FM Levy Remarks in Knesset- December 4- 1996

December 4, 1996

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Knesset and the Government of Israel reside there. In past years, I was the minister who acted, fought, obtained the requisite budgets, and concluded the necessary arrangements to move the government offices from the coastal plain to Jerusalem.

The question is not whether the cause is just. It is just, as just as can be. There is almost nowhere on earth where someone else tells you where your capital is. Our capital has been Jerusalem since time immemorial, and so it will be. This is my belief as a Jew and as an Israeli. Perhaps the day will come when the reality in which embassies are located outside of Jerusalem will change. There are a few embassies here, but not all of them or even most of them.

The question to ask today, in the realities in which we live, is whether to pass a law that will become a dead letter because there is no way to impose or uphold it. We will face a situation that is much more complex, complicated, and undesirable, with objections, and we shall find ourselves with a law that we have enacted which is ineffective and merely a declaration, with no practical or desirable outcome. It is a very important declaration when made from this rostrum, in this sovereign body. But is there any doubt as to the effect on those of other countries? How shall we look if they refuse? We would have enacted a law with no force. This is the question: Can we change reality into one we would like by a declaration?

I think a large majority in this House would support such legislation enthusiastically. The time for it will come, and we are making progress in this direction. We have influenced some, others not yet. It will take time -- perhaps a change in the situation -- but the day will come. However, this does not meant we should pass a law with respect to foreign embassies, which would cause non-compliance with the law in Israel -- without going into the implications of the attitude that foreign embassies might take toward the law. If they refuse to comply, what would Israel do? What sanctions would it apply? Would we tell them to leave? Would we break off relations? These are the issues that we will have to deal with if such a law is passed. Or we can say that we have paid lip service and cannot implement it. What would we gain from this?

That is the reasoning, Mr. Speaker. The Ministerial Legislation Committee discussed this proposal seriously, and for these reasons reached the conclusion that, for Jerusalem's sake and in order to avoid a situation where a law pertaining to Jerusalem will not only be disobeyed but become a dead letter, the damage caused by such legislation would definitely outweigh any benefit. We would like to be able implement such a law, but in view of our peculiar situation and the absence of ways to uphold and to implement such a law -- if it's a matter of international relations, a situation that has gone on for many years, involving the attitude of others, not only ourselves -- there is no alternative to the decision of the Ministerial Legislation Committee: to oppose the proposal.

ON ISRAEL'S RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB WORLD AND THE PEACE PROCESS:

Mr. Speaker, these resolutions were taken after the government had been in power for one week. What does that tell you? They put the government on trial, and for what? For having adopted a process that it had opposed previously, when it was in the opposition, out of national responsibility and as an expression of the supreme democratic value of not repudiating agreements that its precursor had signed. It recognized the Palestinian Authority as a negotiating partner, met with its leader at the highest echelons, set forth principles for negotiations and implementation of the process, and began the talks themselves.

The question that accompanies us all the time is whether whenever a difficulty arises, whenever an argument breaks out -- and there will be arguments of various kinds, for the matter is not simple, it is a difficult course we have chosen to follow -- whenever there is an argument, we will be faced with conferences such as these, threats such as these, an international campaign such as this, until we reach a state where things that we thought had vanished and would no longer be said have been said of late.

This is the major question, Mr. Speaker. We have chosen to move toward peace -- not out of fear, not under duress, not in submission to threats, but of our free will, as a substantive manifestation of the wishes of a large majority of the people for a peace process. And a peace process, Mr. Speaker, cannot take place under threats, pressure, ultimatums, and dictated deadlines. No country in the world would agree to that. Negotiations should be free of pressure and of any threat. Peace is not surrender. It is progress, not panic.

Therefore, the question, Mr. Speaker, is: Since these statements were made one week into the tenure of the new government, when it had announced from this rostrum that it would honor agreements and go ahead with this peace process, which it had previously opposed, one week into its term -- I am not talking about when the difficulty, the dispute came up, before we had met with the Authority at all -- what does it mean: to punish the people in Israel for not having elected the government that they wanted? This week cited their resolutions from this rostrum. I want peace. I am sparing no effort to fulfill this dream, this yearning, this hope, and it will take a great deal of effort.

Mr. Speaker, we are now engaged in talks about Hebron. Any intelligent person knows today -- we know it, not through assessments but by what the elected officials of the Palestinian Authority are saying -- these things are in writing and in our possession right now -- that they are saying: there is no need to hurry, no need to wind things up, because time is on our side. That is what they are saying.

Efforts have been made, much work has been invested. This matter could have been concluded a month ago -- through the good will of both sides. Unfortunately, there is someone who thinks it is worth his while to drag the matter on, to isolate Israel, to portray it and its government as intransigent on peace, to mobilize international pressure against us. At this very time, Mr. Speaker, in utter contravention of the agreement and the commitment, the Palestinian Authority is taking an action at the UN, an action coordinated with all the Arab countries, to bring about resolutions diametrically opposed to the spirit of the agreement. We are laboring to defeat their action because if this situation will persist -- and I say this out of concern -- I do not know who will be the more persuasive and win the argument. I know who the loser will be: the entire peace process -- because peace will be attained not through threats, nor by procrastination, nor by pressure, nor by a summit meeting which dictates to Israel what to do. It just won't work. Peace will be attained through trust, a different kind of atmosphere, a constant dialogue -- though there will be disagreements.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said from this rostrum, the Oslo accords gave rise to a threshold of expectations so high -- after all, I meet with statesmen and they tell me what they expect -- that no responsible government in Israel would accept and adopt them. For this reason, we are not taking part in this verbal violence, because this would only lead to escalation. We sometimes have to restrain ourselves out of a sense responsibility, and we sometimes feign ignorance out of adherence to our commitment to peace. But such a situation cannot continue.

Therefore, we call for responsibility and, above all -- yes, despite the defamation campaign being waged in certain newspapers in Egypt -- I address myself to the wisdom of the President of Egypt, not out of weakness but out of responsibility. Egypt is a factor, a major factor. We coexist in peace. Some describe this peace as they wish it to be, and others are saddened at the peace they see. But it is peace. It is the opposite of war, it is the Israeli flag in Cairo, it is ambassadors, it is visits, it is the ability to talk, to persuade, to argue. Therefore, it is better than any other situation, and it is in our interest to see it continue and become even stronger.

I had the honor, Mr. Speaker, to confer with the President of Egypt several times, and I was given hospitality worthy of a man of peace. In these talks, he expressed himself with profound seriousness and responsibility -- with neither pressure nor threat. Not a threatening word was uttered in any of the meetings that I held, and we explored the issues together in a spirit of shared responsibility. This is one circle, one that we are proud of. We want it to persist and gain strength. However, there is a second circle, an outer circle of political activity, one accompanied with remarks that are not compatible with reality. We have to shatter the second circle and return to the first, the one of truth and responsibility. Here, we will not exert self-restraint, and we want and are making every effort to return to political sagacity, to the responsibility of leaders, to the dialogue one must conduct in order to eliminate obstacles. I believe we will succeed, because there is no alternative to peace, and because peace serves and will serve not only Israel but everyone.

While there has been no decision on new settlements, there is no clause in the Oslo accords that bans settlements. Therefore, anyone who tries to base himself on the Oslo accords to ban settlements is wrong and is misleading others. The government has taken no decision on the establishment of new settlements. We are doing our best to reinforce the existing settlements, because that is our duty. That is why the people gave this government its mandate. On the other hand, we are behaving cautiously and making a continued effort so that the peace process will not be slowed, and so we can move ahead.

According to the information in my possession, this does not depend on Israel. According to the information I have, from the Palestinian Authority itself, having exhausted all processes and made every effort to isolate and weaken Israel, they have not succeeded, because we maintain a regular dialogue with statesmen throughout the world.

Israel wants to go ahead. Had my views on the matter of Hebron been heeded, it would be no crime for the government to announce that it would honor the agreement with exceptions A, B, C, because that is our duty to the people, our citizens there. I'd like to see who would have taken exception to this. It is the very least that a new government that objected to this agreement should demand, and the entire world would have understood it. But what happened? We wanted to reach an agreement -- because we view agreement is a supreme value.

I hope, I want to hope, that we will be able eventually to quickly wind this up and move ahead with the peace process. It is a supreme value to continue, persuasively and responsibly, to conduct a constant dialogue with Egypt and its President, with Jordan, and to make a continued effort to enter into dialogue with Syria as well. This is the government's policy. Mr. Speaker, one might think that the government has been in power for three years, but this is not so. Everything is expected from this government, and everything is blamed on it. That doesn't meant that it is absolved from its duty and commitment to its citizens, their security, and their future.

ON THE PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A MINISTRY OF INFORMATION:

Unfortunately, that is not how things are, because there are two basics that we have to view correctly. There is a peace process, and it is our duty to point out, as we are doing, all the violations, the statements, and the calls for jihad. On the other hand, it is our duty not to destroy the peace process. We must point to the weaknesses of the process, including the violations, and to emphasize matters of vital concern to us. That is what we are doing. I cannot tell you that we have persuaded everyone, because there are other players who have other interests, and quite often you run into a statesman who in private understands you and shares your values but speaks differently when he takes the international podium.

Then one has to ask: what has this comprehensive, complete information effort accomplished? What we want to achieve -- because it has two facets, and must be seen in the proper proportions.

Jerusalem: Jerusalem was never the capital of anyone but the Jewish people. That is the historical truth. So in this matter of Jerusalem we are on solid ground and can speak with integrity. True, it is dear, it is holy to other religions, and we have sought and continue to seek to convince everyone that all Israeli governments have allowed freedom of worship and protected and preserved the sanctity of these places. As a capital, it is the capital of the Jewish people, the capital of the State of Israel.

The peace process, born in Oslo, created a certain atmosphere, prior to its full implementation, filled with statements and a perception that the problem has been solved. It has been stated from this rostrum that a hundred years of war have ended and that a new era has begun. The world, amazed as it hears these remarks, imagines and pictures a reality in which there is no more dispute, in which a state will come into being, Israel will return to the 1967 frontiers, and a compromise for Jerusalem will be found. That is how the world imagined it, beyond the most far-reaching concessions which even the most extremist government in Israel could contemplate.

We want peace. We want to respect the Palestinian people and not to rule over another people. That is my belief, my conviction. But this does not mean that we will abandon our security, no abandon our settlements, partition our capital, or return to the 1967 lines. These are the basic, fundamental rules that guide our policy. These are our guidelines.

Now, is there a consensus about this? Unfortunately, there isn't. Is there a government that would accept the Palestinians' demands in full? I can tell you, knowing this House: No, there's nothing of the sort. Therefore, whenever an argument erupts, nothing can be done on the basis of the euphoria that erupted when they spoke here about the new era, because the other side wants everything and Israel will never have a popularly backed government that will deliver everything. That is the plain truth.

We take our stand in this dispute in the full awareness that we must seek peace on the one hand, and defend our interests on the other, because this is our duty. I get excited whenever I tell Gentiles that the Jewish people was been given this land by its Creator from the time of Creation, and I'm willing to do this 120 times a day. Am I being persuasive by doing this? It is my consciousness as a Jew, and I think that a majority of people here, regardless of their worldview, also believe wholeheartedly that they are here by right, not by force. But if we were weak, we would not have remained here, and despite our values -- if Heaven forbid, we had lost the wars that were forced on us -- there would be no one with whom to talk peace today, certainly not the Jewish people. For these values that we proclaim -- and we accept criticism in cases where there have been deviations from these ethics -- remain the values of this people, of this state.

But this is not all. We have to cope with problems that come up, with other interests, and with a peace process of which you we a part. When there is an irregularity or a deviation, you have to say so, as we do.

Hence one must not despair of peace. Some tell you a tale of apocalypse: it won't work, it has to blow up. I hear these things and reject them, because peace is meant to serve both sides. They say: If there's no peace, it'll be good for the Palestinians, or if there's no peace, it'll be good for the Israelis. Since this effort is meant to serve both sides, wisdom returns and saves the day even when we go to the brink. There will be disputes, even bitter ones, and I hope that we will conduct them responsibly and in an effort to move ahead and attain what the people in Israel, and perhaps most peoples in the region, want: not war, but peace. We would like to live like any other people and begin to concern ourselves with other matters, but even within this construct one needs to believe deeply in one's right and duty to advance toward the goal. This is what we are trying to do.

Do we always have support? No. Do we always have resistance, or everyone blaming us? No. We are doing what we must do in accordance with the circumstances. And I wish to congratulate those who are doing the work -- our emissaries all over the globe, who meet with leaders, politicians, and the media, without despairing, to explain our cause, to make known our attitudes -- and also to disclose the violations and the deviations. They are doing it, and they are not despairing. This is an achievement. The pressure applied against Israel did not achieve its goal; Israel has not been isolated and does not face sanctions.

An effort was also made to introduce these political issues into the process of the approval of agreements in the European Parliament. This effort did not succeed. Both sides are mounting an offensive as warranted, and a defense as required. We are doing our best until the justness of our cause will emerge from our very belief in our rights and from the effort to advance toward peace for our people.