Briefing by Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni to visiting journalists from Turkey
Jerusalem, March 4, 2008
Welcome again to Israel. I see this visit as having utmost importance since I believe that we share the same understanding - I hope so, anyway - of the regional and global situations; and we have mutual interests.
Of course, the relationship between Israel and Turkey is based on a mutual understanding of shared interests and values, meaning democracy, freedom and so on. So, the best thing to do is to share with you the way we see the region, the threats, the opportunities, and what we are doing in order to promote the peace process and meet the challenges facing us, including terror coming from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
I think maybe we should put aside the past perception of the conflicts in the region and the words "Israeli-Palestinian conflict," "Jewish-Arab conflict," and look at the distinctions, divisions and conflicts in the region.
I believe it is right to say that the conflicts we face are between extremists and moderates. And regardless of the fate of extremism, extremists are those looking - according to their own radical extreme ideas - to deprive others of their rights. They are not fighting for their own rights. They don't represent the national aspirations of any people. For them, it's not a matter of borders or a question of nationality. The way I see it, they don't represent the real nature of all religions. I believe that Judaism, Islam and Christianity represent the same values we all share. But I do believe that some of these believers are being abused and exploited, or their beliefs are being exploited, by those who are trying to gain from these beliefs, to exploit them, and turn them in some distorted way into a more extreme, violent form that ends with terrorism.
So, according to this understanding, the camps, allies and alliances in the region have changed. On one side we can see radical elements, which are sometimes represented by a state like Iran, or by international terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. We can see them in Lebanon being represented by Hizbullah, which is the long arm of Iran in Lebanon. They don't represent the interests of the Lebanese people, but the interests of Iran and maybe others in the region. We see Hamas, which is not only a terrorist organization but a radical movement whose idea is not to fight for the national aspirations of the Palestinians; rather, they cannot accept the right of others to live or to hold different beliefs.
That was the bad news. The good news is that on the other side we found ourselves in the same camp with nations, states, and leaders with whom we may have had some conflicts in the past. We have Israel. We have Turkey. We have the Palestinian Authority, represented by Salam Fayyad, Abu Mazen, and Abu Ala, who are part of the national Palestinian movement but believe in the idea of a two-state solution; this is something I believe is legitimate enough to discuss and not to fight about. We have, of course, Egypt, which needs to address its own extreme radical elements. We have Jordan and the Gulf States. The Gulf States, as part of the Arab and Muslim world, understand today that the threat comes not from Israel but from Iran. They know that the Iranian regime undermines their own regimes, that the Iranians work with radical elements within their own states. They know that the world cannot afford Iran with nuclear weapons. And they understand that they, as a region, cannot afford Iran starting to become a more international, regional player because of the threat it represents.
So, basically, there is better understanding that we have the same interests. We have the same interests when it comes to the threat we are facing. And this is a good base for understanding the situation and the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. But, before that, I would also like to say something about the role of these states that represent the moderates or more pragmatic elements, especially within the Muslim and the Arab world.
At the beginning of this meeting, I asked you to put aside what I believe are false perceptions and past perceptions. Part of the public opinion in various places in the world still believes that the problem is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we need a better understanding of the new nature of the threat. We need more states talking about it. We need not only the leaders’ understanding but also statements coming from these leaders, telling their own public that times have changed, that yes, there is a conflict here between Israel and the Palestinians, and I will refer to it, but Israel is not the enemy as such; that we all need together to address, as members of the same camp, extremism in all places; that we share these interests and goals, and are working together with other states that may have been perceived as enemies in the past and not as friends.
And doing this together can ease the tension. It can facilitate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and help other leaders in the region, because I have learned during the last two years that leaders - even leaders of states with which Israel does not have diplomatic relations - say things behind closed doors that they hesitate to say publicly.
When we are talking about a group, with the same understanding, the same internal and external message can change the atmosphere in the region and give those of us who are in the same camp the feeling that we are together, that we are stronger. And this can also send a message to the extremists, to Iran, and to the others, that they cannot undermine the other regimes.
In this, the role of a country like Turkey is more important than the role that some European states can play, because Turkey’s position has more meaning in this region and among the other states than just another European state.
Now, let's see what happened with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - when and how this division between extremists and moderates was translated into Palestinian society. There is now a clear division in the Palestinian society between the extremists and the moderates. On the one hand, we have Fatah representing the national aspirations of the Palestinians for a state. We have a legitimate Palestinian government that accepts the Quartet's requirements, including renouncing violence and terrorism, and understands that terror is not the tool for political gain because it is unacceptable. They accept Israel’s right to exist, and of course they accept and respect former agreements that were signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, or the PLO, in the past.
On the other hand, we have Hamas and extreme, radical elements - a designated terrorist organization. They represent this extreme ideology and exploit, as I said before, the fate of the people and their needs. And in a way, this division among Palestinian society was also translated into geographical terms. It is complicated, but in a way it also makes it easier, because the Gaza Strip, which is a different region and doesn’t even have any territorial connection right now with the West Bank, is being controlled by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. The West Bank is not controlled completely by the pragmatic leaders, yet the authority there is represented by members of Fatah and others. We still have some Israeli presence in the West Bank but we are working with the moderates in order to create a vision of peace.
Now, let's say a few words about the meaning of this vision of peace. What I'm going to say right now represents not only the current Israeli government, not only my party, but the vast majority of Israelis, including Israeli politicians. The idea of two states, two nation states, two different states for two different peoples - one, Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people; the other, Palestine, the homeland of the Palestinians - is accepted by Israel, and this is part of the international vision that Israel shares with the pragmatic Palestinians.
I would also like to say that this is not a new Israeli position. Basically, since the creation of Israel and even before that, when the United Nations decided on what is called the Partition Plan of the land that we call the Land of Israel and what the Palestinians call Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, the international community - the United Nations - decided on this division in creating Israel as a Jewish state and another Arab state in other parts of this territory. Israel accepted this idea, and since then, basically, we have accepted it. We have some other problems that need to be addressed during this process.
The international vision is two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. So it's not only about the creation of a state. We are talking about two states for two peoples. So, clearly, the creation and establishment of a Palestinian state is the answer to the national aspirations of the Palestinians. It gives an answer to those Palestinians who live in the territories and those who are unfortunately being kept in refugee camps in different places, in some other states. But the creation of a state gives them the answer to their national aspirations, and Israel keeps its identity and its nature as homeland for the Jewish people. And the creation of the Palestinian state is the answer for the refugees as well.
The other basic element in any peace treaty is living side by side in peace and security. Nobody wants a terrorist state in the region, and when I say "nobody," it’s not only Israel. We've had enough of this and we cannot afford a failed state. And this is part of our experience from the situation in Lebanon in which there is a legitimate government but it's not strong enough to exercise its sovereignty over the entire territory of Lebanon. And we face Hizbullah as a neighbor, of course, which uses parts of the Lebanese territory to target Israel, kidnap soldiers and destabilize the region whenever they feel it is in their own interests.
So, Israel's security should be one of the basic pillars of any peace treaty. Therefore, right now, in talking about the future Palestinian state, we need it to be demilitarized. We need some answers as to how the crossings will be supervised. I will address the situation in Gaza, which Israel left after the disengagement. We left the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt without any Israeli soldiers. I'm talking about what is called the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing. We can see the smuggling of weapons and the buildup of a small army by Hamas within the Gaza Strip, and this is something that we cannot afford. We couldn't afford it in the Gaza Strip but of course we cannot afford it in the West Bank either. So we need to respond to this. And the borders will, of course, be agreed between us and the Palestinians. This is part of the process that we started with the Palestinians.
Now, I was talking about the complicated situation in which, on one hand, we have the pragmatic leaders with whom we would like to promote this peace process. On the other hand, they don't have any kind of real control in the Gaza Strip, although the Palestinians are talking about the future Palestinian state that will include the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Since we cannot afford another terrorist state, which is also against the interests of the pragmatic leaders, we need to find an answer to the situation in Gaza. I don't think anybody believes that just entering the room with the Palestinians and talking about peace is going to change the situation in Gaza. And these are the Annapolis understandings.
A few words about the day, or the months or years before Annapolis, for a better understanding of the Annapolis process and the situation today: The only plan that was accepted by the international community before Annapolis was the Roadmap. According to the Roadmap there were a few phases. In the first phase, the Palestinians needed to address terrorism, to reform, to have an effective government that can exercise control. Then, under the phased plan, was there an idea of a state with temporary borders. And only in the third phase and only after implementation of the first phase, which also includes some Israeli obligations; only in the third phase, and after there is some responsible, effective Palestinian government, without terrorism, would peace negotiations begin.
Since we saw these processes and changes in the region, we wanted to find a way to reach an understanding with the pragmatic Palestinians and not to wait until they met this challenge of fighting terrorism. On the other hand, we cannot afford a situation in which we sign a peace treaty, throw the keys to the other side of the border and find these terrorists taking the keys from the "good guys". So, in Annapolis we decided to promote peace negotiations, but the basic understanding is that the implementation of the peace treaty, of any understanding between Israel and the Palestinians, is subject to full implementation of the Roadmap. So we can reach an understanding on paper. I would like to be in a situation in which we can sign this paper, but before the implementation we need to address the problem of terrorism, of all these radical elements, and see a democratic society, a democratic state with an effective government that renounces and fights terrorism, and dismantles terrorist organizations.
Now, the situation in Gaza is one of the basic Israeli frustrations. Because Israel wanted to give the Palestinians the message that we want to live in peace with them, are willing to dismantle settlements and take our forces out, and don't want to control their lives, Israel decided in 2004 and 2005 to leave the Gaza Strip, to give a chance for peace, to give the Palestinians the first opportunity to control their own lives. We saw this as the end of the occupation of the Gaza Strip. We dismantled settlements - and it is not easy, believe me, for any leader, to decide to take our own citizens from their homes - but we decided to do so. And we withdrew and took our forces out. We left the greenhouses there and we thought, maybe naively, that this could be the beginning of peace.
Unfortunately, just after Israel left the Gaza Strip, we got Hamas in return as part of the elections in the Palestinian Authority. They have a kind of democracy there where, unlike in Turkey or other places, we can face a situation in which this kind of terrorist organization can win an election and do whatever they want in the Gaza Strip. I want to emphasize this: I don't think that leaving the Gaza Strip was a mistake, but now we need to address the problems created not only for Israel but for the pragmatic Palestinian leaders and for Egypt from this small place called Gaza.
According to the Annapolis understandings, we are continuing to act against terror as part of the dual strategy. The whole idea was to negotiate with the pragmatic leaders and to act against terrorism, out of the understanding that negotiation alone is not going to change the situation in Gaza one way or the other. And, according to this understanding, the Palestinians themselves know that the road toward a Palestinian state goes through changes in the Gaza Strip.
Now, the situation is that Israel is under attack without any real reason because of what the Palestinians call the Mukawama. This word means the resistance, even though Israel is no longer in Gaza, even though we left them to live their own lives, even though we dismantled our settlements. Israel is being targeted. They are targeting Israeli civilians on a daily basis. And the other problem is that the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip is open - they use tunnels and other means to smuggle weapons to Hamas.
When we left the Gaza Strip, of course, the situation was very different. With this process of buildup in Hamas, we are now facing a small army which is using missiles against Israel. And when we called upon the international community and said that the use of missiles being supplied from Iran, Syria, and other places must be stopped, because they are being used against civilians, this is unacceptable, and they are going to have longer range missiles as well, the international community’s answer was not very proactive. And right now we can see these longer range missiles which reach Israeli population centers, and this is not acceptable.
And, of course, I don't need to explain to you the meaning of living with terrorism inside our cities and being targeted from outside with missiles being fired at our cities.
So we need to address the situation. The goal, of course, is to do it simultaneously: to work with the moderates to try and find a peace treaty while fighting Hamas. We need to stop the attacks on Israel. Israel cannot live and is not willing to live with these kinds of attacks on its citizens without any reason. There is no just cause for terrorism. Terror is terror is terror. In fighting terrorism, the idea is to try and stop the attacks, to weaken Hamas as a terrorist organization within the Gaza Strip and to stop the buildup and the strengthening of Hamas through the Philadelphi Corridor. These are the three ways to address the situation in the Gaza Strip.
In targeting terrorists, unfortunately, sometimes civilians also pay the price. I know that it's not easy to see these pictures and it's especially not easy when Al Jazeera and elements in Gaza sometimes try to use these kinds of pictures to add more fuel to the flames of hatred. I would like to assure you that our values and Israeli army policy call for targeting terrorists and trying to avoid civilian casualties.
The problem is that they are launching these rockets at Israel from civilian population centers. There is also a film that can show you that the attacks are coming from neighborhoods, from backyards, from rooftops. When we need to respond and target those who are launching rockets on Israel, they are positioned within this population. Unfortunately, last week some civilians paid with their lives because a small factory to manufacture missiles, Kassam rockets, was on the first floor, and the owner of this factory lived with his family on the second floor. So, while we are trying to avoid civilian casualties on the other side, we cannot avoid it completely. In contrast, these terrorists are looking for civilians to kill, and this is the distinction between Israel and the Palestinian terrorists in this battle.
The idea was that we continue the negotiations for peace regardless of the situation on the ground. We need to address the situation on the ground but I knew in advance, also in Annapolis, that there would be those who would call on me, as the chief negotiator on the Israeli side, to stop negotiations because of terrorism, just as I knew that there would be those on the Palestinian side who would cause the Palestinian leaders to stop negotiations when Palestinians are hurt.
Israel is determined to continue the negotiations, and this is the reason why, even after a suicide bomber attacked in one of our cities, and last week when an Israeli was killed in a terror attack, I entered the negotiating room, and met with Abu Ala. I recently upheld the government position in the Israeli parliament, saying that we are continuing the negotiations despite the terrorism because we have this dual strategy, and we need to promote the peace process simultaneously. And I expect the Palestinians to do the same.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians told me that they decided to stop the negotiations for now. I think that this is a mistake. I believe that it plays into the hands of Hamas because those who don't want a peace treaty and don't want to live in peace, Hamas and others, can use the sensitivity of the Palestinian leaders to ignite terror. Of course we need to respond, and if this stops negotiations, it's a victory for them. Their victory is not a success. It's not the victory of the Palestinian people. It's a loss for the people and the pragmatic leaders. It's a zero-sum game. When Hamas wins, Fatah loses. When Haniyeh wins, Salam Fayyad loses. When Mashal wins, Abu Mazen loses. This is the equation; there is no other equation. It's a pity that the Palestinians stopped negotiations and I hope that they will go back to the path of peace.
Just one last thing before I leave: the role of the Arab world, and this was also part of Annapolis. We could have launched the negotiations with the Palestinians here; we didn't need to go to Annapolis to do it there. But it was important to launch these negotiations with the support of the international community and especially the Arab and Muslim world. The Palestinians need this support. Any agreement is based on an understanding that what we are working towards is a historic reconciliation and that compromises are needed on both sides. Israel is willing to do it, but any compromise made by the Palestinians needs the support of the others. And the "others" means the other parts of the Arab and Muslim world embracing and supporting them in making these kinds of compromises.
Everybody within the Arab and Muslim world and the international community as such needs to choose a camp, to take a stand. Sitting on the fence may be nice for a while, but we have only one choice. Israel’s position is in the camp of the moderates. We have no other alternative. But those who are talking in terms of unity and having all the Palestinians together - this may lead to more stability among the Palestinians, but it doesn't support the peace process. Because a movement like Hamas, which cannot accept the right of Israel to exist, which cannot accept my right to live, is not a party or movement that can be a partner for a real historic reconciliation. It's not because I want to punish them for targeting Israel or killing Israelis, and not because I want to punish them for the past, but because there is no hope with them for the future - not for Israel, and not for the Palestinians.
So the clear distinction and division, which exists anyway, needs to be supported by the international community. They have to work with the pragmatics, delegitimize the others - although I know that public opinion in some places goes against this kind of clear stand. But it is important. It can help us. It supports the peace process and the fight against extremism and terrorism, because this is something that we all face. It's not only the problem of Israel even though we are on the front lines. Thank you very much.