Address by Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni at the 9th Annual Herzliya Conference
[Translated from Hebrew]
Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. This meeting is being held at a critical time of decision for the nation. It's true that Israel has been fighting for its very existence ever since its establishment, and also that the challenges are always numerous and significant, but I think the magnitude of the decision relates not just to the extent of the threat but also to the size of the opportunity to be had.
From an historical outlook, the world around us is changing, the threats are changing, and they come accompanied by fresh opportunities. According to the old Israeli perspective, Israel is a small dot on the globe (which is still true), surrounded by hostile Arab countries, and misunderstood by the entire world (which is sometimes still true). The feeling that "the whole world is against us," which gets worse in difficult moments, is extremely difficult - for each individual and for the nation as a whole. There is a tendency to isolate ourselves, clinging to a sense of righteousness and being fearful of any change.
I know this feeling very well, and it is devoid of hope. Perhaps this description of reality was valid in the past, but it may be changed at the point where we now stand. To do so, we must raise our heads, see the processes taking place around us - both the threats and the opportunities - and reconnect with what is right, what Israel should do, what our parents dreamed of for us, and what we can make come true for our children in Israel.
The walls of the classrooms and the rooms where decisions are made should be inscribed with the words "Jewish, democratic and safe in the Land of Israel," because the values by which we educate our children, and by which we make our decisions in every realm, must be derived from this vision. This motto sums up the essence of the state, and the purpose of its existence.
Zeev Jabotinsky defined his view of the Jewish state, writing that the term a "Jewish state" is absolutely clear: it means a Jewish majority. That is how Zionism started, that is the secret of its existence, and that is how Israel will continue to act until it is fulfilled or destroyed. A Jewish majority that ensures that the nature of life in the country will remain forever unchanged - is based on its Jewish image, combined with democratic values.
The crossroads at which we stand today is what will determine the image of the Jewish state in the years to come. We have an historic opportunity to ensure the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, but the future of the State of Israel depends not only on this understanding, but also on our ability and willingness to take advantage of the opportunities that come across our path. And in order to do so, let us lift our heads and first see what is happening in our neighborhood, in the Middle East.
I will deliberately start with the threats, the challenges. The threats are present: the extremist Islamic elements, international forces of terror who are given expression in countries such as Iran, which openly talks of destroying another country - Israel, and which is trying to obtain nuclear weapons. We see the satellites of Iran - Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, which has strengthened its ties with Iran.
That is the reality. Yet I also believe it is the job of leadership not only to present the threats to the public, but to deal with them as well and not ignore them. We must see if other, new things are happening in the Middle East - the kind that offers us new opportunities, at what I think is an historic level, enabling us to cope with the threats facing us in a completely different manner.
Being used to feeling secluded in the Middle East, with the whole Arab world against us, we look around and suddenly notice other countries alongside Israel - Arab, Islamic countries, who no longer view Israel as the enemy, countries who understand that Iran is the main enemy, seeing Iran as no less a threat than we do. Radical Islam is a threat of which these nations understand the meaning better than others do, because they are familiar with the same radical elements at home. And these nations are on the same side as us.
Some of them say so outright; some not. Some are states with which we have diplomatic relations; some not - not yet, at any rate. And this shows - I’m not saying this in the sense of "misery loves company" - a strategic shift and historic opportunity, a rise in pragmatic forces that share our understanding of the threat and our desire to fight and cope with it. There is an historic opportunity here to enlist those who understand that the division in the region, according to the conflict of old - the Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Palestinian conflict - has changed entirely.
And for whoever still harbored a doubt, Operation Cast Lead provided us with the unequivocal answer - both from the pragmatic elements in the region and from some members of that extremist Islamic group which shares the same interests. When Hamas called for help from those extremist elements, their help was not forthcoming.
It has to be understood that in the Middle East everyone needs to pick a side. Sitting on the fence is not an option. Israel, by its nature, belongs on the side of the moderates, because of our values and because of what we are. We do not have to choose a side, but we have to see how we can utilize this new opportunity.
This division - between moderates and extremists, between those who wish to live here in peace against those are do not, or are unwilling to accept our existence or that of others - is manifested quite sharply in the Palestinian Authority, both at the leadership level and on the geographical level. Today we see two administrations, or actually one legitimate government, which recognizes Israel, accepts the two-state principle, renounces terror and is willing to fight it - within the existing restrictions, with means it has or does not have at its disposal; and then Hamas which rules Gaza. Hamas is an extremist Islamic terrorist organization that is not willing to recognize Israel, employs violence and terror, and refuses to recognize previous agreements between us and the Palestinians.
Here as well we have two possibilities: one is to talk about the threat. Hamas really does have control in Gaza and the radical elements are occupying more and more good lots inside the Palestinian Authority. Actually, Hamas could be used to halt the entire process, as an excuse, if you wanted one.
Nor am I willing to accept the claim that the Israeli public needs to choose between peace and security. That forced choice is not correct, and anyone who forces the public to make it, thinking that security can somehow be achieved without some kind of peace process, is deluding themselves, misleading the public, and revealing a lack of understanding of the world in which we live. I am not willing to forget about peace.
We need to act according to the new circumstances, taking the threats as well as the opportunities into consideration; and act out of a dual strategy, as we have done ever since Hamas rose to power and took over Gaza. Just as we have known how to do in the past, Israel must combine military power with political initiative. Military might against terror - that is why we will strike at Hamas, that is why we launched Operation Cast Lead, that is why we will not strike deals with Hamas, because Israel only makes deals with those who recognize Israel’s existence and does not use terror against it.
We - not only Israel but the whole group with us in the Middle Eastern "neighborhood" - cannot allow ourselves to reconcile with Hamas’ existence. So Israel will continue to act and strike it as necessary, and if it turns out that deterrence was not achieved as a result of the operation, we will continue until they get the message. We will respond to every attack and every shot fired at Israelis, every strike at Israeli sovereignty. And we will resume taking action if the world does not do what it should do at the end of the operation, against the smuggling as well.
This activity is decisive and essential; it enjoys a consensus - but it’s not enough. We are obligated to advance a concurrent initiative with the pragmatic elements in the Palestinian Authority. I believe in a government that takes the initiative and does not drag its feet. Standing on the sidelines with folded arms is not an option. And if we do not lay a Hebrew plan on the table, we will be required to accept one in Arabic, French or English. Such plans could never reflect Israel’s interests as Israel understands them.
On the other hand, we can put a plan on the table and advance the peace process with the moderate, pragmatic elements, with those who accept the principle of two states, those who are meanwhile perhaps too weak to implement it, those with whom we have tough and bitter arguments in the negotiating rooms. Only through an Israeli initiative can we accomplish two things: reinforce Israel’s interests and receive wide international support on what we need to do in parallel, namely, strike at terror.
If anyone thought, after the description Israel has given here, even after this last operation, that the world would come here to take part in our war against smuggling - they would have come at the end of the operation. This is not just about the pictures shown in the world but the true situation that now exists in Gaza. We are used to the world coming here when we are hit. We are less used to the world coming here when we do what is right, and strike at terror. And the world is here because, among other things, it knows that the Israel of today is willing to advance an initiative and continue the process with the pragmatic elements in the Palestinian Authority as in the entire Middle East; it is a zero-sum game.
If the armed extreme elements, Hamas, get stronger, the moderate elements get weaker, and vice versa. When we started the process, we defined it as bilateral - between us and the Palestinians. We asked the world not to interfere and to let us manage it ourselves. We refused to set a firm, fixed timetable - not out of not wanting to reach a settlement but because timetables by nature put pressure on everyone, and they try to bridge impossible gaps, or they suddenly try to propose all sorts of plans that are not at all acceptable. We also determined that there would be no partial solutions, because I believe that any settlement has to include all of Israel’s interests and not just some of them. In addition, we said that there would not just be documents setting out some principles in a few lines, since I don’t believe in peace that is just a piece of paper and cannot truly be implemented. And we agreed that the actual implementation of the settlement would take place after a change in the reality on the ground - when there is no more terror and there is an effective Palestinian government. Because I have no intention of just throwing the key to the other side.
The whole world accepted the principles for negotiations that we set forth with the Palestinians. That is what was determined by the United Nations’ Security Council, the organization that, when it convenes, what we know is that we have to pass by quietly so they will not see us, or else call the United States and ask them to veto.
Something else has happened here. We and the pragmatic elements came to the world together and said that this is in our common interest. With that power and ability we can also receive the world’s support in other places.
If we raise our heads and look beyond the Middle East, we shall see other things happening in the world. There is a new administration in the US and a whole public in America that went out in the cold and snow and gazed at its new leadership with eyes full of hope and without a trace of cynicism. Not that the leader of the free world does not have challenges. There is a severe economic crisis the likes of which have not been seen in many decades. They have soldiers oversees fighting the free world’s war on terror. There is a hopeful public that elected a new president and the whole world is watching along with them, and now its look is directed at us.
When the new American administration was elected, I read that some in Israel are fearful. They do not see this as an opportunity but as a threat, out of fear the new American administration will pressure Israel to achieve peace. Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t see peace as a threat - it is in Israel’s interests, and this is our opportunity. Now, as in every marital relationship, we are starting something new with a state with whom we have a shared value system, a longstanding friendship, and clear understanding of the interests in the Middle East. And that holds true for every American administration.
Israel can bring to this partnership, under the right leadership, first of all its willingness and the understanding that the political process is in our interest, and I am not doing anyone a favor when I promote it; I am doing us a favor. When we enter the partnership in that spirit, when the other side understands that the Israeli leadership is serious in its intentions, that it kept on advancing this process even in the most difficult days, that when we say “peace,” we understand what it means, both at the level of safeguarding our interest and at the level of making concessions, then I can assure you that this relationship is not based on threats but on opportunities. With that asset, we can start taking action together, with the US, Europe, and all the countries of the free world, against the existing threats. We can act together against Iran, against terror.
Ahead of the first meeting between the new prime minister and the new president, we have two possibilities before us: one is that each one knows where the other stands and they take it from there in understanding of what needs to be done. The second possibility is full of suspicion, and it will take me a very long time to get over the some of the world’s nations’ suspicions about Israel.
Israel is paying a heavy price for the discrepancy between its image and what we really are, for periods during which we said one thing and did another, for the image of just wanting to stall so as not to reach a settlement. And we cannot afford to pay this price now. Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that there will also be disputes, and I have no fear of our ability to cope with pressure, because we are prepared to advance the process but we also stress our fundamental principles in every process.
“Israel’s security” is not just a maxim, but a whole series of things meant to be included in any settlement. Implementation of the settlement is subject to all of the security principles being implemented. We are speaking of two states, but the refugees are not in Israel - that is part of the concept - it is perceived as being plainly understood - that can advance the process. So I have no apprehensions about what is happening in the region. I am not afraid of the new administration in the United States. Quite the contrary, what is happening here and the new leadership of the free world, are an opportunity we will seize in order to face the threats here together.
A few words about the negotiations. I say this out of the knowledge and sober appraisal of one who has been sitting across from the Palestinians for over a year. I do not think we will get up tomorrow morning to a new Middle East. I know that the process itself is very complex. Achieving peace clearly does not just depend on us, although we are an essential component in it. And it’s clear to me that there will be more arguments in the negotiating room; I’ve been having them up through today, and I know the State of Israel’s strategic goals for the negotiations. I know what we will insist upon until it is included in the agreement, and if it is not included in the agreement, there will be no agreement. But I also know that it is within reach. And mainly I know that we cannot permit ourselves to miss this opportunity. It is not guaranteed for certain, but we cannot afford not to try.
Abba Evan once said of the Palestinians that they never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I am not willing to have the same said of us. I do not want to be judged so severely - and not because we will give in to pressure but because we must act in Israel’s interests, in the understanding that the solution of two nation states is our interest, and that peace - almost needless to say, but it’s important to say it now as well - is our interest. It is our interest to prevent a bi-national state or one state between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan, which would be nothing like a Jewish state in any way. It is an existential interest, no less than the war on terror. This is our national test and we must determine if we are ready to take this additional step, alongside the war on terror.
This is also the choice that will face the citizens of the State of Israel in another eight days, because these elections, my friends, are about peace. Will there be a government here that says yes to peace or one that says no to peace? A government that initiates or drags its feet? A Jewish state or a bi-national one at best? Fear or hope? An Israel of peace can be one with a constitution, one whose values as a Jewish and democratic state do not form a basis of fear, uncertainty and hatred, between Arabs and Jews, religious and secular, immigrants and veterans. A country that has education based on content and on identical values in all the schools. Where every child receives an equal opportunity for the future. A state that is part of the free world. A state in which there is no periphery in terms of education, society, economy. These are not different worlds; we are too small a country to allow ourselves this as well. A country whose enemies know that it will act harshly against them and those who wish to live in peace with it know that it is ready to do so.
I would like to address the children of the winter of 1973, those of you who said, somewhat complainingly, with anger and a great deal of pain, "You promised a dove, an olive branch, you promised peace at home, you promised to keep your promises" - there is a dove on the windowsill. We can close the window and it will no longer be there. Or we can open the window and let it in, and very carefully, somewhat fearfully, advance the process. It is not simple, it is very complicated, it involves risks, but it is possible. This choice is in your hands, all of our hands, all of your hands. Thank you.