Press Conference by Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Shlomo Ben-Ami following Lynching in Ramallah
Tel-Aviv, October 12, 2000 (17:00)
(Translated from Hebrew)
The lynching that took place today in Ramallah is a very brutal event. More than an escalation of an already explosive situation, it exposes a contempt for the sanctity of human life. This is not
how partners for peace behave, this is not how neighbors behave, this is
not how civilized people behave. Israel responded, and will be forced to
continue to respond in kind, if the Palestinians will not immediately
cease the acts of violence.
The Israeli government, headed by Prime Minister Barak, has gone a long
way in the peace process. We have reached the outer limits of what we can
and should do, without compromising our vital security interests. Peace is
an important value, and separation between the two peoples is a necessity
- but we are prepared, determined and, most importantly, strong. We hope
that the Palestinians will not put these qualities to the test once
again.
I expect the civilized world to understand the difficult dilemma which
Israel is facing. The desire for peace, and peace as a national interest,
cannot co-exist with violence of the kind that Arafat has initiated in the
recent weeks. There is no self-respecting sovereign state that can conduct
a peace process, when its supposed partner deliberately releases known
terrorists and breaks all the rules of political behavior. Responsibility
rests squarely with Arafat.
People seem to be intoxicated with Arafat's seeming ability to hold the
Middle East and the entire world hostage to his unwillingness to embrace
the culture of peace, and in so doing to threaten regional stability.
Arafat is endangering the entire region, and such states as Egypt and
Jordan, with which we have firm, long-standing peace agreements, must
understand this and take immediate action to restrain Arafat. We call upon
Egyptian President Mubarak and Jordanian King Abdullah to stand up and say
to Arafat: Enough. We are seeking to prevent a regional deterioration, and
view Egypt and Jordan as neighbors in peace and partners in restoring
stability. Israel believes that the current deterioration of the situation
can be stopped, but only if the world will say clearly and unequivocally
to Arafat: Enough is enough.
The Palestinians are responsible for their fate, and they must therefore
understand the full significance and implications - and especially the
damage - which the continuation and escalation of the current situation
will cause. Even at this difficult hour, we call upon the Palestinian
people: Choose the course of peace, stop the firing and the riots, and
return to the course of good neighborliness.
Thank you.
Q: Are we now, by your definition, in a state of war with the Palestinian
Authority, and what will happen now? There were several waves of attacks
in Ramallah and Gaza. Has the IDF now halted its fire and is waiting, or
are we still in the midst of the attack?
A: We have defined this operation as a limited action, designed to respond
to the situation created by the Palestinian Authority, and to convey a
sharp message that Israel, as a sovereign state, cannot and will not react
with self-restraint in the face of such a blatant and humiliating act
against its citizens and soldiers. At the same time, this is a localized
message. We will of course be the first to rejoice if this will mark the
end of the wave of bloodshed. However, we are still at the beginning of
this crisis. We do not seek confrontation. But if confrontation is forced
upon us, we will be forced to respond similarly.
Q: Will the Americans intervene at this stage? Have they called upon us to
cease fire? And second, will the Prime Minister now establish a national
unity government?
A: I spoke several minutes ago with Ambassador Indyk, and I know that
Prime Minister Barak has spoken, or will speak soon, with President
Clinton. At the outset of this crisis, we conveyed a message to the United
States, the gist of which was: The United States bears the highest
responsibility for the peace process, and we therefore expect that they
will convey a clear, sharp message to Arafat that he is endangering his
place in the community of civilized nations, that he is endangering his
relations with the United States, that he is endangering his relations
with the West. Arafat became a part of the Western world as a result of
the Oslo accords. The Oslo accords were his introduction into the embrace
of the West, and particularly of the United States. We expect the United
States to convey a clear message to him. We must see whether he is a
stateman who is striving for peace with his neighbor, Israel, and is
prepared to respond to Israel's peace proposals, at least with
counter-proposals - but not with the bloodshed of his people; whether he
is ready to follow this course, or wishes once again to be ostracized by
the family of nations.
With regard to a national unity government, I am not engaged in this, but
I have no doubt that the government must be broadened. This is a time of
real national emergency, and is therefore not the time for political
accounts. Rather, it is a time to unite around the tasks before us as a
nation.
Q: The Palestinians said after the IDF air attacks in Gaza and in Ramallah
that the peace process is dead. Do you accept this evaluation? And second,
don't you think that the time has come to say to the Israeli people that
you were wrong about Yasser Arafat and that he is not a partner for
peace?
A: There is no doubt that the peace process, in his present format, does
not hold great expectations. If we want to renew the process, we will have
to do so with different tools - if only because we have suffered a very
profound loss of faith between the sides. Therefore, before we even start
to talk about a real peace process, a serious effort will have to be made
to restore confidence. The process in its present form cannot continue.
To the second question - The Prime Minister has reiterated mre than once:
We are guided by the logic of the agreement signed by Yitzhak Rabin in
1993 on the White House lawn, and by the fact that the Oslo accords were
adopted, willingly or unwillingly, by the government which succeeded the
Rabin government, which went on to sign the Wye Memorandum and the Hebron
agreement based on the Oslo accords. The Oslo accords, willingly or
unwillingly, regardless of political outlook, viewed Arafat as a partner
for peace. What we are learning in recent days, is that, from the point of
view of the national consensus in Israel, we have not found Arafat as a
partner for such an agreement. If Arafat believes that the present
situation allows hm to dictate conditions regarding the nature of the
agreement solely according to his wishes, we will not accept such an
agreement. This is why I say that the peace process, in its present form,
has reached an impasse and must be rebuilt. We cannot, even in this
difficult days, convey to the Israeli people a message of devastation or
of no hope. Even in the face of a profound and painful confrontation, we
all understand that there is no choice but to return to the negotiating
table.
Q: Is the conclusion that we are no longer speaking of a permanent
agreement but of partial, limited agreements, that we are giving up the
great dream?
A: This is not the time for such a question. All we and the international
community are trying to do is to protect the lives of the citizens of
Israel and to respond in a way that any sovereign state should respond. We
must halt the worsening of the situation, halt the violence, and then
reevaluate the continuation of the peace process.