The first war we lose, will be the last | EYAL SELA

Mr Ambassador: can you explain Israel’s long-term vision for the future of the Middle East? Is it a permanent occupation of Palestinian territory? A single state, modelled on apartheid policies? Or a ‘two-state solution’, where one of those states is rendered completely unsustainable and unviable? What, in a nutshell, is the final aim of the Israeli government?

Ever since its establishment, and even before, Israel aims to have peace with its neighbours: with our Palestinian neighbours, with the Arab countries surrounding Israel, and with other countries that do not directly border Israel. It was not easy. The Arabs always rejected, in the beginning, all of the programmes on offer: in 1947, 1967… but on the other hand, positive things happened, too: [the agreement] with Egypt, in 1979, and later with Jordan; more recently, the Abraham Accords with some Gulf countries: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain… and, further afield, Morocco, and even Sudan.

So the main goal is to enhance [peace], as much as we can, with almost everyone that is ready to live in peace in the region. But not everyone wants to live in peace. Not everyone is moderate.

By the way, in the moderates, I am also including the majority of the Palestinians… also, the Palestinian authority. But we cannot close our eyes, and say that everyone in the region is moderate. We have extremists. There is Shia extremism, whose centre is in Iran; and whose proxy is mainly Hizbollah in Lebanon.  There is Sunni extremism: like Isis…  Al Qaeda… and the Islamic Brotherhood movement, of which Hamas is a part.

These are extremist actors in the region. They don’t want stability. They don’t accept anyone who is not Muslim; they want to live according to Sharia law; they won’t accept anyone who is liberal… LGBT, women’s rights, etc…

But how can you claim that the end-goal is ‘peace’, when the whole world can see that Israel is actively engaged in violence against Palestinians?

No, Israel is ready to have peace with its Palestinian neighbours… based on negotiation. But up until now, they said no to all of the programmes that have been offered. They probably think that they will get what they want, like we think we will get what we want… but that requires negotiation…

That is precisely what I’m asking, though: what does Israel want, in practical terms? Do you agree with the two-state solution, for instance?

The two-state solution is still the main solution that the majority of the Israelis would like to have. But when we talk about a two-state solution, the state you envision is probably different from the state we envision. For instance: we would like the state not to have military capabilities. See what’s happening now in the Gaza strip. How can a small place like that launch 4,000 missiles at a civilian population in 11 days? What we want is that, before a [Palestinian] State is established, they will guarantee the security of our people.

[…] This is what we would like to discuss. Our security was, is and always will be the most important factor. The first war that we lose, will be the last war…

Fair enough: but the current situation did not start with rockets fired into Israel by Hamas. It started with the storming of the Al Aqsa mosque during Ramadan; the expulsion of families from Sheikh Jarrah; and it continued with the destruction of Palestinian property in Area C, and the bombing of civilians in Gaza. How is any of that conducive to the sort of ‘peace’ you are now talking about?

Those are all excuses. Don’t play the hand of terrorist organisations. They looked for excuses…

It seems they found them quite easily…

Let me try and explain to you how we see things from our side. The situation is this: Hamas wants to replace the Palestinian authority. They want to be the rulers of the Palestinians. They want the Palestinians to live by their Shariah ideals. They thought there would be Palestinian elections; that they would probably win, and get more support and legitimacy.

Now: Hamas is a terrorist organisation. So if they did win the election, they would have turned to the international community, and said: ‘We are OK now. We are a legitimately elected government’…

But – not for the first time – the Palestinian authority decided not to hold elections. So Hamas looked for an opportunity to begin that kind of conflict.

As for Sheikh Jarrah: that is totally a legal issue. Jews lived there before; they were the owners of those houses, up until 1948: when we lost [Sheikh Jarrah] to Jordan…

But the borders we are looking today are not the same as 1948…

These are just examples. The point is that Jews bought the land over there; and this is now a legal issue, to be decided by the courts. Now: we tried to ease the tension, by doing three main things. First, we asked the courts not to deal with the issue. Imagine the same thing happens in Malta: that the government asks the law courts not to delve into this or that issue, because of tensions. This is not a usual request, in democratic countries where there is separation of the authorities. But because of the circumstances, we made that request; and the courts accepted.

Secondly, we asked Jews not to visit the Temple Mount: the place that the Muslims call Haram esh-Sharif. [Pause] When Jesus lived, there was no Haram esh-Sharif. That name has only existed since the 7th century. People who live in Malta, who believe in Jesus, understand that the place was called Temple Mount, in Jesus’ time. But the Muslims reject that. For Hamas, it doesn’t matter what happened before…

With all due respect: in Jesus’ time, there was no ‘State of Israel’ either. The entire region was under Roman occupation. Shouldn’t we be talking about today’s reality – as defined by international treaties, and UN resolutions - instead of what happened 2,000 years ago, or more?

But I am talking about today. I am trying to explain to you… everything. Why Hamas is looking for excuses, bringing only the Muslim interpretation of history. There is more than one interpretation.

But the third thing we did [to ease the tension] was that we stopped a march of Israelis, celebrating the liberation of Jerusalem in 1967. We told them: ‘look, there is tension; don’t go to Damascus Gate.’ Hamas, on the other hand, did everything in its power to increase the tension. If you go to my Twitter account, you will see a video I posted of what they put into those holy places, to provoke a reaction…

Last week, the Palestinian ambassador told me that Israel always tries to frame the entire conflict as a ‘religious dispute between Israel and Hamas’. So far, you seem to be proving him right. But let’s face it: this isn’t really about Hamas, is it? This is about an Israeli policy that consistently forces Palestinians to live in ever smaller parcels of land, in ever more desperate circumstances. Isn’t it inevitable, then, that those people will sooner or later rebel?

But people live in small areas in a lot of places, and they are not choosing violence. Open the map, and look at places such as Singapore, for instance… people in those areas choose other solutions…

Singapore is hardly a like-with-like comparison, though, is it?

Let me put it this way: this conflict has a lot of components. One component is religion; it is not the only one, and it’s not the most powerful one, either. There is also the territorial component… and there is also a question of values: the differences between democratic systems, and non-democratic systems. If, for example, the Israeli people are not happy with what their government is doing… immediately, there will be political change.

On the other side, nothing of that happens. The same leadership stays there, all the time.

Another thing you have to bear in mind is the so-called Arab Spring, and its influence. The leaders [in Arab countries] are afraid to take decisions. The moderate leaders are afraid that, if they take a decision that the other side will be unhappy about - which might include a political compromise over an issue – the extremists will immediately say ‘No: we want 100%’. And by extremists, I don’t just mean religious extremists. There are political extremists, too.

Even in Malta, for example. When people demonstrated [in support of Palestine], they shouted: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine should be free.’ So I might ask: where is my place, over there? If they want ‘everything from the river to the sea’… that also means my house in Tel Aviv. It means all our homes. It leaves no place for us at all…

I don’t contest that there are extremists on either side. But doesn’t Israel want everything ‘from the river to the sea’, too? Isn’t that the ultimate aim, of an expansionist policy that annexes land from Palestinian owners, and gives it to Israeli settlers; that labels all forms of resistance as ‘terrorism’; and that basically confines an entire population of 13.6 million into the equivalent of virtual prisons? Where is the ‘compromise’, in any of that?

I would call this an issue over ‘disputed land’. I don’t want to go into the history of this dispute; I will just say that at the end of the First World War, […] the League of Nations decided, at the San Remo convention, that the land in question will be for a Jewish State. That was the decision taken by Great Britain, France and other countries at the time; and some things did change, even if everything is still to be decided, and negotiated, between the two sides.

But the agreement that is in use today is the Oslo Agreement. This agreement clearly states that there are different parts of [the territory] that are under Palestinian civil and security control; other parts under Israeli civil and security control; and there are also settlements, under Israeli control.

Now, US President Obama asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop building new settlements. Netanyahu complied; and until now, we are not building new settlements. The only building that is taking place is inside those settlements, to accommodate the growing population. There are new buildings going up, yes; but inside the borders of existing settlements…

Meanwhile, Israel claims that it is acting ‘in self-defence’. Yet in the latest conflict, six times as many Palestinian children (not including adults) were killed, than all Israeli casualties - including military people – put together. How does that qualify as ‘self-defence’?

First of all: according to Hamas’ own details, at least 62 of those who died were Hamas terrorists. Our aim was to kill those who were about to launch missiles against our country…

What about the 66 children?

We are very sorry for any civilian casualties. We tried to avoid that, as much as possible. I can show you videos, of Israeli pilots who are saying [over the radio]: ‘There are children in the place we are about to strike’. And you can hear the other voice, saying: ‘Abort! Abort, immediately!’ So we are not deliberately targeting civilians.

The reality, however, is that we have automatic missile systems, that fire at the place from where missiles are launched at us. Now: if a missile is launched at us from a kindergarten…  what do you want? That we will stay put, and do nothing? Leave another 100 rockets, to be launched from that place, towards our civilian population?

Unfortunately, Hamas uses [its own civilians] as human shields… they launched rockets from hospitals, from schools… and if you look at what was happening before [the latest escalation]: for two summers, every day, Hamas was launching balloons, with explosives, that might not ‘kill a person’; but a little child might run to pick up a balloon… and lose a hand. They also launched balloons that would burn fields; and put people living in those areas in a state of constant fear.

So what do you want us to do? Send back balloons of our own, and burn up their land? No: instead we waited, and waited… until one balloon became 10 balloons; then 50, 100, 1,000… until it escalated into thousands of rockets. That’s when we said ‘enough is enough’. That’s when we said, ‘we will do whatever we can, to take away your [military] capabilities. We will take from you your capability of having missiles; we will take away your intelligence capabilities; we will take from you your financial support capabilities…”

But that’s just another way of saying: “We will push you into a corner where you have no option but to fight back; and then, when you retaliate… we will destroy you”. As for your argument about ‘human shields’: isn’t that also the inevitable consequence of 2 million people living under siege, in a place as tiny as the Gaza strip?

Please, please, please: don’t give them that excuse. They can go out and launch rockets from open fields. Gaza is small, true; but even Malta is small… yet you have a lot of open space which you can use, without putting children in harm’s way...

You tell me ‘not to give them excuses’… but that seems to be precisely what Israel itself is doing. And if so… is that part of the long-term plan I asked about earlier? To push people into retaliation, so that you yourselves have an excuse to ‘hit back’?

No, we are not giving them any excuse. We don’t want this situation. So to come back to your earlier question: what is the solution? The solution should be peaceful negotiations between the moderates. On the other hand, we should do everything to make sure that the extremists will not get support.

This is what Hamas want […] but everyone else should understand that this is not the solution. Right now, we need to do whatever we can so that there will be not as many missiles and weapons over there. But a real solution can only come through negotiations; and we are not there yet.