December 13, 1988
|
Interview with Ambassador Arad on the
"MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour" December 13, 1988 |
INTERVIEW WITH AMBASSADOR ARAD ON THE "MACNEIL/LEHRER NEWSHOUR"
Interviewers: Robert MacNeil, James Lehrer
December 13, 1988
MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, PLO Leader
Yasser Arafat told the United Nations he was ready to talk peace with
Israel at an international conference, Israeli Prime Minister Shamir
rejected that proposal, and the State Department said Arafat had not met
conditions for dialogue with the United States. We'll have the details
in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.
...
MR. LEHRER: Yasser Arafat addressed the United Nations in Geneva today.
The Palestinian leader laid out a 3 point peace plan to be discussed at
an international conference. He asked the leaders of Israel to "come
here under the sponsorship of the United Nations so that together we can
forge that peace." Arafat's plan called for placing the occupied
territories under UN supervision while a permanent settlement that
includes a State of Palestine and a State of Israel is negotiated.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir discounted Arafat's words, saying
continued acts of PLO terrorism were hidden behind them. He called the
speech a monumental act of deception done to give the international
community an illusion of moderation. The Associated Press said U.S.
officials had worked behind the scenes to see if it would be moderate
enough to justify U.S. talks with the PLO. State Department Spokesman
Charles Redman said afterward it had not happened. He called it
interesting and positive, but said it fell short of what the U.S.
required. We'll have full reaction to the speech right after this News
Summary. Robin.
...
MR. MACNEIL: Our first reaction to the speech is from the Israeli
Ambassador to the United States, Moshe Arad. Mr. Ambassador, welcome.
AMB. ARAD: Good evening.
MR. MACNEIL: The U.S., as we've just heard, sees positive developments
in this speech, but Israel sees none, is that right?
MOSHE ARAD, Ambassador of Israel to the U.S.: That's right. We see it as
an attempt to create a perception of progress, of advancement, of
change, but basically, we didn't detect anything new in the speech made
by Mr. Arafat today at the same old position which was expressed both in
Algiers and in other places, and therefore, we do not see progress.
MR. MACNEIL: You do not see in his repeated references using the word
"Israel", in his statement that all states in the region within the
region should live within secure and peaceful borders, some movement?
AMB. ARAD: I see this as an acceptance of a certain reality but not as
an acceptance of the right of Israel to exist as an independent country.
And we didn't hear anything in his speech today or on other occasions
which would reject the concepts and the principles of the charter. And
as you well know, the Palestinian charter calls the establishment of the
State of Israel null and void, calls for the destruction. We didn't hear
any reference to it, and even when he's talking about the rejection of
terrorism, he still feels that opposing the Israeli presence is
legitimate and should not be regarded as terrorism. And only today we
had another incident in Israel in which an Israeli civilian and an
Israeli soldier were killed in a terrorist incident.
MR. MACNEIL: How did you take his reference when he said many of those
listening to him had been branded as terrorists when they were seeking
their, fighting for their own independence, and how were regarded as
respectable leaders of their countries? Did you see an ironic reference
to leaders of your own country in that?
AMB. ARAD: I saw in this whole speech a continuous attempt to parallel
and to create the impression that the Israeli presence in the
territories is a result of an Israeli aggression, that the Palestinians
were subject to Israeli aggression ever since the establishment of the
State of Israeli in 1948, an attempt to distort the whole history of the
last 41 years. And so the suggestion that he made today that we are
dealing with a fascist entity, with an entity which is aiming at
destroying the Palestinians, is totally incorrect. I think Israel has
been the subject of adversity, of animosity, of attack, of aggression.
And so the whole concept at the base of his speech, the whole approach,
is actually sending, trying to depict Israel as a fascist entity, as an
entity which has no right to exist, and at the same time eventually
calling upon Israel to come to terms with an organization which is
determined still to destroy the State of Israel.
MR. MACNEIL: Mr. Ambassador, you were informed by Secretary Shultz,
first through an assistant and then directly by Secretary Shultz, that
the U.S. was negotiating through a third party to influence this speech,
is that correct?
AMB. ARAD: No, that's incorrect. We were informed through a third party
there were indications about the likelihood that certain conditions, the
conditions which were set forth by the United States, would be met, and
as you all know and as we have all listened, this wasn't to be so, and I
don't think I am at freedom to go into all the details of my
communication with the Secretary of State or with his assistant.
MR. MACNEIL: Right. But if Arafat had used precisely the words the U.S.
wants or wanted, would Israel feel that he had felt that he had met the
conditions?
AMB. ARAD: No, definitely not. We have our own approach and our own view
about how to advance the peace process. We do not view the PLO as
survival partners for negotiations. We feel that the future and the key
to the settlement is in direct negotiations between Israel, Jordanians
and Palestinians, and we feel that the PLO is still determined, as long
as it regards a charter as its basic key document, that there is no
chance for the PLO to become a viable partner for negotiations with
Israel.
MR. MACNEIL: So there is no set, no form of words, no set of words which
this man, Arafat can use that would qualify the PLO in Israel's view as
a negotiating partner?
AMB. ARAD: The first test I think should be deeds and not words.
MR. MACNEIL: What kind of deeds?
AMB. ARAD: And the deeds mean that the continuous violence -- actually,
the same speech this morning, and somehow this has been forgotten or the
selective parts of it were mentioned, is the fact that he calls for the
continuation of the violence. Indeed, he encouraged the continuation of
the acts of violence in the territories. So, on the one hand, he rejects
terrorism. On the other hand, he legitimizes what he calls the struggle
against Israel, and by this, he is encouraging the acts of terrorism
against Israeli civilians and against the Israeli presence.
MR. MACNEIL: So does this -- am I right in thinking that the Israeli
Government, at least as constituted at present, will never deal with
Arafat?
AMB. ARAD: The Israeli position on dealing with the PLO is very clear as
long as the organization is determined to the destruction of the State
of Israel and this is what the Palestinian charter is all about, if it
regards the actual establishment of the State of Israel as an act of
aggression, and as Mr. Arafat, himself, said a few weeks ago that this
is a racist state and, therefore, it has no right to exist, I don't see
what are we going to negotiate about.
MR. MACNEIL: Well, Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining us.
AMB. ARAD: Thank you.
Return to Ambassador Arad's Speeches Page