MK Dr Yuval Steinitz is the chairman of the Knesset's Security
and Foreign Affairs Committee. He was interviewed in March 2004 by
Hillel Schenker and Omar Karmi from the PIJ.
How has the invasion of Iraq affected regional security, both in
the short and the long term?
I would say it was a positive move. First, one of the most brutal
regimes on earth was eradicated, which is good not just for Iraq,
but for the whole world. Second, following American military,
economic and political pressure, some countries are changing their
behavior or their tone. Following the September 11 attacks, the
world discovered two things in the Middle East. The negative one is
that the Middle East might produce threats to the entire world.
Terrorism might escalate to a different level; it might hit at much
longer distances and at a much higher scale of devastation. The
world also discovered that some brutal dictatorships might be
working on developing nuclear capacity and long-range ballistic
missiles. The positive aspect is that it is still not too late to
deal with this. The American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
showed us that you can change or neutralize some of the threats
from the Middle East, and not just through brute force. Following
the invasion of Iraq, we saw Libya completely change its approach
to issues such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Libya
disconnected itself from terrorism, not just terrorist
organizations, by paying compensation to the Lockerbie bombing
victims. This is a real change. Other states, like Iran and Syria,
are trying maybe to gain time. They've slightly changed their
rhetoric towards terrorism and the West, but it seems they still
believe that in time this global war on terrorism and brutal
regimes will be over. It's too early to say if we are to see a less
dangerous, more democratic Middle East or not, but there are some
real changes.
There are two possible directions for Iraq. Either the post-World
War II direction of Germany, which became a democratic state, or
Vietnam, where the Americans found themselves bogged down and their
aims unrealistic. How do you see the situation in Iraq
stabilizing?
I don't think something on the scale of Vietnam would follow. In
the long-run I see three options: First, sooner or later Iraq will
be ruled by some kind of military regime or dictatorship - whether
as one Iraq or two. This would be a complete failure on behalf of
the US. The second option is that Iraq will be ruled by a
pro-Western democratic, or a less totalitarian regime with some
openness, that may establish diplomatic relations with Israel, such
as Jordan. This is the best option. The third option is that Iraq
will become a pro-Western country, allied to the US and the West
but still extremely hostile to Israel, like Saudi Arabia and,
unfortunately, Egypt. It is still too early to call.
What or who do you consider the greatest threat to regional
security?
There is clear asymmetry between Israel and the Arab world. If the
Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace and stability. If
Israel lays down its arms, there will be a holocaust. It is
difficult to identify the major threat to regional stability. If
someone de-legitimizes the existence of the Jewish state then, of
course, this is an existential conflict. Such a conflict would be a
threat to regional stability. As such, you can say that Israel is a
threat to the region because the region is eager to destroy the
State of Israel.
The other threat is the lack of democracy. As a philosopher, I
cannot but help recall [Immanuel] Kant's distinction between
democracies and dictatorships with regard to war and peace. Kant
says it is natural for a democracy to avoid war unless its most
vital national interests are under immediate threat. And it's
vice-versa in dictatorships. Since they rule by using brutal force
against their own people, the use of force against other countries
is also likely. So I believe the source of instability in this
region is not the Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but
the lack of democracy in Arab societies. If we want real peace and
stability, it's important to solve current conflicts, but it is
even more important to change the type of regimes in the
region.
The US administration has set the achievement of democracy in the
region as one of its primary goals. Can democracy be imposed? Can
the program resonate without movement toward a resolution on the
Israeli-Palestinian track.
Israel is an open democracy, with popular demonstrations and an
independent judicial system, despite the threats it has faced for
so many years. So why can Egypt, which is slightly less involved,
and does not face the same threats as Israel - or Libya, Algeria or
Iran - not form such a democracy? This miniscule Jewish state can
conduct this conflict and create one of the most vivid democracies
on the face of the earth, but Morocco, 2,000 kilometers from here,
is so disturbed because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it
cannot create real democracy. It's ridiculous. It's a poor
excuse.
About imposing democracy. It's extremely complicated to impose
democracy by pressure from other societies, but it has worked in
the past. Two excellent examples are Germany and Japan. Even the
democratization of Eastern Europe was partially imposed by enormous
pressure from the West: economic pressure, diplomatic pressure,
pressure from the media. I'm not claiming these were the key
reasons, but clearly, without pressure from the West we wouldn't
see such a process of democratization in Eastern Europe, the former
Soviet Union, South America, and even in Asian countries. So it is
wrong to say that democracy cannot be imposed by foreign
forces.
I participated in meetings in London with members from Arab states,
and somebody said, "You cannot impose democracy." Someone from a
Gulf state said, "Why not? How long can we wait for ourselves? We
have waited for these processes for fifty years and nothing is
happening. Now we should tell the West they can't help us?"
I think another key element for the West is the freedom of women.
Societies with more freedom for women are more open and democratic.
One thing I read a lot is that Western-style democracy is against
Arab or Muslim values, that you cannot combine Muslim heritage and
tradition with Western openness. I disagree. Western democracy is
not necessarily completely liberal. It can be a democracy with a
conservative flavor. Take the example of the Orthodox Jewish
communities in Israel and the US, which prove it is possible for
women to be Orthodox and live in open societies. Women have
freedom, women go out to work. The Jewish way of life is very
demanding on a daily basis. Still, religious women in Israel are
able to work and remain extremely religious. I believe it is also
possible in the Muslim world.
What, other than encouraging democracy, can the international
community do to enhance security in the region?
If there is change in this region, there may still be disagreements
between states, but it will be like Britain and Spain which
disagree over Gibraltar, but are not close to war. If the current
situation prevails, then it is extremely important that such
dangerous regimes do not develop weapons of mass destruction. If
Iraq had succeeded in this, it would have forced Syria and Saudi
Arabia to follow suit. Of course, any kind of regional cooperation,
such as joint exercises, can help to reduce tension. European
countries could contribute in this way.
Is it possible to generate a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict on our own? Is there a role for the US, Europe, NATO, the
UN etc., to help find a solution?
The world can impose a settlement, but it won't be a solution. Any
solution must create two viable states: A viable Palestinian one,
with some kind of territorial contiguity, and a secure Jewish state
that can live in peace with its neighbors. If the Israelis don't
feel secure it won't help. If the Palestinians feel deprived there
will be a lot of unrest. The world can impose an Israeli withdrawal
or Palestinian concessions, but will it hold in the long run? It is
important that any solution isn't entirely imposed but that the
leaderships on both sides come to an agreement.
If there were a negotiated agreement between Israelis and
Palestinians tomorrow, how would this improve regional
security?
I think the conflict is more Israeli-Arab than Israeli-Palestinian.
If the Israelis and Palestinians were on an island, despite all the
bitterness and different religions, we could find an agreement. The
pressure from the Arab world on the Palestinians not to compromise
is extremely significant. I think Israelis put too much of the
burden for the failure of negotiations on Arafat. The failure of
the Oslo process belongs more to the Arab world than to the
Palestinians.
The encouragement from the Arab world for suicide bombings and
attacks against civilians, and the anti-Israeli incitement that
Palestinians are exposed to in their own media and in the Arab
media is extremely significant. I think there was real pressure
from Arab leaders, mainly Egypt, not to compromise. This is my
analysis of Camp David: Ehud Barak had decided this was almost the
last opportunity to solve the conflict peacefully. Arafat was
reluctant, and Barak was afraid he wouldn't sign, so to secure
Arafat's signature, Barak kept his strategic surprise, his
willingness to divide Jerusalem, for later. Nobody in his
government knew about it. On the third day of the summit, Barak put
this on the table, anticipating that Arafat would be
enthusiastic.
What happened? Several hours later, [President Hosni] Mubarak came
on national Egyptian television and said that Arafat would not sign
on the division of the Old City of Jerusalem, because it is not in
his capacity to give up something that belongs to all Arabs and
Muslims. He said he was confident Arafat would not sign. The next
day, all the Arab world followed Mubarak's lead. Arafat might have
signed if he had had the backing of the moderate Arab countries,
but without Egypt, it could not work. Arafat came back and because
he couldn't explain how he refused an offer that seemed so
generous, he had to start an armed Intifada to shift attention away
from the summit. I believe the responsibility for this conflict,
for the failure of the peace process, belongs no less to the Arab
world than to the Palestinian leadership.
There has been a proposal by Syria to resume negotiations. Is this
an opportunity? Have there been missed opportunities in the
past?
A real opportunity is not easy to miss. Syria came with this
proposal to resume negotiations only after the war on Iraq and
strong American pressure. People are rightly suspicious about it.
Maybe this proposal is only to avoid questions with regard to its
occupation of Lebanon, to democratization, to weapons of mass
destruction. If this is the case, why should Israel
cooperate?
If there is a real approach, a dramatically different one, then let
the Syrians show it is not just tactical: Let them disconnect from
terrorist organizations, from Hizbollah and enable the Lebanese
Army to take up positions along the border. Let them show they have
closed terrorist offices in Damascus, and ended incitement in the
media. And let [Bashir] Assad come to Jerusalem, like [Anwar]
Sadat, to make it clear this is not just some sort of diplomatic
discussion, but that he is willing to coexist with Israel as a
Jewish state. Let me add another thing. I am not sure that Syria is
eager to get the Golan Heights back. I think the real policy of the
late Hafez Al Assad was to do everything in his power not to get
the Golan Heights back. Twice, in the 90s, the Golan Heights were
proposed by Israeli prime ministers, first by [Yitzhak] Rabin in
'93-'94, when he said that Assad would not get less than Sadat, and
then by [Shimon] Peres in 1996.
Assad didn't get the Heights back. Now, either he missed the
opportunity or maybe it was his strategy. When Peres was trying to
push the Golan Heights back into Syrian hands, he even agreed to go
beyond the international borders. Assad was trying everything in
his capacity not to reach an agreement. And when Peres kept
pushing, he gave orders to Hizbollah to send 600-700 Katushya
missiles into northern Israel. Some analysts say this was pressure
on Israel to make more concessions. But Peres had to make a choice:
Either invade southern Lebanon beyond the security zone to stop the
shelling, or not invade and lose the elections.
I think Assad believed it was not in Syria's, or his regime's,
interest. If there was an agreement, there would be some openness
between Israel and Syria, and there would be some democratic
influence in Syria. There are many Arabs in Israel. If they travel
there as tourists, it might be dangerous. More importantly,
however, is Lebanon. Assad believed that if he got the Golan
Heights, he would lose Lebanon. Lebanon is producing millions of
dollars for Syria and stabilizing the regime. It is much more
important to Syria than the Golan Heights.
There have been suggestions of a Benelux-type model for the region.
Do you think this could work?
I don't think a Benelux model would work. You need to have some
similarity between the countries: either they are democratic or
they have other similarities. To combine countries that are so
different from each other is very difficult. It is more likely that
some states in the region will join the EU or NATO. In both
frameworks there are many countries, and if some are different to
others there is less of a problem. Absorbing Israel would be easy
as it is already a democracy. Countries like Jordan or a future
Palestinian state could also join the EU.
We've spoken a lot about what other countries in the region should
do. What can Israel do to enhance regional
security?
I don't think it's in our hands. It might not even be in
Palestinian hands. We might be going for unilateral disengagement
according to the ideas of the prime minister, but it cannot lead to
peace without strong guarantees for Israel's security, without a
reliable partner that can be trusted. Since we cannot move right
now, let us stop the occupation in Gaza, because in Gaza you can
take more risks than in the West Bank. Even if there is fighting,
we will be able to sustain this unilateral disengagement.
Unfortunately, we cannot do this in Judea and Samaria without a
partner. Maybe after Arafat we will see a different approach from
the Palestinian leadership, maybe conditions will improve.
I think this is reasonable, although it is going to be extremely
difficult from an internal Israeli perspective to uproot Jewish
settlements, if it's not for peace, but only to sustain the
situation and maybe make it more comfortable for the Palestinians.
I don't think it will bring down the government. If the withdrawal
is focused on Gaza without dramatic changes in the West Bank, then
almost nobody will leave the Likud. They will protest. And if the
right-wing parties leave the government, Labor might join it. Other
things might end the Sharon government, like the corruption
allegations and the Tennenbaum affair, but not Gaza.
Could Israel make a contribution, for example, by signing treaties
against the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction?
It was always our policy that we should not be the first to
introduce weapons of mass destruction into the arena of conflict.
Unlike other countries on the region - Egypt in Yemen, Iraq and
Iran - Israel has never even threatened to use such weapons. Israel
might consider reducing armed forces and its arsenal when it is
clear there is no animosity among the majority of Arabs and Muslims
in the world, when there are no brutal dictatorships in the
vicinity.
But it still leaves the question, what steps can Israel take to
make the region safer?
The strong side, the Arab world, should make the steps. Israel has
shown its intentions. We withdrew from Sinai, and we are ready to
take, with certain precautions for self-preservation, similar steps
toward the Palestinians. We've already stated that we are ready to
see a Palestinian state and that we are ready to uproot Jewish
settlements. This was said by Rabin and Barak, and by Ariel
Sharon.
The strong side, although we are strong militarily and
economically, is the one with 60 times the population, and 2,000
times more land. If the lion and the wolf meet in the jungle and
fight, the lion will win. But if the lion comes to the wolf cave,
and there are cubs there and the female is standing in front of the
opening, who will win? The wolf. She is fighting for her existence.
That is the secret of Israel. We are strong because we have to be
strong, because the threat is so devastating for us.
Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
It's difficult to say. From an Israeli perspective, I am
optimistic. I think we are in a very good position to prevail,
despite the animosity towards us. I think we have many resources
and strengths, as we have since the beginning of Zionism. One of
our main strengths is that this is our only home, we have no other
place to live as a proud, independent nation with Jewish
sovereignty.
With regards to peace with the Palestinians and Arabs, I am not
optimistic in the short term, but I am not pessimistic in the long
term. In a few years there might be different conditions that will
enable Israelis and Palestinians to make a more serious attempt to
reach a solution. At the end of the day, we will have a peaceful
settlement. This might partially solve the problem. I'm not that
confident that without dramatic changes in the Middle East it will
entirely solve the basic animosity between the Arab world and the
Jewish state.