Prospects for Peace

During the last several months, our relations with the Palestinians have suffered severe deterioration, partly irreversible. We thought that most of the events were behind us. We thought that most of the disturbing images would not repeat themselves. But some of the Palestinian leadership, by their actions and behavior, have shown a loss of all their humanity. Over the previous seven years we had come a long way towards them. They achieved successes like they never had before, during the entire history of their national life. We will never follow in their steps. We will never dare, not in our worst, wildest dreams, to take the road that they have been taking for the last few months, for example, the lynching of the two innocent soldiers who lost their way, gunshots towards a school bus carrying children to school in the morning, and the severe incident in which a person who works in Israel, earns his living in Israel, an adult, a father of five, takes a bus with the sole purpose of running over people and destroying the lives of eight families.

The Palestinians try to create the impression that the conflict between us and them is a conflict between us and the Muslim world, between us and the Arab world. There is a political argument between us and the Palestinians. First of all, it is not an argument with the Arab world. I would like to take this opportunity to call upon President Mubarak and King Abdullah to return their ambassadors to Israel. Ambassadors are mostly needed in times of tension. Especially during this difficult period, ambassadors could fulfill a very positive and constructive role in an effort to settle the disputes. Their absence from Israel, due to decisions taken by the Egyptian and Jordanian heads of states, not only makes it even harder for them to fulfill their tasks, but they are also trying to turn this conflict into one between us and the Muslim world.

Let me tell you, with all the authority invested in me, in the name of the State of Israel, on behalf of all political parties, on behalf of all past and future Israeli governments – we will safeguard the status of Islamic sacred places, under all circumstances, and we have an irreversible, basic commitment towards this, irrespective of any future developments in the Middle East.

We will keep the status of the Islamic sacred places, we will keep the status of Muslims, we will ensure the freedom of religion for Muslims, the same way we request freedom of religion for Jews, and we will strictly respect the status of Muslims due to the special sensitivity of this matter in the Middle East. For the first time in two thousand years, there is freedom of religion for the three monotheistic faiths.

The Temple Mount is under dispute. It shouldn’t be so. It is a sacred place for the Muslims, but also for the Jews. The Temple Mount is the most sacred place for the Jewish world, in Jewish history. And I hereby repeat and stress and clearly declare: there is no danger for the Al-Aqsa mosque. We would not dare and we do not have any thought, God forbid, to harm the status of the mosques in any way. We will continue to keep the status of Al-Aqsa as a holy place to Islam, as it is our duty to keep its special place in the history of nations n the Middle East.

I do not see any religious issues concerning the Temple Mount.

During the last 30 years, since the Six-Day War, Muslims have enjoyed the freedom to do whatever they want on the Temple Mount, with regard to religious matters. We have never interfered with any decision or action of the Muslims on the Temple Mount.

On the other hand, although it is the holiest place for the Jewish people, there is a religious interdiction for Jews to go to the Temple Mount. Not for political or for security reasons, but for religious reasons, are Jews forbidden to step onto the Temple Mount. On the one hand, the Muslims have full and absolute freedom of religion on the Temple Mount, while on the other hand, Jews are bound by a religious halachic interdiction to ascend to the Temple Mount. This formula can continue to function for thousands of years to come, and I cannot see why the Palestinian Authority suddenly found the need to turn this matter into a disputed issue, obviously stirring a strong opposition in Israel.

We cannot afford to transfer sovereignty and an-nounce that sovereignty on the Temple Mount belongs to the Muslims, because the Temple Mount is the holiest place of all for the Jewish people. But since Islam does as it pleases on the Temple Mount, why do they need to be concerned or worried about anything?

Take, for example, the Patriarchs’ Cave. The Machpelah Cave is a holy place both to Jews and Muslims. We have reached logistical arrangements to ensure coexistence at the Patriarchs’ Tomb as well. And so, Jews pray at the Patriarchs’ Tomb, Muslims pray at the Patriarchs’ Tomb, and there are no conflicts. The organizational arrangements are acceptable to Judaism and Islam as well. Condi-tions on the Temple Mount are even easier than at the Patriarchs’ Tomb in Hebron, due to the Jewish religious interdiction, and it is not appropriate to turn the issue concerning the Temple Mount into an argument between Islam and Judaism, for the simple reason that it is not so.

It is obvious that we cannot accept the transfer of sovereignty of the Temple Mount to Islam, because at stake is the holiest place indeed of the Jewish people.

During the last several months of conflict, the Palestin-ians have achieved nothing. On the contrary, they have suffered great damages. We have also suffered severe damages, but so have they, and therefore, I cannot see what benefits there are in the continuation of the Palestinian struggle from their point of view. There are signs of anarchy, their governmental systems are crashing, and municipal and national services are not being provided. There is no governmental presence of the Palestin-ian Authority, and, as time goes on, the Palestinian Authority’s capability to rule, as well as that of its chairman, Yasir Arafat, will continue to diminish. Arafat has difficulty today in doing things he could have done months ago, and whatever he can do today, he will have difficulty in doing a few months from now, if this state of anarchy becomes more severe.

But Yasir Arafat can still rule. He has all the means of installing order in the areas under the Palestinian Auth-ority. He’s got the capacity to rule over 97 percent of the Palestinian population already under his authority and jurisdiction. And as time goes by, gangs of militia are forming and aspiring to independent action. Today, these militia are still abiding by his rule. I do not know what will happen in the next few months, whether they will continue to act independently against Israel or not.

The Palestinian Authority has suffered irreversible economic damages during the last few months. Unemploy-ment has grown to almost 50 percent of the population. There is growing poverty. In the first six months of the current conflict, over 300 died and thousands have been injured among the Palestinians, despite the fact that we did not use all in our power in order to suppress the intifada, and that we responded only to a reduced number of shooting incidents initiated by them against us.

In the first six months of the conflict, the Palestinians opened fire on over 4,000 occasions with intent to kill. It is a miracle that we only had a reduced number of casualties. We have not reacted to most of the attempts to kill us, out of responsibility and sensitivity. And, by the way, the over 4,000 shooting incidents initiated by them against us were directed towards places in areas under Israeli control.

More important, Yasir Arafat has not made any political gains. He has not managed to gather international public support in his favor. On the contrary, among international public opinion, there is more and more criticism of the Palestinian Authority.

In my view, for as much as I can be objective, the worst thing that has happened to Yasir Arafat over the last few months is the fact that he is losing more and more of the trust of Israeli citizens. He is losing the support and sympathy that he had gained among Israelis. More Israeli citizens are doubting and wondering whether we really have a partner for peace. And you should know, that in a democratic country like Israel, the basic condition for any agreement is wide public support, the backing by Israeli citizens of the political process.

If Israeli citizens lose their trust in Yasir Arafat, in the Palestinian Authority, in the peace process with the Palestinians obtained with great efforts since 1993, we might find ourselves faced with an impasse.

Since 1993, Israeli society has known ever-growing severe internal conflicts. Up until September 2000, Israeli citizens had accepted the peace process, had recognized the Oslo accords as legitimate, had supported Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. If there should be an escalation between Israel and the Palestinians, and should there be a military conflict, it would inflict great damage upon Israel, but it would bring a catastrophe upon the Palestinians. Both sides would suffer severe, irreversible damage.

I say this again, with all measure of objectivity I can take upon myself, that, even if an independent Palestinian state should ever arise, such an independent state would not be viable in conditions of military and economic conflict with the State of Israel. An independent Palestinian state would only be viable on one condition: it should exist peacefully, without any security tensions, without military and economic conflict, and in an environment of economic and security cooperation with the State of Israel. These are the conditions for the existence of an independent Palestinian state. Economic and security cooperation is necessary to ensure that this independent authority would become an independent state; otherwise, it would not survive for very long.

My words should not be perceived as a threat, but as a fact, as part of the reality of the Middle East. Should there be an escalation, you should know that, in Israel, there would be growing opposition to any further concessions in favor of the Palestinians. Today, we are still willing to make great concessions to the Palestinians in order to reach a peace agreement. But should there be an escalation, and should we lose our trust, we will find it very difficult to make any strategic concessions.

Anwar Sadat, in Jerusalem, on his first visit to Israel, many years before the signing of the peace treaty with us, said: "No more bloodshed." This is how Anwar Sadat gained the sympathy of Israeli citizens. Thus it was made easier for the Israeli government to make strategic concessions to Egypt because they trusted Anwar Sadat.

But we are faced now with a leader who, every week, threatens us with a renewal of terror and who reminds us every week that he has other options in his relations with Israel. In this way, he loses our trust, and, as time goes on, it will be more and more difficult for Israelis to accept making strategic concessions, which we are still willing to make today. I believe that we and the Palestinians have common interests. There is a meeting point of common interests between the Palestinian Authority and the government of Israel, conditioned by a cessation of terrorist actions – a return to the conditions we had before September 2000. It will then be possible to return to political negotiations in order to find the most appropriate formula for peace.

At the moment, our shared interest is to stop the escalation. To my great regret, Yasir Arafat is showing neither leadership nor responsibility, and no courage or genuine will for peace. His extremist declarations give legitimacy to criminal acts. He has not agreed to condemn criminal acts. If he did, that would give us a sign that he takes a stand against terrorism. Yasir Arafat must appear on Palestinian television and call upon all the Palestinians to stop the bloodshed, something he hasn’t done in all the years since 1993.

Palestinian religious leaders must call in all the mosques of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria for all Palestinians to stop the bloodshed. They must clearly state that killing and bloodshed are against the Qur’an. I am certain that the Qur’an is against bloodshed, against the killings perpetrated by the Palestinians during the last few months.

Yasir Arafat complains on every international stage about the difficult economic situation. In Davos, Paris, and Turkey, he appeared and complained that Israel is starving the Palestinian population. Am I to bear more responsibility for the distress among the Palestinian population than Yasir Arafat?

We allow the Palestinians to work in Israel out of concern for their economic situation. Yasir Arafat is the one who shows indifference to the economic distress of the Palestin-ian population. Otherwise, how could one explain the fact that we allow Palestinians to come and work here – out of concern for their economic situation – while he takes no steps to prevent them from committing terrorist acts?

We hold nothing against the Palestinians who wish to come to Israel to work and make a living. However, we can no longer allow the lives of Israeli citizens to be endangered. The lives of Israeli citizens cannot be put at risk, even if we are concerned with the Palestinians’ economic difficulties earning their living.

If Yasir Arafat is indeed concerned with the Palestin-ians’ economic distress, he should fight terrorism so that we can allow more Palestinians to come to Israel and be able to support their families in a decent manner.

In September 2000, 120,000 Palestinians were employ-ed in Israel. Today, less than 50 percent of that number are working here. This is because we are concerned that they might commit terrorist acts. Two-thirds of the Palestinian Authority income is generated in Israel.

That was the situation in September 2000. There is no other country in the world, no other independent authority of which two-thirds of its income comes from an external source. The yearly budget of the Authority is approximately one billion US dollars per year. Out of this amount, the Israeli government transfers to the Palestin-ian Authority the amount of 650 million US dollars.

The problem in relations with the Palestinian Author-ity is that the PA has increased the level of terrorism. Our responsibility towards the peace process and for human lives is seen as weakness and indecisiveness. We do not wish the peace process with the Palestinians to crash. We do not want more bloodshed. This is why we do not respond militarily against terror with all the means we possess.

We do not hate Palestinians who wish to work in Israel to support their families. But Israeli lives will not be put at risk.

We have made great concessions in the past. We shall continue to make additional concessions in the future on one condition: not as a reward for terror, but at the negotiation table. We really do want peace. The Palestinians may make historical achievements if only they take steps against terror. If we lose our trust in the Palestinians as partners for peace, we might be faced with a new and terrible reality, and it will be extremely difficult to turn back the wheel. Part of the damage will be irreversible.

We must increase the unity and the links between the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora. I am indeed optimistic concerning developments in the Middle East.

I believe that there will finally be an awakening among the Arab leaders. They will finally understand that we are striving for peace. We have not given in to terror and wars. We have made great concessions to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority only through negotiations. They will understand their responsibility for the destiny of their people and that the peace process is an irreversible one.

There is no return to the difficult times of the 1950s and 1960s. Ever since the peace accord between Egypt and Israel, followed by the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, every Israeli government has stressed, even today, its commitment to the peace process.•

(Translated from the Hebrew)