| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
 |
Samuel R. Berger Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Plenary Session of the Board of Governors Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel, May 21, 2000 |
|
As delivered Mr. Chairman, Members of the Presidium, Governors of the University and, of course, President Rabinovich: Let me begin by thanking President Rabinovich for his kind words of introduction. Itamar Rabinovich is greatly respected, not only in his country, but also in ours, as a scholar and statesman, whose knowledge of his region, whose agile diplomacy not to mention his skills as a raconteur have given enduring momentum to the cause of peace in the Middle East. During his three years in Washington as Israel's Ambassador to the United States, President Clinton and I benefited continually from his wisdom and advice. We still do. I would like to thank Itamar for his extraordinary service to Israel, to the United States, and to our unique partnership. Peace seldom speaks for itself. One of the most common mistakes is to assume that the argument for peace is self-evident. It is not. For those who enjoy it, its benefits are taken for granted. For those who do not, its benefits are viewed as distant and illusory. My goal today is to talk about the imperative of a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors and particularly between Israelis and Palestinians, how I believe it can be achieved, and what the United States is prepared to do to help reach that goal. But before I discuss the path ahead, I would like to describe the journey already taken. For in itself, it is a remarkable story of peacemaking, and an instructive one. The resolution of history's great human conflicts has taken far longer than their onset, and there is a momentum to conflict that the desire for peace alone often fails to overcome. And yet, make no mistake: while it has been uneven, and often difficult, the historic process of peacemaking is precisely what we are experiencing in the Middle East. From the era of bloody and tragic wars--1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973--the region has turned to the era of engagement and peace-building--Camp David, Madrid, Oslo, Wadi Arava--historic moments at the White House. It is far from complete, but it is producing profound changes in the regional landscape once considered unthinkable. It is worth taking a step back to contemplate these changes, for distance can sharpen what proximity blurs. Israel and Egypt are at peace. Israel and Jordan are at peace. Israelis and Palestinians, step by difficult step, have been constructing an edifice of peace. And what once was beyond the realm of the unthinkable peace between Israel and Syria and between Israel and Lebanon is now conceivable. Consider this simple fact: with the exception of Iraq, Libya, and Sudan, every single Arab state has maintained or is maintaining some form of contact with the state of Israel. Prime Minister Barak probably has as much contact with President Mubarak, King Abdullah and Chairman Arafat as they have with other Arab leaders. I say this neither to claim that these changes are irreversible nor to assert that the state of peace is satisfactory; they are not. The goal must be a genuine reconciliation that results from a change in attitudes, and behavior, and personal relations, all of which is separated from a signed agreement by a large distance. And there remains far too much violence and bloodshed. The episode this morning is a stark reminder of this fact. It is unacceptable. But I recite the achievements of peacemaking as a useful and necessary reminder of the path already traveled and of the fact that those on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict who have struggled for peace have established a foundation upon which we can build. The challenge today is to secure, deepen and broaden the gains of the past several decades by achieving a comprehensive peace. The last six months have seen intensive efforts to reach an agreement between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon, and despite the difficulties, that door remains open. We cannot afford to give up on these tracks. But today, and in the months ahead, we have a historic opportunity that we must not allow to slip away--a chance to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is on that endeavor that I wish to focus my remarks. Some may question the relevance of the Palestinian track. They will argue that the Palestinians present no genuine military threat. That they can be contained. That the familiar cost of today's cease-fire is preferable to the uncertain cost of tomorrow's peace. I profoundly disagree. The Palestinian issue still resonates deeply from one end of the Arab world to the other. It feeds and will continue to feed the passions and the emotions of millions of Arabs. It embodies questions of identity, existence and security whose resolution is vital to broadening the orbit of regional peace. An Israeli-Palestinian peace would help to dry up the emotional and ideological well-spring of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thereby significantly de-legitimizing Arab hostility against Israel. In short, the Arab-Israeli conflict which grew out of the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians can only be resolved once that struggle is fairly, and permanently, put to rest. But there is more. For those who believe that the situation can endure as it is, I say this: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows no status quo. It cannot find stable equilibrium. The alternative to a peaceful compromise is not the status quo, it is something very different and, I am convinced, far worse. For the condition that produced hostility in the past remains current to this day, as we see in the violence of the past week. It is the consequence of proximity, the physical interconnection between Israelis and Palestinians that, in the absence of a fundamental resolution of their conflict, is bound to create further friction and further violence. If nothing else, the events of this past week were the most recent tragic reminder of this reality. Paradoxically, however, this is both the curse and blessing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the tragedy that awaits in the event of inaction also constitutes the greatest incentive for immediate action. All of which brings me to this conclusion: a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians is a necessity; it must be a lasting, comprehensive agreement, not a partial or interim one; it must deal with all claims, from both sides; it must, in short, define in words and in deeds how the one hundred-year conflict will end; and it must happen soon. So where do the parties go from here? How can this necessary peace be achieved? This is, of course, no simple question. For what makes resolution of the conflict so urgent also is what makes it so difficult: the weight of history, which has left us with two people living together, inextricably linked yet separated by distinct versions of history, different faiths, and the clash of conflicting yet equally intense claims to territory. The challenge, in other words, is to find a way to honor each side's historical, religious and territorial claims for there can be no solution that ignores or belittles them while overcoming the obstacles they place on the path to peace. Based on our experience over the past years, I would like to suggest briefly a few guiding principles. First, while there certainly is no easy answer, the only good answer will come from Israelis and Palestinians themselves. The decisions they face are the most fateful of all, and any outside party, however well-intentioned, cannot make them in their place. Second, solutions must be found around a negotiating table, through dialogue not on the streets, through violence. Peace cannot be made through intimidation and it will not result from fear. Third, reaching an agreement will require creative thinking and the embrace of new ideas. Where two parties living in such proximity must disentangle their conflicting claims yet continue to live and to work side by side, conventional approaches based only on rigid notions of territory and sovereignty and security may not be adequate. And indeed, there is no shortage of unconventional tools, for the world in which we are living is experiencing a sea change. Old notions of boundaries have less currency in an era of globalization and growing interdependence where goods and services and people move freely and where the internet is becoming our most familiar mode of communication. So, too, traditional concepts of have to adjust to an age where the greatest threats transcend borders and include long-range missiles, terrorism, narcotics, disease, or environmental disasters. I am by no means suggesting that we don't need armies to defend our borders, our values and our lives. But, by using creative approaches, a zero-sum strategy based on an imbalance of power can give way to a win-win strategy based on a balance of interests in which both sides' needs are met. Fourth, reaching an agreement will require visionary and courageous leadership...leadership capable of breaking the current consensus in order to create a new one...leadership capable of building a powerful constituency for peace by making the argument for peace. As I said at the outset, peace does not speak for itself. It must be given voice by people who can describe the end they are pursuing as well as the alternative they are striving to avoid. Israelis are blessed with such a leader in Prime Minister Barak. And at the same time, Israel has a partner in Chairman Arafat, who embodies the aspirations of his people and therefore has the legitimacy to make peace. And Israelis and Palestinians are blessed with one other important asset: President Clinton's tireless commitment to the cause of peace in the Middle East. Which brings me to the role of the United States. I will start from the very simple, but very real proposition that the United States has a crucial interest in regional stability, for what happens in the Middle East has a direct bearing on our security and our prosperity. Our interest also is based on our special relationship with Israel rooted in history; founded on common interests; sustained by shared values. To strengthen Israel's security is to protect our own which is why our commitment is iron-clad and everlasting. At the same time, we have learned from history that a key to peacemaking is the strong relationship between our two countries. For the strength of our relationship has both demonstrated to Israel's adversaries the futility of war and helped give the Israeli people the self-confidence to make peace. Each time that it has reached agreements with its Arab neighbors, Israel has been strengthened and so too has our relationship. This will be the case once more. As Israel and the Palestinians bring an end to their conflict, our partnership with Israel will be cemented in ways that reflect the magnitude and the boldness of this step. So the fact is this: we will always stand by Israel, as it takes risks for peace and we will do so with renewed vigor in an era when it faces new threats. For all these reasons, there is no greater priority for this Administration and there is no greater priority for this President than to bring about a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. In seeking today to make the case for peace, I harbor no illusion about the difficulty. To solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to address the most profound and wrenching existential questions about beliefs, about self-identity and about security. Nor can one ignore a past that is fraught with pain or a future blurred by uncertainties. But this morning I want to stress one point above others. For the past several months, and particularly for the past several weeks, the United States has been talking to both sides, listening attentively to their needs and aspirations. Based on what we have heard, based on what we know, I believe there is not a single issue not the most complex, not the most sensitive that cannot be resolved. It will take imagination. It will take vision. It will take courage. And it will take leaders, like Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat, with a keen sense of what it will mean for the two sides to reach peace, and what it will mean if they do not. But it can be done, and it should be done, now. Let me close today by reading the last lines of a letter from the President of the United States to President Weizman of Israel: "I trust that the present uncertainty, with its terribly burdensome consequences, will soon be eliminated. We will do all we can to help by encouraging direct negotiations between the parties looking toward a prompt peace settlement." This was a letter from President Harry Truman to President Chaim Weizman. It was written over 50 years ago. We have worked so long for peace. We have never been closer. Let us seize this moment. Thank you. [end of document] Official Texts | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State | Secretary of State | |
