tv Charlie Rose PBS October 21, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the programment tonight a conversation about the middle east with moshe ya'alon, israel's minister of defense. and we talk about israel, iran, the palestinians, isis and much more. >> this is a clash between civilizations. and actually islam in the history has declined. and you can see poverty exploited by their leaders. lack of relevant ideology like they adopted in the past like communism, or whatever. today islam, it seems to be the solution. this is the slogan. islam, this is the solution. and they know how to approach this frustrated people in their societies. to mobilize them, to become
either isis followers al qaeda followers,. but it is a vicious circle. i don't believe that a society will sank few that, might prevail. no chance. and they are deteriorating the situation regarding the economy and everything. because they sank few death rather than sank fewing life. >> rose: israel's minister of defense for the hour next. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" is provided by the following: >> rose: additional funding made possible by: >> and by bloomberg a provider of multimedia services worldwide.
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. moshe ya'alon is here, israel's minister of defense. he presided over this summary's 50 day war between israel and hamas, the islamic militant group that was in power in the gaza strip. more than 2,000 palestinians were killed in the war. the majority of them civilians. on the israeli side 67 soldiers and five civilians died. in fighting leveled most of gaza with some 60,000 homes damaged or destroyed. the reconstruction effort has begun but there are concerns will it will be in vain. ban ki-moon who visited gaza last week tolted reporters there can be no peace in the middle east, no security for israel while the crisis in gaza festers. the build destroy cycle must be broken, he said. international pressures build on israel to commit to peace negotiations. the most recent u.s. mediated talks collapsed in april. the iran nuclear program
remains israel primary concern. -- the powers negotiating with iran will again extend the deadline for reaching a deal. worrying that the campaign against isil will come at the expense of curtailing iran's nuclear program. having said all of that i'm pleased to have moshe ya long-- ya'alon at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you, it's good to be here. >> i know there are things i said that you quarrel with. we will come to that. give me your assessment, not from the perspective of what your government should do or wants to do, but as an analyst of national security issues of the threat from isis. >> isis is a very extreme group, generated by radical islam with the idea to create an islamic state as a claim to do it now whether iraq or syria. it might be very dangerous
for the interest in the region to include the western interests in the region as an aim to create this chall i fate, the isla islam-- caliphate, islamic state. so far they are far away from israel. they're not deployed along their border, neither with syria nor with lebanon. but they fight hezbollah in lebanon, they fight now the syrian armed forces or the kurds in kobane, well-known kobane in syria. they should be stopped, anyhow. they feel like they're on the march. they actually ask jihadists all over the world to join them. and the idea, which we call the awakening of the west to deal with them, creating the coalition, actually two coalition, western one in iraq and our coalition, most of them lead by the united states t to deal with them, it might be successful if
this operation is going to include not just air superiority but supporting the ground elements like the kurds in iraq, the kurds in syria, in other elements. to moderate the position, elements in syria, supporting them to fight isis. >> rose: what's the threat that they pose to baghdad today? >> they intend to take over baghdad, as they intend to take over whatever is available like damascus. they are deployed already close to baghdad. but if the coalition is going to use air superiority in an effective way, they can be stopped. of course there is a need for the iraqi armed forces to deal, to do the job on the ground. >> rose: can they do it? >> with air superiority support of the coalition, i believe that they can.
>> rose: an they're prepared to fight, not like the earlier encounters they had with isil. >> that's a problem but what are the other options. they are there, they should fight for the capitol. they should be encouraged to fight. it should be supported to fight. and using their superiority t might be achievable. >> rose: so air superiority coming not only from the united states but from say turkey and the arab countries that are part of the coalition is enough to stop ice snil. >> no, it's not enough. at the end you need boots on the ground. western boots on the ground,. >> rose: but iraqi troops are enough boots on the ground or not. >> they are boots on the ground. >> rose: but they are enough? you don't need boots on the ground from the west or from the united states to do the job? >> i don't believe that this is the right thing to do, to have western boots on the ground. but yes, to support the current boots on the ground, whether it is iraqi armed forces, the peshmerga and
other, to support meaning to equip them, to train them, and to encourage them to fight. and other element that should be exercised is approaching the local elements like the tribal leaders, to convince them-- . >> rose: the tribal leader. >> yeah, to get rid of isis. to confront isis in the areas which are controlled now by this fundamental extremist group. >> rose: and what do you think the iranians are doing? >> first of all, they have their own interests, in iraq as well as in syria, pro teingting baghdad, protecting the shi'a regime in iraq. and protecting bashar al-assad regime in syria. but they are playing a nasty role in the region, actually, iran is the main generator and instigator for instability in the region. there are elements in
afghanistan not to allow stability in afghanistan, and supported in iraq, both shi'a and sunnies as well to kill each other, to not allow a soiled, stabilized strong iraq. this is their interest. now they're involved in many other places by supporting hezbollah, by supportin supporting-- islamic jihad. and today, they gain agimony in yemen, using the shi'a elements so anyhow, they're playing a very negative role in the region by undermining those regime who are looking for stability. >> rose: but they are opposed to isil. >> yes, they are opposed to isis, this is their immediate interest, because icist threatens the shi'a regime in iraq, and of course the certain bashar al-assad regime,. >> rose: but if it's necessary to stop isil or isis and it's not sufficient with the iraqi ground forces, should they use militias
supported by iran on the ground. >> in the current chaotic situation in the middle east which is going to suffer from chronic instability for a very long period of time, we might witness ad hoc coalitions, strange coalitions between different parties. sharing common enemies so, it might happen, as you mentioned it. >> rose: and it wouldn't be such a bad thing if you could stop isil? >> no, in this case, we-- we, yes, we should watch it and look at it and allow them to do the job, if it is serving the western interests. >> rose: and what about assad. should you in syria say let's not be trying to overthrow assad until we stop ice il? -- isil? >> at the end, historically, morally, bash orr-- kbarbar
al-assad should step down. but today he is controlling about 25% of syria. it's another reflection of the-- in syria. so we, israel, we do not intervene. we don't take any side. we do have interest in the situation across the border in which the free syrian army militias are operating. and they do-- we watch carefully the other elements like al-nusra and others across the border. as long as they do not deal with us, we don't deal with them. and we are not going to decide about the future of syria. but we keep our interests. that is a way that we manage now the situation and developing the current situation along the border because of that. because of your success at covert action when you need to use it, is it possible for the u.s. special forces
or some other combination of forces to take out the leader of isis? >> yes, why not. if you enjoy intelligent superiority, and air superiority, at the end, you know, should be found. and it can be targeted as we do it, we did it, yes. i believe it's possible. >> i assume that that kind of mission is under way, they just haven't been able to put it all together, wouldn't you? >> yes. >> i thought would you say that. >> thank you for your honest-- what does israel want to do? does it want to participate? does it think it could make a difference? and does it appreciate the fact that many people say no, if israel participates, it's so counterproductive that it would not help us.
>> we have enough challenges apart from isis, far away from us. but you know that we have very good relationship with many parties. who participate in the coalition, first of all as the united states. some other than person parties. and as well as -- >> saudi arabia. >> our parties. so by having this bilateral relationship, sharing intelligence and so forth, this is our contribution to the operation. we understand that he's quite sensitive to have a publicly on board. >> so you can do it covertly and privately but not publicly. >> yeah. >> got you. >> president obama said it will take 30 years. it's a long effort against isis or isil. what does he mean by that, why does it take 30 years? >> i'm not sure it might take 30 years. but we should be ready to a
very long period of time. we should be patient, generally speaking. >> rose: patient. >> patient, yes, patient. because you know, we want instant food. we want instant peace, we want instant democratization, we should be patient. and it is a long process to deal with this jihadists. it's a matter of heart and minds, dealing with money, takes time. so we should be ready for a long operation. >> rose: you said, or it has been said that i think prime minister netanyahu may have said that isis and hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree, do you believe that? >> that's right, yes, yes. what we are talking now in the middle east is about radical islamic movements, aiming to gain hegemony and
to create a new caliphate. whether it is a shi'a way of iran to gain hegemony and export the revolution as they claim and they try to do it by having-- in lebanon, syria, afghanistan, in africa, wherever. their aspiration t might be beyond imagination but to control the world according to their way. >> rose: but suppose they article with you that-- argue with you that hamas and hezbollah both participate in the government, that they're not only just interested in sort of radical islam as a movement, but they are trying to do things within their own respected countries. >> that's right. it's, you know, it's a practical measure, tactical measures in what way to do it. but the muslim brotherhood way is to impose muslim brotherhood ideology all over the region, talking
about hamas as an example, the movement in egypt, and also supporting the muslim brotherhood today. >> but are those groups, muslim brotherhood in your judgement and hamas which is said to be the muslim brotherhood in gasa, do they have and do you view them as the same as isis? >> oral nusra? >> the difference is instead of beheading the abducted-- . >> rose: kidnapped. >> the kidnapped civilians, they should-- but generally speaking, the idea of al qaeda, isis, muslim brotherhood, is to impose their way of islam. all over the world, all over the world. first of all, in the middle east. this is their intentions. so they might fight each other and they might cooperate in certain cases, the ad hoc coalition. but the way is exporting and imposing their way of islam.
each of them is right. >> but dow believe there is something in islam that motivates them or simply these are really radical jihadist terrorists who in part are as people like other leaders have said, other muslim leaders have said, they kidnap the religion. there is nothing in islam that argues that they should be this way. >> yes, i agree with that. >> rose: it's not islam, it's these people. >> this is their interpretation of islam. but we can't ignore the fact that first of all, not all muslims are jihadists. >> rose: but the majority are not. >> but all jihadists are muslims. >> rose: so what does that mean? i'm intrigued by that. >> you know, this is the clash between civilization. and actually is ram, in the history has declined. and you can see poverty exploited by their leaders. lack of relevant ideology,
like they adopted in the past, like communism in arab countries or whatever, today islam, it seems to be the solution. this is the slogan. islam will help this is the solution. and they know how to approach these frustrated people in their societies. to mobilize them to become either isis followers, al qaeda followers, muslim brotherhood follower, but it is a vicious circle. i don't believe as a society we sank few death might prevail. no chance. and there are deteriorating the situation regarding the economy and everything. because they sank few death rather than sank fewing life. >> rose: but someone once said, i think it was edmund burke who said for evil to triumph, all that is necessary in his case, he said, is for good men to do
nothing. >> that's right. >> rose: that's why we feel like there is awakening now, creating the coalitions against isis, and of course, we in our case, israel, are calling to the west to confront it, not to ignore it, not to escape from it. >> rose: has it done enough? you said you're encouraging the west to confront it. has the west done enough? and are you convinced that they now have come together to stop them? >> not enough. >> what should they be doing? >> you know, let's discuss the iranian side. iran has become to be the main instigator for instability in the region. they were under pressure, political isolation, economic sanctions, they were afraid from internal uprising because of the economic situation and they are afraid from a military option. today i would say that
they're quite happy. there's no political isolation any more. the economic sanctions are going to be lifted because they agree to discuss the military include clear-- nuclear project with the charm offensive. so there is no chance for internal uprising. there is no credible military options w that in mind, iran is going to be very happy from the current negotiations about the nuclear project, not talking about the terror activities. still on the way. the missile systems and so forth and so forth so when i'm talking about the west, the west should defend itself by confronting this evil element whether it is iranian regime, whether it is isis, al qaeda, muslim brotherhood elements in the region, who interpret islam their way. they should be confronted by
the west all over the region, and beyond. what about the situation in europe. so yes, it's not enough. >> but to do more is to do what? >> first of all, to fight heart and minds. not to think about democratization by elections, to provide the ideas including the basic values that we believe in like sanctity of life. by education rather than by elections. we shouldn't be how, you should be patient in this regard as well. and then to fight it by not allowing them the financial system which support them. and of course, if it is needed to fight by military means as well. >> rose: with troops coming from where. >> just of all, enjoying the
air superiority, the technologies, the advantages of the west in this regard. and of course, to use those elements on the ground who already to fight those elements. because they are certain by this radical element. and they are everywhere, in syria, in iraq, in lebanon, everywhere. >> rose: how close do you think today iran is to having enough material and a delivery system for a nuclear potential? >> it's about a year. >> rose: about a year. >> yeah. >> rose: not more than that. and. >> so unimpeded within a year, they can have the capacity, both in terms of delivery as well as -- >> absolutely. they are not discussed in the current negotiations.
what they want to keep regarding this negotiations is the indigenous capability to enrich uranium. this is critical for them, to keep the military option t the military nuclear option. that's why they insist about the centrifuge. now if they have the indigenous capable to enrich uranium, to enrich uranium to about 90% t might make them a couple of months. and then if they have the capability to put this as a weapon, and we believe that they might have it, then they might have a bomb within a year. >> rose: at what level, at what moment would israel think we have to strike? >> i believe that the prime minister netanyahu put it very clearly here, the general assembly, a year ago, with the red line. >> rose: where is the red line? >> the red line is the amount of enriched uranium which might be used by them,
to have enough materials to have one bomb, so that is 250 kilogram, of 20% enriched uranium. >> rose: and that's a year away. >> even less. but the process to have a bomb, it might take them one year. >> rose: there are those who argue that israel can only delay. it cannot take out their nuclear potential. >> you know, even members of israeli cabinet argued in 1981 when we decided to tak take-- as i said t might be a delay. they might get another reactor from the french at the time. so within four months, one year they might have the renewed facility. but as well as we know, it
hasn't happened. >> so why do you need to even worry about this, because president obama has said it's unacceptable and the united states. >> first of all. >> will not allow them. >> so you don't have a worry, do you. president of the united states he'll take care of it. >> we appreciate very much the common objective. by one way or another, military or nuclear project should be stopped. but we are afraid that we might have bad deal. and we claim that no deal is better than bad deal. because by having a bad deal, and lifting the sanctions, not having any more political isolation. >> so is it fair so say israel prefers there be no deal? >> other than bad deal, if there is a deal, it will include full cessation of any fuel cycle. this might be a good deal. >> but i mean a good deal
for you is they have no, i mean -- >> no indigenous capability to enrich uranium. >> by that means no capacity in iran to enrich uranium. >> that's right. >> that's the only thing that would -- >> that is the main issue now. the main issue now, of course, no, delivery system should be discussed as well. >> but it's not discussed as you said. >> as a terror activity, generated by iran it's not discussed. but the main point which we should be focused on is full cessation of the fuel site. >> they're not going to do that. >> so let's wait and see what will happen. at the end we understand that israel should be ready to defend itself by itself. >> but don't you trust the united states to do it? >> we understand that the framework of the discussions now is not about full cessation. it's about the number of the-- they should have. we claim they shouldn't have even one. >> if are you discussing only the number of centrifuges they should have, then that is by definition
in your view a bad deal. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. to put it very frankly. >> i just did. >> so we will have to deal with the consequences. >> rose: several things will happen, there will be response and retaliation against israel. perhaps against the united states's embassies. you will lose the-- you will all of a sudden all the people in iran will become nationalistic an support the regime. it's only, many argue it's more counterproductive than productive to do that. >> i don't want to-- . >> rose: don't you fear the reprisal on part of what they might do? >> i don't want to deal with certain scenarios. >> rose: you have to. that is what your job is to deal with scenarios. >> to do it in enclosed doors, not publicly.
you know, because the developing situation in the middle east is, you know, might be surprising, as we see it. can you remember isis two years ago. >> rose: no. >> no, so developing situations, so let's exploit the developing situation to our advantage. >> rose: how do you do that? >> i put it this way. we didn't name what we call the geo political-- in the region, neither arab spring norris lambic winter. we are realistic. and we look for opportunities as as well. and you can understand it, if you share common interests, i'm talking about common enemies with certain parties in the region, there are opportunities to cooperate with them. in this regard, all geo political situations in the
middle east have been changed. new division. you have the radical shi'a axis lead by iran. you have the muts limb brotherhood axis lead by turkey and qatar, unbelievable, turkey a member of nato, part of the muslim brotherhood. you have-- . >> rose: why, wait, wait stop. the erdogan president, president erdogan and his government are part of the muslim brotherhood axis. >> muslim brotherhood follower. can you ignore it. who supported hamas last summer, qatar and turkey. this is the case. looking to the turkish strategy, policy regarding the coalitions, that is their own interest. very interest different to the american interest. this is the case. we are familiar and we suffer from it. but you know, we can manage finding all kinds of common interests with others like the sunni afghan. so by saying it, the
developing situation is producing opportunities, not just risks. and we believe that we know how to exploit it. >> rose: how do you exploit it? >> you know, having cooperation, ready to cooperate. >> rose: here is what i hear you saying. you're saying you know, after the united states, i'm adding an element. after the united states did not attack damascus, even though assad had crossed the red line, a lot of people in the arab world who didn't like assad got very concerned. and they began to reassess after that, and after the overthrow of mubarak in egypt. who was their friend in the region and who could they do common cause with in the re
reg-- regon. and so saudi arabia and the emirates looked around and they said oh my god, we have the same interests as israel. that's what you are saying. >> it's a good analysis. so my question is where does that lead you to. you're saying we've got friends. we've got new friends, saudi arabia, the emirates. so tell me what that impact of that on the ground is. we can go back to the prime minister's speech here in the general assembly recently. >> rose: right. >> when he was talking about the political horbzon. he didn't talk about-- and ramallah. the way to political horizon in the region is not in ramallah but is going via some other capitols in the region to our own mind. but in order to reach it, it's another problem which we call it misconceptions,
and also believe when we talk about a peaceful situation, we have to look to official, formal agreements written by lawyers. we don't believe in it. we believe in interests. >> yes. >> it might be big six in the region. anyhow, you need big stick, and carrots, sharing common interests, common enemies. that is the west's best way to manage the polit sqaltion in the region. >> rose: so what else you are saying is that if we're forced to attack iran, we think we can count on these aforementioned countries to be supported covertly of what we did. >> i don't want to discuss this scenario. but anyhow. >> rose: . >> not just the iranian common enemy what about isis, what about al qaeda, what about the muslim brotherhood as the common enemy. hamas wasn't supported by those sunni arab countries. neither by egypt nor by
jordan, saudi arabia, unit add rab emirates and so forth. so interesting. >> rose: israel's new best friends. >> might be. >> rose: do you think of the united states as in the same place as all the above mentioned countries or because after mubarak and after damascus and assad's crossed the red line, there was, it is publicly acknowledged, some questioning of america's commitment. has the president's trip to see king abdulla and other events caused those countries to say we're reassured now. whatever question we had, we know america's prepared to do the right thing. >> it might be. but anyhow, the united states is our best ally. >> rose: israel's best ally. >> yeah. >> no doubt about it. and of course we enjoy the
relationships, the cooperation between the two defense establishment, the minister of defense, the use of armed forces by general dempsey-- dempsey and the israeli defense forces by the general and the cooperation between the terrorist forces. >> and the forces lead by you. >> israeli defense forces are lead by me, yes, by us, yes, sure. so and the united states is our best ally. and this is the most powerful party all over the globe regarding military might, economic power, and political power. on certain issues we share a couple of disputes but we have -- >> where is the dispute on issues? >> settlement is clearly the disputed issue.
but there was the dispute as to how far you want in gaza too. you went more and you did things that they didn't want you to do. it doesn't seem to stop you. if the president of the united states publicly acknowledges their differences, and privately and urges you to stop. >> i prefer to discuss the disputes in closed doors. it's the relationships are too important to do it publicly. >> rose: but publicly you and others say your ambassador all say on the national security level, the cooperation, military to military has never been better. >> that's right. >> rose: correct? >> absolutely. >> rose: so what are you worried about? >> you know, my biggest dispute about the iranian issue which we discussed, about what should be done on the israeli-palestinian truck, which came out and publicly, unfortunately, and so forth and so forth. >> you denied saying something about john kerry.
i'm not sure you denied it or basically you said nobody heard me say that so far. -- therefore. >> that is correct. >> that's nobody heard me saying it. >> rose: so therefore nobody could say you said it. you haven't denied saying itment you just simply say nobody heard me say that. >> you know, we have as i said very good relationship. we appreciate-- rdz you have already said that. >> the u.s. assets on any issue rdz you already said that. >> it doesn't mean that we don't have disputes on certain issues. >> rose: what was wrong with secretary kerry trying to find a way to get a peace agreement between palestinians and israelis? i mean dow accept the idea that there could be a peace treaty between israel and palestinians, that gave the palestinians their own state, it would end-- and israeli's national security was secure, that's a good thing. >> theoretically are you right. but i have the experience
with the palestinians for more than 20 years,. >> rose: which tells you what? >> and unfortunately, the international discourse regarding the israeli-palestinian conflict is dominated by two many misconcepts. one of them is, you know, what is the call for instability in the middle east. also the israeli-palestinian conflict. we strongly deny it. >> rose: i understand. >> the uprising in tunesia and the revolution, counterrevolution in egypt, the ongoing civil war in syria, is not because of us. let's leave it alone then. and the next misconception is regarding the core of the conflict. what is it all about. whether it's territorial, to be concluded along '67 lines, which personally, i supported. i supported personally oslo. >> rose: i know you did. >> but when i realize and i found that which don't have a partner on the palestinian side, neither arafat at that
time or abu now talking about hamas, talking about our right to exist as a jewish state in any brown boundary, i realize we should find another way. not just talking about '67 line, palestinian state. and actually-- jz. >> rose: jerusalem as the capitol. >> they enjoy political independence. they are two political entity one in gaza lead by hamas and one in the west bank. >> rose: but that changing. >> it might be changing, but nevertheless they enjoy political independence. that's fine. we don't want to govern them. >> rose: okay, but you seem to be saying i no longer believe nay two state solution. that seems like what you are saying. that they have their own independence, already, so therefore they don't need a state. is that what you are saying, are you saying that? >> you might call it a state. you might call it the palestinian empire. it's going to be an autonomy. it's going to be their
militarized, and yes, in order to encourage them, as we don't want to goff enthem. they should be competent to govern themselves. >> rose: your prime ministercuyo state solution. >> yeah. you might say everything, i believe in the palestinian empire. what does it mean. it's going to be an autonomy. >> rose: why can't you call it a state? >> i was ready to recognize our right to-- are they ready to recognize our right to exist as a jewish state, abu mazza and from arafat, not talking about hamas, and this is the core of the conflict. they believe that '67 lines is just a stage. their ambition is not to have a palestinian state. otherwise they would have had it. because annapolis proposal, camp david proposal, oslo pro-- proposal even the u.n. transition proposal, they rejected all of it. because their aim is not to have a palestinian state of '67 lines, but to destruct the jewish state.
this is the idea. that's why you don't say even two states for two peoples. it denies the existence of the jewish people. >> rose: you believe that is the position of abbas. >> absolutely. can you quote him saying that israeli to recognize the right to exist as a station as a jewish people or to consider the compromise as the end of -- >> you can you can quote him saying it. than he is a tricky way of abbas. >> rose: let me ask you this. at camp david when barak was negotiating, was a recognition of a jewish state part of the negotiations? >> no, no. >> rose: no but you added that later. >> no, we didn't add it later. rabin tried to put it in oslo. and he failed. so his condition to agree to oslo was to get a side letter from arafat in which
arafat was committed to change the palestinian charter in a way that would be recognition of israel as a jewish state. and he didn't do it. he didn't do it. why didn't he do it. >> rose: arafat didn't do. >> arafat didn't do it. >> rose: he did it because -- >> because he-- he didn't want to recognize our right to exist as a jewish state. and the other maneuvers to avoid it, just demonstrate their ideology. this is their ideology. why abu mazza is not ready to stay two states for two people. he doesn't recognize the existence of the jewish people. he claims-- neither nationality, no people,. >> rose: but i came to an agreement which they later failed to move forward on, with ohlmert then the prime minister. >> he escaped it, again. like they escaped camp david. >> rose: because they do not want a deal. >> absolutely. in the way that would be a
conclusion of the conflict within '67 lines. they want more. so he is not ready to make the critical decision because es knee a position to blame us because it is not well understood. even by our allies. >> rose: if, in fact, all the things that are separate israel and the palestinians now, '67 borders which you said i would be okay with, can be fixed, i'm not sure about jerusalem as a center of government for the palestinians. they want part of east jerusalem as the center of their government. could you ever accept that? >> no. >> rose: no? >> no, their intention is not to have a palestinian state. as long as this is the case, and you know, i served as the head of the intelligence under rabin, '95. and i came to mr. rabin in august '95 saying you know, i have to warn you, this is
a dow jonesic early warning, i don't-- strategic early warning, i don't see arafat preparing his people for reconciliation coexistence with us. in contrary, he prepared them for jihad. holy war and martyrdom. and i realize it not because of my sophisticated intelligence sources. but just had to look at the palestinian educational-- and this is the case now. looking to the way that they educate the young generation. three years old kids are educated to wear explosive vests, to kill whom to hate the jews. i'm not talking about hamas, i'm talking about fatah, about the palestinian authority easy case curriculum. if this is the case, what are we talking about? this is the way to encourage, to promote peace? and that's the way that we should concentrate in. and it is to the going to come by decisions on the security council or general
assembly. it should be worked i call it from the bottom up. as we don't want to rule them, as we don't want to govern them. we want them to enjoy-- . >> rose: but answer me the question, do you want them to have a state. >> to have whatever they call it t will be an autonomy. >> rose: i'm not trying to play games, i'm trying to understand. you don't want to call it a statement you don't what want to say. >> it should be discussed in negotiations. but really t is going to be autonomy. can they survive without us. >> rose: what is the difference between autonomy and a state, i don't understand. >> call it an empire t doesn't matter. if become a term. >> rose: call it a state with membership-- call it a state with membership in the united nations and recognized by other states and if you want to deal with palestinians, you go to the state of palestine to deal with them and where their capitol is and where their diplomats is and where their head of government is. >> i will be ready to discuss it when they recognize our right to exist
as a nation state of the jewish people. this is not the case. so i'm not ready to discuss it. nevertheless, can they be really independent? talking about the economy. they are dependent on us. talk approximating about infrastructure, electricity, water, they are dependent on us. that's fine. we can --. >> rose: some would argue that if, in fact, they had been at the time of rabin and when his hopes were there you know, that if in fact you could have found a way to find an agreement then, after rabin and arafat came over to see the president of the united states at the white house, clinton, that if we could have had an agreement and built on it you now, because of economic reasons and because of all kinds is of developing relationships, israel and the palestinians would be in a much better place today. >> again, it's not going to be a states in a way that you imagine it.
its should be-- you know, the paris agreement betweens that the shekel is a money. the currency, the official currency. you can't have in such tiny place with all the problems to have their own economy. they are not going to have a viable economy without us. they are dependent on us. and this is the case in terms of security. you know that we foiled a terror cell lead by hamas recently last summer, '96 terrorist intending to overthrow abu mazza, we saved him some this kind of cooperation, together, economy, security t means autonomy. let's have their own government, their own parliament, their own municipalities, they enjoy it already, political independence. but militarized and so forth so it is not a state as you
imagine. but this is the only way to live together. >> rose: this is philip stevens. israel is losing its friends in the world again, misconceptions. >> yeah, absolutely. absolutely. you know, we were already for compromise, i personally supported oslo. >> rose: i know did you. >> but with this experience with the palestinians in which any territory, any piece of territory which was delivered to their responsibility, it become either safe haven for terrorists, homicide bomb evers, until we move from the defense to offensive shield operation, 2002, we suffer from homicide bombings all over the country. more than-- 1now casualties. rocket launching pads as we witness now in the gaza strip with. this experience in mind, do you believe that the only way is to-- what did we gets,
from gaza and-- you know, the area that we deliver to their responsibility. >> rose: so you don't ever want to give up the west bank? >> you know, we discuss all issues. we gave up the areas which are now considered areas a and areas b. but i can't imagine in the current situation any restrictions to our freedom of operation in the current situation, in the west bank. otherwise we want to see hamas-- global jihad-- . >> rose: suppose you are a young palestinian in gaza or the west bank. and you hear defense minister, a man which a distinguished career in israel and who as you said supported oslo, who is willing to do things, say what you just said, does that give any hope to them? >> yes. they enjoy political
independence. we are ready to-- . >> rose: they can elect the leaders they want, they lech people who support hamas, then more power to them, it's their choice. >> they have now the right to vote to their parliament, to elect their government. >> rose: but that's what happened in gaza, they elected the hamas. >> okay. let's wait and see what they will elect in the west bank. but nevertheless, we are encouraging, promoting the economy from the bottom up. allowing them to live in dignity and to enjoy well-being. this is not the case with hamas in the gaza strip. this is the case in the west bank now. and we encourage it. this is a way to have hope in the future. otherwise their intention is very different, not to live independently, but to destroy us, to kill us,. and if this is the case, you know t anyhow, it's not any concession, is not going to
be useful. >> rose: as you know their arguments about what happened in gaza. and some will argue notwithstanding all the damage and all the casualties, that hamas won because they survived. >> yes, you know, the white flag of hamas and hezbollah is something like that. >> rose: correctly. >> victory. at the end, they accepted the egyptian initiatives that they rejected from the beginning. i understand them, why they reject i gyp shan initiative it is not in their favor. an nevertheless, they paid a very heavy price for the ongoing provocations, launching more than 45-- 4500 rockets and mortar shells on our civilians. and as we had to respond to defend our people.
and they did it from densely populated area in the gdza strip. >> everybody recommended your right to defend yourself. everybody did. they may call into question whether you went further than you had to go. but they recognize your right to defend, everybody. but they sur prived and they got $5 or $6 billion from donor nations to rebuild. >> we support any idea of reconstruction in gaza. and improving the economy of gaza. >> rose: how about a seaport and an airport. >> not at all. because we can't trust them. if they have seaport and airport, it would be very evidence for them to smuggle, to import rockets and missiles from iran, from other parties in the region. and you know, we disengaging from gaza in 2005 to address
their territorial grievances, i rejected it as the chief of staff at that time because i understood that it was going to create an islamic state. >> rose: in other words, you did not want to leave gaza. >> what dow mean to leave gaza. what we had in gaza, it is another misunderstanding. we had the gazas living in gaza, we were not involved it there. we do not-- we didn't deploy there. they enjoy their autonomy, let's say this way. we had settlers in th the-- isolated, not confiscating palestinian-- actually providing work, 3700 palestinians were employed in the settlement. 4500 palestinian families enjoy the industrial zone. they decided to destroy it. it's another fact which demonstrates their
willingness, whether to live together, coexistence, reconciliation, or to fight us. that's another example. now when we-- from the gaza strip, the option, spend the money on the economy, to export, and not to manufacture and export rockets. but they choose the way of rock ets. that's why we have to keep them and to take the security measures. >> rose: so in other words,. >> because it will be certain problems. >> rose: your opinion on the west bank is informed by what you saw happen. >> absolutely. and what i saw in the west bank when we restove from nablus and other cities, areas a in the west bank which had become to be homicide bomber launcher. just when we move to the offense, and the defensive shield operation, we enjoy the operation, then we enjoy
now-- because of our activities. >> rose: what could change your mind so that you would be supported-- supportive of a palestinian state a lock the 67y borders and not even worrying about the other elements. what could change your mind? >> educational reform. looking to the textbooks, seeing that there is no education for hatred. there is education for peace like in our side. this is the way that we educate our kids in israel. and of course, the polit call leadership, according to this change which is needed. and education, the first signal, for me, to start to trust option of having peace with them. otherwise, we should keep the by cooperating, by
keeping the economy, ready to fight any threat generated whether from the gaza strip or from the west bank. >> rose: thank you for coming, it was a pleasure to meet you. >> thank you. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlie rose.com captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought to you in part by -- >> thestreet.com. featuring stephanie link who shares her investment strategies, stock picks and market insights with action alerts plus, the multimillion dollar portfolio she manages with jim cramer. you can learn more at thestreet.com/nbr. how about them apples? apple beats the street with strong demand for its iphone and says next quarter will be even better than it expected. >> third quarter earnings were disappointing. they weren't what we expected. we saw some slowdowns. >> big blue bummer. ibm's latest earnings were not what the ceo expected. she also ditched the company's profit road map, dumped its chip unit and by the end of the day the stock had