Salam Fayyad and Ehud Barak (AP)
The 10th annual Herzliya Conference on the Balance of Israel’s National Security came to a close on Wednesday. The four-day conference brought together leading political and security figures from Israel and the international community. It focused on the most pressing issues facing Israel and the region, and included 24 panels with governmental and non-governmental speakers. Below are some of the most interesting and relevant statements from the conference.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Herzliya address, February 3, 2010:
“I have a basis to hope that in the coming weeks we will renew the peace process with the Palestinians without preconditions. I have been saying for quite some time that the international community recognizes the fact that Israel wants and is ready to renew the peace process. From the moment that this recognition has dawned on the key elements in the international community, the feasibility and practicality of this move has also come to fruition. … You need two to tango. In the Middle East, you need three, and only later can we continue to dance as a couple. … If there is a desire to begin a process, we will see the renewal of the process within the coming weeks.”
“That exercise we have embarked on related to getting ready for statehood was ascribed by some as a source of concern on the grounds that it is or represents unilateralism by the Palestinians. And I’m here to tell everyone that indeed it is—it is unilateral, as it should be, because it’s about building a Palestinian state, it’s about getting ready for Palestinian statehood, and the state that is being built here is a Palestinian state and if we Palestinians don’t build it, who is going to build it for us? This is not about declaring a state, it’s about getting ready for one. And the program we have embarked upon was not supposed to be in lieu of the political process, it was supposed to reinforce it. These two paths are mutually reinforcing. The political process path is absolutely necessary because that’s what’s going to bring about an end to the occupation. That involves negotiations with the help of the international community, with a key role played by the United States and has been for a long period of time, acting on its own behalf, on behalf of the Quartet and international community at large. …
“The path we’re taking … by mid-2011 … by then we will have amassed a critical mass of positive change on the ground consistent with the emergence of the Palestinian state, to where if the political process, the other track, will not have produced the end of occupation that we all desire, that critical mass or positive change on the ground consistent with the emergence of Palestinian state will exert so much pressure on that political process to produce the end of occupation … it’s been described as bottom-up … for it to succeed there is the top-down that is required in the sense of political horizon to give us, but also to give our partners in the international community who’ve been investing in this process, trying to make it happen, that sense of possibility, because like us they’re not interested in continuing to invest in a process—not only financially and economically but also politically and even morally—if they did not really get sense of possibility.”
“My feeling about the Middle East is that the weak will not be spared. Peace will not prevail as long as our neighbors seek to destroy us. However, as leaders it is our responsibility to do all in our powers to pursue peace. A Jewish democratic Zionist state will be secure only when we have peace with our neighbors. There are 12 million people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea—7.5 million Israelis and 4.5 million Palestinians. If there is only one political entity in this area it will eventually be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If that bloc of millions of Palestinians vote, then there will be a bi-national state, and if they don’t vote, then there will be an apartheid state. Neither is the Zionist dream.
“The circumstances dictate our paths. We don’t do the Palestinians any favor but rather this is our interest.”
“It is important that the Arab countries be involved in the process but in the end of the day only negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians themselves will solve the conflict and lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. It is in the interest of all players and especially the Israelis that the Arabs take a part in the process. I believe that if you ask Israelis now about only bilateral negotiations with the Palestinians … many would say that it’s a bad deal. … We are the strong side. We are the ones that are ‘giving.’ The [Palestinians] are the ones who are ‘taking.’ But if we are broadening the scope of negotiations and not only ‘give’ but also ‘get’ that’s one way to convince the public that it’s a good deal. That is without mentioning, of course, that peace with the Palestinians is in itself an Israeli interest. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, I believe that today there is no Palestinian leader that which will be able to make tough decisions on some of the major issues on the table without the support of Arab world. … No Palestinian leader will be able to take upon himself a decision involving the refugees without the support and the acceptance of the hosting countries.”
“The regional dimension … has always been a parcel of this peace process and many of us forget that even 20 years ago the Arab world stepped up to participate in the process in the Madrid Conference. … Back in 1992, Yitzhak Rabin, who we all know was not a founding member of Peace Now told then President Bush senior that he wanted peace with the whole Arab world because he perceived it as a solution to the long-term threats Israel is facing. … Regional peace is needed to free Sunni Arab hands from having to deal with this conflict and moving to deal the Shi’a challenge they are facing. The Arab Peace Initiative did not present an overnight change of heart but a strategic decision. …
“Retrospectively, what Clinton failed to do is bring the Arab world into the negotiations leading up to the Camp David summit. I was an ambassador to Egypt then and for example, we did not bring Egypt into the process. There are lessons to be learned. Number one is that under the right conditions your Arab neighbors will show up for a peace process as they did in Madrid, Casablanca, the Arab League Summit to vote on the Arab Peace Initiative etcetera. Thinking ahead, we should think of how to start and rebuild the dialogue Israel has had with its Arab neighbors in the 1990s so that they are not left until the end of the process but rather brought in at the beginning of the process to help form and create means by which to resolve the conflict.”
“Improving the Palestinian economy cannot act as an alternative to a political arrangement and cannot exist in political vacuum. That, despite it being a key and vital layer in the process, one which allows the nations to taste the fruits of peace: whilst still in the negotiations stage, and also creates a positive outlook. …
"Due to the atmosphere of lack of trust and doubts regarding any changes of moving ahead, which are felt on the Palestinian side and mostly among the Israeli public, I recommend ranking the projects for execution so that in the short term, the activity will have high visibility and the quick success stories will "fuel" the patience we need until long term projects are implemented.”
“I do not consider that I should accept as a fact that we are in a situation of absence of political progress. Despite that on this roundtable we will all agree that economy should pave the way for peace, nothing will substitute a political achievement. Nevertheless, do we have to wait for this political achievement to be done? Definitely not—we must not and we cannot. …Today we must help the Palestinians to achieve the shift to be less dependent on the European donors, and to help them to create their own economy by supporting the private sector.”
“President Obama made very clear, including in Cairo when he addressed the Muslim world, that the American connection with Israel is and will be unbreakable … he made very clear to countries around the world not to make any mistake about that … We have had some differences over how to pursue peace in this region but our goals have been essentially the same. We’re [engaging in this process] because this is in Israel’s interest as well as the interest of the United States.”
Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, inaugural ceremony, January 31, 2010:
“This conference is very interesting, listening to discussions about the threats we are facing but we all need to acknowledge it would have been better if we could speak about the peace process and end of conflicts and the possibilities we have to reach agreements with our neighbors. It would bring us economic advantages not because of increased trade with our neighbors whose markets are small. The difference will be in the level of confidence and security of investors in Israel. … Even though we often speak about investors from abroad, the fact is that most investors in Israel are Israelis. The improvement in the security situation of the market will have a great impact on both Israeli and foreign investors desire to invest in our market. We managed to grow at a rate of five percent for five years between 2003 and 2008. That was without peace agreements. One can ask ‘if we managed to grow so fast without peace, what do we need peace for?’ but I have no doubt in my mind that under conditions of peace we will be able to grow at a rate bigger than five percent and closer to six and seven percent.”
Most of the quotes were translated or transcribed by Middle East Bulletin.
