|
Interviewed by the
Lebanese daily “Annahar” on Tuesday, President Mubarak tackled
several subjects. Here is the full text:
Q: When
will your Excellency arrive in Beirut? Will President Arafat accompany
you as was said afew days ago?
A: I haven’t definitely made up my mind yet, but I’ll think it
over this evening (yesterday). In fact I have no plan to go with Abu
Ammar.
Q: It was said that Arafat might travel from Ramallah to Amman by a
Jordanian helicopter, then to Egypt to accompany you to Beirut.
A: Frankly speaking, I can’t conjecture on what will take place.
Q: some sources say that your attendance may be conpled with some a
surprise. Are going to stay till the end of the summit?
A: No surprises.
Q: Do you think the security talks between Israelis and Palestinians
could lead to an agreement that allows Palestinian President to get
out of Ramallah?
A: I don’t see any new prospect that augur well for such a thing.
I’m quite sure it’s so difficult to deal with Sharon’s
government, that I doubt any agreement can be ever reached.
Q: Neither today nor after the Arab summit?
A: As for Arafat’s leaving, we cannot conjecture what the Israeli
government will do. If I were Abu Ammar and they told me to go out, I
won't not go out.
Q: Why?
A: Because they won’t let him return back. They might find any
pretext to destroy the remaining PNA headquarters. So, the PNA would
stay outside home.
Q: If you are asked for advice, would you advise him not to go to
Beirut?
A: If I were asked, I’d say to him never leave, as I’m certain
they will prevent him from coming back.
They might let him go out at the last moment. I don’t say that
haphazardly. Sharon said in one statement: “If Arafat left and
delivered a speech involving some kind of provocative words in the
Arab summit, I might not allow him to return.” But what is Arafat
expected to do in the summit? Will he go there to have a coup of tea?
Of course he will speak on what is happening. They’ll take it as an
inciting statement.
Q: What about the reports quating you as saying if Arafat did not
attend I would not attend either?
A: I never said that.
Q: Never? Were those published reports just speculations by others? Or
are there some new circumstances that necessitated change of stances,
as, for example, not to regard Arafat’s absence a kind of veto in
Sharon’s hand to spoil the summit?
A: I did not change anything. I did not attach my attendance with
Arafat’s.
Q: Yasser Abd-Rabu was reported as saying that If Arafat did not
attend the summit, no one can speak in the name of Palestinians, or
take any resolution on their behalf. Then, the image was readjusted
via another statement by Nabil Shaath. What would you say about that?
A: That’s not logical. If they don’t want anybody to speak. O.K.
But I’d say to them: What are you going to do? When the summit
speaks, it’s not for the sake of this or that, but for the sake of
the Palestinian people. What matters to us in the first place is the
Palestinian people who suffer bitterly. Anyway, we know that the PNA
supports the Saudi initiative. It is the owner of the land and no one
can stand against withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Q: It is said that there’s a way out for Arafat to attend the summit
without leaving Ramallah; He can address the conference via TV by
video conference?
A: (Smiling) It’s a quite reasonable solution. I’ve already told
you my own opinion, and I repeat it again: Even if they allowed him to
leave, he should not do. In any case it is up to him to decide the way
he wants. I advise him to be on alert as they won’t let him return
back home.
Q: Your excellency, let’s be back to the beginning of this
interview: As we all know, Beirut’s summit would have started as an
ordinary one. There were doubts about the level of represntation. Now,
it turned to be practically an extraordinary summit. Why? On what
basis? Can such summit actually meet the desires of some Arab
countries, at the top of which comes Egypt of course?
A: No doubt the Arab summit in Beirut will adopt the Saudi initiative.
It is going to discuss it in detail and endorse it. A committee would
be formed to follow up its implementation. Yet, I don’t have any
confidence in Israel or how much it can respond to the overture.
Q: You said at Amman summit that you hope the resolutions of that
summit would meet the ambitions of the Arab laymen. Do you think the
coming summit would meet the ambitions of the Arab laymen in the
present circumstances?
A: Of course, I do hope so. Anyway, I don’t want to run anticipate
events. The summit hasn’t convened yet.
Q: Do you think Colonel Gaddafi will attend the summit?
A: Why don’t you go and ask him?
Q: What’s your comment on Sharon’s suggestion to participate in
the summit to explain Israel’s point of view?
A: No one whosoever wants to meet him. How dare he imagine that he can
go and confer with all at once? Apparently, his domestic stance is
growiong difficult. So, he wants to save himself. Hence, his call, is
a sort of internal public relations. He earlier asked the Americans to
arrange a meeting with Prince Abdullah, of course in vain. He finally
re-urged Washington to secure a meeting with the Saudi Crown-Prince in
the US embassy in Beirut, although Sharon refused the Saudi initiative
the very following day of releasing it.
Q: Has anything changed in the Saudi initiative, since you read its
first and final texts?
A: No. Nothing has changed. Prince Abdullah said in the press
interview some weeks ago that we are ready - if Israel pulled out of
all Arab occupied territories, i.e. from Palestine, Golan heights and
Lebanese lands - to consider together with the Arab world to establish
normal relations or normalization. Some opposed and said common
relations. I think there’s no difference. If practices prove good,
they will lead to cooperation among peoples in the way it is called
normalization. But the normalization imposed by force will not be
accepted. We cannot oblige everyone to deal with Israel.
Q: Then, nothing was amended in the Saudi initiative?
A: I mean the Arab countries will accept normal relations in return
for full withdrawal. But the Israelis refused on the next day. Now,
they are trying to find an excuse by saying “we thought that
relations would come in the normalization framework.” I just told
them “What’s the difference?”
Q: What about the refugees problem?
A: The refugees problem is documented in the UN resolution No. 194. No
body can ignore it.
Q: It seems you consider the Saudi initiative is deliverd from UN
resolutions and from “Madrid”?
A: Of course! That would lead to normal relations with all the Arab
Countries. When that initiative is submitted for the Arab summit, and
be adopted, it will come up as an all-Arab initiative.
Q: Do you believe the Arab summit will adopt it?
A: I believe so. Why not, so long as it calls for peace based on
justice and all what we wish for will be obtained ?
Q: What are the Syrian fears concerning that initiative?
A: I’ve never felted any Syrian fears.
Q: After meeting with the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, did you
feel he was satisfied with the initiative, or did he have some
reservations?
A: President Al-Assad was quite satisfied. There were no reservations
at all. They told us that it was a press interview where all points
were put fourth. It was said that it was a Saudi initiative. I myself
was in the U.S.A. and I told President Bush that it’s the first time
in the history of K.S.A. to say when Israel pulls out from all the
Arab countries, it will urge Arab states to set up normal relations
with Israel.
When President Assad visited Lebanon after the initiative, it didn’t
seem as an initiative, but only as mere ideas and visions. King
Abdullah II then paid me a visit and said no one mentioned that it was
an initiative. If it really were a Saudi initiative, it would have
contacted al other Arab countries on the matter. But it seemed just a
mere saying at first. Then, it was said that it’s an initiative.
Now, what’s wrong with it so long as it calls for peace and we all
adopt it? We said in the statement with Jordan’s king that we hail
the Saudi ideas and visions.
As for the Syrian President, he didn’t mention it in the statement
issued after the Syrian-Lebanese summit, given that he discussed it
with Prince Abdullah. It seemed that some people thought wrongly that
the Syrians oppose it or that we also oppose it. On the contrary, we
do not.
Q: How, then, do you explain the demonstrations that took place in
Syria and Lebanon in support of Palestinian Intifada?
A: I want to ask: do we want peace or not? Peace and normal relations
will ultimately lead to normalization. Don’t we deal with Europe,
America, Russia and the socialist countries? Israel is an existing
state. If the main problem is solved why not peace prevail?
Q: Mr. President, there’s something much farther than that. Some say
that it’s not a matter of normalizing or non-normalizing, peace or
no peace. Certain movements such as Hizbollah, Hamas, Jihad or Aqsa
Regiments as well as those who demonstrated in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen
and even in the Egyptian universities say that peace wit Israel is
next to impossible. As Mr. Nassrallah said the conflict should end by
removing Israel.
A: Israel is an existing state. How can we remove it? By
demonstrations and pompous statements? How can we provide
potentialities to fight it? I must have about 12 or 13 billion dollars
annually for development, or even more than that.
Now, if we think of war, navigation will stop in the Suez Canal,
weaponry will require billions of dollars, exporting will come to a
halt and tourism will be badly affected. Who’s going to pay for all
that?
Q: Might be those who call for war.
A: If they’re ready to pay, let them pay and fight. But the logical
thinking will pose the question: who is going to fight? Those who
release statements today ask about the Treaty of Common Defence. But
who are going to fight? Israel? The Palestinian lives just beside the
Israeli, who will we strike? Both?
Q: Do you think Hizbollah’s ideas have direct relation with the
Iranian policy?
A: I cannot get into the details of that party’s relation with Iran.
But politics is not only enthusiasm and pompous speeches. Rather, it
rests on basic realistic principles for the sake of the people’s
interests. Pompous statements do not work in the long run. They might
ask you sentimentally to fight Israel. When you really start and the
bills of war soar up high, people will wonder: Why did we fight?
In short, before I get any reckless step, I’ve to think how I’m
going to let my people live: how I’ll feed them, clothe them educate
them build houses for them and how I encourage investments. If I
didn’t think correctly, my decision will go the wrong way. The ruler
cannot stand away from his people.
Q: Mr. President, suppose the Arab summit endorsed that initiative
unanimously, but Israel did not respond as usual. We well know that
the “land-for-peace” principle of Madrid conference is nearly the
same framework of the overture submitted at present.
A: I was the first one to talk on “land-for-peace” with former
U.S. president G. Bush (senior). He answered me positively. Since that
time we started to act on the basis of “land-for-peace” principle.
The Jews, then, were furious. The “land-for-peace” is fair and
normal. The nature of the conflict imposes such a solution.
Q: If Israel did not respond to this good-will initiative at the Arab
level at large, what’s your highness’s stance, and what will be
the Arab countries stance?
A: The Arab summit is going to issue a resolution that will be
reported to the U.N. A follow-up committee will be formed. According
to that committee’s recommendation there might be an extraordinary
summit to discuss Israel’s non-implementation of those resolutions.
The proper decision will be taken in due time. I here cannot run ahead
of events to say that a certain decision will be adopted. We’ll keep
attentive. That’s a political work.
Q: It is said that the U.S.A. supports the initiative and will
ultimately give a hand to the Arabs to put it into action.
A: Sure, it will help. If Israel wants to live in peace, it should
give the people their rights back, stop usurping lands and let the
Palestinian state set up to co-exist beside the Israeli one.
Q: Some reports say that the initiative as formulated so far has
exceeded the U.N. S.C. resolutions no. 242 and 338. Is that true?
A: The summit endorses the principle but does not tackle the details.
We pose the “land-for-peace” principle and the pull out from the
occupied territories. If they agreed to get into barters, that’ll be
getting into details among concerned countries.
Q: Again, do you think, Mr. President, that there could be any
solution under Sharon’s rule?
A: No. No solution could be reached with Sharon because he never
respects his promises, never! This is the worst stage in the
Palestinian case since the M.E. peace march kicked off up till now. I
say this categorically enough: Sharon’s is the worst period so far!
Q: Do you think Sharon has a far reaching strategy that might result
in a plan to undermine some entities in the region and divide the
area?
A: I told him - via an interview to the Israeli TV Channel I - that I
warn you against expelling Palestinians out to Jordan. That will be
the great disaster.
Q: When you warn, then you certainly suppose he’s planning for that.
A: Such a matter is kept in his mind from the very beginning, i.e. the
alternative home. I consider that a defective way of thinking.
Q: Is it still the way Sharon thinks?
A: That’s a possibility he doesn’t disclose. But the way he
behaves will drive him isolated. Palestinians then will fight inside
and outside. Yet, the Israeli people are those who’ll pay the price.
Q: It is said that the initiative in its final formula is based on
five items. Is that true? Can you tell us some of those items?
A: It’s somewhat true.
Q: They say it states that: First, to withdraw back to the June 4,
1967 borders. Second, to solve the refugee problem on the basis of
U.N. resolution no.194. Third, to establish the Palestinian state,
with Jerusalem as its capital. Fourth, to affirm that peace is an Arab
strategic option, calling Israel to respond to it. Fifth, to consider
the conflict as being over, and to conclude a peace treaty with
Israel.
A: I think the text runs in such framework but with some different
words in the context. As for the item related to choosing peace as
strategic option had been included in the 1996 Arab summit. finally,
if Israel pulled out and gave the occupied lands back to their owners
and solved the refugee problem, then, that means the Arab-Israel
conflict came to an end.
Q: As the security solution proved a failure, as it’s obvious that
Sharon took power under the slogan of providing security to the
Israelis, setting 100 days to do it, now, as he failed in securing
safety for his people, don’t you think that the Israeli society can
oust Sharon from power?
A: I do not want to speak of ousting or not ousting Sharon. But I just
want to address the Israeli public opinion that once backed Sharon at
a large rate. Sharon granted that public opinion nothing but
destruction, murder and panic that now haunts the hearts of Israeli
citizens, so much that getting out from one’s house has turned a
risky adventure.
Now, fear reigns in the Israeli street. The rate of supporting Sharon
retreated. Apparently, in such a way he will not be able to provide
any sort of security. Never will he. The citizen will stay feel
insecure regarding his very living.
Q: Hence, that will be reflected in the coming Israeli elections ?
A: Sure, it will.
Q: Some get far in analyzing matters to the extent that they say the
hard-line policies followed by the rejecting Palestinian movements
such as Hamas and Jihad and the way they adopt in confronting Israel,
might somehow serve Sharon and his extremist brutal policy practiced
against the Palestinian people. What’s your comment?
A: Let’s say that Hamas was originally established by Israel itself.
I said that previously to the late Ishaq Rabin who complained of Hamas.
He told me that, “It was a mistake.” In fact, It was Israel that
set up Hamas to stand in the face of P.L.O. and president Arafat.
Now, after the bloody atrocious Israeli practices the climate is
augurs the setting up of dozens of extremist organizations that are
ready to carry out violent operations against the occupation that dubs
them as “terrorist”.
Q: To what extent can extremism serve extremism? Do you think that
expanding the violence circle at the hands of Hamas and Jihad might
offer Sharon justifications to escalate carnage against Palestinians?
A: That may be a kind of one’s point of view. If Sharon does not
want solutions, then, stepping up violence would serve him in the way
extremists are not aware of. I think he doesn’t want any solutions.
Q: Does it mean they serve him indirectly?
A: Yes.
Q: U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney said he would not confer with
President Arafat before the Arab summit is over. Does this saying come
as America supposes that Arafat might go to Beirut at the last moment?
Do you believe that Cheney will actually meet with Arafat?
A: I can’t guarantee anything in regard to Arafat’s travel to
Beirut. And I can’t affirm that Cheney will meet with him.
Obviously, Americans keep the principle of meeting with Sharon. But
Sharon sets obstacles and terms that prevents holding such meeting.
Q: Palestinians complain - following the third security meeting headed
by general Anthony Zinni - that Israel seeks to amend “Tenet’s”
paper. They submitted a new one including 21 terms. Palestinians
answered with another paper of 30 remarks. Reports say an American
compromise was offered to the two parties. Have we entered the dark
tunnel of proposals?
A: This shows that Israelis place all hurdles to prevent Arafat from
joining the summit and foil Zinni’s mission as Sharon is ahead in
carrying on his policy of violence, repression and killing.
Q: Therefore, we assume that the Arab initiative that will be released
by the Arab summit, named as “the last chance initiative” would
put the Arab world in the face of fresh steps, if Israel did not
respond to this initiative. It’s not clear that Israel will respond.
A: Of course, it’s the last chance. It is not possible to reach
another formula. It is the farthest initiative that could be attained
as it provides complete pull out in return of complete normalization
of relations. That’s the first time ever to have such initiative
that offers safety and security to Israel as a state living in the
region and having relations with the Arab world. With such dimensions
no other initiative can be found.
Q: What’s your highness’s opinion about Kofi Annan’s statements
yesterday that Arafat has to carry out required obligations as Sharon
has already carried out his commitments?
A: The U.N. general secretary never said Sharon carried out any
commitments.
Q: But that was reported via international media. Can we say that
American pressure is practiced on the U.N. ?
A: I’ll let you answer that question. What I know you actually know!
Q: Are you satisfied with the U.N,’s role?
A: Not so much!
Q: Why?
A: Let’s not go deep into such abyss now.
Q: What do say regarding the U.N. S.C. resolution no. 1397 which
provides establishing of the Palestinian state?
A: Emphatically, we call for establishing of the Palestinian state.
President George Bush has previously called for that. In any case we
strongly want this state to come into existence.
Q: But some voices squarely opposed that resolution. What do say about
such opposition?
A: Why to oppose so long as the resolution states in its introductory
text the two U.N. S.C. resolutions no. 242 & 338 under which
Madrid conference convened. I consider it a historical resolution.
Q: Do your highness see it might be appropriate for President Arafat
to declare the establishment of the Palestinian state, after President
Bush called openly for that?
A: The Palestinian state has basic foundations to exist with, any
state must have basic foundations to exist with. If such foundations
are not available, how could the Palestinian state be declared. If the
Palestinian president cannot have control over his territories, how
can the state be declared? Now, even the self-rule areas are under the
Israeli control.
Q: It seems there’ll be some disputes that will overshadow the Arab
summit on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti file.
A: In the previous summit we exerted great efforts in this concern,
given that Kuwait together with Saudi Arabia showed flexibility.
Q: What is expected in the coming summit?
A: I can’t predict. Maybe they’ll discuss the issue. Trust me no
one stands for striking the Iraqi people.
Q: Dick Cheney says that after he returned from the region, he heard
from the Arab leaders some statements that might be for striking Iraq,
contrary to what was said before that the Arab stance in general is
against that.
A: That took place with me personally. He said that Iraq possesses
mass destruction weapons. I said I hope Iraq will accept return of
inspectors. When Amr Moussa paid them a visit they approved the
principle of inspectors via U.N., to come and search without limits.
But they retreated and said they must determine what places they’ll
inspect. That way arouses suspicions.
Q: Anyway, striking Iraq is a grave matter. I hope that period would
pass safely. The Arab peoples will not bear striking Iraq. There’s
already the Palestinian problem and the sufferings in the occupied
territories. Then, to strike Iraq? The Arab public opinion cannot
stand it.
Q: President Bush said: “We were briefed of the Arab leaders’
stances, but we’ll act according to what we see is in our
interest.”
A: That’s a different saying that stands in contrast to Cheney’s.
I explained the matter to President Bush and he quite understood the
situation. I told him any strikes against Iraq is not appropriate at
all.
Q: Do you believe America is not going to strike Iraq in the long run?
A: Amid such circumstances, I cannot affirm. America is a super power
and has its own way.
Q: Do you have any fears that Sharon might create a problem in
Southern Lebanon so as to alleviate domestic pressures?
A: I doubt it. They have experienced the Lebanese front and failed. I
don’t think they’ll commit the mistakes anew.
Q: There’s an attempt to stir the Jordanian front as it was
announced that two persons were killed across the borders and that
weapons were smuggled to Palestinians.
A: Of course Sharon’s bloody practices encourages several
organizations in the Ararb world to try to hit Israel whenever and
wherever they could.
Q: You informed the Americans of your point of view in your recent
visit, didn’t you?
A: Certainly. I said that openly via the TV channels.
Q: How do you feel when you’ll visit Lebanon as a hosting country
for the Arab summit?
A: Lebanon is a friendly sister country with which we have strong
fraternal ties.
Q: Can the Arab summit crystallize a unified Arab address aiming at
correcting the image of Arabs and Moslems after the Sept. 11 events?
A: I believe it will.
Q: How can the E.U. role be activated in solving the M.E. crisis?
A: Europe is the greatest financing fund for Israel and can do much to
assist in the peace process.
Q: Do you think the Arab world is ready at this stage to play a new
role in the world recent developments: globalization, liberalization,
free exchange, etc.?
A: I have my own opinion in the globalization issue in particular. I
think such order will lead after 10 up to 15 years to recession in the
world at large. It’ll have horrible reverses in the future.
Q: Do you think the Arab regimes capable to respond with the ambitions
of the new Arab generations in regard with democracy, freedoms and
human rights?
A: Let me tell you something. Each Arab country has its own way to go.
Can we apply the American or the French way to a tribal Arab society?
We cannot import foreign systems and styles and try to publicize them
in all kinds of societies.
|
