Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1378870
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 30 MAY 2021 INTERVIEW Secondly, we asked Jews not to visit the Temple Mount: the place that the Muslims call Har- am esh-Sharif. [Pause] When Jesus lived, there was no Haram esh-Sharif. That name has on- ly existed since the 7th century. People who live in Malta, who be- lieve 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 Is- rael' 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 look- ing for excuses, bringing only the Muslim interpretation of history. There is more than one interpre- tation. But the third thing we did [to ease the tension] was that we stopped a march of Israelis, cel- ebrating the liberation of Jeru- salem 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 am- bassador 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 inevita- ble, 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 solu- tions… Singapore is hardly a like-with- like comparison, though, is it? Let me put it this way: this con- flict 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 demo- cratic systems, and non-demo- cratic 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 leader- ship 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 ex- tremists, I don't just mean reli- gious extremists. There are polit- ical extremists, too. Even in Malta, for example. When people demonstrated [in support of Palestine], they shout- ed: 'From the river to the sea, Pal- estine 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 an- nexes land from Palestinian owners, and gives it to Israeli settlers; that labels all forms of resistance as 'terrorism'; and that basically confines an en- tire population of 13.6 million into the equivalent of virtual prisons? Where is the 'compro- mise', 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 tak- en 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 Israe- li civil and security control; and there are also settlements, under Israeli control. Now, US President Obama asked Prime Minister Netan- yahu to stop building new set- tlements. Netanyahu complied; and until now, we are not build- ing new settlements. The only building that is taking place is inside those settlements, to ac- commodate the growing popu- lation. There are new buildings going up, yes; but inside the bor- ders 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 - in- cluding military people – put together. How does that qualify as 'self-defence'? First of all: according to Ha- mas' own details, at least 62 of those who died were Hamas ter- rorists. Our aim was to kill those who were about to launch mis- siles against our country… What about the 66 children? We are very sorry for any civil- ian 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 us- es [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 launch- ing 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 peo- ple 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: in- stead 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 in- to 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 inev- itable 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 under- stand that this is not the solu- tion. 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.