Israel, 1999

The fifty-fourth session of

the General Assembly of the United Nations takes place

at a time marking humanity's crossing into the next

millennium. It emerges as a link in the long chain of

tumultuous events that have reshaped the map of the

family of nations.

12

The United Nations was born against the backdrop of

the destruction and desolation of the Second World War,

the most bitter, deadly and inhumane war known to

mankind. The descent of the Nazi regime to the depths of

evil was like an eclipse in the history of civilization and

will be recalled in history as a nightmare in which man

created the devil, who wreaked devastation, destruction,

terror and annihilation upon the world. The stand taken by

the Allied forces against the Nazi monster, and the creation

of the United Nations in April 1945, on the verge of the

defeat of the forces of destruction, was an act that marked

the return of humanity to its senses, to salvage the future of

mankind.

In this month when we mark 60 years since the

outbreak of the most horrible of wars, we are strengthened

more than ever in our sense of hope and confidence in the

necessity of the United Nations and of its activities

throughout the world. The various agencies of the United

Nations work to enhance world health and tend the sick; to

supply the needy with food and nourishment; to build

bridges between cultures; to promote education and

overcome ignorance; to instil hope into the lives of refugees

and displaced persons; and to assist the victims of disasters,

whether natural or man-made.

The soldiers of the United Nations forces are the true

peacekeepers of our age. In its corps are soldiers from all

the nations of the world. At times they risk their lives in

areas riddled with conflict and violence around the world,

whether their United Nations mandate is to make peace or

to be observers that safeguard the peace. These distinctions,

important as they may be to the policy makers and shapers

of international relations, have no meaning to the individual

United Nations soldier, posted far from his country, who

brings hope and tranquillity to places fraught with tragedy,

suffering and violence.

After many centuries of violence and war, of

enslavement and destructiveness in the name of murderous

ideologies, after decades of cold war and polarized world

alliances of the East and the West, the human race is now

making great strides down the paths of peace and

reconciliation. Before our very eyes, a process is

enveloping the world, signalling hope for the future.

Mankind is adopting a new path, the path of the prophet

Isaiah, who as far back as 2,600 years ago prophesied that

the day would come when

“they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and

their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up

sword against nation, neither shall they learn war

any more.” (The Holy Bible, Isaiah 2:4)

This prophecy — which has been adopted by the

United Nations as a source of hope, as the symbol of the

victory of the good in human beings over evil — should

serve today more than ever as a beacon and a path for all

who cherish peace around the world and for their

representatives gathered here today.

The world has become more open. Satellites, the

Internet and telecommunications networks shorten

geographical and cultural distances. The political and

ideological blocs of the past have disintegrated, and the

walls of animosity have fallen along with the tyrants and

dictators who built them. They are being replaced by new

blocs, some of which are in the process of being created

where development and prosperity reign. I hope and

believe that these beneficial transformations will also

occur in the Middle East.

In our region, too, the light of hope has been

rekindled. We are now in the midst of a political process,

the objective of which is to reach peace between States

and reconciliation between peoples. Israel aspires to reach

a comprehensive peace with its neighbours, a peace of

harmony. Israel will not be satisfied with a merely

political or strategic peace. In our eyes, the absence of

war is not the peace we aspire to achieve.

May I be allowed to emphasize once again that

peace means a culture of peace; peace means no more

threats of violence, whether implied or categorical; peace

entails the end of boycotts, the end of contempt and

defamation, the end of incitement and confrontation...

peace is also a language of peace: it is the way leaders

address their nations, teachers teach their students and

religious leaders inspire their followers.

At a time when various kinds of religious extremism

are rearing their heads and eroding human wisdom and

human freedom, it is essential that inter-faith dialogue be

strengthened and that the religions be manifested in their

enlightened forms, which sanctify tolerance and

coexistence.

On the way to achieving peace in our region, we

often find ourselves confronted with contradictory

realities. Parallel to the political process, our negotiating

partners are conducting a constant political war against

Israel in various international forums, including from the

podium of this Assembly. This dualism is inconsistent

13

with the peace process and is intolerable, as are the extreme

decisions taken by the Arab League against Israel. These

decisions are not in keeping with the spirit of peace, as

expressed in the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum.

We hoped for and expected a different atmosphere,

one that would complement the impetus initiated by the

new Government in Israel. We have been saddened to

witness events that undermine the essence of peace. These

events can be defined only as anti-peace resolutions.

Engaging in a peace process, on the one hand, and

maintaining anti-Israel declarations and resolutions, on the

other, raises some serious concerns about our negotiating

partners and their concept of peace. Is it a peace of

normalization with open borders, or is it only one of

temporary initial recognition? Will our relations with the

Gulf and Maghreb countries, such as Morocco, Tunisia,

Mauritania, Qatar and Oman, be allowed to expand and

develop? Or will these relations remain hostage to mood

swings after each and every difficulty in the negotiations or

whenever there is disagreement? Continued doubts about

these cardinal questions cannot be tolerated in the light of

the heavy price and grave risks that Israel is taking upon

itself in this process.

Three weeks ago, on 4 September, Israel and the

Palestinian Authority signed the Sharm el-Sheikh

Memorandum, which for the first time creates a direct,

chronological, political and conceptual link between the

Interim Agreements and the final status agreement. On 13

September, the final status talks were renewed between

Israelis and Palestinians.

We are determined to reach a framework agreement

that will form the basis of the final status agreement by

February 2000, as stated and agreed upon in the Sharm

el-Sheikh Memorandum. In this framework we will select

the issues and set an agenda for the final status agreement.

The topics at hand are known, as are the differing vantage

points and positions of each side. The differences can be

resolved only by direct negotiations.

Regarding the final status, I wish to affirm from this

podium that when we refer to political separation as one of

the prime concepts of the permanent settlement, we are also

saying that, for the benefit of both sides, we should not

necessarily sever ties that are vital to coexistence in the

various spheres of living.

From Israel’s perspective, there is no competition and

never has been any between the different negotiating tracks.

Israel also aspires to reach peace with Syria, our

neighbour to the north. This is, after all, in the higher

common interests of both Israel and Syria. H o w e v e r ,

along with these common interests, the following point

must be made clear: A democratic country like Israel

cannot accept a precondition to beginning the talks that

requires a prior acceptance of the final outcome as

dictated by the extreme and dogged formulas of the

opposing side.

We must maintain the momentum of good will so

that we can face our children, Syrian and Israeli alike,

with a clear conscience and say to them in all honesty:

We tried everything and did our utmost. I call upon the

leaders of Syria, in view of what we have gone through

together, to cease hesitating. It is time to talk. Meetings

and discussion are not political sacrifices — they are

basic necessities.

On the road to a comprehensive peace, we wish to

see Lebanon join the camp of peacemakers. The anomaly

which has developed in its territory must come to an end.

We have never had nor do we have now any territorial

claims or disputes with Lebanon. Our one and only

interest is to guarantee the safety and security of our

citizens. I must say that, regrettably, the Government of

Lebanon has for many years failed to enforce its

sovereignty in the southern part of Lebanon and to disarm

Hezbollah. I hope that this situation will improve and that

Israel, within the framework of an agreement, will be able

to leave the southern part of Lebanon.

Nevertheless, with that as our ambition, I wish to

emphasize that we will not be held hostage much longer

on this track to a stubborn and defiant attitude. We will

make our own independent decisions, as we see fit, in

order to ensure our protection and our vital interests,

taking all options under consideration.

A reconciliation between Israel and its neighbours

must extend the promise that all the peoples of the region

may reap the benefits of peace. Normalization must not

be viewed as a one-sided gesture. As a natural outcome

of peaceful coexistence, normalization is not in the

service of one particular party. It is in the interests of all

the nations of the region.

We hope to renew the multilateral tracks as early as

this year. There is a need for close cooperation in

regional multilateral projects. Our region has tremendous

potential. In order to fully realize this potential, we must

establish a mechanism of true cooperation among the

14

States of the region. This cooperation would clearly be to

the benefit of all of us in the region.

The scarcity of water in our region, which will only

get worse, may impose a new way of life on the inhabitants

of the Middle East in the coming years. Israel is

anticipating this problem and preparing for it, but in this

case, as in others, cooperation in the region is essential and

will benefit all sides.

The working groups of the multilateral tracks

undertook various assignments of primary importance.

Unfortunately, their activities have been frozen for

irrelevant reasons. This is the time to resurrect them. Any

delay or imposed condition is liable to undermine the peace

process and delay the aid packages so essential to the

peoples of the region. Throughout this important process,

on the bilateral and the multilateral tracks alike, we are

accompanied by the international community. First and

foremost was the United States of America, along with the

Russian Federation, the European Union, Canada, Norway,

Japan, China and other countries and organizations that

have assisted and continue to do so. Their key contributions

earn them special commendation from this rostrum.

Egypt and Jordan were our first partners in breaking

down the walls of enmity and in thawing relations in our

region. Improving our relations with Egypt, as well as

renewing the multilateral tracks, are essential to furthering

the common objectives of the nations in our region. T h e

relations between Israel and Jordan are an example of

appropriate and favourable relations between neighbouring

countries. We intend to strengthen and broaden the relations

between the two nations in the economic, social and

political realms.

As we march further along the difficult path of

making peace, we look back with sorrow and sadness as we

remember the pioneers who broke new ground and are no

longer with us today: the late Menachem Begin, Anwar

Saddat, Yitzhak Rabin, King Hussein and King Hassan II

of Morocco. Their vision and their work inspire us to

continue to work towards completing their enterprise of

peacemaking.

We cannot afford to be disillusioned. Our region is

neither North America nor Benelux. Even as we negotiate

the peace process, we remain aware of the threats and

dangers directed against us, threatening the stability of the

entire region. The mix of extreme fundamentalism, on the

one hand, and of the potential use of weapons of mass

destruction, on the other, threatens the peace, stability and

future of the entire region. This threat is not just an

element of academic debates in the study of international

relations, but a harsh reality which we must all face.

From this international platform, I call for a halt to

all technological, scientific and other kinds of assistance

to countries looking to obtain unconventional weapons,

while threatening the existence of the State of Israel and

the region as a whole.

The Persian Gulf War demonstrated that leadership

lacking reason and stability poses a threat to all the

countries in the region and to the world at large. The

monitoring groups and machinery in Iraq must be

immediately resumed. That is the obligation of the

international community so long as the Iraqi regime seeks

non-conventional weapons and threatens the region. The

United Nations is the largest, most authoritative and most

recognized international body. It should therefore be the

one to take the initiative and the responsibility in curbing

this danger.

Terrorism is an additional strategic enemy and we

cannot come to terms with its existence. It is a threat not

only to Israel, but to many other nations across the world

as well. Terror knows no borders or civilized rules. There

can be no coexistence with terror, either in the context of

the negotiations conducted by Israel with its neighbours,

or in the broader regional context. Anyone who believes

that terror is a nuisance which can be tolerated is

mistaken. Terror is in essence a strategic threat. A

synthesized, coordinated and unrelenting approach must

be adopted against it.

Here, in this building of stone and glass, reflecting

the current image of our world today with its points of

light and shadows of darkness, counterparts and enemies

meet as friends and allies in the creation of a forum for

discussion and coexistence. Discussion is the way to

resolve conflict. It is also the way of tomorrow. Dialogue

and common language are the tools of diplomacy, the raw

material for the creation of a new reality and the

foundation for a stable and safer society.

It was here in the General Assembly, at the

beginning of the decade, that I first met with my Chinese

counterpart. After 40 years of total dissociation between

our two countries, we endeavoured to re-establish

diplomatic relations between Israel and China. It was also

here that we laid the groundwork for establishing ties

with the former Soviet Union, as well as with India,

Nigeria and other States. These are only a few examples

15

demonstrating the possibility in this arena for building a

bridge between nations and States.

As a nation that experienced great difficulties,

overcome only by accelerated development efforts, the State

of Israel takes part in the international effort to aid others

and share knowledge, experience and technology,

experience which it has accumulated in various fields. The

nation of Israel is proud of its ancient tradition of sharing

and identifying with the world at large.

Through the Division for International Cooperation

within the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Israel maintains ongoing

projects and a broad range of training courses in Israel. We

have demonstration units and we are conducting research.

For example, a special medical centre was recently

established in Mauritania and serves the many citizens of

that State who suffer from chronic eye problems. Similarly,

Israel invests great efforts and resources in training

professionals to acquire the skills and abilities necessary for

meeting the various challenges that engage many parts of

the world.

In the more than 40 years since its inception, the

Division for International Cooperation has trained more

than 70,000 trainees from more than 120 countries, who

have come to Israel and attended its training courses in the

areas of agriculture, water resources, health and medicine,

science, education and others.

In 1998 alone, some 155 courses were held in Israel

on a variety of topics, with the participation of more than

4,000 trainees. Gladly, I can report that many of the

trainees were from Middle Eastern countries. Fully 820

Palestinians participated in these courses over the past year,

thereby helping to strengthen the bridges of peace which

have been built between Israelis and Palestinians. In the

same year, Israel ran more than 150 courses in over 60

different countries, with the participation of over 7,000

trainees. I am proud to point out that in many of the

countries to which we sent Israeli experts, the local

personnel managed to translate our goodwill into positive

results on the ground, to the benefit of their people and

their land.

Because of the reputation it has acquired, the Division

for International Cooperation is also one of the central

addresses in Israel to which people can turn in times of

disaster around the world. We have recently witnessed just

how essential such assistance can be in times of natural

disasters. Israel has always responded favourably to

requests for aid and relief, regardless of the political

context or the state of diplomatic relations.

We wish to support and commend the United States

of America, our friend and ally, an inspiration to us all in

its efforts to promote the values of cooperation among

nations. This is also the time to express our appreciation

to the United States for its intensive efforts to bring true

peace to the Middle East.

Even today in the United States we have witnessed

again a new resort to the threat of boycott. The case at

hand is the threat to declare a boycott against the

American company Disney, because the company dared

to allow Jerusalem to be portrayed in an exhibition

celebrating the millennium. We condemn these threats and

the use by certain Arab States of this anachronistic

device. It has no place here or anywhere else in the

world.

Over thousands of years, since the time of biblical

King David, the builder of Jerusalem, until the present

day, Jerusalem has not served as the capital of any other

nation in the world besides the nation of Israel, the

Jewish people. Even after our forced exile from the land

of Israel, we continued, generation after generation, to

stay faithful to Jerusalem. The flame of Jerusalem was

carried in our hearts as a hidden source of faith and hope.

In our wanderings, in the East and in the West, in

the African deserts and on the outskirts of Siberia, from

the golden age of Spain through the dark Inquisition,

during the prosperous Europe of the romantic era to the

charred ashes of the Holocaust, throughout all the above

the eyes of the Jews and their prayers have been directed

toward Jerusalem. Year after year, from father to son, the

anthem of the Jewish nation has constantly been “Next

Year in Jerusalem”.

With the passing of those previous generations and

exiles, we have had the privilege of being deemed worthy

to return to Jerusalem, to rebuild the ruins, to rededicate

the city as a centre radiating with beauty, open to all

followers of all religions, as the poet has said, where

freedom of all religions is a fact of life.

It is so upsetting then that even today, 51 years since

the independence of the State of Israel, there are still

those who would deny our natural right to decide the

location of our capital, a natural right given to every

nation in the world. From Jerusalem, the city of David, I

will quote from the original song of David on Jerusalem,

16

in words which transcends the limits of time and retains

their meaning in every generation:

“Our feet shall stand within thy gates, oh Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is built as a city that is bound firmly

together.” (The Holy Bible, Psalm 122:2-3)

Today, as before, from this podium we declare to the

entire world, to our friends and people and those who are

distant from us: Jerusalem, unified under Israeli

sovereignty, is and will remain forever the capital of Israel.