Israel, 1992

Let me begin by congratulating you, Sir, and

the nation of Bulgaria, on your assumption of the presidency of the United

Nations General Assembly. May I also congratulate the Secretary-General,

Mr. Boutros-Ghali, on his leadership in the struggle for peace. I wish him

success in his endeavours.

Today I speak for an Israel that has chosen to step out of the shadows of

the past to prepare for the invitation of a new future. The world is alive

with the impulse for change. The end of conflict is no longer a Utopian

fantasy. It is the dictate of realism and of universal self-interest. We

look to the future in a world that wants peace.

Like a hidden Samson, the forces of change have pushed aside the pillars

of conventional wisdom, which proclaimed that military power is the source of

national strength and prestige. This is no longer true. The cost of

maintaining a significantly large army can deplete the resources of the

richest countries, even if the weaponry remains unused. Around our changing

world, the flow of knowledge has superseded military might as the source of

real strength and social stability.

The flow of knowledge no longer stops at national frontiers. It is not

possible in the age of modern communications to shield peoples from truth and

reality. Eventually, even dictators must face the fact that the best censors

cannot block the free flow of ideas. But knowledge cannot be acquired without

the right to doubt, the readiness to change. Knowledge is not available

without freedom, and so democracy is prevailing throughout the world.

In this new era, the era of knowledge, the governing principles are those

of democratic structures, market-based economies, open borders, demilitarized

international and regional relations, and respect for human rights. But while

all nations should embrace these new principles, national traditions and

identities retain their power. Nation-States will remain the focus of

allegiance and social pride.

To reconcile national identity, regional cooperation and universal

solidarities is the central issue of contemporary life.

The United Nations was established in an era that no longer exists. Yet

its ideals and structures can meet the challenges and dangers of this new

age. We support the "Agenda for Peace" offered by the Secretary-General. We

support and will participate in the attempt to build a global protection

system.

The United Nations must be the headquarters for an all-embracing struggle

to safeguard the environment against new threats. It must be a powerhouse to

arrest starvation. It must develop the institutions and the ability to

intervene when necessary to stop otherwise insoluble civil wars. The United

Nations must reorganize to face these problems in a global capacity.

In our own region, we must understand that even if our geography and

people have not changed, the world has changed. No longer can we live on

disappearing premises. For generations, the conflicts in the Middle East were

nurtured by global conflicts by the cold war and hot competition. Within

the context of super-Power rivalry, the belligerents in the Middle East were

generously supplied with shining armour. But where there were once evil

empires, we now see only the desire for a peaceful world. Russia has

changed. The United States has emerged from the cold war with renewed respect

from the world for its democratic drive for peace. The third world is

changing, with many nations ending old hostilities and building new

economies. In Africa, the forces of racism are being gradually driven out.

In the Middle East itself let's face it the peace between Israel and Egypt

is attaining the respect of age. There is a fresh atmosphere in our time.

The time is now upon us for the nations of the Middle East to come to

terms with the new realities, to make a living on their own. We can learn to

benefit from peaceful coexistence. If we are to survive, we must understand

that the dangers and opportunities we face are regional rather than national.

In an age of long-range missiles, national defence must be a collective

effort. To provide our people with modern standards of living we must have

open borders and mutually beneficial exchanges.

For too long the Middle East has been caught up in national conflicts and

national rivalries for the glorification of national leaders. We need to

build a new Middle East of, by and for the people. In our effort to build

this new future for the Middle East, Israel does not ignore its still existing

disagreements with our neighbours. The record shows that we are working to

solve them humanely, honourably and, wherever possible, permanently. We are

currently engaged in bilateral negotiations to bring an end to the conflicts

of the past and multilateral negotiations to lay the foundation for the future.

In the bilateral negotiations, we are negotiating with the Jordanians,

the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. The committed leadership of

the United States has played a central role in bringing all the parties into

face-to-face negotiations.

With the Jordanians, the solutions are awaiting the parties. We face

common problems we must confront together, including the possible Jordanian

connection to Palestinian self-government and beyond. Our relations with the

Hashemite Kingdom have seen open hostilities but also tacit efforts to

overcome these hostilities. We look forward to a complete peace with the

Kingdom of Jordan in the near future.

With the Palestinian people, our conflict has been long and painful. We

seek to end this conflict. We are looking for a bridge to cross the gulf of

bitter memories, painful hatreds and emotion-laden suspicions. We have

offered to negotiate an interim or transitional goal. There is no difference

between the two. In fact, one can note with satisfaction that the

Palestinians have agreed to this gradual approach. The direction is clear,

even if the bridge will be built slowly.

The suggested path is an interim self-government arrangement, as

conceived at Camp David. We know that this proposal is imperfect in some

respects. Self-government is less than independence. But it offers the

flexibility of an arrangement that will last no more than five years. During

this limited period of time, Palestinians in the territories will enjoy

self-government. The opportunity to select, through democratic political

elections, a Palestinian administrative council will enable the Palestinian

people to exercise a double measure of freedom: the freedom to govern their

own lives and to do so politically and democratically.

But instead of attempting to draw a map of a self-governing territory

and it is doubtful that this could be achieved now we have suggested a

definite timetable. So, while this proposal lacks the clarity of a map, it

provides the commitment of a calendar. This proposal is clearly a departure

from the present situation. It has the dynamics of a voyage to a new destiny,

a bridge which begins at one shore and reaches another.

I know it will not be an easy choice for either side. But neither the

existing situation nor the foreseeable future contains a more promising

alternative. I am speaking for an Israeli Government that has firmly made up

its mind and seeks the expeditious implementation of this proposal.

In negotiations, the parties tend to scrutinize every letter, every dot.

I hope that the Palestinians will also perceive the spirit of our intent,

which is to extricate ourselves from the position of domination over another

people. We have never in our history as a people sought domination over

others. We wholeheartedly seek a future where the children of both peoples

will escape the agonies of a distorted past and live under a clear sky of

security and hope.

With the Syrians, we have begun a dialogue in full daylight for the first

time in 44 years. It is necessary now to translate the change in the mood

between our two nations into viable and carefully constructed accords

expressing a mutual interest in security and cooperation.

We call for a departure from old dogmas and all-embracing dictates, and

we hope the Syrians will adopt the same approach. We understand the need to

safeguard the security and freedom of both nations, theirs and ours. It is

our responsibility to ensure that those who have survived the wars of the past

will have the opportunity to open a new peaceful chapter in the history of the

two peoples.

The leaders of both countries should be directly involved in these

negotiations, which are in need of a new approach and creative thinking. I

call on the President of Syria to set aside his reservations and meet with the

Prime Minister of Israel.

We have made clear to the Syrians that Security Council resolutions

242 (1967) and 338 (1973) contain a territorial dimension, combined with other

components of peace and security which must be equally respected.

We believe in a comprehensive solution involving all issues and all

parties. Yet we do not consider it wise to link one negotiation to another,

or to postpone an agreement with one country because of delays elsewhere. One

negotiating process should not be handcuffed to another.

With respect to Lebanon, Israel holds no territorial claims; nor does it

seek to influence the political destiny of that country. We recall peaceful

relations with Lebanon at a time when it was internally balanced and

tranquil. We hope that such a time will return again. The moment Lebanon

finds peace within itself and independence from outside intervention, Lebanon

and Israel will live in peace again.

Looking at the bilateral negotiations, we recall that the success of our

negotiations with Egypt stemmed from dialogue at many levels of society:

decision makers, leaders, businessmen, academicians. We appeal to all our

Arab neighbours to establish the same dialogue today. There is no room for

timidity, reluctance or boycotts in a peace process. Peacemaking should not

be a hideaway operation.

I hope our neighbours realize that Israel has implemented unilateral

confidence-building measures. We have drastically changed our settlement

policies, altered our policies towards the Palestinian people, offered new

proposals for self-government and suggested target dates for the

implementation of this process. We have done these things unconditionally.

Yet confidence-building measures call for reciprocity. We seek an end to the

unjustified economic boycott and the cessation of terror.

We shall not allow ourselves or our adversaries to escape this chance for

peace. Yet we cannot turn our region into a new Middle East by just

negotiating old disputes. Our new challenges are on our horizons, not only in

our frontiers.

We say to our Arab neighbours: the real danger is not Israel. The real

danger is poverty. The real danger is poverty that creates protest, even if

it is occasionally cloaked in a religious mantle. Poverty and protest

endanger both the Arab nations and Israel. Israel does not want to become an

isolated island in an ocean of resentment.

Two hundred forty million people live today in the Middle East. The

majority of them live in a state of want. In 30 years, there will be

500 million people in the region, two thirds residing in Africa, one third in

Asia.

The poverty of the Middle East has nothing to do with geography. It has

to do with the use and misuse of available and potential resources in the

region. The gap between wealthy and poor nations is wide: the more

prosperous nations enjoy a per capita income 10 times greater than their

poorer neighbours. The earth beneath us will continue to tremble if the

wealthy remain oblivious to the needy, both within and beyond national borders.

The multilateral negotiations are composed of five areas: economics,

arms control, refugees, ecology and water. Progress in these areas will more

likely be attained if we can restructure the multilateral talks, which

initially created two advantages: the cluster of issues and the participation

of many Arab countries. But the talks suffer as well from loose organization,

which has resulted in seminars rather than negotiations, and from the lack of

a concentrated thrust to coordinate their work. We suggest the following

changes.

First, the separate negotiations should be conducted in a coordinated

manner.

Secondly, participation in the steering committee should be raised to the

ministerial level.

Thirdly, the multilateral negotiations should be intensified through more

frequent meetings for longer periods of time.

Fourthly, the Syrians and the Lebanese should participate.

Fifthly, discussion of human rights and pluralistic values should be made

part of the talks so as to combine the discussion of well-defined practical

issues with the pursuit of common values very much akin to the Helsinki

accords.

And finally, the parties should agree not to postpone progress in the

multilateral talks until the conclusion of the bilateral negotiations. Early

planning can save crucial time for all parties without forcing irreversible

commitments. And lost time cannot be regained.

The bilateral negotiations are essentially political. The multilateral

negotiations are essentially economic. We live in an age when financial

assistance in itself is no longer the answer to the economic needs of the

Middle East. In the past, belligerency created dependence upon the financial

assistance of other nations. By diminishing the need for arms and building

the right economic structure, we will be able create wealth of our own. There

is no need to impoverish the wealthy in order to enrich the poor. Opening

borders, paving roads, introducing modern communications, and exchanging

technology will generate economic growth in the Middle East.

Trade across borders is essential for economic growth. Markets transcend

national boundaries. Water, tourism and commerce do not subjugate themselves

to political maps. The Middle East should follow the example of the "seven

tigers" in Asia, the European Common Market and the North American Free Trade

Agreement. Let us understand: these regions are our competitors and they are

far ahead of the Middle East in facing the new realities of the international

economy. We have to build an open regional economy, for the same reasons and

with the same promise that led others to do so. We have to build a common

market in the Middle East.

We have to set out upon the long and complicated road to arms control.

That we can learn from the East-West negotiations and other attempts at arms

control. We have to follow the patient path of confidence-building measures

in the geographical and technical domains until we are able to rid the Middle

East of the terror presented by weapons of mass destruction, both conventional

and non-conventional. Israel has proposed the creation of a nuclear-free zone

in the Middle East numerous times, and we stand ready to pursue this goal

today.

We should address the problems of refugees, not by threatening to destroy

the existing demographic balance, but by exploring a range of possibilities

for restoring the dignity of refugees and offering them a new life.

We should act to save our fresh air and historic landscape. Ecological

pollution does not respect borders, and so we have to marshal forces to save

our region from the danger of uncontrolled deterioration.

Finally, the Middle East possesses vast desert land but meagre water

resources. The land is static, the population is increasing and water

resources are declining. Available water should be reused, and new fresh

water produced from the sea. Either the land will be salinized by the sea or

the sea water will be desalinized through available technology. The

technology is available, and the necessary credit is attainable. We can

satisfy the needs of man and land. The Middle East can be made green. It

depends upon us.

Here, I believe, are the pillars of wisdom for a new Middle East:

economic growth, arms control, dignity for the refugees, environmental

protection and water resources, coupled with religious freedom, pluralistic

values and human rights. The nations of the Middle East must work

individually and collectively to meet these challenges of a changed world.

The agenda is ambitious. Is it merely a dream? No. It is a blueprint,

and the necessary elements are within our grasp. Will these goals be achieved

in our lifetime? We dare not hesitate, because the world will not wait for

the Middle East. We are tragically late in making peace. If we do not face

our economic challenges, we will be left hopelessly far behind.

The agenda is new. The vision was already mentioned in Proverbs:

"Wisdom builds the house.

"Good judgment makes it secure." (The Holy Bible. Proverbs 24:3)

"Wisdom prevails over strength; knowledge over brute force." (The Holy

Bible. Proverbs 24:5)

We have to go to work. For us, the Jewish people, this is Rosh Hashanah,

the New Year. We pray that the year to come will bring peace, freedom and

prosperity to build a new Middle East for all of its people Muslim,

Christian, Jewish, Arab, Israeli for us, and for our children.