Remarks by PM Netanyahu to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

A few weeks ago, we began direct negotiations on the final status issues. Now I'm eager to continue them, and eager to complete them. We've been calling for direct negotiations for 18 months. We have asked that these negotiations be conducted without preconditions, so we were very pleased when they began, and hope they'll continue without preconditions.

There are two things that I think made a great impression on me. One is the commitment of President Obama and Secretary Clinton to assist in the process in our quest for peace. And I share that commitment. We want peace. We know what peace would mean for our people. We know what it would mean for our neighbors. We know what it would mean for the region. The second thing that made an impression on me was what I said a minute ago: the fact that there was an understanding that we don't turn our disagreements into preconditions for talks. Because if we do, we'll never get anywhere. After all, we've been trying to solve this conflict and it's being going on for over 90 years, and we disagree on quite a number of things. Believe me, every day the Palestinians do things I don't like: whether it's incitement in the schools or media, or an international campaign that they back to delegitimize Israel.

Just yesterday, a Palestinian Authority court ruled that the sale of Palestinian land to Israelis is punishable by death. You know, all these things do not square well with me, and my colleagues often question why is it that we're staying in the talks. Some have even questioned why I'm having peace talks with President Abbas when half of the Palestinian people are controlled by Hamas, which is a terror organization that openly calls for our destruction. I'm mentioning all of these things - and there are many others that I could raise here - because these could afford me many reasons to walk away from the table. But I haven't walked away from the table. I want to give these talks a chance to succeed. And I very much hope that President Abbas will have the same attitude. I expect him to sit down with me even when we disagree, and to work with me through those disagreements in a sincere effort to forge an historic compromise, which I believe is possible.

We got rid of the preconditions before the talks. We can't reintroduce them five minutes after the talks begin. We have to sustain a negotiation. My goal is to reach a framework agreement with the Palestinians within one year. I brought that up first because I believe it's doable. Now I know there are many skeptics, but the skepticism that I hear is less about the timeframe - that is a year - and more about whether the Palestinian leadership is truly prepared to make an historic compromise that will end the conflict once and for all. And again I stress - if I have such a partner who is prepared to make an historic compromise, as I am, I think one year should be enough time to reach a framework agreement for peace.

For negotiations to succeed, we both have to meet. The two of us will have to meet face to face and discuss the major issues with a degree of discretion. I think we'll have to build a relationship of trust that will enable us to grapple with the very difficult challenges we face. I suggested one-on-one meetings every two weeks over the coming year, and thus far we've had very substantive discussions. We've agreed, as part of the idea of discretion, not to discuss the details of our discussions. But I can speak to you about the principles that are guiding me in these talks. I laid out two of those core principles - two foundations for a lasting peace - in my speech last year at Bar-Ilan University. And these two foundations of peace are recognition and security. Let me speak briefly about both.

First about recognition: It's time for the Palestinians to do something they have refused to do for 62 years. It's time for them to say yes to a Jewish state. Now what does it mean to recognize the Jewish state, or the nation-state of the Jewish people?

It means that the Palestinians recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in our historic homeland. I recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination and sovereignty. They must finally recognize the Jewish people's right to self determination and sovereignty.

And just as the Jewish state has granted Jews around the world the right to immigrate to Israel, a Palestinian state could decide to grant Palestinians around the world the right to immigrate to their state. But Palestinian refugees do not have a right to come to the Jewish state.

A Jewish state also means that no one has a right to carve out sub-states within the Jewish state. There are well over 1 million of citizens of Israel who are not Jewish. They have equal rights, civil rights, but they don't have national rights. They have a right to vote, to be elected, and to be full and equal participants in Israel's democracy. But they don't have a right to have their own separate state.

Why is this recognition important?

It's important because the Palestinian leadership must begin to make clear to its own people that they are making a permanent peace with the Jewish people, a people that has a right to be here, a right to live in its own state and in its own homeland.

Ultimately, there will be no getting around this issue. For someone who is prepared to make lasting peace with Israel, no statement could be simpler: I recognize Israel as the Jewish state, the state of the Jewish people.

Now, mind you I'm not demanding of others what I am not prepared to do myself. At Bar-Ilan University last year, I said I was prepared to recognize a Palestinian state. This is the essence of peace: the nation-state of the Palestinian people.

I think President Abbas has to decide. He cannot skirt the issue. He cannot find clever language designed to obfuscate or to fudge it.

He needs to recognize the Jewish state. He needs to say it clearly and unequivocally. He needs to say it to his own people in their own language.

Remember that famous commercial - Just Do It? I think for the Palestinian leadership, it's even simpler: Just Say It. Say that you recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Say that you recognize the Jewish state.

This is the first point, and I think this is the essence of the problem that we've been facing all these years, the failure or the refusal to recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The second problem we face is security - I'm going to speak briefly about that too.

We do not want a repeat of what happened after Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza. Those territories were turned into Iranian sponsored terror bases from which thousands of rockets were fired at Israel.

We have to ensure that we have solid security arrangements on the ground. We have to ensure that we can prevent the import of weapons from territories that we would vacate as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. And we have to make sure that we can address the potential threats to peace that will inevitably come. The first one you've seen - you've seen it in Lebanon, you've seen it in Gaza. These are the attempts - unfortunately successful in both those places - to smuggle a massive amount of weapons: rockets, missiles and other weapons from Iran to its proxies in the territories.

And then there are other threats: the threats of the reemergence of a potential Eastern front or from an internal change in Palestinian politics, and also there are other threats.

Let me give you an example of a country with which Israel had excellent relations - we had diplomatic ties, trade and economic ties - very robust - cultural exchanges, security ties, you name it - that country was called Iran. Overnight, however, our relationship changed.

What we need to understand is that a peace agreement by itself does not preserve the peace. We need to understand that the only peace that will hold in the Middle East is a peace that can be defended.

I have made clear that in order to defend the peace we need a long-term Israeli presence on the eastern side of a Palestinian state - that is, in the Jordan Valley. I have also said that while I respect the Palestinians desire for sovereignty, I am convinced that we can reconcile that desire with our need for security.

I have to say another thing: I don't believe that under these circumstances, international troops will do the job. Experience has shown that countries seldom sustain a long-term military commitment abroad in places where their troops are subject to constant attacks. This is not true in places where those troops aren't subject to constant attacks, but you can find many examples of these two kinds of deployments, and I leave it to your imagination. You can see what happened to the international forces that were placed, for example, in Gaza before Hamas took it over. There were European forces; they were called EU BAM, and when the Hamas took over Gaza, and the fighting started, these forces simply disappeared. They evaporated very quickly.

We live in a very tough neighborhood, and the peace will be tested constantly. The only force that will be prepared to sustain a long-term commitment is a force that is absolutely convinced that it is defending its own people from attack. And if we have learned anything from history, it's that the only force that can be relied on to defend the Jewish people is the Israeli Defense Force.

I've said that security arrangements can be reassessed over time, but to say that an Israeli long-term presence is unacceptable from the start, it is simply - I believe - not a serious proposition. It's a proposition that ignores all the experience we've had since the peace process began. It ignores the rise of Iran. It ignores the rise of rocket warfare. It ignores reality. And I think there is a serious problem with it logically. I'm not telling you where Israeli sovereignty will be and will not be, but if I take examples from other countries which have the placement of troops from other lands there, even for many years, nobody has seriously said that because Germany and Korea and Japan had U.S. troops on their soil, this was seen as an affront to their respective sovereignties. Quite the contrary. So the principle that is announced, I think is questionable, and more importantly, it's adaptation to reality, to the reality that we live in, is also questionable. I think it's just not compatible with the reality that has happened.

I think we've made enormous strides for peace inside Israel. I think the political landscape has changed. I think that we have shown great flexibility for peace, but at the same time, Israel has shown a great concern and even a hardening of its positions on security and I think this is warranted by the experiences we've had in the last decade in which the territories that we vacated were taken up by Iran's proxies from which they targeted us with suicide attacks and rocket attacks. We want peace, but it has to be a secure peace and it there have to be solid security arrangements on the ground to ensure the peace - for us and for our Palestinian neighbors, and maybe for the entire neighborhood.

I believe there's a way that we can resolve these difficult issues. I don't think they're insurmountable. I believe that an agreement is possible.

But to succeed, President Abbas and I have to be willing to stick it out even when we disagree. We have to be willing to address the issues with an open mind.

We have to be flexible and creative in finding compromises that are anchored in a realistic assessment of what is possible. I expect Palestinian flexibility, not the same positions they've held over the last 10 or 15 years, but a real change just as we've shown that change, because I think you get peace when both sides move to that point in the center where peace is possible.

And we always have to keep in mind the enormous benefits to both our peoples that would come if we can defy the skeptics and forge an historic peace. If it's up to Israel, that's going to happen. If it's up to me, it will happen.

Let me wish all of you a good year, a Gmar Tov and a chag sameach. Shana tova, a year of peace.

Thank you.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2010/PM_Netanyahu_Conference_Presidents_20-Sep-2010.htm

Netanyahu: "Fermiamo le colonie Ma l'Anp riconosca lo stato ebraico"

A due giorni dal vertice israelo-palestinese di Sharm el-Sheikh (Egitto) e mentre si registrano tre vittime palestinesi dell’artiglieria israeliana a Gaza, il premier Benyamin Netanyahu ha promesso di congelare le colonie in cambio del riconoscimento dello Stato ebraico da parte dell'Anp.

Per Netanyahu se da parte palestinese ci sarà il necessario impegno, «entro un anno si potrà raggiungere un accordo-quadro che faccia da fondamento ad una soluzione di pace». Israele insiste per essere riconosciuto dalla controparte palestinese come "Stato ebraico": una formula che esclude che profughi palestinesi possano stabilirsi un giorno nel suo territorio.

Sulla controversa questione della moratoria nei progetti edili ebraici in Cisgiordania - che dovrebbe concludersi a fine settembre - Israele non intende accettare imposizioni dall’esterno, ma, ha sottolineato il premier,«non c’è nemmeno l’obbligo di costruire tutte le 19 mila unità abitative che abbiamo sul tavolo». I dirigenti palestinesi parteciperanno a Sharm el-Sheikh al vertice con il presidente Hosni Mubarak e con il Segretario di stato degli Stati Uniti Hillary Clinton.

Intanto vi è stata un’improvvisa escalation di violenza ai margini della striscia di Gaza. In mattinata vi è stato il lancio di due razzi palestinesi verso il Neghev, il quinto attacco del genere negli ultimi giorni. In giornata poi vi sono stati scontri a fuoco tra una pattuglia di confine israeliana e miliziani palestinesi che hanno sparato anche colpi di mortaio. Secondo fonti palestinesi, è entrata in azione pure l’artiglieria di Israele che a Gaza ha centrato un’abitazione uccidendo un anziano, un ragazzo di 14 anni e una terza persona. Ci sarebbero anche tre feriti.

Per Netanyahu «Noi diciamo che la soluzione dei due Stati per i due popoli, significa che occorre puntare a due Stati nazionali: uno Stato nazionale ebraico ed uno Stato nazionale palestinesè». «Con mio dolore non ho ancora sentito dai palestinesi la frase: "Due Stati per i due popoli". Si limitano a parlare di "due Stati"...». Invece, ha insistito Netanyahu, occorre che i palestinesi riconoscano che «Israele, che pure garantisce diritti civili eguali indistintamente per tutti i suoi cittadini, non è solo uno Stato per gli ebrei che vi abitano, ma uno Stato per gli ebrei in generale, per il popolo ebraico».

La sua posizione, comunque, è molto contestata dagli stessi israeliani. I coloni israeliani sono pronti a dichiarare «guerra» al primo ministro Benjamin Netanyahu. Per il Jerusalem Post il problema è l'intenzione di offrire un congelamento parziale delle costruzioni agli insediamenti ai palestinesi quando il 30 settembre scadrà la moratoria concessa dal suo governo alla fine dello scorso anno. Lo riporta il . «Se Netanyahu continuerà il congelamento, considereremo ciò come una dichiarazione di guerra» ha detto Gershon Mesika, capo del Consiglio regionale della Samaria. «Faremo tutto il possibile per rovesciare il primo ministro, perché dal nostro punto di vista non ci saranno differenze tra Netanyahu, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak e Balad».

Schierato con i coloni c’è il ministro delle Infrastrutture israeliano Uzi Landau, il quale sostiene che se continuerà la moratoria sarà a rischio il processo di pace con i palestinesi, perchè Netanyahu perderà di credibilità. E «la credibilità è la chiave per il successo dei colloqui» di pace, ha detto Landau.

Fonti israeliane, citate da Haaretz, riferiscono però che Netanyahu è disposto a seguire la stessa linea adottata dal suo predecessore, Ehud Olmert, che nel 2007, prima del vertice di Annapolis, si era accordato con l’amministrazione Bush per un congelamento parziale nelle colonie in Cisgiordania. L’accordo prevedeva anche che Israele avrebbe potuto costruire nuove case senza limiti nei quartieri ebraici di Gerusalemme Est, ma non avrebbe invece costruito nei quartieri arabi. Sotto il governo Olmert, più del 90% delle costruzioni furono eseguite nei principali blocchi di insediamenti, Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion e Ariel.

Domani Netanyahu incontrerà il presidente palestinese Abu Mazen per il secondo round di colloqui diretti. Ci saranno anche il segretario di Stato Usa Hillari Clinton e il presidente egiziano Hosni Mubarak. I palestinesi hanno ribadito che se il congelamento non sarà prorogato usciranno dal negoziato di pace, riavviato il 2 settembre a Washington.

http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/esteri/201009articoli/58515girata.asp

I colloqui fra israeliani e palestinesi

Di fronte alla parola pace anche noi cercheremo di essere speranzosi, positivi. Di fatto ce ne sono alcune ragioni: la determinazione dell’amministrazione Obama ad ottenere un risultato; l’evidente passaggio di Netanyahu dal ruolo del politico a quello dello statista che con sguardo ampio sul Medio Oriente agisce anche in base al pericolo iraniano; e per Abu Mazen l’idea che la debolezza interna causata da Hamas possa essere curata solo dall’enorme supporto internazionale che la partecipazione al processo di pace gli può fornire.

Ma è impossibile fare finta di non aver mai visto lo spettacolo di pompa e circostanza offerto a Washington, impossibile dimenticare i tappeti rossi su cui hanno marciato con i leader protagonisti, anche i loro fallimenti. Se aveste chiuso gli occhi durante la cerimonia di Washington, avreste potuto credervi a Madrid nel ’91, sul prato della Casa Bianca nel ’93, a Wye Plantation nel ’98, a Camp David nel 2000, a Aqaba nel 2003, a Annapolis nel 2007... In tutte le occasioni, e la cronista non ne ha mancata una, fra strette di mano e sorrisi si è esaltato il ruolo della leadership «dei bravi», la speranza per «il futuro dei nostri figli», il «futuro di pace per due popoli destinati a vivere fianco a fianco».

Ogni volta l’illusione è stata la stessa, e il mondo ha spinto sempre sulla stessa strada: le rinunce territoriali di Israele avrebbero placato il mondo palestinese. Questo sentiero, che ha prodotto variegati ritiri, fra cui quello da tutte le città palestinesi e quello, unilaterale, da Gaza, ha visto il moltiplicarsi degli attentati. Lo spargimento di sangue è stato terribile proprio in conseguenza e a seguito delle trattative. La prospettiva della condivisione ha sempre moltiplicato il risentimento ideologico per la presenza ebraica sulla «ummah» islamica, e si è esacerbato, a volte in modo ridicolo, il diniego del fatto evidente che Israele non sia certo un’estraneo sulla terra divenuta cruciale proprio per la scoperta, quattromila anni fa, del monoteismo ebraico.

Ma Netanyahu ha preparato una sua strada. Ha portato il Likud e il suo governo a accettare la formula «due stati per due popoli», con grave rischio per la sicurezza ha tolto un gran numero di check point, ha promosso le riforme economiche del premier Fayyad, e ha compiuto il gran gesto del congelamento degli insediamenti. Ramallah è una bella città dove vale la pena vivere in pace; a Jenin, culla del terrore, è stato aperto un cinema multisala... Ma il comma di questo atteggiamento è il cambiamento strategico di Bibi, che a Washington ha posto due condizioni per la pace, mai state prioritarie: la sicurezza, ovvero la garanzia che un nuovo Stato Palestinese non diventi una succursale missilistica iraniana come Gaza, e che sia demilitarizzato; e il riconoscimento dello Stato d’Israele come stato del popolo ebraico. Abu Mazen ha subito risposto dicendo che non può accettare, e ha riproposto i suoi temi: l’occupazione, Gerusalemme, i profughi. Lui che è un profugo di Safed, non potrebbe fare diversamente.

Ma forse si tratta di una prima dura risposta di facciata, come la precondizione di riconfermare il congelamento per proseguire i colloqui. Anche su questo punto c’è già stato il no di Netanyhu. Ma lo stop alle costruzioni, l’ammissione dei profughi, il ritiro territoriale... tutto questo può essere frastagliato, negoziato, selezionato, per fasi, per zone, per tempi. C’è solo una cosa che deve essere scelta una volta per tutte, e Bibi l’ha capita bene: la decisione di accettare il proprio vicino. Abu Mazen non l’ha ancora fatto. Anche se usa duramente la sua polizia contro Hamas, lo dimostra in tante occasioni come quando ha recitato la sura del Corano per l’apoteosi dell’anima di Amin Al Hindi, il capo dell’eccidio di Monaco del ’72, quando undici atleti israeliani furono trucidati. O quando accetta che una piazza di al Bireh venga intitolata a Dalal Mughrabi, la terrorista che uccise 37 civili israeliani e ne ferì 71 su un autobus. Questo è il nodo: sicurezza e accettazione. Altrimenti i ragazzi palestinesi cresceranno nell’idea che sia la violenza contro gli israeliani la vera soluzione, e non un trattato di pace. Abu Mazen sa che gli ebrei hanno sempre abitato a Safed senza mai andarsene, nei millenni. Che hanno affrontato condizioni molto dure pur di non lasciare la loro terra. Forse non vuole rinunciare all’idea di tornare a Safed, ma sa di aver sempre avuto un appassionato, ben radicato coinquilino.

http://www.ilgiornale.it/esteri/i_colloqui_israeliani_e_palestinesi/04-09-2010/articolo-id=471048-page=0-comments=1

Barak to Haaretz: Israel ready to cede parts of Jerusalem in peace deal

Barak to Haaretz: Israel ready to cede parts of Jerusalem in peace deal
Ahead of start of direct peace talks in Washington, Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods will be part of a Palestinian state; a 'special regime' to govern holy sites.
By Ari Shavit





Ehud Barak has always vacillated between peace and security, dovishness and hawkishness, left wing and right wing. Even when he left south Lebanon, offered the Golan Heights to Hafez Assad and the Temple Mount to Yasser Arafat, he didn't do this as a bleeding heart. He always spoke forcefully, talked about the importance of sobriety. He always spoke about how Israel must survive in a jungle. It must do so even now, on the eve of the peace summit in Washington.



This time, however, Barak is surprisingly - even unusually - optimistic. Perhaps it is because he contributed quite a bit to the summit's unveiling. Maybe it is due to the fact that the summit is his political lifejacket. The defense minister believes in the 2010 peace summit even more than the principals taking part in it.

These past few weeks have been volatile, between the Galant document affair, the appointment of a new chief of staff, the meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah and the sit-down with Mahmoud Abbas. And perhaps more than anything else, Barak was feverishly preoccupied with trying to push Netanyahu across the Rubicon, trying to convince him that there is no choice, trying to convert Benjamin Netanyahu from Yitzhak Shamir to Menachem Begin. Did he succeed?

Up until the last minute, the man who has signed up to also take on the role of foreign minister doesn't know whether he succeeded or not. Perhaps this is why he has chosen to make unequivocal, remarkable statements to Haaretz.

Yet the last-minute-meeting that Barak held with Netanyahu prior to the premier's departure for the United States fueled his optimism. When Barak said what he said from his office at the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv, his sense was that there is a good chance that Netanyahu will surprise us.

Ehud Barak, is there any chance that you and Benjamin Netanyahu will succeed in reaching peace with the Palestinians now, the same peace which you did not succeed in achieving in 2000 and Ehud Olmert did not succeed in achieving in 2008?

"In the current reality that is encircling us, there are remarkable changes underway. Thirty years ago, the Arabs competed amongst themselves in spouting rejectionist slogans that were reminiscent of [the three "nos" at] Khartoum. Today the Arab states are competing amongst themselves in arguing over which peace initiative will be adopted by the international community. The same situation is taking place with us. When I returned from Camp David a decade ago, the most vocal critics of my "irresponsible" concessions were Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Take a look at where they are today. It doesn't mean that the task is a simple one. The gaps are wide and they are of a fundamental nature. But I believe that there is a real chance today. If Netanyahu leads a process, a significant number of rightist ministers will stand with him. So what is needed is courage to make historic, painful decisions. I'm not saying that there is a certainty for success, but there is a chance. This chance must be exploited to the fullest.

What are the principles of a peace deal that you believe can be agreed upon by the conclusion of the talks?

"Two states for two nations; an end to the conflict and the end of all future demands; the demarcation of a border that will run inside the Land of Israel, and within that border will lie a solid Jewish majority for generations and on the other side will be a demilitarized Palestinian state but one that will be viable politically, economically, and territorially; keeping the settlement blocs in our hands; retrieving and relocating the isolated settlements into the settlement blocs or within Israel; a solution to the refugee problem [whereby refugees return to] the Palestinian state or are rehabilitated by international aid; comprehensive security arrangements and a solution to the Jerusalem problem."

What is the solution in Jerusalem?

"West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods that are home to 200,000 residents will be ours. The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs. There will be a special regime in place along with agreed upon arrangements in the Old City, the Mount of Olives and the City of David."

Does the terror attack near Beit Hagai prove the extent to which the current efforts for peace are useless?

"This is a very serious incident, the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time. The Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet security service are acting with all their strength to get their hands on those who perpetrated the attack. There will be those who will say that this is the result of weakness and that Netanyahu must return from Washington because they are killing Jews. Yet in looking at the situation in a level-headed way, there is no doubt that this is an attempt to harm the start of the peace talks. So while we are steadfastly safeguarding our security and waging a determined campaign against the perpetrators, we cannot be deterred from working toward the success of the peace negotiations."