Israel, 2000

I stand here today as

Israel's messenger of peace. The establishment of the

State of Israel was the fulfilment of the dream of a

people forced into exile 2,000 years ago. The

destruction of the Second Temple and the dissolution

of Jewish statehood were the result of our failure as a

nation to assume the proper political course, to opt for

accommodation with reality instead of engaging in

messianic hallucinations. Our punishment was very

severe indeed, but maybe it can serve as a lesson to

those nations and leaders who today may be tragically

led to believe that the dangerous inertia of romantic

mythology and unrealistic dreams is preferable to the

banality of a wise and prudent political course.

Most revolts are uprisings against a system.

Zionism was a revolt against destiny. It is this

expression of our re-encounter with the world of

political realities that eventually led us to the

restoration of Jewish statehood in 1948. Tragically,

however, historical and geopolitical circumstances

have put us in a prolonged, bitter conflict with the

Palestinian people.

It was thanks to the leadership of Prime Minister

Rabin and Chairman Arafat that, seven years ago,

Palestinians and Israelis were put on a track leading to

peace and reconciliation. We have been engaged in the

past seven years, but more intensely in the last year, in

a major effort, unprecedented in both scope and depth,

to resolve this 100-year-old conflict. This negotiating

process, and it alone, should be the foundation of a

peace agreement.

At this point, I would like to address my

colleagues from the Arab and Muslim world. I hope

that my words will convince them of the Israeli

Government's sincere intentions to achieve a

comprehensive peace based on respect, dignity and

fairness, which will end the Middle East conflict and

best serve the vital interests of the entire region.

The Jewish people have no quarrel with Islam.

On the contrary, we have the deepest respect for that

great Islamic civilization under whose wings Jewish

history — from Al-Andalus to Turkey, from Egypt to

Iraq, from the Jewish quarters of Tangier to Aleppo in

Syria — has known some of its finest hours and most

glorious cultural achievements. But even at the height

of the “Golden Age”, in the midst of the delights and

wonders of Muslim Spain, our people never abandoned

their dream of and yearning for Jerusalem, as expressed

in the words of the poet Yehuda Halevi more than 800

years ago:

“My heart is in the East, and I am in the furthest

reaches of the West. To thee my soul yearns from

the depth of the West.”

We are a small nation decimated by holocaust and

dispersion, but our heritage is rich. It was from our

eternal capital, Jerusalem — which, according to a

Muslim source,

“in the days of the people of Israel, was an area

larger than Cairo and Baghdad” —

that the message of monotheism was projected to

humanity. The Jewish holy sites and shrines in

Jerusalem are the very heart of the Jewish faith,

identity and history. For the past 2,000 years, Jews

have turned towards Temple Mount in prayer three

times a day.

“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand

forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the

roof of my mouth if I do not recall thee”,

they pledged in joy and in sorrow.

For the past 30 years, Israel has consistently

demonstrated its commitment to freedom of religion

10

and worship in Jerusalem. Heads of the various

religious denominations in Jerusalem will attest to the

fact that the city has never been so open to all

believers. During the last month of Ramadan, a record

number, unheard of in the annals of Islam in Jerusalem,

of more than 400,000 Muslim worshippers attended

Friday prayers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

I note this as an example of the deep respect

which Israel has for Islam and its followers. Just as we

do not question the sincerity of the sentiments of others

towards their holy sites in Jerusalem, we expect that

others will not question the Jewish people's deep, awe-

inspired attachment to Jerusalem and its holy sites,

from which we will never again be parted.

Politicians need not distort God's intentions for

the sake of negotiations. How refreshing it is that a

great number of Muslim scholars should attest to the

fact that, as the Supreme Court Judge Mujir el-din al-

Hanbali wrote in his History of Jerusalem and Hebron,

“David reigned for 40 years and before he died he

passed the monarchy on to his son Solomon and

told him to build the beit al-miqdas — the

Temple”.

The expression beit al-miqdas — that is, the House of

the Temple — became in many Muslim sources a

synonym of the word “Jerusalem”.

It is a travesty of historical truth to present the

Palestinian refugee problem as the result of mass

expulsion. There is no denying, however, that once the

Jews — who for thousands of years waited with

humility for their redemption — made their re-

encounter with history as a sovereign nation, they had

to assume the inherent immorality of war. The

suffering of the civilian population will always be a

burden on the conscience of any nation at war. The

Arab-Israeli conflict has no monopoly on this maxim.

Clearly, the Palestinian refugees were victims of the

Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel, however, can assume

neither political nor moral responsibility for this

tragedy that was the direct result of the all-out

onslaught against reborn Israel — an onslaught

launched by the Arab armies in 1948. The Palestinian

refugee problem was born as the land was bisected by

the sword — not by design, Jewish or Arab. The

problem was largely the inevitable by-product of Arab

and Jewish fears and the protracted bitter fighting.

We believe that, once established, it is the

Palestinian State that should provide for the vindication

of the Palestinian claim for the right of return. The

notion is preposterous that a nation should create a

State only in order to gather its exiles in a

neighbouring State. Israel, however, has expressed its

willingness to actively participate in any international

effort and fund aimed at providing the financial

foundations for the resolution of the refugee problem.

Out of humanitarian considerations, Israel may also

accept a small and limited number of refugees within a

scheme of family reunification.

Let there be no doubt. The peace process is not

the objective, we need not sanctify the process. Peace,

not the process, is the objective. Peace is not about

more conventions, summits and resolutions; it is about

the future of our children, and about the seemingly

unattractive banalities of building the mechanisms of

cohabitation.

To the Palestinians we say: we need to

disentangle ourselves from this seemingly insoluble

conundrum. We know that unless your and our wounds

are healed, peace — not only the political peace but

also that of the mind and the conscience — will not be

complete. Yet, at the same time we realize that the total

satisfaction of our respective dreams or presumed

rights will lead us to perdition. Hence it is incumbent

on us to devise realistic ways to heal without opening

new wounds, to dignify our existence as free peoples

without putting into jeopardy the collective existence

of each other. Peace is not about twisting each other's

arms; it is about defining a common interest. I believe

that such an ideal compromise is not impossible to

achieve, while banishing the sword from this land of

God.

Peace has not materialized in full yet, but I

believe that we are moving in the right direction. In the

past year the Government of Prime Minister Ehud

Barak has made bold, courageous and unprecedented

moves towards peace. At Camp David we have

contemplated ideas and explored concepts relating to

the most sensitive and supposedly intractable issues.

Our sense is that breakthrough is possible, just as

failure may lead to breakdown. We have turned the sea

that separated us into a river. But, do we have the

courage and the determination to cross it?

I know I may not sound too objective by

vouching for Prime Minister Barak. But, I have come

here with the power of conviction that no Prime

Minister before him — and let no illusions be

harboured, no Prime Minister after him — will touch as

he has the outer limits of his options as an Israeli and a

Jew.

I do not underestimate the dilemmas facing

Chairman Arafat. He is the great leader of the

Palestinian people, and I know that the decision is not

easy for him either. But this is the destiny of leaders: to

always be prophets without honour. They should not

expect the applause of their constituencies, what really

matters is the judgement of future generations. I call

upon our Palestinian partners to realize that history has

brought us to a moment of truth and decision from

which we are not allowed to escape empty-handed

without inflicting severe punishments on our own

peoples.

Israel aspires to achieve a comprehensive peace

in the region and help move it into the future. Twenty

one years ago we signed a cornerstone peace treaty

with Egypt, followed by a peace treaty with Jordan and

an incipient but promising process of normalization

with the Maghreb and Gulf States. Eighteen years of

Israeli military presence in Lebanon have been

terminated by the Barak Government, in close

cooperation with the United Nations, and thanks

especially to the efforts and dedication of Secretary-

General Kofi Annan. We have also delved into the

possibilities of reaching peace with Syria. We hope that

talks with Syria will resume as soon as possible and

that a fair and equitable agreement can be achieved.

Israel is determined to pursue peace and take the

calculated risks attached to it. But Israel will not

compromise — not now and not ever — on those

security and national interests that we deem vital.

While building our peace with the Palestinians we

cannot ignore security concerns inherent in the fact that

peace with the Palestinians is not our last peace. We

still have a dispute pending with Syria, and we are still

exposed to the most serious regional threats emanating

from revolutionary powers in the area.

Peace requires the active involvement of the

international community. The critical role played by

the United States, and especially the relentless

dedication and unequivocal commitment of President

Bill Clinton, has been massive and constructive. Once

again the United States has proven to be the

indispensable nation. We have also seen the European

Union rising to the task, and we commend the role of

the French Presidency and that of other key European

Governments. Peace needs the advice of the

international community and it will need that support

to cement peace once it is achieved.

We expect also to work closely with the Egyptian

Government for the cause of regional peace. I believe

that it is also important that Russia and the Arab world

express their opinions that now is the time to make

historical decisions. Time is an elusive and perishable

commodity. We are all running out of it.

We are open to developing wide spaces of

cooperation with our Palestinian neighbours and indeed

with all the countries of the Middle East, with dignity

and mutuality. But, we do not intend to impose our

experience on anybody, nor is it our intention to assert

our economic or technological presence amidst those of

our neighbours who do not want it. The leaders and the

elites throughout the Middle East do not need our

advice to know what are the real challenges ahead of us

all: modernizing the economy and combating disease,

hunger, poverty and illiteracy. Indeed, small islands of

excellence notwithstanding, the Middle East is in grave

danger of being on the wrong side of the digital divide.

In his inaugural speech in 1961, the late President

Kennedy invited his generation to join him in a

struggle:

“Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a

call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a

call to battle, though embattled we are — but a

call to bear the burden of a long twilight

struggle, ... a struggle against the common

enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and

war itself.”

Nothing will make us happier than joining hands

with our Arab neighbours with dignity and mutuality in

this most noble of struggles.

The Middle East is not tranquil yet. It is still

replete with armed conflicts, political hostilities and

animosities. Israel believes that regional arrangements

are crucial for arms control. A step-by-step approach,

commensurate with progress towards comprehensive

peace, is the right approach.

We are concerned by the expanding stockpiles of

conventional weapons in the region, as well as by

attempts made by Iran and Iraq to acquire and develop

12

non-conventional weapons, and by an increasing

missile threat.

Israel attaches great importance to the eventual

establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass

destruction in the region. In order to reach that goal,

direct negotiations between all States of the region

must be held.

Last year saw a turnaround in Israel's relations

with the United Nations. After years of anomaly, Israel

was temporarily admitted to the Western European and

Other Group (WEOG) in New York. We hope that

Israel's admission to the Western Group in

international organizations based outside New York

will soon be secured.

The United Nations, and indeed most of its

Member States, played a major role in demanding that

Iran treat fairly the 13 Jews falsely accused, convicted

and sentenced for ludicrous charges of espionage. It is

in such instances that the international community has

the opportunity to express its discontent and exert

pressure on countries that break the norms of

behaviour.

On the issue of the reform of the Security

Council, is our opinion that the Security Council

should faithfully reflect the present geopolitical

picture, a picture that has changed beyond recognition

since the last enlargement of the Council in 1965. We

subscribe to the view that the right of veto — a safety

net against the possible arbitrariness of the General

Assembly — should remain in the hands of a limited

number of States.

Allow me a final reflection on the Israeli-

Palestinian dilemma.

The tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

stemmed from discrepant historical rhythms. The

history of our modern national movement has been

characterized by realistic responses to objective

historical conditions. The Palestinians have

consistently fought for the solutions of yesterday —

those they had rejected a generation or two earlier. This

persistent attempt to turn back the clock of history lies

at the root of many of the misfortunes that have

befallen the peoples of the region. Now it is time for all

of us to overcome dire memories and look forward.

Neither the physical nor the rhetorical war of images

will bring us any closer to peace and reconciliation. No

one has a monopoly on the mythology of suffering and

atrocities. In this tragic dispute we have all committed

acts of violence that we ought not to be proud of. To

the Palestinians we say, we are excited by the prospects

to overcome the troubled history of our relations in

order to shape our dreams of peace. Let us then join

hands in asking the world, which has been watching,

perplexed at, and sometimes even fuelling our wars, to

mobilize its resources for the benefit of our peoples.

And, let us be full partners in this international effort to

lay down the foundations of the Middle East of the

future. The creative energies of our peoples should at

long last be put to work in the service of peace, for as

the wisest of kings, King Solomon, the builder of the

Temple in Jerusalem, wrote thousands of years ago,

there is:

“A time for slaying and a time for healing ... a

time for war and a time for peace”. (The Holy

Bible, Ecclesiastes 3:3-8)