Nancy Dickerson Special Report: The Middle East

the This program is made possible in part by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This program is made possible in the United States. Islam means brotherhood.

Islam means faith. Islam means friendship. Islam means love means love. This is the true interpretation of Islam. Not for many is hatred. If anybody would ask us to make concessions beyond the candidate agreement, does it is written and signed by President Saddam, by President Carter as a witness? And by me, it would be curious. But we just signed an agreement. Let us carry it out. If it is right, that the Soviet Union should not occupy a foreign stand, which is a country with its own people, with its own right self-determination. Then by the same right and by the same issues that are involved in that, there is no right that can give these Israelis a right to occupy Arab territories. Good evening. I'm Nancy Dickerson reporting from the Middle East. Those three men you've just seen have a profound impact on our daily lives and what we pay for gas

and whether the military budget should be increased. What they do, and virtually everything else that happens here, affects us from the invasion of Afghanistan and the revolt and Iran to the stalled Israeli Egyptian peace talks. For that reason, this entire area is the focus of intense diplomatic activity. World leaders crowd their airports, coming to see the same people I interviewed. The President of Egypt, the Prime Minister of Israel, and the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. So won't you join us for this, my special assignment, the Middle East? The Middle East is an area in which the United States has had a long standing interest. For years, it has been the backer of the state of Israel in its difficulties with its Arab neighbors. And as the United States own petroleum reserves have dwindled over the past decade,

it has grown more and more dependent on Middle East oil suppliers, some of them, those Arab states that have gone to war with Israel. This country's diplomatic efforts concerning the Middle East reached a high point when President Carter at Camp David brought Egypt and Israel to a peace treaty, a prelude, the U.S. hoped, to Israel's peace with other Arab neighbors. That hope remains unfulfilled. The revolution in Iran was the first of two recent events that threatened American interests in the area. The revolution not only affected oil supplies, but installed a fundamentally Islamic anti-American government. That government preached that the United States was the enemy of Islam, the predominant religion of the area. That Islamic call produced echoes with not revolutions and other nearby Muslim countries. The second important event affecting American interests was the Soviet Union's Christmas time invasion of Afghanistan.

The invasion produced fears and virtually every other country in the region as well. The United States now feels a new sense of urgency about the Middle East. American diplomats are in and out of its capitals with nearly daily regularity. And President Carter's national security adviser, Dr. Brzezinski, told me when he was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that the situation calls for some fundamental rethinking of American foreign policy. Let me just make two points, but both are really important. Since World War II, the United States is becoming engaged in promoting the security of Western Europe than the Far East. We now realize that this region is also a centrally important region to us, to the Far East and to Western Europe. Secondly, the social, political and historical circumstances here are very different. We cannot simply recreate the European experience here. We have to work with different countries in different ways directly, indirectly, in promoting their security, and we are prepared to do so.

On this special assignment, I interviewed President Anwar El-Sadat of Egypt, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, his Royal Highness, Prince Soud, and Israeli Prime Minister Manachim Begin. Each talked about the Afghanistan invasion and what the Russians would do next. Well, you should be always careful about the prophecies concerning the Politburo. Usually they take people by surprise. As far as the invasion of the Soviet army in Afghanistan is concerned, I consider it to be a most serious event. And this is indeed, for the first time after the Second World War, the Russians carried out such an invasion not by proxy. They took over other countries like Angola, Mozambique, Saudi Yemen, by proxy, humans, others, this time they did directly with their tanks, with their guns, etc. So it's very dangerous development.

What they will do next? I don't think that there is anybody on Earth who can say so. A lot of people in the United States say that the Russians moved because they perceived that the United States was weak, that Washington was too concerned with Watergate and Vietnam. Do you think that's true? No, I don't think that the United States is weak, and the United States is watching, but the physical, that that situation was that the Russians made the calculation, they can move in, and perhaps they will encounter some opposition from the Afghans' party zones, but not directly from any Western country, including the United States. And as you can see, do you want to be mistaken? For his part, Egyptian presidents did not use the invasion as it affects the balance of world power. Peace needs to be balanced all over the world. And the last two or three,

since the Vietnam complex and since the Watergate, and so you didn't give or attach the needed importance for keeping the balance in the whole world as the first superpower. For that, you appear to be on the defensive, and the Soviet Union on the offensive, and they moved in Africa, they moved in Asia and Afghanistan, and they will be continuing to move if they are not checked. I'm happy because you are now in a position after Carter's doctrine to check the Soviet Union, not to make war with the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union will not start war for Afghanistan or anyone. I know they're quite well. I have deal with them. You know, you turn it around. In the United States, it's been heralded

this invasion of Afghanistan, as perhaps a step closer toward war. Did you say it's a good omen? There's a good omen. Why? The balance must be kept in the whole world. Look what is happening now on the Persian Gulf. Everyone is scared, and everyone is not sure of the help of the United States or sure of himself. So they are really in a mess. That is because the United States appear to be on the defense all the time. Well, when Carter started to check, well, this is a good omen, because as I told you, I have deal with the Soviet Union more than 15 years. They need full surveillance, and they need four hours to develop. In Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Minister, Prince Saud, had another view of the Soviet invasion. Well, I don't really know what motivates the two superpowers

and their relations or their judgments about each other, but what is a better way to look at it is by the event itself, whatever the motivation, the result is immensely dangerous. Rather, it is that they saw Afghanistan, as we can, that they could occupy it with impunity, that they have objectives, is certain, because otherwise they wouldn't have done this. Whatever they are, they are trying to accomplish them by using force. And coming from a superpower, this returns us to the age of savagery, where the strong can accomplish what he wants, by using brute strength. This is coming from one of the countries that have, in their hands, the peace and security of the whole world, or the destruction of the whole world, is by itself an enormous danger to the stability and security of the world. And whatever the third world countries,

and the Muslim countries can do to show their opposition to this, to show their firm insistence on their independence, and the final analysis would be good even to the relations between the superpowers. In reaction to the Afghanistan invasion, President Carter made a speech out of that evolve, what we call the Carter Doctrine. What did you think, as you listened to that speech or read it later? The United States is one of the countries that would be most effective in taking measures with the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union of the wrongness of their action, and the wrongness of using force to attain objectives. If it is the interest of the Soviet Union that they are searching for in this, then force is not the way to deal with this. This is a return really to the age of imperialism in the beginning of the century, where the strong powers, the powers would be with the forces of military forces and military capabilities,

try to get what they want from the rest of the world by force, by occupation, by exploitation. And what did it do to us? It brought the world to two world wars in the final analysis. This is what will happen. And if now we see a reaction from each of the superpowers, trying to gain advantage by using military force, and eventually the world will run dry of places where they can go and bring their armies, and they will start into conflict with each other. So I think whatever measures that the United States takes to prevent the use of force. What do you want them to do? The United States? Yes. Well, to stand as firmly as the third world and as the Muslim countries have done, the Muslim countries that are facing this migration, Afghanistan, the surrounding countries have legitimate requirements

to stand on their own feet. This is where any assistance that can be provided by the United States should be needed to help these countries maintain their independence really. What I really advise is this, help your friends to defend themselves, either economically and I put economically in the first place, to build their economy because economy now means independence. And then give us, sell us the arms with which we can defend ourselves. The language of strength is what you're saying. But right and the language of checking him wherever he moves or whenever he moves, one must be ready to check this attitude. And they can be checked, it is not very difficult. What do you think the United States should do now in this connection?

I agree with President Carter, 100%. But it needs more surveillance from your side and you have to drop this Vietnam complex and so not in the sense of sending American soldiers to any place in the world. If I may interrupt, your friend Dr. Henry Kissinger has suggested that we should send troops to Pakistan. You're saying that back is your own? No, no, I don't agree to this at all. I don't agree to this. I don't agree to bases. Any more bases because whenever there is a base and a foreign flag, there is hatred always. And you have your experience. What do you think about the Carter response to the Soviet invasion? The so-called Carter doctrine, where he said we were going to put a great umbrella

of strategic protection over this entire Middle East area? Well, I suppose it was a very serious statement and I think it was good that it was made. Because now there is a clear warning as far as the Persian Gulf is concerned. We have vital interests of the West out there, no doubt, because until we have solar energy, our nuclear energy, all the West will move the wheels of their industry through oil. Even in its agriculture by oil, and therefore it is a vital interest. And this is the reason why it will I deem it to be a very serious statement. You worry about that? No, I will tell you. I believe in the peace treaty we signed away with the Egyptians. I believe that not only President Sadat wants peace

and he does want peace, but also the Egyptian people. So not from this point of view, there is from now point of view a problem of being allowed, but we have to think about the future. That is true. Prime Minister Bagan, I've just been in Saudi Arabia and many people there believe that the Israeli occupation of Arab lands is equal to if not a greater threat than the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Madame, look at the map. Well, I don't want to use derogatory words, but I think it is one of one of the statements in which there is the almost complete lack of wisdom and realism. What threat are we to Saudi Arabia? The Southern Yemen is a threat to Saudi Arabia.

They are Cubans and Russians. Do we want something from Saudi Arabia? We want to live with peace with everybody. We don't threaten anybody. At times, the strategic security of the entire area, as envisioned by the Carter Doctrine, appears to be jeopardized by and secondary to local passions over the Israeli Arab peace treaty. For example, here is Prince Cao's reaction. When I asked him if the greater urgency brought on by the invasion of Afghanistan would compel his country to soften its opposition to the peace treaty. But why would there be an image that we would stand firmly against occupation in the Afghanistan and be less firm against occupation in the Arab world? Even as a Muslim, I don't see how we can justify our stand against aggression in a Muslim country and yet leave Jerusalem without objecting to occupation of Jerusalem.

The question is not here. There is no price that can be paid for independence in one area and to forego it in another area. You can't say I will fight for freedom here and not for here. If it is right, I am just that the Soviet Union should not occupy Afghanistan, which is a country with its own people, with its own rights of determination, then by the same right and by the same issues that are involved in that, there is no right that can give the Israelis the right to occupy Arab territories. Since I have been in this part of the world, I keep hearing that the Arab states consider the Israeli threat to be far greater than the Russian threat and that the Israeli threat, and the question of Palestinian state,

has to be dealt with first before you will deal with the Russian threat. Just put this image in front of you. The great destruction that has happened in the Middle East, whereas there is such great capabilities in the Middle East because of the Israeli issue undoubtedly perhaps the energies of the region and makes it prone to crises and problems as this exists. I would like to see what would have happened in Afghanistan had there not been an Israeli conflict in the Middle East. Had there been solidarity amongst the Arab countries to pursue the policies that they have of independence, of cooperation with the international community on the basis of equality. For their endorsement of the Israeli peace treaty, the Saudis were demanding a sign of progress in the peace talks.

So I asked the prince to define a sign of progress. Bring the Palestinians into the negotiating tables and accept the principle of self-determination for the Palestinians. That's the direct way to achieve it. Can't you convince the Palestinians and King Hussein and Jordan and all other Arab leaders to come in to this agreement? But who's invited them? The Palestinians are not invited. They write King Hussein to discuss the Palestinian issue. He would not. He would say, why don't you call the Palestinian? Why should the Palestinians only be the people that cannot discuss the problem of Palestine? Now it is a psychological problem. Why shouldn't the United States with all its status that I told you about start talking with the Palestinians, with the PLO? Well, Kissinger gave a certain commitment.

Yes. But I think the responsibility of the United States as a superpower or the first superpower and in this troubled world and mainly in this troubled area now, I think this should bring the United States to talk with the PLO for the sake of peace and for the sake of trying to ease the tension in this part of the world. Do you have any indication that they will talk to the PLO? I have no indications, but as I told you, I am of the idea that it is the responsibility of the United States. Even if there is a commitment like this, tell Israel that Israel are going to drop this commitment because we are responsible,

especially after what has taken place in Afghanistan and is being cooked now in this area. Is our government urging you pretty strongly to talk with the PLO? No, you have given him and doesn't. I never heard of President Sadat as America to talk to the so-called PLO. I didn't hear it from him and they met him many times. He told me that. Well, I only say I never heard. I didn't say that you didn't hear. I never heard about it. But I don't want to repeat whatever President Sadat told me about this subject because we held private talks. No, the United States government does not ask us to negotiate a so-called PLO. For obvious reasons, they know our attitude. What is the PLO? It is a genocidal organization. It is a genocidal aim to destroy the state of Israel. They always attack men, women, and children. Civilians always.

That is a genocidal method. So now, to whom are we going to talk to those who want to destroy us, or those who kill our men, women, and children, is the nation in the world which would negotiate their own destruction? I think the last question would answer all the other questions. No nation would do so and we are a nation. We want to live and we are not going to negotiate about anything with a so-called PLO. Lately, they also made, again, threats. They will hoist their flag on Jerusalem. What does it mean? Destruction of the state of Israel. Because Jerusalem will fight. They won't never do so. Jerusalem will be always our capital city. However, again, I would like to say, I never heard any such advice from President Carter and Secretary Vance that we should speak to all of the PLO. Mr. Bagan, people here in Israel say

that the Peace Accords are fine for President Sedat because he's got most of his land back and his oil fields. But what did Mr. Bagan get? Just a piece of paper. Do you ever go to bed at night? Don't worry about that. My friend, a peace treaty is not a peace pay, a piece of paper. There is a very cynical statement or ever married to you. If that philosopher should be adopted and will always live in a jungle, peace treaty is a very serious document. I don't think we made any mistake whatsoever. It's a turning point in the annals of the Middle East. But this is a real achievement. As I told you, we gave great sacrifices for it. It's not the question of a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper, it's a question of peace. And I believe that we did it with the largest and strongest Arab country we have now a peace. Mr. Bagan, the Jerusalem Post has a headline here saying, Carter boiling mad on settlements.

And there are a lot of people who feel that your policy on settlements in the West Bank makes a mockery of the peace agreement. This is what is said. You know that. No, I don't. I never had such words. I will always answer any questions. Thank you, sir. I don't have to prove my sincerity. I am an old man already. And I proved it throughout my life on any occasion. I think both President Carter and President Sadat know very well. When we had a difference of opinion with Sadso, or whenever misled anybody, about the settlements we said, time and again, throughout the negotiations. We have a right to settle in the land. It's not foreign land. I said, sir, in a surrounding the presence of President Sadat. We have a right to live in the land. On the other hand, this is one of the most serious issues of our national security. We have a glimpse at a man, a little country,

surrounded all over, Soviet weapons, Western weapons, et cetera. A huge army in Syria, more than 2,500 advisors. Iraq, sophisticated weapons, a thousand tank areas. They can bring through the desert in 40,000, four armored divisions in the air, the most sophisticated planes, like Miq-25, et cetera. The peer law is on the rampage. Sometimes they don't succeed in the attempts. We've filed those attempts. Our security services are good. Our soldiers are not the worst in the world. The circle peer law has got a million dollars daily of a budget, nearly 400 million per annum. Anyhow, nearly 360 million. From the petodalas countries.

And with such money, you can buy arms. They are on the rampage. And we must defend ourselves. And we are sure our security, of course, if air is lived together with Jews, it is much more difficult to carry out. From the mountains, coming to the valley, those terrorists attacks. It's a matter, may I now use this word? One of the most vital interests of Israel. Because in our case, security means life, just like this. The life of our men, women, and children. And we never miss that, anybody. On all occasions, we have a right to settle, to live in the land, every place in the land, and it is a matter. One of the most vital issues of our national security. But many people feel that with the recent Soviet threat, it's time now for Israel to make more concessions. We signed the Kim David Agreement.

And we want to carry out this agreement faithfully, corporalously, in letter and spirit. If anybody would ask us to make concessions, beyond the Kim David Agreement, as it is written and signed by President Saddam, by President Carter as a witness, and by me, it would be curious. But we just signed an agreement. Let us carry it out. What concessions? We signed an agreement that the My Opinion can serve the purpose of peace, the idea of autonomy for the Palestinian Arab and Judea Samaria and the Gaza District is our idea, not in Egyptian one, not in American one, because we want to live with our neighbors together in peace and liberty and human dignity, without bloodshed, without attacks and counter attacks. And this is the breach through which you can reach this goal. This is the agreement we signed.

Let us give it a chance. What new concessions? Well, let me say this in old Cardar. I am ready to go any further, but how am I going to give concessions in the full autonomy for the Palestinian? In the first place, let me tell you this. I can't speak for the Palestinian. It is not Egypt. I can't give in a position except for my land or in my capacity as president of Egypt. But for the Palestinians, I can't give anything at all. What happens now to break the impasse? Is it necessary to have a three-party summit, maybe a version of Camp David, to something like that, to break the impasse and get the negotiations going again? There is no impasse and the negotiations go on all the time. I don't think that there is now such a suggestion to have,

again, a tripartite meeting between President Carter, President Sudan, and myself. Of course, you should be invited. I'm so grateful except any invitation. But you don't think it's necessary. I agree with you. Because the negotiations go on, you use the word impasse. And I deny that there is an impasse. First of all, normalization now between Egypt and Israel in accordance with the peace treaty goes on continually. For the last nine months, we carried all the burden of putting into realization the peace treaty. Now comes the stage of normalization, cultural cooperation, economic cooperation, common vengeance. All this is going on before our own eyes. And we get used to it. I can tell you that if three years ago, anybody would have told you, or one of my colleagues, that this will happen.

In 1980, I don't think that lady or gentleman would have told him, you are right, so it will happen. You wouldn't have heard. Well, well, it is not the first time that we reach a deadlock, or we have difficulties. By nature, let me tell you that I am optimistic, as I have always said. We have faced before kept David and after kept David and before that treaty and after and before that treaty, we have faced lots of difficulties. And we have surmounted them all with the effort. And again, let me put emphasis that without the United States, without the devotion of your President Carter to the cause of peace and his perseverance really

would have never achieved anything. Well, a lot of people say that you're going to have to go to another three-party summit with you, Prime Minister Beagan and President Carter. Do you think that's necessary? It is necessary. I welcome the idea. But do you call for the idea right now? I welcome the idea for sure. But this time, if I am to advise, let us have this session with Carter, in kept David, or in what? It's unusual, even extraordinary. The two arch enemies could have become such friends and admirers. I asked each of them about it. I like him why. He was strong in his enmity and he is strong also in his friendship. This is the strong man. Well, Beagan, as you know, is the last of the old God there. I don't think anyone could have, I mean, wrote peace and rather a very short time.

It is two years and a few months since my initiative. Only two years. Look to what has taken place in those two years. I don't know what could have been. The way the Israeli public opinion except a very strong man like Beagan. Since we met in Washington, on the day when we signed the peace treaty, it was the 26th of March last year. Every meeting between us brought us closer and closer to each other. And the best was the last at us one. We had three long talks. The first was devoted to the original and international problems. We found common language and understanding completely. What language do you speak to in English? Always speaking English.

I had a phone call from presidents at all. Some two weeks ago, and this fondly you can see here. They read the direct line. Yes. Do you talk with him often? Well, some time to time. You made a certain request to me, which I accepted. Understand the situation. You seem to have a personal piece with presidents to die. But does it go beyond that? You could die tomorrow, so could he. If that happens, what happens? I have no doubt about answering this question. It is piece between Egypt and Israel. Egyptian people are good-hearted people. I think now they understand that peace gives them benefits. Indeed. I may say that we have certain difficulties, especially in the economic field. As a result of the sacrifices we made for the sake of peace, I don't regret them. Yes, I am.

We want peace. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there's been a sense of urgency in the United States. Has that sense of urgency permeated any of your Arab neighbors to the extent that they've started to soften their isolation of you? Let me tell you this. They didn't isolate me. Look what is my position now and their position, all of them. Everyone is shaking in his own country, shaking really. On the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algiers, all of them are shaking. Well, they isolated themselves. They didn't isolate me at all. And the time while they are shaking and they couldn't solve any problem, but on the contrary, there has been more and more contradictions among themselves. And the new league that they started in Tunisia, and this same moment,

I'm gaining ground every day and every moment, either towards the goal of peace or towards creating stability here in this part of the world, the Middle East. So the Arab economic sanctions haven't bothered you at all. It's just to you, number one, because there are other friends who has helped us, but the main health, and let me see this opportunity and express my people's gratitude and mind to every American man and woman. Peace has been very profitable for President Sadat and the Egyptians. So he says, has it been equally profitable for you here in Israel? No, I can't say so. It's very difficult this after that piece. I will give you a simple example. We passed over into earlier also the Alma oil field, from which we already got 25% of our annual consumption. We drilled it ourselves with the help of an American company,

and we got the oil from the field. We, in accordance with the peace treaty, passed it over to Egyptian control and sovereignty. We get oil from Egypt, almost the same amount, but they have to pay for it. We made real sacrifices for the sake of peace, but I don't complain, I don't regret. I also believe that our well-known majority of our people want to date peace, but for the time being admitted, we have economic difficulties. We shall overcome. Do you think after you die, and after the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Beagan dies, this peace process will go on, or will it fall? Sure, because for the very simple reason that among my people here, and among the Israelis, you shall find the issue is a popular issue among the masses. It is not big enough, sir, that.

Look, let me be blunt. There are a lot of Americans coming out here, representatives, diplomats, ambassadors, and they talk to you, and we understand that you say to them, put pressure on Israel, settle the Palestinian issue, and then we'll talk to you. And if you don't put the pressure on Israel, we'll cut off your oil. Do you ever talk just like that? Not at all. Oil, we don't even conceive of it as a weapon. There's a weapon. It's been a question that has constantly been asked, as if people want oil to become a weapon. I don't know how many times I've responded to that question. Oil is not a weapon. It's a resource. If the question is, with the continuity of the Israeli conflict, whether the Arab countries will utilize all their resources to achieve their objective of peace and stability,

peace based on justice, peace based on the withdrawal from Arab territories and self-determination with the Palestinian. And that is the answer is yes. They will use all their resources. It's not a matter of blackmail. I will shut off the oil if you don't do this. The response is, unless the Middle East is secure, unless the countries of the Middle East are stable and can look with stability to their situation here, they will constantly be, their relations will be constantly attempted by instability, by abnormal behavior, because they are constantly in a state of crisis in this region. We know you were all honest. I've been in this area long enough to have picked up a few Arab proverbs. One of them is,

he who says that politics and oil do not mix doesn't know the name of his own mother. Well, obviously, one cannot draw a fine lines between politics and economics, nor should they, because after all, life is not a straightforward thing. And these Israelis have the possibility now of living with the people of this area and this area, not in spite of them, with them. If they only want to live here in spite of them, their own terms, that whatever they want, they can occupy whatever territory they want, they can have whatever they want, and count on the unlimited support of the United States and Europe, then they are doing something that threatens not only the region, but the relations of the United States with the Arab oil and the relations of the United States

with the Islamic war. The average American remembers that you did use oil as a weapon in the 1973 oil embargo. And he also wonders why he has to pay so much for gas at the pump after all the prices doubled in the past year. Well, because that is the worth of oil, the problem with the damn tooth, you must really a two-tiered question here in the price, and then the use of oil, the boycott of oil, and 1973. That was a fact it was used, but the other fact was used during the war, but the price of oil. Here, one must have a basis for allowing the market to achieve its own levels, because that is what will restrict the over-utilization of the scarce resource.

People see, of course, their own troubles, but they don't see the troubles of others. They take Turkey, for instance, the ways for all its foreign earnings all over is paid for just by their oil requirement. Now, that is a problem that has nothing to do with just how much somebody pays to go on the weekend. Now, that hits them really in their most basic element, which is their development, which affects the standard of living, the possibilities, and the future even of Turkey, because they have negative development. Well, there are many Americans who say that you could just glut the market with oil, your capable of doing it, and then the price would go down. Well, I think we would be doing the biggest injury to the United States if we did that, we continued this image that there is no energy crisis

that people can go on consuming energy on the same levels that they have without running out, because we are at a transition period, where we have to develop alternatives, because there is not enough oil to meet demand for energy. There must be alternatives, and unless we check demand to allow for this transition to carry us until the next energy era, we will have done a great injury. We will have, instead of having difficult times and the 80s, we will have a crisis from now that is insoluble. A crisis that already permeates the Middle East has been brought on by the revolt in Iran. I asked if the Khomeini Revolution could be exported. Not at all. No, why? Not at all. I tell my people all the facts in all my speeches. Everything is in daylight. It is not the same in the other Arab countries

or over the area. And then there is no exploitation here. In Egypt, there is no a royal family and oil and like what is taking place in other places. No, not at all. We are a revolution. And we have democracy, full democracy. You said that the Saudi royal family was in great difficulty and that they were afraid of Khomeini and the Iranians. What did you mean, exactly? Well, we are not only scared from the Khomeini Revolution. They are scared from the Palestinian. They are scared from the Syrian. They are scared from the Iraqis. Well, I'm sorry to say this, but the Arab cause should not be harmed because this Saudi family is facing difficulties or so.

That's what I would say. You mentioned religious fanaticism. I'm not a Muslim and I don't understand your religion. But I see the Khomeini revolt in Iran. We see the attack on the mosque in Mecca. And is there a connection between these two? Is there a rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world? I have said it. I repeat it. This is not Islam at all. This is Khomeini's why Islam doesn't know hatred. The man Khomeini is eating and drinking hatred every day and he is giving the Iranian people hatred in their food every day. This is not Islam at all. I have said it. I have expressed myself.

And more than that, I have blamed all my colleagues who are Muslim leaders in their countries who has not accused and condemned this from Khomeini. This is not Islam at all. Islam means brotherhood. Islam means faith. Islam means friendship. Islam means love. This is the true interpretation of Islam. Not for many is hatred. It is not Islam at all. The revolutions happen in countries. According to the conditions that exist in the countries, the conditions here are completely different from Iran. We have many things in common. Over the Iran, but the country is different and the conditions here are much different. I would like to use an American slang word, and I know you are very familiar with our slang. Many people, many world leaders think that Khomeini is crazy. What do you think of him?

I don't think so. I would have such an opinion. I don't know why should anybody have such an opinion. The revolution undoubtedly has extreme elements and this has been the result of it. The problems that were faced in Iran were extensive and that doesn't mean that somebody, if he has a different opinion, is necessarily crazy. But on the other hand, Khomeini has condoned, if not masterminded, the taking of the American hostages. This is against all the tenets of international law. It's a barbaric, outrageous thing to do. Yet the crown prince here in Saudi Arabia says that he respects Khomeini's convictions. How can that be? Well, you've taken just one part of what was said. Saudi Arabia from the beginning announced that it doesn't condone the decision of hostages, whether it is for political objectives or for any other object.

It is not the way to deal among nations, either on the basis of international law or on the basis of Islamic law. I wonder if we will go back to the American Revolution, whether there were some extreme activities taking by the leaders of that revolution, but I assume we can do that in history. Because, after all, I don't think there is any conflict in essence between the interests of the United States and the interests of Iran. Speaking of Islam, I'd like to ask you about the recent crisis at the holiest of holy shrines in Mecca at the mosque when the terrorists took over. What really happened? Well, of course, this was all the facts and figures about it were presented publicly by the government from the beginning and even at the end of all the measures

that were taken to find out the extent of it were announced publicly. There was nothing to hide in this group of people came into the mosque. They occupied the mosque and brought what they call the madly. They expected one and they asked people to accept them as the madly. Of course, the people refused. And then they closed off the mosque and put positions inside the mosque to prevent entrance, presumably because they wanted to hold on to the mosque until the people rise to accept the madly. But it was fairly well organized attack. Do you see this as a religious phenomenon? No, it wasn't a little organized attack. You must know that the Mecca and the mosque have no security.

You don't check people for it, see whether they're carrying weapons to come into a mosque, especially a mosque like Mecca. At any one time, there are maybe 100, 300,000 people praying in each period of prayer. There was absolutely no security on this. However, presidents are not different when I asked him if the Mecca incident was political opposition to the kingdom. Yes, for the very simple reason, that during the 17 or 18 days, the rebels inside the mosque was giving speeches through microphones that they prepared for themselves before they took hold of the mosque. And they were telling their principles. And it is a pure political issue. You know, President Sedate, I guess you realize you enjoy

a very good press in the United States. And one of our magazines, Fortune, just did a cover story on you in which they say in effect. Sedate has put his shoulder to the wheel of history and made it move. In his presence, you feel a sense of dignity and mission. Well, everything I read about you emphasizes that there is a mystical sense about you, particularly in regard to your mission to Jerusalem. Do you think God really puts you here to do what you do? Does God tell you to do anything? I feel it. I feel it. Emission. Let me tell you this. I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I say. I'm not a prophet. I'm not a man of metaphysics, or so. Let me tell you this. I feel that I have a mission since I was a small boy. I didn't take after my father or after my family in lot of things.

I felt always that. Were you an outsider or a loner? Yes, I felt always that I have certain feelings, because I was taught my main culture is Islam. Not how many is Islam, but the true Islam. True Islam says that the human being has got part of God in himself. That's what we call the soul. In my life and in my dealings, in the concentration camp, in prison, while I was angry in my capacity as a member of the Revolutionary Council who declared this revolution,

and then at last as president, let me tell you this. I have always seek the help of God and this stability in the inner of myself. Whenever I was on good terms with God and have this stability in my inner self, well, wonders can be achieved. This last question. Your history is also the history of your country. You've spent your entire life fighting for Israel. You're very eloquent about it. It's legendary how you talk about your country. As you sit here and we look toward this decade of the 80s, what do you envision or hope the future of Israel as you think of your grandchildren and the future? What would you have for your country? The 80s started with difficulties, but I am optimistic. I hope that after all the problems we now face, we shall overcome them.

The men you've just seen are a study in contrast, so are the countries they govern. It was mind-boggling for me as a Western woman to go to Saudi Arabia, where it looks like one giant construction site. They're building road schools, hospitals, hotels, overnight, literally jumping into the 21st century. While at the same time, they're back in the middle ages in their treatment of women. Women can't drive, they can't eat in public or leave the country without the permission of their male relatives, and they have to wear the veil. In Egypt, President Sadat told me that women had equality, but when I asked him when he could be president, he said, no, impossible. In Israel, where women are drafted for the army, they are not permitted to serve in combat because, as Prime Minister Beagan said, it's not our tradition. Well, by now, we all know that traditions and events in the Middle East determine our future here in the West. So it follows that the Middle East leaders, whom you've just seen, have more power over our lives

than many of our own officials. Each of these men is highly individualistic from the sophisticated Prince Sald and the sometimes mystic Sadat to the now-grandfatherly Beagan. Obviously, each is articulate. So let them conclude this program for themselves, starting with President Sadat whom I asked what one thing he wanted to be remembered by. My great achievement, please, for that I ask to be buried on Mount Sinai in the center of three temples. One is almost the other stretch, the third is a synagogue. Well, although the Middle East is a land of visions and visionaries, I don't claim the time of visionary, but I think the Middle East generally and is at a great turning point. This crossroads of civilizations

that has been dormant for a long time is awakening. Israel will live, will develop, shall bring in more people here. My children and gouchin and will live here with all other children and grandchildren of Israel and to the Jewish people, happily, as free men and to peace with their Arab neighbors. This is what I believe in. My main name is Sadat. This is a prayer from my heart. I'm a hu'a kbar. I'm a hu'a kbar. This program was made possible in part by a grant from the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting. This program was made possible in part by a grant from the Corporation for Public