Opening Remarks by Prime Minister Ehud Barak in a Conference Call with the Council on Foreign Relations
January 8, 2001
I am so pleased to be able to participate with you from Jerusalem.
Thank you for inviting me to give the Leffingwell Lecture, and to
share my views on Israel's engagement in the peace process, as well
as our policies in recent weeks and months.
At Camp David we were able, for the first time, to touch on the most
sensitive issues of all. Israeli willingness to negotiate
far-reaching understandings was not reciprocated. Arafat avoided the
discussion, choosing to respond to President Clinton's ideas with a
thank-you letter.
The recent clashes began on September 28, 2000, three days after a
dinner with Chairman Arafat at my home, and one day after the
conclusion of a round of negotiations in Washington. At the end of
these negotiations, both sides had arrived at a tacit understanding
of the American view of a possible agreement. But, the Palestinian
side wanted to try, as we say, and squeeze the lemon one more
time.
President Clinton's ideas of December 23, 2000, served an historic
purpose: for the first time a proposal for a quid pro quo agreement
on Permanent Status was put on the negotiating table. Both sides were
closer than ever to an agreement.
Israel announced that it would be willing to view these ideas as a
basis for discussion provided that they become the basis for
discussion also for the Palestinians. However, Arafat dragged his
feet for ten days, rendering the achievement of an agreement almost
impossible.
The entire Middle East is at a crossroads. Whatever is not achieved
in the near future, might not be achieved for a long time. In the
absence of an agreement, all sides may face uncertainty, instability
and the mutual challenge of avoiding a deterioration in the
situation.
My government endorses the position expressed in the joint statement
at the end of the Camp David Summit: that neither party should take
unilateral steps. We expect the international community to make known
its opposition to unilateral actions pertaining to the status of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, and to the permanent status of the
outstanding issues.
On the other hand, peace offers Israel, the Palestinians and the
entire region the prospect of stability, prosperity and growth.
The Palestinian people, who could establish their own state in the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip with Al-Quds as its Capital, would be
able to determine their own fate. The fifty-three year plight of the
refugees could be resolved and a new future within reach.
Israel would have internationally recognized borders, recognition of
Yerushalaim as its capital, and 80% of the settlers incorporated
within sovereign Israeli territory. We would have lasting security
arrangements, as well as other mechanisms to ensure stability.
The leading role, commitment and dedication of the United States, and
that of President Clinton personally, remain essential for the
successful conclusion of the FAPS [Framework Agreement on Permanent Status].
Both sides face historic decisions. Our mission is to win the support
of our people for the settlement of this 100-year conflict, and to
guarantee regional stability and growth. We should be partners in
this mission -- members of an alliance of peace -- each with the duty
to respect the concerns and needs of the other.
I am confident that Israel will remain committed to the process of
peace based on the frameworks agreed in Madrid, Oslo, and Sharm
El-Sheikh. We are determined to achieve agreement on all out-standing
issues relating to the Permanent Status, which, according to the
letter that Chairman Arafat sent to Prime Minister Rabin on
September 9, 1993, should only be resolved through negotiations.
Without question, a permanent agreement would place the Zionist
movement on the verge of a new and exciting phase in its
evolution. But, more importantly, it would offer an horizon of
opportunities for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. All of
us in this region deserve a better and more secure future.