« home

GIL HOFFMAN, AMOTZ ASA-EL and CALEV BEN-DAVID:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fenced in: Ariel Sharon talks to the ’Post'

Sharon explains why Israel cannot expel Yasser Arafat, the security fence’s other advantage, why attack Syria, whither the rabbinical courts, and what to do about Iran.

Though his premiership enters its fourth year this winter amid ever-mounting regional mayhem, domestic turmoil, and family scandal, Ariel Sharon is showing no sign of even contemplating an abrupt departure. Not only does he say he is determined to complete his current term in office — which does not expire until 2007 — he also doesn’t rule out running for re-election that year, at 79.

Even if he does end his career in 2008, Sharon’s will have been Israel’s longest single premiership beside Ben-Gurion’s. Moreover, thanks to his restoration of the old election system, Sharon’s grip on the Knesset is firmer than anyone’s over the past three decades.

With Likud’s 40-member faction more than twice the size of Labor’s, and with his many-would-be colleague-successors in no position to challenge his leadership, Sharon seems as firmly saddled politically as he is physically. And yet the problems he faces seldom seemed so daunting.

The three-year-old terror war’s cumulative impact on the public; the economy’s failure to emerge from the recession where it has been trapped since his rise to power; the war’s potential expansion northwards; America’s setbacks in Iraq; Yasser Arafat’s political resurrection; the labor unions’ campaign against his domestic policies; and the financial-misconduct allegation against his sons are visibly weighing on Sharon, who sometimes releases long sighs before answering questions.

Even so, whether one approves or disapproves of it, Sharon’s premiership is fast changing Israel. Sharon is genuinely and effectively backing his former challenger, Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as he sets out to dismantle the port-authority monopoly and proceed from there to similar structural reforms in the electricity, railway, telephone, and water utilities.

Sharon is also backing Justice Minister Yossef Lapid, his main political ally, in his bid to dismantle the Ministry of Religious Affairs and relocate the rabbinical courts under the Justice Ministry’s auspices. In these and other reforms — Sharon takes special pride in Netanyahu’s moderate tax cuts — the PM seems determined to leave an indelible imprint on the state he helped found, and for which he fought about as much as anyone ever fought for any country.

However, even if they prove successful and lasting, Sharon’s reforms are likely to emerge as a sideshow to the conflict with the Arab world. Yet there too, Sharon seems well on his way to creating a fact that will dominate the future of Israel’s ties with the Palestinians.

It’s called the fence.

Like so many others from Right and Left, Sharon arrived at the fence grudgingly. As its construction proceeds amid unrelenting local terror and intensified international protest, the barrier seems to crawl its way southward with increasing momentum, as if some predestined power is out to raise it against all odds.

That Sharon has been changed by office is no longer news. The man who last year faced thousands of protesting Likud hacks and yelled in their faces his newly adopted faith in a two-state solution, now faces a Palestinian leadership that seems in no rush to make him deliver on his promise.

After decades in which the settlements were an epitaph and the premiership a fantasy, Sharon has actually taken the handsome, marble-floored stone house on 3 Balfour Street, but he lives there alone: his beloved wife, Lily, is dead; his loyal sons are huddling with layers; and the settlements he conceived, built, and defended are coming under the fence’s physical shadow. Like Sharon.

How soon do you expect the prisoner exchange to be completed?

These aren’t the kind of negotiations where you can predict when the ending will be. We have been dealing with this matter for 17 years with Ron Arad, 22 years with the prisoners of Sultan Yaakov, and three years with the kidnapped soldiers from the Lebanese border, and this is the first time that we see Hizbullah interested in making a deal.

How has the public debate in the press on this issue impacted your effort to bring about a deal?

If you are asking if the coverage has been exaggerated, I would say it has been very exaggerated.

We can’t even have a discussion in the government, even in a smaller forum, without details reaching the press. It’s very important with such sensitive matters to be able to work seriously. It’s very hard to do this when everything is out in the open. Much of what has been published isn’t even correct.

Do the recent reports about Elhanan Tannenbaum having been tortured have any basis?

People who have been captured in Arab countries have gotten tortured, especially when they’re being held by a terrorist organization like Hizbullah. But to get back to the question of whether this should be discussed in the press, it has gotten to the point where we almost can’t even have consultations on issues that really require a certain degree of quiet. This is bad.

If we make a deal with Nasrallah, how do we know that he won’t go and kidnap someone else in order to get a new bargaining chip?

If they could kidnap someone right now, you think they wouldn’t do it? They would kidnap now and they will try to kidnap in the future. The question is whether we need to leave kidnapped Israelis in the hands of terror organizations, where their life is immediately in jeopardy, or make every effort to rescue them. My opinion for decades already is that it is forbidden to leave the missing and kidnapped in an Arab country, especially not in the hands of terror organizations, and Hizbullah is the most extreme example. If rescuing or exchanging would mean that we would not be able to free one of our missing, then we would have to reconsider. But in this case, we have tried for years to locate Ron Arad and we have not succeeded, despite having excellent intelligence capabilities.

We have no way of verifying what was reported last week [about Arad being held in an Iranian jail]. I have given a directive to investigate the matter.

Sometimes I wish the newspapers would bring that kind of news to us first. We have tried everything imaginable, with no limits of money or anything else, to find information on Ron Arad. There is no connection between this prisoner exchange and rescuing Ron Arad. We have three families whose sons we believe are not alive, and Tannenbaum who is alive, and they have no connection with freeing Ron Arad.

We must rescue whoever can be rescued, while continuing to deal with the issue of Ron Arad with full force. There is a certain moral dilemma here because there has been a strong campaign for years to free Ron Arad. But this cannot influence our decision if we have a chance of rescuing. This [deal] will not impact our efforts to find Ron Arad.

What do you make of reports about Elhanan Tannenbaum’s alleged wrongdoing? I have been of the opinion for decades that you can’t leave a human being in enemy hands. There might be grievances against Tannenbaum. When he returns, this can be looked into. If he committed a crime, he will be punished here. But we cannot have Hizbullah punish [Israeli citizens] on our behalf. It’s a difficult dilemma, but leaders have to make tough decisions. When I was the commander of the paratroopers many years ago, we had a policy regarding hostages. It’s a matter of principle. What we paid to free hostages was much more than what we received for the people we held.

Dirani and Obed have been in our hands for years and nothing has come out of it. There is no connection between whether we release Dirani now and getting information about Ron Arad.

Why did we attack the terrorist training camp in Syria?

Today the Syrians, Iran, and Hizbullah are cooperating in terror activities against Israel, both along the northern border and in facilitating Palestinian terror attacks throughout the country. The Iranians support Tanzim operations out of Nablus.

Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PFLP, and others have their headquarters in Damascus and training camps in Syria.

Do we have information that the terrorists trained in that camp were sent to Israel?

Sometimes Palestinians go there and return.

What do you make of reports that Israel struck an empty or inactive camp? There weren’t a lot of people wounded, but the goal wasn’t necessarily to inflict casualties. If it would have been, there would have been more casualties. It must be clear to the Syrians that Israel will not tolerate such terrorist activity. I think it was the right move. It didn’t cause a lot of losses, but it taught the Syrians that they cannot act against Israel and they can’t help the Iranians. Iran needs Syrian air- and seaports in order to operate against us. Israel can’t accept this. Unfortunately, the Syrians did not accept the American order to close the terrorist organizations’ offices. Orders are given from Damascus and reported back to Damascus. They haven’t evacuated Hizbullah from the border with Israel or dismantled rocket launchers, some of which can reach Hadera.

Might we attack Syria again, perhaps seeking a more serious target?

We will never declare in advance whether or not we will attack. We don’t have to declare such things, but the Syrian activity is very serious, and George Bush’s criticism of Syria was even harsher than ours.

The Syrians said the Israeli strike was a violation of international agreements. How do you respond?

[Laughing] This is hypocrisy. Without Syrian support, Hizbullah wouldn’t be able to train its men. Syria itself supplies many of the rockets in Lebanon. They don’t just permit the transport of Iranian weapons, they deliver Syrian weapons.

Is there any chance the Golan’s future will be raised in negotiations again? When I was foreign minister I said at the Barcelona Mediterranean Conference that Israel would be ready to talk without either side giving preconditions. Israel is ready to talk to any Arab country without preconditions. But at the same time we have to remember that Syria hasn’t done anything it has committed itself to. The US has asked Syria to take a series of steps, but it hasn’t. You can’t help but think that Syria has an interest in removing the international pressure on it, and a good way of doing that is by creating an atmosphere of negotiations.

Talking to them now would ease these pressures.

Do you think Assad-the-father ever sincerely wanted to make peace? It was right to try and find out. But what was offered back then, in my wildest imaginations I wouldn’t have considered. Israel [under Ehud Barak] was ready to give the Syrians [not only the Golan but] even territory within Israel that was never in their hands, like El Hama.

It’s difficult to imagine the haste to make such a deal.

Israel is ready to talk to any Arab country without preconditions. There is nothing better for Syria right now than to create an impression that it is talking to Israel. This has to be taken into account.

Is there any chance of dialoguing with the new Syrian administration? It’s possible there was more of a chance with the previous administration. I don’t accept the hypothesis that it is better to deal with a younger leadership. Syrian anti-Semitism now is worse than it ever was. Everything has to be done very carefully.

Has any thought been given to how Israel will handle the post-Arafat era? There has been much thought. Arafat has led a strategy of terror for decades. He is the Number One enemy of peace. As a result of his policies over the past 40 years, thousands of Israelis are dead, mostly civilians, men, women, and children. As long as he is around, there is no chance for a settlement or any political process that can lead to peace. When he is not around there is a chance.

I know Abu Ala, I’ve met him here [in the Prime Minister’s Residence] and at my ranch, but I believe Israel needs to rely on itself and not proceed blindly. Palestinian leaders from now on will be judged by their results. The era of promises and talking is over. With Oslo, there was naivet?, or even worse. It’s strange to think that there were red carpets for Arafat and that they gave him a Nobel Prize. The Palestinians could have already been living right next to us in their own country. The Palestinian people know the damage that Arafat did to them. An agreement with the Palestinians won’t happen by itself. It requires a Palestinian prime minister who really would be strong. So far the reforms have not been implemented. Any prime minister now would have his hands tied by Arafat.

So if there isn’t any chance at all for progress while Arafat is around, then why is he still here? Our calculations for years have been that expelling him would not be good for Israel. Also, the likelihood of expelling him without harming him is low, not only because of his security guards but because he would be surrounded by a human chain of Israelis. The opinion of our intelligence services is that expelling him would not be a good idea.

So there can’t be any progress until he is dead?

I didn’t say dead, but in my opinion, as long as he is in control, the chance for progress is nonexistent.

He is a man whose sole strategy is terror and murder, and this hasn’t changed. Perhaps we would be able to reach a settlement with a new leader without the fear and pressure of having Arafat scheming behind his back. But the chance of reaching an agreement will no longer depend on talk, promises, or agreements — but on implementation.

A month ago, US President George W. Bush made very critical comments about Israel’s security fence. Have you heard anything different from him since then?

Our relations with the White House are excellent.

It’s a relationship based on trust, but there will always be issues that we disagree on. Despite the good relations that I have built, there are some things that they don’t accept. Israel will decide what is necessary for its security, including with the fence. In the past, when Rabin was prime minister, they took away money from our loan guarantees if we used part of it over the Green Line. This may happen now also. I myself might tell the Americans that although we won’t be happy about it, if you decide to remove money, then do it. We need to build a fence in places where we know it is integral for Israel’s security. I don’t see the fence as a complete answer to terror. It’s just a means of making the war on terror easier for us. The fence has another reason. We are facing a wave of Palestinians moving into Arab towns within Israel.

Is it intended to stop the demographic leak?

Yes. These are the two main reasons for the fence.

The Arabs who move here can then assist in terrorist activity. Of course, only a small minority does this, but we are concerned that the numbers will rise.

Therefore we must limit the flow of Palestinians into Israel.

How many Palestinians are we talking about?

There are already tens of thousands who have moved inside pre-1967 Israel.

They get married and assimilate within the population. Some come from Jordan and stay. Our intention with the fence is to include as few Palestinians as possible on the western side. We want to include as many Israeli towns as possible inside the fence, and no one disagrees with that. We have to prevent as much as possible the passage of Palestinians inside Israel. I don’t see a diplomatic solution in which Israel will take within itself the populations of Jenin or Nablus, or the Arab population of Hebron.

After the terrorist attack on the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, one of the family members looked into the camera and said he had a question for you: What will happen and where are you leading us?

I didn’t watch it. I’m too busy to watch television. The question "what will be?" already concerned our parents and our grandparents. It’s been a long struggle. There has been Arab terror for more than 120 years. Israel has always had to hold a sword in one hand, but despite this, millions of Jews have come from 100 countries, speaking more than 80 languages. There have been more difficult times. You have to look at everything in proportion, and never forget that this is the only place in the world where Jews have the right and ability to defend themselves. If Israel is weakened, Jews around the world will be weakened. That’s why it’s important that we be strong.

Are you willing to risk a coalition crisis over Tommy Lapid’s insistence in gaining control of the rabbinical courts?

The proposal to move the rabbinical courts to the Justice Ministry came from the Chief Rabbinate. Later they changed their minds and said they didn’t want the rabbinical courts separated from the Chief Rabbinate.

I said this makes sense and told them ’you should also be in the Justice Ministry.’ They wanted to be in the Prime Minister’s Office. I responded that the Prime Minister’s Office is an inappropriate place to deal with rabbinical courts. They wanted time to contemplate but I brought it to the cabinet. I think we have a good solution: the religious courts will be in the Justice Ministry, but all Halachic issues will remain in the Chief Rabbinate, and Minister Lapid promised not to interfere. Lapid might have said that this is the start of the secular revolution, but I am proud to be Jewish, and I won’t let Judaism be hurt in any way. The rabbis still want to be sure, to look into how Halachic issues will be handled, and how they will be administered by the Justice Ministry. So we set a time, and there will be time. I didn’t think this will develop into a coalition crisis because I don’t intend to hurt any Jewish issue. If they want the Rabbinate to be together with the rabbinical courts, then they can be together in the Justice Ministry. There are people who were worried it would develop into a coalition crisis, but I wasn’t worried.

Everyone needs to relax and everything will be resolved. There will be days [of crisis], but I acted reasonably and I solved the problem. The problem is solved. The rabbis want more clarification, but we will sit with them and it will be finished. This is a good, stable government. It will last until the end of its term [set for October 2007].

Do you see a chance of Shimon Peres returning to your government?

You know I have always been in favor of national unity governments. Labor made a big mistake when it left the last government for no reason. If Labor was still in the government, its contribution to the State of Israel would be much greater right now. It’s harder to make a national unity government now, but I always like talking to Shimon Peres.

Is there a chance you will run again?

If there is a need, then why not? It is good that there are many candidates to replace me. I’m sure they are excellent people but I don’t give grades.