On the Phone With Benjamin Netanyahu

***TOP THREAD** SCROLL FOR NEW POSTS AND UPDATES**
  ******FULL TRANSCRIPT IN THE EXTENDED POST*****
As Syrian President Assad calls President Bush's plan for democracy a joke, I finish a blogger interview with  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the man I campaigned for earnestly in the past Israeli election (but I am American and can't vote.) The Prime Minister was good enough to answer questions from me and  my esteemed colleagues from the blogosphere including . Let me thank Rick for putting this altogether.

LISTEN TO IT ALL HERE
PM Netanyahu Interview 8-15-2006

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke first. He explained the conflict as the 

"first salvo in the free world's battles against Sunni/Shia fundamentalism. This war was foisted upon us We don't want it. Nobody would believe  the 21st century we would be fighting these religious wars?  Something we though was a  relic of history that disappeared 700 years ago but it hasn't. There is now fervent competition between Sunni and Shia fund in Islam. Both want to rule the resurrected Muslim  empire which they intend to assert with the force of arms and the force of terror including nuclear terror. But they both agree it should be an Islamic empire And western countries like  Israel should have no place in it. They should be destroyed or subjugated. Israel is merely the front line position.

For Iran who is leading the charge, Israel has to be wiped away. He is arming himself for this purpose. Ahmadinejad openly says it. He is arming himself for that purpose, with atomic weapons. He will undoubtedly seek ti  use them and threaten to use them if given the chance. And that is why President  Bush commitment to prevent Iran from with nuclear weapons is the most important decision of our time. And support it obviously and we believe the President will live up to that commitment. Until Ahmadinejad has nuclear weapons it will use the  two tentacles of the Iranian octopus the foreign the Southern tentacle, though Sunni nonetheless subservient to Hamas to attack Israel   and  Northern tentacle, Hezbollah  which is part of the Shia arc spanning from Tehran to Lebanon. It will use that as the to attack Israel.
The ceasefire is merely an interlude because from their point of view the war has to continue first to achieve their goal in the destruction of Israel and the second to achieve their harder goal, the subjugation and ultimately the defeat of the West.

We are in a protracted battle. We have to prepare our force to overcome them There ought to be a division of labor.....we must destroy their missile arsenal; this has not been achieved. ...........equally the US should leave it's own or an international effort to disarm Iran of its nuclear weapons.
This was the agenda before this war began and it is still the agenda until this war has ended or after this round of this war has ended.
"Bush should disarm Iran from nuclear weapons"

Here are excerpts from the conversation. Please listen to the Audio:

Ed Lasky, American Thinker, asked about further  missile attacks from Lebanon, Gaza ...... Weren't the missiles hitting civilian areas a strategic success any plans to address this new form of enhanced missile?  Take notes of the IDF was involved in tactical high energy laser system  -project canceled 7 months ago? Any thoughts to reactivating this project?

Netanyahu: Don't know about any project and if I did, don't know if it would be wise to comment.
Undergo fundamental revision in analyzing the deficiencies in or defenses and offensive capabilities . These things will happen and are happening now and that will require learn all the lessons of the past 5  weeks.......The new military doctrine in Lebanon ..a foreign legion --- a well trained infantry,  very sophisticated missiles, and it has to be dealt with next time because I do think they will force a next time on us.
As far as Hamas.........our withdrawal appeared like retreat under fire. They employed same tactic of terror attack. The concept of unilateral withdrawal has proven its bankruptcy........

I asked why Israel would entrust its safety to France when on the 14th of July, Chirac accused Israel of intending to destroy Lebanon and what of the meeting of FMA Douste-Blazy with his Iranian counterpart in Beirut declaring  praise for Iran, “a stabilizing country in the region.”
The French shun military action unless it is undertaken by underdogs in civilian clothes using underhanded techniques.  The French government is presenting its army as a humanitarian force that will dash into Lebanon, rebuild roads and bridges, help NGOs bring supplies to suffering civilians.   Will Israel fire on these soldiers if fired upon? Will Israel risk killing French soldiers? Israel is so exposed on this. Can you help us understand the thinking of this ceasefire?

Netanyahu: I am not sure I can. I think are many improbable....many objectives have not been met. I don't think putting in UNIFIL will in any way be helpful n dealing with Hezb'Allah...... It's a real concern that we all share. They will not disarm Herzb'Allah. Lets hope it doesn't stand in the way of what we have to do.

Secondly on France: that particular  statement by the French Foreign Minister was remarkable in  saying that Iran is a stabilizing force in the Middle East.  I don't know if he is referring to the same Middle East we are living in and I'm not sure he is living on the   the same planet we are living in.

Iran is the single greatest threat to our civilization Professing a millennial suicide Apocalypse. In which  millions are supposed to die on both sides and they are quite content with the possibility with their own people that will die because they will all reach Islamic heaven. That is why they are  building atomic bombs.

The French government ought to know that those missiles reach Paris. This is not a local conflict. Not anymore than  Hitler's decision to kill the Jews ended with the Jews. The entire world gets consumed by their madness.
Our world will be in terrible jeopardy
Little Satan, America is the Great Satan  Europe is the middle Satan, not a good spot to be in.
It's about time they got it.

Ann Lieberman- Boker Tov Boulder, heard that from the bereaved family of a dead Israeli soldier that commanding officer said it was a french missile that had hit the slain soldiers tank;

Netanyahu: Does not know of French missiles only Iranian and Syrian.

Lynn In Context,  Hezbollah will not be  handing over their weapons?

Netanyahu: I had no allusions that Hezb'Allah will be handing over it's weapons. I never believed Not only will they keep their present weapons they will feverishly rearm themselves
We must be prepared to win this next round decisively

Rick Richman - Jewish Current Issues, what of the calls in the Knesset for a new unity government?

Netanyahu: Too early to say the only one who can call for a new unity government and that is the Prime Minister and he is not calling for it. e are acting as the loyal opposition
Many other issue like the disengagement. Wont go beyond that. It's premature and not wise

Omri Cere Mere Rhetoric, asked about Olmert's perplexing policies. Could you offer thoughts on OLmert's hesitancy to unleash IDF in Lebanon;

Netanyahu: I don't know

Paul Mirengoff of  Powerline- Is Israel free to act if Hezb'Allah does not disarm?

Netanyahu: Israel can act in her self defense. No resolution has any teeth to it unless its backed with teeth on the ground. We had a better resolution that Hezb'Allah must be disarmed [11559] but it came to nothing. The main int actors are not going to carry out the stipulations in the resolution because they are not willing to fight and die because Hezb'Allah is willing to fight and die.

David Gerstman - Soccer dad, Which is the most important, arguing for medias legitimacy, fighting media bias, or emphasizing Israel's alliance with the United States, or Israel's contributions to the world (science and medicine)

Netanyahu: Number three: America knows who the good guys and the bad guys are. America needs to know this is not a fight between two tribes. The important thing is mobilize the American people to understand -- This is  the opening salve. They will use nuclear weapons. This is not Israel's war (our house against their house) - It is the house of freedom democratic societies, democratic values,

At this moment, the line was cut, but clearly he was differentiating between Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb.
It also is painfully clear to me that there is enormous disappointment in the Olmert's lack of backbone but a great reluctance to show terrrble cracks in Israel's unity. Moreverm the is real concern that the world has no idea who the enemy is and what it is they reallly want.
Listen to the audio.
I promise to furnish a complete transcript as soon as possible, in the  meantime read Ed Lasky's post on this call, it's the best.

toon hat tip GBS
UPDATE: CLICK BELOW FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT:

AR the consummate transcriber writes: "Here's the transcript for the Netanyahu interview. There are a few places where I couldn't make it out, but it's almost all here. It's almost exactly a half hour."

----

Rick Richman: Hello? Is this Mr. Netanyahu?

Netanyahu: Yes, speaking.

Rick Richman: This is Rick Richman, Jewish Current Issues. Thank you very much for this opportunity. We've got eight prominent blogs on the line: American Thinker, Atlas Shrugs, Boker Tov Boulder, In Context, Jewish Current Issues, Mere Rhetoric, Power Line, and Soccer Dad, and we're all very anxious to hear your comments about the current situation, and then we hope you'll allow each of us to ask a question for as long as you can remain on the line.

Netanyahu: I'll be happy to do that and I'm glad to have this opportunity. This is the first salvo in the Free World's battle against Sunni, or rather Shiite fundamentalism. This is a war that was forced upon us. We don't want it, and no one would believe that in the first half of the 21st century we still have religious wars, something we thought was a relic of history that disappeared several hundred years ago, but it hasn't, and there's now fervent competition between Sunni and Shiite fundamentalism in Islam. They both want to rule the resurrected Muslim empire that they intend to resurrect with the force of arms and the force of terror, including nuclear terror. But they all agree that there should be an Islamic empire, and that the western countries like Israel should have no place in it. These are to be destroyed or subjugated. Israel is merely the front line position, and so for Iran that is leading the charge, it has to be eliminated, literally wiped away, as its president Ahmadinejad openly says. He is arming himself for that purpose, with atomic weapons. He will undoubtedly seek to use them, and threaten to use them, if he gets a chance, and that's why President Bush's commitment to prevent Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons is the most important decision of our time, and we support it, obviously, and we believe that the President will live up to that commitment, until Ahmadinejad has nuclear weapons it's plain and simple: he will use the two tentacles of the Iranian octopus: the southern tentacle, though Sunni, nonetheless subservient to Hamas to attack Israel, the northern tentacle, Hezbollah, which is part of the Shiite arc spanning from Tehran to Lebanon, he will use that, as he has, to attack Israel. The cease-fire that has been reached is merely an interlude because from their point of view, the war has to continue, first to achieve their goal of the destruction of Israel, and second to achieve their larger goal, the diminution, subjugation, and ultimately defeat of the West. So we're in a protracted battle, we just had the first round. More will come, and we'll have to prepare, ... arrows, and prepare our force to overcome them. There ought to be a division of labor. Israel should dismantle the Hezbollah military machine and destroy the missile arsenal. That has not yet been achieved, but it will have to be achieved down the line, and equally, the United States should lead its own or an international effort to disarm Iran from nuclear weapons. This was the agenda before this war began, and it is still the agenda after this war has ended, or after this round of this war has ended. Any questions?

Rick Richman: American Thinker, go ahead.

Ed, American Thinker: Thank you, Prime Minister, for addressing us on the call and for your great efforts here and in Europe to defend Israel. My question involves the threat of further missile attacks, both from Lebanon, and Gaza, and possibly in the future the West Bank as well, particularly if Olmert's conversion plan actually happens. I was just wondering, that since this tactic of using missiles hidden in civilian areas to attack Israel seems to have had somewhat of a strategic success, are there any plans in Israel to address future threats of this nature, because Hezbollah has openly suggested to Hamas that they follow through on this tactic in the Gaza Strip, which we know they've been doing for the last year, but with enhanced missiles and enhanced frequency, and I take note that the IDF was involved in the development of a tactical, high-energy laser system, from Northrop, a project that looked, according to many experts, to have a great deal of success, but that project was canceled about seven months ago, and I'm just wondering if there's any thought to reactivating that sort of research.

Netanyahu: I don't know about specific projects, and even if I did I'm not sure it would be wise to discuss it, but I think that we'll have to undergo a fundamental revision in analyzing the deficiencies in our defenses and honing our offensive capability. I think these things will happen. They are happening now, and that will require, obviously, to heed all the lessons from the past five weeks. I think too that it's not merely weapons (unintelligible) military doctrine. It's ... an understanding that we ... in Lebanon, basically, a forward unit of the Iranian army, basically well trained infantry, equipped with fairly sophisticated missiles, and it has to be deal with next time, because I think they will force a next time. As far as Hamas is concerned, all of the unilateral withdrawals, follow initially from our unilateral withdrawal, which appeared like a unilateral retreat under fire, that ricocheted from Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in the south, Hamas in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, they employed the same tactic of terror attacks, and we left unilaterally, and that was interpreted as a headlong retreat in the face of terror, but which bounced back to Hezbollah in the north, and we are where we are. I think the concept of unilateral withdrawals has proven its bankruptcy. I don't seriously think that anyone in Israel could seriously entertain it for two reasons. One, it's been proved, three things have been proved in this round ... that Hamas and Hezbollah, and our other enemies. Number one is that the core of the conflict is not about this or that territory, because we vacated every square inch of Lebanon and every square inch of Gaza, and still they shoot. In fact they shoot more. The battle is about our very existence in any territory. Second, that when we vacate territory unilaterally, it is perceived as weakness and it emboldens our enemies to attack us. Third, when we vacate territory unilaterally, as in Gaza, we create more (unintelligible)* launching of missiles against our cities. I think therefore the unilateral withdrawal is gone, and I also think that both Hamas and Hezbollah should not underestimate the ability of Israel to learn lessons, the ability of Israel's army to employ those lessons, and the fact that if they persist in their plans to attack Israel and destroy Israel, they will be destroyed.

Pamela: Prime Minister Netanyahu, this is Pamela from Atlas Shrugs. I'd like to express my deep-felt thanks for taking time out of your hectic schedule to speak with me and my esteemed colleagues. I think very little of the cease-fire. I think it's a terrible mistake. That being said, what I'd like to know is, why Israel wouldn't trust its safety to France when, on the 14th of July, Chirac accused Israel of intending to destroy Lebanon and what of the meeting of the Foreign minister Douste-Blazy with his Iranian counterpart in Beirut declaring praise for Iran as, quote, "a stabilizing country in the region"? Now, the French shun military action unless it's undertaken by underdogs in civilian clothing using underhanded tactics. What happens when Israel is fired upon? Will Israel fire upon these soldiers? Will Israel risk killing a French soldier? I just think that Israel's so exposed on this. I don't understand the thinking. Can you help us understand the thinking of the cease-fire?

Netanyahu: I'm not sure I can. I think it's fraught with (unintelligible). Evidently a goal of the government, the disarming of Hezbollah, destroying the missiles, removing the missile threat, and seeing that goal has not been met, and I don't think the putting in of an expanded UNIFIL force will in any way (unintelligible) of dealing with Hezbollah. As far as, apparently there a real concern that instead of, if they won't do that job that they're supposed to do, so kind of way the idea is what we have to do, or what we have to do to the next round. That's the real concern that we all share, and I agree with you that it's not a force that is going to help Israel. (unintelligible)  Secondly, ... that particular statement by France's foreign minister was remarkable, saying that Iran is a force of stability in the Middle East. I don't know if he's talking about the same Middle East we're living in, and I'm not sure he's living on the same planet we're living in. But Iran is the single greatest threat to our civilization. It is professing a mad ideology which ... that involves a millennial, suicidal apocalypse which...

Ann Lieberman: Mr. Prime Minister, this is Ann Lieberman at Boker Tov Boulder.

Netanyahu: Can you hear me now?

Ann Lieberman: Yeah, do you want to go on?

Netanyahu: I said that it's professing a millennial, suicidal, apocalypse, in which millions are supposed to have gone from both sides, and they're quite content with the possibility that their own people will die, because they'll all reach an Islamic heaven, so for that purpose there they're building atomic bombs, and they've already built missiles to launch them, and I take note of the fact, and the French government should take note of the fact, that those missiles have longer reach than Israel. They now reach Paris and London, and I stress Paris. So this is a global threat of a fantasy ideology that wants to wipe away the West. It's not a local conflict between Israel, the Jewish State, and this mad ideology, any more than Hitler's decision to destroy the Jews ended with the Jews. In both cases Jew hatred is the beginning of aggression, and not its end. Eventually, the entire world gets consumed with the (unintelligible). The only difference is of course that Hitler did not succeed in developing the bomb, and went to war before he did, whereas Ahmadinejad might do the opposite, and our world will be in terrible jeopardy, fully trapped. The fact is that many Europeans don't get the basic point. Iran and its proxies call us the Little Satan. They call America the Great Satan, and Europe is the middle-sized Satan, and being in the middle could be an uncomfortable situation. They're neither all, ... they're in the middle. That's exactly where they are. They're in the middle of a great conflict that is aiming to destroy their society, their civilization, including from Islamic radicals within France, and they don't get it. It's about time they got it.

Pamela: I'll say.

Rick Richman: Go ahead, Boker Tov.

Ann Lieberman: Mr. Prime Minister, this is Ann Lieberman at Boker Tov Boulder. I heard from an Israeli family who paid a shiva call on a family who lost their son in Lebanon, and they were told, that according to the father of the soldier, the commanding officer informed him that his son's tank was hit not by an Iranian missile, but by a French missile. I'm sorry?

Netanyahu: According to what?

Ann Lieberman: That their son's tank was hit by a French missile, not by an Iranian missile. And I haven't heard this anywhere else, and I wonder if the Israeli people are going to put up with having French UNIFIL forces on the border, and if the Israelis are going to overthrow this government. And maybe this is not the time to discuss it, but I wonder who else they could look to but to you, and Likud, to replace the Olmert government. 

Netanyahu: I don't know of French missiles. I know of Iranian and Syrian missiles. It may be that Syria was supplied by other countries, I don't know. But I know that ... of weapons from France to the Hezbollah, but I know of many many direct ... from Iran and Syria. As far as the political process inside Israel, I decided that as long as we're in the thick of war, at this time our soldiers are still in Lebanon, (unintelligible) that I'll defer political pressures to a later date. Even though we have a bit of a concern over failures of preparation for the war, or identifying the threats, or organizing the way the war has been managed, obviously all these things will have to be dealt with, but there will be time in the future to deal with it.

Ann Lieberman: Thank you.

 

Rick Richman: In Context.

Lynn B: Mr. Prime Minister, this is Lynn B from In Context, and I want to thank you so much for taking your time to speak with us today. Reports this morning say that Hezbollah will not be handing over its weapons to the Lebanese government, but rather refraining from displaying them publicly for now. If this turns out to be the case, how is Israel going to respond, or will she wait for them to start using those weapons again in what you've termed the next round?

Netanyahu: Well, I didn't have any illusions at any time that Hezbollah would voluntarily disarm itself. It's not going to do that, and they're not going to be disarmed by either the Lebanese army or by the UNIFIL, so it is a fact that this cease-fire is merely a lull in which not only will Hezbollah keep its private weapons, but also feverishly rearm itself, and so that's why I think, given their objective of destroying Israel, that a future round is inevitable, but we have to make sure that we're well prepared for this round, that we win it. (unintelligible)

Rick Richman: Mr. Netanyahu, this is Rick Richman, Jewish Current Issues. Yesterday in the Knesset there were calls for a National Unity government. I'm wondering what your view is of that or whether you believe new elections ought to be held, and if so what the timing for that would be.

Netanyahu: I think it's too early to say. I'm not sure that, ... there's only one ... who can call for a unity government is the Prime Minister, and this call did not come from him, and secondly there are big issues that still are in contention. The unilateral disengagement being the principal one among them, but there are others, and therefore we acted as a loyal opposition during the five weeks, loyal to the country, loyal to security, and can still be helpful to the government that (unintelligible), in the conduct (unintelligible) because the war, according to the (unintelligible), I suppose that as the war ends, then we'll support the government when it's right, and oppose it vigorously when it's wrong, that's our job as the opposition. I wouldn't go beyond that into political scenarios in Israel. They're premature, and also I think it's not a wise thing to do when there are soldiers still fighting.

Rick Richman: Mere Rhetoric

Omri Ceren: Good Evening Mr. former Prime Minister. This is Omri Ceren from Mere Rhetoric. I'd like to thank you for joining us today. This government's actions during the war confused even non-political actors. STRATFOR described Olmert's behavior during the war as, quote, "perplexing," and suggested that he seems to be, quote, "genuinely concerned about something, and it's not clear what it is." Obviously you're not criticizing the government too harshly, the current situation, but I was wondering if you could help us with some thoughts on why Prime Minister Olmert and why Defense Minister Peretz were so hesitant to unleash the IDF against Hezbollah, and against Iranian and Syrian forces in Lebanon. Netanyahu: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. You asked if I could comment how?

Omri Ceren: If you could comment on why the Olmert government was so hesitant to unleash the IDF's full force in Lebanon.

Netanyahu: I don't know.

Pamela: There you go. Thank you for your honesty.

Rick Richman: Power Line.

Paul Mirengoff: This is Paul Mirengoff from Power Line. Thank you for this opportunity. In connection with disarming Hezbollah, which you said was sort of Israel's part of the division of labor, do you see Israel as bound by the cease-fire agreement to wait until the next attack at the time of Iran and Hezbollah's choosing, or do you view Israel as free to act if and when it finds that Hezbollah is not disarming and/or that the UN and Lebanese army is not meeting its obligations under the agreement?

Netanyahu: Well I think that Israel will like other aspects, they won't defend, and the cease-fire agreement (unintelligible) over what defensive actions means. Is preemption defensive? It certainly can be. There should have been a lot of times, that when nations didn't preempt they paid an enormous price, so I think that stipulation covers the gamut. No resolution has any teeth to it unless it's backed by force on the ground, and we had a better resolution than all of these. You think of (unintelligible) to the point ... Hezbollah to disarm, and the Lebanese army would take its place. Very clear, very muscular resolution that turned out to be totally impotent, totally useless. So it's not the drafting of the resolution but so much power and purpose behind it, and here's it's very clear that the main international actors are not going to carry out the stipulations in the resolution, because they're not willing to fight and die, and unless you are willing to do that against Hezbollah who's is willing to fight and die, you're not going to get anywhere.

pl: Thank you.

Rick Richman: Soccer Dad.

David Gerstman: Hi, David Gerstman from Soccer Dad. Thank you very much for talking with us. I have a more general question, and that is as in the past you've been an excellent spokesman for Israel, we're trying to do that in our own little way, and four things that I can think of that we can focus on. I was wondering, which ones do you feel are the most important. Are we best off arguing for Israel's legitimacy, or fighting media bias, or emphasizing Israel's alliance with the United States, or finally, number four, emphasizing Israel's contributions to the world such as in science and medicine. Which one of these do you think are the best areas for us to be focusing on, for us to be defending Israel? 

Netanyahu: Number three. The reason is simple. You know if (unintelligible) United States, the American public has a pretty good feel for who the bad guys and who the good guys are, but the important thing is to mobilize the American people to understand, this is not a war between two native tribes, the Jews of Israel and the Arabs of Hezbollah/Lebanon. This is our ...  of war, would be a simple thing, and less compelling, and as I said this was the opening salvo of Iran's bid for empire, and Shiite Islam's bid for world dominion, and it is an unrestricted, uninhibited quest and will use nuclear weapons once it acquires them. A lesser creed, or if you will the matching creed of "I don't want to use nuclear weapons," if they had it they would have smashed not into the Twin Towers, but (unintelligible) altogether, destroyed Washington, and probably other cities. The only limitation they had was not having the weapons, and so they improvised, and if Iran has nuclear weapons then every American is in great peril. America is in peril. Our world is in peril. It's very important that people understand that this is not Israel's war, you know, our house against their house, to a limited extent. It is our house, in the broad sense of the word "our." That is, the house of freedom, the house of democratic societies, the house of...

Mr. Netanyahu, can you hear us?

We lost him again. He'll probably come back again. I hope we didn't lose him. You think he's gone?

We were promised a half hour, so it may be that he had to leave the call.

You think he would do that without saying goodbye?

It may be his phone just ran out.

I see.

You want to try and reach him again?

Sure, now that would mean, that I could screw things up. And I do not want it reported, I will not have it held against me. Okay, let me see, just chill one quick second. I'm going to have to disconnect them here.

Comments

[Iceman 1955]

This man is a true leader. He should be admired for his no nonsense approach for the security of Israel. In this country our politicians sit on the fence and want to make everyone happy. Are you listening John McCain??