The "full Ginsburg" means an appearance on all of the Sunday news talk shows, and refers to William Ginsburg, the lawyer for Monica Lewinsky who established the dubious tradition.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to score the Sunday five, but he accomplished a kind of mid-week place holder last night, appearing on Fox News Channel, CNN and ABC News after his meeting with President Obama and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The combined message: Clear on Iran — no way can it get nukes — and murky in the extreme on the Palestinians.
First Iran: This exchange with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was typical:
NETANYAHU: Well, I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. I think the important thing is to recognize that Iran’s ambitions to acquire or develop nuclear weapons is a threat, not only to Israel, but to the entire world. Remember, this is the country that sponsored terrorism worldwide. And imagine what would happen if these terrorists had a patron that that gave them a nuclear umbrella, or, worse, actually gave them the nuclear weapon.
I think that these are catastrophic consequences. And it’s the interests of the entire international community to make sure this doesn’t happen.
BLITZER: So, are you willing to repeat what you have been quoted in the Israeli press as saying, that "all options" for Israel are on the table right now?
NETANYAHU: I’m willing to say what President Obama has said, namely, that all options are on the table is a position we support.
He also addresses what sanctions would mean to Iranian people, which I think is a first for an Israeli prime minister — Israel tends to cast sanctions as important for preserving peace, and not toward regime change — and recognizes the political reality that what the world now finds compelling about the regime is how it is repressing its own people.
Here he is speaking to ABC’s Charles Gibson:
NETANYAHU: I think this regime is a lot weaker than people thing, and I think the civilized countries are lot stronger than they tend to think about themselves. This regime tyrannizes its own people, guns them down when they peacefully protest for freedom.
So, the application of external pressure, I think, would not coalesce the people of Iran with the government. It will actually coalesce them against the government, because they truly detest this regime. So, I think Iran is susceptible to pressure today. It’s highly dependent on the importation of refined petroleum. There are other things that could be done to weaken this regime, and they should be done quickly. If not now, when?
White House staff were tangibly frustrated with both sides yesterday — the Palestinians for insisting for a total settlement freeze and Netanyahu for, well, being vague. Things didn’t get clearer on the news shows.
Netanyahu told Gibson he opposed preconditions in general — albeit, answering Gibson’s question about the Palestinian demand for a total settlement freeze:
NETANYAHU: I think putting on preconditions is a way to make sure that the peace process does not move forward.
But then he tells Fox he can’t deal with Hamas — which is a precondition:
NETANYAHU: We can work with the Palestinian Authority headed by Abbas. We cannot accept Hamas as negotiating partner.
He says settlements should not now be an issue, because Israel and the Palestinians have negotiated for 16 years and settlement growth has been "robust" — which is precisely the Palestinians’ point:
NETANYAHU (To Gibson): For 16 years, Israelis and Palestinians have been negotiating. There has been robust construction of communities and settlements throughout. Nobody place this precondition. And I think placing it right now is to make sure that the peace process does not go forward.
But he is willing to go ahead with the "freeze with natural growth" which the Obama administration now appears ready to accept:
GIBSON: But Mr. Prime Minister, are you saying unequivocally, you will not offer any kind of a freeze – limited, full, any kind of a freeze – on settlements as a precondition to talks?
NETANYAHU: I said that I would look to reconcile two things. One is to start the peace process again, something that I’m glad – I hope that we started today. And, second, to enable normal life to continue. There are a quarter of a million people living in these communities. You know, they need kindergartens. They need schools. They need health plans. They’re living. I’m committed not to build new settlements. I am committed not to expropriate additional land for existing settlements. But people have to live. You can’t freeze life.
So there is a way, I think, to relaunch the peace process and not get bogged down with this question, because we’ve just wasted six months on this issue. We could waste another six months. I think that’s not good. I want to move on to peace… And I think the sooner we put this to the side, the quicker we can move forward toward peace.
GIBSON: Would you take some kind of a freeze for eight months or 12 months, since I understand that was discussed today?
NETANYAHU: No, we actually didn’t get into these discussions. And I’m sure if there’s a will to relaunch the peace process, you’ll find me committed to that.
Here are the videos:
Fox:
CNN Part 1:
CNN Part 2
The ABC video is not available for embedding; here is the YouTube URL.
Transcripts after the jump.
[[READMORE]]
ABC:
CHARLES GIBSON, HOST: Mr. Prime Minister, the president described the meetings today as frank and productive. We’re told you might be able to add the words "blunt" and "testy." Is that fair?
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I’d say frank and productive. They were very good. I’m glad the president invited the prime minister of Israel, myself, and the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, for this meeting. We’ve been calling for five months for a meeting to get the peace process moving forward and I’m glad it’s finally happened.
GIBSON: The president said a few months ago, for the peace process to go on, the settlements have to stop. Do you get the sense that the White House might accept some sort of a limited freeze? And are you willing to offer one?
NETANYAHU: Look, I think the issue of settlements is something that belongs to the final negotiations. It can’t prejudge the negotiations. It can’t be resolved before we even begin to talk about it.
I’ve said that I’m willing to meet Palestinian leaders anytime, anywhere, and I’m glad that this obstacle seems to be removed and we can get on with the business of forging a lasting and secure peace between us. At least I hope that’s the case.
GIBSON: If that condition has been removed, I don’t know it. It has been a precondition as far as the Palestinians were concerned to come to the table. You have preconditions. They have preconditions. One of them is that settlements stop.
NETANYAHU: I think putting on preconditions is a way to make sure that the peace process does not move forward. For 16 years, Israelis and Palestinians have been negotiating. There has been robust construction of communities and settlements throughout. Nobody place this precondition. And I think placing it right now is to make sure that the peace process does not go forward.
The issue of the settlements has to be resolved. It should be resolved at the end of negotiations, not before the negotiations. And the sooner we put it aside and start moving and talking about how do we actually live next to one another, how do we have the Palestinians live next to Israel without threatening Israel, without having the territories that are ceded to them become bases for thousands of rockets that have already been launched at Israel from other places that we vacated? If we can get this idea of mutual recognition and security, then we’ll have a solution to all the problems, including the problem of settlements.
GIBSON: But Mr. Prime Minister, are you saying unequivocally, you will not offer any kind of a freeze – limited, full, any kind of a freeze – on settlements as a precondition to talks?
NETANYAHU: I said that I would look to reconcile two things. One is to start the peace process again, something that I’m glad – I hope that we started today. And, second, to enable normal life to continue. There are a quarter of a million people living in these communities. You know, they need kindergartens. They need schools. They need health plans. They’re living. I’m committed not to build new settlements. I am committed not to expropriate additional land for existing settlements. But people have to live. You can’t freeze life.
So there is a way, I think, to relaunch the peace process and not get bogged down with this question, because we’ve just wasted six months on this issue. We could waste another six months. I think that’s not good. I want to move on to peace… And I think the sooner we put this to the side, the quicker we can move forward toward peace.
GIBSON: Would you take some kind of a freeze for eight months or 12 months, since I understand that was discussed today?
NETANYAHU: No, we actually didn’t get into these discussions. And I’m sure if there’s a will to relaunch the peace process, you’ll find me committed to that. Anytime there’s an Arab leader who has genuinely committed to peace, such as Anwar Sadat, we made peace. That was a Likud government under Menachem Begin.
When Yitzhak Rabin, the Labor prime minister, met the late King Hussein, who wanted peace, we made peace. If the Palestinian leadership says we want peace, we recognize Israel as the Jewish state, the nation state of the Jewish people, just as we’re asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people. If you recognize Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish state and if we have the necessary security arrangements of demilitarization, I think we’ll move to peace. And that’s the winning formula for peace – a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. That’s something that I have united the country behind and we can move forward and get on with it. And get on with peace.
GIBSON: A former Israeli prime minister, the great Abba Eban, used to say about the Palestinians, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If you take this position on settlements, aren’t you missing an opportunity?
NETANYAHU: Well, you know, we’ve had peace negotiations when settlements were being built without any limitations. I have made certain suggestions on how to move forward and I think the Palestinians have to understand, here’s a government in Israel that unites the political spectrum. It wants peace. It wants to move ahead with peace. It wants a genuine peace, a defensible peace, one in which the Palestinians recognize Israel and Israel has the necessary security. But we want the Palestinians to live next to us in dignity and also in prosperity and security.
This is an opportunity. Don’t waste it. Don’t squander this opportunity by discussing the issues – issues that will only block the progress of the negotiations. Let’s go. Let’s move.
GIBSON: But I come back to the point. You have preconditions, they have preconditions. But not making some move in the direction of their preconditions, aren’t you missing an opportunity or don’t you run the risk of missing an opportunity?
NETANYAHU: No, Charlie, I said no preconditions on the beginning of negotiations. I said I’m willing to go anywhere, anyplace to meet any Arab leader and, first of all, the Palestinian leaders, to move toward peace. I certainly think we have certain foundations for those negotiations to succeed. I think the Palestinians have to recognize Israel as the Jewish state and I think we need security.
But I didn’t place any conditions on beginning the negotiations. And it’s precisely those preconditions on negotiations that have stymied our progress so far.
So I’m glad President Obama called this meeting today. I hope it puts aside the question of preconditions. Everybody said they’re not placing preconditions. I’m not and I hope the Palestinians don’t. I think we have to move on with the business of peace.
GIBSON: If talks were to resume, would it be your position that they have to start totally from scratch or could they start with past Israeli-Palestinian agreements as a foundation?
NETANYAHU: I think there have been a lot of discussions and obviously there’s a record here. I myself made agreements with the Palestinians when I was prime minister. There have been other agreements. And quite apart from that, there have been negotiations – theoretical discussions.
So we’re committed to what was formally negotiated as binding agreements by previous Israeli governments. We will consider other ideas, but we have our own mandate. And that mandate is from the broad public in Israel that says we want a real peace. You know, we don’t want a peace where we hand over territory which becomes a race for Iran’s proxies so they can fire thousands of rockets on us.
We want a real peace. You know, we don’t want a peace where we hand over territory which becomes a base for Iran’s proxy so they can fire thousands of rockets on us. We want real peace. We’re one of the tiniest countries in the world.
Now, if you’re the size of Monaco or the size of Luxembourg, that by itself doesn’t pose a security problem. But if your neighbors also say, "We’re going to destroy you or throw you into the sea and fire thousands of rockets at you," that does pose a security problem. So, Israel wants both recognition and security from its neighbors, and this will be the task of the negotiations in the coming months.
And you know what, Charlie? I believe that with good will and with courageous leadership on the Palestinian side, we can achieve it. And I think Mahmoud Abbas has a great choice to make. We all do. But he has to decide: is he going to be an Arafat or an Anwar Sadat? If he’s an Anwar Sadat, he’ll find in me a partner for peace and we’ll make peace.
GIBSON: On your condition, or under your definition of accepting formal agreements, I’m curious. Are you saying – where does that put Oslo? Where does that put Annapolis? Are those bases for future discussions, or do you go back to the beginning?
NETANYAHU: Well, Annapolis was an agreement, was a declaration. Rather than get into these questions, I think we just – let’s get on and move with it. There are plenty of things to do. We could pick – nit-pick – at previous agreements.
I said today in the meeting with President Obama and Mr. Abbas, I said, "Look, we could hurl accusations at each other from here to eternity. There’s no point. I mean, we could waste more time. Let’s just sit down and discuss the most basic things of how we achieve a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. How do we ward off the terrorists and the Iranian sponsors? How do we establish a climate of prosperity, legitimacy and security that will serve the purposes of both the Israelis and Palestinians and the broader concern for peace that good people – good-intentioned people – well-intentioned people everywhere share?"
GIBSON: Mr. Prime Minster, just a couple of questions, if I may, on Iran. Earlier this year, you and President Obama were in agreement, giving Iran until the end of the year to negotiate. Is that still the timeframe?
NETANYAHU: I don’t want to discuss whether we need another week or another month. The crucial question is, what’s the goal? And the president assured me time and again that the goal is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. And I think that’s the right goal. There is a growing awareness in Washington, I believe in European capitals and elsewhere, that the development or acquisition of Iran of nuclear weapons is something that endangers world peace.
Iran is the major sponsor of world terrorism. Now, imagine what terrorism could be if the terrorists had a patron that gave them a nuclear umbrella, or worse, if that patron actually gave them nuclear weapons. That’s a nightmare scenario, and we all have to ensure that it doesn’t happen.
GIBSON: Our intelligence services, your intelligence services, struggle with the issue of how close they are to having nuclear weapons and how close they are to delivering them. How close do you think they are?
NETANYAHU: They’re getting closer. There’s no question about that.
GIBSON: And what does that mean? The Iran government right now is in turmoil. Does that make them more dangerous or less?
NETANYAHU: I think this regime is a lot weaker than people thing, and I think the civilized countries are lot stronger than they tend to think about themselves. This regime tyrannizes its own people, guns them down when they peacefully protest for freedom.
So, the application of external pressure, I think, would not coalesce the people of Iran with the government. It will actually coalesce them against the government, because they truly detest this regime. So, I think Iran is susceptible to pressure today. It’s highly dependent on the importation of refined petroleum. There are other things that could be done to weaken this regime, and they should be done quickly. If not now, when?
GIBSON: But my question is, do you think the weak government in Iran, to use your term, becomes more dangerous or less?
NETANYAHU: I think that it becomes more dangerous if it becomes stronger. And it becomes stronger if it develops nuclear weapons. The experience of such regimes is that once they pass a threshold, then you can have even a primitive society – and there’s one in Asia – that is almost an anthill society developing nuclear weapons and all of a sudden it becomes important like China or Japan – but much more dangerous. And I don’t think Japan or China are dangerous.
To have the ayatollah regime acquiring nuclear weapons, no matter how weak they are today, tomorrow they will be a hell of a lot stronger. And that is something that would threaten the peace of the world. It should not be allowed to happen.
GIBSON: You say they are close, in your mind. Is there a point where it becomes impossible for Israel to live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran?
NETANYAHU: I’m not going to deal in hypotheticals. Of course, every country reserves the right of self-defense and Israel is no exception.
But as I’m pointing out today, the development of nuclear weapons by Iran would pose an enormous problem to the stability of the Middle East, to the flow of oil from the Middle East, to the security of my country, to the possibility of having terrorists enjoy a nuclear umbrella or having – or receiving, actually, nuclear weapons from this Iranian regime.
There are so many reasons, endless reasons why this should not be allowed to happen. And it’s time the international community acted in unison to make sure that it doesn’t happen.
GIBSON: But you say they are close. Doesn’t that take it out of the realm of the hypothetical?
NETANYAHU: I think there is a growing understanding in the major capitals of the world – virtually in all of them – that it’s important, that it’s an international issue, an international concern to make sure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.
GIBSON: The international community has been reluctant to impose sanctions. You went to Moscow earlier in the year to talk about supplying air defense weapons to Iran. Do you really think that the rest of the world community is now any closer to putting the kind of pressure that you discussed against Iran on them?
NETANYAHU: Well, I’m not going to refer to press speculations about this or that visit. But I’ll tell you what I say to all the world leaders that I meet, including in today’s meetings and the meeting I had with President Sarkozy. And that is that because time is getting shorter, because Iran is moving ahead to develop nuclear weapons, the international community has to act in a much tougher way.
And I think the best thing to do is to apply what I think Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called crippling sanctions on Iran. Believe me, the regime is susceptible to it. I think people know what the nature, the true nature of this tyranny is about. And the application of this pressure might do the job. The sooner we do it, the sooner we’ll find out and the less will be the need to take stronger actions.
GIBSON: Mr. Prime Minister, appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
CNN
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: A big day today, the President of the United States hosting a summit with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders right here in New York. Let’s get right to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s joining us.
The Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, told our Fareed Zakaria the other day that he had an assurance from the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, that Israel has no intention of attacking Iran. Is that true?
NETANYAHU: Well, I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. I think the important thing is to recognize that Iran’s ambitions to acquire or develop nuclear weapons is a threat, not only to Israel, but to the entire world. Remember, this is the country that sponsored terrorism worldwide. And imagine what would happen if these terrorists had a patron that that gave them a nuclear umbrella, or, worse, actually gave them the nuclear weapon.
I think that these are catastrophic consequences. And it’s the interests of the entire international community to make sure this doesn’t happen.
BLITZER: So, are you willing to repeat what you have been quoted in the Israeli press as saying, that "all options" for Israel are on the table right now?
NETANYAHU: I’m willing to say what President Obama has said, namely, that all options are on the table is a position we support.
BLITZER: Have you been concerned at all about the Obama administration’s diplomatic initiative in trying to reach out to Iran to see if that will secure some results?
NETANYAHU: I have spoken to President Obama several times about this. And he assured me that the goal of all his activities, diplomatic and otherwise, is to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. And I think the goal is what counts. And, increasingly, I think people understand in Washington and certainly in Washington and elsewhere, in the major capitals, that the problem of Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons threatens everyone. It threatens world peace in a way that very few events could possibly threaten it.
I’m hopeful and I would like to believe that the international community understands that Iran has to be pressed strongly. There are ways of pressing this regime right now, because it’s weak. It’s weaker than people think. It doesn’t enjoy the support of its own people.
BLITZER: How much time is there, Mr. Prime Minister?
NETANYAHU: Whatever time is there, Wolf, it’s getting shorter, because Iran is moving ahead.
But this is a regime that is susceptible to pressure. It’s been exposed for what it is. It tyrannizes its own people. The Iranian people detest this regime, as has been plainly evident in the recent election fraud. But, equally, I think that Iran is susceptible because its economy is susceptible. And the time for pressure is now, with or without talks.
BLITZER: Would you act unilaterally, without U.S. support?
NETANYAHU: Well, there you go again asking a hypothetical question. I would like to believe that the United States and the major powers of the world understand that this threat, that this danger threatens them as well. And you know what? From everything that I have seen and heard, speaking to President Obama, speaking to President Sarkozy this afternoon as well, speaking to many of the major leaders of the world, I stand by that assessment.
Iran is certainly a grave threat to Israel, but it’s a grave threat to international peace. It’s a grave threat to America and to everyone else.
BLITZER: I want to read to you some comments that the former national security adviser to then President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote the other day.
He said this. He said: "We," referring to the United States, "are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? If they fly over, you go up and confront them," Brzezinski writes. "They have the choice of turning back or not."
That’s a pretty strong statement. What does it say about the current state of U.S.-Israeli relations when a former national security adviser writes something like that?
NETANYAHU: See, now you’re asking me to comment on a hypothetical on a hypothetical. I’m not going to do that. But I will tell you that the state of the U.S.-Israeli relations is very good, indeed. I was very pleased with the meeting hosted by President Obama today. For months, I have been calling for such a meeting, to put aside all these preconditions, and get on with the business of talking about peace.
It’s very hard to make peace unless you talk about it, although we have been improving conditions on the West Bank, and life is getting a lot better there. But we can do a lot more if we talk to each other.
So, on Iran, I have given you my answer. But, on peace, I think the possibilities are there. Let’s just get on with it. Let’s move. And I think that a good and firm U.S.-Israel relationship is the pivot of that peace and the pivot of security in the Middle East.
BLITZER: I want to get on and talk a little bit about the peace process. But just give me an answer, if you can, to a sensitive question that a lot of people are asking, especially friends of Israel here in the United States. Who is a better friend of Israel, the former President George W. Bush, who had a very close relationship with you, or the current president, Barack Obama?
NETANYAHU: Let me tell you something about President Obama, because I think this should be fully appreciated. He stood before the entire Muslim world. I don’t know if a billion people heard him, but hundreds of millions of people in Muslim countries heard him. And he said: The bond between America and Israel is unshakeable. We are absolutely committed to Israel’s security. I think that was a very important statement. And I think every president of the United States has had his contribution to Israeli- American relations and to the friendship between our countries. It is a very strong friendship, indeed. And I appreciated the president’s comments in Cairo. And I appreciated his comments today, too.
BLITZER: I hear you saying you trust this president.
NETANYAHU: I think that President Obama’s commitment to Israel has been expressed very loud, very clearly by him. And I think this reflects the underlying friendship between our two countries. It’s very strong.
You know, I walk on the streets of well, New York, yes, but also the Midwest and every part of the United States. I have been in every part of it. I will tell you, it’s heartwarming, because I see this tremendous, tremendous effusion of friendship towards Israel as a sister democracy, yes, often embattled by these dark forces of terrorism that embattle all of us.
And I think Israel has a terrific friend in America and the American people. And I want the American people to know that they have a terrific friend in Israel. In the Middle East, you don’t have that many friends, but we’re definitely right at the top of the list.
BLITZER: In the first eight months of his administration, he’s repeatedly appealed to you to freeze all settlement activity, and you have declined that request. Did anything change today?
NETANYAHU: I think what is important is that we’re moving on to talk peace. And I hope to make peace.
Any time we have encountered an Arab leader who wanted to make peace, we made peace. Anwar Sadat came. Menachem Begin of the Likud made peace. The late King Hussein came. Yitzhak Rabin of Labor made peace. I’m telling you that, if Mr. Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, genuinely steps forward and says, we recognize the State of Israel, we’re willing to make peace with the Jewish state, just that, the Jewish state, and it will be a peace of the recognition and security, then my government will make peace. I’m no exception, because the people of Israel want peace. And I think people understand that now.
As to the question of settlements, I think that raising this condition, something that hasn’t happened in 15 years of Israeli- Palestinian dialogue – nobody put this precondition – this is just costing us a great deal of time.
The issue of settlements has to be discussed at the end or in the context within these negotiations, not before. It has to be resolved. And we’re prepared to look into this issue, as into other issues. But we have to talk in order to talk about it. That’s obvious. And yet we haven’t. For six months, we have been waiting to talk about talks. I say let’s put that aside. Let’s just get on with it and start the peace process again.
BLITZER: We’re hearing from U.S. officials and Palestinian officials that the president gave them, the Palestinians, a commitment that, once the negotiations resume, they would resume where they left off, including such sensitive issues as the future of Jerusalem, allowing Jerusalem – at least part of it – to be under Palestinian control. Is that even available to you? Is that even open to you, that Jerusalem could be a subject for these negotiations?
NETANYAHU: Well, you asked me two questions in that question.
The first is, will the talks continue where they left off? Well, there were no agreements. I mean, the previous government spoke for three years, but came to no agreements. And we were elected with a clear mandate to provide peace and security. And, of course, we will do that.
We will take into account the 15 years of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, but we will be committed to the mandate that we received. And that mandate seeks to arrive at a better future for all of us. That is a future of peace for our children and for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, and, for that matter, any Arab party in the Middle East. We’re prepared to begin negotiations immediately or go anywhere.
BLITZER: Are you ready to talk about Jerusalem?
NETANYAHU: We have certain views about Jerusalem. I think the fact that it’s been united under Israeli sovereignty has ensured that, for the last four decades, all major faiths, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, all monotheistic faiths, have enjoyed the great freedom of worship and access to their religious sites, something that hasn’t happened before since the rise of the three monotheistic religions.
It’s only under Israeli sovereignty that this city has been open to all religions. Jerusalem for us is our eternal capital. We don’t want to redivide it and see a Berlin Wall in the center of it. So, obviously, that’s our position.
The Palestinians will raise their point of view. And that’s clear. But we will talk about these things, but my position is well-known.
BLITZER: You know this United Nations commission, which just came back with a scathing report suggesting that Israel, your military, committed war crimes or something close to that, crimes against humanity, perhaps, even, during the fighting in Gaza. And I know you strongly disagree, but I want you to react to that United Nations report.
NETANYAHU: Now you’re being a diplomat. I strongly disagree? I think this is preposterous. It’s absurd. Israel was rocketed, pummeled for eight years by thousands of rockets that came from Gaza. We vacated all of Gaza, hoping that this thing would stop, and they fired not one rocket, but thousands of rockets, after we left Gaza.
So, what’s a country to do? I mean, what would you do if thousands of rockets fell on – Where are you talking from, Wolf, Washington, right? – Washington, D.C., or any part of the United States? You know what the United States would do.
BLITZER: The argument, though, Mr. Prime Minister, in this U.N. report is that you overreacted, and, in the process, you killed a lot of civilians.
NETANYAHU: We overreacted, did we? Well, let me tell you, after a million or so of our people were under rocket fire, progressively larger and larger circles of rockets falling on our cities, we did what every reasonable country would do. We tried to get at the rocketeers, those terrorists firing those missiles and rockets who placed themselves, embedded themselves in homes and schools and mosques, and you name it.
And we tried to target these people. We even sent them SMS text messages, telling the Palestinian civilians, please get out of harm’s way, cellular phones, you name it. So, we did everything possible to minimize the loss of innocent civilian lives.
And yet the Hamas actually was committing a double war crime, firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians. That’s a double war crime. They’re the ones who sort of get a free bill out of this biased U.N. report, and Israel, that is defending itself, is accused.
BLITZER: All right.
NETANYAHU: So, the terrorists are exonerated. The victims are accused. That’s an upside-down world. And I think this does grievous harm to the battle against terrorism, because the terrorists are basically being told, you get a free ride. All you have to do is fire at a democracy from built-up areas, from residential quarters, and you will get a clean bill of health. And I think it does a great disservice to peace, too, because we’re asked to take risks for peace. The international community says, if you take risks for peace, we will support your right of self- defense. And yet we did just that. We vacated Gaza in the hopes that this would advance peace. And when we’re rocketed with thousands of rockets and missiles from the places we vacated, people say Israel is the war criminal.
BLITZER: All right.
NETANYAHU: Come on. I mean, this is absurd.
BLITZER: If there is a trial at the International Court and the accusation is that Israel committed war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Gaza, will you cooperate with that?
NETANYAHU: Well, the question is, will any serious country cooperate with it?
I took note of the fact that the leading democracies that were in this U.N. commission, they opposed this. They were against this mandate, because it looked like a kangaroo court in the first place, where Israel was basically hanged, drawn, and quartered morally and given an unfair trial to boot right at the start of these proceedings.
I think this is wrong. But understand this. It’s not only we who will be damaged. It’s you, too. I mean, American pilots, NATO pilots, let alone Russia and other countries that are fighting terrorists, are going to be put on the dock, too, because it’s said that you cannot fight terrorists.
It means that all the terrorists have to do is put themselves in a residential quarter, and they receive immunity. And that’s not something that any country fighting terrorism can accept. And I don’t think you can accept it either.
BLITZER: Mr. Prime Minister, there was an op-ed article written in "The New York Times" back in July by an Israeli journalist named Aluf Benn, who writes for the "Haaretz" newspaper. And, among other things, he said that President Obama is ignoring Israel, has not visited Israel, even though he’s been to several Arab countries, and he’s not reaching out to the Israeli people, the way he’s reaching out to the Arab and Muslim world. He hasn’t given any interviews, as far as I know, to the Israeli press, for example, or Israeli television. Do you agree with that assessment?
NETANYAHU: I think that people should not rush to judgment. I think that these are two new administrations, my own new government and the new government in Washington. We have found a way to communicate. I think we have resolved a lot of the issues between us. We can have differences. That happens among the best of friends. It even happens in our own families.
But I think there’s a growing closeness that I have found. What people don’t know – and I’m not referring to the public diplomacy – but I want to tell you something about private diplomacy. There’s virtually not a day that goes by that the Obama administration and my own government don’t communicate on a very senior level on very important matters in a very confidential and respectful way.
And I say that advisedly. I’m choosing my words carefully. There’s barely a day that goes by without that happening. So, that should give you some indication of the growing, of the closeness of that relationship. And it’s getting better, for sure. There’s no question about it.
BLITZER: Because there was a very explosive charge in that same article on the op-ed page of "The New York Times." And I will read it to you, because I want to give you a chance to respond. It caused a huge commotion. This is what Aluf Benn wrote in "The New York Times."
"In Mr. Netanyahu’s narrative, the president has fallen under the influence of top aides, in this case, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, and David Axelrod, the White House adviser, whom the prime minister has called – quote – ‘self-hating Jews.’" Is that true?
NETANYAHU: No. No, it’s not. I never called them any such thing. And I don’t think that. I have known Rahm Emanuel for some time. I just met David Axelrod today, in fact. And I think they’re American patriots. They think of what is important for the United States. And they certainly bear no enmity to Israel. They probably want the best for Israel, too. So, I think that this is – and we can have, as we say, occasional differences of opinion. But I never called them those things, and I don’t think that, and I’m sorry that anyone has given credence to this kind of nonsense.
BLITZER: Did you reach out to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and reassure them that that that was a lie?
NETANYAHU: Well, we immediately denied it. And, yes, we did reach out to them, of course.
BLITZER: Did you personally call them?
NETANYAHU: I didn’t personally call them, but I had my aides communicate this to the White House as quickly as we could.
BLITZER: All right, let’s move ahead and take and look and see where the situation goes from here. You have now met with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Are there going to be more direct meetings with you and the Palestinian leader without the United States in the room?
NETANYAHU: I hope so. And I think we should.
I said to Mr. Abbas today, listen, we’re old hands. We have had many meetings in the past when I was prime minister during my first tenure, and I met him. And I respect him. And I think there is a lot we can do together.
Look, you know, we have lifted all these roadblocks in the West Bank, checkpoints. I’ve opened the Allenby Bridge on the Jordan River to allow the inflow of goods into the West Bank. So life is getting better. The IMF is talking about a seven percent growth rate in the West Bank.
And guess what, Wolf? I think we can top that. This is what we’re doing. I mean we’re easing those restrictions and opening up passage, even though there’s a certain security risk involved, because I think that prosperity is good for peace. I don’t think it’s a substitute for a political peace, but I think it really enables it because young Palestinians see there is a future there. I mean, they have jobs. There are investments. There are buildings sprouting out in Palestinian cities like Ramallah and Jenin and not missiles, as in Gaza, but, you know, high rises, apartment blocks, office buildings.
This is what I’d like to see. I’d like to see this dynamic of peace, prosperity and security. And if we meet, then we could get a lot more of this going and that’s good for us. It’s good for the Palestinians. It’s good for peace.
BLITZER: Mr. Prime Minister, a year from now, will there be an agreement, a peace treaty, if you will, between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
NETANYAHU: Well, I I don’t want to set a timetable on it or a stopwatch, but the sooner we get going, the sooner we’ll get an agreement. If there is a willingness on the part of the Palestinians to remove the main obstacle to peace. And the main obstacle to peace is the persistent refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state – the nation state of the Jewish people.
There are non-Jews living there and they have equal rights. The Arab citizens of Israel vote in the Knesset. They’re represented in every form of life and have political rights – equal political rights. But Israel is the state, the nation state of the Jewish people. And I think if we’re asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people, then the least we expect from the Palestinians is to come right out and say yes, you know, it’s over. Yes, we accept the State of Israel.
BLITZER: But if the Palestinians do that, Mr. Prime Minister, are you ready to bite the bullet and make the tough concessions that have to be made? And everybody seems to know what the final agreement is going to look like. Are you ready to make those territorial concessions and go back, sort of, close to the ’67 line?
NETANYAHU: Well, I think we need to make sure that Israel can defend itself and defend the peace. Because even if the Palestinian leaders make that simple statement that they so far haven’t made, that they recognize the Jewish state – and I think that’s imperative for peace – it may take a long time for this to be internalized by the Palestinian people that have been subjected repeatedly to very harmful propaganda against Israel.
So we have to make sure that we can defend ourselves, that we don’t have these Palestinian territories become the sites for the launching of thousands of missiles and rockets, which is exactly what happened to us from the other areas we vacated.
We need a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. That’s the winning formula for peace.
Now, look, any time Israel was faced with an Arab leader that genuinely wanted peace, whether Anwar Sadat or the late King Hussein, Israel made peace. And if President Abbas takes this forceful step, deciding that he wants to be a Sadat and not an Arafat, then he will find in me a partner for peace. And believe me, the Israeli people are yearning, praying, hoping that we have such a Palestinian partner on the other side.
BLITZER: Prime Minister Netanyahu, thanks very much for joining us.
Fox News Channel (partial transcript):
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Next on SPECIAL REPORT from the United Nations, President Obama brings leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority together but expectations for a Middle East peace breakthrough remain low. I talked one on one with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the threat of Iran’s nuclear program.
President Obama warns of an irreversible catastrophe if the world does not combat climate change. And senators up and down the political spectrum try to put their stamp on health care reform legislation. All that plus the FOX all-stars, SPECIAL REPORT live at the United Nations starts right now.
Good evening. From the United Nations headquarters, I’m Bret Baier.
President Obama is also here in New York today talking climate change, international relations and Middle East peace. And at midday, he met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A short time ago, Netanyahu told me what he and President Obama discussed concerning Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: What is the goal? And he said the goal is to make sure that Iran does not arm itself with nuclear weapons. I share that goal. The method of achieving it is important, but the goal is more important.
And I think there’s a growing awareness certainly in Washington and in many of the European capitals that time is running short, that Iran is moving forward to arm itself with nuclear weapons and that this would have catastrophic consequences not merely for Israel. That’s obvious, but for the Arab states in the Middle East, for the world’s oil supply, and perhaps the worst is for worldwide terrorism, because Iran is the greatest sponsor of world terrorism. And imagine what the terrorists will be able to do if they have an Iranian nuclear umbrella, or worse, if Iran gives terrorists nuclear weapons. That’s something that concerns — should concern, does concern the major capitals of the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: The president’s bid to resurrect peace talks comes as the Palestinians remain fractured and Israel remains defiant to international wishes that it suspend settlement expansion. White House correspondent Wendell Goler is live with more on today’s session.
Good evening, Wendell.
WENDELL GOLER, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Bret. After weeks of talks by his diplomatic team produced few apparent results, President Obama made a personal appeal to the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to resume peace talks that have pretty much been on hold since Prime Minister Netanyahu took office in March, and the Israeli leader told FOX News he’s all for that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I’m glad he called for this meeting. For five months we’ve said, look, let’s just get on with it. Let’s meet without pre-conditions.
GOLER (voice-over): But President Obama wants Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas to tackle the toughest issues before them.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Simply put, it is pastime to talk about starting negotiations. It is time to move forward.
GOLER: Despite Netanyahu’s public support for talks without pre- condition, with President Abbas still kept out of Gaza by the Hamas coup, some experts believe the Israeli leader is not likely to concede much.
JON ALTERMAN, MIDDLE EAST EXPERT: If you don’t have a Palestinian leadership that can deliver, it’s no time to be offering up one Israeli concession after another.
GOLER: And Netanyahu suggests Gaza can’t be part of a peace deal with Hamas in control.
NETANYAHU: We can work with the Palestinian Authority headed by Abbas. We cannot accept Hamas as negotiating partner.
GOLER: Abbas, meanwhile, isn’t eager for talks with an Israeli leader who believes a Palestinian state can have police but no army and no control of its own airspace. Mideast envoy George Mitchell says the Israelis have made some concessions, easing travel restrictions. It made it difficult for Palestinians to work and removing some illegal settlements, but Netanyahu has refused to stop settlement expansion, which is a Palestinian condition for resumed peace talks.
GEORGE MITCHELL, MIDDLE EAST SPECIAL ENVOY: We are continuing our discussions on that issue and we’re trying to bring it to a point where we can re-launch the negotiations, and we just discussed it with both sides.
GOLER: The president wants Mitchell to step up pressure on both sides with the goal of resuming talks next month.
OBAMA: Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed.
GOLER: Those negotiations would decide whether and how Israelis and Palestinians shared Jerusalem, which Israeli settlements would be dismantled to give Palestinians a contiguous West Bank, and what to do about three generations of Palestinian refugees now living in Jordan and Syria. But Jon Alterman feels Israel has more urgent concerns on which to focus and a peace agreement with Palestinians.
ALTERMAN: The real threat to Israel doesn’t come from Palestinians, it comes from Iranians. And therefore, the Israeli willingness to make really serious compromises to the Palestinians is lower because of a sense that it’s not necessary. It’s not urgent.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLER: Senior administration officials say the president was blunt in his talks with both leaders, telling Netanyahu "we are not starting from scratch," and warning Abbas to "stop waiting for a perfect solution." And though it’s early in his administration, officials suggest the president is running out of patience with both sides — Bret.
BAIER: Wendell Goler live on the North Lawn. Wendell, thank you.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
