Transcript for Monday, March 11, 2002 MSNBC ALAN KEYES, HOST: Binyamin Netanyahu THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. Earlier tonight, I had the chance to speak with former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and ask him what he sees as the path that might eventually bring the violence we are now witnessing to a close. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think the only way that you end the violence is to remove the source of violence. And the source of the violence is the endemic incitement for hatred and for terrorism by Yasser Arafat‘s Palestinian Authority. In fact, Yasser Arafat, while speaking peace in English to the West, nightly speaks in Arabic to his people, calling for a million shahidim (ph), a million suicide bombers in Jerusalem, and many Palestinians comply, happily. So, effectively, what we have is a regime that clings to the idea of the fantasy of destroying Israel, using what Arafat calls the armed struggle, what we would call, all of us, would call terrorism, to implement that goal of Israel‘s destruction. And as long as he‘s here, there will not be peace, there will not be an end to violence. KEYES: One of the questions, though, that folks are always asking, and we get that question when we talk about the need to replace Saddam Hussein. Obviously, in order to move the situation forward, you have to deal with folks on the Palestinian side. If Yasser Arafat is not there, who does Israel deal with? NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise. I don‘t think you have to deal with anyone. First, you win. When you had to defeat Nazi Germany, first you won. You defeated Hitler. You didn‘t say, oh well, let me first place a government in his place and so on. When you defeated imperial Japan, you defeated imperial Japan. When you defeated the Taliban, you first defeated the Taliban. Of course, a government has arisen in Afghanistan. You and I perhaps would wish it well, that it would be there in three to five years. But none of us would bet on it, Alan. But I would bet on this. I would bet that whoever governs Afghanistan, they will not allow a single terrorist act to be launched against the United States for many, many years because they, too, would be replaced. And that‘s the principle that we have to see with Arafat. KEYES: But we have — NETANYAHU: I think that whoever replaces him would know that if they launch terrorism against us, they won‘t be in power either. KEYES: Well, we have had, of course, folks on the show who argue that in point of fact, it is the Israeli occupation that leads to the violence, that if Yasser Arafat were gone, the violence would still continue because of that occupation. And in that sense Israel has a tiger by the tail that won‘t be quiet, that won‘t be calmed until the occupation ends. What do you say to those arguments? NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, let‘s be precise about words. Israel no longer occupies Palestinians. And not 99 percent, 100 percent of the Palestinians are governed by Arafat, for better or worse. Worse in many cases. But that‘s neither here nor there. Arafat governs the Palestinians, not Israel. The lands that are in dispute between us are lands empty, devoid of any Palestinian population, but replete with historical significance. They are a part of our historic homeland for thousands of years and equally they‘re important for protecting us, they‘re security buffers for an Israel that would otherwise be 10 miles wide in the face of much larger Arab armies. So, I think that this is a legitimate dispute over disputed territories, but not occupied territories. Now... KEYES: And — NETANYAHU: ... the question — Yes. KEYES: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) NETANYAHU: But that was a termanological exactitude, if I can call it that. Well, let me then, answer your question. It is not Israel‘s presence in the territories that has produced endless bouts of conflict, because Yasser Arafat and other Arabs attacked Israel, well before we were in those territories. This — our being there is a result, not a cause, of the Arab conflict against us. The real source of the conflict is the repeated and unchanging Palestinian and to my sorrow also a wider Arab desire to see Israel eliminated, regardless of any border. KEYES: But if that — NETANYAHU: You can see that that is true, Alan, because — KEYES: If that‘s true — if that‘s true — NETANYAHU: Barak offered Arafat all of the territories, and Arafat said no, it‘s Tel Aviv I want. All of Israel. KEYES: If that‘s true, Mr. Prime Minister, how can folks look at something like the Saudi proposal, and I‘ll be frank with you about my own sense. I look at this proposal and I say it is a day late and many dollars short, or 25 years late and much well short. But how can one take the proposal that has supposedly been put forward in some way by the Saudis as a serious basis for some kind of discussion? Wouldn‘t it require, in fact, that one return to an untenable security situation for Israel? NETANYAHU: Yes. In fact, when we were in the pre-1967 borders, which made Israel 10 miles wide, these weren‘t the borders of peace. They were the border from which we were attacked time and again because Israel was such a tempting target. You just had to slice through it and that was the end of Israel. So when the Saudis come back and say, oh, well, why don‘t you just go back there, compress yourself into these indefensible — this indefensible ribbon on the sea, give Arafat the high ground above your cities and the walls of Jerusalem, and close your eyes, you have a Saudi guarantee that everything would be all right, would you bet the life of the United States on that? Of course not. But equally the Saudi, I think, motives are suspect because for years they have been bank rolling everyone, including the worst people, that is the Wahhabist Islamic militants and al Qaeda and Taliban. And now I think they know that they have to get on the good side of the U.S., so they‘re offering this plan, which is tantamount to the destruction of Israel. I don‘t think anybody‘s going to buy it. KEYES: Well, with the vice president, obviously, moving about the region, I think originally the intention was to focus on Iraq. Obviously, a lot of questions are bound to come up given the intensification of the situation between the Palestinians and Israel. What would you say is, at this time, the appropriate and proper participation and role of the U.S. administration? NETANYAHU: I think the U.S. has got it right. I think the Bush administration is right on target. They understand that the way to fight terror is to either deter or dismantle the terrorist regimes. They‘ve done it with the Taliban regime. They‘re going after another regime that had practiced terrorism in the past and is now shooting for the ultimate terror, nuclear terror. And that is the regime of Saddam Hussein. I think they‘re well on their way to dismantle that regime. Now I think they understand that eventually, we‘ll have to dismantle Arafat‘s regime if the Palestinians and we have a chance at all, as I believe we do, to develop a peaceful future for us, a future of co-existence. KEYES: Does that mean that you actually think that the administration can, as I understand what you have said, you‘re basically saying something that I think unfortunately has been evident for a while, that Yasser Arafat is not the interlocker who can lead to peace, and his regime would have to be dismantled and replaced. Do you think that Colin Powell, the secretary of state, and others understand and accept that, because a lot of their public statements right now don‘t seem to indicate that understanding? NETANYAHU: It may not be the view of the state department. It also is not the view of the United States, the official view. But if the United States wishes to be consistent, as I believe it does, with its view that there is no room for terror, that nothing justifies terror, and that there is no room for terrorist regimes, then of course it cannot — it cannot question Israel‘s decision if Israel reaches that decision, to dismantle terrorist regime 50 yards from our doorstep in the way that the United States is dismantling terrorist regimes that have attacked the United States thousands of miles from your doorstep. So I think that at end of the day, the American people and this administration is a moral administration, a moral people. And they do not want to see a double standard. They understand that the only way to fight terrorism is to fight it uniformly, and that terrorism, whether Palestinian or Taliban or Iraqi or Iranian, is always evil and those regimes who practice it have to give way. I think that... KEYES: Well... NETANYAHU: ... many Palestinians understand it, but they don‘t dare speak because they would die, they would be killed by Arafat. KEYES: One last question. The government of Prime Minister Sharon has taken a very tough approach that aims at trying to quell this violence and yet it does not seem that that is rallying political support. What do you think explains that fact? And do you think that the Sharon government is going to be able to survive long enough to see this through to the end? NETANYAHU: I don‘t know if it will survive or not. I do know that the majority of the people seek not a softer action, but a tougher action. I‘ve been advocating for a long time, since this intifada began, that the right way to do it — the right question really is not the application of more force or less force. It is the application of the force in the right place. And the right place, I think, is again — again, against the regime, Yasser Arafat‘s regime, rather than just an allied and occasionally broad front. I think it is much more effective, ultimately much more — will save a lot many more lives, Israeli and Palestinian lives, to come to a military decision instead of a war of attrition. KEYES: In other words, you think that the present government should just be explicit or the Israeli government should be explicit, make it clear that the aim is to end Yasser Arafat‘s role and his regime and move forward with that, with the clear understanding that that is the foundation for trying to bring this violence to an end? NETANYAHU: Yes. I would let Arafat leave. If he wants to leave, let him leave, but he won‘t come back. I will take all the action to dismantle and disarm fighting formations and collect the illegal weapons that are there. I would not stay in the territories. I would get out in the populated area, the Palestinian areas, but I would erect the necessary, physical barriers for the penetration of residual terrorists. I think this can stop the terrorism. Terrorism can be stopped militarily. The Turks have stopped it militarily against Syria. You have stopped it from Libya. We stopped the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) terrorism from Egypt in the ‘50s and the Palestinian terrorism from Jordan in the 70s well before there was a peace process. The first thing, in order to have a peace process, is to stop the terrorism. We have it confused. Most people are now being told that the way to stop the terrorism is to have concessions, political concessions to the terrorists. That will only embolden them. In fact, it‘s the other way around. Remove the terrorist regimes, then peaceful Palestinians and Israel can begin a peace process that will produce a better future for both of us. (END VIDEOTAPE) KEYES: That was Benjamin Netanyahu. He joined us from Jerusalem earlier this evening. We‘ll be back to talking about what‘s the best future for ground zero. I want to hear what‘s on your mind. You can call me with your opinion at 1-866-KEYES-USA; 1-866-KEYES-USA. I‘ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KEYES: Now to find out what‘s on your mind. I want to know what you think the fate of the World Trade Center site should be. Quickly, let‘s go to Michael from Ohio. Michael, welcome to MAKING SENSE. CALLER: Good evening, Alan. I certainly believe that we as a country, if we‘re to take that 16 acres, which is really a small piece of land, and turn it into green space as a living memorial to those who lost their lives and also as a tribute to life and to remember the native American people who first owned that land, to set an example for the world... KEYES: Michael, I‘m sorry, we don‘t have a lot of time. I have one thought for you, OK. It is for the living — the living to remember the dead. And you said a living memorial. But the only living memorials I know of really are people. Let‘s go to Nairi from Alabama. Nairi, welcome to MAKING SENSE. CALLER: Yes. I believe that it should be left up to the people that lost their loved ones and friends and family members. Everybody can have a different idea of what needs to go there, but I think that they would be the ones that would best come up with a suitable idea, since they are the ones that lost loved ones. KEYES: Nairi? They‘re not the only ones that lost something that day, though, the whole country lost something. CALLER: I understand that. KEYES: John from New York. John, quickly. CALLER: Good evening, Alan. I‘m a chief in the Air Force and stationed out here at Nellis (ph), and as a native New Yorker, I think what we ought to do is build a better, more beautiful building than ever that‘s been there before and invite all the countries back in that were with us and maybe have a little park or something with a memorial plaque to all the people that gave their lives. KEYES: Thank you. Appreciate your thoughts. I‘m going to share with all of you my thoughts about this in the “Final Thought” that I give this evening. It‘s usually my “Outrage Of The Day.” But obviously we‘re addressing a far greater outrage this evening. But I want to talk a little bit, when we get bang back from the break, about how I think we can best commemorate and remember the lives that we lost, but also the life that we hope for in America. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KEYES: It is for the living to remember the living. We think of commemorating those whose lives were lost that day at the World Trade Center. But I think what we want to commemorate is their lives, not the terrible and evil manner of their death. To commemorate their lives, we must live with respect for those lives and I think that means that we rebuild. In our country today, we have had many heroes, people who have lost their lives, their remains are in the graveyards, but their memorials are in the homes and schools and businesses and the hope in the institutions that we have built as a people. That is the best memorial to America‘s heroism, America‘s future, not to turn the country into a commemorative graveyard, but to turn it rather toward a future in which we remember the best that is in us, by fulfilling the dream that all those people had. I think that‘s what we need to rebuild in New York in the best way we know how. Thank you for being with me this evening. Lester Holt is up next. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Transcription Copyright 2002 FDCH-eMedia (Federal Document Clearing House, Inc. -eMediaMillWorks, Inc.) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.`s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation. |
|