Here is the White House transcript of President Barack Obama‘s remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Good morning. Thank you. Thank you so much. Please, have a seat. Thank you.
What a remarkable, remarkable crowd. Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction. I did not know you played basketball. (Laughter.) I will take your word for it. (Laughter.) Rosy, thank you for your many years of friendship. Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first. When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy, you were at my side every step of that profound journey through the Holy Land. So I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership, and for your warm introduction today.
I also want to thank David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the board of directors. And let me say that it is wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including a very large delegation from Chicago. (Applause.) Alan Solow, Howard Green. Thank you all.
I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today — who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel, including Eric Cantor — (applause) — Steny Hoyer — (applause) — and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Applause.)
We’re joined by Israel’s representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren. (Applause.) And we’re joined by one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro. (Applause.) Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor and friend, and I know that he will do a terrific job.
And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today. (Applause.) No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it’s inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape that future.
Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.
On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed — (applause) — we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years — that even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable — (applause) — and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad. (Applause.)
A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and children can live free from the threat of violence. It’s not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.
America’s commitment to Israel’s security flows from a deeper place — and that’s the values we share. As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers — and foremothers — fought must be the work of every generation. As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedoms we cherish must be constantly nurtured. And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland for the Jewish people. (Applause.)
We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel living in a very tough neighborhood. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. When I went to Sderot and saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year-old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket, and when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I was reminded of the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map — face of the Earth.
Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. (Applause.) It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels. (Applause.) And that includes additional support –- beyond regular military aid -– for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. (Applause.) A powerful example of American-Israeli cooperation — a powerful example of American-Israeli cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved Israeli lives. So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. (Applause.)
You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Applause.) Here in the United States, we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. (Applause.) At the United Nations, under our leadership, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we’re going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear –- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Applause.)
Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and we will stand up to groups like Hezbollah, who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.
You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. (Applause.) As I said at the United Nations last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.” (Applause.)
So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself. (Applause.) When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it. (Applause.)
And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security. (Applause.) And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel’s long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians. (Applause.)
Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. (Applause.) And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. (Applause.) No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. (Applause.) And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements. (Applause.) And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. (Applause.)
And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. And that is why on Thursday I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims — the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration.
I know that stating these principles — on the issues of territory and security — generated some controversy over the past few days. (Laughter.) I wasn’t surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. I don’t need Rahm to tell me that. Don’t need Axelrod to tell me that. But I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. (Applause.) So I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.
Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.
Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.
Third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.
And just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There’s a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World — in Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe. And that impatience is growing, and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.
And those are the facts. I firmly believe, and I repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations or in any international forum. (Applause.) Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate. That is my commitment; that is my pledge to all of you. (Applause.)
Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner –- which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist. (Applause.) And we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and for their rhetoric. (Applause.)
But the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations –- will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. And for us to have leverage with the Palestinians, to have leverage with the Arab States and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. And so, in advance of a five-day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.
There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations. Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday — not what I was reported to have said.
I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps — (applause) — so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself –- by itself -– against any threat. (Applause.) Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. (Applause.) And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarized state. (Applause.) And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. (Applause.)
Now, that is what I said. And it was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps — that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. (Applause.) That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. (Applause.) It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people — (applause) — and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. (Applause.)
If there is a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. (Applause.) The world is moving too fast. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.
Now, I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know we can have this discussion.
Ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. (Applause.) And as a friend of Israel, I’m committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized. And I will call not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, on the Arab States, and the international community to join us in this effort, because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone. (Applause.)
But even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security, even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us, and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead, I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything, if the story of Israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.
The Talmud teaches us that, “So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.” And that lesson seems especially fitting today.
For so long as there are those across the Middle East and beyond who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.
And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism; it is not naïveté. It is a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. (Applause.) That is my goal, and I look forward to continuing to work with AIPAC to achieve that goal.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
delivered 24 May 2011, Washington, D.C.
Vice President Biden, Speaker Boehner, Distinguished Senators, Members of the House, honored guests:
I'm deeply moved by this warm welcome. And I'm deeply honored that you've given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.
Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time that we were the new kids in town? And I do see a lot of old friends here. And I see a lot of new friends of Israel here as well -- Democrats and Republicans alike.
Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel.
We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations America. Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance!
In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.
My friends, you don’t have to -- you don't need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. And you don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you President Obama for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.
Some of you have been telling me that your belief has been reaffirmed in recent months -- that
support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future. For an epic battle is now underway in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states; they've toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty.
These extraordinary scenes in -- in Tunis and Cairo evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet as we share their hopes --
[protester interrupts Netanyahu's Address]
You know, I take it as a badge of honor and so should you that in our free societies you can have protests. You can't have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This is real democracy!
So as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the Middle East and Iran -- that they'll be able to do what that young woman just did. (I think she's young; I couldn't see quite that far) -- we also must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then. The brief democratic spring in Tehran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. And it's this same tyranny that smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution, and inflicted on that long-suffering country, the medieval rule of Hezbollah.
So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. And like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less travelled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. Nobody. This path, of liberty, is not paved by elections alone. It's paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Israel has always embraced this path, in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different. And this was seen --
There was a great English writer in the 19th century, George Eliot. It's a she. That was a pseudonym in those days. George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once established, the Jewish state -- he's what she said -- the Jewish state will "shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.” Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates. Now, don't laugh. You see, you think you're tough on another -- on one another here in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest.
Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud in Israel that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel.
This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.
Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the -- in the Middle East.
Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium -- by the way, it hasn't changed -- I stood here and I said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab World. Well, it's begun to take root, and this beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity -- because I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace. But while we hope for the best and while we work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.
Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide. When I last stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons. Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam.
Now, I have no doubt -- I'm absolutely convinced -- that it will ultimately be defeated. I believe it will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. It depends on cloistering young minds for a given amount of years. And the process of opening up information will ultimately defeat this movement.
But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact an horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise. A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world. Now I want you to understand what this means, because if we don't stop it, it's coming. They could put a bomb anywhere. They could put it in a missile. They're working on missiles that could reach this city. They could put it on a -- on a ship inside a container to reach every port. They could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway.
Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.
But there is something that makes the outrage even greater. And you know what this is? It's the lack of outrage. Because in much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It's even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
Not you. Not America. You acted differently. You've condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America!
President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the U.N. to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions.
Now these words and deeds are vitally important, yet the Ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. In that same year, Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. And this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Now as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say "never again," we mean never again. Israel always reserves -- Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.
My friends, while Israel will be ever-vigilant in its defense, we’ll never give up our quest for peace. I guess we’ll give it up when we achieve it. Because we want peace. Because we need peace. Now, we’ve achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and these have held up for decades.
I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal -- I mean that literally -- inside the Suez Canal. And I was going down to the bottom with a 40-pound pack -- ammunition pack -- on my back, and somebody reached out to grab me. And they’re still looking for the guy who did such a stupid thing. I was nearly killed there. And I remember battling terrorists along both banks of the Jordan. Too many Israelis have lost loved ones, and I know their grief. I lost my brother. So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days.
The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East. And this peace -- this peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace. The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan are vital, but they’re not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians.
Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples -- a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. I’m willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it’s my responsibility to lead my people to peace. Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we’ll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.
We’re not the British in India. We’re not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one god, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw his vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history -- and boy am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new -- no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.
But there is another truth. The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they’ll be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.
Now, we’ve already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. By the way, Prime Minister Fayyad has led this effort on their part, and I -- I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation.
We’ve helped -- on our side, we’ve helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people, and the results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming; it’s growing by more than 10 percent a year. And Palestinian cities -- they look very different today than what they looked just a few years -- a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses, but you can’t see that when you visit them. That’s what they have. It’s a great change. And all of this is happening without peace. So imagine what could happen with peace.
Peace would herald a new day for both our peoples, and it could also make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility. So now, here’s the question. You’ve got to ask it: If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo Accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included; so why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes; the Palestinians said no.
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War. They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. My friends, this must come to an end.
President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people -- and I told you, it wasn’t easy for me -- I stood before my people and I said, “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.” Those six words will change history. They’ll make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end; that they’re not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it.
And those six words will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.
With such a partner, the Palestinian -- or rather the Israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.
Now these areas are densely populated, but they’re geographically quite small. And under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, we’d -- be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations, but we must also be honest. So I’m saying today something that should be said publicly by all those who are serious about peace. In any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. Now the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We’ll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.
So I want to be very clear on this point. Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state but will be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle, shouldn’t be lost.
We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, to be independent, to be prosperous. All of you -- and the president too -- have referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as you’ve been talking about a future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Well, Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the one and only Jewish state, and Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. And here is what this means. It means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. You know, everybody knows this. It’s time to say it. It’s important.
And as for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Moslems could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe that, with creativity and with good will, a solution can be found.
So this is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is the peace you can defend. So peace must be anchored in security.
In recent years, Israel withdrew from south Lebanon and from Gaza. We thought we’d get peace. That’s not what we got. We got 12,000 rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon, they failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza, they evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked, and missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute.
I want you to think about that, too. Imagine there’s a siren going on now and we have less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Do you think anybody can live that way? Well, we’re not going to live that way either.
The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. It’s one of the smallest countries in the world. Mr. Vice President, I’ll grant you this: It’s bigger than Delaware.It’s even bigger than Rhode Island. But that’s about it. Israel under 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.
Now, here’s a bit of nostalgia. I came to Washington 30 years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: there is an America beyond the Beltway. But Israel under 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth. So it’s therefore vital -- absolutely vital -- that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized, and it’s vital -- absolutely vital -- that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River.
Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace; they’re necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels, because in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. And my friends, when I say tomorrow, I don’t mean some distant time in the future; I mean tomorrow.
Peace can only be achieved around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the president’s clear position on these -- on this issue.
Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But peace can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace, and Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas -- Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, it says: Kill the Jews everywhere you find them.
Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now, again, I want to make this clear: Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaeda. That we will not do.
So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate. Make peace with the Jewish state. And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations; it will be the first to do so.
My friends, the momentous trials over the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike.
I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.
May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
More than a dozen Israeli intellectuals and public figures have signed a letter urging European leaders to officially recognize a Palestinian State, as "the peace process has reached its end."
The letter, which will be sent to the leaders on Friday, was initiated by the leftist Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, the group which also organizes the weekly demonstrations in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.
"Peace has fallen hostage to the peace process," the letter said. "As Israeli citizens, we announce that if and when the Palestinian people declare independence of a sovereign state that will exist next to Israel in peace and security, we will support such the announcement of the Palestinian State with borders based on the 1967 lines, with needed land swaps on a 1:1 basis."
"We urge the countries of the world to declare their willingness to recognize a sovereign Palestinian State according to these principles," the letter added.
In a statement on the Solidarity website, the group wrote that "the Palestinian appeal to the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian State does not harm the Israeli interest and is not at odds with the peace process."
"Netanyahu's speech in Washington and the sweeping support he received from the U.S. Congress shows that the peace process has reached its end," the statement added, stressing that Israel now has a choice between recognizing a Palestinian State or a renewed wave of violence.
The letter was signed by former Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg, former Foreign Ministry Director General Alon Liel, and former Ambassador to South Africa Ilan Baruch.
Among the intellectual signatories are Nobel laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman, and Israel Prize Winner Professor Avishai Margalit. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
The imminent recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN puts Israel on a collision course with the rest of the world. And there is but one way which this could be made less catastrophic.
By Carlo Strenger Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu UN Barack Obama Palestinians
Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and company are selling Israel’s citizens an illusion: they are positioning themselves as Rambo-heroes who will win against the world. They present Bibi’s visit to the U.S. as a great success that beat down Barack Obama and convinced the world that our government is a righteous one. Their ministers are playing long by attending the foundation of new construction in Jerusalem and their MKs are flexing their muscles, too: Danny Dannon calls for the annexation of the West Bank in reaction to the Palestinian bid for recognition. The surge in support for Bibi in the polls after his return from the U.S. shows that many Israelis are buying into the story that Netanyahu is saving Israel.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Never mind the European media, whether British, French or German, even U.S. mainstream commentators tell a very different story than Bibi’s spin doctors. Their analyses all boil down to one point: Netanyahu has made it clear that there is no use in the Palestinians returning to the negotiating table, because there is no one to talk to. And nobody buys Bibi’s line that the Palestinians are to be faulted for the breakdown of negotiations.
Commentators around the world agree on the coming scenario: Palestinians will go for recognition by the UN General Assembly. They have the full support of the Arab League; they already have a two-thirds majority virtually assured. Netanyahu’s intransigence will make it that much easier for major European countries like France and Britain to support the Palestinian request.
The script for the coming years, therefore, is clearly set out: Israel is bracing for a head-on collision with the rest of the world, and it won’t be a pretty sight. The Palestinians will use their newly won legitimacy to turn to international courts for legal help against Israel’s occupation. International opinion will support them, and we Israelis will pay the price legally, financially and with growing delegitimization.
Foreign diplomats friendly to Israel who spoke to me on condition of anonymity wondered whether Israel will have to go through the full South Africa treatment before it turns around. I wish I was optimistic and could tell them that Israel’s political class will wake up. I am afraid it won’t, and that we will, despite the peace camp’s efforts to the contrary, have to live with a solution of the conflict imposed from outside.
There is but one way in which the looming collision could be made less catastrophic. Obama could decide to change course; instead of opposing recognition of Palestine, he could support it, as Israel should, if it acted rationally, under two conditions: Palestinians have to renounce any claims this side of the 1967 borders, including the right of return, and the Arab League would recognize Israel’s legitimacy and move towards normal relations. Palestinians would probably agree to that, and so would the Arab League as this corresponds to its peace initiative.
In doing so, Obama would do Israel the biggest possible favor: Israelis labor under the understandable fear that the two-state solution is but the first step towards abolishing Israel as the homeland of the Jews. A UN resolution that would combine the recognition of Palestine with an unmistakable recognition of Israel’s right to exist without further claims would calm this fear.
I can’t read Obama’s private thoughts, but I assume that in his heart he would prefer supporting such an UN resolution to the scenario in which the UN General Assembly recognizes Palestine with only Israel and the U.S. voting against it. He knows that American rejection of the Palestinian bid for statehood won’t do his country’s standing in the world any good, and he knows that it won’t prevent the head-on collision between Israel and the world.
Evidently, Obama is unwilling to pay the political price of open conflict with Bibi’s government. It’s difficult to blame him: he is up for reelection next year, and a clash with AIPAC, the ADL and the Christian right won’t do him any good. Because he doesn’t have an Israeli partner to work with, he seems to have renounced leadership in the Middle Eastern conflict for the time being. The UN will do the job of establishing Palestine for him. He can then step into the implementation of the UN resolution under far more favorable conditions.
For us Israelis who want a democratic homeland for the Jews, this means that we need patience. We need to be aware that before our country wakes up, Israel might move even further to the right in reaction to UN recognition of Palestine. Meanwhile we have an important task: We need to nurture the pillars of Israel’s civil society - its legal system, its higher education, its professional associations, its culture and its art. The day will come when Israel comes to its senses. We will need to be ready for the Israel that will emerge after the catastrophe.
This story is by:
Carlo Strenger Carlo Strenger _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
LEMONDE.FR | 07.06.11 | 10h10 • Mis à jour le 08.06.11 | 10h06
edition abonnés
S'exprimant le 24 mai devant le Congrès américain, le premier ministre israélien Benyamin Netanyahou a présenté sa "vision de la paix" pour Israéliens et Palestiniens. Il a en particulier décrit la forme que devrait prendre, selon lui, un Etat palestinien : ses frontières seraient déterminées en fonction des préoccupations d'Israël pour sa sécurité et ne reprendraient pas les lignes de 1967, pourtant reconnues par la communauté internationale ; aucune partie de Jérusalem ne pourrait accueillir sa capitale ; il devrait accepter la présence de troupes étrangères sur son sol. Quant aux réfugiés palestiniens expulsés par l'Etat hébreu, il n'y aurait pour eux ni droit au retour ni réparations.
Cette vision de Netanyahou, visiblement troublée par la myopie, ne marque rien d'autre que l'apogée de sa politique coloniale et colonisatrice. Ce n'est pas une paix, c'est l'apartheid. Ce n'est pas un Etat souverain pour les Palestiniens, c'est la perpétuation déguisée de l'occupation militaire israélienne.
Selon Netanyahou, les frontières de 1967 sont "indéfendables". Il ne comprend manifestement pas qu'Israël n'aura jamais de frontières défendables tant qu'elle exercera sa domination sur les Palestiniens et sur leurs terres. Ce que les Palestiniens offrent à Israël depuis désormais plus de dix ans, c'est non seulement un accord de paix bilatéral qui mette fin à toutes les revendications, mais aussi une paix régionale globale entre l'Etat hébreu et cinquante-sept autres Etats telle que l'a proposée l'Initiative de paix arabe de 2002 et telle que la soutient l'Organisation de la conférence islamique. Non seulement nous tendons la main à Israël pour que prenne fin le conflit israélo-palestinien, mais nous mettons aussi sur la table la paix et la normalisation des relations entre Israël et ses voisins. En mettant un terme à l'injustice historique infligée au peuple palestinien, Israël obtiendrait enfin cette sécurité qu'elle réclame depuis si longtemps.
Les frontières de 1967 ne constituent pas quelque "condition préalable palestinienne", ni un nouveau paramètre imaginé par le gouvernement Obama. Les lignes de 1967 constituent les frontières internationalement reconnues entre Israël et le territoire palestinien occupé. Elles reprennent également le compromis palestinien historique de 1988, par lequel l'Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) a reconnu Israël sur 78 % de la Palestine historique.
Céder ainsi la part du lion de notre patrimoine au nom d'une paix durable était un acte solennel témoignant de la volonté de mettre fin à des décennies de conflit et de sang versé entre Israéliens et Palestiniens. Pourtant, alors que le processus de paix est en cours depuis plus de 20 ans, alors que des milliers de personnes sont mortes ou ont été mutilées, alors que la perpétuation de ce conflit crée d'indescriptibles souffrances, Israël continue de rejeter obstinément la paix.
Les gouvernements israéliens successifs ont employé une débauche de moyens pour modifier le statu quo du territoire palestinien occupé et effacer les frontières de 1967. Au cours des quarante-quatre dernières années, Israël a consacré plus de 17 milliards de dollars à la construction de colonies. Cette entreprise néocolonialiste – un crime de guerre en vertu des conventions de Genève – conduit d'aucuns à se demander si la solution à deux Etats reste envisageable.
En tant que premier négociateur palestinien, j'ai participé à la plupart des négociations avec Israël. J'étais l'un des premiers Palestiniens arrivés à la conférence de paix de Madrid, où il nous fut assuré par George Bush, alors président des Etats-Unis, que nos discussions avec les Israéliens auraient pour cadre la résolution 242 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, autrement dit, l'idée que la paix israélo-palestinienne passait par le retrait d'Israël au niveau des frontières de 1967. A l'époque, en 1991, environ 200 000 colons israéliens résidaient illégalement sur le territoire palestinien occupé. Vingt ans plus tard, ils sont presque trois fois plus nombreux. Alors que l'une des principales motivations ayant poussé l'OLP à signer les accords d'Oslo était précisément de s'assurer qu'il n'y aurait plus de velléité de revenir sur le statu quo du territoire palestinien occupé, la colonisation par Israël de terres palestiniennes s'est poursuivie sans répit. La "feuille de route" adoptée par le Quartet [en 2003] appelait au gel de la colonisation israélienne et au démantèlement des colonies de peuplement, mais Israël a refusé de s'y plier. Si Israël n'a pas jugé bon de respecter nos accords et arrangements précédents, quelle légitimité accorder à de nouvelles négociations avec les Israéliens ?
Avec son discours devant le Congrès américain, Netanyahou a achevé d'enterrer le processus de paix. Le premier ministre israélien a ainsi prouvé au monde qu'il n'est pas un homme de paix. Il n'a manifesté de respect ni pour le droit international, ni pour les accords passés. Il a rejeté le principe le plus fondamental du processus de paix : l'échange de territoires contre la paix.
Nous refusons de laisser notre Etat de Palestine se faire ensevelir sous quarante années supplémentaires d'expansion des colonies israéliennes. Nous, Palestiniens, allons continuer d'œuvrer pour la reconnaissance de notre Etat dans les frontières de 1967. Nous allons lancer la procédure de demande d'adhésion aux Nations unies et demander à l'Assemblée générale de soutenir notre appel pacifique à la concrétisation de nos aspirations nationales. En l'absence de négociations sérieuses, en l'absence de mandat clair et puisque rien de ce qui a été conclu par le passé n'est appliqué, nous n'avons pas d'autre option.
Notre peuple (dix millions d'individus dans le monde) vit depuis trop longtemps sous l'occupation ou en exil. Nous avons droit à notre liberté, nous avons droit à la justice, nous avons le droit de vivre en paix et en sécurité sur nos terres historiques. Et en dépit de tous les efforts de Netanyahou, nous sommes convaincus que notre adhésion aux Nations unies montrera que dans le monde entier, d'autres pays souhaitent eux aussi que nous jouissions de ces droits fondamentaux.
Traduit de l'anglais par Julie Marcot _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
Selon Netanyahou, les frontières de 1967 sont "indéfendables". Il ne comprend manifestement pas qu'Israël n'aura jamais de frontières défendables tant qu'elle exercera sa domination sur les Palestiniens et sur leurs terres. Ce que les Palestiniens offrent à Israël depuis désormais plus de dix ans, c'est non seulement un accord de paix bilatéral qui mette fin à toutes les revendications, mais aussi une paix régionale globale entre l'Etat hébreu et cinquante-sept autres Etats telle que l'a proposée l'Initiative de paix arabe de 2002 et telle que la soutient l'Organisation de la conférence islamique. Non seulement nous tendons la main à Israël pour que prenne fin le conflit israélo-palestinien, mais nous mettons aussi sur la table la paix et la normalisation des relations entre Israël et ses voisins. En mettant un terme à l'injustice historique infligée au peuple palestinien, Israël obtiendrait enfin cette sécurité qu'elle réclame depuis si longtemps.
_________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
Les frontières de 1967 ne constituent pas quelque "condition préalable palestinienne", ni un nouveau paramètre imaginé par le gouvernement Obama. Les lignes de 1967 constituent les frontières internationalement reconnues entre Israël et le territoire palestinien occupé. Elles reprennent également le compromis palestinien historique de 1988, par lequel l'Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) a reconnu Israël sur 78 % de la Palestine historique.
Céder ainsi la part du lion de notre patrimoine au nom d'une paix durable était un acte solennel témoignant de la volonté de mettre fin à des décennies de conflit et de sang versé entre Israéliens et Palestiniens. Pourtant, alors que le processus de paix est en cours depuis plus de 20 ans, alors que des milliers de personnes sont mortes ou ont été mutilées, alors que la perpétuation de ce conflit crée d'indescriptibles souffrances, Israël continue de rejeter obstinément la paix.
_________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
Israel has started mobilizing its embassies for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September, ordering its diplomats to convey that this would delegitimize Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks.
Envoys are being asked to lobby the highest possible officials in their countries of service, muster support from local Jewish communities, ply the media with articles arguing against recognition and even ask for a call or quick visit from a top Israeli official if they think it would help.
Foreign Ministry Director General Rafael Barak and the heads of various ministry departments sent out classified cables outlining the battle plan to the embassies over the past week, after earlier ordering all the country's diplomats to cancel any vacations planned for September. The contents of the cables reached Haaretz and are reported here in full.
"The goal we have set is to have the maximum number of countries oppose the process of having the UN recognize a Palestinian state," Barak wrote to Israel's ambassadors in his cable, which was sent June 2. "The Palestinian effort must be referred to as a process that erodes the legitimacy of the State of Israel...
"The primary argument is that by pursuing this process in the UN, the Palestinians are trying to achieve their aims in a manner other than negotiations with Israel, and this violates the principle that the only route to resolving the conflict is through bilateral negotiations."
Each envoy was ordered to prepared a focused plan for the country in which he or she serves and present it to the Foreign Ministry by today, June 10.
"The goal is to get the country in which you serve to vote against recognizing a Palestinian state," Barak wrote. "Your plan must include approaching the most senior politicians, mobilizing the relevant force multipliers [such as local Jewish communities, nongovernmental organizations], using the media, influencing local public opinion, and public diplomacy aimed at all the relevant communities."
Barak also informed the emissaries that the ministry had established a "September Forum" headed by the director of its Middle East Department, Yaakov Hadas.
"This team is analyzing possible Palestinian moves and the options open to Israel to foil the process, and is putting together a diplomatic, public diplomacy and media plan," Barak wrote. "You are to report on your activities to the September Forum once a week."
"The mission that has been assigned to us is not an easy one," the cable concluded. "But I'm sure that by joining forces, we will do the best we can to achieve the goal we've set for ourselves."
A Foreign Ministry source said the directive issued to ambassadors by both Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the ministry director general is not to give up on any country in advance, and to work to obtain a hearing with the highest possible officials in each country.
This past Sunday, June 5, the head of the ministry's Western Europe department, Naor Gilon, sent a follow-up cable to embassies in all European Union countries. A similar cable was sent by the head of the Eurasia Department, Pinhas Avivi, to representatives in the EU countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
In his cable, Gilon asked the ambassadors to prepare plans "that will lead the country in which you serve to oppose or abstain during a UN vote." It divided the EU countries into three groups:
* Countries that have already voiced objections to unilateral Palestinian action. A Foreign Ministry source put Germany and Italy in this category.
* Countries whose stance is unclear, particularly members of the former Eastern Bloc that had recognized a Palestinian state back in 1988. These include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In two weeks, Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are planning to make separate trips to these countries in an effort to persuade them to vote against a Palestinian state.
* Countries that tend to automatically side with the Palestinians and are expected to support a Palestinian state, among them Sweden, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal.
Gilon wrote that the Foreign Ministry believes the 27 EU members "will have difficulty reaching a consensus decision on recognizing a Palestinian state, as happened with regard to [recognizing] Kosovo. Even so, it's clear that the EU bureaucracy in Brussels will try to enter into a dialogue with the Palestinians in an effort to moderate the [UN] resolution so that EU members could support it.
"Everyone knows where the country he serves in stands," Gilon wrote. "Our goal is to create momentum against recognition of a Palestinian state in September by creating a significant bloc of EU states that voice their opposition as early as possible to unilateral Palestinian action." Another goal is to try to persuade those countries which have already said they will vote in favor of the Palestinian move to refrain from publicly stating their position.
Gilon tasked the ambassadors with trying to spur as many politicians and opinion-makers as possible to either make public declarations or issue statements opposing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. He also instructed them to generate negative media reports and op-eds objecting to the Palestinian moves.
The ambassadors were asked to inform the September Forum of any requests they receive from their respective countries' leaders to speak by phone with President Shimon Peres, Netanyahu or Lieberman, and to indicate whether a diplomatic visit by senior Israeli officials before September might be helpful in persuading top officials in the countries where they serve.
But one senior Foreign Ministry official said that regardless of what efforts are made, only a few countries will vote against recognizing a Palestinian state in a General Assembly vote, including the United States, Canada and a few European countries. The ministry's assessment is that most Asian, African and South American countries will vote in favor. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
The UN Security Council plans to discuss in July the possibility of Palestine becoming a United Nations member state, the Security Council president said on Tuesday.
The Arab League has said it would request UN membership for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital at the UN General Assembly in September.
An open debate on the Middle East has been scheduled for July 26 according to a provisional calendar for the Security Council for July.
"I think (that) will be an occasion to explore the various options that might exist on the Palestinian side," said German Ambassador Peter Wittig, UN Security Council president, in response to a question about when the issue would be debated. Germany holds the Security Council presidency in July.
Wittig pointed to an upcoming Quartet meeting as a possible indicator on the situation.
The Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators -- the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations -- are expected to meet on July 11. The meeting, expected to take place in Washington, will come amid a U.S. push to revive peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Separately, a spokesman for UN chief Ban Ki-Moon said he could not give a firm date as to when the much-delayed findings from a panel set up to investigate the 2010 Gaza flotilla incident would be released.
"I don't think we are at the point where the report would be handed over - when that happens obviously we'll let you know," he said at a press conference on Tuesday.
Last August, Ban appointed a panel headed by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer to investigate last year's Israeli attack on an aid convoy bound for Gaza. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
A group of former Israeli army officials and diplomats visited Washington Monday, claiming that a peace agreement with the Palestinians is urgent in spite of, and because of, regional turmoil, and that contrary to what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims, the 1967 borders are, in fact, defensible.
The group visited the White House on Monday and met with the National Security Council Director for Middle East and North Africa Steven Simon, and were to have meetings later in the evening with acting Middle East envoy David Hale and officials at the Pentagon.
Among the group participants were Major General (Ret.) Natan Sharoni, a battery commander in the Sinai Campaign and a battalion commander during the Six Day War who later became Head of Planning for the IDF and Ambassador Alon Pinkas, who served as Consul General of Israel in New York.
Joining the two was Ambassador Ilan Baruch, who served with the Israeli Foreign Ministry for more than thirty years and stirred a public debate in Israel when, upon his resignation, he penned an open letter critical of Israeli government policies.
Others in the group include Colonel (Ret.) Shaul Arieli, who was Commander of the Northern Brigade in Gaza, and was responsible for the evacuation and transfer of the Gaza Strip to Palestinian control in 1994 and distinguished soldier Brigadier General (Ret.) Nehemiah Dagan.
Major General (Ret.) Shlomo Gazit, who was head of the Assessment Department in IDF Intelligence and later became Coordinator of Israeli Government Operations in the Administered Territories and Attorney Gilead Sher, the legal representative for the Shalit family also joined the group.
“We are here because we feel that we are running out of time, and there is no actual status quo,” Sharoni told Haaretz Monday. “The dynamic is such that we must act quickly so that we don’t find ourselves facing actions that cannot be corrected.”
“We are here because we are concerned that the Jewish state won't remain Jewish and democratic. Thirty years from now, Jews will be one-third of the population from Jordan to the Mediterranean. And the culture that is developing in Israel these days suggests that the one-third will control the two-thirds,” he said.
The second issue that concerns the group is that no credible critics have dared to counter Prime Minister Netanyahu's claim that the 1967 borders are “indefensible”.
“It has already entered the Israeli political lexicon as an axiom”, Sharoni said. “We think it's misleading. The 1967 borders are defensible, we just need to define – defensible against what? It's true they are indefensible against rockets from Iran, but so is all the territory of Israel.”
“They are indefensible against terror and Hezbollah rockets,” he added. “But to say that the strategic depth of the Jordan Valley will save Israel, that is a deception.”
Sharoni said that what has traditionally constituted the ‘Eastern front’ against Israel is now non-existent.
“Iraq doesn't have the capacity to send ground divisions against us; we have peace with Jordan, and Syria won't go to war against Israel by herself. I am sure the prime minister knows it – but he probably doesn't want to make any use of this information,” Sharoni said.
Sharoni responded to a question from Haaretz concerning a possible threat emerging on the Eastern front ten years in the future, dismissing the supposed necessity of maintaining sovereignty over a part of the West Bank to act as a buffer zone in the event of an attack.
“Do we actually need to control the Jordan Valley to confront these threats? To move one or two IDF divisions to seize control of the Valley takes up to 36 hours. With our deterrence and mobility, there is no problem with it. If it will be a demilitarized zone – if something happens, there is enough time to get there.”
“And the Palestinians need Jordan Valley to develop as a viable state, especially if they want to absorb refugees. IDF can protect any borders, it's just the question of developing the right strategy to do it,” Sharoni continued.
“It is folly to measure strategic depth in another 1000 kilometers – when our entire country doesn't provide strategic depth, and frankly, I don’t think any country in the world today does, against the current threats,” added Sharoni.
“In 25 years, we had five wars with Egypt, from different territorial positions, and before there was a peace agreement, no borders deterred them from going to war against us,” said Colonel Arieli. “Control of the territory can be replaced with advantages of other security arrangements.”
“What scares us is that our current leadership has no courage and no pragmatism necessary to deal with the challenges,” he added.
“I have warm sentiments for Nablus and Hebron”, said Maj.Gen. (ret.) Gazit, referring to two West Bank cities that are populated almost wholly by Palestinians.
“I would love to have all of the Land of Israel. But we need to understand the difference between the defensible borders - and viable borders,” said Gazit. “If the Palestinian state is not viable – we shoot ourselves in the leg”.
A White House National Security spokesman told Haaretz following the visit, “Meetings like this are a routine part of our work. Our officials meet with a wide variety of groups and delegations on an ongoing basis.” _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
FAQ
