Tweet
PERES: GuL EPITOME OF CONTEMPORARY MAN
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 1 2007
Israeli President Shimon Peres said concerns regarding whether or not
the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) government's second
term, this time with more electoral clout in the wake of the July 22
polls, are baseless because they are not based on facts.
"Erdoðan declared that he is for a secular government, not for
an Islamic government. You might be suspicious of his words. The
more important thing is his actions. Is he behaving like an Islamist
fundamentalist? The mere fact that Turkey is maintaining relations with
Israel is the best declaration about the nature of the government,"
Peres said.
Regarding former Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's new role as president
of Turkey, Peres said: "I met Mr. Gul. I think he is a responsible
man and he contributed positively to our relations. I feel that he is
a man of contemporary times and a politician who really would like
to see Turkey as a free and democratic country. I think he will act
with a sense of secular responsibility."
When asked why US-based Jewish-American organization the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had changed its traditional position
concerning the killings of Anatolian Armenians in the early 20th
century -- the ADL recently said the killings of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks "were indeed tantamount to genocide" -- Peres stated:
"I hope they will return to their traditional position. I talked to
[ADL Director] Mr. [Abraham] Foxman. He told me that they are going
to publish an open declaration that would say two things; they won't
support the proposing of this issue before the American Congress, and
secondly they would support the idea of [Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip] Erdoðan to have a commission including historians from both
sides to study the matter. I think that historians, not governments,
should deal with history."
In an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman, a few hours before
Abdullah Gul became the 11th president of Turkey, Peres cast no doubt
on the new government's intentions to keep the regime secular. When
asked about First Lady Hayrunnisa Gul's headscarf, he laughed and said:
"I'm not a fashion designer. So you should not ask me this question."
Recipient of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize together with Israel's
then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
for the peace talks that produced the Oslo Accords, Peres became
president this year in June following the resignation of Moshe Katsav
amid impending charges of sexual harassment crimes -- later dropped.
During the interview on Aug. 28 in Jerusalem, Peres answered our
questions, spanning the concerns of Israel's 1 million-strong Muslim
Arab population to the embargo on Iran, the possibility of Iraq's
disintegration and Turkey's role in the region.
After the AK Party's success in the July 22 elections there has been
many concerns, particularly in Jewish-American circles in the US that
see this as the end of the Turkish Republican era, heralding a new and
more Islamic Turkey and marking the end of Ataturk's regime. How do
you see half of the Turkish population's supporting Erdoðan, is it
something to be feared?
The concerns are baseless for two reasons. Erdoðan declared that
he is for a secular government and not an Islamic one. You might be
suspicious of his words, but the more important thing to keep in mind
is his actions. Is he behaving like an Islamist fundamentalist? The
mere fact that Turkey is maintaining relations with Israel is the
best indication of the nature of his government. Israel's founder
[David] Ben-Gurion used to say, "Judge the leaders on their record,
what they do, not on what they say." It is only fair that we take a
look at Erdoðan and his government's record -- a very impressive record
at that: he created a middle class that has led to current stability,
encouraged modern science and technology to Turkey, reduced the numbers
of people below poverty line and improved the economy. Meanwhile,
[Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, never asked to become a
member of the European Union -- a democratic organization. Erdoðan,
on the other hand, wants Turkey to be an EU member.
So the concerns have been exaggerated?
The concerns are not based on facts and I can only judge the factual
situation.
Similarly, some people in Washington argue that relations between
Israel and Turkey have lost momentum due to AK Party governance. Do
you agree with that?
I don't think so. Even if Turkey and Israel do not have the same
past, they belong to the same future. Even in the past, you know,
some of our leaders were educated in Turkey, including our first
prime minister and the first president -- they even wanted to be
members of the Turkish Parliament.
A new president will be elected in Turkey today. Abdullah Gul will
probably be your colleague as the 11th president...
I met Mr. Gul. I think he is a responsible man and he has contributed
positively to our relations. I feel that he is a man of the modern
age and a politician who really would like to see Turkey be a free
and democratic country. I think he will act with a sense of secular
responsibility as well.
His wife's headscarf has been a topic of debate for some people.
Today, I read in the newspapers debates that she may change her
style. And I saw some of the styles suggested for her.
So it's not a problem?
I'm not a fashion designer. This is an issue people of fashion should
talk. [laughter]
Mr. President, Turkey has become a more active country in the Middle
East. How do you see it?
We welcome it. We are very glad to learn that Union of Chambers
and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB) decided to build industrial parks in
Palestine, starting from Gaza all the way to Jenin. We are negotiating
with a Turkish university to build a branch here. We are very happy
about Turkey's readiness to play more active role in the region.
You underline in your books that 'for peace in the Middle East' and
'for peace between Israel and the Palestinians,' the Palestinians
should be empowered. What more can be done in that regard?
When we say "empower" we have to refer to it in modern terms. Today
"to be empowered" is having a better economy, not necessarily having
a better army. I think that we cling too much on strategy, too much
on diplomacy, not enough on economy. What's changed Turkey is her
economy. And if you are talking about headscarves, there are Turkish
women without scarves. So women have a choice; if you don't enforce
that then it's okay. Now I think that Palestinians should be given a
chance to promote their economic life. There was an attempt to help
Palestinians financially; unfortunately it didn't function.
Palestinians got $1 billion a year from the world in the last
12-13 years, but it created a lot of corruption that brought [major
Palestinian political party] Fatah down. It has created a lot of
administrative costs and produced very little. Instead of financial
aid we have to create economic opportunities so people will be able to
get jobs and work. A peace process must be a meeting of people with
a new fortune in which they personally believe that peace brought
bread and butter to their homes and an open life to their children.
Do you have practical suggestions for Turkey in empowering
Palestinians?
Turkey can build new industrial parks. Turkey made a name for itself
as a good builder. It is also building in Russia, for example. So
why not build here? We have to build bridges instead of building walls.
But you are building walls?
Because we are forced to, it's not our choice. The walls stopped
suicide bombings; we haven't had it since then. It wasn't our pleasure
[to build the walls].
Do you think that one day it might be demolished?
One-hundred percent. We are experts in dismantling walls.
But it took 60 years for the Berlin wall...
The walls must be shorter to be dismantled. It's not the age of
walls, but it is the age of terror and I think terror will disappear
finally. Because it doesn't have a message, it is a violent protest
and they don't know where they are going.
So aren't the ideas to empower Palestinians economically and
international communities' and your embargo on Palestinians
contradictory?
No, no, no. We don't have any embargo on the Palestinians. We have
an embargo on Hamas.
But it punishes ordinary Palestinians.
Who punishes them? Hamas punishes them. What can Israel do if Hamas
fires every day three or four rockets over our civilians? We left
Gaza completely. There is no Israeli there -- neither civilians nor
soldiers. We took out our settlements. What do they want more? I am
afraid they aren't looking for a Palestinian state. What they are
looking for is an Iran-like religious hegemony in the Middle East,
and for that reason they want to destroy, not to achieve.
Is there any way to engage Hamas into the political system, and how
do you perceive Turkey's efforts in that respect?
I think the chances are very low. For example, Turkey cannot engage
with Iranians about the UN resolutions. Same goes with Hamas. Of
course you can have a dialogue, but not with a wall.
But Turkey has good relations with Iran, don't you think it may
contribute to world peace or to peace in the Middle East?
What relations? Turkey can do business with Iran but cannot influence
Iran to stop terror, cannot influence Iran to stop building bombs
and threatening other people. I am sure Turkey would never agree to
what the Iranian leadership says -- to wipe out Israel. Do you agree
with it? Nobody does. Do you agree with Hamas that terror should be
continued, that they don't have to negotiate? Nobody can, and nobody
will, pay for terror. Hamas wanted to continue terror and shoots
rockets, and hopes the world will pay. ... The world will not pay
for terror. So we are not talking about Palestinians, we are talking
about terror. Because, when it comes to the people, as you have said,
we continue to supply electricity, we continue to supply water, we
continue to open passages in spite of their firing rockets, but that
doesn't mean you can negotiate with them, because there is no reason
to. Nobody can explain why they are still shooting after Israel has
completely left Gaza. What do they want?
Some people say that Turkey can be a mediator between Israel and
the Palestinians, but some say that Turkey may side more with the
Palestinians so it cannot be a mediator.
I think Turkey should support peace, not one side or the other,
because the negotiations must be directly between the Israelis and the
Palestinians, no other country can take part. Now -- when we are in
negotiations -- when you negotiate, you negotiate with two parties,
your enemy and your own people. Occasionally it's very difficult to
convince your own people to give up land or something else. People
don't like it. So the negotiator cannot be [anything] but Israeli,
because he has to convince his people. No other country can convince
Israelis but their own messengers, their own representatives. And for
that reason I think the negotiations have to be face to face, between
Mr. [Mahmoud] Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and
Mr. [Ehud] Olmert, the prime minister of Israel. They talk, if they
establish chemistry. Mr. Abbas has the same problem with Hamas as we
do. It is not only a problem for Israel, but for the Palestinians as
well. The latest polls shows the supporters of Hamas are beginning
to be disappointed, saying, "What are you doing in Gaza?"
You do not buy the arguments that Turkey may be a negotiator?
I believe Turkey could and should support peace. Why should Turkey be
one-dimensional when it can be two-dimensional like us? I mean we also
want good relations, I told you. But I think if one must contribute,
they should contribute more in the economic domain than the political
one, because to negotiate politically you have to have a mandate of
your own.
Again, regarding Turkey's role in the Middle East, how do you think we
can be inspired by the Ottoman legacy, a time of peace for centuries
in the region?
The Ottoman legacy is over, like the British Empire is over, like
the French Empire is over. And you are not coming from the Ottoman
legacy, you are coming from modern Turkey. Modern Turkey's example
is the greatest contribution for peace in the Middle East. I went
to Rafiah once when we were governing it. The mayor of Rafiah was a
good friend of mine. He said: "Look, I don't know what we can do. You
cannot negotiate with the Egyptians -- they are stubborn, we cannot
go with you or the Jews -- we are Muslims." "So what do you want us
to do, why can't you call the Turks back," I said. "Because Turks
don't want to come back, they don't want to build a new empire,
it's over," he said. We live in a world with borders. Distances
disappear with the power of transportation and communication. The
racial differences are over too. Today it's really not important if
you are yellow or black or white. If you adopt the right policies,
color has nothing to say. Even the relations between men and women are
changing; we are becoming more and more equal. So we cannot go back,
we have to move forward. And you can pray like a Muslim. Why should
I shoot you and you shoot me? You should pray and I should pray. We
accept all prayers go straight to heaven, so let the Lord be the judge.
Yesterday I was at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. I told one of your Arab
citizens there that I planned to interview you and asked him to
tell me his concerns. The humble man said he is a citizen of Israel,
but his brother just five kilometers away, cannot come here to pray,
though American Muslims or European Muslims may do so.
Let them behave like the American Muslims and they can come. That's
all. We don't want them to stop being Muslims. We want them to stop
shooting. If they continue shooting they will not be able to move
freely. Look, there were 50,000 Palestinians working in Israel. But
they have begun to commit acts of terror. We have in Israel a million
Muslim Arabs, as our citizens. Five thousand of them are academics.
Twenty-thousand Arab students every year enter into our universities
and most of them are women.
What those graduates are doing in Israel? Some of them are teachers,
some of them doctors. Today you come to every Israeli hospital and
find Arab doctors. You'll find Arab nurses and Arab patients. Now look
how ridiculous the situation is. A Jewish patient wouldn't mind being
treated by an Arab doctor; an Arab patient can be treated by a Jew,
a Jewish doctor. What I am saying is the only healthy relations are in
the hospital. The doctor has a knife but only to perform an operation,
to make somebody healthy, not to cut somebody -- that's the difference.
So easing the visitation restrictions are dependent on the level
of violence?
One-hundred percent. Jordanians come and we don't have a problem.
Turks are Muslims and we don't have problems.
Yesterday I was with former Israeli Ambassador to Turkey Zvi Elpeleg
in Tel-Aviv. I realized a serious problem faces Muslim Arabs and Mr.
Elpeleg was very concerned as well. Israel, according to a 1950s law,
confiscated the properties of Muslim foundations. Mosques have been
used for purposes other than that they were designed for and cemeteries
have been sold. Once it might have been a security issue, but times
have changed. As a man of peace, how would you help solve this issue?
I think we are responsible for all holy sites of all religions. We
have to honor them, we have to respect them, we must not endanger
them. It's our responsibility, the safety of the churches, of the
mosques, of the synagogues. All of them are holy in our eyes, and as
a government we have to do whatever we can.
A lawyer brought the cemetery case to the Supreme Court but they said,
under the law dating back to the 1950s, it's not illegal.
I don't know which law you're referring to...
I'm referring to the 'present absentees' issue. It's the law about
the properties belonging to the Palestinians who were displaced during
the 1948 war but currently live in Israel.
According to our Constitution, we have to respect all religions,
enable free worship and respect their holy sites.
Some neocons, the ones close to the Jewish lobby, say partition of
Iraq would be good for Israel because this will decrease Iran's power,
helping Israel. How do you see the issue?
It's not our problem. Nobody knows what's helpful and what's not
helpful. It's for Iraq to decide what they want, to be together or to
separate. We don't have a say. We have enough problems of our own. We
don't run the lives of other people.
How do you feel when you look at your Nobel Prize and the current
situation? What went wrong?
Many reasons... There was a split among the Palestinians; they
couldn't unite and make up their minds, and as a result Mr. Arafat
started zigzagging. Without him we wouldn't be able to even start
the negotiations but with him we couldn't conclude because of this
zigzagging. On the other side, Israelis became disappointed; they said
"land for peace." They thought Israelis decided to give all the land
but failed to get peace. In spite of it all, the result has not been
so bad. Without Oslo, Palestinians wouldn't be people that could
negotiate -- maybe all of them would be in Hamas. In Oslo we also
agreed on some principles, including the 1967 borders and not those
of '48. But history takes time, you know. You have to overcome many
prejudices, many hells, many fears and many worries. Personally, 14
to 20 years seems to be a long time period, but in fact it is not --
it's a short period of time.
This year was the 40th anniversary of the 1967 events. Some in the
Israeli media have been quite critical of what was done after 1967,
especially the occupation.
Was that the only thing they were critical about? [Laughing]
No, there was a lot of criticism, but they say that the occupation
was not right.
What else could we do? Take the West Bank? It was under Jordanian
control. Our then prime minister sent a message to the king of Jordan
and said, "Don't attack us, we shall not attack you." Then they
turned their guns against us, so we were left without any choice but
to silence them.
But you are still for the withdrawal from the West Bank, and you have
been criticized by some rabbis for being against Jewish law.
I think there was a solution accepted by most Israelis: that there
should be two states for two people. It's clear. What I say is in
that direction.
Some say that the absence of a Muslim state in the Quartet diminishes
its power. Wouldn't an Islamic country or the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) -- representing 57 Muslim states -- help to
strengthen its legitimacy?
We have to negotiate outstanding questions. Some of the proposals
are music without an orchestra. They made their opinions known, but
you cannot negotiate with opinions. Therefore we are negotiating with
Palestinians politically and with the Jordanians and the Palestinians
economically. I think this is the right framework.
Why did the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) change its traditional
position and make such a decision [equating the 1915 events against
Anatolian Armenians to genocide]?
I think there was internal pressure and they departed from their
traditional position. I hope they will return to their traditional
position. I talked to [ADL Director] Mr. [Abraham] Foxman. He told
me that they are going to publish an open declaration that would say
two things; they won't support the proposing of this issue before
the American Congress, and secondly they would support the idea of
[Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdoðan to have a commission
including historians from both sides to study the matter. I think
that historians, not governments, should deal with history.
Do you agree with the argument that this was a reaction to Turkey's
relations with Iran and Turkey's invitation of Hamas?
No, I don't think so. I think it's an internal matter. I don't think
they play into world politics. They don't get orders from Israel and
I think they didn't have a political underpinning.
Could the experiences of the Armenians, who formed gangs during World
War I and demanded independence, be compared to the experiences of
the Jews, who faced genocide just because of their identity?
No, I don't think you can compare them. I think it's reasonable
what Prime Minister Erdoðan suggested -- bringing together a group
of historians that will judge history based on history, not based
on politics. I mean they would not adapt history depending on the
present political arguments. History is over, it cannot be changed.
It must be investigated professionally and we have to continue with
our lives. We cannot change the past; we can only change the future.
A rabbi asked Ben-Gurion once what even God couldn't change.
Ben-Gurion asked, "What?" and the rabbi replied, "History."
Do you think Turkish society can be assured that Israel would not
change its position on the events of 1915?
Israel is firm in its position. For us relations with Turkey are
very important and if we had to fight, we would fight Ahmadinejad's
policies of destruction, threats, terror and bombs.
So do you support the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East?
I declare the Middle East free from the threat of destruction. Arms
don't destroy, people destroy. Pakistan has a bomb but has not hit
anything. But here comes a declaration of the leader, a member of
the United Nations that he wants to wipe out another member of the
United Nations. Nobody can accept it. Israel is being threatened,
but Iran is not being threatened by anybody.
So do you think Israel could also be part of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
Well, that's another story. Israel never said we should detonate a
nuclear bomb in the Middle East, but people are suspicious. And if
the suspicion is a deterrent, it's good enough. We are satisfied with
the suspicion. We don't want anything more.
--Boundary_(ID_iStC0sX6HihlIlDLYKgSlQ)--
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 1 2007
Israeli President Shimon Peres said concerns regarding whether or not
the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) government's second
term, this time with more electoral clout in the wake of the July 22
polls, are baseless because they are not based on facts.
"Erdoðan declared that he is for a secular government, not for
an Islamic government. You might be suspicious of his words. The
more important thing is his actions. Is he behaving like an Islamist
fundamentalist? The mere fact that Turkey is maintaining relations with
Israel is the best declaration about the nature of the government,"
Peres said.
Regarding former Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's new role as president
of Turkey, Peres said: "I met Mr. Gul. I think he is a responsible
man and he contributed positively to our relations. I feel that he is
a man of contemporary times and a politician who really would like
to see Turkey as a free and democratic country. I think he will act
with a sense of secular responsibility."
When asked why US-based Jewish-American organization the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had changed its traditional position
concerning the killings of Anatolian Armenians in the early 20th
century -- the ADL recently said the killings of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks "were indeed tantamount to genocide" -- Peres stated:
"I hope they will return to their traditional position. I talked to
[ADL Director] Mr. [Abraham] Foxman. He told me that they are going
to publish an open declaration that would say two things; they won't
support the proposing of this issue before the American Congress, and
secondly they would support the idea of [Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip] Erdoðan to have a commission including historians from both
sides to study the matter. I think that historians, not governments,
should deal with history."
In an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman, a few hours before
Abdullah Gul became the 11th president of Turkey, Peres cast no doubt
on the new government's intentions to keep the regime secular. When
asked about First Lady Hayrunnisa Gul's headscarf, he laughed and said:
"I'm not a fashion designer. So you should not ask me this question."
Recipient of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize together with Israel's
then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
for the peace talks that produced the Oslo Accords, Peres became
president this year in June following the resignation of Moshe Katsav
amid impending charges of sexual harassment crimes -- later dropped.
During the interview on Aug. 28 in Jerusalem, Peres answered our
questions, spanning the concerns of Israel's 1 million-strong Muslim
Arab population to the embargo on Iran, the possibility of Iraq's
disintegration and Turkey's role in the region.
After the AK Party's success in the July 22 elections there has been
many concerns, particularly in Jewish-American circles in the US that
see this as the end of the Turkish Republican era, heralding a new and
more Islamic Turkey and marking the end of Ataturk's regime. How do
you see half of the Turkish population's supporting Erdoðan, is it
something to be feared?
The concerns are baseless for two reasons. Erdoðan declared that
he is for a secular government and not an Islamic one. You might be
suspicious of his words, but the more important thing to keep in mind
is his actions. Is he behaving like an Islamist fundamentalist? The
mere fact that Turkey is maintaining relations with Israel is the
best indication of the nature of his government. Israel's founder
[David] Ben-Gurion used to say, "Judge the leaders on their record,
what they do, not on what they say." It is only fair that we take a
look at Erdoðan and his government's record -- a very impressive record
at that: he created a middle class that has led to current stability,
encouraged modern science and technology to Turkey, reduced the numbers
of people below poverty line and improved the economy. Meanwhile,
[Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, never asked to become a
member of the European Union -- a democratic organization. Erdoðan,
on the other hand, wants Turkey to be an EU member.
So the concerns have been exaggerated?
The concerns are not based on facts and I can only judge the factual
situation.
Similarly, some people in Washington argue that relations between
Israel and Turkey have lost momentum due to AK Party governance. Do
you agree with that?
I don't think so. Even if Turkey and Israel do not have the same
past, they belong to the same future. Even in the past, you know,
some of our leaders were educated in Turkey, including our first
prime minister and the first president -- they even wanted to be
members of the Turkish Parliament.
A new president will be elected in Turkey today. Abdullah Gul will
probably be your colleague as the 11th president...
I met Mr. Gul. I think he is a responsible man and he has contributed
positively to our relations. I feel that he is a man of the modern
age and a politician who really would like to see Turkey be a free
and democratic country. I think he will act with a sense of secular
responsibility as well.
His wife's headscarf has been a topic of debate for some people.
Today, I read in the newspapers debates that she may change her
style. And I saw some of the styles suggested for her.
So it's not a problem?
I'm not a fashion designer. This is an issue people of fashion should
talk. [laughter]
Mr. President, Turkey has become a more active country in the Middle
East. How do you see it?
We welcome it. We are very glad to learn that Union of Chambers
and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB) decided to build industrial parks in
Palestine, starting from Gaza all the way to Jenin. We are negotiating
with a Turkish university to build a branch here. We are very happy
about Turkey's readiness to play more active role in the region.
You underline in your books that 'for peace in the Middle East' and
'for peace between Israel and the Palestinians,' the Palestinians
should be empowered. What more can be done in that regard?
When we say "empower" we have to refer to it in modern terms. Today
"to be empowered" is having a better economy, not necessarily having
a better army. I think that we cling too much on strategy, too much
on diplomacy, not enough on economy. What's changed Turkey is her
economy. And if you are talking about headscarves, there are Turkish
women without scarves. So women have a choice; if you don't enforce
that then it's okay. Now I think that Palestinians should be given a
chance to promote their economic life. There was an attempt to help
Palestinians financially; unfortunately it didn't function.
Palestinians got $1 billion a year from the world in the last
12-13 years, but it created a lot of corruption that brought [major
Palestinian political party] Fatah down. It has created a lot of
administrative costs and produced very little. Instead of financial
aid we have to create economic opportunities so people will be able to
get jobs and work. A peace process must be a meeting of people with
a new fortune in which they personally believe that peace brought
bread and butter to their homes and an open life to their children.
Do you have practical suggestions for Turkey in empowering
Palestinians?
Turkey can build new industrial parks. Turkey made a name for itself
as a good builder. It is also building in Russia, for example. So
why not build here? We have to build bridges instead of building walls.
But you are building walls?
Because we are forced to, it's not our choice. The walls stopped
suicide bombings; we haven't had it since then. It wasn't our pleasure
[to build the walls].
Do you think that one day it might be demolished?
One-hundred percent. We are experts in dismantling walls.
But it took 60 years for the Berlin wall...
The walls must be shorter to be dismantled. It's not the age of
walls, but it is the age of terror and I think terror will disappear
finally. Because it doesn't have a message, it is a violent protest
and they don't know where they are going.
So aren't the ideas to empower Palestinians economically and
international communities' and your embargo on Palestinians
contradictory?
No, no, no. We don't have any embargo on the Palestinians. We have
an embargo on Hamas.
But it punishes ordinary Palestinians.
Who punishes them? Hamas punishes them. What can Israel do if Hamas
fires every day three or four rockets over our civilians? We left
Gaza completely. There is no Israeli there -- neither civilians nor
soldiers. We took out our settlements. What do they want more? I am
afraid they aren't looking for a Palestinian state. What they are
looking for is an Iran-like religious hegemony in the Middle East,
and for that reason they want to destroy, not to achieve.
Is there any way to engage Hamas into the political system, and how
do you perceive Turkey's efforts in that respect?
I think the chances are very low. For example, Turkey cannot engage
with Iranians about the UN resolutions. Same goes with Hamas. Of
course you can have a dialogue, but not with a wall.
But Turkey has good relations with Iran, don't you think it may
contribute to world peace or to peace in the Middle East?
What relations? Turkey can do business with Iran but cannot influence
Iran to stop terror, cannot influence Iran to stop building bombs
and threatening other people. I am sure Turkey would never agree to
what the Iranian leadership says -- to wipe out Israel. Do you agree
with it? Nobody does. Do you agree with Hamas that terror should be
continued, that they don't have to negotiate? Nobody can, and nobody
will, pay for terror. Hamas wanted to continue terror and shoots
rockets, and hopes the world will pay. ... The world will not pay
for terror. So we are not talking about Palestinians, we are talking
about terror. Because, when it comes to the people, as you have said,
we continue to supply electricity, we continue to supply water, we
continue to open passages in spite of their firing rockets, but that
doesn't mean you can negotiate with them, because there is no reason
to. Nobody can explain why they are still shooting after Israel has
completely left Gaza. What do they want?
Some people say that Turkey can be a mediator between Israel and
the Palestinians, but some say that Turkey may side more with the
Palestinians so it cannot be a mediator.
I think Turkey should support peace, not one side or the other,
because the negotiations must be directly between the Israelis and the
Palestinians, no other country can take part. Now -- when we are in
negotiations -- when you negotiate, you negotiate with two parties,
your enemy and your own people. Occasionally it's very difficult to
convince your own people to give up land or something else. People
don't like it. So the negotiator cannot be [anything] but Israeli,
because he has to convince his people. No other country can convince
Israelis but their own messengers, their own representatives. And for
that reason I think the negotiations have to be face to face, between
Mr. [Mahmoud] Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and
Mr. [Ehud] Olmert, the prime minister of Israel. They talk, if they
establish chemistry. Mr. Abbas has the same problem with Hamas as we
do. It is not only a problem for Israel, but for the Palestinians as
well. The latest polls shows the supporters of Hamas are beginning
to be disappointed, saying, "What are you doing in Gaza?"
You do not buy the arguments that Turkey may be a negotiator?
I believe Turkey could and should support peace. Why should Turkey be
one-dimensional when it can be two-dimensional like us? I mean we also
want good relations, I told you. But I think if one must contribute,
they should contribute more in the economic domain than the political
one, because to negotiate politically you have to have a mandate of
your own.
Again, regarding Turkey's role in the Middle East, how do you think we
can be inspired by the Ottoman legacy, a time of peace for centuries
in the region?
The Ottoman legacy is over, like the British Empire is over, like
the French Empire is over. And you are not coming from the Ottoman
legacy, you are coming from modern Turkey. Modern Turkey's example
is the greatest contribution for peace in the Middle East. I went
to Rafiah once when we were governing it. The mayor of Rafiah was a
good friend of mine. He said: "Look, I don't know what we can do. You
cannot negotiate with the Egyptians -- they are stubborn, we cannot
go with you or the Jews -- we are Muslims." "So what do you want us
to do, why can't you call the Turks back," I said. "Because Turks
don't want to come back, they don't want to build a new empire,
it's over," he said. We live in a world with borders. Distances
disappear with the power of transportation and communication. The
racial differences are over too. Today it's really not important if
you are yellow or black or white. If you adopt the right policies,
color has nothing to say. Even the relations between men and women are
changing; we are becoming more and more equal. So we cannot go back,
we have to move forward. And you can pray like a Muslim. Why should
I shoot you and you shoot me? You should pray and I should pray. We
accept all prayers go straight to heaven, so let the Lord be the judge.
Yesterday I was at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. I told one of your Arab
citizens there that I planned to interview you and asked him to
tell me his concerns. The humble man said he is a citizen of Israel,
but his brother just five kilometers away, cannot come here to pray,
though American Muslims or European Muslims may do so.
Let them behave like the American Muslims and they can come. That's
all. We don't want them to stop being Muslims. We want them to stop
shooting. If they continue shooting they will not be able to move
freely. Look, there were 50,000 Palestinians working in Israel. But
they have begun to commit acts of terror. We have in Israel a million
Muslim Arabs, as our citizens. Five thousand of them are academics.
Twenty-thousand Arab students every year enter into our universities
and most of them are women.
What those graduates are doing in Israel? Some of them are teachers,
some of them doctors. Today you come to every Israeli hospital and
find Arab doctors. You'll find Arab nurses and Arab patients. Now look
how ridiculous the situation is. A Jewish patient wouldn't mind being
treated by an Arab doctor; an Arab patient can be treated by a Jew,
a Jewish doctor. What I am saying is the only healthy relations are in
the hospital. The doctor has a knife but only to perform an operation,
to make somebody healthy, not to cut somebody -- that's the difference.
So easing the visitation restrictions are dependent on the level
of violence?
One-hundred percent. Jordanians come and we don't have a problem.
Turks are Muslims and we don't have problems.
Yesterday I was with former Israeli Ambassador to Turkey Zvi Elpeleg
in Tel-Aviv. I realized a serious problem faces Muslim Arabs and Mr.
Elpeleg was very concerned as well. Israel, according to a 1950s law,
confiscated the properties of Muslim foundations. Mosques have been
used for purposes other than that they were designed for and cemeteries
have been sold. Once it might have been a security issue, but times
have changed. As a man of peace, how would you help solve this issue?
I think we are responsible for all holy sites of all religions. We
have to honor them, we have to respect them, we must not endanger
them. It's our responsibility, the safety of the churches, of the
mosques, of the synagogues. All of them are holy in our eyes, and as
a government we have to do whatever we can.
A lawyer brought the cemetery case to the Supreme Court but they said,
under the law dating back to the 1950s, it's not illegal.
I don't know which law you're referring to...
I'm referring to the 'present absentees' issue. It's the law about
the properties belonging to the Palestinians who were displaced during
the 1948 war but currently live in Israel.
According to our Constitution, we have to respect all religions,
enable free worship and respect their holy sites.
Some neocons, the ones close to the Jewish lobby, say partition of
Iraq would be good for Israel because this will decrease Iran's power,
helping Israel. How do you see the issue?
It's not our problem. Nobody knows what's helpful and what's not
helpful. It's for Iraq to decide what they want, to be together or to
separate. We don't have a say. We have enough problems of our own. We
don't run the lives of other people.
How do you feel when you look at your Nobel Prize and the current
situation? What went wrong?
Many reasons... There was a split among the Palestinians; they
couldn't unite and make up their minds, and as a result Mr. Arafat
started zigzagging. Without him we wouldn't be able to even start
the negotiations but with him we couldn't conclude because of this
zigzagging. On the other side, Israelis became disappointed; they said
"land for peace." They thought Israelis decided to give all the land
but failed to get peace. In spite of it all, the result has not been
so bad. Without Oslo, Palestinians wouldn't be people that could
negotiate -- maybe all of them would be in Hamas. In Oslo we also
agreed on some principles, including the 1967 borders and not those
of '48. But history takes time, you know. You have to overcome many
prejudices, many hells, many fears and many worries. Personally, 14
to 20 years seems to be a long time period, but in fact it is not --
it's a short period of time.
This year was the 40th anniversary of the 1967 events. Some in the
Israeli media have been quite critical of what was done after 1967,
especially the occupation.
Was that the only thing they were critical about? [Laughing]
No, there was a lot of criticism, but they say that the occupation
was not right.
What else could we do? Take the West Bank? It was under Jordanian
control. Our then prime minister sent a message to the king of Jordan
and said, "Don't attack us, we shall not attack you." Then they
turned their guns against us, so we were left without any choice but
to silence them.
But you are still for the withdrawal from the West Bank, and you have
been criticized by some rabbis for being against Jewish law.
I think there was a solution accepted by most Israelis: that there
should be two states for two people. It's clear. What I say is in
that direction.
Some say that the absence of a Muslim state in the Quartet diminishes
its power. Wouldn't an Islamic country or the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) -- representing 57 Muslim states -- help to
strengthen its legitimacy?
We have to negotiate outstanding questions. Some of the proposals
are music without an orchestra. They made their opinions known, but
you cannot negotiate with opinions. Therefore we are negotiating with
Palestinians politically and with the Jordanians and the Palestinians
economically. I think this is the right framework.
Why did the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) change its traditional
position and make such a decision [equating the 1915 events against
Anatolian Armenians to genocide]?
I think there was internal pressure and they departed from their
traditional position. I hope they will return to their traditional
position. I talked to [ADL Director] Mr. [Abraham] Foxman. He told
me that they are going to publish an open declaration that would say
two things; they won't support the proposing of this issue before
the American Congress, and secondly they would support the idea of
[Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdoðan to have a commission
including historians from both sides to study the matter. I think
that historians, not governments, should deal with history.
Do you agree with the argument that this was a reaction to Turkey's
relations with Iran and Turkey's invitation of Hamas?
No, I don't think so. I think it's an internal matter. I don't think
they play into world politics. They don't get orders from Israel and
I think they didn't have a political underpinning.
Could the experiences of the Armenians, who formed gangs during World
War I and demanded independence, be compared to the experiences of
the Jews, who faced genocide just because of their identity?
No, I don't think you can compare them. I think it's reasonable
what Prime Minister Erdoðan suggested -- bringing together a group
of historians that will judge history based on history, not based
on politics. I mean they would not adapt history depending on the
present political arguments. History is over, it cannot be changed.
It must be investigated professionally and we have to continue with
our lives. We cannot change the past; we can only change the future.
A rabbi asked Ben-Gurion once what even God couldn't change.
Ben-Gurion asked, "What?" and the rabbi replied, "History."
Do you think Turkish society can be assured that Israel would not
change its position on the events of 1915?
Israel is firm in its position. For us relations with Turkey are
very important and if we had to fight, we would fight Ahmadinejad's
policies of destruction, threats, terror and bombs.
So do you support the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East?
I declare the Middle East free from the threat of destruction. Arms
don't destroy, people destroy. Pakistan has a bomb but has not hit
anything. But here comes a declaration of the leader, a member of
the United Nations that he wants to wipe out another member of the
United Nations. Nobody can accept it. Israel is being threatened,
but Iran is not being threatened by anybody.
So do you think Israel could also be part of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
Well, that's another story. Israel never said we should detonate a
nuclear bomb in the Middle East, but people are suspicious. And if
the suspicion is a deterrent, it's good enough. We are satisfied with
the suspicion. We don't want anything more.
--Boundary_(ID_iStC0sX6HihlIlDLYKgSlQ)--