A CONVERSATION WITH EHUD OLMERT

By Lally Weymouth
Sunday, November 12, 2006

After this past summer's controversial war in Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has lower poll numbers than President Bush. Olmert, who will meet with Bush in Washington this week, spoke with Newsweek-Washington Post's Lally Weymouth about the Middle East, Iran and the prospect of a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

What are you going to say to President Bush? Last year you told him you had a vision -- your convergence plan, which was to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank. Do you have a vision today?

The convergence plan was a vehicle to accomplish a vision shared by both President Bush and myself. This is a two-state solution. Before the war, I told the Israeli public that the first step I would take is to try to establish a credible process of negotiations, on the basis of the road map, with the legitimate Palestinian leadership. If that didn't work, then we would try [unilateral] realignment.

But after the war in Lebanon, you said the convergence plan was on hold.

After the fighting in Lebanon, and also the failure of the Palestinians to cope with continued terrorist actions, I have second thoughts about the ability to accomplish the two-state solution through realignment. It is definitely not dead but it has to be reexamined. One thing I can promise: Under no circumstances am I going to withdraw from the need to engage in a serious dialogue with the Palestinians, toward the implementation of the vision which I share with President Bush. The Palestinian issue is on the agenda. There is no way we can ignore it or that we would want to ignore it. We have to find the best partner to do it. A lot depends on the Palestinian leadership.

How do you feel about Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] as a partner?

He personally has shown consistently his opposition to terror and his discomfort with Hamas techniques. But it is incumbent upon him to do more than just say how uncomfortable he is with Hamas. He hasn't yet shown enough determination and inner strength to put down this government of terrorists and to reduce the influence of [Hamas leader] Khaled Mashal, who controls the officials of the Palestinian government from Damascus.

How do you feel about Abu Mazen entering into a unity government with Hamas?

Such a government can be measured by one criterion: Do they accept actively -- not just in theory -- the principles of the Quartet? If Hamas will formally accept these principles -- which are to recognize Israel's right to exist, to end all terror and hostile activities against Israel and to recognize and implement all the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- then I'll be ready to sit down with such a government even if it includes Hamas representatives.

So you don't have much hope that there's a partner you can engage with and you're not sure about the unilateral realignment plan you proposed last year. Do you have another idea?

I'm very encouraged by some developments that have taken place lately. The fighting in Lebanon made it much clearer that there are some shared interests between Israel and some of the more moderate Arab countries. We have very friendly relations with Jordan and with Egypt. As of late, I'm very impressed with the performance and policies carried out by the King of Saudi Arabia. And the leaders of the [United Arab] Emirates. One can feel that there is a broader examination of the region and also maybe a better understanding of some of the constraints Israel has to deal with. And also a realization that at the end of the day, Iran and the axis of evil made by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas is of greater danger not only to Israel but to some moderate Arab countries.

What are you referring to with regard to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates?

The position they took over the fighting in Lebanon, which was very courageous. In the past, the Saudis have expressed some ideas about a possible solution in the Middle East.

You're hinting that this might be another route for working with the Palestinians -- via Jordan and other moderate Arab countries?

We have to change the balance in the Middle East and the position of the radical elements of Palestinian society. I hope that with the joint efforts of Israel and America on the one side and the moderate Arab countries on the other side, something can be worked out that will help the more moderate elements within Palestinian society, led by Abu Mazen, to take over and establish the necessary conditions for a fruitful dialogue with us.

Has the United States asked you to release Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti from prison, and would you consider doing that?

I am ready to release many, many prisoners. I made it clear long ago that I am anxious to open up a new dialogue with Abu Mazen, and for that purpose, I'm ready to release many prisoners. Hamas's extreme inflexible attitude prevents the prisoners from being released because they refuse to let us have our soldier [kidnapped Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit]. . . . Hamas is not really interested in the well-being of its prisoners. They want to topple Abu Mazen at any cost.

You brought [Avigdor] Lieberman into your coalition. But people on the left perceive him as an extreme right-winger opposed to any kind of concessions with the Palestinians. Does he affect your position?

The policies of this government are not going to be changed and you can read my lips: I'm ready for territorial compromises, and I haven't changed my mind.

How do you see the threat posed by Iran?

This is the first time in many years that the official leader of a major nation with more than 70 million citizens has talked publicly and officially of the liquidation of another nation that is a member of the United Nations. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is a man who is ready to commit crimes against humanity, and he has to be stopped.

When Hitler began to talk about the liquidation of the Jewish race, people heard it. But they hardly did anything to stop it. And then for generations, nations and leaders had to explain why they didn't speak up. So we have to have a world campaign to emphasize the moral commitment that no one will be able to ignore what he says and what the possible ramifications may be.

There is also the process of negotiations. My position is clear: If there can be a compromise that will stop Iran short of crossing the technological threshold that will lead them into nuclear capabilities, we will be for such a compromise. But I don't believe that Iran will accept such compromise unless they have a very good reason to fear the consequences of not reaching it. In other words: Iran must start to fear.

Will you talk with Bush about Iran?

Bush is the last person on Earth who needs to be reminded of what should be done to stop Iran. If there is one person I can trust, it's him. I trust his moral integrity, I trust his moral commitment and I trust his determination.

Do you think regime change is the only way to stop this?

I can think of many different measures. The guideline has to be that this government and the people of Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community, they're going to pay dearly.

So you wouldn't rule out the military option?

I think my words were clear enough.

If the international community does not act, would Israel consider taking military action?

It is absolutely intolerable for Israel to accept the threat of a nuclear Iran. I prefer not to discuss the Israeli options. Israel has many options.

When you look back at the war last summer, do you feel it reduced Hezbollah's military strength but built them up politically?

I think Israel had a strategic, military and political success. Unfortunately, before the war, we lacked what we thought we had -- deterrence. They were not afraid of starting a fight with us because they thought our reaction would be entirely different. Now if you ask [Hezbollah leader Hasan] Nasrallah if he would want to repeat it, I'm sure his answer would be definitely not.

I know for sure through different sources that Hezbollah was close to total surrender. Now the presence of the Lebanese army in the entire southern region, together with a robust international force, is very significant. It creates a reality entirely different to anything that existed before July 12.

[Syrian] President [Bashar al-] Assad is sending out suggestions that he would like to talk to Israel. Why wouldn't it be a good idea to explore those hints?

If Assad was serious, he would have stopped his total support of Khaled Mashal, the man directly responsible for daily terrorist actions against Israel. I would be happy to negotiate with Bashar Assad, but on the basis of a certain environment, where you stop your support of terror and of Hezbollah. Assad doesn't show any sign that he's ready to do this.

But you negotiated with [Yasser] Arafat when he was in Tunisia , and he was certainly a terrorist.

I think we learned something about negotiations of this kind from this experience. I don't expect my enemies to be wonderful guys. But I want them to come with clean hands when they come to negotiate. Bashar Assad doesn't come with clean hands. When he comes with clean hands, I will talk to him.

If the United States gets out of Iraq, how does that affect the security of your country?

If there is a premature pullout before Iraq has a robust government with a strong authority that can keep the country from collapsing into an internal civil war, America will have to think about the possible ramifications on neighboring Arab countries with moderate governments. How will it affect the stability of these countries against the radical forces that might flourish as a result of a premature pullout of America?