Besieged by an unprecedented wave of terror and grim prospects for peace, Israel stands at a critical juncture. Jews the world over are looking to Israel’s political leaders to provide a vision for the future.
In this special series commissioned by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Israel’s top political leaders, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer this week, answer the vital questions: What next? Where does Israel go from here and what does that vision for the future look like?
Jerusalem (JTA) — For 20 months, Israel has been under a bitter and bloody attack, initiated by our Palestinian neighbors. We have paid a high price in casualties, solely because of our honest wish to live in peace with them, and because of our belief that they want the same.
The infrastructure of terror against Israel was established before this government took office. The main purpose of our national unity government was to achieve a cessation of violence and incitement as a vital and essential condition for the resumption of our efforts to achieve peace with security for our people.
I offered [the Palestinians] a practical proposal to end the violence, and reiterated our unwavering commitment to achieve peace. I proposed making a clear distinction between the general population seeking to live in peace with us, and the terrorists.
I suggested ways to ease their suffering and return to normal living conditions. I extended my hand in peace, and was met by a wave of acts of terror and violence. Still, we have not given up on direct dialogue to bring about an end to violence.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres has left no stone unturned in his efforts to find a partner for dialogue. I have personally hosted several Palestinian Authority officials, and reiterated our concrete proposals for a cease-fire and the resumption of political negotiations.
In talks with various world leaders, I presented our ideas for a step-by-step long-term interim agreement, and a permanent settlement possible only after the cessation of terror. We presented Israel’s honest wish for a peace that will bring honor, prosperity and security for both peoples.
Peace can’t be dictated
However, [Palestinian Authority President] Yasser Arafat … chose a strategy of terror and established a coalition of terrorist organizations. He assumed, and still assumes, that he will be able to defeat Israel and break our spirit. By way of blood and horror, he wants to force Israel into a unilateral withdrawal to the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and then press for the return of the refugees to undermine the very existence of the State of Israel.
But peace can only be attained once a cessation of violence is achieved and terrorism is uprooted. A Palestinian leadership must emerge willing to accept the primary responsibility of every regime to prevent the use of its territory for indiscriminate acts of violence and murder. Peace negotiations can commence and move forward only after terrorism has ceased.
Despite the extreme demands included in the resolutions of the conference of Arab leaders in Beirut, I welcome the fact that an important Arab leader such as [Crown Prince] Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has, for the first time, adopted the vision of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
We welcome the Saudi initiative and vision, but the details must be negotiated between the parties themselves. Peace negotiations cannot be dictated. They must be based on mutual respect and a genuine attempt to reach a compromise. In the absence of open dialogue between the parties, this initiative will remain devoid of any real content.
No party can enforce unilateral conditions. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 affirm Israel’s right to exist in peace, and within secure and recognized borders, free from any military threat, like any other nation in the region. These borders, and the way to ensure Israel’s security in the face of any military or terrorist threat, must be directly negotiated between the parties.
Israel cannot accept the return of Arab refugees to its territory, as it would effectively terminate the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Neither can Israel accept any solution that would divide Jerusalem and deny Israel full sovereignty over its 3,000-year-old capital.
What is the outline through which a comprehensive peace in the Middle East may be advanced?
Personally, I doubt it is possible to leap from the current violent conflict directly into a comprehensive permanent agreement that will bring a complete and final end to the conflict. Such an approach would rapidly lead us to a dead-end.
Only when [the Arabs] come to the realization that violence is not an option will we be able to achieve a real cease-fire. And only when the Arabs reconcile with the birthright of the Jews to have an independent Jewish state in their ancestral homeland can true, lasting peace be achieved.
It is from that point that I propose to move forward toward a long-term interim agreement, which will affect the character and development of relations between Israel and the Palestinians.
It is in this situation that the Palestinians will be able to build an independent society and rebuild their ruined economy. We can and are willing to generously assist them in preparing their people for peace and good neighborly relations. Such an interim agreement would put an end to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian population, those who wish to live in peace and prosperity.
The history of the political relations between Israel and the Arab states is proof of the viability of a gradual, step-by-step approach. We were in a state of war with the Egyptians. We went through five terrible wars. The war ended with an agreed cease-fire, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 338 and 339.
Since that cease-fire came into effect, not one bullet has been fired between the Israeli and Egyptian armies. Shortly afterwards, we proceeded toward long-term interim agreements, which led to the commencement of direct negotiations and finally to the peace treaty of 1979 between the two countries.
Peace with Egypt has been sustained because it was predicated on the solid foundations of peace with ironclad security arrangements as well as painful concessions. Although the situation with the Palestinians is more complicated, the outstanding issues are more difficult and the bitterness is greater, together, we can, I believe, move forward toward a better future for both our peoples.
Ariel Sharon is Israel’s prime minister. This piece was compiled for JTA from his recent speeches.
Loading ...