Regional Strategic Challenges in the Middle East

American Jewish Committee Board of Governors
11 February 1998

Distinguished Colleagues,
Dear Friends,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to open my remarks by commending the American Jewish Committee Israel Middle East Office on its initiative to hold this panel discussion on the regional strategic challenges in the Middle East. This is a topic which of course engages us all. A common assessment of the strategic challenges facing the countries of the Middle East and the region as a whole may enable us to forge better understanding and to better equip ourselves to confront the developments, realities and prospects of this region.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Israel marks this year its fiftieth anniversary of independence. Throughout these five decades, our most basic strategic goals have been two: - first, to prevent the possibility of war or any threat to the state and to ensure Israel's ability to defend itself; and second, to secure international and regional acceptance as a member of the community of nations. Survival and acceptance. Security and peace.

Given our view of peace as a moral, human and strategic goal for both Israel and the region, it is appropriate to begin by recalling the lesson of the courage and leadership of President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin which enabled us to breach the vicious cycle of war and hostility that had characterized the first thirty years of our independence. What had previously seemed impossible now seemed attainable; peace had changed from a coveted dream to a reality within our grasp.

As we seek tonight to assess the dangers and opportunities which face our region, it is only fitting that I share this rostrum with the Ambassadors to Israel of our fellow pioneers in peace - Egypt and the United States.

In the present phase of the peace process, since the Madrid Peace Conference, we have witnessed the achievement of a further peace agreement, with Jordan, and an interim agreement with the Palestinians. The pace is slow and much is yet to be completed in our negotiations with the Palestinians as well as in the negotiations with Syria and Lebanon.

The peace process is susceptible to the influences and impact of strategic developments in the region. The regional context today is different from that of 1991 when a window of opportunity was opened. It is our task today to make every possible effort to keep that window open in face of the adverse strategic developments around us.

The most immediate challenges are Iran and Iraq. While the public discourse on these regimes often centers on questions of personality, the real issues here also revolve around policies and transparency in decision-making and accountability. One can never rest easily knowing as we do the leadership of those countries and their policies.

The continued policies of these countries to develop weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and nuclear power, coupled with the nature of their leaderships, constitute a real threat to the very existence of our region and of world peace.

This is not a question of imposing some kind of world order, nor is it an attempt to reshuffle or realign the powers in the Middle East. And clearly there are profound differences between the regimes of Iraq and Iran. Nevertheless, the policies, or may I say the strategic vision, of the leaderships in these countries is such that we must display constant vigilance. In retrospect, Prime Minister Menahem Begin was right in bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. One can only imagine - and dread - what might have transpired had Iraq had a nuclear capability during the Gulf War of 1991.

UNSCOM's work is of crucial importance in revealing and dismantling this potential. I can not foresee what course the present crisis in Iraq will take, but I am convinced of the importance that the international community insist on full compliance and cooperation with UNSCOM until its mandate is completed.

Finally on the question of Iraq, I would like to raise in passing my frustration as I watched the news over the last few days and saw the reactions in Ramallah and Bethlehem, the calls of support for Saddam Hussein, and those who would encourage him to use chemical weapons to destroy Tel Aviv. Such scenes represent a problem not only for Israel but also for all the peace-seeking countries of the region.

Turning to Iran, we see that this country has not yet gained sufficient world attention to its efforts to become a nuclear power with a long range missile capacity. Whenever we raise these concerns one senses that we are often regarded as the only country in the region whose security is at stake. May I remind you though of the ongoing conflicts and frictions in the Gulf area which have no direct relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict but whose potential impact on the entire region is immense.

An Iran armed with non-conventional weapons is a threat not only to Israel but to the entire region and beyond. The declarations on CNN and elsewhere of new Iranian President Hatemi may be seen as the beginning of change. However, this change is not yet evident in any way in the ongoing support given by Iran to terrorism, its truculent and continued opposition to the peace process, its blanket rejection of Israel's right to exist, and its armaments program.

Terrorism is a strategic threat neither to Israel nor any other country in the region. Nevertheless, its consequences and impact on civilian populations bear strategic implications for the stability of our region and the prospects of achieving peace in the Middle East.

The horrific suicide bombings every year since 1994 and the lack of close security cooperation on the part of the Palestinians have created grave doubts in Israel regarding our Palestinian partners, their decision to live in peace with Israel and their ability and willingness to fulfill their commitments.

Neither is Israel the only country in the region affected by terror. Confronting terror is a genuine strategic challenge which binds Israel, Egypt and Jordan as well as the Palestinian Authority. Ambassador Bassiouny knows how important this battle is.

The countries of the region, together with the United States and other peace-loving nations must join hands in the battle against terror, its infrastructure, and the support it receives from different quarters. The Sharm-el-Sheikh summit of March 1996 was the first true recognition of the need for multilateral efforts to meet this common challenge, and an important beginning for regional cooperation which must be further advanced.

As I noted earlier, Israel's strategic policies are based on two pillars - security and peace. As we now approach what we always knew would be the crucial stages of the peace process with the Palestinians, hard decisions and compromises will be needed. These are only possible in a context of confidence and trust between leaders and peoples. From a strategic point of view therefore, it is incumbent upon us to make every possible effort to restore confidence in order that we may realise the potential for peace in the Middle East. I commend the United States for its tireless efforts to achieve this goal.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As we consider peace to be a strategic objective, we must define what it entails. It is now almost twenty years since the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty, but we have yet to agree on a joint definition of peace, its substance, components and manifestations, on the appropriate nature of bilateral relations in this region and on the future shape and structure of the Middle East in an era of peace. I would like to touch on one element of this definition - normalization.

In our negotiations with all our neighbors we raise the issue of normalization. Let me be clear as to what we mean. Normalization is neither a prize awarded to Israel nor a precondition, a sine qua non. It is a dynamic that must accompany the formal efforts to reach a settlement. If the process is to work, normalization cannot be made conditional or held hostage until such time as Israel complies with every Arab demand. It should give impetus to the efforts to create an environment conducive to peacemaking, in the style and spirit of Helsinki.

For the process to survive, it must be invested with the lifeblood of normal contacts. These contacts will only develop gradually. But they must be given the chance. An integral part of efforts to restore the public and official trust in the peace process must therefore be an intensification of our efforts to advance economic cooperation, people-to-people contacts, medical, scientific and research exchanges and other areas of mutual pursuit.

Today, however, to our consternation, there is a revisionist thrust which seeks to delimit and marginalize the goals of peace, questioning the possibility of cooperation, and turning true, warm peace into something remote and unattainable. This trend represents a strategic danger to the stability of the Middle East, threatening the vitality and survival of the peace process itself. If allowed to go unchecked, it raises the danger that we may even lose the constituency for peace across the region.

If peace is a strategic choice, then we must find a way not only to communicate between leaders but also to educate our peoples towards it, towards mutual respect, acceptance, tolerance and cooperation.

Thus, if Israel, the United States, Egypt, Jordan and other moderate countries in the region have a common agenda, it is to impart the lesson to our peoples that peace is desirable and attainable - the only option available for the achievement of national goals, now and in the future. This is the shared challenge for all those who wish to bring about an end to the era of violence and conflict and to build a new structure of the Middle East in an era of peace.

Friends,

The complex yet tangible strategic threats I have discussed require us to be more attuned to local and regional developments and their broader repercussions. As we proceed through the stormy weather of the peace process, we must navigate between the openings and pitfalls, between the risks and the opportunities. The future is not bleak. Diplomacy, leadership and vision, resilience, determination and belief, if displayed by all, can lead us forward to realizing our shared strategic imperatives.

Finally, a word about the United States.

I believe it is agreed that the peace which will be achieved eventually in the Middle East should emanate and evolve from the parties themselves. It must be the fruit of the will, understanding and maturity of the sides. Nevertheless, recognizing that a reciprocal and general sense of security coupled with firm and viable political arrangements are the only guarantors of peace in the region, the United States has a unique and critical role to play in fostering this new reality.

Since the establishment of the state, the unique and special relations between Israel and the United States have been of strategic importance. The support of the United States for Israel is a critical element in our ability to realise both our strategic objectives - security and peace.

Israel is proud of its special relations with the United States. Nor do these relations come at the expense of any other actor in the region, as some would suggest - quite the contrary. The role of the United States as a strategic partner to Israel and its good relations with other moderate forces in the Middle East are paramount to the region's stability and prosperity.