'Don't help us. We'll help ourselves'

Israeli Ambassador to Malta Ehud Gol is not one to beat about the bush. In an interview with Herman Grech, the Rome-based diplomat argues his case for the construction of his country's controversial security wall and lambastes those countries that have adopted a sympathetic stand towards the Arabs.

It's been three decades since Israel closed its embassy in Malta. Doesn't Israel feel the need to have a permanent base here?
It's sad that we can't have a permanent ambassador here due to our economic hardships. It's difficult to keep relations by remote control but I do my best to send my staff here at least on a monthly basis. We are also a small country and in the last two years we have been forced to close 12 or 13 embassies. We cannot stretch ourselves beyond our means.

During your three-year term do you believe Israel/Malta relationships have progressed?
I've always said that the turning point in our relations will be the day when Malta joins the EU. In the past we weren't very satisfied with the standing of Malta. Its pattern of voting in the UN didn't really demonstrate any great friendship towards Israel.

Now Malta has a new role to adopt and follow the line of the EU. I consider the recent visit of the Environment Minister (George Pullicino) to Israel as a strong signal that there is a new chapter in our relations.

Do you see any sticking points?
We used to have sticking points when Malta was a member of the non-aligned group whose basic agenda was anti-Israeli, pro-Arab. All I ask Malta is to be one of the 25 (EU countries) - forget your past, forget your special relations with the non-aligned countries and Arab world.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can't get away from the headlines. How would you describe his leadership at the moment?
Very courageous! I think Mr Sharon epitomises a quality every leader should have - he seeks the good of the country before the good of his political party, even if he risks his own governance. He is now committed to the disengagement for the benefit of Israel.

Since 1967 we have been unable to control one-and-a-half million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. We must regroup and complete the disengagement. Mr Sharon came out with a plan and even though his own party is against it he will propose it to the Cabinet and to Parliament and he will garner support.

There is a danger of a split in his own party - 20 members are against the disengagement - but I believe that a year from now he will be proven right.

Mr Sharon's opponents say he has broken an electoral pledge to go to the public before making any unilateral withdrawals. Should there be a referendum?
Although Mr Sharon ruled out a referendum I believe he will ultimately hold it. We also have to remember that the best signal of a democracy is the holding of general elections, which we in Israel hold.

Many say this modest withdrawal would enable Israel to remain in the rest of the occupied territory for a long time...
It's not a modest withdrawal. We are talking about a complete withdrawal from Gaza and we are holding 40 per cent of the Gaza Strip. It would be chaotic if we had to reach an understanding with the Palestinian Authority because there is no Palestinian Authority to deal with.

We will also complete a withdrawal from four settlements in the north of Samaria. This will make it easier for the Palestinians to move in the future. After all, we would like to see an improvement in their situation.

But Israel is still holding control over strategic West Bank areas.
Once we complete the withdrawal it will be limited to the areas that are much closer to the 1967 border. We also have to remind everyone that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999 offered the Palestinians 97 per cent of the land but Yassir Arafat rejected the agreement because he thought that through terrorism he could get 100 per cent of the land. You don't give gifts to people who respond with terrorism.

The end of the month will mark the fourth anniversary of the intifada that erupted after Mr Sharon's visit to Jerusalem's holy places...
Not true. It's a cheap excuse to say that the intifada started because of Mr Sharon's visit to Jerusalem. It was premeditated. The Palestinian Authority was looking for a good excuse to start its wave of terrorism.

Mr Sharon recently said he would find the right time and circumstances to remove Mr Arafat "just the way we found the timing to hit Hamas leaders Yassin and Rantisi". This hardly augurs well for a peaceful end to the conflict.
We treat Mr Arafat as a non-entity. Even though he's been confined to the Ramallah headquarters for three years, he's still causing damage. It's a tragedy for the Palestinian people that Mr Arafat started the intifada. There comes a time when a leader has to be a leader and not a politician and that's Mr Arafat's problem. He didn't lead his people to the promised land - but to pain and destruction.

How do you think the Palestinians perceive Mr Arafat?
There is a big difference to what they say privately and publicly. If they criticise him in public they will shoot them in the legs as light punishment. In private they will tell you that he led them to destruction.

Moving on to something topical, terrorists in Iraq often bring up the Palestinian cause to justify their acts. Do you believe it's just an excuse? What, according to you, could spell an end to terrorism?
Sometimes they don't even cite Israel to cause atrocities in places like Bali, Saudi Arabia and Chechnya. What does Israel have to do with terrorism in Casablanca, Jakarta or Riyadh? In the 20th century we managed to overcome two major threats - Nazism and Communism - but now we're facing something just as dangerous - radical Islam.

At first the world took it lightly because their terrorism was only directed against Israel. But since the September 11 attacks it's become an international disease. You cannot fight such a disease with Penicillin. You have to eradicate it.

Sadly, the policy of Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriquez Zapatero (to withdraw Spain's troops from Iraq) does not prevent terrorism. Likewise, France's policies have not prevented the terrorists from seizing two French journalists and taking them as hostages. Look what has happened to France despite its pro-Arab policies! With a soft line to terrorism you get nothing.

Iraq is still not a success story but Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It's a joke to say that no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

But that was the ticket to go to war in Iraq.
There were two tickets - and the major one was to eliminate Saddam and his atrocities. Saddam killed the Kurdish minorities and his own Shiites with his weapons of mass destruction. Maybe we didn't find them now but there are ample mass graves to prove he had them. People have the tendency to forget. It's easier to demonise the US.

The world is hardly a safer place since the US-led invasion of Iraq.
The world is not a safer place because it is not a united world. The division in Europe is the perfect fuel for terrorists. To be effective against terrorism you cannot be wishy-washy. You cannot give half a message. It must be loud and clear. If you give discounts to international terrorism you will only invite more terrorism. That's the lesson we learnt in Israel. Tourism in Israel is up this year and the reason behind it is because we continued building the barrier and because we strike before they strike us. We go after the Hamas and we kill them before they kill our children.

Israel was hit by a suicide bombing last week. You haven't eliminated terrorism.
That's my point. The suicide bombing last week came after six months and it's not because they didn't try to do it before. They infiltrated because the barrier hasn't been completed.

The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly against the erection of the wall. Doesn't it worry you that this could lead to public opinion swaying against Israel?
It makes me sad that there is such a hypocritical world. The UN might not be in favour of terrorism but indirectly by telling Israel to tie its hands behind its back and saying "we will help you" is unacceptable.

The days when Jews were subjected to the mercy of others are gone. Don't help us. We'll help ourselves. And the way we do this is by defending ourselves and not by wishy-washy declarations.

With all due respect, the UN is composed of a number of undemocratic countries. There are 22 Arab and 55 Muslim countries which belong to the non-democratic factions. Are they going to preach to us how we should defend ourselves?

Don't you feel that the wall might create more hardships for the Palestinians and in the process fuel more extremism?
If you ask me whether the wall is an ideal solution, I would say "definitely not". It's sad, it's tragic. Does it create more hardships for the Palestinians? Absolutely. But I would pose a different question: Given the choice between hardships and death, what would you choose? I would tell them stop your killings.

Don't you think there is such a thing as an innocent Palestinian?
The innocents suffer and we are trying to do our utmost to make life easier for them. In fact, we have our High Court of Justice which we fully abide by and not a political court like that in The Hague. The wall is reversible - human life isn't! Just look at the statistics. In 2002, a total of 450 people were killed by suicide bombings, in 2003 another 220 and so far in 2004 fewer than 60 have died. In 2005 the figure will go down further. So the UN can condemn us as much as it wants. We will continue to save the lives of Israelis.

What are your views on Turkish membership of the EU?
We believe Turkey's EU membership will be beneficial for our own relations with the Union. I know it's difficult for a number of European countries to accept a Muslim country to the club and I don't think Turkey's membership will take place in this decade. I fear the EU is a closed club.

It's evident that some European countries fear that there could be radical Islamists embedded in Turkey.
Having Turkey as part of Europe could neutralise the extreme elements.

We are on the doorstep of an election in the US. Do you fear a new President might not be so sympathetic towards the Israeli cause?
Traditionally, both the Democrats and the Republicans have been close allies to Israel. We feel very comfortable with each other. Israel was the only country in the world where the public and the government held the same views about the war in Iraq.

So nothing should change, irrespective of who is President. George Bush has proven himself to be a friend. John Kerry made it clear through his activities in the Senate that he also supports us. If Europe is hoping that something will change between the US and Israel because of the election it can rest assured that the solid relationship will remain.

Do you think there will ever be a day when all of Europe becomes a friend to Israel?
I see no reason why it shouldn't happen. Today more than ever Europe is beginning to realise the agonies that Israel faces on a daily basis and the need to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, many Europeans are learning the lesson the hard way!