Jerusalem, January 16, 1997
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of Knesset,
These are difficult days. Every step that we take in the city of the patriarchs and the matriarchs is difficult, even when we redeploy in Hebron. We are not leaving Hebron, we are not redeploying from Hebron. In Hebron, we touch on the very basis of our national consciousness, the bedrock of our existence. Everyone whose heart beats with national feeling, with Jewish feeling, cannot help but feel the weight of the responsibility placed on our shoulders, and the supreme obligation to preserve our heritage.
At the same time, we cannot ignore reality. I must say to the Members of the Knesset and the citizens of Israel, that we inherited a difficult reality. The agreements signed by the previous governments are binding upon the Government of Israel. We said this in the election campaign, we said this after the election campaign, before the establishment of the government and afterwards. These agreements which we inherited were framework agreements, full of breaches, and we criticized them - and rightly so - because they did not take into proper account the problem of security; they did not take into account the full significance of the agreements for our national security; they did not demonstrate sufficient concern for the fate of the settlers in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, including the fate of the Jewish community in Hebron.
We inherited difficult agreements. This is the reality. One could try to ignore it. We chose not to ignore this reality. These agreements comprised written texts; but worse, was the "oral law". At least part of the previous leadership - I do not wish to include them all - sought to use these agreements to bring about objectives and goals which in my view are dangerous - potentially disastrous for our future. This was true both with regard to Hebron and with regard to the permanent status arrangements.
With regard to Hebron, we inherited a framework agreement full of holes. I want to clarify that this is an agreement of two-three pages, which comprises a list of general instructions. This is the "written law". I say that there was also an "oral law", in which at least part of the coalition - an important part - had the courage and the integrity to openly state their intention, their goal - in placards posted on streets and in buses. Part of the coalition did conceal its intention was to uproot the Jewish community in Hebron, to remove it. Some of the Labor ministers of the previous government did not conceal that this was their opinion, and the goal of the government.
I want to make this clear, not in order to indulge in polemics but to clarify a fundamental point: We are committed to the written agreements. We are not committed to the "oral law". Our viewpoint and our objectives are completely different. We do not want to remove the Jewish community from Hebron. We want to preserve and consolidate it. We do not want to remove ourselves from Hebron; we want to remain in Hebron. From this different objective are derived those items, those paragraphs, those components which were inserted into the agreement as a result of the negotiations. The agreement today is of course much broader, much more detailed.
But the major point that I wish to convey to the Members of Knesset with regard to our policy is that it is our different objective, in this case to remain in Hebron, that dictates in the details in the agreement before you. From this different objective, we saw to it that there would be areas of separation, we removed the rifles, we saw to it that there would be an IDF presence in the territories overlooking the Jewish community and the major routes, through joint patrols. We saw to it that the Jewish community would be protected from high Palestinian buildings that could threaten or encroach on Jewish homes. We saw to improved and more numerous security mechanisms between us and the Palestinian security forces in order to make possible a reality of security, a reality of living, a reality of development and consolidation for the Jewish community.
I can therefore say with confidence that this is an agreement that is better, more secure, more responsible than that which we inherited. But above all, I would like to appeal to the residents of Hebron. I know that you are fearful today, and I would like to say to you, brothers and sisters, that we are concerned for you, that we do not see you as an insignificant appendage. We see you are dear brothers. We are concerned for each and every one of you. We do not see you as 400 insignificant Jews, but as our representatives.
I do not say today that there are no dangers. I do not say that this is a perfect agreement - it cannot be. We received it in its crude form as a flawed agreement. But neither do I say that we did not act to distance ourselves from dangers and to limit them. This is what we did. But in the last analysis, every agreement is dependent upon the goodwill of the signatories. I call from this podium upon the Palestinians and our Arab neighbors to support the agreement, to fulfill all its provisions, in order that security should be preserved. A better, more secure agreement is important to both sides. An agreement that will not be upheld, security that will founder will be bad for both sides.
Until now, Hebron has been a symbol of division and conflict because of the hostility between Palestinians and Israelis. Now we have an opportunity to prove that Hebron can also serve an opposite example - one of cooperation, of co-existence, a paradigm of peace.
With the signing of the Hebron agreement, we are embarking on a fateful course, which will not be simple, whose final goal, on the conclusion of the negotiations on the permanent status arrangements, is to bring peace with security between us and the Palestinians.
I want to say again to the Members of Knesset. In this agreement, too, under the general framework of Oslo, we inherited an agreement which was not to our liking. The agreement were divided into a written text, which is binding, and an "oral law" whose purpose, at least for part of the leadership, a considerable part, would have produced negative results: withdrawal to the '67 lines, or almost; the establishment of a Palestinian state; and even the division of Jerusalem.
We are committed, of course, to the written agreements. We have demonstrated today that we are fulfilling our commitments. But our goals are different. We are using the time interval in the agreement to achieve our goals: to maintain the unity of Jerusalem, to ensure the security depth necessary for the defense of the state, to insist on the right of Jews to settle in their land, and to propose to the Palestinians a suitable arrangement for self-rule but without the sovereign powers which pose a threat to the State of Israel.
This is the mandate which the government which I head received from the voters. With this, we will go forward. In following this course, not only is our goal different but also the way to achieve this goal, as is the way to move forward, to conduct negotiations.
We insisted on three fundamental principles in the course of the negotiations, both on Hebron and on the agreement to follow Hebron.
The first is the principle of reciprocity. We established the principle of reciprocity - in an official document - as a basic principle for the continuation of the process of the permanent status negotiations. This is now an integral part of the agreement. Both sides agreed on a list of mutual undertakings and clarified that the fulfillment of the agreement, the fulfillment of the undertakings of one side will be dependent upon the fulfillment by the other side. I do not know any other interpretation of the word "agreement". An agreement that obliges only the Israeli side, where only the Israeli side gives and the Palestinian side takes, is not an agreement. An agreement in which both sides accept the mutual commitment to fulfill obligations - this is an agreement. What we have today in the documents before you is the anchoring and formalization of the principle of reciprocity, for the first time since the Oslo agreements.
The second important issue that was clarified in the agreements and documents achieved in the course of these negotiations is that the implementation of the redeployments will be an Israeli decision that will not be a matter for negotiation with the Palestinians. This decision must comply with Israel's security considerations, as Israel sees fit. It is Israel that will define the security zones. But before this, it is Israel that will determine the nature and scope of the three redeployments - not only the first and second, but also the third. This is also the way in which the United States interprets the agreement. And I believe this is very important distinction. For us, for the entire Knesset, there must be absolute consensus on the supreme importance that Israel will be able to define, accord to its own understanding, the security needs of the State of Israel and to carry out the further redeployments according to this understanding.
The third achievement, beyond the reciprocity and to Israeli definition of the redeployments, is the timeframe. I believe that this is not something that stands alone. Rather, it allows us room for maneuver, room to test reality, room to test reciprocity in the fulfillment of the agreement.
These three elements are a significant change, and a change for the better, compared to our situation not long ago, only a few months ago. We were in the midst of an almost uncontrolled dash to the '67 lines. Nine months from today we might have found ourselves almost at these borders, with the only subject in effect remaining on the agenda - Jerusalem. This situation - I say to both the opposition and the coalition - we have changed completely. We will conduct negotiations with the time, the ability and the freedom for political maneuver that we did not enjoy before. We will conduct the negotiations carefully, responsibly, with discretion. I am convinced that our goals of preserving Jerusalem, preserving the security depth, preserving Israel's ability to defend itself, and a suitable arrangement with the Palestinians - I am convinced that these are goals which the large majority of the Israeli people support, and that the large majority of the people support the course which we have set, insisting on reciprocity and security.
In practical terms - not in the Hague court, but in the court of international opinion, and not only international opinion - it was until recently self-understood, almost an axiom, that the only item on the agenda was an agreement in which Israel must fulfill all its commitments and in which the other side owes nothing. All its commitments were ignored. What we have today in the international community, signed with an official seal, is an agreement which is binding, in which the principle of reciprocity is clear.
These agreements contain important improvements as well as the time in which we will be able to bring to completion the goal which we seek to attain, which I believe is shared by all Members of Knesset. I believe that the large majority of the people supports this course. I believe with all my heart that this is the only way to achieve the aspiration which we all share: peace with security, peace for generations and not for one year, peace for our children and also for our grandchildren. After the arguments will end, and after the smoke and dust will settle, I believe that we will achieve these goals.