Israel, 2010

When I arrived yesterday

in New York, I received a phone call from the chairman

of one of the Jewish organizations, who asked me how

I was coping with all the pressure that is being placed

on Israel. “Surely”, he said, “it must be very difficult”.

I recalled an old joke, which tells of five Jews who

changed the way we see the world: Moses, law is

everything; Jesus, love is everything; Marx, money is

everything; Freud, sex is everything; and Einstein,

everything is relative. So, I told him that everything is

relative. On one hand, it is very difficult. On the other

hand, it is easier than before, because now we have a

stable coalition and a stable Government and we have

the support of a majority of Israel’s citizens. We are

ready for a fair solution and we are ready to cooperate

with the international community. However, we are not

ready to compromise our national security or the vital

interests of the State of Israel.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that, contrary

to what is often presented in the international media,

the political arena in Israel is not divided between

those who seek peace and those who seek war.

Everyone wants peace, and the controversy in Israel

centres on the specific question of how to achieve this

peace, how to reach security and stability in the region.

And the question is: why, in the 17 years since we

signed the Oslo Accords, have we not arrived at a

comprehensive agreement signifying the end of the

conflict and the removal of future mutual claims?

Despite all of the efforts of all the good people

with the best of intentions, including Yitzhak Rabin,

Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel

Sharon and Ehud Olmert; despite the summit meetings

at Camp David between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat

with the presence of former President Bill Clinton; and

despite the Annapolis Summit between Ehud Olmert

and Mahmoud Abbas, we are today still in deadlock.

In fact, contrary to the prevalent view that the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the heart of the instability

in the Middle East or is the main reason for the

region’s numerous conflicts, the reality is entirely

different. More than 90 per cent of the wars and war

victims of the Middle East since the Second World War

did not result from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and

are in no way connected to Israel. Rather, they stem

from conflicts involving Muslims or conflicts between

Arab States. The Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war, the wars

between North and South Yemen, the Hama atrocities

in Syria, and the wars in Algeria and Lebanon — these

are just a few examples from a list that goes on and on.

The second flawed explanation for the

long-standing conflict between Israel and the

Palestinians that has gained popularity is that the root

of the problem is the so-called occupation, the

settlements in Judea and Samaria and the settlers

themselves. Only the establishment of an independent

Palestinian State in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, so the

argument goes, will ensure peace in the region.

It is sufficient to state a number of well-known

facts in order to refute that claim. First, all of Judea,

Samaria and Gaza were under Arab control for

19 years, between 1948 and 1967. During those

19 years, no one tried to create a Palestinian State.

Peace agreements were achieved with Egypt and

Jordan, despite the presence of settlements. And the

opposite is also true: we evacuated 21 flourishing

settlements in Gush Katif and transferred more than

10,000 Jews. And, in return, we have Hamas in power

and thousands of missiles landing on Sderot and

southern Israel.

Another misguided argument is the claim that the

Palestinian issue prevents a determined international

front against Iran. This argument is not only flawed, it

is completely irresponsible. The same argument could

be made that the Palestinian issue prevents action on

North Korea, piracy in Somalia, the humanitarian crisis

in Sudan or the challenge of Afghanistan.

Just as the Khomeini Revolution had nothing to

do with the Palestinian issue, neither is the Iranian

decision to develop nuclear weapons related. In truth,

the connection between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict is precisely the contrary. Iran can exist without

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah, but the terrorist

organizations cannot exist without Iran. Relying on

those proxies, Iran can, at any given time, foil any

agreement between Israel and the Palestinians or with

Lebanon.

Thus, in searching for a durable agreement with

the Palestinians, one that will deal with the true roots

of the conflict and will endure for many years, one

must understand that, first, the Iranian issue must be

resolved. One must deal first with the root cause of the

problem, and not its symptoms. There are, of course,

yet other problems that must be solved; solving that

one would not be sufficient, but it is nevertheless a

necessary condition.

9 10-55264

In trying to resolve the conflict between Israel

and the Palestinians, we are dealing with two types of

problems: emotional problems and practical problems.

That is why the solution must also be a two-stage one.

The emotional problems are, first and foremost,

the utter lack of confidence between the sides and

issues such as Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as the

nation-State of the Jewish people, and refugees. Under

those conditions, we should focus on coming up with a

long-term intermediate agreement, something that

could take a few decades. We need to raise an entire

new generation that will have mutual trust and will not

be influenced by incitement and extremist messages.

To achieve a final status agreement, we must

understand that the primary practical obstacle is the

friction between the two nations.

As is true everywhere, where there are two

nations, two religions or two languages with competing

claims to the same land, there is friction and conflict.

Countless examples of ethnic conflict around the world

confirm this, whether in the Balkans, the Caucasus,

Africa, the Far East or the Middle East. Where

effective separation has been achieved, conflict has

either been avoided or has been dramatically reduced

or resolved. Consider the cases of the former Yugoslav

republics, the split-up of Czechoslovakia and the

independence of East Timor as cases in point. Thus, the

guiding principle for a final status agreement must not

be land-for-peace but rather, exchange of populated

territory. Let me be very clear: I am not speaking about

moving populations, but rather about moving borders

to better reflect demographic realities.

This is not an extraordinary insight and is far less

controversial than some may seek to claim. In fact,

precisely this notion — that a mismatch between

borders and nationalities is a recipe for conflict — has

long been accepted as a virtual truism in the academic

community. Leading scholars and highly respected

research institutions have even coined the term “right-

sizing the State” to capture the idea that States and

nations must be in balance in order to ensure peace.

This is not a controversial political policy. It is an

empirical truth.

But beyond empirical truth there is historical

truth, namely, the almost 4,000 years during which the

Jewish people were born in the land of Israel and

developed the corpus of ethical and intellectual

treasures that have been instrumental in the rise of

Western civilization. The 2,000 years of forced exile

and interim conquest by Byzantines, Arabs,

Mamelukes, Ottomans and others cannot and never will

impair the unbreakable bonds of the Jewish people to

its homeland. Israel is not only where we are, it is who

we are.

In closing, let me remind everyone in this Hall of

the quote on the plaza across from the United Nations,

words spoken in Jerusalem almost 3,000 years ago by

the Jewish prophet Isaiah:

“They shall beat their swords into plowshares and

their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not

lift up sword against nation, neither shall they

learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4)

Inspired by the deep wisdom embodied in these

words, let us hope that the path to true peace

prophesied by Isaiah will guide our two peoples, in two

nation-States, living in peace and security.