Peace
How can peace be achieved?
Peace can be achieved only through negotiations to bridge gaps and resolve all outstanding issues. For negotiations to be possible and for them to have a chance to succeed, Palestinian terrorism and incitement, supported by Arab countries, must be brought to an end. Israel has always been willing to compromise and all Israeli governments have been willing to make major sacrifices for the sake of peace. However, peacemaking requires concessions and confidence-building measures on both sides. Just as Israel is willing to address the rights and interests of the Palestinians, Israel has rights and interests that need to be addressed. When in the past, Israel met Arab leaders, like President Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, who spoke the language of peace to their own people and were willing to take concrete steps for peace, Israel reached agreements with them and peace was achieved. Only negotiations can lead to peace. Attempts by the Palestinians and the Arab countries to compel Israel to accept Palestinian demands or one-sided UN resolutions promoted by the Arab states will not bring the parties closer to peace. UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which all parties in the region accepted, provide an important outline for conducting negotiations on a permanent settlement. Israel has also indicated, provided certain important conditions are met, its readiness to implement the measures of the Roadmap. But the Roadmap will work only if the Palestinians fulfill their obligations, something they have not even begun to do, especially when it comes to dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and ending incitement, as required in the first phase of the Roadmap. Peacemaking requires the creation of a positive atmosphere, one that is free of terrorism and incitement, and one that promotes efforts to achieve mutual understanding. Israel had on many occasions taken steps to help improve Palestinian living conditions and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy. Israel has made and is willing to make in the future goodwill gestures as confidence-building measures - such as easing restrictions by removing road barriers, lifting closures, allowing Palestinian workers into Israel, and withdrawing from Palestinian towns. Israel is ready to take these steps provided that Israeli security is not harmed and that the Palestinians do not respond with terrorism. Positive steps taken by the Arab countries would also help generate a positive atmosphere, as would re-energizing the multilateral contacts and the Barcelona process, both of which seek to promote regional cooperation. Positive movement and cooperation on issues that affect the lives of all who live in the region would contribute psychologically to tackling the difficult political issues that need to be addressed and resolved. Finally, peace must mean the resolution of all claims and the end of the conflict. Once a peace agreement is reached, a new leaf must be turned and the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Israel's relationship with all its neighbors must be put on a new footing, one characterized by dialogue and cooperation, rather than by antagonism and confrontation. return to top
How does Israel view the Roadmap?
On May 25, 2003 the Government of Israel accepted the steps set out in the Roadmap in the hopes that this initiative could help achieve a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. However, the Palestinians have yet to live up to their obligations under the first phase of the Roadmap, primarily the "unconditional cessation of violence." The Roadmap is a performance-based guide that was formulated by the members of the Quartet - the United States, the European Union, Russia and the UN. Israel's acceptance of the Roadmap was accompanied by comments that Israel considers integral to its implementation. The United States committed itself to fully and seriously addressing these comments. Moreover, Israel attaches importance to President Bush's June 24, 2002 vision for achieving peace, as expressed also in the Roadmap. In that speech, President Bush emphasized that achieving the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace requires, as a critical first stage, Palestinian reform and an end to Palestinian terrorism. Israel's acceptance of the steps of the Roadmap is yet another expression of Israel's willingness to extend its hand toward peace. Indeed the Government's decision reflects a readiness to make profound compromises in order to end the conflict, provided these compromises will not endanger Israel's security in any manner. Furthermore, subject to security conditions, Israel desires to contribute to the improvement of Palestinian life and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy. However, the Roadmap itself and Israel's willingness to move forward require that the Palestinians live up to their obligations at each and every phase. Of critical significance is the requirement in the first phase of the Roadmap that the Palestinians undertake an "unconditional cessation of violence" by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, confiscating weapons, and arresting and disrupting those involved in conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere. The Palestinians must also end incitement. By its own acceptance of the Roadmap, the Palestinian Authority undertook an obligation to end terrorism and incitement in the manner required by the Roadmap. Israel has emphasized that these conditions are essential before progress can be made on moving into the second phase of the Roadmap. The Government of Israel considers its comments to the Roadmap, along with the American commitment to address these commitments, as key to the implementation of the Roadmap. In addition to Israel's comments regarding the necessity of Palestinian action against terrorism and incitement, the comments also state Israel's non-acceptance of the Palestinian claim regarding the return of refugees. In accepting the steps set out by the Roadmap, the Government of Israel clarified that the resolution of the issue of the refugees will not include their entry into or settlement within the State of Israel. return to top
What is Israel's position on a Palestinian state?
Israel has no desire to rule over the Palestinians. While this is an important aspect of Israel's position on the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel's security and other vital rights and interests also play an important role. Under no circumstances could Israel accept the establishment of a terrorist state on its borders. In his speech at the June 4, 2003 Aqaba Summit meeting with U.S. President Bush and then Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, Prime Minister Sharon had the following to say about a Palestinian state: "Israel, like others, has lent its strong support for President Bush's vision, expressed on June 24, 2002, of two states - Israel and a Palestinian state - living side by side in peace and security. The government and people of Israel welcome the opportunity to renew direct negotiations according to the steps of the roadmap as adopted by the Israeli government to achieve this vision." It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state. … We can also reassure our Palestinian partners that we understand the importance of territorial contiguity in the West Bank, for a viable, Palestinian state. In this same speech, Prime Minister Sharon emphasized that "there can be no peace, however, without the abandonment and elimination of terrorism, violence and incitement." Not only is this a fundamental condition that has been stipulated in detail in the first phase of the Roadmap, but without its fulfillment, the establishment of a Palestinian state would mean the establishment of a terrorist state along Israel's borders, and that would be unacceptable. Any discussion on the creation of a Palestinian state should concentrate on the nature of that state. Its parameters, including final borders, are to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Other elements are also critical to Israel's security. Efforts towards establishing a Palestinian state must take Israel's rights and vital interests into account, especially on matters of security, so that there can be peace and stability in the region. return to top
Why is Arafat not a partner for peace?
At the start of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians in 1993, Yasser Arafat gave an explicit pledge to abandon terrorism and to commit to the principle that the conflict can only be resolved through negotiations. In the ten years since then, over 1100 Israelis have been murdered in acts of terrorism (over 900 of them since September 2000). Arafat is directly to blame for this terrorism and for the grievous damage the violence has done to the peace process. In his letter of September 9, 1993 to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat pledged that "the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" and that the PLO commits itself "to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations." The entire peace process had been predicated on Arafat's promise. Regrettably, he decided to breach that commitment and pursue a strategy of armed struggle. Palestinian terrorists attacked Israelis even during the early years of the peace process, despite the progress being made in negotiations. Finally in September 2000, following Arafat's rejection of the peace settlement offered by U.S. President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Barak at Camp David in July of that year, Arafat chose to intensify the violence, a decision confirmed in statements made by Palestinian officials. On December 6, 2000, the semi-official Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam reported as follows:
Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of Communications, Imad Al-Falouji, confirmed that the Palestinian Authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current Intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself. Mr. Falouji went on to state that Arafat launched this Intifada as a culminating stage to the immutable Palestinian stance in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount."
Yasser Arafat's personal involvement in terrorism is clear. Not only has he done nothing to stop terrorism, but he has aided and abetted it, using it as a tool to pressure Israel. Arafat has signed the checks that fund terrorist groups and their activities, approved the smuggling of arms (as was so dramatically seen with the arms shipment found aboard the Karine A in January 2002), and shielded wanted terrorists in his own headquarters. Significantly, Arafat's own faction, Fatah (the Al-Aksa Brigades), and his special bodyguard unit, Force 17, have actively engaged in terrorism.	Suicide bombing of bus no. 14 in center of Jerusalem (11 June 2003)
Since 1993, Arafat has used the language of jihad (holy war) in many of his speeches and declarations. Consistently finding excuses for terrorism (even while paying lip service to condemnations of it) and by attempting to co-opt Hamas and other terror groups (rather than dismantling them as required, for example, by the Roadmap) - Arafat shows that he has no intention of ending terrorism. Arafat has proven, time and again, that he cannot be trusted, that his commitments are without value, and that he will not deliver when it comes to his promises. But, beyond that, Arafat has failed his own people. His rejection of the offers and concessions made by Israel at Camp David in the summer of 2000 blocked the fulfillment then of Palestinian aspirations within the context of a peace agreement with Israel. Nearly three years later, Arafat's undermining of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) which led to Abbas' resignation in September 2003 caused major damage to efforts to advance the Roadmap that would potentially have fulfilled international aspirations to promote the peace process. Moreover, the rampant corruption within the Palestinian Authority, the disappearance of millions of dollars and euros into the pockets of Arafat and his cronies, and his refusal to carry out genuine reform of the Palestinian Authority - demonstrate that it is not the Palestinian people's interest that he has at heart, but Arafat's interest. Israel is prepared to negotiate with any Palestinian leader who lives up to the Palestinian obligations and commitments that are vital to a successful peace process, first and foremost - fighting terrorism and ending incitement that nurtures hatred and violence. For many years, Israel hoped that Arafat was that kind of leader, but the last three years especially have shown that he is not. Israel has no intention of telling the Palestinians whom they should choose as their leader. However, Israel has no obligation to deal with one who has shown repeatedly that he cannot be trusted and whose word means nothing. Israel is interested in a genuine peace process with a partner who will work for peace. Israel is not interested in a futile and barren exercise that will ultimately yield nothing but continued conflict and anguish. Israel desires a genuine partner for peace. Arafat is not that partner. return to top
How does incitement harm peace?
There is a direct connection between anti-Israeli and antisemitic incitement and terrorism. The incitement and extreme anti-Israel indoctrination that is so pervasive in Palestinian society nurture a culture of hatred that, in turn, leads to terrorism. The many attempts to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict are known, not coincidentally, as the peace process. The transition from a state of war to a state of peace is not the result of just a one-time diplomatic act of signing an agreement. Rather it is a process that continues over time, a process that demands a mutual effort to change positions, values, and the perception of the former enemy. It requires a transition to a new paradigm, the creation of a new state of mind. In a number of Arab countries and in Palestinian society the struggle against Israel takes center stage, and the call to destroy Israel has been at the core of their social-cultural-political ethos. In some Arab societies, this situation prevails to this very day. The Palestinians' vehement anti-Israel rhetoric has had a crippling impact throughout the region on efforts for peace. The intense coverage of the Palestinian perspective of events and incitement from Palestinian spokespersons have enflamed anti-Israeli sentiments in Arab countries, even influencing many pro-peace Arab states to downgrade their ties with Israel. Palestinian incitement causes violence in the short term, while in the long term it reduces the chances for peace and reconciliation between Israel and its neighbors.
The Palestinian education system, media, literature, songs, theater and cinema are mobilized for extreme anti-Israel indoctrination, which at times degenerates into blatant antisemitism. The incitement to hatred and violence is pervasive almost everywhere in Palestinian society: in nursery schools and kindergartens, youth movements, schools, universities, mosque sermons, and street demonstrations. This creates a culture of hatred and violence, which in turn provides fertile ground for terrorism and murder.	Brandishing toy guns at a Palestinian kindergarten graduation ceremony
Incitement against Israel has many faces. It begins by totally ignoring the very existence of the State of Israel. The maps in the schools and universities do not bear even the name of Israel, nor a large number of its cities and towns. Beyond that, the incitement extols the names and deeds of the suicide bombers, names football teams after them, and holds the terrorists up as models to be emulated. The incitement includes antisemitic cartoons that use the same kind of motifs and imagery that were used against the Jews during the Nazi era. The question that must be asked is what kind of future does the industry of incitement offer the next generation, which is growing up learning to hate. Will that young generation be capable of thinking in terms of peace, of good neighborliness, of tolerance and compromise? Can Palestinian society create the new state of mind that is needed for peace, which is more than just signing a peace treaty? One cannot ignore the intensity of the feelings that exist on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East. Feelings of deep anger and frustration exist on Israel's side as well. But, there is a huge difference between feeling anger and frustration, on the one hand, and promoting a culture of hatred, on the other. Unlike a large part of Palestinian society, Israeli society sees peace as the noblest of goals, its highest of aspirations on both the individual and national level. The desire for peace, for calm and for the normalization of day-to-day life is at the very center of Israel's being and culture. The thousands of songs, books, artistic works, and articles that have been written about peace in Israel, since the very establishment of the state, are too numerous to mention. Peace is an important core value, the greatest dream of every mother and father, the embodiment of the Zionist idea which envisages Israel living in peace and cooperation with all its neighbors. There is no legitimate reason why Israeli children learn about peace and coexistence in their schools, while in contrast Palestinian children are learning to honor the suicide bombers and jihad. Those who desire peace should educate for peace, and not promote hatred and murder. return to top
What should be the Arab world's role?
Israel desires peace with all Arab countries. Moreover, the Arab states have the potential to make an important and positive contribution to the peace process as well as change the face of the region for the better. But, for this to happen, they must stop supporting terrorist activities. They must cease incitement and antisemitic propaganda against Israel which do nothing but generate further hatred and provide a fertile ground for terrorism. The Arab world's policy of confrontation towards Israel should be replaced by a policy of dialogue. Palestinian and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East receive support, including funds and arms, from various Arab countries. Some Arab states, among them Syria, along with Iran back the most violent and dangerous terrorist organizations, such as Hizbollah. Syria hosts the headquarters and training bases of several Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This support must stop so that terrorism can be brought to an end. Only then will peace efforts have the chance to succeed. In recent years, the most extreme forms of anti-Israel incitement have been allowed to flourish in Arab countries, recalling earlier periods of the Arab-Israel conflict. There is a proliferation of antisemitic propaganda in mosques and in schools, in the state media and in academia. This racist material, similar to that used in ages past against the Jewish people - such as blood-libels and the so-called "Elders of Zion" - generates further hatred and provides a fertile ground for terrorism.
While there are no illusions that the Arab states will agree with Israel on the specific issues in dispute, they should agree that resolving those issues will involve compromises from both sides. Israel cannot be expected to accept ultimatums or "take-it-or-leave-it" propositions, such as the decisions of the Arab League's Beirut Summit in late March 2002, which were based on the Saudi initiative. Those decisions stated, in effect, that peace would be made with Israel only if Israel were to accede to all Arab demands and conditions; Israel's rights and interests were totally ignored as was the need for negotiations and compromise to resolve all outstanding issues.	Leaders of Egypt, the U.S. and Israel clasp hands at Israel-Egypt peace treaty ceremony (26 March 1979)
Israel believes that the way towards peace requires using all appropriate venues for dialogue and working for regional cooperation. The Barcelona Process (which envisages European-Mediterranean cooperation) and multilateral talks on such subjects as water, refugees, arms control, environment and economic development should be reinvigorated. In this way, issues that affect the lives of all who live in the region can be addressed. That, in turn, would create a positive atmosphere that would enhance efforts to resolve the difficult political issues of the peace process. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan showed real leadership in making peace with Israel. Countries like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco (which also played a key role in promoting peace) can contribute by showing the rest of the Arab world the way to enter into peaceful and cooperative relations with Israel. return to top