat is nothing but a pretext. Isn’t it just a way to convince Jewish Americans to vote for the sake of the Republican Party instead of the Democratic one in the legislative elections in November?

    A: As you talk about this topic, why did not you imagine that Bush is thinking from now in the 2004 Presidential elections?

    Q: Is it right to talk about politics while there is a case of human emergency?

    A: The big mistake of Israel was closing doors before 120,000 Palestinians working in Israel, as those Palestinian workers were the best ambassadors to sedate public opinion in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

    Q: But who started? Israel closed its borders to block terrorists from crossing.

    A: Palestinians are frustrated, the man who cannot find livelihood to his family inevitably would think that life does not deserve. The Palestinians are quite disappointed and Israel reoccupies Palestinian cities.

    Q: Following September 11th events, you did not make any justification to Osama Bin Laden, but hearing you now one could imagine that Palestinians are exercising a legitimate terrorism. What is your comment on that?

    A: Your explanation is wrong, as I do not agree on killing innocents and I condemn all forms of terrorism, but no one can deny the Palestinian legitimate right to resist the foreign occupation. This however does not give Palestinians the right to kill Israeli civilians.

    Q- The Israelis are also frustrated, and building a wall would completely isolate them from their Arab neighbours. Isn’t this evidence that they are also frustrated?

    A: The solution is easy, the Israeli army should withdraw from the Palestinian lands to allow the Palestinians to make reforms. I would like here to add something, If Arafat is the only one who is required to make concessions; the Palestinians would never forgive him. Israel also should make concessions. Finally, the Americans have to stop the policy of injustice, as they are bluntly condemning the Palestinian mistakes while closing eyes on mistakes being made by the Israelis. Israel is treating the Palestinians as animals while Washington adopts silence on this.

    Q: As US, the strong power, came short to impose a solution, why did not we leave both Arafat and Sharon to reach an understanding?

    A: because they hate each other since Lebanon invasion 20 years ago; they cannot reach an agreement in absence of a third party. The British and the Republican Army of Ireland could not have managed to reach a compromise only unless through US mediation.

    Q: From where did spring the idea of holding an international peace conference, why didn’t Bush take it into consideration?

    A: It is the French President who took the initiative and the new French Foreign Minister talked to me about it. If we failed to find a solution for this situation, the conference will give the final one, but it needs some preparations; within 15 days, a summit could be organized gathering heads of state, but it will render the Palestinians, and the Israelis more frustrated; they are waiting for a miracle. The former US Secretary of State Baker prepared for the Madrid conference for a more than 6 months, paid several visits to the Middle East and Europe in order to negotiate with the participants on a unified stance, thus guaranteeing success.

    Q : does the American President really wishes to hold talks with allies as Europe. As long as he believes in the advantages of a unipolar world, does not he prefer that the USA, as a super power, plays its cards on its own?

    A: Recently, the American President consults the Europeans; it is a progress in his attitude, yet, Europe suffers a grave weakness point as to the Middle East cause; they do not adopt the same policy, France has got an Arab policy, England tends to the USA, Germany, owing to its past racism, hesitates to take any initiative. We hope that one day there comes to exist the European United States.

    Q: The American President thinks that he could open a new front in the Middle East if he stroke Iraq, does it seem to you as a legal action to overthrow Saddam?

    A: Overthrowing Saddam will complicate things; wars always bring victims, generating sympathy towards the targeted country. Attacking Iraq is a big mistake. Why add fuel to the fire already existing in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? It will escalate the situation and destabilizing security in the region.

    Q: The American President asserts that it is his duty to prevent a catastrophe if Saddam used weapons of mass destruction to subjugate his neighbours?

    A : What do you think about Israel? Isn't it among these neighbours does sit have a lethal arsenal?! If Bush insists on dismantling Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, he has to do the same thing in the whole region . This does not mean to give Saddam the freedom to have these weapons. I went to Baghdad and said in the presence of Saddam Hussein that the Middle East wants to dismantle these weapons, yet I reiterate Iraq is not alone responsible; we must never forget Israel within this context.

    Q : Almost a year has passed since the September 11 incidents, do you think that Osama Ben laden and his allies in al Qaeda could make other terrorist attacks against the USA and its allies in Europe and Middle East ?

    A : Where is Ben Laden ? Some say he is dead others say he is still alive, anyway he’s got allies everywhere and can attack any place at anytime the utmost protection is to solve the suspended problems .The USA should abandon its wish to strike Iraq; conflicts beget terrorism and if we do not halt this, there will be no peace, no security anywhere, one can not take a plane, have dinner in a restaurant or go to the cinema without fear; life will be a hell.

    Q: Is it that gloomy?

    A: No, unfortunately, since 1986, I warned the international community against this danger. I suggested before the European Parliament in Strasburg to make an agreement on combating terrorism , but it was in vain as the governments feared that charting a formula of the agreement should take a long time, and waste time in semantic arguments as to the differences between resistance and terrorism! Yet I think that such an agreement will be a matchless weapon ; killers will never be able to enjoy the asylum.

.