What does Likud MK Moshe Arens, former three-time Defense Minister and ex-Foreign Minister, think about Egyptian President Mubarak\'s statement blaming Sharon for the lack of a working relationship between the two leaders?
\"His anger at Sharon is nothing to be concerned about,\" Arens told Arutz-7 today, \"although there is room for wonder at Egypt\'s own violation of the peace treaty with Israel: Mubarak\'s recall last year of his ambassador from Tel Aviv. Mubarak also refuses to visit Israel. It\'s therefore puzzling that he sits in Egypt and gets angry with Sharon, for absolutely no reason. Is he waiting for us to get down on our knees to him? In my opinion, our government is not making enough of a public issue of the fact that Egypt is in violation of the terms of the peace treaty by not having an ambassador here…\"
Arutz-7\'s Ariel Kahane asked Arens: \"The Prime Minister\'s office is intimating that the Americans have hinted that Israel has a green light to carry out whatever military policies in Judea and Samaria it deems necessary. What\'s your take on this?\"
Arens said that it\'s not the American style to express itself in that manner, \"but it\'s definitely true that since Sep. 11, the Bush Administration has shown great understanding of our actions, which it sees as part of the war against terrorism. Even Secretary Powell, after we took down the houses in Rafiach, said that the Israelis are simply defending themselves.\"
Q. \"Would it be correct to say, then, that we are restricting ourselves in the framework of our domestic politics, more than the international community is restricting us?\"
A. \"Look, it depends on your political outlook. I have been saying for a long time that we are in a war, and not just reacting to attacks. If this is war, then the war has to be won - and not dragged out, either. I do feel that the government has taken some steps in this direction over the past weeks, such as going into PA-controlled areas and the like. We have to take more steps in this direction.\"
Q. \"It appears that Sharon\'s approach is that it\'s better to do it slower but together with Labor, rather than do it faster with the Likud and the right-wing alone. How do you feel about this?\"
A. \"Look, in my opinion the Labor Party barely exists, so I\'m not sure that it\'s so justified. Not only that, but Labor is divided into two parts - Shimon Peres, and everyone else… I told Peres to his face that he is causing damage by making announcements that are contrary to government policy. I don\'t see him leaving the government so fast; he seems to have nowhere to go; in my opinion he does not have great public support. Neither is the rest of the party so anxious to leave the government. As a politician I can say that they will not leave the government until [a short time] before the elections, and neither do I think that [Labor leader Defense Minister Binyamin] Ben-Eliezer is restraining Sharon so much; if anything, it sometimes appears that Ben-Eliezer wants to take a stronger approach than Sharon…\"
\"His anger at Sharon is nothing to be concerned about,\" Arens told Arutz-7 today, \"although there is room for wonder at Egypt\'s own violation of the peace treaty with Israel: Mubarak\'s recall last year of his ambassador from Tel Aviv. Mubarak also refuses to visit Israel. It\'s therefore puzzling that he sits in Egypt and gets angry with Sharon, for absolutely no reason. Is he waiting for us to get down on our knees to him? In my opinion, our government is not making enough of a public issue of the fact that Egypt is in violation of the terms of the peace treaty by not having an ambassador here…\"
Arutz-7\'s Ariel Kahane asked Arens: \"The Prime Minister\'s office is intimating that the Americans have hinted that Israel has a green light to carry out whatever military policies in Judea and Samaria it deems necessary. What\'s your take on this?\"
Arens said that it\'s not the American style to express itself in that manner, \"but it\'s definitely true that since Sep. 11, the Bush Administration has shown great understanding of our actions, which it sees as part of the war against terrorism. Even Secretary Powell, after we took down the houses in Rafiach, said that the Israelis are simply defending themselves.\"
Q. \"Would it be correct to say, then, that we are restricting ourselves in the framework of our domestic politics, more than the international community is restricting us?\"
A. \"Look, it depends on your political outlook. I have been saying for a long time that we are in a war, and not just reacting to attacks. If this is war, then the war has to be won - and not dragged out, either. I do feel that the government has taken some steps in this direction over the past weeks, such as going into PA-controlled areas and the like. We have to take more steps in this direction.\"
Q. \"It appears that Sharon\'s approach is that it\'s better to do it slower but together with Labor, rather than do it faster with the Likud and the right-wing alone. How do you feel about this?\"
A. \"Look, in my opinion the Labor Party barely exists, so I\'m not sure that it\'s so justified. Not only that, but Labor is divided into two parts - Shimon Peres, and everyone else… I told Peres to his face that he is causing damage by making announcements that are contrary to government policy. I don\'t see him leaving the government so fast; he seems to have nowhere to go; in my opinion he does not have great public support. Neither is the rest of the party so anxious to leave the government. As a politician I can say that they will not leave the government until [a short time] before the elections, and neither do I think that [Labor leader Defense Minister Binyamin] Ben-Eliezer is restraining Sharon so much; if anything, it sometimes appears that Ben-Eliezer wants to take a stronger approach than Sharon…\"