 Hello, I'm Edwin Newman. Speaking freely today is Muhammad Hassanin Haqqal. Muhammad Haqqal is the editor and chairman of the board of the Cairo newspaper Allah Ham. He has been an editor since joining Allah Ham in 1957. The Haqqal is, without question, the leading journalist in the Arab world. He's one of the best-known journalists anywhere. First, because of his influence on his own country, and second, because of the degree to which he is informed. He was especially close to Egypt's late President Nasser. Mr. Haqqal has been a journalist for 30 years. He was a war correspondent in World War II and in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. He knows the United States well. Some years ago he wrote a book called We and the United States, in which he argued that the United States had lost influence and position in the Middle East because of its misguided policy. I might as well begin with that, Mr. Haqqal. I have to first thank you for welcoming us here to your boardroom, Allah Ham. Is United States policy in your view still misguided? Yes, I think it is misguided. Still misguided. Misguided in what particulars? You know, for the first, one would ask first of all, what happened? Let us take it either by persons or by countries or whatever measure we can find. If we look to the last, for example, 15 years and try to see where are the people who were the known friends of the United States, let us scan them one by one. Nour-e-sa'id assassinated. King Faisal assassinated. Iraq, Nour-e-sa'id. Yes, Nour-e-sa'id and Iraq. Prince Abdul-Ilah assassinated. Those who are not assassinated are isolated, completely isolated. Those are the people in Sudan who ruled Sudan. A man like Abdullah Khalil, for example, those who ruled Sudan several years ago. So if you have a look at the whole scene, then you will discover that practically all those who were known as the friends of the United States, you know, either they are no more there on the scene or if they are still there, they are completely isolated. This is one thing. Then second thing, if we take it by states, let us see which statesmen in the Arab world now can stand up and defend the United States in any position it takes. And then tell me about an Arab country which can really pursue a pro-United States openly. Obviously some governments would like to do it sneakily, you know, in a very hidden way. But that shows to which degree really the influence of the United States declined. This is obviously, the reason for that is obviously no special hatred between us and the United States, the country. I think, and I remember very well, that after World War II, everybody here in this area was looking with admiration to the United States and to the American dream. And then year by year, experience after experience, all those dreams, all those aspirations, all those expectations were practically betrayed. And what is left now, if you look, what's left of United States influence, you would see a coup engineered by the CIA here, the dealings of an oil company there. And apart from that, really, and honestly, I don't see anything which is pathetic. I mean, we don't want that, we did not want that, we did not ask for it. At least this is how we see it. Before I pursue that point, just to pick up a little tale, there is one Arab country, is there not, which more or less openly pursues a pro-United States policy, does not Jordan do so? Well, that's one country I meant by isolation. Well, I doubt if King Hussain can stand up and defend the United States policy. I know that in his heart, you know, he feels a certain association towards the United States. But King Hussain is completely isolated to my mind. Do you attribute all of this to American policy on Israel, Mr. Haykel? You know, mainly Israel, but then the whole conduct of the United States on the world scene. You know, that was after World War II a power, an emerging power, with world responsibility, on whom so many people built some hopes, or many hopes as a matter of fact. Maybe most of their hopes were based on the capabilities and maybe based on the readiness, psychological readiness of the United States to exercise the role of world leadership. But mainly, I think through the Arab-Israeli conflict, through the American bias completely to Israel, and then through the whole conduct of the United States all over the world. When the people see, for example, and if, outside the area, for example, we can't say if you are in the United States, you are to this extent affected by what is happening in Vietnam. You will tell me that, well, all right, the Vietnam War is about to end. But you know, everybody followed what you did in Vietnam. Here was the most powerful nation on earth, bombing day after day without a stop. And under developed countries, poor countries, people who were, you know, what they wanted was to live a place to live independently. Yet they were bombed beyond imagination. Their soil was destroyed, agriculture destroyed, economical potential was destroyed. Who would accept that? I mean, well, all right, you can say Vietnam is far away, but not that far away. Especially if we see small samples of what's happening in Vietnam in our area. Well, are you saying that Vietnam played its larger part in creating... No, not as far as we are concerned, as far as we are concerned directly. It is the, you know, American bias towards Israel, which have no logic to my mind. And here you find...here the contradiction, the real contradiction of the American policy is that when your interests economically and strategically are on the Arab side, all your aid and all your help and all your blind baking is going to the other side. Nobody is asking you to switch to our side. But everybody expects a world power like the United States really to be at least fair to ask, what are they doing? But, you know, we are being told that, you know, there here what it reflects really in the last analysis is a contradiction between local politics in the United States and strategic interests long range of the United States outside. And as we see it, the interest, strategic, economical, cultural, every sort of interest is sacrificed for the sake of the pressure groups in the United States for the election, electioneering, for, I don't know, whatever. And, you know, what we hear and, you know, does not... I don't want to be harsh. I don't want to exceed my limits. But what you find at the last end is a power which is completely unaware of its responsibilities, which is completely ready with politicians or leaders, politicians, I wouldn't call them leaders, with politicians ready to sacrifice actual and potential and future interests of their country for votes I don't know where in New York State or in Los Angeles. This is the story we have been hearing all the time. Well, what do you think that there might be something else involved in it? Do you think that the American attitude toward Israel may have been formed in the first place because of what happened in Germany and that has at least as large a part in it as the political aspect? You know, I'm sorry, but you know, I wouldn't take this for an argument because I sympathize with the Jews for what they suffered in Germany. But, you know, you cannot really take people from concentration camps in Germany and open new concentration camps in the Arab world. The Arab world who never, you know, we never felt, we never practiced anti-Semitism for one simple reason is that we are ourselves Semitic. So it's very strange that, you know, the German people commit a crime or the Nazi regime commit a crime and then we pay for it. Strangely enough, we are obliged to pay in kind with refugee camps instead of the concentration camps with occupation of our territory, something which even the Jews never experienced in Germany. The point you're making, I know, is one I've heard before, what was essentially a European problem was solved at the expense of the Arab nations of the Middle East. You know, I think it's more complicated than that because if we look practically, you know, to the creation of Israel, although obviously as you know, we accept the Security Council resolution which means that there is a state of Israel. But if we look at the roots of the problem, you know, the Jews who were suffering anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, Russia, Tzarist Russia, wanted to migrate originally to Europe, to England, to France because that was nearer to them, you know, you can't in the 20th century come with a religious man and arm that religious man and go and make conquest on an idea or a dream or an illusion based 2,000 years ago or more than that, 25 centuries ago. But then you come with that man, armed, and then you come and invade and, you know, create an upheaval in an area which was pursuing its development peacefully. But anyhow, returning back to the subject, I think that the Jews, the Jewish families in France, in England, in even Germany, those who were, they were annoyed all the time with the exodus of Jews coming from Russia and from Eastern Europe, and they were creating to them problems. If you remember even what pushed a family like the Russian family to finance the first Zionist settlements in Israel was the fact that they do not want those immigrant Jews to go to England because they are going to raise the anti-Semitic feelings in England. So instead of getting them to England where they will create problems for them, they export that contradiction to, under that dream, under that myth, they export it to the Middle East. And when we remember the discussions which even happened during the first Zionist Congress, Palestine was not the first suggestion, Uganda was suggested, Tanganika was suggested, but then, you know, with the, you know, after all the, you know, it was a myth that was necessary. So it was Palestine. All right. They came to Palestine and then the situation was aggravated by the Nazi rule and then we found ourselves at the end paying the price. Well, all right. They came and we accepted the partition plan of the United Nations. But now they don't only insist of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. No, they insist on taking all Palestine and then more than that, not only all Palestine, but parts of Arab territory. If we take this, for example, concerning Egypt, you know, Egypt, Sinai, for example, is not a contested area, it was never contested. It's not the Alsat al-Darim, for example. It's not the otherness line. It's not the Saudat. You know, that is the most clearly defined borders in history. It's the first nation state in history. But then now, right now, we find, for example, Mrs. Meir asking Presidents of that, let's make love and not make peace. Not to make war. Well, all right. Let's negotiate. Well, all right. Let's negotiate. But then Ghazza is not negotiable. The Golan Heights is not negotiable. Jerusalem is not negotiable. Sharma Sheikh is not negotiable. A state leading from Elayat to Sharma Sheikh is not negotiable. What does this mean? So it means not only a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, it does not only mean the whole of Palestine. But now we are faced with, again, parts of Arab territory, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon tomorrow, Jordan now. And then after tomorrow, God knows where it's going to stop. Well, if we started talking about United States policy, and obviously what you're leading up to, Mr. Haeckel, is that the United States should change its policy and do what it can to oblige Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupies. You know, I want two things. I want two things. And to my mind, they will lead to everything. One thing is that the United States would base its policy in the Middle East according to its interests. One. Second is that the United States should pursue its policy in the Middle East as everywhere according to a certain law of justice. You cannot base a policy of a world power just on the bombings, on the phantom, on the skyhawks, on the rockets, because this is short lived. President Nixon, when he started his first term, he sent Governor Scranton here to Cairo. And he said that he sent him on a fact-finding mission. And Scranton said at that time that, you know, he thought that the United States should pursue an even-handed policy. All right, everybody, welcome back. Practically, Scranton was buried. His report was never heard of. His mission was aborted and finished. That's all. Because he said an even-handed policy finished. Mr. Heckel, is it conceivable that a country, the United States or any other country, could pursue a policy not evidently in its own economic and strategic interests out of what might be called idealism, or if you prefer the word emotionalism? No, no, no, no, no. You know, I don't think that any country can pursue a policy without its principles expressing in any way its interests. And that's why what I'm asking the United States to do. The United States now and more in the future will be depending on Middle East oil. All right. The United States needs this area because this area is strategically located in the middle of the world. Well, the peoples of this area, they are there. They have got a long civilization. Their friendship, their enmity means something. If they are weak now, they are not going to be weak tomorrow. If they are backward, technologically not advanced, all that. All this can be compensated. But one day there will be either one nation or several states in this area, powerful enough whose friendship means something. So if I take it from an economical point of view, if I take it from a strategical point of view, if I take it from a political point of view, I mean what I want to say is that the United States, the interests of the United States is to be friendly or to have friendly relations. Nobody asks the United States to base its friendly relations against a principle. If they think, well, all right, that they have got a moral obligation to Israel, although I question that moral obligation, yet I am ready to accept it. But what is the limit of that moral obligation? Does the limit of that moral obligation have an end or it does not have an end? I mean, are you going to back the existence of Israel and the security of Israel or the conquests of Israel? What you are doing now is that you are not only protecting the conquests of Israel, the conquests of Israel, but you are encouraging Israel to expand more and more. And then what is this going to lead to? Mr. Hegel, if I understand correctly, the plain implication of what you are saying is that the outlook in the Middle East for peace is very, very poor, very dimmed. Very dimmed. And that's with the conference of the United States. I don't want to be unfair, but you know, really, why should Israel make peace? You know, if we take what President Nixon gave, you know, one of the leaflets of the campaign, election campaign, proved with figures that the military aid which the Nixon administration gave to Israel in the last few years, last four years, is seven times the size of military aid it took from all the administrations which were elected in the United States from 1948 till 1968, which is very strange. And that happens when Israel is occupying our territory, when Israel is defying the United Nations, practically the whole of the world society, whatever, what not. Mr. Hegel, what you've set out, what you think the United States is up to in the Middle East and why you think it is wrong to be doing what it's doing. What is the Soviet Union doing in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt? Well, all right. You know, I'm talking frankly and I'm talking fairly. The Soviet Union, obviously, saw that there is a nationalist movement growing in this area and they saw that the future in this area is for this nationalist movement and this is a correct analysis of history to my mind. What they tried is that they tried to be friendly to the people in that area. One can imagine that obviously, as every other power, they have got their own dreams, they have got their own plans, they have got their own designs. In part of those dreams, plans and designs, we can agree with them. And then in others, we disagree. So they were with us, for example, in Suez, they were with us when we faced so many difficulties. They were with us in economical development. They were with us with some military aid. But then we have our differences because obviously, as a world power, they have got their own design. So there is an area in which we can agree. There is an area in which we disagree. And when we agreed with them, when agreement was in our interest and we disagreed, when we found something to disagree with. Well, there was this to a lot of a somewhat mysterious occurrence when the Soviet technicians and soldiers and airmen and so on were expelled from Egypt, were asked to leave whatever phrase should be used. And then it appears that they had been coming back. And there have been reports that Egypt tried to get from other countries in Western Europe and even from the United States. The assistance that the Soviet Union had been supplying, having failed which the Soviets were then, the Soviets then began to come back now. Is that what happened at all? There is a good, you know, this question is loaded with so many things. First of all, the Soviet experts were not expelled, but their mission was terminated. And, you know, that it was a decision taken by President Sedat. And he can explain it better than anybody. I wrote in public, and to this I stand, that maybe I was puzzled about the timing. Maybe I was puzzled about the way by which they went out. But anyhow, they went out. They came for a certain mission. And from the point of view of President Sedat, the whole atmosphere of the town made that mission exhausted itself. Second, about what you said, is that we did not go to the United States for help or to any other people for help. And then we failed. I think it would be quite naive. If we went to the United States, it would be very strange really if the United States was giving Israel phantoms and giving us phantoms. So any of us who would think of going to the United States because there is no logic in that. So we did not go to the United States. I would just say if I may parenthetically, I'll remind you of India and Pakistan, but that's perhaps another matter. No, but no, no. No, that was a shift. That was a difference. Still, they fought both of them with the United States weapons, of course. Not exactly. I don't think the Indians fought with the United States weapons. Not exactly. No. They had some, perhaps they didn't use them. You know, some old British things. But I think they fought with Russian arms and the Pakistan fought with some Soviet arms, with some American arms, added to it some Soviet arms given to them by the Chinese. But that's a different setup. Perhaps it's a side issue. But I assure you that we did not go to the United States for any help concerning arms or military assistance, things for which we deal with the Russians. And then Western Europe, I don't think anything happened in Western Europe. France, for example, have a deal with Libya, and it's going on. Apart from that, I don't think we ever fought or we ever dreamt or we tried, even tried to make Western Europe compensate for what we may lose if we lost anything with the Soviet Union. Europe, till now, none of the big states of Europe can compensate the role of a superpower still. And all of Europe is still a political expression. It's not a political reality. Added to that, then went something to which you mentioned about the return of, to my knowledge, and I think I know more or less what's happening in Egypt. I don't think anybody returned. I'm positively sure, not only that I don't think, I'm positively sure that no Soviet expert returned, although I must confess, I, for one, I don't mind some of them returning back. I, for one, this does not represent the point of view of the Egyptian government. But concerning concrete information to my knowledge, none returned. If you are talking about desires, I don't mind some of them returning back. And I don't see, really, that there is a violation of Egyptian independence in some of them returning back. We need technical know-how. We need advanced technology. And I don't see why we should, we should... You're saying that none of the Russians have come back. May I pursue this point that you mentioned? You said that the president said that, you said, you would not use the word expelled, terminated their mission because of the atmosphere of detente in the world. Now, having terminated their mission because of the atmosphere of detente, was he disappointed in what happened? What contribution did he think terminating the Soviet mission would make to the detente? No, no. You know, let us remember that, you know, what was the idea of bringing Russian experts or increasing the... the... the Russian presence here. You know, at the first beginning, right after 1967, the balance of power, the military balance of power was to the benefit of Israel completely. That was the struggle or the conflict on its local level. But there was another level. There was a word there. The United States versus the USSR. So the setup we found or we found ourselves with was roughly two local powers which cannot make peace at the top two superpowers which cannot make war. So as we were, the balance of power at the lower level was not our advantage. So it was the strategy of President Nasser to push the struggle, to push the conflict from its lower level to make it a little bit come nearer to affecting the upper level. That was the general line of the strategy at that time. And then, so we tried to increase Russian presence here. Added to that some practical considerations when the Israelis started the deep-raised bombing of our schools, our factories, our cities. And we found that inside, although we had a strong front which was ready for defense, yet our debt was completely naked in front of Israeli raids. President Nasser, at that time, that was January 1970, went to the Soviet Union. And he asked for an advanced weapon by which we can face that danger. At that time, the Soviet Union said, well, all right, we have the same trees. But our men were not ready for it. So they said, all right, send you our men, and we are going to train them for a period of between six to eight months. But then six and eight months with all those raids coming to the depth, that was a serious problem. So it was our suggestion as a matter of fact to have those same missiles come to Egypt with their Soviet course. And the Soviet Union hesitated, you cannot imagine how. People think sometimes that the Soviet Union jumped to this opportunity. I was there. I happened to be there in Moscow at that time, accompanying President Nasser. And I happened to attend some of the meetings, especially the final meeting. And I remember that the whole political bureau in the Soviet Union were not able to make a decision when we first made that request. And they asked for a postponement for the meeting. And they said they are going to reply in the afternoon. And then the political bureau went on the meetings. And then they got all the marshals of the Soviet Union to join them. And then when they invited us to return back to the meeting room we found the political bureau, all the members of the political bureau, and all practically about 12 marshals from the marshals of the Soviet Union and they took the decision for the meeting. We were happy because of that, for two reasons. The practical one is that it's going to fill a gap till we get our boys trained for the use of the centuries. Two is that it's going to help also in pushing the struggle or the conflict from its lower level to states which cannot make peace to affect the upper level and to superpowers who cannot make war. And that would create pressures on the crisis. Mr. Hegel, I'd like to bring you back to this question of what presidents would not hope to accomplish when he terminated the Soviet mission and what he did accomplish. That's what exactly I was trying to explain to you is that, you know, after the Moscow meeting he found that, you know, and now I'm expressing his point of view not out of direct knowledge but as he made it known to the Central Committee because, you know, I have no right to express his point of view. What his point of view was that first of all he was not getting what he wanted exactly because of the atmosphere of the town. And then the with the atmosphere of the town more than the atmosphere of the town with the plans for the town he felt that he is his position is the only position left out from the legacies of the Cold War. Tension between these two superpowers which is no more tension. I mean all the reasons of tension were taken away by the all what happened before Moscow was sealed in Moscow and then he found that he's, you know, there is room for confrontation between the two superpowers which is never going to happen so he felt that the Soviet presence this way was a burden on his manoeuvra beti and not an asset and that differs from the situation of 1907 so he thought that, you know he would get a freedom of manoeuvra beti and a freedom of action by this. Egyptian Prime Minister Sidki said not long ago that Egypt was ready for war and had supplied her army with everything it needed. What was the significance of that? You know, it's very difficult for me really to explain or to elaborate on things which other people say but I presume that Dr. Sidki the Prime Minister of Egypt is in a position to know I don't know exactly what he knows but definitely he's in a better position with his responsibility political responsibility, constitutional responsibility to express his point of view and he made it in a pledge in front of the parliament so he must have something to back what he said Mr. Haco, one of the problems that seems to me the Arab nations face as far as public opinion in the United States goes and public opinion in other countries as well is the fact that they tend to be represented in the public prints let us say on television, on the radio by Arab guerrillas terrorists as they're generally called people who hijack airplanes people who shoot athletes, Israeli athletes of Munich people who apparently send letter bombs through the mail, that kind of thing is what as I say what Arabs have come to represent through public opinion in the West you know I beg to differ if you allow me first of all I don't think we ever had a good press practically all our lives either we are something from the past or we are we have no right or we don't exist or we know so many others but the guerrillas are the Palestinian Fidaiyan as we call them they only emerged on the scene several years ago or what was there before that were we having any justice before the hijacking before the whatever you may say we're not so it's not the guerrillas thing that's one thing let me remind you again one thing another thing is that I don't know why the Israelis for example never had that press when they were using a worse technique than what the guerrillas are doing what the Palestinian guerrillas are doing now compared to what the Israelis did is amateurs quite amateurs you're talking about what the Israelis did against the British I'm talking about what the Israelis did against the British today Margaret Truman the daughter of Harriet Truman revealed in her memoirs our biography of her father that a bomb parcel was sent to him by a Zionist group early in 1948 you know apart from what they did to the bitch and then why do we call there are several forms of violence supposedly that the Palestinians express their violence in a certain way don't you think that manipulating the press blackmailing people pressure groups don't you think that this is a form of silent violence which still pursued till now yet nobody talks about this and then we talk about what the Palestinians are doing because they are trying to draw the world attention to the to the agonies of a nation which is on the verge of perishing you know there are people who lost their homes their land everything and then they feel that they are completely ignored forgotten by the world by the whole world so simply whether right or wrong they go out and say if the world want to forget and have comfort to its conscious by ignoring that we are here alright we are going to remind the world that we are here whether this time is good, whether it's bad whether it's you agree with it whether you disagree with it there is a certain point of view in that you know let us not forget that we are facing a whole nation which is found in the span of 20 years all its territory occupied all its territory occupied under a legend it's starting 25 centuries ago and then all its city is taken over all its houses taken by other people they are only left to refugee camps and then they are forgotten completely nowadays they Mrs. Meir said there is nothing called a Palestinian nation 20 years ago 25 years ago there was a Palestinian nation living for 2000 years without interruption yet people now openly and without without second thoughts even where are they they don't exist which is very strange so when those people come out to express themselves in a way which we know we chock the conscious of people who want to be comfortable and who don't want to hear about you know problems and all that what's you know I totally agree we have got the right to interrupt for example world communications I totally agree with that I understand the concern in the world and my personal concern I use planes and I don't want to be hijacked but let's remember that the Palestinians are not the only people who are hijacking planes yet they are the terrorists I was in Munich when that happened I left Munich as a matter of fact the day before went to Rome and I was shocked about the reaction when or at what happened I am not a defendant but what I am asking for is that what I asked for at that time is that for some people to sit down and try to ask themselves why those people went and did what they did because this is important you can't even take a normal criminal an ordinary criminal put him to court, sentence him to death explaining to the court and to the people outside why that man was pushed to do what he did why was he pushed to that desperate situation in which he acted in a desperate way but obviously I remember one day I was going to see Senor Medici the foreign minister of Italy entering to his room I passed by the anti-shamp and I found a copy of the Corriere della Sera with the headline Teresmo Arabo so I went to the office of the minister and said you know Mr. Minister this is not Teresmo Arabo this generalization you are branding a whole nation condemning a whole nation which should not happen this way and obviously he was he said you know the press and all that but that was the tendency to brand all the Arabs the Arabs not Palestinians not people who are desperate it was taken, it was exploited with a perfect technique to mobilize the whole world against the whole, all the Arabs and then what is this going to lead to Mr. Hegel one of the arguments the Israelis make in connection with this is that of course many of these guerrillas, terrorists, whatever come from the refugee camps and one of the arguments the Israelis make in connection with this is that the refugee camps have deliberately been maintained rather than allowing the refugees to be absorbed into other Arab countries and they say further that they have taken more Jews from Arab countries than there were refugees who existed as a result of the 1948 war you know that goes even against the basic conception of Zionism if the Zanz refused to be assimilated in advanced societies like England, the United States France and all that and they say no, no assimilation even if there is assimilation assimilation should be on the basis of Jew citizenship yet they come to the people who were there in their country several years ago and they don't exist simply it's not the matter of the problem of refugees to be taken and settled somewhere else those people feel they have got a right in a certain land and they want to be back to it and they refuse to be assimilated they refuse to be resettled if the Jews consider it a crime to be assimilated in New York and they consider for example that the first variety of a Jew that's the idea of Zionism I'm not talking about the Jews generally because there are Jews who refuse that they are for assimilation and they think a Jewish a Jew in Britain is a British citizen you cannot in this time have nationalism mixed with religion so if they if the idea of Zionism is against the assimilation of Jews in advanced society in which they were living for hundreds of years then the Palestinians who were there in their homeland who can still see their houses their camps as refugees some of them for example in Gaza can look and see his own house there and yet you tell him no finished you are not going to go there go and resettle somewhere else in the Arab world in Sudan or Iraq or even against it contradicts sharply with the basic conceptions of the Zans themselves what is to happen to these people Mr. Haykul some of them have been there for a quarter of a century you know I don't see that there is a solution for this problem without a Palestinian state without a Palestinian homeland there is no other solution you know the Israelis can abstract they can delay but I think they are playing against history they are playing completely against history and to my mind they are committing a tragic mistake to themselves because one would have only to look at the balance of power in this area and I am not looking at the balance of power from the military point of view because this is temporary this can end tomorrow can end after five years it can change but here you have got 100 million Arabs in this area with vast resources they are rich they are in the process of being educated they can industrialize they can acquire technological know-how and there on the other side there is until now 3 million Jews they can be 5 million in say 10 years by that time will be 150 or 120 million Arabs so what's going to happen in 20 what's going to happen in 30 years even with all the might of the United States I don't think they can solve this problem they cannot simply cannot so their dilemma is that they are trying to play or impose through the short term their will on the long term which is completely impossible it's been remarked Mr. Haeckel that the people who live in the lands occupied by the Israelis seem quite docile about it and tend to accept for example on the west bank of the Jordan tend to accept the Israeli occupation that they've been tied in to some extent to the Israeli economy that the standard of living has gone up and that there really are no very prominent signs of unhappiness you know as if situation no, no first of all the Israelis are claiming that they have done that now yet each day they are claiming that they have come exploiting some where and all that but you know I don't think this is right because history is not free at a certain money well alright these Palestinians were surprised by what happened and then they feel that they alone cannot cope with that situation and they are waiting for Arab resistance forces of Arab resistance to gather around them and to give them backing as if you have said for example that France was very happy in Vichy under the Germans under the Nazis well alright there were several years when France was so quiet under the Nazis but then when the forces were gathered European forces and Allied forces were gathered the French stood up and they started resistance and I think the same thing would happen Mr. Hegel I said at the outset that you were very close to Colonel Nassim President Nassim I'm glad you corrected he is President Nassim well we sometimes used to say General De Gaulle even after he became President De Gaulle General Eisenhower after he left he used to say President Eisenhower but anyhow in fact I notice there is a portrait of him here in your boardroom what do you think he left to the Arab people he certainly was the greatest Arab leader of the century what was his legacy to my mind he left two things first of all he left the idea of Arabianity with he did not create the idea of Arabianity but he left he left the possibility of the dream of Arabianity that it is feasible he proved that it is feasible and he brought Egypt finally and irrevocably to its place within the Arab nation this is one thing second thing is that I think he linked Egypt and the Arab nation together with the ideas and the ideas of the modern world you know social justice industrialization you know all that before Nassim I think the Arabs were you know in a state of fragmentation now they are in a state of ferment towards unity the process of ferment started already towards unity which to my mind is going to be achieved second thing is that the Arab world which was a feudal society completely is now full fledged going towards industrialization redistribution of wealth breaking all that feudal system for example in Egypt and then creating the sense of independence and the desire for independence and the will to defend independence so two things two main things as I said Egypt and the Arab world together I mean the Arab nation the dream and the possibility and then the link with the modern world instead of all that feudal outlook or fast look to the looking always too fast you use the expression Arab nation singular can that be defined can it be identified the Arab nation well here you have you know what makes a nation what makes a nation what makes a nation to my mind is a geographical entity a unified interest a joint security and a long historical experience under the necessities of geography and economical interest and security that's it if we look to the Arab world it's the geographical entity is there even ethnically it comes practically from the same source mainly from the same source it lived the same experience it talks the same language it lived under the same laws for thousands of years more than that what I doubt if you can have this in the United States for example if do you know that all the textbooks for example in the Arab world are the same textbooks even before this was not muscles achievement that means that if you take a boy in a certain class in Iraq at a certain day and take him and parachute him at the same class same day in Casablanca he would fit right away would that be true of history textbooks as well? practically everything with the exception of socialism because some some Arab countries adopts more or less a more progressive concept towards social development and some other Arab countries prefer to concentrate on purely and narrow religious old I suppose that's really the reason I asked you whether there is such a thing as an Arab nation because it do appear to be very great differences in fact it doesn't sound cynical the main difference among Arab nations appears to be between those that have oil and those that do not that's a class struggle you know there is a class struggle in the United States you cannot deny that there is a class struggle in England there is a class struggle in France you know a class struggle you can have within the same society it does not deny the country I think it confirms the existence of of an Arab nation because why should that trouble be between the haves and the have nots what do they care if they are completely isolated they don't have anything to do with each other but the fact that there is a class struggle inside the Arab countries means that there is a certain bond between them all what about Colonel Gaddafi of Libya who inevitably is attracting a good deal of attention King Hussein accused him of being behind a recent attempt to overthrow his regime which is not a very brotherly thing to do if he did it kind of thing within the Arab nation no no first of all I differ with you I question what King Hussein said you know all this we know but within the context of a social struggle and political struggle in one nation you must expect well you can't say for example even although this when the revolution comes within one nation within one nation you can't say this is unbrotherly you know somebody a civil war in the United States was not a very brotherly thing yet it happened a civil war in France in England whatever you want social torment adjustment for the future if we talk about brotherly things then we are going to return again to the logic of the tribe and freeze the whole social struggle Mr. Hickler I'd like to change the subject rather radically you don't have very much time left we're here in your boardroom and the board table is enormous as I understand it when you have board meetings they have the labor unions on the newspaper city and what part do they play do they have membership on the board first of all this Newspeaker is a cooperative ownership and all the members of the board are elected you know we own this Newspeaker I mean the people who work in this every member of this board is elected by the employees who constitute the general assembly of the Newspeaker and then the labor union we don't feel by this way that we have got a contradiction between capital and labor because I'm not a capital I don't own anything in the Newspeaker apart from the 7 shares I am allowed by the law of the cooperative a month 700 pounds and I have got here we have got 3,000 people at least owning the same shares like me and they elect me they elect the other members of the board so I don't feel that we are capitalists versus labor so when we have major decisions concerning the Newspeaker and we discuss it although more of us are elected from either the employees or the workers we prefer also to have the labor union with us so that they would be in the know of what we are doing what about editorial policy how is that determined no the editorial policy is determined by the editor and it is discussed each year in the board of directors and this there is something which violates the independence or the integrity of the Newspeaker and the board of directors would like to bring the editor to account what about the relationship now between the press in Egypt and the government you said earlier that you were with Colonel Nasser, President Nasser when he was in the Soviet Union sat in on the meetings most of us who are reporters no I was not reported I was Minister of Information for an interruption in my career for several months I was appointed Minister of Information what is the degree of freedom that the press now enjoys I don't ask this in any video what is the degree of freedom that the press I think I would be lying to myself if I said that we enjoy complete freedom but I think that within the circumstances of the country in war I think we are doing alright I would like to ask for more and but I must say that I have got a sensor downstairs seeing what is affecting national security because we are set of war this I accept sometimes I see that the sensor for example exceeds his interpretation of what he considers national security and I refuse to abide by his orders or by his instructions which are given to him and we come out and we say it's up to the other side to confiscate the newspaper if they want to and they never did it once that means that I have got a sensor who is looking after national security movements of the troops sometimes he exceeds his limits we are free to reject his decisions and we can go to the court have you any general view Mr. Haeckel on how well the national interest is served in a country in the state of development of Egypt which one would say was what a developing country by a free press or by a press that is somewhat trampled nothing to compensate the free press nothing to compensate the free press but you know I must accept when the country is in war which you accepted which everybody accepted which till now in England is being practiced in the denotes even after without the war I must accept certain limits to my freedom which I always try to challenge and I always try to broaden but you know there are times when you are obliged to accept things which are basically against all what you believe in but you feel that this is a national necessity you regard you use the expression of country at war you regard the Egypt then as being at war because one-seventh of Egypt is occupied so what what the country at war more than that the prospect of peace then Mr. Haeckel we only have about a minute a minute and a half left the prospect of peace seems to you to be a pretty dim and yet some people have interpreted some things you've written recently as suggesting that some kind of settlement should be sought rather than a military I wish they tell me what I don't say that the military way is the only way but I say that there is the political way with the use of military power when necessary is the way but I would not say it's only a military confrontation it's more than that what I'm trying to say is that you know the confrontation which we are having with the Israelis is not only a military confrontation it's a wider front than that the military aspects come within that come within a big broad front but I don't think that I ruled out at all and I don't think I will rule out the possibility of use of force otherwise the Israelis and I don't think frankly speaking I don't think that the Israelis are going to leave those positions occupied in our territory before they are forced to the most important thing is to prepare the whole general political atmosphere where the exercise of military power would be most effective Thank you very much Mr. Haeckel Mohammed Haeckel has been speaking freely Edwin Newman NBC News