In today’s USA Today, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren looks at what the future holds for the Israeli and Palestinian people if both sides get back on track.

“Israelis and Palestinians must touch the most sensitive aspects of our national narratives and our most cherished beliefs. President Obama and Secretary Clinton will continue to play a dynamic role in assisting us to overcome obstacles. Arab states should also support the process and normalize relations with Israel. But there is no substitute for direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians. Though we have long been rivals in a conflict, we can now be partners for peace.”

To read the full Op-Ed from USA Today, click here.

2 people like this post.

Unlike

Recently, I had the great honor on behalf of the State of Israel of laying a wreath on the grave of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his wife Coretta Scott King in Atlanta, Georgia. On the occasion, I recalled the inspiration this great leader provided to me, growing up on the outskirts of riot-ravaged Newarkin the 1960s. My father dedicated his life to building bridges between the Jewish and African-American communities of the city, and for him as well, Dr. King was a sterling example.

Dr. King offered his unequivocal support to the State of Israel. He held Israel’s story as a precedent for the freedom, equality, and national liberation for which African-Americans strived.

On this Martin Luther King Day, we in Israel—home to the Middle East’s only memorial to Dr. King—recall his unflagging courage and undaunted vision of a better world.

יהי זכרם ברוך

May his memory be blessed forever.

Dr. Michael B. Oren is Israel’s Ambassador to the United States.

3 people like this post.

Unlike

“Christmas in Bethlehem. The holiday atmosphere was palpable in every corner this week. The city is decorated to the gills, with Santa mannequins on the streets and lots and lots of tourists. The hotels reported full occupancy and the restaurants vigorously prepared for guests. Some of the finest Middle Eastern singers will be performing tonight and tomorrow in Bethlehem and Sahour, in an attempt to entertain the visitors from all over the world, Israel, and even Gaza.”"

“A group from Russia crowded into the Church of the Nativity to hear an explanation of the differences between the three churches in the compound: Roman Catholic, which is observing the holiday tonight; Greek Orthodox (of which the Russians are also members), which will only be celebrating Christmas on January 7th; and the Armenian Church. Abbot (Father) Spyridon sits in a corner of the Orthodox church. He was born in Bethlehem 60 years ago and has served in the church since 1970. “There’s a good feeling this year,” he says. “More stability and fewer problems. After all, Bethlehem is based on tourism.” Some Palestinian police officers are circling around among the tourists, but according to Abbot Spyridon, their job is not just to protect the visitors. “There are still quite a few problems here,” he explains. He speaks Russian, Greek, English, Arabic and a little Spanish, and has seen a thing or two throughout his life inside and outside the church. During Operation Defensive Shield he was home with his wife and seven children.”

To read more from Ha’aretz (in Hebrew), click here.

Like

Unlike

Unfortunately, the Palestinian position during these 17 years has not moved one inch from its maximalist demands. Isn’t it time that the Palestinians are asked directly and openly if they are prepared to make any concessions? Are they prepared to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the Jewish connection to the Western Wall and Temple Mount? Are they prepared to recognize that there are Jewish refugees in Arab states, and that Israel has very real security concerns?

While the world has unfortunately focused on settlement building, it has gone largely unnoticed that Palestinian leaders are retreating from previously accepted positions, especially the need for a two-states-for-two-peoples solution.

Click here to read the full Op-Ed in today’s Los Angeles Times.

Like

Unlike

For Chanukah 5771, we could use the Maccabees with us once again. The story of Chanukah can be many things – the “Festival of Lights,” a day to celebrate miracles – but it is most importantly about the Jewish people solidifying their claim to the land of Israel in the face of revisionism. If it were not for the Maccabees, the Second Temple would be mentioned in our children’s books as “an ancient Greek temple.” Yes, just over 2100 years ago the Second Temple was filled not with Jews but with statues of Zeus and other Greek gods. This was only temporary of course, the real character of the Second Temple being restored when the Jews threw out the statues and rededicated the Temple in 165 B.C.E.

Today, in the face of Arab claims that the Western Wall is “Palestinian,” it is time for a second “dedication,” or “Chanukah”. While Judah Maccabee had to take up arms to protect the Jewish people, Israel’s battle for survival today is also fought on paper. The Palestinians wield an eraser, but one cannot simply erase what has been written in the ink of history. The Palestinians erroneously believe that the current peace process is with a Jewish People that only appeared on the scene in 1948, a fallacy that is as dangerous as it is ignorant.

In 161 B.C.E. Rome, one of the greatest powers in world history, did what the Palestinians can’t seem to wrap their heads around: they accepted the Jewish people. As history tells us, the Roman-Jewish Treaty was an agreement signed by Judah Maccabee and the Roman Republic, which states: “May all go well with the Romans and with the nation of the Jews at sea and on land forever, and may sword and enemy be far from them.”

The Palestinian narrative is solely based on the Jewish People as “outsiders,” an invading force that has no business being in what they see as their land. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that this is an unfair and historically absurd claim, yet it is a claim that is taking hold and growing stronger every day.

Before the “peace process” began, Arab policy towards Israel was defined by what became known following the Khartoum Resolution as the “Three No’s:” “No peace with Israel,” “No negotiations with Israel,” and “No recognition of the Jewish State of Israel.” That was after the Six-Day War, over 40 years ago. To say that much has happened since then would be a gross understatement. The game changer came in 1979, when Egypt and Israel signed a monumental peace agreement. After living under (and fighting for) a policy of rejection, it took over a decade for one single Arab country to courageously buck the trend and say “yes” to peace.

During the Fatah Revolutionary Council’s fifth meeting in Ramallah this past weekend, the council decided on a not-so-original set of “no’s.” “No” to Israel as a Jewish State, and “no” to the so-called “land swaps.” Perhaps the Arab world wants to turn the clock back to the idyllic “Summer of ‘67”, but the world cannot stand idly by as a conscious effort is made to reverse decades of progress – progress that has benefited Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs alike throughout the region.

The core problem behind the “no’s” of 1968 and the “no’s” of today is the same: Palestinian revisionism. With their attempts not only to block the peace process but to erase Jewish claims to the land, they exhibit a wish to send Jewish people back to 1947, a place in history not too dissimilar from the time of Judah Maccabee. If the Palestinians assert their claim to Israel based on centuries of Ottoman rule, perhaps the Jewish people should give them a history lesson on the Greco-Syrian Seleucid Empire in Judea. Because, after all, our ancestors were there then, celebrating the very first Chanukah.

Joel Lion is Consul for Media and Spokesperson at the Consulate General of Israel in New York

7 people like this post.

Unlike

The following is a joint statement of the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel and the Office of the Secretary of State of the United States following their November 11th meeting:

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary Clinton had a good discussion today, with a friendly and productive exchange of views on both sides. Secretary Clinton reiterated the United States’ unshakable commitment to Israel’s security and to peace in the region.

‪‪The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.

‪‪‪The discussions between the Prime Minister and the Secretary focused on creating the conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations aimed at producing a two-state solution. Their teams will work closely together in the coming days toward that end.

Like

Unlike

Today marks 15 years since an assassin’s bullet killed my friend, Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister. Since his death, not a week has gone by that I have not missed him. I loved him and his wife, Leah, very much. On the occasion of the anniversary of his death, his yahrzeit, the world would do well to remember the lessons of his life: his vision for freedom, tolerance, cooperation, security and peace is as vital now as it was 15 years ago, when he happily spoke and sang for peace at a huge rally in Tel Aviv just before he was killed.

Rabin was utterly without pretense. When David Ben-Gurion sent him as a young man to represent Israel during armistice talks in 1949, he had never before worn a neck tie, so a friend tied it, and showed him how to loosen it so he could preserve the knot for future use. True to form, two weeks before his assassination, he arrived in Washington at a black-tie event without the black tie. We borrowed one for him, and I still smile whenever I think about straightening it for him, just as Hillary does when she remembers how he complained when she made him go out on the Truman Balcony to smoke.

The story of Yitzhak Rabin and the story of Israel are intertwined. He took up arms to defend Israel’s freedom, and laid down his life to secure Israel’s future. When he came to the White House in 1993 to sign the Declaration of Principles with the Palestinians, he was a military hero, uniquely prepared to lead his people into a new era. Before shaking the hand of Yasir Arafat, a man he had long considered his mortal foe, he spoke directly to the Palestinian people:

continue reading…

5 people like this post.

Unlike

Last night, the President of the State of Israel commenced the remembrance events marking 15 years since the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin with a candle lighting ceremony in the President’s Residence. The President made a speech and lit a “Yitzhak remembrance candle” in the slain Prime Minister’s memory.

In his speech, the President described the days and the evening preceding the murder, and addressed reports that today’s youth does not remember who Yitzhak Rabin was: “A ‘Yitzhak remembrance candle’ was lit this evening on the 15th anniversary of his murder. This is a candle of the commitment to peace. He vowed that its flame will never be extinguished. From the foothills of Mt. Sinai to the edges of Rabin Square, one commandment has stood firm throughout the generations: Thou shalt not kill. Do not kill a person. Do not kill an idea. Murder is a crime that may never be forgiven or forgotten. Neither the flow of time nor attenuation nor euphoria nor fatigue can avert us from this commandment. We observe a day of remembrance because we must fight against forgetfulness. Such forgetfulness is the enemy of humankind, and also endangers democracy.”

The President described the character of Rabin’s leadership: “Yitzhak knew that a leader does not rest on yesterday’s laurels. He led according to a vision. He knew that in today’s volatile reality, he who tarries is in danger. He who dares, reaches far-flung, powerful realms. Yitzhak did not fear what may come because he knew that there is no escaping it, and that it must be faced head-on. You make what you must out of it, in order to see the morrow come, even if at a higher price than today’s rates. Yitzhak was determined to move forwards towards peace, although he was aware of the difficulties from without and from within. The difficulties were not merely theoretical. He felt a tailwind at home and stood against a raging wind from the outside. He did not try to sugarcoat tough situations or evade dealing with them. He let neither himself nor others harbor false hopes. He knew that confronting the new reality would involve heavy risks, but that thereby, and sometimes only thereby, lay the greatest chances.”

At the end of his speech the President said, “The tears have not dried up. The candles have not expired. Nor has the evening. We shall return to the oath secreted in our hearts – we shall not forget his image. We shall not digress from his path. Peace is his last will and testament.”

Participating in the ceremony were the Rabin family, officials from the highest echelon of the Israeli government, members of the youth movements, and schoolchildren from the Rabin school in Shoham. Family representative Yuval Rabin also gave a speech in memory of Prime Minister Rabin.

3 people like this post.

Unlike

Haven’t we seen this before?

This past Sunday, one of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ top aides said, “The resumption of [peace] talks requires tangible steps, the first of them a freeze on settlements.”

It’s hard not to be overcome with a sense of déjà vu. Ten months ago, Israel ordered a 10-month freeze on settlement building, with the hopes of resuming peace talks. So what happened? Peace talks did resume, just last month. That was all well and good, until the Palestinians decided to play games. continue reading…

6 people like this post.

Unlike

Speech at the UN General Assembly
September 28 2010
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen: when I arrived yesterday in New York, I received a telephone call from a member of one of the  Jewish organizations who asked me how I am coping with all the pressure which is being placed on Israel; surely, he said, it must be very difficult. I recalled an old joke which speaks of five Jews who changed the way we see the world: Moses, law is everything; Jesus, love is everything; Marx, money is everything; Freud, sex is everything; Einstein, everything is relative.

So I told him that everything is relative. On one hand, it’s really difficult. On the other hand, it is easier than before, because now we have a stable coalition, stable government and we have the support of a majority of Israel’s citizens.

We are ready for a fair solution and we are ready to cooperate with the international community. However, we are not ready to compromise our national security or the vital interests of the State of Israel.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that contrary to what is often shown in the international media, the political arena in Israel is not divided between those who seek peace and those who seek war. Everyone wants peace and the controversy in Israel centers on the specific question of how to achieve this peace; how to reach security and stability in the region.

And the question is: why, during the seventeen years since we signed the Oslo Accords, have we not arrived at a comprehensive agreement signifying the end of the conflict and the removal of future mutual claims?

Despite all of the efforts of all the good people with the best of intentions, including Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, despite the summit meetings at Camp David between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat with the presence of former President Bill Clinton, and despite the Annapolis Summit between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, we are today still in deadlock.

In fact, contrary to the prevalent view that the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict is the heart of the instability in the Middle East or is the main reason for the region’s numerous conflicts, the reality is entirely different. More than ninety percent of the wars and war victims of the Middle East since the Second World War did not result from the Israeli Palestinian conflict and are in no way connected to Israel, stemming rather, from conflicts involving Muslims or conflicts between Arab States. The Iran‐Iraq war, the Gulf war, the wars between North and South Yemen, the Hamma atrocities in Syria, and the wars in Algeria and Lebanon, are just a few examples of a list that goes on and on.

The second flawed explanation for the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Palestinians which has gained popularity is hat the root of the problem is the so‐called “occupation”, the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the settlers themselves. Only the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, so the argument goes, will ensure peace in the region.

It is sufficient to state a number of well‐known facts in order to refute this claim: firstly, all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were under Arab control for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967. During these 19 years, no‐one tried to create a Palestinian state.

Peace agreements were achieved with Egypt and Jordan despite the presence of settlements. And the opposite is also true: we evacuated twenty‐one flourishing settlements in Gush Katif, and we transferred more than 10,000 Jews and in return, we have Hamas in power and thousands of missiles on Sderot and southern Israel.

The other misguided argument is the claim that the Palestinian issue prevents a determined international front against Iran. This argument is not only flawed, it is completely irresponsible: the same argument could be made that the Palestinian issue prevents action on North Korea, piracy in Somalia, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan or the challenge of Afghanistan.

Just as the Khomeini Revolution had nothing to do with the Palestinian issue, so too is the Iranian decision to develop nuclear weapons unrelated.

In truth, the connection between Iran and the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict is precisely reversed. Iran can exist without Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, but the terrorist organizations cannot exist without Iran. Relying on these proxies, Iran can at any given time foil any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians or with Lebanon. Thus, in searching for a durable agreement with the Palestinians, one which will deal with the true roots of the conflict and which will endure for many years, one must understand that first, the Iranian issue must be resolved.

One must deal first with the root of the problem and not its symptoms. There are of course other problems as well which must be solved and this is not a sufficient condition. But it is nevertheless a necessary one.

In trying to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, we are dealing with two types of problems: emotional problems and practical problems. This is why the solution must also be a two‐staged one.

The emotional problems are first and foremost the utter lack of confidence between the sides and issues such as Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as the nation‐state of the Jewish People and refugees.

Under these conditions, we should focus on coming up with a long‐term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades. We need to raise an entire new generation that will have mutual trust and will not be influenced by incitement and extremist messages.

To achieve a final status agreement, we must understand that the primary practical obstacle is the friction between the two nations.

As is true everywhere, where there are two nations, two religions and two languages with competing claims to the same land, there is friction and conflict. Countless examples of ethnic conflict around the world confirm this, whether in the Balkans, the Caucuses, Africa, the Far East or the Middle East.

Where effective separation has been achieved, conflict has either been avoided, or has been dramatically reduced or resolved. Consider the cases of the former Yugoslav republics, the split‐up of Czechoslovakia and the independence of East Timor, as cases in point.

Thus, the guiding principle for a final status agreement must not be land‐for‐peace but rather, exchange of populated territory. Let me be very clear: I am not speaking about moving populations, but rather about moving borders to better reflect demographic realities.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not an extraordinary insight, and is far less controversial than some may seek to claim. In fact, precisely this notion – that a mismatch between borders and nationalities is a recipe for conflict – has long been accepted as a virtual truism in the academic community.

Leading scholars and highly respected research institutions have even coined the term “Right‐Sizing the State” to capture the idea that states and nations must be in balance in order to ensure peace. This is not a controversial political policy. It is an empirical truth.

But beyond empirical truth, there is historical truth:   almost 4000 years during which the Jewish People were born in the Land of Israel, while developing the corpus of ethical and intellectual treasures that have been instrumental in giving rise to Western Civilization. 2000 years of forced exile, and interim conquest by Byzantines, Arabs, Mamelukes, Ottomans and others, cannot, and never will, impair the unbreakable bonds of the Jewish People to its homeland. Israel is not only where we are. It is who we are.

In closing, let me remind everyone in this hall about the quote that adorns the United Nations plaza outside, spoken in Jerusalem almost 3000 years ago by the Jewish prophet Isaiah:

וְכִתְּתוּ חַרְבוֹתָם לְאִתִּים, וַחֲנִיתוֹתֵיהֶם לְמַזְמֵרוֹת–לֹא-יִשָּׂא גוֹי אֶל-גּוֹי
חֶרֶב, וְלֹא-יִלְמְדוּ עוֹד מִלְחָמָה
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning‐hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. “

Inspired by the deep wisdom embodied in these words, let us hope that the path to true peace prophesied by Isaiah, will guide our two peoples, in two nation‐states, living in peace and security.

Thank You.

8 people like this post.

Unlike