Interview with Ambassador Ayalon on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal”
December 18, 2003

Rob Harleston: Ambassador Ayalon, the Prime Minister is giving a speech today at the Israeli Institute for Policy and Strategy. What will he tell his audience?

Ambassador Ayalon: Good morning Rob. Without preempting the Prime Minister's speech, which will take place four hours from now, I can assure you it will be a reiteration of our fullest commitment to President Bush's vision of the roadmap. A reiteration of our willingness to move forward and to do everything which is needed on our part to move the dialogue ahead. In short, it will be an extension of a peace offering to the Palestinians.

Rob Harleston: What kind of news do you expect for him to make?

Ambassador Ayalon: I don't think there will be any specificity of details, but the principles will be that Israel is committed to the Road Map, Israel is willing to take concrete steps- including removal of all unauthorized outposts- to take steps to alleviate the living conditions for the Palestinians and entering negotiations with the new Palestinian Prime Minister without any preconditions.

Rob Harleston: If he calls for the removal and the freeze of the Israeli settlements, how is this going to be received by the right wing members of his party?

Ambassador Ayalon: It's not a very easy decision for us. But the Prime Minister has talked repeatedly the last three years about painful compromises- Israel is ready to make peace. It is in our interest, our strategic choice, and our moral obligation. We are willing to do our part, we are just waiting for the Palestinians to do their part- namely to stop the terrorism and to accept our full legitimacy and our rights in our homeland.

First caller from Illinois: Good morning Mr. Ambassador it is wonderful to see you. Keep up the good fight by the way. You have a lot of supporters here. Why doesn't Israel get a little tougher with the Palestinians? Their culture of violence, hate, deceit, and treachery- you cant possibly make peace with these people, their word is no good. Lets take the Bush policy seriously and get tough with them. Thanks.

Ambassador Ayalon: Thank you. We are an integral part of the area of the Middle East and we would like to establish long-term good neighborly relations with the Palestinians and with all of our neighbors. And to that extent, we will do everything that we can do. On the other hand, of course, we have the right and the obligation of self-defense and we would expect for any responsible Palestinian leaders to uproot terrorism. In the absence of doing that, we have to take some measures of self-defense but I would say all in all, we have nothing against the Palestinian people. I believe that their national aspirations and their own interests have been compromised by successive irresponsible leadership who has done them, us, and the whole area wrong.

Caller 2 from California: Good morning. I would like to know why is it necessary, to be a good American these days, it seems like you have to support the State of Israel and its policies. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I served my country, but I know when something is not even handed. I hear them call these people suicide bombers, but if you give the Palestinians Apache helicopters and tanks, they wouldn't have to do that (suicide bombings). So I don't understand why you have to be in support of Israel to be considered a good American. It just doesn't make any sense. Thanks a lot.

Ambassador Ayalon: I would say the US supports Israel because there is a long tradition of common bond that is based on shared values, and values of democracy, of liberty, of human rights, of transparency and accountability, and of free speech. This is something that is very important. These are not just platitudes because in this day and age, and certainly after 9-11, we know what happens in the absence of promoting these values. You have anarchy, you have chaos, you have terrorism, and you have incitement. Israel is a democracy. Right now we are the only democracy in the Middle East, hopefully at one time it can be referred to as the first democracy in the Middle East. But it certainly is within the free world's- all democracies'- the United States' interest to promote democracy. Israel is a role model for the whole area and beyond. And about the Palestinians, let me tell you that we wouldn't need to use any of the weapons for self defense had there not been any terrorism. And I would like to put the record straight. There was an offer to the Palestinians at Camp David 2000. A far-reaching offer for a Palestinian state. First time in history- there has never in history been a Palestinian state. There was a Prime Minister in Israel at Camp David 2000 who offered them a state with most of their demands met. Not only did they not accept it, but they attacked us. They attack our children, our school buses, and our cafeterias. So, what we do is self-defense like any other normal country would do. But basically I would say Israel is very proud to be the United States' friend and ally because we have the same values, same interests, and hopefully more and more democracies will take place in the Middle East and in the world. It will make the world a more just world and a safer world. So, this is basically in both our interests.

Caller 3 from Arkansas: Lately in the United States we are concerned with the terrorism that is happening all over the world and especially since 9-11. We received a taste of what Israel has been feeling for years and years with the Palestinian conflict. And many of us sympathize, but no one in this country has actually felt what has been happening to you over these many years with the Palestinian conflict. What I would like to say to you is, and ask your opinion on, is that it appears to me that there has been a great debate here politically about why we went to war in Iraq and why we went to war in Afghanistan. And it seems to me after carefully watching and analyzing what's been going on, that what we did is we moved a battlefield from our homeland to another country, rightfully or wrongfully. And I would like you to maybe make some comments on that because it appears to me that what we did to protect our homeland is we attacked a tyrant, and we opened up the possibility of terrorist attacks to happen in Iraq on our military personnel instead of having terrorists attacks happen on our civilian personnel. How does this theory that I have affect your region- because you live there?

Ambassador Ayalon: Thank you. I would say from a strategic point of view and from a military point of view, if you protect your homeland from your own boundaries you're already losing. Certainly military analysts will tell you that to move the battlefield into the enemy's territory is the only strategy. And I think that this is what Israel has been doing and this is what all good countries, including the United States, are doing. Pre-emption in the case of terrorism is the only way to battle them. If you have to wait for them and look for suicide attackers already infiltrated in your midst, you are losing. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack. So certainly, you have to go after the dispatchers, after the strategists, after the planners and the financiers. Let me tell you- when you make them run, then it disrupts all the terror activities that they can do. So, this is the only way to do it. The same was the case in Afghanistan; the same was the case in Iraq, and also with the Palestinian Authority.

Rob Harleston: In this morning's New York Times, Richard Bernstein writes about the speech coming up and he says that many people in Jerusalem are expecting Mr. Sharon to outline one or another of two broad options. One would be to announce a concrete withdrawal of all Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and some relatively remote settlements in the West Bank. This would be the bold option, as analysts here put it, but only if Mr. Sharon announces a definitive timetable for the withdrawals. A more cautious and perhaps more likely approach would be for Mr. Sharon to announce in principle a readiness to withdraw from some settlements but to present it only as a possibility if the Road Map is declared dead several months from now as many here expect it will be. What do either one of these choices mean for Mr. Sharon's political future?

Ambassador Ayalon: Either one would be very tough. But Mr. Sharon is a leader who doesn't shy away from tough political decisions or from difficulties. We have a rare opportunity here, because for the first time in the last two decades we have a stable government. Prime Minister Sharon was the first prime minister in more than 25 years who was re-elected to a second term. And he was re-elected with an overwhelming majority, which lends a stable coalition. Taking this, coupling with the fact that his own credibility is very high with the public on security and on strategic issues, he is a leader who can take decisions and pass them with the public. This is a great opportunity- and this is what we are saying and trying to relay to the Palestinians. This is a time to make a deal. Let's move forward together. We will do our part, you will do your part, and then we can hopefully bring about some peace and reconciliation for this beleaguered region.

Caller 4 from Maryland: As the Ambassador well knows, the US recently went to war in Iraq and one of the primary justifications has been that we were enforcing UN resolutions calling on Saddam to disarm. There are multiple UN resolutions calling for immediate withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Palestinian territories to return to pre-1967 borders. Does the Ambassador suggest that the US should enforce that UN resolution with the same zeal as we enforced the UN resolutions regarding Saddam?

Ambassador Ayalon: Thank you for the question because it really gives me the opportunity to elaborate. There is a common myth that is promoted by detractors of America or Israel about UN resolutions. The UN resolutions that were enforced on Iraq were UN Security Council resolutions that were legally binding. Most of the resolutions against Israel are General Assembly resolutions. And if you look at the composition of the General Assembly with the automatic majority that the Arabs have, you understand that these are political motivations, which actually carry no legitimacy and no legal connotations. This is the problem. In the General Assembly you have 192 countries. I suspect that more than half are not democratic. If you look- there are 22 Arab countries, which are part of 57 Islamic countries, which are part of 117 or so non-aligned, you have an automatic majority and the Palestinians unfortunately can pass any resolution they want. Look only in 1975 when there was a resolution that the UN passed equating Zionism to racism. This was abominable. At the UN right now we are trying to push a resolution about tolerance against racism and against religious persecution. We wanted to have anti-Semitism included but cannot do that. There was a resolution that was promoted against killing Israeli children- we couldn't pass it. What do you expect from a General Assembly that doesn't even pass a resolution against terrorism. They cannot even agree on a definition of terrorism when a proposal was made that terrorism would be defined as intentional killing of innocents. So when you talk about UN resolutions, there is no credibility to General Assembly resolutions and this is why they cannot and should not be enforced in the case of Israel, because they are all biased.

Caller 5 from Georgia: Happy Thursday Mr. Ambassador. If you draw a line from the Gaza Strip east under the bottom of the West Bank, there is a pie shaped piece of Israel that runs south. Nobody, in over 30 years I've ever heard, talks about what's down there. What's there geography-wise and people-wise, and why aren't the settlements down in that area which seems nice and open and available and nobody seems to have any comment about. Does that make sense?

Ambassador Ayalon: I guess you are talking about the Negev. When you look at topography, Israel is a small sliver, a very tiny country. When we talk about land, it's less that one-half percent of all the land in the Middle East. There are 22 Arab countries, only one Jewish country. We want to survive and thrive and to be part of the area, cooperate with all our neighbors. Unfortunately, so far, there has not been a real acceptance, and this is the main problem. There is not a real acceptance of our being there by our neighbors. From 1948 until 1967, we were not in the areas of Judea and Samaria or Gaza; they were under Jordanian or Egyptian rule. Nobody talked then about a Palestinian State, they talked about pushing Israel into the sea. Having said that, we put the past away and we look forward. We are very much willing to make compromises, we believe in a two-state solution according to the vision of the President. And I think there should be a way to stop the terror by the Palestinians, and then we can negotiate peacefully and then, I think, very many creative solutions can be found.

Caller 6 from Virginia: Good morning Mr. Ambassador and thank you C-SPAN. I just came from Afghanistan; I spent four months there. This was my fourth or fifth trip there. I understand the policy of President Bush and our troops- why we are in Iraq and why we are in Afghanistan. If you go today you can see the destruction in Afghanistan, and it breaks your heart. And you understand what the people are capable of; their policies and their beliefs are based on hate. I think the question I'd like to ask you is- suppose that the Israelis gave the Palestinians everything that they want. The fundamental question is, do you think they still will accept and live in peace with the Israelis in that region? I believe from what I have seen and noticed, that their beliefs are just based on hate and I sometimes don't understand when I see comments from American people and I think sometimes they're coming from another planet. They need to go and see for themselves what it means when it comes to destruction of human life.

Ambassador Ayalon: Yes, thank you. We have given, we have offered the Palestinians everything they could possibly hope for and they didn't take it. There is a big question about our acceptance, which I relayed before. You are right about it. And I would say so long as there is hateful rhetoric, incitement, and a culture of hate- if children from kindergarten on are being brainwashed and the textbooks are anti-Israel or anti-Western we do have a problem. We have a problem with the leadership. If there was a different leadership that would bring about a change in this culture of hate, then we have a chance. More responsible leadership that would confront terrorism without any compromise and would confront hate and incitement, which comes from very radical elements which are very much identifiable. But if there will not be any condoning of this, if their will be action against this hate then we have a chance and we are still very hopeful.

An email from Cleveland, Ohio: The Ambassador mentioned "unauthorized settlements." What constitutes an authorized settlement and who does the authorizing?

Ambassador Ayalon: Simply put, it's the Israeli judicial system and the cabinet. Jewish communities that were built there under approval of the cabinet are authorized, those that were done there without any approvals, without any zoning, without any due process, are unauthorized.

Caller 7 from Nevada: Good morning. I would just like to say that I appreciate you being on and speaking for Israel. I apologize for some of my countrymen who don't seem to understand that you have generation after generation of hate that you are fighting that has been bred into these children from the womb to the point where they strap dynamite around them and walk into your communities. I sympathize and empathize with Israel. When my country was struck, and to know that you have gone through at least 6000 strikes since our 9-11. I wish I could do more for Israel. I thank Israel. I thank her for her stand and democracy, and her God.

Ambassador Ayalon: Thank you, I really appreciate it. I can tell you that from my vantage point here in Washington- I arrived here to represent my country about a year and a half ago- I feel the friendship from the American people. I feel Washington to be very friendly in general. But certainly to Israelis and in particular in this time when we are bonded together. Not by just the shared values as I mentioned before, but also unfortunately, by common threats. And I think it is time for good and decent people to stand up for what is right and for what is just. We really are over there fighting for our survival. We are defiant against terrorism and hatred, and we are determined- not only to survive but also to thrive. To really be a beacon, a light unto the nations, if I can quote from our Bible. For morality, for justness, and we really extend our hand in peace. I believe right now we have a very rare opportunity with this government, with this Prime Minster Sharon, to make the right moves ahead and we just hope to find a partner on the other side which is reliable, would be committed to peace, which would also be effective in running their own affairs. I think it will be in our interests, in the United States interests, and also in the interests of the Palestinians and the Arab world at large.

Rob Harleston: Before becoming Ambassador to the United States you were the foreign policy advisor for Prime Minister Sharon. Did he call you or get in touch with you to ask your opinion or your input on any of the speech that he's going to give today?

Ambassador Ayalon: Yes, I am in constant touch with him. I had the pleasure to work with him in a very intensive way for two years. Also about this speech, he very much cares about the opinions here of the administration. President Bush is a personal friend of him - they have very good chemistry, it is a very good relationship, based on mutual respect and understanding. So certainly, we talk back and forth all the time.

Last call from Pennsylvania: Good morning. I am listening with mixed feelings. I certainly hope for peace but I have many reservations. First, I look back in the recent history at the Oslo accords. The Oslo accords were signed and agreed upon by both the Palestinians and the Israelis, however there were no built-in consequences for failing to live up to the agreements. This is the same problem with the Road Map. There are no built-in consequences if they fail to live up to their signed agreement and I can only say that I pray to God and I certainly hope for peace, but these are my reservations. Thank you for letting me say this.

Ambassador Ayalon: Thank you. Certainly, I wish there would be some consequences because even if you look at Oslo, Israel was fulfilling the Oslo and the Palestinians didn't. And here there was a lopsided deal if you will. What Israel was getting was just promises on papers, for instance to do away with terrorism and to fight terrorism. What we were giving to the Palestinians was very concrete. We gave them land. The Palestinians came with Arafat and more than 100,000 of his people and they had total self rule over them following the Oslo agreements. They received 5 million dollars in aid, more per capita than the Marshall Plan in Europe. What have they done with all these assets that they got? Nothing. Not only didn't they build their own country, they were bent to ruin ours. And this was the regime of Arafat, which I hope is forever removed from any peace process because he is not a man of peace, he is a terrorist.

Rob Harleston: Ambassador Ayalon, thank you very much for being on the program.

Transcript from C-SPAN Washington Journal, December 18, 2003
(c) NCSC 2003