Shavit spoke to Newsweek’s Arlene Getz about his views on anthrax, assassination and how U.S. residents must adapt to the threats against them. Excerpts:
Shabtai Shavit: It is too early for me to say. I have been out of Israel for the last two weeks, and I need time to assess the situation.
The timing of the first anthrax case is too coincidental. Also, the place where it appeared for the first time [in Boca Raton, Florida] is in the vicinity of the place where some of the terrorists stayed for quite some time, so based on these two points, my feeling is that there might be some kind of connection between the bombing of the [World Trade Center] and the anthrax cases.
I’m not surprised, because they [can] acquire this kind of stuff relatively easily at various places in the world.
Yes, it is.
Judging by the result, it was of course [an intelligence] failure. To the best of my knowledge, it was the failure of the international intelligence community, not just the American intelligence community. Yet when it comes to the American intelligence community … here in the United States there was a feeling that they were far away from the daily threat … There was some kind of complacency. In such an environment, for a terrorist, it’s much easier to operate.
The fact that the weapons that were used in this operation were airplanes [also] made the invasion much easier for the perpetrators. They didn’t have to carry weapons with them [during] the whole long period of preparation, and that’s why the execution of the operation was much easier to carry out than perhaps one with conventional weapons.
It is hard. One of the main characteristics of those extremist organizations in the Middle East is [that] their recruiting method is based on their personal knowledge of people, family connections and tribal connections, so to penetrate is a real tough job.
I do not and cannot refer to the capabilities of the Pakistani intelligence … But [if] the Taliban is toppled in Afghanistan, it’s going to be easier for the Americans and their allies to cope.
It is possible. [That method] has been used since World War II, using the media to send messages to operatives at various places all over the world.
This is a tactic that intelligence services are using. In a situation where the information you have in hand indicates that something is being [prepared], but you cannot put your finger on the exact target or the exact timing, an early warning serves two purposes. One is to transmit to the terrorists: “Listen guys, we know that you are up to something and we are prepared to meet you.” That [can] have some kind of deterrence effect on the terrorists. [It also] puts your own people on a higher level of alert. But you have to use this means very economically, because on the one hand you cannot keep the whole nation uptight for a very long period, and on the other hand you cannot lose credibility.
I am not in a position to audit your system. For instance I’ve been using trains for the last week and the truth is that I have not spotted any additional new measures as compared to before Sept. 11 … [But] I was near to the Capitol [last week] and I saw many more security people around the Capitol building than during my previous visits.
That’s a good question. It has to do with how you convince your people and how you educate them to an entirely new situation [in] the United States. It may sound dramatic, but life in America is not going to be the same as it used to be before Sept. 11. In order to be able to go on living, you have to be aware of the fact that you are going to have to give up some of your formal liberties, and you have to be ready to give up some of your pleasantries and conveniences.
I wouldn’t like to give you a list of potential targets because it’s going to be a very long one.
I personally wouldn’t give him the chance to brought to trial. This guy should be eliminated.
My personal view [is that] for President Bush to build up his coalition with the more moderate Arab and Muslim countries around the world, I realize that there is a price tag that each one of them has put in to join. One of the conditions is Israel, the Palestinians, and the conflict in the Middle East. OK, we can live without being upfront of the coalition. Relations between Israel and the U.S. have been going for many, many years–military relationships, intelligence relationships and so on. But the price that the American government is ready to pay for the Arab countries to join the coalition will be limited. If it becomes too high a price, we cannot afford to accept it. When the American administration pressed us to meet with [Palestinian leader Yasir] Arafat, and Arafat, instead of decreasing the level of violence for the negotiations to go smoothly, increased the level of violence, we just couldn’t take it. And [that was] where Sharon came out with his famous statement.
