Summary

00:00:57:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Tell us your name, and spell it please? ,00:01:05:00>>>DORE GOLD: Ambassador Dore Gold. That's D-o-r-e, G-o-l-d. ,00:01:15:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Where were you from? ,00:01:30:00>>>DORE GOLD: I was born in the State of ConnectiCUt. I lived in Israel since the mid 1970's. , ,00:01:45:00>>>INTERVIEWER: What would you say is the number one, or one of the number one misconceptions in the west, about the Arab-Israeli conflict? ,01:02:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well clearly, since September 11th, the Palestinians and their supporters in the United Nations, have been stressing that the reason, the motivation, for the Palestinian uprising, which they called Intifada, is Israel's ocCUpation, or so-called ocCUpation, of Palestinian territories, as they say. There was probably no more baseless a charge, that can be utilized, or that has been utilized in the International Community. You have to understand that those who state that what motivates the attacks on Israelis is ocCUpation, those who make that claim are, perhaps, building on the amnesia of the international community. Because, after all, what were the Oslo Agreements about, from 1993? I was an Oslo negotiator. I was involved in the ____ Agreement, and in the Wye Negotiations, in 1998. And what the Oslo Agreements were, and what we ultimately implemented, was a withdrawal of the Israeli military government over the Palestinians. And replacing that with a Palestinian government, called the Palestinian authority, under Yasser Arafat. , So, as a result of the Oslo Agreements, which Israel implemented in good faith, in the 1990's, the Palestinians were not under military ocCUpation. Did they have a Palestinian state? No. Were they under military ocCUpation? No. And they feel those who were using this argument of ocCUpation, to justify violence, are simply trying to find an exCUse for murderous terrorism against Israeli civilians. But it's a baseless argument. And it is simply used repetitive - repeatedly. It is simply used repeatedly, in places like the United Nations security Council, or the United Nations General Assembly, to justify the murder of innocent Israeli civilians. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:04:00:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Can you talk a little bit about what does and what does not just - what kind of grievances might justify terror? Can terror ever be justified? ,00:04:07:00>>>DORE GOLD: I think, after September 11th, it's become completely clear to most countries, in the international community, today, that there is no possible justification for the murder of innocent civilians. There is no grievance that can possibly justify taking young people and having them strap dynamite to themselves, and sending them to - into a crowded Israeli café, full of Israeli teenagers, and murdering thirty innocent Israelis. No economic deprivation, no political claim, and certainly not this baseless charge of ocCUpation, can possibly used to give a context or explanation for the kind of terrible tragedy that, that act leads to. ,00:04:45:00>>>INTERVIEWER: You talked about the ocCUpation charge, about the Palestinian people. There is also a charge that Israel is ocCUpying Palestinian land. Can you use the phrase, ‘Palestinian lands'? ,00:05:00:00>>>DORE GOLD: This is part of the language that developed in the United Nations. The United Nations, unfortunately, is many times a, a place not where international laws are established, but where international politics is pursued. And therefore, much of the normal CUlture in the UN, doesn't even reflect other fundamental UN resolutions. It's clear, from UN security Council Resolution 242, which is really the foundation of the Arab-Israeli peace process. IT was the basis of the Camp David Agreement with Egypt. IT was the basis of the peace agreement with Jordan. It was even the basis of the Oslo Agreement. It is clear, from that resolution 242, that Israel is never expected to withdraw, lock, stock and barrel, from The West Bank in Gaza Strip. That Israel had rights in those territories because it was attacked from those territories, in the 1967 Six Day War. And therefore, those territories, rather than being ocCUpied territories, which belonged to somebody else, are reality disputed territories, where Israel has claims, and an Arab party may have claims. In this case, the Palestinians. ,00:06:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: The ocCUpation grievance is not really there. And nothing could justify such (Inaudible). What is, what kind of ideological motivation might be behind this attack against Israel, as well as Israeli policy?,00:06:43:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, look, Israel had the opportunity to test the intentions of the Palestinians. Most of the international community was convinced that the Palestinians simply wanted their own state, within the territory of the West Bank, in Gaza Strip. And that's what they were struggling for. And therefore, many observers looked at this conflict through the lenses of decolonization. Thinking that if Israel would just turn it over, the West Bank in Gaza Strip, or large parts of it, for a Palestinian state, the Arab-Israel conflict would end, the Middle East crisis would be terminated, and the entire Middle Eastern order would snap into place. And all of the problems in the United States, and the European union in the Middle East would end. But clearly that wasn't true. Because once Israel went to Camp David, and ____ Prime Minister Ehud Barak, basically offered Yasser Arafat, virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and even was willing to divide Jerusalem, something which most Israeli's, in fact a vast majority of Israeli's objected. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] Once Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, our former Prime Minister, went to Camp David, offered the Palestinians virtually all the West Bank, in Gaza Strip, was willing to even contemplate the division of Jerusalem, which the vast majority of Israelis objected to, and Yasser Arafat turned him down, it became clear to everybody who followed this issue that the question here is not over a limited piece of territory - the West Bank and Gaza, and a little bit of Jerusalem - Mr. Arafat and his supporters have much greater ambitions that involved Israel, itself. ,>>>INTERVIEWER: What kind of ideology might be behind the larger Islamic movement, that includes - the Islamic movement that includes maybe some (Inaudible)? What really motivated - why do they hate Israel so much? What is it about Israel in a nation of western democracy, and (Inaudible) American democracy in the Middle East, that might be motivating this hatred to resist all Israeli concessions?,00:09:05:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, I just concluded a book called Hatred's Kingdom, which viewed the impact of Wajabi Islam, on the entire Middle East. Certainly, since 1973, when Saudi Arabia began earning huge oil income from elevated oil prices, the Saudi's were able to export their very narrow version of Islam to many countries of the Middle East. To places like Pakistan, which gave birth to the Taliban regime, and certainly had an impact on many of the Moslem brotherhood organizations, including Hamas. And those organizations, first of all, do not view Christians and Jews, as legitimate, fellow, monotheists, who shared the same basic fate, as many Moslems. Classical Islam, while perhaps putting Christians and Jews in a kind of second class citizenship, requiring them to pay discriminatory taxes like the _____ and the _____, nonetheless were willing to protect Jews and Christians, as people of the book. Many of these pro lwahabi organizations even removed that status of people of the book, from Christians and Jews, and described them as _____, as polytheists, who basically didn't have a right to live. So, much of this evil wind from Arabia, has reached the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean, and has effected many ideologs in the Hamas movement, in the Islamic Jihad Movement, both of which had received financial support from Saudi Arabia. And this undoubtedly has had an impact on Palestinian politics. But there is also a fundamental problem with de fatah organization as well. ,00:11:02:55>>>INTERVIEWER: What is the fundamental problem? ,00:11:03:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, after Camp David, when we wanted to understand what was motivating Yasser Arafat, Israeli analysts, much more carefully monitored the statements within the Fatah Movement itself. For example the chief idealog of the Fatah Movement, is a man by the name of Fatah Jabash [PH]. No relationship to George Jabash. And he frequently appeared in various Palestinian towns and cities, and gave speeches in the name of Yasser Arafat. How do we know that? Because those speeches were replicated in full textual form, in ____, in ____ Al-Jadida [PH}, both of which are official newspapers of the Palestinian authority. And in those sermons that he gave in Palestinian cities, in Arafat's name, Fatah Jabash made it clear that the Palestinian, the Palestinian Fatah leadership still adhered to the stages strategy to 1974. And that is, establish a Palestinian state, and any bit of liberated Palestine that you can, and from there continue the conflict to dismantle the State of Israel. If that, indeed, was the motivation of Yasser Arafat, then that explains a great deal of why the Camp David Summit, under President Clinton, failed. And why Mr. Arafat could never bring himself to sign an agreement with Israel that talked about the termination of conflict. ,00:12:51:00>>>INTERVIEWER: The Fatah is the means for the faction of the - of Yasser Arafat's faction of the Palestinian authority, only the people don't know it. So, it can be said for the ___ Fatah, is that Yasser Arafat's mainstream faction believes, or it clearly believes in a (Inaudible). ,00:12:52:00>>>DORE GOLD:,What happened after the failed Camp David Summit, of July of 2000, was that many Israelis more carefully monitored the statements of the Fatah movement. When Israel went into the Oslo Agreement, it was understood that mainstream movements, within the PLO, like the Fatah Movement, had changed. That perhaps they were adapting a strategy very similar to Nelson Mandela in South Africa, who set aside the arms struggle, and instead showed the diplomatic process. In fact, many in Israel, in the 1990's, assumed that there was a huge struggle transpiring in the Arab world, between the old forces of Arab Nationalism, which the Fatah component of the PLO represented among the Palestinians, and the new rising forces of Islamic fundamentalism, like the Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad. It was assumed that, just as the Nationalist forces in Algeria, or Egypt, were fighting against Islamic Fundamentalists, so too Yasser Arafat, leading the Fatah Movement, and its elements in the PLO, would fight against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But of course what really happened in the 1990's, was that the Fatah Movement colluded with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, didn't fight them, allowed them to grow, permitted suicide bombings against the State of Israel, and ultimately joined the war against Israel when Arafat initiated the second Intifada in September of 2000, against the State of Israel. So, that rather than the Fatah Movement and the PLO being this moderate force, which the world could get behind to bring an end to the Arab-Israel conflict, they were, in fact, radical allies of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And, in a certain sense, it's not a surprise. Because anybody who knows the biographies of the leaders of the Fatah Movement, such as Yasser Arafat or his military leader, Abu Jihad, knows that many of these men were either sympathizers or activists in the famous Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, which, of course, gave rise to many of the radical movements across the Middle East with the backing of Saudi money. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:15:15:00>>>INTERVIEWER: There was some talk today, among the Palestinian (Inaudible) warning, while Camp David failed, they were about to reach an agreement in Taba, months later. And the agreements were about to be signed, and the Palestinians approved of them, and the Israelis said (Inaudible), and then there were new elections and Sharon came to power, so it never happened. So actually, it wasn't the Palestinians, but Israel, who dropped the ball? ,00:15:52:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well there is a myth that Palestinian negotiators are interested in putting forward. That Israel and the PLO, on the verge of a final status agreement at Taba, which is, of course the Egyptian resort town, near Alat [PH] - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] There is a rumor that - there is a rumor that exists, that Palestinian negotiators love to put forward, that Israel, and the PLO, on the verge of a permanent status agreement at Taba, the resort town where negotiations were held after the failed Camp David Summit. The idea that Israel and Palestinians could - were just inches away from an agreement, is simply untrue. If you look at every category, every issue that was raised in those negotiations, borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security arrangements, what you find is that the gap between the Israeli position - the most forthcoming Israeli position, and the Palestinian position, is basically unbridgeable. And I think it's a complete misrepresentation of history. In fact, the best source about this are the notes of the European union envoy, who was at the talks, Ambassador Mortinos [PH]. And if you carefully examine his notes, which were reported in the press, you will see the gaps between the parties were unbridgeable. There was no agreement that was simply prevented by Israeli elections. ,00:7:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: If there had been agreements, would there have been a silent counter offer continually offered, instead of resorting to the ____ Intifada, that (Inaudible) for example, Palestinian. Is the failure - is there proof that the Palestinian authority might lie in the fact that, instead of offering a counter offer, they launched this ____ Intifada. This war of terror. ,00;17:50:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, what is clear is that the Palestinians -let me start again. Let's look at the sequence of events. July of 2000, is the failed Camp David Summit with President Clinton. The negotiations in Taba, which the Palestinians claim almost led to an agreement, but, in fact, the gaps were invisible, that ocCUrs in December of 2000, January 2001. But the Palestinians launched their violence against Israel in September of 2000, before those Taba negotiations even take place. If the Palestinians were serious about reaching a peaceful agreement with Israel, they would never have adopted violence. Now, there are Palestinians who argue that, that violence erupted because Prime Minister Sharon, then head of the opposition, went for a stroll on the Temple Mount, where members (Inaudible) permitted to visit and walk. But we know, from the statements of Palestinian leaders, like Imad Farugi [PH], the Communications Minister of the Palestinian Authority, that the entire Intifada of Yasser Arafat, from September 2000, was pre-planned. We know that Mawan Barguti [PH] was trying to recruit Israeli Arabs, prior to the outbreak of the Intifada, and therefore it is clear to us that Yasser Arafat elected a strategy of violence, because he had no intention of reaching a final agreement with Israel . He wanted to negotiate with Israel while Israel was bleeding. And what Ariel Sharon said was, that those rules, we will not adhere to. ,00:19:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: These facts, these damning facts, did it expose, did it really expose the Palestinians? Or, are they also a tragedy for those individual Palestinians who might have hoped for a better leadership and a better future? ,00:20:00:00>>>DORE GOLD: I was a negotiator with many Palestinians, and I have to say, I sense that there were Palestinians who really wanted to reach an agreement, who thought about the future of the Palestinian people, and believed that, ultimately, by creating a relation of peace with Israel, they could get a better future for their people as well. Unfortunately, that wasn't the dominant perspective of Yasser Arafat, and those who were loyal to him. And much time is lost, much blood has been spilled, it's been a tragedy for many Israelis who have died, people I know. As well as for the Palestinians. I think there is a lesson of all this, this entire period. It's that you have to establish firm rules, and insist that the Palestinian side, in the future, adhere to those rules, in any negotiation. The most cardinal rule, that has to become fixed in stone, is that no one use violence to advance their negotiating agenda. The moment the Pal - any Palestinian negotiator in the future who ____ the violence, the negotiations must end. Because once they do that, it becomes clear that their intention isn't peace, but perpetual conflict. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:21:00:00<<<INTERVIEWER: There is a myth that Israel is an apartide state, with unequal status, for ____ and Jews, whether in the West Bank, or in Israel proper. How would you count this charge that Israel is called the academic weapon - apartide state? ,00:21:22:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, first of all, Israel has granted citizenship to Israeli Arabs, who amount to about 20% of the Israeli population. They have full voting rights, they attend all universities. There are elements of the Arabic speaking community like the Drews [PH], who don't regard themselves as Arabs, who are also drafting into the Israeli Army. We have better volunteers than the Israeli Army, as well, but we don't force the Arabs - the Arab population - to serve in the army. We don't draft them, because we don't want to put them in a position where they have to shoot at their brothers. But in fact Israel is a country which is granted huge (let me start again.) ......Israel is a country which has sought to make sure that its Arab population has equal rights to the Israeli-Jewish population, even though Israel is a country that's been under siege for fifty years, by a coalition of Arab states. ,00:21:50:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Religious freedom, is an important value for Israel, and how is it viewed as being different now that Israel controls lands, as opposed to centuries before? ,00:22:00:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, in fact, if you look historically at what has happened to the holy sites of the great religions, (exCUse me, let me start again). [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] In fact, if you look historically, at what has happened to the holy sites of the great religions, under different people's sovereignty, what you find is that only under the sovereignty of Israel has, for example, Jerusalem been open to all faiths. The Jewish people were forcibly removed from Jerusalem when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 70A.D., and destroyed the second temple. And for at least five hundred years Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem. They began coming back, ironically, with the first Moslem conquest, and later, once the crusaders were defeated by _____. But already, in 1864, under the Ottoman Empire, the Jewish people recovered their majority in Jerusalem. That was at the time of the American Civil War. It was well before the arrival of the British Empire, to the Middle East. And yet (let me start that again) - So, the Jewish people recovered their majority in Jerusalem. Already, in 1864, at the time of the American Civil War, well before the arrival of the British to the Middle East. Yet it was a struggle for the Jewish people to assure themselves full rights, and of access to the holy sites. In fact, in 1948, when the Jordanian Army invaded the nation State of Israel, and conquered Jerusalem, with the help of British officers, about 50 synagogues, in the old city of Jerusalem, many of them going back to the 13th Century, were either destroyed or desecrated. Jews were robbed of access to the Western Wall, their great holy site. The Christian population in Jerusalem suffered tremendously in the population of Christians living in Jerusalem, diminished from about 25,000 to about 11 or 12,000 by 1967. Only when Israel liberated the old city of Jerusalem, was it truly open to all faiths. Was the Armenian quarter of the old city able to prosper and thrive in the Armenian church, build a new seminary. ,00:24:57:00>>>DORE GOLD: Only when Israel was in control, did Christians begin to return to Jerusalem. Only when Israel was in control, were Jews able to pray at the Western Wall, and at their various holy sites. During the period of this Intifada that began in September of 2000, what Israelis witnessed was that holy sites, that were turned over to be protected by the Palestinian authority, were, again, abused, were again sacked. For example, Joseph's Tomb, in Nabwith [PH], the Sharam Israel [PH] Synagogue, an ancient Synagogue in Jericho. Rachel's Tomb, on the border between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, has constantly been under sniper fire by Mr. Arafat's Tanzim [PH] gunmen. And finally, the Palestinian rocks, that's the Religious Endowments Ministry, which took over for the Jordanians on the Temple Mount, has been involved in an illegal excavation, destroying artifacts going back to The Crusades, and even to the second and first temples. So, if Israelis have learned anything from the last two years, it's that only under the sovereignty of Israel, can Jerusalem truly be protected, and be a citizen that's open to all things. ,00:26:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: The ancient Palestinian negotiators that you felt, genuinely, wanted peace, do you believe that there are Palestinian individuals out there who just want the house, and the garage, and the chicken in every pot, sort of just - who, themselves, do not share in either Wajabism or the Islamists, or the corruption in the phase plans of leadership? ,00:26:47:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, I think what's very hard in the west, for people to understand, is that political movements are not necessarily motivated by just - that what's very hard in the west, to understand, many times, is that political movements are not organized to address the every day needs of people. That there are many times a movement that is established on the basis of aggressive ideologies. You either have the nationalist and socialist ideologies, the constituent elements of the PLO, like the Fatah Movement, like the PFLP Socialist group, like the DFLP, also, a Pro-Marxist group. Or you have the highly ideologically charged Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who come out of these pro lobby time or - backgrounds and organizations. There are Palestinians who want normal lives. ..... You know, one time I spent weeks in Jordan, with Jordanian Military people, and they would point to some of the tremendous construction and advances inside of Jordan, and whispered to me the Palestinians were behind them. And they would talk about the fact that the Palestinians contributed to the development of Persian Golf countries like Kuwait, the United ____, and other places. ,00:28:14:00>>>DORE GOLD: The Palestinians are extraordinarily talented. They are the most educated component of the Arab World in Arab societies. And with - in the context of a political leadership that believes in freedom and democracy, it can lead to great progress for their people. But if they're trapped by their ideologies of yesterday, you know, sort of from that world of, of Fidel Castro, and Brechnev [PH], and all those who spawned the left wing organizations, as well as the ideologies of the ____ movements, those who have supported the Moslem brotherhood and come out of the extremist pro lobby wings, then the Palestinians will not progress. ....And I think what is important, at this point, is that the world community establish a model of freedom of democracy, which has worked so well in other regions of the world, for the Middle East as well, so the Palestinians will have a political context, in which their talents can be expressed. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:29:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: The concept of refugees, the UN defines the Palestinian refugees in a certain way, and using a definition that is now regarded, the numbers always fluctuate - millions of Palestinians, a million and a half refugees, has this concept been misrepresented and distorted to bloat the numbers and create a _____? ,00:29:54:00>>>DORE GOLD: I think most - in - let me start again. I think in most conflicts, the UN has attempted to resolve refugee issues by finding homes for refugees, by bringing about normalized refugees. The Arab states who have been at war with Israel have been interested in keeping the refugee issue alive, refusing to grant normalcy for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon or in Syria, through a lesser extent than Jordan. Jordan has been better on this issue. And using the refugee issue as a grievance to maintain the war against the State of Israel. In order to help refugees move on and build a better life, what the international community should do is help invest in the various countries where Palestinian refugees are, so they can establish a new life in new homes. And we can move on beyond this issue. .......There are many wars that have existed since 1945, and many refugees in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, and although there is a political interest in foCUsing on the ref - on the Palestinian refugees, there is a need to address this refugee issue, as other refugee issues have been looked at. ,00:31:00:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Have there been Jewish refugees? ,00:31:11:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, of course, one of the big ironies of the Arab-Israel conflict, is that while the world speaks about Palestinian refugees all the time, most in the international community completely ignore the hundreds of thousands, in fact millions of refugees that were kicked out of the Arab world, from Morocco to Iraq, who lost their property, who lost their way of life, and were accepted by the State of Israel. .........Israel was a poor country when it first was established. And yet it, it found homes and established a new life for hundred's and thousands of Jewish refugees in the Arab world. If one talks about the refugee issue, one should speak about the Palestinian refugees, but one should also speak about the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. ,00:32:00:00>>>INTERVIEWER: The British mandate ____, is there any way the British handled things that inappropriately shaped the conflict, today? ,00:32:30:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, in fact, you know, there were attempts by Arabs and Jews to begin to create a political context for resolving their differences. At the time of - right after the first World War, we had the Faza [PH] Whitesman [PH] Agreement, in which the man, who would go on to become the first president of Israel, Jyam [PH] Whitesman, basically stated, look, you the Arab side, you King Faza, representing the Hashamite House, want a great Arab state. You've been promised that by the British. It would cover all of Arabia, it would cover Syria, Iraq, it would cover parts of the Jordanian territory. And if you want this great Arab state, we, the Zionist Movement, will support it. If we can have our Jewish homeland in British mandatory Palestinian. And, at that time, Faza, representing the Hashamite House, which covered this whole area, agreed. And basically said, well, if you have a little Jewish state in the corner of the Middle East, that's worth supporting, so, that we have our great Arab state. ,00:33:21:00>>>DORE GOLD: But what did the British do? They gave away Syria and Lebanon to the French. They basically allowed the Saudis to kick the Hashamites out of Arabia, and be without their main patrimony in the Hijas [PHJ]. And, as a result, the conflict became much more complicated. But the conflict might have been prevented and resolved by effective diplomacy back in 1919, and 1920. ,00:34:20:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Any thoughts about British ____ of immigration to change the balance? ,00:34:50:00>>>DORE GOLD: One of the worst periods in Jewish history is, of course, in the 1930's, when the rise of Nazi power was on the horizon, and Jewish lives were threatened. And the British Empire, at the time, imposed the White Paper of 1939, which limited Jewish immigration into Palestine. At the same time, there was a huge amount of Arab immigration into Palestine, from Egypt, from Syria, from as far away as Iraq, and you created a kind of asymmetry. The Jews were kept out of British mandatory Palestine, but the Arab stream didn't because they saw this area as an area of tremendous economic success, and economic opportunity and employment. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] [TAPE BREAK] ,00:36:00:00>>>INTERVIEWER: In a claim that Arab and Jews lived in coexistence, in peace and brotherhood, for centuries before Israel and the Zionists came and messed things up, was (Inaudible) at this point? ,00:00:49:00>>>TAPE 13A - DORE GOLD: Well, you have to be very precise about the status of Jews and Christians under Islamic rule for centuries. Under Islam, Jews and Christians were seen as people of the book. Which means they weren't like infidels, you know, Kefir [PH], who you forcibly convert to Islam. But there were second class citizens that were forced to pay discriminatory taxes, like the ____ tax, known as jizy [PH] in Arabic, or a land tax, called jirage [PH]. In fact, in the early Middle Ages, there were still substantial Jewish land ownership in Israel and Palestine, in the 7th, 8th and 9th century. But the burden of these discriminatory taxes led to many Jews getting off the land, and the land being taken over by Arab landlords. But, at least, given the era that we lived in, at that time, Jews were protected from being killed by Arab rulers. And so, in a certain sense, as Jews were being burned in a church in York, at that time, in England, they at least were allowed to survive and physically live under Arab rule. ..........So, one could say that in fact, there was a certain minimal degree of tolerance of Jews, but it wasn't a flourishing existence. What happened was that during the 19th Century, the Arab world imported many of the anti-Semitic motifs from Christian Europe, into the Middle East. And you have, for example, the famous 1840 DamasCUs Blood Libel [PH], which was based on a blood libel derived from Europe. You also had Arab interests in the protocols of the _____, which was, again, a forgery that came out of Russia. , So, to say that the Jews lived wonderfully under Arab rule, would be misrepresenting historical fact. But, at the same time, at least, Jews and Christians had a degree of safety, that perhaps they might not have had in other parts of the world at the time. ,00:03:00:00>>>INTERVIEWER: (Inaudible) that was here this morning also mentioned, in disCUssing the partition plan, he (Inaudible) and he said, the partition plan was unfair because 30% - or 20% of the land was owned by Jews, and actually more of it was owned by Palestinians, and it was a totally lopsided situation, where Jews were being given sovereignty over 50% ____ much less. What are we missing (Inaudible)? ,00:03:27:00>>>DORE GOLD: Of course, much of the land ownership in the early part of the 20th Century, in the British Mandatory Palestine was from absentee Arab landlords living in Lebanon. And you had, also, Palestinian peasants working the land. This also created a sense, among the Palestinians, that when the Jewish agency brought the land from the rich land owners, what about the poor peasants that were working the land, and created a sense of unfairness or injustice. But there was an effort, over the last century, by Jews around the world who were putting their pennies and dimes into little charity boxes of the Jewish National Fund, to buy the land that we developed. And the issue of sovereignty, of course, came later. ,00:04:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: They say that Israel - the hatred of America, on part of the terrorists, is because they support Israel. Might it be reversed? Might Israel really be just the larger hatred of western society in general, or might it be the opposite? ,00:04:50:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, one of the questions that motivated me to take up nine months of my work time, and write a book called Hatred's Kingdom, was to answer the question that President Bush asked right after 9/11 - why do they hate us? And what I discovered was that the way that Wajabi Islam developed in Saudi Arabia, from where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, was that in the 1960's and 1970's it became more and more preocCUpied with what they called crusaderism, which was a reference to the west. _____, as they would call them. And, in fact, the hatred of the west emanated from these deviant off-chutes of Islam like in the Arabian peninsula, which (let me try to rephrase this) - ,00:05:49:00>>>DORE GOLD: You know, one of the reasons why I took off nine months to write this book, Hatred's Kingdom, was because I wanted to answer the question that President Bush, himself, asked after 9/11, why do they hate us? And it became crystal clear to me, after a short period of time, that the hatred of the west did not emanate from the Arab-Israel conflict. Osama Bin Laden, for example, was much more preocCUpied with Czechnia, Kashmir, and with other conflicts involving Moslem radicals around the world, than he was with the Arab-Israel issue. And in fact, many Arab intellectuals have pointed that out. ,00:06:50:00>>>DORE GOLD: What motivated the September 11th attacks, and what continues to motivate Al Qaeda, is a fundamental hatred of western civilization. And Israel is only considered a microcosm of a much bigger tapestry. In fact, if you use the Iranian language, the Iranians refer to Israel as the little Satan, and they refer to the United States as the great Satan. So that Israel is despised because it's seen as an outpost to the west. The west isn't despised because of its support of Israel. ,00:07:10:00>>>INTERVIEWER: You once talked about - that the Sharon government agonizes over trying to spare as many civilians as possible. As a government official, can you testify to the degree of indifference between Israel agonizing over trying to minimize civilian causalities, at least to their own soldiers? ,00:07:23:00>>>DORE GOLD: I can share with you - I was called into a meeting in the planning branch of the Israel Army, about the time of the Jeanine incident. We were expecting a special investigatory group to come from the security council, or from the office of Secretary General _____, and we had to prepare for that eventuality. And I recall sitting with a military man who sat next to me on the left, who had a pile of army doctrine manuals, from different armies. And these different western armies explained, what do you do when you face a terrorist threat from a built up area like a city, what type of weaponry do you use. So these manuals all called for air strikes, they called for the use of artillery in built up areas with civilians, they called for the use of flame throwers. ,Well, I can tell you, the Israeli Army in Jeanine, did not use air strikes, it didn't use artillery, and it didn't use flame throwers. In fact, to the contrary, Israel sent in its soldiers, its ground forces, in diffiCUlt house to house combat, threatening the lives of our own soldiers so they could save the lives of innocent Palestinians. In the Jeanine battle, we lost about twenty-three Israeli soldiers. These were married men, they were from the ____. There are many orphans, as a result of those losses, today. Young children who don't - will never see their fathers again. And the reason why Israel sent in those ground soldiers, is because we don't carpet bomb Palestinian refugee camps. If there are terrorists there, we use our special forces, our ground units, in order to find those who are engaged in terrorism, without causing injury to innocent Palestinians. ,00:09:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Another charge that was raised by the Palestinian people; look at the difference in numbers. The Israelis (Inaudible). In light of Israeli concern, how do you achieve that ,statistical (Inaudible)? ,00:09:37:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, one thing is for certain, I think you have to look, not so much at numbers, I think you have to look at the strategies of both sides. The Palestinian military strategy, if you can call it that, is to target Israeli civilians. When they strap dynamite to the body of a young eighteen year old Palestinian, and tell him to walk into a hotel on March 27th, 2002, to kill as many Israelis who are having their Passover Satyr, together, that is an act which is intended to kill innocent civilians. When Israel sends an apache helicopter in the air, on the basis of intelligence, destroys a vehicle with three terrorists inside, and in that vehicle there is an innocent civilian. Israel is not directing its fire at civilians, its directing its fire at those who want to kill our civilians. There's a huge asymmetry between what both sides are doing. ,00:10:55:00>>>INTERVIEWER: The reality of the Oslo cause, you mentioned (Inaudible) today. You turn on the television and you just see Israeli checkpoints, Israeli reocCUpation ____. Is it today, has it gone back to a situation where it can (Inaudible) or are these defense measures in a war? ,00:11:01:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, I think we have to understand what has happened. You know, Israel signed the Oslo accords, in good faith, in September of 1993. In implementing the Oslo Agreements, Israel withdrew its military government over the Palestinians, and put in its place the Palestinian authority; a Palestinian government, under Yasser Arafat. So, that by the time we get to September 2000, when Arafat launches his war against Israel, the Palestinians are not under military ocCUpation. They have their own government. They don't have an independent state, but they're not under military ocCUpation, either. And the entire Oslo Agreement was also based, not just on the concept of Palestinian grievances, but on the concept of - on the basis of Palestinian responsibility. We're giving you this territory, you have to govern it. And you have to take responsibility for security in those areas. But what happened? Those Palestinian cities, which now came under the Palestinian authority of Yasser Arafat, became vast bases for Hamas, for Islamic Jihad, to launch suicide attacks in the heart of Israeli cities; buses went up in flames, explosions in the heart of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, even _____. And hundreds of Israelis have died. ,So now that the Israeli forces have had to reenter Palestinian cities, they've done so because the Palestinian security services failed to take responsibility for the territories that we turned over to them under the Oslo Agreement. Israelis do not want to be in Palestinian cities. They don't want to be going in and finding suspects and interrogating them. What we want is a Palestinian democratic government which takes responsibility for the areas under its control, including, I should say even especially, security. If that happens, we can ZOOM OUT from Palestinian cities, and there can be a Palestinian self-governing authority in the future. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:13:10:00>>>INTERVIEWER: What is motivating a young Palestinian to take his life like this? What kind of incentives could be placed? ,00:13:23:00>>>DORE GOLD: You know, most people who look at these suicide bombings from the outside think that a young person feels a sense of deprivation one day, opens up the refrigerator, nothing is there. He's seeing that people are wealthy on the other side of the fence. (Let me start again, that's not good). ,You know, most people who, for years, looked at the phenomenon of the suicide bombings in Israel, think that Palestinians, out of a sense of deprivation, or out of a sense of anger and rage, decide, spontaneously, to strap dynamite to themselves, walk into a crowded Israeli restaurant, and kill dozens of civilians. But terrorism is not just a spontaneous act. It requires a vast infrastructure to support it. It requires someone to purchase, and to acquire the weaponry, the explosive materials. It requires someone to transport those explosive materials to a forward position near an Israeli city. It requires somebody to gather intelligence, to find out that Jews go to the market place on Thursday, before the Sabbath, to make all their purchases. And therefore, that's an ideal date for time, for committing a suicide bombing. ,And finally, and I think perhaps most importantly, it requires brainwashing young people with religious doctrination, in order for them to believe that by taking their lives they will better their spiritual condition; that they will go directly to heaven and, on their day of judgment, they will proceed to a Islamic concept of paradise with 72 virgins, being able to bring their relatives to this even in the future. This religious indoctrination, I think, is one of the central elements in the motivation behind suicide bombers. There's a parallel element, of course, as well, which is the financial inducements given by states, by Iraq, of Saddam Hussein, or Saudi Arabia under King ____, and under Crown Prince Abdula [PH], who are pouring huge amounts of money, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars into Palestinian society to pay the families of suicide bombers. So that a young man who comes from a family of twelve or thirteen children can at least hope that by him taking his life he will be regarded by his family as a hero, as a shahid [PH], as a martyr. And he will also bring about tremendous financial benefit to his family, in the form of a five, ten, or twenty thousand dollar payment. ,00:15:50:00>>>INTERVIEWER: (Inaudible) ,00:15:57:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, we used to believe that suicide bombers were probably unmarried, were probably young, that they wouldn't give their lives and leave their families without a father. But we found that most of those profiles broke down. Many people in the west used to believe that suicide bombers were poor. But what we saw, for example, in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, is that these suicide bombers came from Saudi families who were well to do. Many of them could have gone and taken their flight training background, and flown Saudi princes in their Gulf Stream aircraft. But, in stead, for ideological reasons, because of deep, religious motivation, they decided that they preferred to destroy symbols of American civilization, and kill American civilians in the process. ,00:17:15:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Can Israeli concession with settlements, for example, buy off and placate and satisfy the ideological image of these suicide bombers? ,00:17:30:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well, you know, the big question is, what's the motivation? If the motivation was a limited parcel of territory, which the Palestinians want independence over, then one could make the argument that by simply Israel pulling back from disputed territory and giving it to the Palestinians, the whole threat of suicide bombing would end. But if you analyze the motivation of the organizations, that are sending these suicide bombers against Israel, they don't want a piece of the West Bank, they don't want a state in the Gaza Strip, they want Israel. And as a result, by Israel simply giving a settlement, or pulling back unilaterally, you wouldn't be ending the process of suicide bombing. We might be accelerating it, by showing that we could no longer withstand the threat that we're facing, and that we were pulling back, and we're on the run. ,00:17:55:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Settlements, just one thing about them, are - there seems to be a grievance, an obstacle for piece, a problem blocking the possibility of (Inaudible). Is there any acCUracy to that? ,00:18:03:00>>>DORE GOLD: Settlements are not really the issue. Settlements are sitting on territory, and territory is disputed. Israel has claims in the West Bank and Gaza, for seCUre borders, under Resolution 242. The Palestinians have claims in the West Bank and Gaza, for their Palestinian state. If you understand that these are disputed territories, the land is the issue. How much land do all the settlements sit on in the West Bank? If you actually could take a tape measure and figure out how much land the built up areas of settlements are sitting on, low and behold you would find that the settlements are sitting on 1.36% of the entire West Bank. Therefore, the settlements are an overstated issue. They may attract a lot of CNN and BBC cameras, but they are not the fundamental issue holding up an Israeli and Palestinian agreement. They are not the issue that is blocking peace. ,00:19:30:00>>>INTERVIEWER: If there were a credible Palestinian partner that could come up with a solution for a Palestinian self rule, balanced by _____, would settlements sabotage the whole process? ,00:19:45:00>>>DORE GOLD: Not at all. Because, in fact, the settlements are many times located in areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that Israeli governments, for years, have thought, are vital for Israel's defense. For example, there's a settlement called Ofla [PH], north of Jerusalem. Now, the settlement itself doesn't provide Israel with security, it's not, you know, young couples with baby carriages that are going to stop and Iraqi division from coming down into northern Jerusalem. But it happens at the settlement of Ofla, is next to Bahazur [PH], the main early warning station of the Israeli Air Force, Israel's Norad [PH]. And therefore, by retaining that settlement of Ofla, we're helping hold - we're helping Israel hold on to the Bahazur early warning station. And in many cases, the settlements, which were mapped out by Israel's Ministry of Defense, in the 1970's or the late 1960's, far defending partiCUlar Israeli security interests, that Israel would hope to retain, in any future territorial settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. ,00:20:10:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Just an elaboration on that. What is the reason why Israel can't go back to June 4th, 1967? Where is geostrategic, geographical reasons? ,00:20:26:00>>>DORE GOLD: Well one has to recall, in the June 1967 Six Day War, Israel came under attack from the West Bank sector. Jerusalem, our civilians, were hit by Jordanian infantry, and by Jordanian artillery. Jordan's armored forces were massed in the West Bank, and about to take over the narrower portions of Israel, near the Mediterranean. And because of that, that United Nations security Council, back in November of 1967, recognized that Israel entered The West Bank in a war of self defense. And, as a result, Israel was entitled, entitled to defense of - [let me start again.] And, as a result, Israel was entitled to defense of borders which would not be the same as the June 4th lines. Those lines happened to be where the Jordanian and Israeli armies stopped, in 1949. There were never permanent, political borders. ,00:22:00:00>>>INTERVIEWER: Another point, what did Israel have in common with the war on terror? How does Israel - the Israeli front resemble, and help as a - help in the larger American war on terror? ,00:22:10:00>>>DORE GOLD: The war Israel is facing, from organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is not a war over some limited piece of territory, or some kind of narrow grievance, it is an anti-civilizational war. It's an attempt to destroy Israel as a free democracy in the Middle East. Hamas, it's no surprise, is alive with Al Qaeda, who has much larger goals of not just taking the piece of the United States, or having some limited grievances in Europe, it wants to destroy American civilization. If we can demonstrate that it is possible to defeat these terrorist organizations, first and foremost militarily, economically, and finally, politically, there may be a chance, in the larger struggle against terrorism, to do the same. Because, ultimately, what we have to do is eliminate the military threat. But, at the same time, demonstrate a path towards co-existence with the Arab world, and with the Islamic world. Israel is determined to do that, and hopefully our western partners, our democratic partners in the U.S. and Europe, will do the same. ,00:22:20:00>>>INTERVIEWER: I have one point, does Jerusalem say something about Israel's claim and why it's worth the fuss and (Inaudible)? ,00:23:09:00>>>DORE GOLD: You know, over the years I became very close to the former prisoner of Zion [PH], Natan Sharanski [PH], who, of course, was in solitary confinement in a Soviet prison. And he shared with me his viewpoint that, first of all, what renovated or what restored the identity of Soviet Jews, who are under communisms for more than 50 years, was the identification with Jerusalem. And when he was in prison, what gave him strength, was the sentence, (Inaudible) - next year in Jerusalem. ,Jerusalem has a deep, spiritual, almost mystical relationship with the Jewish people. It's our direction of prayer. It is the city that has been the capitol of the Jewish people for three thousand years, even though we were forcibly thrown out of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire, had only come back after five hundred years. If the Jewish people were to ever give up sovereignty in Jerusalem, were to ever conceive Jerusalem, it would be a fundamental blow against the identity of the Jewish people as a whole. ,In a certain sense, I would say, over the last number of centuries, Jews have been divided among themselves, over whether we have a responsibility first and foremost to ourselves, a partiCUlar responsibility, or a universalistic responsibility to the entire human race, to all of mankind. Jerusalem is the one case, the one area where there is two responsibilities to converge, because in protecting the rights of the Jewish people, and the rights of Israel, to sovereignty in Jerusalem, we are fulfilling our universalistic mission to protecting Jerusalem, as a city open to all faiths. The moment we let down our guard and give up Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, we are abandoning our responsibility to all mankind, to keeping Jerusalem; a city that's open, a city of coexistence for all the great religions. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS]