WarSclerotic

After speaking at Congress and facing off with U.S. President Barack Obama, 11 days before facing an election at home, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells Israel Hayom that “a prime minister in Israel must be able to stand up even to our closest ally and tell the truth. Otherwise, history will not be kind to us.”

Netanyahu stresses that the speech he gave to a joint session of Congress this week was “well worth the cost of confrontation” with the American president, adding that “what are we expected to do with such a fateful issue? Put our heads down? Go back 80 years to a time when Jews were forced to cower before the nobility? Ignore a threat of annihilation? Not demand action? Stop interrupting? I refuse to accept that!”

The prime minister says he is optimistic about the lasting effects of his speech. “I got the impression that my remarks were very well received by the American public as well as the members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. I met with the Senate leadership after the speech and it was clear to me that the key points I raised had settled deep in their awareness, creating a foundation for debate and certainly prompting quite a few people to rethink their views.”

“Sure it was worth the effort. If Iran arms itself with a nuclear bomb, with the explicit intent of annihilating Israel, it would jeopardize our very existence. If I hadn’t done what I did, in the future other could criticize us and wonder, ‘Why didn’t you speak up? Why didn’t you issue warnings? Why didn’t you act in time? I, of course, am acting in time.

“Contrary to what people may say, the relations between Israel and the U.S. are strong, and they will overcome this disagreement. If the [emerging Iran deal] is brought to Congress for approval — and there is a real possibility that it will — I have no doubt that my speech served to shore up support for Israel’s stance. Until my visit to Washington the hot-button issue was ISIS. Indeed, the threat of ISIS is an important issue, and fighting the group is an important fight, but when comparing the threat posed to the world by ISIS to the threat posed by a nuclear Iran, a nuclear Iran is far more dangerous, and the threat spans the globe. My address to Congress and the debate that preceded it placed the issue of a nuclear Iran back on the global agenda.”

A better deal, or no deal

“In my speech, I proposed two alternatives to the emerging deal. One was my demand to increase the time frame Iran will require to manufacture a nuclear weapon should they violate the terms of the agreement. This can be achieved by placing tougher restrictions on the Iranian program. The second was to keep these restrictions in place until Iran significantly changes its aggressive behavior — including halting its support of terrorism and its calls to destroy Israel. Either way, under the existing deal, the sanctions will automatically be lifted in ten years’ time and Iran will be free to build as many bombs as it wishes, and they will be able to do it in a very short time — perhaps a few weeks even.”

Q: You have been fighting against the Iranian nuclear program for a long time, but Iran has not budged from its course.

“First of all, if it weren’t for everything I have been doing, and continue to do, over the last 20 years, even before I became prime minister, Iran would very likely already have a bomb today. When Iran began arming itself with nuclear capability, I took action and exerted pressure in order to bring about sanctions, even when I was in the opposition. We took a lot of steps to prevent this nuclear armament. The boundaries that I set also had an effect, but there is still a lot of work ahead of us. We are not done yet.”

Q: It was reported that you and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak talked about launching a military campaign against Iran several years ago. Similar remarks were made by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan. What exactly happened there? Has the military option been removed from the table?

“I am not here to talk about what we planned to do or what we are planning to do.”

Q: Former IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz also hinted something about that.

“I am not here to talk about what we planned to do or what we are planning to do. I am only going to say that Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.”

Q: But Obama has also said that he will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. How do you explain the disparity between your two positions?

“We disagree on how to prevent it. The deal that the world powers are currently promoting is actually paving the path for Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. This agreement sends a clear message to Iran that if it honors the agreement for ten years, it will be given the total freedom to use fissile material to manufacture an unlimited number of nuclear bombs. No one is confronting the reality that is inherent in the agreement. The biting sanctions imposed on Iran in 2012 quickly brought them to the negotiations table — something they refused to do as long as the sanctions were softer. Sadly, the interim agreement that was signed released some of the pressure off Iran. The Iranians do not believe that the West has the necessary conviction to intensify the sanctions — precisely at a time when biting sanctions would be most effective with the falling prices of oil. The Iranian economy would have difficulty overcoming that, and there is an opportunity to bring the Iranian regime to accept terms that it is currently not willing to accept. What is necessary now is determination, to demand the basic stipulations that I proposed in my speech in Washington. I raised these two demands, and they are different from what is currently on the table, under a framework that would be far better than the existing agreement. My alternative to the existing agreement is securing a better deal, or no deal at all. Both options are better than the agreement currently emerging.”

Q: Were you surprised by Obama’s response to your speech?

“The administration’s response came as no surprise at all, because that is their stated position. I was surprised mainly by the encouraging response of the American public and the response of American lawmakers, including Democrats, many of whom described the speech as ‘powerful.’ This speech raised issues and question that the administration has to address — that was the general response, and not only from supporters.”

Q: Have have spoken with the Saudis and other U.S. allies in the Middle East to coordinate a regional stance against Iran?

“I don’t discuss our contacts with the Arab world, but I can say that there is a very wide consensus among key Arab nations on the stance I expressed at Congress. I told the Americans that this kind of thing doesn’t happen often in our region — Israel and Arab nations agreeing on something — and when it does happen, they should listen.”

Q: Is there personal animosity between you and the American president?

“I don’t look at things on a personal level. There are a lot of areas where we cooperated with one another, and I mentioned them in my speech. But here there is a point of contention on an issue that could jeopardize our future. On this I think that it is the Israeli prime minister’s duty to take a stand, even if it comes at the cost of disagreeing with the American president. These disagreements have happened in the past, and will likely happen again. The question you should be asking is not of me but of those Israelis who don’t stand up to this danger, and don’t support this stance. They say that they agree with this position, but refuse to express it.

“The days when Jews remained passive and quiet in the face of calls for their extermination are over, and as long as I am prime minister of Israel, they will not return. I expect everyone to stand up right now, rise above the politics and warn of the coming danger and demand exactly what I am demanding.”

Q: There is a coalition comprising Tzipi Livni, Isaac Herzog, Yair Lapid and others who claim that they will rehabilitate Israel’s relations with the U.S.

“What does that mean ‘rehabilitate’? And allow Iran arm itself with nuclear bombs? Absurd. The relationship with the U.S. is strong enough. It will experience ups and downs, currently on its way up. The support for Israel among the American public is at an all time high. The support for me personally has also gone up over the last year. We are not going to lose the American public just because we are standing up for ourselves. On the contrary: A prime minister who stands up for himself is often respected for it. True, there will always be those who think differently, but at the end of the day we need to stand up for ourselves.

“One thing is certain: At this time, we will not allow a situation where Iran can have weapons capable of wiping us off the face of the earth tomorrow. Anyone with eyes in his head knows that this is a time to stand up, not to capitulate.”

Herzog and Livni will divide Jerusalem

“Netanyahu says explicitly that Herzog and Livni, the leaders of the Zionist Union political camp, are not worthy of Israel’s leadership because they intend to divide Jerusalem under a future deal with the Palestinians and establish a coalition with the Joint Arab List. Netanyahu points to a widespread, covert effort to encourage Israel’s Arabs to vote, thereby increasing the number of Joint Arab List Knesset seats at the expense of up to five seats on the Right. Such a scenario will only play out, however, if the general public who wants Netanyahu to remain in power refrains from turning out to vote, or votes for parties other than Likud.”

Q: Do you think that Herzog and Livni are not suited to serve as prime minister?

“Precisely. I think they are unworthy. They will not last one day under the pressure. They will not be able to curb Iran’s nuclearization for one day. They have already admitted that the moment they are elected they will go to Ramallah. And I know exactly what will happen there: They will offer the Palestinians a state that would see Jerusalem divided and be adjacent to Tel Aviv, similar to previous offers. They will offer Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas immediate territorial concessions and a second Hamastan will arise. Then we will have a double Iranian threat: a nuclear threat and the threat of an Iranian proxy right here at the heart of Israel.”

Q: Is there any chance that they will serve as prime ministers under a rotation agreement?

“There is a coalition, with overt as well as concealed motives, that seeks to topple the Likud government and replace it with a left-wing leadership. It is not just the ‘anyone but Bibi’ campaign that we know. I am talking about very powerful organizations with foreign funding in the tens of millions of shekels, equipped with strategists and advisers, seeking two main objectives: To increase the voter turnout among the Left and to increase the voter turnout among the Arabs. These are well-funded organizations that can get the Arab list up to 16 seats, thereby determining the result of the elections as a whole. The strategy is clear: Encourage the Left to vote and bring about unprecedented voter turnout among the Arab sector. They believe that in this way they will be able to break the Likud leadership and crown the Left. That is the main, covert effort and it is already influencing the polls. It poses a real threat that the Likud Party and I will not lead the next government.

“Livni and Herzog first concealed Livni, and then the rotation idea. They are going together into a coalition supported by the Arab voters. That is the big change that is underway. The only way to prevent that is massive voter turnout on the opposite side of the political map — Likud voters and my supporters. That is the only way to prevent their efforts to dilute the Likud vote and deflect the votes toward the ‘social’ parties and the Left with the help of the Arabs.”

Q: Herzog and Livni also believe that the emerging deal with Iran is a bad deal.

“I am willing to stand up fearlessly to prevent this deal. That is what a leader does. Rolling your eyes and explaining that you theoretically agree with the position but aren’t willing to do anything to back it up is not the way leadership behaves. Herzog and Livni are displaying zero ability to lead. Leadership is going against the current; withstanding pressure in order to defend the basic interests of your people. They are not showing any leadership capabilities, and they never will.”

Q: Habayit Hayehudi voters might do it because in the past, governments let by you have declared a construction freeze in Judea and Samaria and released Palestinian prisoners.

“I don’t think there is any government that ever fought harder than me for the settlement enterprise and national interests in the face of the kind of pressure that no previous prime minister has ever faced. I displayed impressive endurance, including maneuverability from time to time. On the topic of settlements, I think that it is important for everyone to understand, especially those who criticize us, that if I am not in power there will no longer be a settlement enterprise. They will be left with nothing. The alternative is the Left. When you look at the overall results, you see that we protected the essential interests of Israel. We brought Gilad Schalit back [from Hamas captivity]. It was one of the most challenging decisions we had to make, but overall we managed to preserve Israel’s security at a time of upheaval in the Middle East. We led resolute, calculated and ultimately justified steps in the face of threats — radical Islam that has washed over the Middle East and Iran-led terrorism.”

Q: In the end, there will be unity government. Won’t there?

“I don’t foresee such a government, and I want to emphasize that there will not be.”

Q: Not even one headed by you?

“No. Because today’s Labor Party is different than what I remember of it. Once upon a time we disagreed on managing the economy, on free market principles and government oversight. They also wanted territorial concessions that we refused to make. But today the Labor Party is infused with an anti-Zionist element that entirely throws off the balance. Now there are candidates on the Labor list that talk about Israel’s national anthem, Hatikva, being racist and that they don’t identify with it; that mothers shouldn’t send their sons to the army. It is a different Labor Party. They did change their name to the Zionist Union, but there are certainly anti-Zionist elements there. There is good reason why they don’t use the ‘Zionist Union’ moniker in the ads they use in the Arab sector. They are not natural partners in the coalition. Therefore, if I establish a unity government with them it would soon collapse. My goal is to establish a true national government with Likud and our natural partners.”

Q: You have been accused of reverting to the Iranian threat to divert attention from the economic issue.

“We have addressed the economic issue in a way that no government before us ever has. We accomplished a lot in the economic social realm. True, there is plenty of work left to do, but I would like to remind everyone of Israel’s economic growth, which already exists, which led to low unemployment that has been maintained here for decades. The number of employed Israelis is constantly on the rise. We increased participation in the work force, among the ultra-Orthodox as well. In addition, we built unprecedented transportation infrastructure in a way that hasn’t been seen since the establishment of the state. We broke up the natural gas monopoly and drove down energy prices, which in turn reduced food prices. We identified the problem in the housing market and we are planning to increase the housing supply by building 100,000 new units in lots that will be cleared for that purpose in high-demand areas in central Israel. We will reinstate the mortgage subsidies that [Finance Minister Yair] Lapid did away with. Having already lowered the customs tax, we will cancel the value added tax on basic staples under supervision. This will translate into savings for the consumers. All these things will ease the burden and reverse the trend in the rising cost of living.”

Q: In practice, the cost of housing has skyrocketed.

“True, but on the other hand, a recent Bank of Israel report concluded that if we continue taking the steps we have been taking, they will lead to a shift in that trend, and I agree. There are a number of key conclusions that need to be implemented, and I plan to implement them. At least we recognized the problem. Others, in previous governments, failed to recognize it and even made a string of misguided decisions, like [former Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert who stopped projects in central Israel, thereby bringing the market to a halt.

“We increased the supply of housing from 32,000 units in 2008 to 47,000 in 2013. The aim is to reach 60,000 within years. The first order of business is to close the gaps, and 60,000 units should cover the demand deficit and increase supply.”

Q: 40% of Israelis have overdrawn bank accounts. What kind of hope are you offering these people?

“Our actions are designed to lift as many people as possible out of that situation, so that they are living in debt. More commercial competition, a reform of the ports designed to lower consumer prices, low cost airlines, cheaper mobile phones and internet — all this has already been done, and there is still a lot left to do. My aim is to enact as many reforms that will leave as much money in the citizens’ pockets as possible. We increased minimum wage twice. We brought more money into workers bank accounts and lowered expenses, and we will continue doing that.”

Q: Yair Lapid said you were “detached” from the people.

“Some people are trying to create a bad image for me, but the truth is that I work 17 hours every day. Some might say this is cliché, but I everything I do for the state of Israel and its citizens, to ensure in every possible way their safety and wellbeing. I am well aware of the challenges faced by Israel’s citizens. I do not ignore them. I will do everything in my power to help. All the major reforms that have been implemented in recent years were led by me.

“What did Herzog and Livni do lately? Does lowering unemployment, providing Iron Dome protection, combating the Iranian bomb and erecting a fence to keep out infiltrators not count? Do they only consider evacuating settlements an achievement? It is interesting that all those people who accuse me of being detaches didn’t make a peep when they were members of my coalition. Only when there are elections approaching then my detachment becomes an issue?”