1 December 2000
Mr. President,
The recent history of the Middle East has witnessed many tragedies and some
triumphs. Countless wars have been waged and lives have been lost in a
series of bloody campaigns intent on nothing less than destruction. But
today, that tide is turning. The Middle East stands on the verge of a new
epoch. Despite recent setbacks, tremendous progress has been made in turning
enemies into partners for peace, of ending decades of hostility, and
embarking on a new path of peace, and coexistence. The time has come to
break the cycle of tragedy, and begin a new era of triumphs in the making of
peace.
The first of these triumphs was the groundbreaking peace treaty between
Israel and Egypt achieved in 1979. Fifteen years later, another triumph was
celebrated. Under the courageous leadership of the late King Hussein, a
second peace treaty was established in the Middle East between Israel and
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of
Principles and the Oslo accords that followed constitute another historic
breakthrough toward peace. The positive atmosphere was further reinforced by
the recent establishment of relations with Mauritania. This is in addition
to the official ties between Israel and Morocco, Tunisia, Oman, and Qatar,
and the gradual development of ties with other states in North Africa and
the Gulf. We hope that the cooling of these ties in recent weeks will be
temporary in nature.
Mr. President,
Another important step toward strengthening of regional security was taken
by Israel this year along its northern border. In May, Israel unilaterally
withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, in full compliance with UN
Security Council Resolution 425. The Israeli fulfillment of its part under
resolution 425 was confirmed by the Secretary-General (S/2000/590) and
subsequently endorsed by the Security Council (S/PRST/2000/21) and referred
to in Security Council resolution 1310 (2000).
It must be stressed, that in confirming Israel's compliance with Security
Council resolution 425, the Secretary-General specifically determined that
the area known as 'Shabaa' is not Lebanese territory. Consequently,
subsequent Lebanese claims against Israel regarding that area, justifying
aggressive activity by terrorists emanating from Lebanese territory, are in
direct contravention of the Secretary-General's findings.
Although Israel had hoped that its withdrawal from Lebanon would promote
peace and security on the border, this unfortunately was not the case.
Just this Sunday, a powerful road-side charge was detonated against an
Israeli patrol by terrorists who had infiltrated from Lebanon, killing an
Israeli soldier and wounding two others. The attack took place in the region
of Mount Dov, almost a kilometer within the Israeli side of the 'Blue
Line'.
This latest attack represents a continuation of the recent drastic and
dangerous deterioration along the Lebanon-Israel border. These incidents
included the 7 October abduction of three Israeli soldiers from within
Israel by terrorists who infiltrated from Lebanon.
Israel views these acts of aggression with the utmost gravity and as a gross
violation of the Charter of the United Nations, fundamental principles of
international law and Security Council resolution 425 (1978) of 19 March
1978, pursuant to which Israel withdrew its forces from Lebanese
territory.
In the light of this most recent hostile attack against Israel from Lebanese
territory and the growing escalation on that border, Israel has repeatedly
called upon the Government of Lebanon to fulfill its obligations under
international law, and as required in resolution 425 (1978), to restore,
with the assistance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL),
its effective control over South Lebanon and ensure that international peace
and security are maintained on its side of the border. Despite these pleas,
the Government of Lebanon has failed for months to restrain, and has even
encouraged, provocative and violent cross-border attacks against Israel.
Continued diplomatic attempts, on the part of Israel, to warn that the
situation on the northern border could deteriorate have gone unheeded.
A continuation of the present situation, with these ongoing acts of
aggression by Lebanese terrorists, carries with it a danger of imminent
escalation. Consequently, the international community must demand of Lebanon
that it fulfill its responsibilities under resolutions 425 (1978) and 1310
(2000), which entail putting an end to these acts of aggression from
Lebanese territory, establishing effective Lebanese authority in the area
and acting to bring peace and security to our common border.
Mr. President,
This year, Israel has also continued in its quest to achieve a comprehensive
peace with Syria on the basis of the framework established at the Madrid
Peace Conference in 1991. The most recent effort to move peace forward took
place at meetings between Prime Minister Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister
Farouk A-Shara in Shepherdstown, West Virginia in January of this year. At
those talks, Israel presented, in the words of US President Bill Clinton, "a
territorial proposal, which is quite significant". Yet this and other
proposals went unanswered by the Syrian side, which chose instead to break
off the negotiations. When the US attempted to clarify Syria's response to
these Israeli proposals, at the Clinton-Assad Geneva Summit on March 26, it
became clear that no response was forthcoming. The next day, President
Clinton stated regarding President Assad, "the ball is in his court now".
Commenting on the American effort to promote an agreement, the US State
Department Spokesman stated on March 30:
"That effort yielded certain
results on the Israeli side, that President Clinton noted, which the Syrian
President rejected. ... We believe that it is now the turn of the Syrians to
formulate responses, formulate ideas of their own. And so that's where the
matter rests at the moment."
Several months later, we are still waiting for that Syrian response. We hope
that response, when it does comes, will constitute another triumph for
peace.
Mr. President,
We must not forget that any discussion of the situation in the Middle East
must not only consider Israel's immediate neighbors, but also address the
threats to peace and stability on the periphery of the region.
The policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a stalwart of Middle Eastern
rejectionism, stand in direct conflict with the principles which form the
basis for regional peace. Iran continues to support the terrorist activities
of Hizbullah, an organization which openly engages in a campaign against the
existence of the State of Israel. In addition, Iran is engaged in continuing
efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We have overwhelming
evidence that Iran has succeeded in developing chemical weapons and we have
ample reason to believe Iran has developed biological warfare capabilities
as well. Iran has already tested the Shihab-3 long-range missile, a weapon
which, with its 1,300 kilometer range, has the capacity to reach Israeli
cities. When it was paraded through the streets of Teheran in September of
1998, the inscription on the missile carrier declared: "Israel should be
wiped off the map".
This development comes as Iranian officials continue to call for jihad and
the destruction of the State of Israel. The language of Iran's leaders
reflects a total negation of Israel that transcends any difference there may
be over our respective foreign policies. They officially brand Israel as the
'Small Satan' and officially oppose all our attempts at reaching peace with
our neighbors. Iran has also been involved in terrorist activities aimed at
Jewish and Israeli targets around the world, including the bombings of the
Israeli Embassy and Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. While he speaks
eloquently of 'dialogue among civilizations' to UN gatherings, Iranian
President Khatami still thought it acceptable to state in Teheran less than
a year ago that:
"there is only one way to resolve the Palestinian question, and that is
through the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist regime ... the peace
talks are one of the biggest cheats, and the ugliest ploys used by Israel
and its main supporter, America."
(31 December 1999, Tehran Television)
Meanwhile, Iraq's persistence in developing weapons of mass destruction and
their means of delivery -- much of this under the radar of international
arms inspectors -- is particularly troubling in light of that country's
proven enthusiasm for firing missiles at civilian populations. In the midst
of the Gulf War, Iraq, in an unprovoked aggression, launched dozens of
missiles at Israeli cities.
We are gravely concerned over Iraq's failure to comply with Security Council
requirements, and over the fact that weapons verification and monitoring
work has not been possible for the past two years. Iraq's denial of access
to UNMOVIC inspection teams, and its history of hostility towards Israel,
make that country a continued threat to Israel's security in particular and
to regional stability in general.
Mr. President,
While there are countries in the Middle East which remain openly committed
to the destruction of Israel, we also must examine the motivations of those
who declare their strategic interest in achieving peace. We have seen that
our potential partners appear to be espousing a concept of peace which is
widely divergent from that propounded by Israel. Following the Shepherdstown
talks, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk a-Shara, speaking before the Arab
Writers Union in Damascus on 27 January of this year, described the Syrian
view of peace as follows:
"The establishment of the state of peace in the future means turning this
confrontation into a political, intellectual, economic and commercial
confrontation. So let us give the 'peace confrontation' a chance. ... The
restoration of the entire area of Palestine is a long-term strategy which
cannot be achieved in one stage. The Ba'ath party ideology views the
liberation in phases. The regaining of the occupied Arab territories is only
the first phase."
(published in Al-Osbua Al-Adabi and As-Safir - 12 February
2000)
Our view is different.
The desire for peace with our neighbors represents the supreme goal of the
State of Israel and its citizens. Since 1978, Israel has demonstrated a
willingness to make compromises in pursuit of peace, and to constantly
search for new peacemaking initiatives.
Israel envisions a broad circle of peace in the Middle East that will
encompass all of our neighbors and constitute a complete and final end to
the state of conflict. We seek to establish clearly defined borders that
would eliminate all territorial disputes between us. We seek a peace that
will provide a framework for regional security, that will curb the threat to
stability posed by extremist elements, and reduce the need for states to
expend copious amounts of resources to ensure their defense. We seek a peace
that will improve the lives of all the peoples of the Middle East, creating
a predictable economic environment, attracting foreign investment,
facilitating sustainable economic and social development. Indeed, peace
holds the key to the unification of our entire region.
For Israel, normal peaceful relations includes the establishment of full
diplomatic ties, the removal of boycotts, repeal of discriminatory
legislation and practices, transportation and communication links, and the
free movement of goods and people over borders. Peace treaties also provide
a framework for cooperation with regard to environment, cultural relations,
tourism, health, agriculture, crime prevention, and the elimination of
incitement.
The recognition must be apparent among our partners that there are far
better ways to direct our time, our energies, and our resources, than in the
continuation of confrontation by other means.
Mr. President,
Despite Israel's desire to achieve peace, and its proven willingness to
compromise on behalf of peace, certain states in our region continue to
reject our very existence. Some of these nations have chosen to directly
engage in, or indirectly sponsor, violence and terrorism against us. Others
envision a future of ongoing confrontation and dispute.
We choose to view the future in a different light. History has shown us the
proper path, the path of dialogue and reconciliation, let us walk this path
together.
Peace in the Middle East need not be a dream, and endless confrontation need
not be our only reality. Surely, the triumph of peace, true peace, will be
the triumph for all people in the Middle East and for all generations to
come.
In order to reach it there is a clear cut imperative. Peace needs an
unshakable commitment - both ethical and political - that has to be assumed
by the regional leadership for the sake of future generations.
The peace vision has to be free from the throes and vicissitudes of
yesterday and nurtured by the apogee of tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. President.