News in Perspective; Special: An Interview with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nassaer

The following program is from N-E-T, the public television network. From the presidential palace in Cairo, Egypt, April 19, 1969. National educational television and the New York Times presents news in perspective. It was nearly 25 years ago that I first came to Egypt as a correspondent of the New York Times. Camal Adelnasser was then an obscure young army officer. Now, still only 52 years old, he is president of the country, the United Arab Republic, and has been president for 15 eventful years.

We are his guest tonight in the presidential palace. Since I left Cairo in 1947, 22 years ago, much has changed in this part of the world, and many things have changed for the better. But one thing has not changed, the bitter antagonism between the ancient Arab states and the newcomer in their midst of the state of Israel. Three times the Arabs and Israelis have gone to war in 1948, in 1956 and 1967. Now, efforts are being made by the United Nations and jointly by the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union to make peace between the Arabs and the Israelis.

To make peace before they take up arms again, it must there be a fourth round in the war. Can the peace efforts succeed? To answer these and other questions, we turn to the most important and most influential man in the Arab world, President Nasser himself appearing on foreign television for the first time since the 1967 war. President Nasser, King Hussein of Jordan, said in a speech in Washington recently that he was speaking with your personal authority, when he offered Israel a six point settlement of the 1967 war. Do you wish to add to or elaborate upon the King's statement?

Well, it was said by the news agency and the press that in the press club in New York, King Hussein said these points, but was said that this was a new project for peaceful settlement between the Arabs and the Israelis. Well, I don't think that there is a new project for a certain there is only one project. This is the United Nations Security Council resolution of 1967. Of course, King Hussein and I have agreed about the implementation of this resolution. So there is nothing new, there is a new plan. Well, I think I agree with you that King Hussein's points were precisely the same ones that you gave to Newsweek in February in a conversation like this one. And they are based, I believe, on the clearly on the resolution of the United Nations.

King Hussein was most specific, it seems on only one point. That is the point, I think, that attracted the greatest interest in the United States. He said or implied that Israel would get freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal in any settlement of the war. Is that in your view a correct interpretation of the 1967 resolution and of your own six points? Well, of course, according to the United Nations resolution, there are two main points. The first point was about the complete withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from the occupied Arab territories. The second main point was the numberly currency by all nations in the area, then the right of which country to live MPs, then the integrity of the countries and the Middle East. This was the main first point.

The second main point was about the freedom of navigation on the water passages. Then, solving the refugee problem according to the United Nations and must be just solution. And the third point was about demilitarized zones and something like that. So, there was nothing in the resolution specifically about the Suez Canal, but it is a package deal. If Israel agrees about the implementation of all the points of the resolution, well, they will have free passage in the Suez Canal. If they don't agree about the implementation of all the resolution, then there would be no peaceful settlement. The problem will continue. Well, let me be sure I am understanding your point. Now, the United Nations resolution referred to, I think, freedom of navigation on international waterway. Do you consider that Suez Canal is an international waterway and should be free to all nations, assuming, as you say, that a peaceful settlement was reached with Israel?

The Israel is in case of a peaceful settlement where the Arab governments would then be on the same footing as all other nations when it came to using the Suez Canal. You know the problem between the Arabs and the Israeli, the problem going on for 20 years. I think many people in your country don't follow the reasons of the continuation of this problem for a long time. You are talking now just to the audience and speaking about the war of 1948. Well, there was a war on 1948. Some people under the Israeli propaganda accused us of beginning this war, which is not true. I saw that in many of the newspapers and magazines in the United States. On 1948, while there was the partition, there was the Palestinian state and the Jewish state.

Before naming the Jewish state, this was decided in the United Nations. And on 15th of May, Britain decided to leave Palestine. Before, the 15th of May 1948, the Israel is attacked the Palestinian state. They occupied the occupied many territories of the so-called Palestinian state, which was really said by the United Nations. Well, this was the reason of the first war. The Arabs went on, of course, to secure the Palestinians and to help the Arabs in the Palestine state. What happened after that? There was the army's agree. But also, there were United Nations resolution by that time after the war and during the war that the refugees, the Palestinians were expelled out of their country, returned back.

And have compensation about these enemies. Israel refused to implement this resolution. Then, there was a resolution for a consolation committee. And the Israeli's agreed, then the Arabs agreed to attend this consolation committee. This was on 49. We went there. The committee was formed from the United States, France, Ontario, and still the committee until now in the United Nations. But after the first meeting, the Israel is refused to talk about the rehabilitation of the Arabs or the return of the Palestinians. This was the reason. We were insisting about the rights of the Arabs of Palestinians according to the United Nations resolutions. The Israel refused, and that's why the problem continued for 20 years. From that time, this huge canal question continued also. Israel was not permitted to use this huge canal until they implement the United Nations resolution.

They refused to implement the United Nations resolution. And so, they were not permitted to use this huge canal until today. So, the question is connected together. How do you think that a settlement, you say that if a satisfactory settlement were reached with Israel, then they could be given a normal place in the life of the Middle East. I think what you're saying. How do you propose that the settlement should be reached? What would you say of the Yaring mission, the mission of the Dr. Gunner Yaring, the United Nations envoy? Is that the way to go about it, or should there be negotiations with Israel or exchange of declarations? What is your view of the way the settlement should be approached? Well, of course, in order to reach peace, we have to give up or the Israelis have to give up expansion. If they insist about expansion, there will be no peace from the statements of all the Israeli leaders that speak about expansion.

But Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and parts from Sinai and parts from the Western Bank. So, if we want of, if the world community, one peace, they must feel that peace, don't mean expansion to any part. Then after that, Israel was created by the United Nations. So, in order to achieve peaceful settlement, this must be through the United Nations. Through the United Nations, through the Yaring mission or through other means, any means to the same. The Israelis, as you very well know, have repeatedly said that they want to sit down face-to-face with the Arabs. They prefer that method of approach. Just keep saying that they do. What is wrong with that from the Arab point of view?

I have just been in Paris, for example, whether United States is sitting down with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. What is wrong with direct face-to-face negotiations? I might add that the negotiations in Paris are not proceeding very rapidly, but nevertheless they are going on. Of course, the question is different from the meetings of Paris. Now, there is a nation country with their armed forces occupying big part of the Arab territories. Sinai, the Western Bank of Jordan, the Golan Heights in Syria. So, if we sit with them on a table to initiate terms for peace, we will be sitting in a table of capitulation. We will be in the strong situation. And, well, they will ask either we accept their terms. They will be in a position to dictate or they will not leave the occupied territories.

And, well, that's what they say today. They say today, either the Arabs do so and so and so, or will not evacuate the occupied territories. So, as I said, Israel was created by the United Nations. The United Nations was responsible about all these developments in this area, but all these troubles in this area. So, we think better to have the peaceful settlement through the United Nations. Well, we'll thank the Secretary General of the United Nations as just said in the past few days, as you know, that there has been no perceptible progress through the Yari mission, and that he doesn't think that Dr. Yari will wish to continue for another year and a half to make efforts at a settlement. Meanwhile, the big four powers are continuing to mean, at least on the level of ambassadors. They seem also not to have accomplished a great deal, but they are continuing to mean. Do you have any hopes from the four power meetings? Do you support their effort and encourage it?

Well, we have to ask them, we have to know why will they have said that there was no progress in the Yari mission. Well, the Israel is refused to implement the United Nations' resolution. They refuse to answer. They insisted only about one question in their talks with the Yari. That the Arabs have to come and sit with us, and after that we are ready to say our points of view. But on the other hand, the statements of the leaders of Israel are mainly concentrating on the point of view of expansion. They want to take the Arab land and add it to the Israeli land. Well, about the four powers meeting, this is a step which is going now from the beginning of this month for 15 days. Well, we have to wait and see how the four powers will come to end these talks. Are you being informed regularly about the four power negotiations?

Well, I am not informed, but I know what's going on. Oh, I see. You have your means. Yes, good. Do you feel that a four-power guarantee of any settlement reached with Israel would be desirable? Do you want such a guarantee? Do you feel the need of such a guarantee? Well, I think if there is a guarantee to the settlement, we prefer to have this guarantee through the security council. The four powers are members in the security council. Would you say a guarantee by the United Nations? Would you envision then a restoration of some kind of United Nations force in this area? Well, of course, these are details. If we have United Nations forces in this area, these forces have to be according to our consent and according to the Israeli's consent. Now, we think that these United Nations forces have to be asked by the borders. Well, there is peace really.

Israel is agreed to solve the two main problems. The first main problem is the land that is not to keep the occupied territory. And the second main problem is the people, the Palestinians. They agree to give the Palestinians their rights according to the United Nations resolution. There will be no trouble in this area. There will be peace. So there will be no need to the international forces or any other means. You alluded there indirectly to something that might be of interest. And that is, you said that the United Nations force would have to be here by the agreement of the Arabs or the Israelis. And that they should be along the borders. I believe that this implies that you would not consider the demilitarization of the Sinai desert, which is the largest part of the Egyptian territory now occupied by the Israelis. Is that correct interpretation? We haven't said anything about the demilitarization of Sinai desert. This was said by some of the Israeli leaders or military people, but if we agree about the demilitarization of Sinai,

whether we will be giving the Israelis opportunity to be in Cairo within 12 hours, because if they move from the borders through an open Sinai, all will not be feeling at all security. And if there is peace, why we agree about the demilitarization of Sinai? If the Israelis ask about the demilitarization of Sinai, this means that they don't want peace or they don't intend peace. Can you envision a situation where the United Nations might simply supervise the borders? However, and leave Egypt in full occupation of its territory, that is the Sinai desert. Can you envision a United Nations force patrolling the borders, at least in the early stages of the peace settlement in order to avoid incidents? Well, I think these are details to be discussed to achieve the peaceful solution.

You know, in 1956, the recommendation of the United Nations was to have police force, international police force, and the Israeli side, and the Egyptian side. But there was only one condition, that to have these troops with the consent of the campers. We agreed, then the Israelis refused, and then the police force continued for ten times. When we asked the withdrawal of the police force, while there were protests from the Israelis, that we asked the withdrawal of the police force, but they refused to say, or people forgot to remember that they refused ten years ago, or moved one ten years ago, to have police force death by having the police force in either side. This will give security to everyone. If they don't consent to have the police force,

there will be police force on our side. If we withdraw the police force, there will be police force on the other side of the border. I see. The question comes down then to this point. It seems to me, what measures would you take to provide the secure borders that is mentioned in the United Nations resolution? What measures would be taken? Simply the signing of a peace treaty, or the signing of a peace agreement, or a declaration of peace between the powers, or would you take any measures at all to... Well, there are many measures, but the most important one is peace. There is a solution about the territory, about the withdrawal of the Israelis from all the occupied territory, and there is also a solution to the Palestinians problem, and implement the United Nations resolution according to their rights and their homeland.

There will be no problems after that. There will be no reasons for tension. You've mentioned several times, and other spokesman of the Arab cause have mentioned frequently, the plight of the Palestinian Arab refugees. You've seen the place great stress on that. That is, the plight of the people who've been displaced from the territory that is now Israeli or Israeli occupied. Is there... Do you consider that they're right to repatriation or compensation is an absolute prerequisite for peace? In other words, if the Israelis would not agree to repatriate these people, allow them to return to their former homes, or to compensate them to allow them to settle elsewhere, a peace agreement would be impossible. Is that the Arab view? Well, as I told you at the beginning, why this problem has been going on for 20 years? After 48, we accepted to go to Louisiana and to attend there with the Israelis

and meet through the Consulation Committee in order to solve the problem of the refugees. According to the United Nations resolution, the United Nations resolution said that they have to return back and be compensated to their homeland, from where they were expelled during the war. Then the Israelis refused to implement that. And that's why the problem is going on for 20 years, mainly. The Israelis say, I believe, that they consider this an international problem and that they are prepared to make their contribution to the resettlement of refugees. Would that be sufficient in your view or must the Palestinian Arabs have the absolute right return to their homes if they wish to? You know, when the Israelis say that this is international problem, that this means that they refuse to implement the United Nations resolution.

And they were refusing to implement the United Nations resolutions from 48 until now. And I want to say that the treatment of the Palestinians and the expelling them from their homeland from Palestine, but the mayor is when I'm stressing that again for the continuation of this problem for 20 years. I feel that the people abroad don't understand why we continue without reaching peace or without reaching settlement. Many people, especially in the United States, put the blame on us really for getting complete. What happened on 48, for getting the one million refugees were getting expelled by the Israelis from Palestine while we have here one million people. The United Nations said by that time, the United Nations who said that there will be Israel decided the creation of Israel said that those refugees have to return back. The Israeli refused.

So, if we don't solve the problem of the personal, the people, the Palestinian, there will be no peace. Is it realistic to expect, however, that the Israel, which wishes to be, has constituted itself as primarily a predominantly a Jewish state would accept a very large number of Arabs back into their territory? Well, why not the Jews and the Arabs, the Christians and the Muslims who are living here in the Middle East for centuries? For thousands of years, the Jews were living here in Egypt and they are living here in Egypt. In spite of the propaganda, which was used against us in your country, that we don't read the usual. You can go all over the country and you can see the Jews. Some of them asked to leave the country and we refused. We agreed and then they refused to leave the country and they said that they want to stay.

We arrested Jews, about 80 Jews. But we arrested also after the war, Muslims and Christians for the security of the country. The Israelis now are arresting more than 7,000 Arabs from the occupied territories and Gaza. So, I want to say again, the Jews and the Muslims, the Christians, the Arabs who are living here for centuries. As a matter of information, how many members of the Jewish community in Egypt are left now? How many were still removed? We have heard about 5,000 Jews. About 5,000. And how many, you say, under detention now, 80? About 80. Some of them were more than that, but would have been reduced. So, I want to complete my explanation. We were living together and there was no hatred.

We said that it is well known, but I think some people have forgotten that we and Jews are cousins. Muslims was born here in Egypt. We were always living in very good conditions. So, why? The Muslims and Christians, the Arabs and the Jews, don't live together. Let me turn to a question now if I may of Arab unity. I believe I am correct in saying that only the United Arab Republic and Jordan have endorsed the United Nations resolution of 1967. Is that correct? The other Arab states have not meant their support to it. Eleven, I think. Eleven of that. This is mean that this unity among the Arabs in their approach to the Israeli problem or some other explanation of this. Well, of course, it is not a question of unity or this unity.

It is a question of points of view. Everyone has his own point of view according to such a sensitive question like this question. Then it seems to me that it might be impossible granting the position of Syria, which is refused to enter into any kind of discussions at all on this matter, that a settlement might have to be reached between one or two of the Arab states in Israel. Is that conceivable to you? Is there any objection to that from your point of view? That agreement might be reached, for example, by Jordan with Israel separately or by the United Arab Republic with Israel separately? You know, if we agree about solving or settlement this question between Egypt and the Israel alone, this mean the continuation of the occupation of the Arab treachery in Western Bank of Jordan and the Golan Heights, then when we speak about the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from the occupied territory,

we mean the occupied Egyptian and Jordanian and Syrian territory. So, if they only will grow from one country and continue on the other countries, there will be no solution or settlement. That is clearly not satisfactory to you. Yes, yes. Of course, there must be a complete evacuation from all the Arab territories. We have often heard it said, and how too it is, I don't know, I want to ask you, that no Arab leader, no Arab government, could actually sit down at the table and negotiate with Israel and sign an agreement. Is that really the case? Well, I won't tell you something on 1949, on February. Well, we sat with Israel on a table and there was a representative of the United Nations punch. And we agreed about arms.

We know about the arms agreement of 49. That happened after that. Israel is refused to implement the arms agreement and they said this agreement is that. These are the Israeli agreement. And that's why we insist about the United Nations agreement and skewering any settlement. I believe that I am interpreting you correctly when I say that let me press state Israel's position in this matter. And I'd like to hear yours. Israel holds, I believe, I'm correct in saying, that in order to establish the secure and recognized boundaries that are provided for in the United Nations resolution, that there need to be some adjustments in the borders in various places in what was formerly Palestine. Are the Arab states or you personally prepared to see any such adjustments?

I'm speaking of border adjustments, not of large areas of territory. Are you prepared to agree to such adjustments or not? Well, if you remember the Security Council resolution, it was said about secure and recognized boundaries, not for Israel. But for all the countries. Now, Israel is trying to give the impression that secure and recognized boundaries is only for Israel. So we have to reach agreement about secure and recognized boundaries in connection with the Israeli interests. But in the Security Council, it was not mentioning the Israelis, but mentioning all the areas. Then, let me say something for you. Our borders were here for years and years, centuries. So how anybody could ask me to agree to give him adjustments in these borders.

Or on other way, give him parts from our treachery. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Is there any territory you want from Israel? From our borders, we don't want any territory. Specifically, I think the American public would like to know is whether the Arab states could agree to the continued Israeli control of East Jerusalem, the old city of Jerusalem. I know what King Hussein has said about that. I believe you may have said the same thing, but I'd like to hear it. Well, I said to you at the beginning, we have to speak either about peace or expansion. By what you said the control, I say, occupation of the old city of Jerusalem.

This is expansion. No Arab or Muslim could agree about that. Have you considered what is said to be a United States proposal, I don't know the official proposal, that the city of Jerusalem might remain unified under Israeli administration, but that there would be a special status there for Jordan or the Arab states generally. Has any such proposition been made to you? Have you heard of such a proposal? This was in the American working paper, but in the American working paper. Which was represented to the big powers, I thought. But when you speak about unifying a city like Jerusalem, really unifying something like that needs self-determination by the people. If you unify the old city of Jerusalem with the Israeli city of Jerusalem,

in spite of the will of the people of old Jerusalem, this will be occupation. This will be dictation, not unification. And also, well, one time also somebody came in Europe and he said that he's going to unify Europe. Then he was occupying country after another country in order to unify. He unified Austria with his country and then he unified also to Slovakia. But you said about that by that time, that this is not unification. I hope that you can remember that in the meantime now. If a peace settlement were reached with Israel, what would happen to the Arab commando groups that are now operating against the Israeli occupation forces? These groups, our factor and the others, I think, have said that they would not support the 1967 resolution of the United Nations.

Would they be disbanded? Would they disappear? What in your opinion would happen to them? Well, first of all, we have to say something about these groups. These groups are formed from the Palestinians who are expelled out of their country by 1948. Those groups are composed of the Palestinians with those on 1967. The rest of their country was occupied. All of those people want is to achieve their rights to return back to their homeland, I told them. Without solving the problem of the Palestinians and giving them their rights to return back to their land. They complete with the role of the occupied territory.

There will be no peace. We'll be speaking about something which nobody will be able to fulfill. So if there will be peace, this means that the problem of the Palestinians will be solved. So there will be no big problem for them. You think that these groups would resolve automatically or naturally. You know, peace, if we achieve peace, real peace, as I said, peace means the land and the people. If we solve the problem of the land by the evacuation, if we solve the problem of the people by giving them all their rights according to what was said by the United Nations resolution, well, there will be real peace. Then we should not worry about the Palestinians' commandals. You think now speaking of what the Secretary Uthant said, that there had been little discernible progress made by the United Nations. Do you think that the prospects for peace are now slipping away?

You know, as long as Israelis are insisting not to implement the United Nations resolution. And as long as the Israeli leaders are intending to expand and add Arab territory more Arab territory to their country. Well, everyone will be feeling that there will be no opportunities for peace. Either peace or expansion. Was there a time in your memory when the peace prospects were rather better than they are now? Looking back, I had personally the idea that in 1957 the prospects for peace were rather better than they are now. And that they were better at the time of the United Nations debate in 1967 than they are now. You know, we here in this country were not feeling peace at all during the last 20 years.

And we were looking to Israel according to what they say to us. I want to tell you something. They say to us, they say here something different from what they say abroad or in the United States newspapers. Always there were threats to us by the Israeli leaders, the Israeli military people. Well, they say about the wars, 48th war and the 56th war and then 67th war. I told you about the 48th war. Well, what about the 56th war? Who began the war? Who attacked the Israelis? Got the opportunity of the nationalization of the civil canals and being in bad terms. I mean, we were in bad terms with the United Kingdom and France and then there was the clock to attack Egypt by that time.

After attacking Egypt, they were also giving statements to join Sinai to Israel. Well, of course, after the withdrawal of the French troops, some rich troops and lately the Israeli troops from our territory were not also feeling the peace. Because they were always speaking about forcing a settlement. This is really say that their strategy based on the idea of forcing a settlement. This means to everyone that forcing a settlement is war. Because if you fulfill something by force, this means war. This was always their strategy. We're not feeling peace here. Now, President NASA, on that point, I'd like to ask you a question which I think is very serious for you, for all the world, really. And that is whether failing a settlement with Israel is there an immediate and serious threat of war in this part of the world now. Well, I think there is a low international level if your country is occupied by armed forces, by your enemy.

It is not only your right to liberate your country, but it is your duty. And I think you remember what happened in the Far East when the United States was attacked, when MacArthur returned back, and he said that he would return to liberate the occupied territory. Well, it is the intention of every era of every Egyptian here to liberate our occupied territory. But do you have the strength now to use your own phrase? I think I'm quoting it directly at least in translation. To regain what belongs to you, I think that was a phrase you used. Do you feel you have the strength? Well, the question is not a question of strength, and I cannot say to the Israelis, if I have now, because they will see the program. If I have now the strength, or if I don't have the strength.

But I can say only our intentions. Well, can you say anything without giving away military secrets about the strength of your arm? Have they been fully restored to the 1960 to the 1967 level? Well, I can say also only for you, only for me. We are building up our armed forces. Looking at the other side, the Israelis side, what are they doing in your view with our armed forces? Well, of course, the Israelis are building their armed forces, they received after the invasion, because they invaded our country. And the Arab countries on 67, they received skyhokes. These are airplanes from the United States, and now the United States have agreed to give them phantom airplanes. They received also armored cars and tanks from the United Kingdom.

They could have the possibility to get varieties of arms from everywhere. Also, they are threatening us now. And they are occupying our territories, and they say everywhere, they are threatened by the Arab, and go to collect money. They collect millions of dollars from the United States. They collect millions of dollars from other countries. We don't collect dollars from anywhere. And by dollars, of course, they can get armies, and also by these dollars, they can face the economic situation, because, of course, they can have mobilization. Also, we have mobilization. So, they are in better conditions. Let's take a still more serious question. Do you think that there is a possibility that Israel might develop a nuclear bomb, and thus radically alter the balance of power, in this area?

Well, about this question, of course, if they develop atomic bombs, we also could develop atomic bombs. We have our technicians, and they can do that, but it's expensive, of course. It's very, very expensive. But if they got it, we'll get it. But I want to say something, we signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they refuse to sign it. Of course, in this treaty, there are assurances by the United States and the Soviet Union that all countries who signed this treaty must have security, againist. Any atomic threat you would, in that case, count on support from the Soviet Union and the United States, if we were threatened with an atomic bomb. And also, we have to try to work in the same field that Israel. For several days now, there's been heavy shelling between the Egyptian and Israeli positions on the opposite sides of the Suez Canal.

From your point of view, from the Egyptian point of view, what is the aim and purpose of these bomb bombs? Well, what is causing all of this shooting? From the first beginning after the occupation, the Israelis were in a better situation than us. Because the Israelis were in the eastern side of the canal facing two big cities with the population of about 600,000. These cities are the cities of Suez and Smelly, and some other small cities on the western side of the Suez Canal. They began from the first time after ceasefire, the bombardment of Suez and Smelly. Of course, as a result of the continuation of the bombardment, we suffered many civil casualties, because they were bombarding the civilians and aiming the houses of the civilians.

And on the other hand, their aim was to affect our refineries there. We have decided after that to evacuate the bulk of the people from Suez and Smelly, and keep only there. Those who are needed to run the work in the two cities. So, also, we were rebuilding our army after that, after when we thought that time is arrived for counter-action from our side. We also began to bombard them. This is the story in brief. It doesn't, in your opinion, signify anything more serious than that this time. We think that our plan was based on three main points, defensive building up the defensive situation, then turning from the face of the defense to the face of retaliation.

And then after the face of retaliation, we have to enter the face of liberation. Now, we are in the second phase of retaliation. Let me turn from military affairs to politics and ask you a question about President Nixon. Since he took office, has there been any change that you have observed in the United States attitude toward these issues in the Middle East? Is American policy used Governor Spanton's phrase, which is now become so familiar? Is American policy more even handed in your view? Well, of course, the first thing which we feel that we are not dealing with Rusto brothers. Rusto brothers, I think, you know them. One of them was in the White House. The other one was in the State Department.

They were representing the point of view of Israel, not the point of view of the United States. Excuse me by saying that, but this was our impression. And also, you know, your representative in the United Nations by that time was defending Israel more than the Israeli representative. This was Goldberg. After leaving their post course, they are now giving statements which are clearly let one know that they support 100% the point of view of Israel. Now, well, we don't have the Rusto brothers. We don't have Goldberg. There is a new administration. And new people dealing with the question, but just beginning. Do you think this is an appropriate time for you to reestablish diplomatic relations with the United States? Well, I don't tell you something. Of course, we like to have diplomatic relations with the United States.

But of course, in order to have these diplomatic relations with the United States, there should be a change course. Until now, there was no change in the policy of the United States or what we want from the United States to be fair and to be just in dealing with this problem. We don't want the United States policy to be in our side. We don't want the United States policy to support us against Israel, but we want the United States policy to be just in dealing with the problem. We won't even hand it as it was said when Governor Scranton visited us before January. And the answer seems to be that you are not yet convinced that American policy is such that you would want to reestablish relations just now. Well, of course, the main point is the occupation and the evacuation of the Israeli Armed Forces.

Of course, in order to establish relations, there must be a clear situation by the United States. And it is a question which is affecting our internal policy because we will say to our people, we will resume the relations because of so-and-so. So we wait for that to happen. Do you think then that the United States is in position to require the Israelis to withdraw? We hope. We hope so. Well, are you encouraged then by the interest that the United States is taking in the four power talks, by willing to participate in these talks? Even though I think the Israelis are somewhat opposed to American participation. We seem so from their status. Well, I want to say something. When hearing was appointed, it was clear to everybody that he will continue for more than a year and a half.

And he continued for more than one year and a half without reaching any solution. Well, let us hope that the four power talks don't continue for two or three or four years. The consolation committee which was appointed by the United Nations on 49 is still alive until now without any result. Something that happened in the past about the Israeli Arab problems was that committees, meetings, discussions begin, but they don't come to an end. Turning to another aspect of foreign policy, your critics as you were well aware say that the Soviet Union drew military and economic aid to this country. And now dominates the United Arab Republic and the two given, in effect given Moscow's strategic foothold in the Mediterranean. What is your observation on that criticism?

You know, this is not a new criticism if you remember what was said about ASOM 55, especially in the New York Times. You know, this was said in the United States. In the New York Times on 55, when we reached the arms deal with the Soviet Union, it was said that this will put us under the domination of the Soviet Union and so on. And I had interviews after that with the editors from the New York Times said this will not happen. Then when we reached the agreement to the Soviet Union about building behind them after the withdrawal of the offer of financing the item by the United States, it was said also in the newspapers, including the New York Times, that will be under the influence of the Soviet Union. We got four behind them, 5,000 technicians participated with us. Now, after nine years we have finished behind them.

The Soviet technicians have returned back to their countries, leaving only now here about 300. They will go next year after ending the turbines in the high then. But nothing has been done best to say to be under the influence of the Soviets. Then after 67 was said so you say that now. But after 67, the Soviet Union really helped us. We lost all our arms. Well, many countries have lost their arms before. Well, during the Second World War, the United States have lost their navy and bill hard but completely. But they were able to study after that, we lost our army. And we were in need, of course, to have new arms and to rebuild our armed forces. The Soviet Union have agreed to give us.

Then we asked them to give us technician. They agreed, we have technician. And we asked them about many things, to help us in the economical field, to give us raw materials, to supply us with wheat. They agreed about that. Well, how they can influence us? This is the question. And about what you said about having a food strategic food in the Mediterranean. Well, the Soviets are there, the Soviets were there, and the Soviets will be there. So the Soviet Union is a big power. And a big power for the first time, I suppose, in history in the Mediterranean. Well, they were very clever to be a big power in the Mediterranean, or not to have the Mediterranean only for one country. And they went through a little something.

They really said that they get assurances from President Johnson that the six feet is ready for their help. They needed it. This was said by the leaders of Israel. Well, before we end this conversation, President NASA, I think we should take advantage of what is really a rare opportunity. A rare opportunity for you and a rare opportunity, particularly for our audience. An opportunity for you to address to the American people, personally and directly, any message you like. What would you like to tell the American people that I haven't asked you about? Well, I think that I have to say to the American people that they have to understand us, the Arabs. And not to listen to the hostile propaganda, which is concentrated against the Arabs and against us, especially in the United States. And the Israelis are very, very influential and very clever in that field.

I want to say also to the United States, people that the Arab people have great appreciation to the United States people. And while the Arab people are friendly people, and they want to have the opportunities for good and better relations between the two peoples. There is no direct conflict between the United States and the Arabs. The only reason for conflict between the United States and the Arabs is the Israelis and the United States taking the sides of Israel. We want the United States and the United States people to be even handed in this problem. One final question, a brief one. I've asked you about your country's military strength. What about the economic strength today? Great or small? Are growing your country's economic strength? It is growing this year, we are fulfilling growth of production of six and a half percent. And it's part of the difficult position, which we face.

We are building steel mills, we are now building steel mills and new steel mills. And the production will be one million pounds in addition to our steel mills, which we have. We are building the street mill, we will open it on the 1st of May, the investment of it is 70 million pounds. We are progressing in all fields. We are in spite of that going on in our plan of industrialization, all our plans. And we are having opportunities of work for everyone. We don't have unemployment. We are building schools. We are going on in the development of our country. And we are going on in our plan to raise the standard of living double-dimensional income every ten years. Well, as they say in Washington, thank you, Mr. President. And they buy from Cairo. Well, that's all, thank you. National educational television and the New York Times has presented news and perspective.

Special edition President Gaman of the Moser with Clifton Daniel. This is N-E-T, the public television network.