Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

In Middle East, Another Round of Attack and Retaliation Between Israelis and Palestinians

Aired February 19, 2002 - 07:40   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: In the Middle East, another round of attack and retaliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli F- 16 warplanes hit Palestinian security buildings in the West Bank and Gaza. These latest attacks reportedly killed 10 Palestinians. Israel's military says the air strikes were in response to a series of attacks by Palestinians in which four Israelis died.

Israel is once again blaming Yasser Arafat for the violence, even as he promotes a new peace proposal. The question, of course, is there any hope at this point for peace in the Middle East and what will it take to get it done?

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak is in New York for a conference on fighting terrorism and he joins me now on AMERICAN MORNING. It's nice to have you here.

EHUD BARAK, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Thank you, Jack.

CAFFERTY: The global economic impact of terrorism is one of the subjects you're going to be discussing at this conference. Give us just an overview of why you're here and what you hope to accomplish.

BARAK: Well the whole issue of security was secondary, or (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to any kind of organization. But now as a result of 9-11, nothing is anymore unthinkable or inconceivable. And those governments, first of all, out of their commitment through the security of citizens, but as well as corporate, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) will have to put it on the table and try to do something. And we in Israel, we have a lot, a huge bulk of experience in (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and I believe that a great synergy can be brought to the table when Israelis meet with Americans. You have a spectrum of capabilities and the size of the market, the quality of people; we have ours. We can join hands to make the world better, a more secure place to live in.

CAFFERTY: All right. I want to move on -- because our time is short -- to what many would consider to be a bit of a radical idea that is on the table and being supported by a number of people in Israel. And that idea is for the unilateral withdraw of Israeli forces from the occupied territories without a peace agreement, without any sort of guarantee from the Palestinians that it will lead to anything.

There was a piece in New York's -- "New York Times" on Sunday. Tom Friedman, who writes some terrific op-ed stuff, talked about a meeting he had with Saudi Arabia's Crowned Prince. And he writes, "In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees." I guess the question is two parts. One, is there any chance of this happening? And the second part is, isn't this exactly what the Palestinians and the terrorists want? They want a unilateral withdrawal from the occupied territories.

BARAK: Well it's a complicated question.

CAFFERTY: I understand.

BARAK: First of all, if we had to reach a peace agreement with Tom Friedman or with (UNINTELLIGIBLE), we'd (UNINTELLIGIBLE) accomplished it a long time ago.

CAFFERTY: Sure.

BARAK: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We should hear it from the Saudi Crowned Prince. And I believe that every such statement is a positive sign of going into the right direction. But for Israel it's something more than that. We have to protect the long future of the state of Israel and it's viability. And I put -- even before the last election in Israel -- I put it on the table that we are ready. If we cannot find a partner for peace, to disengage ourselves from the Palestinians not by going back directly to '67, but by having about 10 or 13 percent of the West Bank, where most of the Israeli settlers are living as part of Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state that will be recognized by Israel.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians -- this is the problem, not our dialog with the Palestinians. Under Chairman Arafat, he deliberately decided to turn to terror (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and ends up with suicide attacks in our streets.

CAFFERTY: Do you have any reason to believe that if Israel were to undertake your idea and to withdraw and establish two separate states that it would stop the terrorism? I mean...

BARAK: No, I'm not sure. But, you know, my vision is of Israel that is striking against terror to the extent we can. At the same time, leaving the door open for resumption of negotiation at any point without any precondition beyond the full absence of violence based on the principles of Camp David. And a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or the same strategy, a planned -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) plan for disengagement where we will hold these 12 or 13 percent of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) blocks (ph) and hold a security strip along the Jordan as long as the Palestinians are unready to negotiate honestly and responsibly a peace agreement with Israel.

Every shortcut of the kind that you mentioned -- if it's done unilaterally by Israel...

CAFFERTY: Right. BARAK: ... without having the Palestinian commitment to move forward, becomes a damage to our position and to the overall struggle against terror of the whole world.

CAFFERTY: To what degree is the public opinion beginning to support this kind of an approach versus the business as usual approach that has -- that has been there for so long now?

BARAK: There is huge support in Israel for what we call disengagement.

CAFFERTY: Right.

BARAK: But it is not the same as going back to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of June, '67. No Israeli will accept...

(CROSSTALK)

CAFFERTY: Not on condition, yeah.

BARAK: Almost -- not even unconditional surrender. We will never surrender to terror. We are small, but tough people. And with the same hand that was stretched toward peace, we will know to pull the trigger if that's what...

CAFFERTY: What's the different semantic then, between disengagement and surrender, between disengagement and pullback? You're talking ultimately about the establishment of the Palestinian state with autonomy that goes with that.

BARAK: Of course. But if -- before it's clear that the other side is ready to put an end to the conflict, to live side by side with a Jewish state called Israel, before it's clear if you just surrender everything, it just -- it's like (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It just raises appetite. It is only -- if it -- disengagement means that we will hold to some 13 percent of the area; 180,000 Israelis living in Jerusalem beyond the '67 border (ph). There's no way to move them.

CAFFERTY: All right.

BARAK: We were at the '67 war as a result of an Arab aggression against Israel. They had both the West Bank and Gaza strip for 19 years and never made a Palestinian state out of it.

CAFFERTY: All right. Our time has expired. I appreciate very much having you with us this morning. Will you keep us posted and we'll do this the next time you're in town?

BARAK: Thank you, Jack.

CAFFERTY: Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com