:00:11. > :00:18.Welcome to HARDtalk from Jerusalem. There is an unmistakable sense of
:00:19. > :00:25.diplomatic apprehension in Israel right now, and at the heart of it, I
:00:26. > :00:28.recognition that on a number of key issues, from Iran and its nuclear
:00:29. > :00:36.programme to peace talks with the Palestinians, Israel is out of step
:00:37. > :00:43.with its key ally the United States. My guest today is senior Israeli
:00:44. > :00:44.Minister Yuval Steinitz. In strategic terms, can Israel afford
:00:45. > :01:09.to go it alone? Yuval Steinitz, welcome to HARDtalk.
:01:10. > :01:16.My pleasure. In this country, you have responsibility for what is
:01:17. > :01:21.called the Iran file. Iran has a new president, and there is a new tone
:01:22. > :01:27.coming from the politicians there, and America clearly wants to in
:01:28. > :01:37.gauge with the new leadership. Wide as Israel not support that American
:01:38. > :01:43.strategy? We hear a new tone from Hassan Rouhani, but we have to see
:01:44. > :01:52.if there is new substance. Tone is important, but not sufficient.
:01:53. > :01:59.Israel is not against diplomatic negotiation. This has been going on
:02:00. > :02:12.and off for almost ten years, starting in 2003. We are not closing
:02:13. > :02:27.the door to the diplomatic solution. On the contrary, if the United
:02:28. > :02:32.States and the P five plus one will stick to a diplomatic solution, we
:02:33. > :02:39.will endorse it. If tone is important, is it not time that
:02:40. > :02:43.Israel changes its tone? You yourself said the other day that the
:02:44. > :02:50.new Iranian president represents a charm and smiles attack that is a
:02:51. > :02:52.danger to the whole world. Your Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu,
:02:53. > :03:03.described Hassan Rouhani as a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think it was
:03:04. > :03:10.important to emphasise that this is on the one hand, are more positive,
:03:11. > :03:23.moderate tone. But you shouldn't be misled. You are getting reports from
:03:24. > :03:31.your own military intelligence that something significant is happening
:03:32. > :03:43.in Iran. A leaked report said that what it sees inside Iran is real
:03:44. > :03:47.changes in the internal workings inside Iran that is significant and
:03:48. > :03:55.strategic. This is true, and I really believe, hope, that Hassan
:03:56. > :04:02.Rouhani is serious about making domestic reforms. Reducing the
:04:03. > :04:07.pressure on young people in opposition, reducing persecution,
:04:08. > :04:16.sometimes the execution of homosexuals. But is it a new
:04:17. > :04:22.substance? So far we haven't seen any real willingness of the Iranians
:04:23. > :04:30.to give up the military nuclear project. Let me be very clear. There
:04:31. > :04:37.can be a very simple, logical solution. Let Iran have the
:04:38. > :04:43.permission to produce nuclear electricity, and the only request is
:04:44. > :04:46.that they will buy the fuel from Holland or France, like most
:04:47. > :04:54.countries that produce nuclear electricity. Sweden, Alger,
:04:55. > :05:00.Switzerland, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, many other countries
:05:01. > :05:05.produce nuclear energy, but they buy their nuclear fuel elsewhere. But it
:05:06. > :05:12.is not Israel's prerogative to tell Iran that it cannot under any
:05:13. > :05:17.circumstances in which uranium. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear
:05:18. > :05:20.Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has a right under controlled circumstances
:05:21. > :05:24.to enrich uranium, and the new government in terror and says they
:05:25. > :05:28.are paired to talk about the scale, the level, the volume of an
:05:29. > :05:41.enrichment programme, but they are not prepared to abandon their right
:05:42. > :05:48.to enrichment. It is a right and duty especially in of such
:05:49. > :05:53.measurement, do they have the right to wipe out these reforms? But they
:05:54. > :06:01.need to be more specific. There is no automatic legitimate right to
:06:02. > :06:14.enrich uranium. The UN Security Council already decided there were
:06:15. > :06:19.five legitimate decisions that you cannot build centrifuge facilities
:06:20. > :06:26.to enrich uranium. Why should Iran not comply with Security Council
:06:27. > :06:35.resolutions? It is not Israel, it is the UN Security Council resolution.
:06:36. > :06:41.It is very simple. If what the Iranians really want is civilian
:06:42. > :06:46.nuclear energy, then what we in the West, in the world, in Britain,
:06:47. > :06:52.Europe and the United States, we want to be completely confident that
:06:53. > :06:58.they cannot produce a bomb. There is a simple solution. They simply have
:06:59. > :07:04.to buy their nuclear fuel, like Sweden, like Indonesia, from Holland
:07:05. > :07:10.or from Russia, and so it is a win-win situation. They will have
:07:11. > :07:15.nuclear electricity and we will have the confidence that they cannot
:07:16. > :07:21.produce the bomb. You are not on the same page as the Americans right now
:07:22. > :07:26.when it comes to handling Iran. You yourself saw Vice President Jo Biden
:07:27. > :07:29.recently in Washington, and they were claiming it had been cordial
:07:30. > :07:33.conversation, but there were differences between the two of you.
:07:34. > :07:47.What precisely is the difference between you Washington right now? I
:07:48. > :07:53.concluded three days of talks is on the US -Israel strategic dialogue.
:07:54. > :07:57.What is the difference between you and the United States on Iran right
:07:58. > :08:04.now? We disagree about the final goal. The final goal is not just to
:08:05. > :08:10.prevent Iran from producing the weapon, but to prevent Iran from the
:08:11. > :08:14.capacity to produce the weapon, which is something more important,
:08:15. > :08:19.different, crucial. The difference is not about the final goal, to
:08:20. > :08:22.prevent the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in Iran, but how to
:08:23. > :08:30.get there, about the tactic to get to the final goal, and about the
:08:31. > :08:35.minimal conditions that we can ensure the world that Iran cannot
:08:36. > :08:39.produce a bomb. Yes, because the American administration is asking
:08:40. > :08:44.the Congress, the Senate in particular, to suspend deliberations
:08:45. > :08:46.on a new round of sanctions on Iran. There is also talk in the
:08:47. > :08:56.administration offering some financial carrot to Iran if it is
:08:57. > :09:00.cooperative and gives concessions. There is talk of the financial
:09:01. > :09:05.freezing of assets. As Israel think that is a mistake? We think it would
:09:06. > :09:14.be unwise to ease the pressure on Iran. They are now coming to the
:09:15. > :09:21.table. We have seen willingness only because of the severe economic
:09:22. > :09:28.pressure. So don't lose your tool, don't ease the pressure, before you
:09:29. > :09:33.get your final goal. An inclusive, satisfactory agreement. Do you
:09:34. > :09:39.understand why some indifferent quarters of the world listen to your
:09:40. > :09:45.admonishments about Iran and its global nuclear threat, and they
:09:46. > :09:51.sense a hypocrisy, a hypocrisy based upon the fact that Israel has
:09:52. > :09:57.hundreds of nuclear devices, refuses to acknowledge it has them, refuses
:09:58. > :10:01.to sign the NPT, but still expects the world to listen to its message
:10:02. > :10:07.when it comes to Iran and its nuclear programme?
:10:08. > :10:16.I am not going to acknowledge or refer to anything, but... That, if I
:10:17. > :10:21.may say so, is the point. Israel refuses any element of transparency
:10:22. > :10:27.about it own military nuclear... I am going to answer the question. The
:10:28. > :10:44.very comparison is not only out raging me. It is very clear that
:10:45. > :10:52.Israel is not Iran. You can compare to other countries. Israel is a
:10:53. > :10:58.tiny, vibrant democracy that is trying to survive in a dangerous
:10:59. > :11:08.neighbourhood. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. There is no
:11:09. > :11:11.comparison here. My point is this: That you say it is absolutely
:11:12. > :11:15.inconceivable for the safety of the world that Iran should be allowed to
:11:16. > :11:20.acquire the nuclear weapons. Many nations have nuclear weapons. If
:11:21. > :11:25.Iran were to acquire it, the world would have to contain Iran, and it
:11:26. > :11:31.seems to me, given how the world works, it is reasonable to assume
:11:32. > :11:39.that containment of Iran would also work, would it not? First, I want to
:11:40. > :11:44.remind us, what is Iran? It is not just a brutal regime. It is number
:11:45. > :11:52.one in the world, number one in the world in sponsoring terrorism by
:11:53. > :12:01.money, munitions and training. Iran is the only country in the world
:12:02. > :12:12.that supports Bashar al-Assad brutalCivil War. It is number one in
:12:13. > :12:17.the world in executions per capita. Even though Hassan Rouhani has
:12:18. > :12:22.changed the tone, it is still a very problematic regime. I understand the
:12:23. > :12:26.depth of Israel's feeling about Iran, but it seems to me that
:12:27. > :12:34.something important has changed in the last few months, and that is the
:12:35. > :12:40.power of Israel's message that, if the rest of the world won't tackle
:12:41. > :12:43.the Iranians nuclear problem, and you personally continue to insist
:12:44. > :12:47.that Iran could acquire weapons capability within months, your
:12:48. > :12:53.message is that if the rest of the world won't do it, Israel will. But
:12:54. > :12:57.I put it to you that in the new circumstances with Hassan Rouhani
:12:58. > :13:01.nPower, the international community engaging in a new diplomatic
:13:02. > :13:05.initiative with Iran, the notion that Israel in those circumstances
:13:06. > :13:12.would go it alone and militarily strike at Teheran is becoming
:13:13. > :13:26.inconceivable. Would you agree? I don't want to elaborate about what
:13:27. > :13:33.Israel would do. We reserve the right to defend ourselves against
:13:34. > :13:39.any threat. But I don't want to elaborate upon it, because we do
:13:40. > :14:17.hope that the diplomatic process will succeed. If it will be so,
:14:18. > :14:20.If necessary, we will defend ourselves. You will go it alone
:14:21. > :14:29.against the wishes of the United States? I don't want to elaborate.
:14:30. > :14:36.We did destroy a nuclear reactor in 1981, and according to some rumours,
:14:37. > :14:44.we did it, or somebody did it in secret. In Syria. But we do hope
:14:45. > :14:56.that there will be a satisfactory diplomatic solution. And let me be
:14:57. > :15:07.very specific. We want to compare it to the successful Libyan model, and
:15:08. > :15:12.not to the North Korean model. Are you aware that the former head of
:15:13. > :15:20.the Mossad who spoke to us just over a year ago said a military strike by
:15:21. > :15:23.Israel against Iran would be counter-productive because Israel
:15:24. > :15:30.could not achieve the elimination on their own of the technology.
:15:31. > :15:34.Secondly, it would simply give the hardliners in Iran a green light to
:15:35. > :15:44.finally make that decision to go for the bomb. He was my friend and an
:15:45. > :15:55.excellent head of Mossad. But I would disagree. Anyhow, I am not
:15:56. > :15:59.going to elaborate about what Israel should do militarily about Iran and
:16:00. > :16:05.I am not going to do that. I understand that and I have heard it
:16:06. > :16:09.before. Let me ask you about your relationship with Washington. The
:16:10. > :16:16.former vice president said the other day that America's allies do not
:16:17. > :16:20.have a lot of confidence in the current administration. He said they
:16:21. > :16:26.are fearful of the Iranian city ocean is going to go the same way as
:16:27. > :16:30.the recent Syrian situation. He said, bold talk from the
:16:31. > :16:37.administration, but nothing effective done. Is that the way you
:16:38. > :16:45.feel? We have always looked to the final result. The fact that Syria
:16:46. > :16:49.was forced and signed on an agreement to totally dismantle its
:16:50. > :16:58.chemical weapons stockpile and to dismantle its capacity of such
:16:59. > :17:04.weapons in the future is very good. They gave up the capacity to produce
:17:05. > :17:10.chemical weapons in the future. Now we have the wait and see if it is
:17:11. > :17:16.successfully implemented, but I think the agreement brokered by both
:17:17. > :17:22.Russia and the United States with Syria is a very good example of how
:17:23. > :17:26.international pressure, including very strong American pressure, can
:17:27. > :17:33.produce sufficient agreement, sufficient results. Therefore I am
:17:34. > :17:42.not totally pessimistic about Iran. If Syria gave up its weapons, Iran
:17:43. > :17:49.might give up its military, nuclear programme. I want to go through a
:17:50. > :17:54.couple of other issues. One issue is Egypt. There has been disquiet in
:17:55. > :18:00.Israel about America's decision to cut a substantial amount of its
:18:01. > :18:06.assistance to Egypt. Benjamin Netanyahu says if America withdraws
:18:07. > :18:10.much of that age, it poses a challenge to the sustainability of
:18:11. > :18:17.the camp David peace accord. Do you think they have made a big mistake?
:18:18. > :18:22.I think it is very important now for the government of Egypt to stabilise
:18:23. > :18:31.the system politically and economically. It is a very important
:18:32. > :18:38.country. They are fighting terrorism and preventing smuggling of arms and
:18:39. > :18:44.missiles into the Gaza Strip. Those missiles are being used against us.
:18:45. > :18:47.You are happy with the generals in charge and you want the Americans to
:18:48. > :18:53.go on funding the Egyptian government, even though the generals
:18:54. > :19:00.are running the country? I always hope to see true Western-style
:19:01. > :19:04.democracy in the middle east. I hope this will be the final result of
:19:05. > :19:10.what has been called in the past the Arab spring and the world should
:19:11. > :19:16.help the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people in this difficult
:19:17. > :19:20.time. A final point is the peace talks with the Palestinians which
:19:21. > :19:25.after a mammoth effort by the Secretary of State John Kerry are
:19:26. > :19:28.back on after a long hiatus. Benjamin Netanyahu says he is
:19:29. > :19:34.prepared to contemplate a two state solution, a land for peace deal. Use
:19:35. > :19:40.it in his cabinet as a senior member. In 2008 you are quoted as
:19:41. > :19:47.saying, the idea of a two state solution should be dead. A
:19:48. > :19:53.Palestinian state into gear and the West Bank would bring about
:19:54. > :20:02.Israel's demise. What has changed? First, you are right. We highly
:20:03. > :20:08.appreciate these efforts. Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government
:20:09. > :20:14.made enormous efforts to resume the peace talks with the Palestinians,
:20:15. > :20:21.including the very problematic release of 100 convicted terrorists,
:20:22. > :20:26.murderers, including some steps to enhance the Palestinian economy. We
:20:27. > :20:32.do not beat now with our Palestinian neighbours with the hope to reach a
:20:33. > :20:40.final status of two states for two peoples. You were adamant, you are a
:20:41. > :20:44.hawk in 2000 who said, forget about a Palestine state, it would be the
:20:45. > :20:50.death of Israel. Am I to take seriously that you now believe in a
:20:51. > :20:56.two state solution roughly along the lines of the pre-1967 border? We are
:20:57. > :21:05.ready to make difficult concessions for peace. But what we get in return
:21:06. > :21:12.will be genuine peace and recognition of Israel's right as a
:21:13. > :21:20.Jewish state. Despite the resumption of those peace talks, the
:21:21. > :21:29.Palestinian incitement by the Palestinian government in the
:21:30. > :21:34.official media against Israel's very existence and the Jews is
:21:35. > :21:39.horrifying. The main message is that sooner or later Israel should be
:21:40. > :21:47.destroyed and the Jews should be expelled from here. Said that has to
:21:48. > :21:54.change? It produced a big obstacle for peace. Are we going to get
:21:55. > :22:02.genuine peace or just a piece of paper? That has to change, but would
:22:03. > :22:06.you accept also what has to change is Israel's determination to build
:22:07. > :22:11.more Jewish settlements in occupied land. The number of settlements and
:22:12. > :22:18.houses constructed in the last six months, compared to six months last
:22:19. > :22:21.year, has gone up 70%. New settlement plans are in the
:22:22. > :22:27.pipeline. Would you accept that has to change if you were to be taken
:22:28. > :22:38.seriously? Not at all. I tell you why. The issue of the settlements
:22:39. > :22:46.was left as a final status solution in the accord. You are changing the
:22:47. > :22:51.status of the West Bank every single day by building more and more Jewish
:22:52. > :22:56.settlements. We think it is important to keep agreement to
:22:57. > :22:59.achieve future agreements. If this was left as a final status
:23:00. > :23:12.negotiations, all the complaints are unjust. I was sitting in the room
:23:13. > :23:17.when John Kerry negotiated the final resumption of the talks a few months
:23:18. > :23:24.ago and he made it very clear to both sides he was on the line with
:23:25. > :23:30.Benjamin Netanyahu and on the other line with Mahmoud Abbas, the
:23:31. > :23:38.Israelis agreed to release 100 prisoners, but there will be no
:23:39. > :23:45.freeze on building settlements. The fact the Palestinians are
:23:46. > :23:53.complaining, but they agreed just four months ago. This is odd and
:23:54. > :23:58.strange. Anyhow, once we will be able to reach a final status, the
:23:59. > :24:04.end of the conflict, the peace agreement, which will be genuine
:24:05. > :24:10.peace and security for Israel, I am confident we will be able to resolve
:24:11. > :24:16.all other problems. If the Israelis know what they get in return is
:24:17. > :24:26.genuine peace and security, 70 or 80% of the Israelis will support it.
:24:27. > :24:34.We have to end there. Yuval Steinitz, thank you very much.