Remarks by Vice Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni at Press Conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
Jerusalem, January 11, 2009
[Translated from Hebrew]
FM LIVNI: I wish to welcome the German foreign minister who has come to Israel after attending meetings in Egypt. He discussed issues there that also concern us here in Israel. He understands that the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas, is a problem for the entire region, and that Israel is a country that cannot allow its citizens to be exposed to rockets firing out of the Gaza Strip.
I am positive that Hamas also already knows that the equation has changed and that Israel will not reconcile itself to its citizens being fired upon. The Hamas leadership in Gaza and Damascus surely understand and now rue the day they thought they could raise the number of rockets being fired and Israel would just continue restraining itself.
In the midst of all this, we have to understand that on the “day after,” the rearmament of Hamas must be prevented. We cannot allow ourselves to reach a situation in which Hamas - which today understands that the equation has changed and that it cannot fire on Israel - amasses weapons for itself in order to use them whenever it chooses to in the future.
That’s why I think the German foreign minister’s meeting in Egypt was so important. Egypt is responsible for what happens on the border, but can also help improve the process of preventing arms smuggling. We are working on this process now with Egypt as well. The international understanding is now that Israel has the right to self-defense and the right to protect its citizens, and that the possibility of letting Gaza remain wide open to arms smuggling in the future is not permissible.
We are engaged in a war against terror. This struggle is not a one-time shot; this is not about a conflict between two countries that is about to conclude with some kind of agreement. We embarked on a military operation in order to achieve military goals, to make it clear to Hamas that Israel will no longer accept the status quo, and to change the equation so they know that when Israel is fired at, Israel reacts and with a great deal of force. Now they know it.
The second part has to do not only with the international understanding that is currently being expressed everywhere, that action must be taken to prevent smuggling, but also with the subsequent implementation of this idea. That’s where we stand today.
I wish to thank German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, both for understanding our situation and for his willingness to contribute to preventing future smuggling.
Q : [Regarding UN Security Council Resolution 1860]
FM LIVNI: Anyone who understands what is happening in the political situation, in any military operation, knows that at one point or another a decision is made of the type the Security Council reached. Anyone who ever understood, or came close to understanding these things, knows that when Israel starts a military operation, with every justification in the world, and when it’s the right thing for Israel to do, the international instinct is to immediately cool down the flames.
From the onset, I did not agree to accept the process in the Security Council because this is a war on terror, and I do not intend to let it end with some kind of general statement of “stop it” to both sides. I told all this to the representatives of the countries sitting on the Security Council, not just on the last day it met but throughout the past two weeks.
The operation is now on its 16th day, and it is continuing because that’s the right thing to do. Besides standing there and giving the army this opportunity, with us predefining exactly what the dates are, the timetable, so the army could prepare itself in advance, we took action vis-à-vis the contents of the resolution. Besides the demand for a ceasefire - which I don’t like, because I want to determine when I stop and not have the world determine it - but besides that, the rest of the points that appear in the Security Council resolution represent Israeli interests. Specifically: a war on the smuggling, which had not been addressed previously, having the crossings opened not by Hamas but by Palestinian Authority President Abbas; viewing the smuggling as a violation of the ceasefire; every future Palestinian agreement being contingent on accepting the three conditions, as stipulated in the previous resolution; and the IDF can, if it wants to, remain in the field until a true and sustainable ceasefire is achieved and not just a temporary one.
Should I say I like the resolution? No. I asked that it not be accepted and I worked to that end. I asked that we reject the time frame so we can gain another day and yet another day, so the IDF can strike down terror every day that passes. We knew in advance that in the end those Arab foreign ministers who have more or less moved in to the United Nations this entire last week, would be able to go back home with some kind of achievement. As I said, the resolution does not restrict Israel.
Q: Minister Livni, you spoke about a great deal of power being exercised in the military operation. Could you please tell us if all this power includes toppling Hamas’ rule? We haven’t yet seen a political exit or any other one.
FM LIVNI: In the long term, Hamas’ rule in the Gaza Strip is certainly Israel’s problem, but it’s first of all a Palestinian problem. Hamas’ rule stands in the way of their ever establishing a state, because Israel and the world will never accept or agree to have a terrorist state controlled by Hamas.
Today the residents of Gaza are finding out, unfortunately, through the assault, what a heavy price they pay for Hamas taking over Gaza. The entire region now understands how problematic Hamas is. We just have to constantly lay out the long-term goals for ourselves and derive our actions from them.
I repeatedly made it clear in advance, even before this operation, that when you fire at us, we react, and strongly. So we started this operation and this was the military objective of the operation, and I don’t think there will be a political exit if its price is dialogue with Hamas. I am not going to get my picture taken with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at the White House, or embracing at the UN. It’s not going to happen.
Israel along with the Palestinian Authority is acting on two levels: we are only talking with those who believe that terror must be stopped, those who accept the existence of the State of Israel, and those who are willing to translate the idea of two states into reality. There are such elements in the Palestinian Authority, which is the legitimate government. The only way to do this is through conveying the message, and not just through words, that whoever does not recognize the existence of Israel and attacks it, we do not recognize them, but also through actions, and that means military and not political action. That was my position before and all throughout, and that is my position now.
Q: How can the firing be stopped if some kind of discourse with Hamas, even indirectly - through Egypt, is not reached in the end? Is the idea for the IDF to remain in the field until Hamas has fired its last rocket?
FM LIVNI: From the very beginning I thought it wrong to hold a discussion in the Security Council. I was not looking for a platform to reach agreements with Hamas, I wasn’t looking for a call for a ceasefire, so that did not seem to me to be the way to end the military operation.
What we have here is a war on terror. The entire international community is fighting terror. The members of the Security Council are partners in coalitions in various places in the world that are doing this on a daily and hourly basis, so this didn’t need to end at all with a Security Council resolution, as far as I’m concerned. I made this clear to my colleagues, and I didn’t want to be an active partner in the process.
On the other hand, since it appeared that this was going to happen there anyway, we made sure that the outcome, besides calling for a ceasefire, would represent our long-term interests in terms of the crossings, arms smuggling, recognition of the three conditions, and other things, and all of those are included in the resolution.
I see a military operation as being meant to achieve deterrence. Deterrence is achieved according to two things. One is impairing the other side’s ability; the other is impairing motivation. The IDF has done these two things. We have already changed the equation. Today Hamas regrets the moment it thought it could increase the number of rockets and have it pass quietly. Today Hamas understands that Israel responds to the firing of one rocket. There will be a new equation, and they know it.
The IDF is winning today, and to achieve deterrence you have to impair ability - you can never do that until the last rocket - and motivation. After two weeks of active operations, I have no doubt that we are now in a different completely situation with regard to both their ability and motivation to fire. This has to be examined every day, to see if we’ve reached that point. I am not looking for agreements with Hamas. If they do fire, we’ll do this again, and big time. This is what we’re capable of, and this is the way to fight terror.
If, after the military operation ends, we would reach the point where we enter some kind of agreement with them, for me the whole outcome would be problematic. We have had three years in which none of the international community would speak with Hamas. Three years. Three conditions were set: recognize Israel first, stop the violence and terror, and honor previous agreements. And despite the temptation, we all withstood it. So, now, we should accept some piece of paper with nothing behind it except some terrorists… we should do that? That’s when a military operation ends: when deterrence has been achieved, with them knowing that if it happens again, what they saw now is only a taste of what they’ll see later. The war on terror is a long war.
As I see it, the United States, England, France, and all the countries fighting terrorism, need not be partners to a resolution that ties the hands of any state fighting terror.