WORDS OF WARNING DECEMBER 18, 1996 TRANSCRIPT

---

PLO leader Yasser Arafat has called Israel's plans to offer financial incentives to Jewish settlers on the West Bank ''a ticking bomb"; eight former U.S. foreign policy chiefs concur in a letter to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Kwame Holman presents a backgrounder followed by a newsmaker interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger

---

A RealAudio version of this NewsHour segment is available. December 18, 1996: Kwame Holman provides a backgrounder on reaction to Israel's moves to encourage Jewish settlers to the West Bank. Related NewsHour Stories October 15, 1996: Warren Christopher discusses the state of the peace process. October 2, 1996: A NewsHour interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. October 1, 1996: A NewHour look at the emergency White House Peace Summit between Netanyahu and Arafat. May 23, 1996: Seeing the Future : a look at the Israeli elections.

JIM LEHRER: Now, to one of the signers of the letter, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, and to a non-signer, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. I talked with them earlier this evening. First, Dr. Brzezinski, how did this letter come about?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, Former National Security Advisor: This letter was initiated by one of my colleagues, not by me actually, although I suspect that some think viewing this program that I was the initiator. It was then circulated among people like the signers, as well as some of the non-signers. And over time, it was drafted and redrafted and eventually dispatched to the prime minister.

JIM LEHRER: Is there one single author of this letter?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I wouldn't say there's one single author perhaps. But there is one single negotiator, initiator, and that's Richard Fairbanks, who took the initiative in getting this going.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Richard Fairbanks, tell us who he is.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Richard Fairbanks is the former negotiator for the Middle East in the previous Republican administrations.

JIM LEHRER: So it was his idea. He circulated among all of you. Some of you made suggestions, et cetera. Some of you decided to sign it; some of you decided not to.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Exactly right.

JIM LEHRER: Why did you decide to sign it?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I signed it largely for the reasons that the letter states, namely that at this extremely delicate stage in the Arab-Israeli peace process, with so many issues still unresolved, even with issues resolved not being implemented, the additional burden of new settlements, of enlarging existing settlements, runs the real risk of undermining a peace process which is clearly, clearly in the interest of Israel, in the interest of the Palestinians, and very much in the U.S. interest. In fact, the notion of enlarging the settlements, or creating new ones, is something that the United States has consistently opposed for something like more than two decades.

JIM LEHRER: Through all administrations.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Through all administrations, Democratic or Republican.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Dr. Kissinger, you chose not to sign the letter. Why not?

HENRY KISSINGER, Former Secretary of State: (New York City) Well, for two reasons. First, I have just published an article which states comprehensively my views of how diplomacy in the Middle East should proceed, and I did not see any point in picking out one item, namely the issue of settlements, for special attention. Secondly, I did not think this was the ideal moment for a public statement when there are no actual negotiations going on and to single out one of the parties for special opprobrium, when, in fact, I believe that both sides have had significant shortcomings over the recent month.

And so I think that the peace process should re-start. I think, in fact, it should be given a new basis, than the existing one, which is a series of small steps, and I think they should make--try to achieve a comprehensive solution, and for all of these reasons, I did not think it was wise to write such a letter, much as I respect the people who signed it and friendly as I am to all of them.

JIM LEHRER: But you thought that this was putting undue pressure on one side, or essentially choosing sides. Is that one of your major problems?

HENRY KISSINGER: I think that the position of the United States as a mediator should be as evenhanded as we can possibly we. And in the absence of any actual negotiation, I would not have thought it desirable to encourage the apparent temptation of Arafat to substitute world pressure for his own negotiations. And to stigmatize what is, after all, a new government in Israel, that does not have its feet fully on the ground yet, and that was, in fairness, elected to give a slightly different emphasis than the previous government, so I did not think it was the ideal moment to put forward a letter.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Brzezinski.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, we, obviously, have a different view on the subject. Incidentally, I tend to agree with Henry's larger strategic views regarding how to handle the Arab-Israeli peace process. But on this particular issue I hold a different point of view. And incidentally, I speak for myself, not for the other cosigners, because they may put it differently. In my view, there is the real danger that Netanyahu is pursuing a policy not of peace with security, which is what he was elected to pursue, but of peace with territory, which is what the Likud has stood for, for a long time--peace with territory, which really means security with territory, and peace being sloughed off. And that, I think, is dangerous to the peace process.

JIM LEHRER: But what about Dr. Kissinger's point that this wasn't the time to do this, that Netanyahu needed time to get his new government's feet on the ground before the U.S. and you all came in there trying to put some heat on him?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, he's been in office since May. That's a pretty long time. The peace process has been stalled since then, and the peace process is a little bit like a bicyclist. It either moves forward, or it begins to wobble, where it slows down, and finally topples. Moreover, it is a fact that the settlements issue is an extremely sensitive issue. And on this issue, the American position has been clear. The position of the world community is clear.

Many people, in fact, on this issue, the majority of the Israelis are not in favor of new settlements. I was struck by the fact that when our letter appeared, both the Washington Post and The New York Times editorially approved what was stated. And as a consequence, my feeling is that this was very much the right moment to remind Netanyahu that America is not indifferent to what he does or doesn't do. And if he initiates a significant enhancement of the settlements, he is, in fact, vitiating the peace process.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Kissinger, what about that, that this letter, all it did was reflect what had been U.S. policy for years and that Netanyahu should know that, that this was--that the U.S. does have a stake and does have an opinion on it?

HENRY KISSINGER: But it gave the impression that Netanyahu was uniquely responsible and was planning to expand settlements, which I do not believe he was really intending to do. What he said last week was that emotional reaction to the assassination of two Israelis and the wounding of three others and, again, in fairness, one has to point out that Arafat has called for a tentative strike, and the actions of the Palestinian police during the riots in October were also serious impediments to the peace process, and, therefore, if one gets into the business, one starts adding transgressions of both sides.

What I think is needed now, it's an attempt to ask both sides to put forward their idea of what a final settlement on the West Bank would be and then to see what common points can be developed. I believe that this ad hoc approach, which at one time I not only supported but I probably originated, has run its course now, and we should reserve ourselves for that final negotiation. And, after all, Netanyahu was elected to give greater emphasis to security. Now on the point that Zbig mentioned of territory and security, leaving aside the issue of the settlements, I pointed out that I believe--in the recent article--that I believe a Palestinian state will emerge from these negotiations.

But I also feel that it cannot be within the borders, that those borders which leave only a nine-mile wide corridor between the major Israeli cities is incompatible with the security of Israel, so that negotiation should be put into--should be put together, and as part of this, I would expect that in the final settlement, it would be agreed in a final agreement, it would be agreed that there would be no new settlements.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Both of you, beginning with you, Dr. Brzezinski, for those of us who don't follow the Middle East as closely as the two of you, explain why the settlements is such a hot issue for both sides.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, in effect, the settlements define who's going to own what, and one of the very major issues under dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis is how much of the West Bank the new Palestinian state eventually will control. The more the settlements are expanded, the more it becomes clear that they'll control less and that they'll have large Israeli entities within any new Palestinian state that may emerge. Just try to imagine what would be the situation today if the Palestinians--let's say with the aid of substantial foreign money--for example from Saudi Arabia--were attempting to build large settlements in East Jerusalem--and say we're just expanding what we have, and we're building more population centers.

There has been enormous outcry that they're trying to determine in advance the outcome of some things to be negotiated. That is exactly what the Likud Party is trying to create on the West Bank. Now, I agree with Henry that it's important to move more rapidly towards a broader strategic outcome to the negotiating process. I'd like to see a significant American negotiator appointed. My candidate would be Richard Holbrooke for that. But we cannot be simply a mediator. We are an arbitrator in many respects. We have deep interests. We have enormous leverage. And we can't be indifferent if one party, in this particular instance, Netanyahu and Likud, take preemptive actions on as sensitive and important issue as precisely the question of territory.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Kissinger, help us understand the Israeli position on the settlements.

HENRY KISSINGER: I'm not defending the Israeli position on the settlements. I'm simply saying the Israeli--what--the Israeli sacrifice that may have to be made with respect to settlements ought to be part of a comprehensive negotiation in which the Arabs make also some concrete concessions.

The Israeli position on the settlements, at least some of the Israeli position on the settlements, is that they are necessary strategically and also that probably the whole West Bank has been given by the Bible to the Jews, and this is not a position I necessarily agree with. And one has to make a distinction between when America should appear as a mediator and whether, and my major concern is whether the United States at this moment should stigmatize one of the parties in a very complicated issue in which the settlements will in the long-term have to be discussed as part of the final settlement.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Kissinger, do you believe that what Dr. Brzezinski and his colleagues did actually "hurt" the peace process?

HENRY KISSINGER: These are all close of friends of mine, and I, after all, also published an article in which I expressed my views. I would have thought that there was a better time to do this, but these are serious people who have had major responsibilities, and one has to take it seriously. I would not have chosen the interim between two administrations in the United States, and the moment when the Israeli government is trying to feel its way in a very complex domestic situation, having over-promised what they could do in the campaign, I would not have chosen that, and, therefore, I didn't sign the letter.

JIM LEHRER: No second thoughts, Dr. Brzezinski?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: We have had reactions from Israel, favorable ones. I'm certain that the Israeli public opinion is divided on the subject, so is our public opinion. Henry and I look at this issue somewhat differently, but we have had positive reactions from a significant segment of the Israeli public opinion, from major American papers, and I dare say most countries in the world agree with us. It is not us doing something during a sensitive interim period. It is our concern that Mr. Netanyahu is doing something during that sensitive period which could prejudice negotiations.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.