A 4 giorni dal vertice di Washington tra il premier israeliano Benjamin Netanyahu e il Presidente palestiense Mahmoud Abbas, il Presidente dello Stato di Israele Shimon Peres esprime ottimismo in una intervista esclusiva che mi ha rilasciato oggi per il Tg1. Per vedere il servizio sul Tg1 delle 20, clicca qui
Di seguito il testo integrale dell’intervista (in inglese)
Claudio Pagliara: Mr. President, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President ,Mahmud Abbas agreed to resume direct negotiations. But on both sided skepticism seems to prevail. Do you believe that it is possible to reach a peace agreement in one year?
Shimon Peres: I think that it can be reached even earlier because the subjects are known, they are not new, and also because the alternative is known. The alternative is so worrying to all sides that I think they must got a feeling “this time we have to succeed”.
CP: Do you believe that you will see peace in your lifetime?
SP: Hundred per cent
CP: Do you think that Israel should keep on freezing settlements, a key demand of the Palestinians?
SP: I’ll tell you: which was my opinion from the very beginning, the one I advised the Prime Minister. There were positions and there were practices. The Prime Minister said that for 44 years we were building at the same places, which is true. But in the same 44 years there were places were we never build. So we have to keep (not to build in this places) too. There are 21 Arab suburbs in Jerusalem. In the last 44 years we didn’t set up a single building (there). And every body used to live with it. I believe that until we reach a full peace this is the best way to do it. To follow (what we did in) the 44 years and not to build in Arab suburbs. I mean, in Ramat Eshkol (a Jewish neighborhood of) Jerusalem, no one will stop building. We have to discuss the future map and only when we shall agree on the future map the Prime Minister will be able to bring it before the Parliament. I am also telling to my Palestinian friends, please don’t ask for things that the Prime Minister can not deliver. He can not deliver a change in the settlements policy before having an agreement. I want also to remind you that when he announced his moratorium the Arabs were very skeptical. All of a sudden it became an important point. Anyway I believe that it’s possible to find a solution and I would put it on the top of the agenda.
CP: On the issue of the settlement freeze in Jerusalem, the Obama administration, for the first time supported the Palestinian demand. Do you think it was an Obama mistake?
SP: Well Obama him self said that he made some mistakes and he was referring to it. But this are mistakes of the past. Let’s look ahead. Everybody made his own portion of mistakes so, we can not make the history of the mistakes, it wont help anybody.
CP: Today it’s the fifth birthday in captivity of Gilad Shalit, what is your feeling?
SP: My feeling is that Hamas is a very complicated organization. I think that Israel went a very long way and my feeling is that it’s hard to reach an agreement because there are divisions in Hamas itself. But the basic thing, I mean, is wrong. They took a soldier on our land illegally, they are not a legal army, they are not a legal country. Israel didn’t use force to bring him back… there are negotiations. They were offered almost a thousand prisoners, but at the time that they were offered they had another point. We are acting trough a German mediator and apparently it is the nature of negotiations that from time to time you have an interruption. Right now there is an interruption I hope it will be renewed.
CP: Next Thursday you will meet the Pope in Italy, how can be described the relations between Israel and the Holy See now?
SP: The best since Jesus Christ. The best over the last 2000 years. There were ups and downs as you know in our relations. There were some very unpleasant experiences and we don’t wont to repeat them. I think the present Pope really would like to have a sincere dialogue and we would like to have good relations with the Vatican which has a voice, it has followers and for whom the interreligious relations are becoming more important.
Let me say a word about it. In the Middle East there is an ongoing war or confrontation, between the attempt to keep the Middle East Arab or to keep the Middle East Muslim. Iran is running a campaign for the islamisation of the Middle east, the Arab countries don’t like it. They won their independence hundred years ago. Until then they were under occupation. Under imperialistic occupation. Among them Muslim occupation. The Ottoman empire. They won their independence between the first and the second world war. They established 22 States. Many of them are suffering of splits, based on religious reasons. Now the Iranians want to have the all Middle East under their hegemony, under the Iran version of the Islam, which is not accepted by them. And this I believe is the most important confrontation taking place in the Middle East. Clearly we prefer countries that are based on democracy, on national identification which respects religion, but to go back and to put religion as the guiding force in the Middle East is a mistake.
CP: Do you think that the Holy See, the Vatican, could be an ally in this struggle?
SP: The Vatican doesn’t have anymore ambitions to govern countries. The Vatican in fact accepted the division between State and Religion. The Iranians on the contrary want that the religion will eat up the State and it’s a very important concept. I also think all the reasons of the poor relations between us and the Vatican are over. We are looking forward for a world were everybody can pray to the Lord with his own prayer book in his own language, in his own way. It’s not a reason for war or confrontation or hatred. I do believe that the actual Pope is really trying to introduce this philosophy in actual life.
CP: Mr. President, according to a US assessment Iran could have a nuclear bomb in one year. It’s a very short time. Do you think that Israel would be forced to strike to avoid this threat.
SP: I don’t think that Israel has to or should monopolize the danger of Iran. All the great leaders of our time announced that they can’t live with an Iranian bomb. Beginning with president Obama, President Medvedev, Putin, even other countries don’t like the idea and I think it’s their duty to handle the situation. By the way, in order to handle the Iranian danger you need a coalition and that is what took time. Today we have already a coalition that took some economic steps and they will have to give an answer to what shall be done in order not to have a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran which supports terror.
CP: Mr. President, we talked at the beginning of this interview about peace but it’s clear that Israel has being preparing itself for the worse scenario of a war. Do you believe that in the near future, if not with Iran, with its allies, Hamas and Hezbollah, there will be another war?
SP: I tend to think that no because you know, the difference between modern wars and old wars is that modern wars you can not win, you can stop them never win them. Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, all over the places you can win and loose the people but you can hardly win or loose a war. Because a war of terror doesn’t have a camp, doesn’t have an army doesn’t have any definitions for victory or defeat. It’s only killing, destroying, threatening, terrorising and you know, you need large groups (of people) for it. And that’s the worry of the world, because if, let’s say a nuclear bomb, a primitive nuclear bomb falls in the hands of twenty person they are a world danger and its more dangerous since they hide in the way and they camouflage it. So I think it’s a world problem and I think the world has to give an answer.
CP: Mr. President, you are a big supporter of economic development, new technology, mainly nanotechnology. Were do you see the future of Israel, in the settlements or in nanotechnology?
SP: I see the future, not only for Israel, for the all world in technology. I do believe that the coming ten years will be the most sensational years in science and technology. I read about the economic crisis and I don’t belong to this debate, because I believe that people who are interested in economy should go into the laboratories and not to the Stock exchange. The new wealth is in the laboratories, it’s not at the Banks. I believe that this ten years will be sensational for three reasons. Number one: the strengths of our artificial power reached an unbelievable height. Computers were introduced 25 years ago, since then their strength went up million times. There were times that you couldn’t put a computer in this room, now you have an Iphone in your pocket and you have the world in your pocket. Now they are making concerts on computers which is unbelievable. Reason number two: the number of scientists in the world has grown tremendously. If you look at China and India, their scientists there are hundreds of thousands which is a great potential…look, the world existed all the time, people were blind, science is a fight against blindness. So today the army which fights blindness it’s a tremendous army. The third reason is that the most marvelous instrument that we posses, our head was closed to us. The head is made of extremely delicate parts of communication and strategies and balances we don’t know. It’s only now with the nanometer technology that we can develop instruments that can enter the brain and this will bring many changes that are unbelievable.. I believe that in ten maybe fifteen years the largest industry in the worlds will be human spare parts for the maintenance of the body, the maintenance of the brain. It will be modern electronics more that anything else. Why go and see if you have a balance or not have a balance. Go and see were you stand on this great innovations and the meeting of this three forces: the artificial intelligence, the number of scientists and their variations and the research of the brain.
CP: I would like to end this interview with a personal question. You are talking about the most advanced technological developments and when you entered politics there weren’t even computers nor mobile telephones. Personally how have you managed to keep up-to-date about what happens in this world?
SP: Well, I decided that the age of the world is more important then my age. The celebrating of my birthday is not important. What is important is the new Age in the world and I decided that better to learn the history of the future than to repeat the history of the past. So my main interest is what will happen tomorrow and to know that every person who wants to be member of the Age has to be up-to-date, actually up-tomorrow. It is there were the real world and the real events are waiting for us.