To Israel’s Right
Yedioth Ahronoth (p. B6) by Smadar Peri, Prague -- A moment before he is due to land in Israel for an official visit, Czech President Milos Zeman had time to offer a quick show of support to a close friend in the Middle East: his proposal so transfer his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. Won’t that provoke the Arab world? He’s used to that by now. Every few weeks, some Arab ambassador files a sharp protest against him, to the effect that “he hates us.” Zeman is unruffled. After all, no European country is closer to Israel than the Czech Republic under his presidency. To judge from his statements on the issue of the Middle East conflict, it would seem that even the American right wing has something to learn.
Zeman, 69, the Czech Republic’s third president since the fall of Communism, will arrive in Israel on Sunday with a large group of businessmen. “I am a strong believer in strengthening ties through import and export deals in all areas,” he says in an interview. “And I certainly expect to hold meetings with Israeli entrepreneurs like Teva, for them to establish branches over here, or similar things.”
Q: And if you are offered products produced in the settlements?
“I do not support the European Community’s decision to boycott settlement products. Let’s say, cautiously, that there is no binding decision by the European Union. I believe,” he sighs, “that one shouldn’t dismantle all the settlements. If you intend to evacuate settlements, at least don’t destroy them. That’s not economical for either side.”
Our meeting takes place in the spectacular castle that houses his offices. He was elected seven months ago, and quickly became the Israelis’ darling. It’s easy to understand why. The proposal to transfer the Czech embassy to Jerusalem (“I hope I can convince the government that will be elected at the end of October to implement this”) is just another small item on the ever-growing list of initiatives that place him on Israel’s right—or rather, to the right of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. “Under no circumstances would I ever release Palestinian prisoners with Israeli blood on their hands,” he declaims with a zeal that Naftali Bennett would be happy to hear. “Releasing terrorists is a mistake, and anyone who murdered Israeli citizens is a terrorist. If the point of departure for the negotiations is that both sides aspire to peace, then no terrorists should be released and no prizes should be given to the other side. If, they murdered civilians, let them sit in jail.”
On his previous visit to Israel, twelve years ago, when he was prime minister, he provoked a stir by comparing Yasser Arafat to Hitler. He still does not regret having made that comparison, but is cautious to be respectful of the current rais, Abu Mazen. “I always compare dictators and terrorists to Hitler, but Mahmoud Abbas is a different case,” he explains. “I certainly respect your right to negotiate with him. On the other hand, Hamas is a terror organization. I don’t know what exactly the people in Gaza think about Mahmoud Abbas’s government, and what the weight of Hamas is in the West Bank. So I think his situation is more complicated.”
Q: What is your opinion on the way the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are being conducted? Do you have any advice for Prime Minister Netanyahu?
“I am certainly not against the negotiations to end the conflict, but in my opinion—and I obviously do not intend to meddle in your internal affairs—one should not hold them after preconditions have been set by the other side. As an outside observer, I have doubts as to the chances of success of negotiations that begin with complying with the precondition of releasing terrorist prisoners. I remember the history from the Clinton-Arafat-Rabin period. How long have you been wallowing in this business? What have you achieved? How can you be sure things won’t stall this time too? You shouldn’t stop the process, but you have to change the strategy, change your way of thinking, look for solutions outside the box. I’m not sure that you’re doing that.”
Q: For example?
“I would demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state immediately. Straight and simple. Imagine if they should demand to return to the territory of the State of Israel. That would be real chaos.”
Q: But that’s one of the central issues in the negotiations—the right of return.
“Instead of the Palestinian refugees insisting on returning to the territories of the PA and demanding the right to live in Israel as well, which Israel would oppose, thereby freezing the negotiations, I propose Saudi Arabia.”
Q: What do you mean Saudi Arabia? That they move to Saudi Arabia?
“To Saudi Arabia, to Qatar, and to a number of emirates in the Persian Gulf, whose good economic condition would make it easy to take in the Palestinian refugees. These places could give them housing and job opportunities. First of all, you have to deal with the refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria, which need the most immediate attention. Let the Palestinians in distress move to Saudi Arabia or the emirates, and they will receive better economic conditions. That’s the solution I propose. I’ve already said that all the sides need to think outside of the box. So here you go—an original, but doable solution, don’t you think?”
“Political foul-up”
Zeman defines the relations between Prague and Jerusalem as “excellent and more.” Last month he proposed that 200 Czech soldiers join the UN multi-national force in southern Lebanon for the first time. “This will give us a great deal of honor and prestige,” he explained. Israeli officials, of course, hurried to announce that they would not oppose the initiative. “I see Israel,” he emphasizes, “as a country that enjoys full democracy. I have grave doubts about the Arab Spring in your close surroundings. I see how secular dictators were replaced by fanatic Islamic rulers and by elements that are mainly identified with al-Qaida. This is certainly not good news. In your close surroundings you have two neighbors that are more or less stable—Egypt and Jordan. Even though Egypt is not really stable, but more so than Syria. On one hand they say that a military coup took place in Egypt, and on the other their temporary president (Judge Adly Mansour—SP) wrote a letter to me stating emphatically that this was just a change of government.”
Q: It seems that the Czech Republic votes almost automatically with Israel in the UN.
“The Czech Republic is your strongest ally in the European community, and you can certainly rely on us. Unfortunately, four months ago we made a mistake, when the Czech Republic was opposed to defining Hizbullah’s military wing as a terror organization. This was a diplomatic foul-up on our part, and our prime minister hurried to correct the mistake. We changed our position and now they are on the blacklist.”
Q: In our eyes there is no difference between Nasrallah “the statesman” who incites and threatens to kidnap and murder Israelis, and the “operational wing” of Hizbullah. Why do the Europeans see this differently?
“Let me put it this way: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, there is no question that it is a duck. And someone who incites, like Nasrallah, to kill innocent civilians—is a terrorist. There is no point in talking to him, no reason to do business with him and no reason to expect any miracles from him. A terrorist will always remain a terrorist.”
Q: What about Iran?
“Let’s give a chance to the new president Rouhani, who was just elected. He sounds much more reasonable and moderate than his predecessor, Ahmadinejad, who I understand is insane. I heard that there are still people on your side who are proposing to attack Iran. That is certainly a risk. On one hand, take into account that if they respond, over one million Israelis could be killed. On the other hand, a sophisticated preemptive strike should not be ruled out.” […]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment