Press Statements by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Canadian Foreign Minister John Manley following their meeting
Jerusalem, October 31, 2001
FM Peres: We are pleased to have with us the Foreign Minister of
Canada, John Manley, who is touring the Middle East; and since
Canada is both friendly and objective, it's always worthwhile to
have a fresh view and penetrating eye to see what's happening. We
received him here as a friend, representing a country that is
trying to do its best in order to bring peace as soon as possible
to our midst. I think our talks were useful, informative, and we
shall continue in the future.
FM Manley: Likewise may I say how greatly I appreciate the
reception that I received from my counterpart, the Foreign
Minister of Israel, the frankness of the discussions that we were
able to have together and have had in the past, and the openness
with which he receives me and hears my views.
Let me say on behalf of Canada how much we appreciate your
personal commitment to peace and the work that you continue to do
in order to seek a peaceful resolution of issues that have been
difficult and contentious for a long time.
Q: Minister Manley, the Israelis have been saying for some time,
especially since the September 11 attacks, that there should be
no distinction between one kind of terror and another. I'm
wondering whether Canada believes the Islamic Jihad, Hamas and
the Hizbullah are terrorist organizations?
FM Manley: We think that the use of violence in order to achieve
political objectives, particularly against civilian populations,
is unacceptable, and the victims of that violence are equally
victimized no matter who is the perpetrator.
Q: Does that apply to the Israeli actions?
FM Manley: I'm not here to try to give definitions to a word. We
have a situation here which is complex and difficult and where
there's plenty of blame to be shared. But the solution is not to
try to apportion or allocate blame. The solution is to encourage
a reduction of the violence, a cooling-off period, and a process
of confidence building, which is what the Mitchell Committee
recommended.
FM Peres: The problem is not only if it's acceptable - I think
it's totally unneeded. We gave back all the land, all the water,
all the oil to Egypt - without any terror and violence, without
any Bin Laden. We gave back all the land and water to Jordan -
without terror, without Bin Laden. We withdrew from Lebanon -
without Bin Laden. We offered the Palestinians practically all of
the land, maybe with a difference of 1 or 2 percent, and an
arrangement in Jerusalem - without Bin Laden, without terror,
without bullets. And even if there remains a difference of 1 or 2
percent, does this justify killing people in New York or in
Washington? What for?
The Syrians were offered all of the land - why should they host
ten terrorist headquarters? Who needs killers and terrorists and
bombs? I can't understand for a moment the Syrian argument about
this distinction - on the contrary. Our country is outraged by
the story of the three soldiers who were captured by the
Hizbullah. For a year they were bluffing the country and lying to
the families, just to bring them chagrin and sorrow. What for?
These are not two equal parts. What we are doing is because of a
moral position. In order to remain moral, we do not need any
killing or any bluffing.
Q: (inaudible)
FM Peres: We don't think it's a lost situation. Actually, if the
Palestinian Authority will implement what they have promised, we
can move ahead.
We have retreated from the territories not because somebody
forced us. We have created zone A out of our own free will. We
are not there to stay - we are there temporarily. If the
Palestinians will take the necessary steps, in a very short while
we shall be out. It's not our intention to be there. The only
thing that the Palestinians can do is to really start the
prevention of terror from those places. Wherever the Palestinians
took the necessary steps, we left the place and normalized it.
There are today already four cities which did it - Beit Jala,
Bethlehem, Jericho, and Hebron - and we are ready to continue it.
Q: (regarding FM Manley's visit to Syria)
FM Manley: They were not able to give me a satisfactory response
on the missing in action. They did not take any responsibility
for any groups that use violence in order to achieve political
objectives, and from that point of view it was not a satisfactory
meeting.
From the point of view of their expressions of desire to see
peace in the region, their denunciation of the terrorist attacks
on the United States on September 11 and their willingness to be
part of a campaign against terrorism globally - their responses
were very satisfactory.