TIME: Almanac 1990s

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1990s / Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso / time / 100989 / 10098900.073 < prev

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 8.3 KB | 205 lines

<text id=89TT2662> <title> Oct. 09, 1989: Interview:Sheik Mohammed Fadlallah </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989 Oct. 09, 1989 Want A Baby? </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> INTERVIEW, Page 58 A Voice Of the Hizballah </hdr> <body> Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlahlah, elusive leader of the pro-Iranians holding hostages in Lebanon, talks of terror and money By William Dowell Q. How will the death of Ayatullah Khomeini and Hashemi Rafsanjani's election as President of Iran affect the Hizballah? A. I am not the official spokesman for the Hizballah, so I cannot answer this question as an involved person, but I can speak as an observer. There is no major change in strategy, but there is a change in approach, caused by the phase that Iran is now entering. The previous phase was one of war and building the Revolution. The current phase is one of peace and rebuilding the country. The conditions put forward by Rafsanjani for restoring relations with the U.S. are the same ones he put forward during the life of the Imam (Khomeini). They are that America should stop its aggressive policy against Iran and that America can express that by releasing the frozen Iranian assets. Q. It will be difficult for the U.S. to free Iranian assets so long as American hostages are being held in Lebanon. A. The two cases are very different. When America froze Iran's assets, it was a big country taking an illegal action. The problem of the hostages is related to individuals, who might be friendly to Iran but who, from a legal point of view, are not responsible as a country. The hostages were not kidnaped by Iran. They were kidnaped by organizations in Lebanon that may not have any relationship to Iran. Q. Americans are convinced that Iran financed these movements. A. That is one point of view. Many countries finance movements but do not interfere in their day-to-day operations. America finances Israel with more than $3 billion a year; can we as Arabs or Muslims assume that the U.S. is responsible for everything Israel is doing now? Q. That is exactly the point of view the Hizballah takes. A. We believe that America is responsible for what Israel does because there is a strategic alliance between the U.S. and Israel. Do Americans accept our accusations; do you agree with the charges we make? Q. No, of course not. A. If Americans don't accept our accusations, why do they make the same kind of accusations against us? As I see it, the kidnaping of American hostages is the result of political turbulence. The problem is the violence that Israel's presence has imposed on the region. We do not consider kidnaping to be a humane act. We do not think it is right for a human being to take away the freedom of another human being. We have been working recently to educate people at the Friday prayers against this method. Q. Many of the Friday prayer sermons have been strongly anti-American. A. We are not against the American people, but we are against the policy of the American Administration, especially as it relates to Israel. Q. When Americans see the case of Colonel Higgins, who was hanged, Americans who know nothing about Lebanon are suddenly filled with hatred. Isn't it time now to call on the people responsible to stop? A. We understand these feelings and consider that they are natural and human. We have been working on it, and we are still speaking out about the necessity of closing this file. But we also know that America has the practical means to solve the problem if it wants. Q. Would you now personally call on those who are holding the hostages to let them go? A. I have appealed to them more than 50 times. You can refer to the Friday prayer sermons, which I use to educate the public. I completely reject (hostage taking). There is a difference between my opposition to American policy and physically harming American people. Q. Your name has often been linked in the press to the bombing of the American Marines in Beirut. Were you involved in that? A. I can assure you that I did not know about the bombing of the American Marines in Beirut until after it happened. But I did talk about it, since it represented an aspect of the opposition to American policy in the region. There is a difference between approving of some of the political effects and actually participating. I told journalists after the bombing that the press had relied on information coming from the (Christian) Phalangists. I challenged them to produce any proof linking me to it. Q. The United States has a new Administration under George Bush. A. We are watching its practical actions, but up to now we haven't been able to form a clear picture. We are afraid that Henry Kissinger could be harmful to the Administration. We want them to be very cautious about Kissinger. Q. Just what did Kissinger do that was so terrible? A. He burned Lebanon. Q. In what way? A. We feel that Kissinger wanted to bury the Palestinian issue in Lebanon to ensure that there would be no Palestinian issue to confront the existence of Israel. Q. There are no Americans left in Lebanon now, but the killing goes on. The U.S. tried to exert pressure on Israel to pull out of Lebanon, and yet you say that America is an imperialist country. A. Naturally, if you want to improve your image, it's not enough to cover your face with a bit of makeup. You need a plastic surgeon. It will take a long time for people to regain their trust in American policy. America says in regard to certain countries that the deepening of relationships requires a lot of time. We need more signs from American policy to regain our trust in the American Administration. Q. Is it possible after all these years of hatred for Iran and the U.S. to be friends again? A. When we look at the relationship between Islamic Iran and the atheistic Soviet Union, and the new development of friendship on the political and economic levels, we see that it is possible to return to a relationship between the U.S. and Iran. Relationships are subject to the real interests of the people and not to personal relationships. Q. Do you believe the Hizballah in Lebanon could eventually be friendly toward the United States? A. My belief is that the situation is becoming gray. Q. But are you optimistic? A. I am realistic. I look for optimistic signs in reality. Q. What does that mean? A. When the issue is gray, you do not see clearly. Q. And the families of the hostages who are being held in Lebanon, what would you say to those people? A. I would like to tell them that I live their deep pain and their human suffering concerning their beloved ones, and I appreciate their feelings. I wish I had the realistic means to end this human tragedy. I am working on educating the whole nation against this method, and I wish that I could influence the people involved. I can confirm that I have done a great deal of work in this direction, but I have come across many closed paths. Q. Do you think the time has come for the United States to make a new effort to contact the Iranians and the Hizballah? A. I believe any problem can be approached in a practical way. I believe America should do something that generates trust and that shows it is not against freedom. Q. Do you think that money is the most important thing for Iran? A. I don't see it that way. I see the problem of the frozen assets as an indication of whether there is a change from a hostile policy. Naturally, this may have an effect on building Iran, but I believe that Iran, which is already rich with its own natural resources, will not relinquish its freedom in exchange for any amount of money. </body> </article> </text>