The Israel-Arab Reader (79 page)

Knesset members, we cannot choose our neighbors and our enemies, including the cruelest of them. We must deal with what we have: the PLO, which has fought against us and against whom we fought. Today we are looking for a way to achieve peace together with this organization. We can shut all the doors, cease any attempt to achieve peace. Morally, we are entitled not to sit at the negotiating table with the PLO, not to shake the hands of those who have wielded knives or pulled the trigger. We could have rejected the proposals of the PLO with disgust, in which case we would have unwittingly been among those responsible for the continuation of the vicious circle in which we have been forced to live so far: war, terrorism, and violence.

We chose to adopt another way, one which offers a chance and hope. We decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people to the negotiations in the framework of the peace talks. We have known, and we still know, what a heavy load we are carrying from the past. We took this step only after the PLO undertook, in its letters to the prime minister, the following: recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and a commitment to settle any future controversy by peaceful means and through negotiations. The PLO has undertaken to denounce and put an end to terrorism and violence in Israel, in the territories, and elsewhere. I want to say here that since the agreements were signed, the PLO has not carried out even one act of terrorism. The PLO has undertaken to enforce an end to terrorism and violence by its members and to punish the violators. The PLO has undertaken to renounce the clauses of the Palestinian Covenant that negate Israel's right to exist and the peace process and to bring about their formal cancellation by the pertinent institution.

In Washington, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres signed on Israel's behalf the declaration of principles agreement for the interim period only. This agreement, which permits the Palestinians to run their affairs, safeguards the following issues for Israel: Unified Jerusalem remains under Israel's rule, and the body that will run the lives of the Palestinians in the territories will have no authority over it. The Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will remain under Israel's rule without any change whatsoever in their status. The authority of the Palestinian council will not apply to any Israeli in the areas of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The IDF will continue to bear overall responsibility for the security of the Israeli settlements in the territories, the security of every Israeli staying in the territories, and for external security—namely, for the defense of the current confrontation lines along the Jordan River and for the Egyptian border. The IDF will deploy in all areas of Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District on the basis of these missions. All the issues pertaining to the permanent arrangement will be put off for the negotiations that will begin two years after the date stipulated in the agreement, while preserving the Israeli government's freedom to determine its positions regarding the permanent solution. This means that the declaration of principles leaves all the options open on this issue.

The agreement on the interim period in Gaza and Jericho will be implemented before the establishment of the elected Palestinian council, which will direct the affairs of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip. The council will be established only after we agree with the Palestinians about its structure, composition, and functions. The target date for elections is nine months after the declaration of principles goes into effect. Israel will regard the Gaza-Jericho First stage as a sort of test of the Palestinians' ability to implement the agreement on the declaration of principles.

I would like to repeat here what I said in Washington last week—and I quote: We are destined to live together on the same soil, in the same land. We, the soldiers who have returned from the battles stained with blood; we, who have seen our relatives and best friends killed before our eyes; we, who have attended their funerals and cannot look into the eyes of their parents and their orphans; we, who have come from a land where parents bury their children; we, who have fought against you, the Palestinians; we say to you today in a loud and clear voice: enough of blood and tears, enough. We harbor no hatred towards you. We have no desire for revenge. We, like you, are people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, to live with you side by side, in dignity, in empathy, as human beings, as free men. Today we are giving peace a chance and saying to you in a clear voice: enough, no more.

Mr. Speaker, distinguished Knesset, we have no intention or desire to hide the truth from the Knesset members and the Israeli public. In addition to the great advantages, the expected peace also harbors dangers. We are aware of these dangers and will do everything necessary to minimize them. At the same time, we believe the risks are calculated and will not harm Israel's security and existence. In any event, the might of the IDF—the best army in the world—is available for our use if, God forbid, we are faced with such a challenge. Today we are looking forward to the good chances, to days without worries and nights without fears, to a developing economy and a prosperous society. If and when the long-desired peace arrives, our lives will completely change. We will no longer live only by our swords.

On the eve of the New Year, after 100 years of violence and terrorism, after wars and suffering, today there is a good chance to open a new chapter in Israel's history. There is a chance for putting an end to tears. Flower buds and new horizons are opening up for the Israeli economy and society. Above all, I want to tell you that this is a victory for Zionism, which is now recognized by its most adamant and bitter enemies. There are chances for good relations with our neighbors, for an end to the bereavement which has afflicted our homes, for an end to war.

The PLO was the Arab party pressing most for coordination among Arab parties. We have also stood for coordination, because we thought intra-Arab coordination could propel the peace process forward toward its objectives and firm up the steps leading in that direction. So, meetings to coordinate Arab moves were held between the bilateral rounds. The foreign ministers of the Arab states involved in the peace process used to meet to assess the previous round and devise tactics that might advance the peace process in the next round. In addition, the Arab delegations that held talks with the Israeli teams in Washington used to meet every week or so to compare notes. Each party, then, had a picture of how and what the others were doing. Thus, the Arabs moved in tandem toward a common objective.

All of a sudden, we hear that a secret agreement was reached between some PLO members and Israel. It turns out that the agreement was worked out in many months of secret negotiations, when, meanwhile, Arab states were meeting at the levels I have noted. The Palestinian side was engaged in talks with Israel, without the coordination it had pressed for. To my mind, this is not their best option, nor the best route to the establishment of peace. Yet, we decided not to obstruct the agreement. We said this is up to the Palestinian people and their organizations. However, no one should expect us to wax enthusiastic over a secret agreement concluded behind our backs. . . .

What is the justification for the unilateral decision that has been taken? We are all together. We all participated in the preliminary talks that laid the foundations of the Madrid conference. But, suddenly, one party began following a separate path. As we have always done, we will continue to urge and hope that the Palestinian Arab people regain their legitimate rights.

I said we decided not to obstruct the agreement. I did not say we will obstruct those who oppose it. We will not obstruct it, although we are not satisfied with it, especially since it deviates from the consensus. . . .

It is not our specialty, responsibility, or right to repress those who oppose this agreement or those who oppose anything else. . . .

We must carry on with the peace process that began in Madrid. . . .

If I struck the deal Arafat did, I would come up against many real problems. This has nothing to do with how the masses feel about Arafat or me. If I were to conclude such a deal, the Syrian people would conclude I had compromised my cause and abandoned the cause of another Arab people. . . . You know, there are those who paid with their lives for individual actions the masses perceived as not being in their best interests. I don't want to lead you to think I have just one individual in mind, but more than one.

Arafat and I and every Arab know that the masses will conduct themselves according to their perception of their leaders. This is not to be interpreted as encouragement on my part for such a course of action; nor do I see it as a solution; if anything, it will further complicate matters. This is my personal opinion.

We have repeatedly said that, many times. The Syrian delegation to the negotiations said that, and I, too, have said that in some statements. I said three elements should be dealt with, although they are classified under the title of peace. They are withdrawal, peace, and security. We should discuss all these. Each side will attain what we all agree is its right, and which will provide security and peace of mind for it. We know peace has its requirements. We do not expect to take what we believe to be our right while others do not take theirs. We also believe we should take our rights and give others their rights. . . .

As long as this occupation remains, its results, including the boycott, must remain. I heard some statements by Israelis, including Peres while he was at the United Nations. In his statements, both in the U.N. General Assembly and to the press, he says, effectively: Why are you Arabs boycotting us? You have been saying the Palestine question is the core of the conflict. Here we are now, we have reached an agreement. It seems to me he is either insulting the intelligence of the others, specifically the Arabs, or he wants to fill the occasion, or the paper he is reading, with any words. Of course, we have said, and we still say, that the Palestine question is the core of the conflict. It is the core of the conflict in that it was the starting point of hostility. Hence, we called it the core of the conflict, but it is not the conflict. The Palestine question is the core of the conflict, but it is not the conflict. The Israelis know they have fought states. All the wars that were fought between Arabs and Israel were wars with states bordering Palestine. As a result of these wars, the core of the conflict that started in Palestine expanded to mean that every occupied Arab territory has become the core of the conflict.

I personally thought from the outset that the letter of invitation to the October 1991 Madrid peace conference would only lead to the consecration of Israeli control over Palestinian land and the Palestinian people. In my view, what happened now amounts to the consecration of this control.

Indeed, Israel did recognize the PLO, but only after stripping the organization of all that it represents. The PLO which Israel has recognized is one that has submitted to Israeli demands. It is no longer the PLO that embodies the Palestinian people's aspirations to independent statehood after a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and upholds the rights of the Palestinian refugees.

The Palestinian negotiator knows full well that Israel has no intention of withdrawing to the pre-June 1967 borders, and the proposed accord is therefore aimed at deceiving the Palestinian people.

Israel's intention to keep 20 percent of the West Bank in addition to East Jerusalem when a permanent solution is supposed to be in place five years down the line was spelled out during Palestinian-Israeli “security talks” held in London in late 1992. . . .

At another secret PLO-Israel meeting, this one in Cairo around two months ago, Israeli Environment Minister Yossi Sarid made clear to Nabil Shaath, an Arafat adviser, that even his own Meretz faction supported the official Israeli position on Jerusalem (that it will remain Israel's undivided capital) and that the Jerusalem issue can only be discussed from a religious angle. Hence East Jerusalemites who will take part in elections to the proposed Palestinian Council will do so as candidates or electors from other West Bank towns.

Those who concluded the accord with Israel, agreeing to stop the
intifada,
are banking on the Jewish state's good will. The accord treats the occupied lands as disputed territories and is a recipe for the establishment of a federation between the State of Israel and a Palestinian “entity.” PLO negotiators Abu-Mazen and Ahmad Krai (Abu-Ala'a) were told as much during the Oslo talks. That is how Israel plans to keep its army in the West Bank even if a Palestinian “entity” emerges there.

As to the refugee issue, it was decided at the last meeting in Oslo that the multilateral committee on refugees would deal with seven areas none of which features UN Resolution 194 calling for the repatriation or compensation of 1948 refugees. This is a step towards ending the refugee issue and striking it off the United Nations' agenda.

That is why we, the 1948 exiles, categorically reject what is happening. The PLO leaders who concluded the deal with Israel have all but buried the refugees' right of return.

This is why someone like myself opposes what is happening now— even though I do not belong to the school of rejectionism and fully belong to the school of political settlements. But settlements are based on balance, whereas the proposed solution is one imposed by Israel as the victor.

As Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's remarks after he recognized the PLO indicate, proponents of the Gaza-Jericho deal have been entrusted with the task of punishing anyone who resorts to violence. It is strange that a Palestinian leader should undertake to stop the resistance in, say, Nablus or Hebron (on the West Bank) which will remain under Israeli occupation for at least five years. Hence Gaza-Jericho advocates will be the allies of the Israeli security forces over the next five years.