EPHRON: It seems to some people that the cabinet decision in principle to expel Arafat has backfired by making the Palestinian leader more popular. Why were you in favor?
SHALOM: My personal view is that we had to expel him two and a half years ago. I thought then, and I think everyone realizes now, that there is no chance to have peace while he is still in power. No moderate leadership can emerge while he’s still here.
You’re talking about soldiers entering his compound by force. What if the soldiers meet resistance and Arafat is killed?
We don’t expect an immediate action. We took a decision that he is an obstacle to peace and should be removed. The only difference that we have with the [international community]… is that they think the damage he will cause while he’s outside will be higher than the damage he causes when he’s inside.
You don’t believe that?
I don’t think so because if someone else [among Palestinian leaders] will control the security forces and will control the money, they will be the real leaders. Do you know that 10 percent of the Palestinian budget is going to the expenses of Arafat’s bureau? One hundred million dollars. It’s unbelievable.
What would prompt Israel to make good on the decision and actually expel Arafat?
I think Arafat knows that we are serious. That’s why he’s trying once again to deceive us. But I hope we won’t have any more attacks so that we don’t have to discuss this matter.
How much weight does Washington’s opposition to expelling Arafat carry?
Listen, we’re a sovereign country, so we should take our decisions on our own. But among friends we should discuss everything. But among friends we can also agree to disagree. I had a discussion with Secretary Powell late last night. We talked about many issues and about the matter of Arafat.
Are you hearing from Powell and other officials a softening of the U.S. position? Is the U.S. more willing to accept a deportation?
No, I can’t say that.
If Israel has evidence that Arafat is behind the violence, why not put him on trial?
I think that would make a hero of him.
Ahmed Qurei, the designated Palestinian prime minister, is now offering a new ceasefire that would be open-ended. Why is Israel so dismissive?
I don’t understand after we tried this how someone can come and ask us to accept the same solution. We know what hudna [ceasefire] means. And we saw that they took advantage of this period to dig more tunnels, to smuggle more weapons, to train their activists, to extend the range of their missiles. By going on the same track, we’d be giving [the extremists] the power to decide when to put an end to the peace process. And when they decide that, they’ll be much more powerful than they are now. The Roadmap says clearly and sharply that they must dismantle the infrastructure of terrorist organizations.
The government you’re a part of must decide soon if the separation fence being built in the West Bank will include the Ariel settlement. The question is important because the U.S. has said Israel might be penalized if it decides to route the fence well into the West Bank. What’s your feeling?
Others think the fence will destroy the peace process, but I think it’s the only way to keep the peace process alive, for two reasons. It will minimize the possibility [for militants] to carry out attacks, so that they won’t be able to destroy the peace process, and it will allow us to hand out more work permits. The Palestinian Authority is against the fence because they will lose the main weapon they had against us. They have always arrived at every negotiation with an imaginary gun on the table, saying if they don’t get what they want they’ll resort to using it.
Should the fence include Ariel or not?
I think that we should protect all Israeli citizens, and in Ariel we have Israeli citizens.
