Jerusalem, March 12, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Members of Knesset,
From this rostrum, in my first address to the Knesset upon my entry into office, I said as follows:
"The government, by virtue of its guidelines, accepts the binding democratic principle of continuity in the government's commitment to the agreements signed by the previous government. It accepts a process to which it was previously opposed, and this is a clear expression, to the whole world, of our adherence to democratic values. At the same time, the fate of this agreement, of this process, will be determined by reciprocity. It must be upheld not by one side, but by both."
I said that this process will be difficult. We have much hard work before us. There will be ups and downs; there will undoubtedly by crises, as the two sides do not see eye to eye on the final outcome of this process - the permanent status arrangements. However, if there will not be a strict rejection of incitement and violence, this process will wither of its own accord. Because peace cannot be achieved under threat, there can be no progress towards reconciliation under incitement, and there can be no confidence in peace along a mine-strewn path of fear.
Peace is a matter of free choice. The supreme value which we attach to peace dictates this choice. With all the questions and evident dangers, the government decided to adopt this path, accepting the democratic principle behind this decision - a path which constitutes the best hope for both peoples - and was attacked by right and left, just one week after taking office.
Just one week - and already it had enemies, to a certain degree, in Cairo, where harsh statements were made. It is in Cairo that the anti-Israeli line was defined, it is from there that threats were issued, saying: If Israel will not act in accordance with the expectations of certain elements, we will take action against Israel everywhere, on the international arena. We will put a halt to normalization and cause unrest within Israel as well.
What kind of reception is this for a government which announces that it accepts the course of peace, that it will honor the agreements? What kind of message is this? What kind of encouragement?
We understood then that an anti-Israeli strategy had been adopted, regardless of what action was taken. This was subsequently confirmed from every international podium in the adoption of anti-Israeli resolutions, anti-Israeli actions, pressure on those states which had begun to normalize relations with us, to halt this normalization.
On the Palestinian side, from the first meetings, we discerned a strong desire to engage in dialogue. I was the first Israeli minister of this government to meet with Yasser Arafat, and the conversation which began with a certain tension - not of words, but of feelings - soon thawed, and we had a serious talk, placing matters on the table. We rejected violence. Violence will solve nothing; violence and incitement must not be viewed as a means to resolve any issue. We agreed that any future disagreements would be resolved in face-to-face negotiations. We have the agreement before us; both sides must rigorously uphold it.
Since that time, and despite unwelcome developments, we succeeded in establishing a mechanism to work together in an orderly manner. We achieved the agreement on Hebron. We set up two delegations - one headed by Abu Mazen and the other by myself. We held an orderly working meeting of the plenum, we adopted decisions, and we are fulfilling them. The two chairmen meet and discuss every issue. They do not need the approval or decision of any higher authority. They contact one another and set meeting to discuss specific issues.
We set up nine committee, each of which, with the agreement of the respective chairmen, is to deal with a specific issue. For example, we have a security committee to deal with issues which arise on a day-to-day basis. Among the other committees are a committee to discuss the Gaza port; a committee to discuss the airport in Dahania; a committee to resolve the issue of safe passage for goods and persons; a committee to discuss economic issues, which has already convened and resolved all outstanding issues and claims.
We decided that the plenum would convene once a month to receive reports from the committee heads, and if needed, call on the two chairmen to resolve unsettled matters. If they, too, should fail to resolve the issue, both sides agreed that it would be brought before the Israeli prime minister and the head of the Palestinian Authority for decision. This was the modus operandi agreed upon.
What has happened now? Why the panic? Why this international drama? Who has created it? For what reason? All attempts to present Israel as failing to abide by the agreement, ostensibly ignoring its partner, not fulfilling its commitment, are unfounded. To the contrary, let us examine these issues. I can tell you that in no article of any agreement, in no meeting, was there even a hint as to the scope of the further redeployment. Moreover, with the signing of the Hebron Protocol, there was an unequivocal statement by the United States, conveyed to the head of the Palestinian Authority, stating that under the terms of the agreement it is understood that it is Israel and Israel alone which will determine the scope of the further redeployment. Thus, no further discussion of this issue is required. This is Israel's authority under the agreement, and we acted in accordance with this authority.
True, the Americans expected a redeployment of 10 percent - they said so. The government, following a prolonged, careful and serious discussion, based on its consideration and responsibility for security and other issues, decided on a figure of 9.1 percent. This is an area larger than the entire Gaza Strip - 200,000 Palestinians being transferred to their own self-government. This should not be underestimated.
This the decision adopted by the government was very favorably received by the US government, as well as by many European states. The decision was within Israel's authority. There is no deviation from the agreement here. In a meeting I had with Mr. Abu Mazen as head of the Palestinian delegation, I asked: What did you expect? While he did not say so, some of his colleagues expected that the first phase of further redeployment would be 30 percent, and likewise the second and third phases, so that the final negotiation would be over the remaining 10 percent. I asked: On what basis? - On the basis of expectations; that is what they want. I asked: Does our decision constitute a violation of any promise made to you? He admitted: No promise was given - and I quote.
Failing to find a violation here, they go on to the issue of Har Homa. As I have said from every rostrum, including this one - not to arouse anger, not as justification, but as a direct statement: Israel's right to build in Jerusalem is not subject to question or to appeal. There is no Israeli commitment to refrain from building in Jerusalem. This has been verified by the best jurists and legal advisers. Where authority is vested in Israel under the agreement, Israel is entitled to build.
Moreover, there was no commitment, even orally, by the previous government not to build in Jerusalem. This decision derives from Israel's unassailable right to build in its capital, and is also reflected in the agreement itself. Let no one be misled, and say: In order to prevent violence and unrest, refrain from building in Jerusalem or change the government decision. I wish to state the one and only truth, even if there are those who may find it unpleasant: Israel has the right to build in Jerusalem. The government decision is firm and abiding, and will not be altered - even in the face of daily threats. Progress towards peace will not be achieved with threats; to the contrary.
We will, of course, build for Arabs as well. I am glad to have been one of those who initiated the government decision to build in Jerusalem for Arabs as well. Is this a good decision? I say that to build for the Arab population in Jerusalem is a good decision, a necessary decision. The government will carry out the decision on both levels, building in Har Homa and for the Arab population of Jerusalem.
We now hear about a decision to convene what some are calling an international forum, others an international conference, and yet others a briefing, in Gaza. When we chose the course of peace, we accepted the obligation of resolving our differences. If an outside party should try to introduce itself into this process, it will become deadlocked. The appeal to international forums runs counter to the letter of commitment given by Chairman Yasser Arafat to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on September 9, 1993, that in choosing this course, every problem or difference that arises in the future will be resolved directly by us, without recourse to international forums. This is contrary to the agreement itself.
There is therefore no reason for such a gathering. What will such a gathering achieve? What is it, a tribunal? Does anyone believe that Israel, which has chosen the course of peace, will agree to stand accused? Will this serve as an encouragement to pursue the course of peace? Will it have a positive effect on the prevailing atmosphere, or rather a negative, deleterious and dangerous effect?
Once we have chosen the course of peace, there is no need for pressure. Any pressure will only bring the Israeli government and many others in Israel to say: "We will not pursue peace on account of pressure. We will not accept anything that others want, in their own interests, and abandon our own interests, only because of pressure. Pressure is not an incentive for peace."
There is yet another area of activity, of which we are aware, which poses a serious danger. The Palestinian Authority is now coopting to its discussions organizations which only yesterday it itself pointed to as a dangerous opposition seeking to undermine the peace process. They are now partners in the talks. There is today also encouragement to begin to foment unrest - not yet violence, against which we admonish, but unrest which is liable to deteriorate into violence, to which HAMAS is a party. Yes, HAMAS is involved in this too. And if it is given a green light, it will destroy this process with its own hands.
I would like to believe that there is still a sense of responsibility, and that reason will determine whether such a breach will be created, and whether it will be exploited by those elements which seek to destroy the peace process. The situation will then be very grave; this will deal a mortal blow to hope.
This is why I call for responsibility, not extremism - neither on the right nor on the left. Responsibility obliges us to take the middle course, the responsible and courageous course, and to make every effort to prevent violence, to uphold agreements, to advance the peace process and to make it succeed.
From this rostrum, I call upon the Palestinian Authority and its head: Look at the course this government has chosen and, though you have not received all that you hoped, this government is following a courageous and correct course, fulfilling its commitments, and moving forward to resolve all issues on the agenda until we achieve the longed-for peace. Violence, incitement and ferment will meet with the severest response, because this is not the course that will advance us to our desired goal: peace.
This is a time for maturity, a time for responsibility, a time for reason. It is a time to return to negotiations, not to seek solutions outside the region and outside the committees we have established. It is a time to return to the negotiating table, which is the only place and the only way to advance peace and to remove dangers.