H4ThePal

Lecture in Interdisciplinary Center, Herzlia December 2003

The Palestinian-Israeli Impasse: Alternative Options and Approaching Decisions

Chair: Mr. Ehud Ulmert, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry, Trade, Labor and Communication

Political leadership has to do what has to be done and not what is popular.

I would like to address 3 issues:

1. Israel should address the current issues while looking at the situation and asking the following question are we working towards an agreement, which involves both sides or a unilateral withdrawal.

2. I would like to address some of the terminology use. It is extremely hard to adopt processes using emotional terms; the "greater state of Israel" is no longer relevant.

On the one hand being in a government, which accepts Oslo the road map, Hevron and many other agreements, and on the other hand continue the use of terms such as "the greater state of Israel" create a conflict within and present the public with a false assumption. For a healthier public debate we have to get rid of terms such as these. We have to be realistic and in the current situation some congestions must be made.

3. The element of time we live in an illusion, there may or may not be a chance for the removal of settlements, we might engage in a unilateral action but the issue is the time element. We have no more time. We have to take action because time is the issue.

I identify an agreement as being a better option than the road map. The road map may not be the best option but it should be pursued by all sides and I include the U.S as well.

We must deal at the same time with the Palestinian population and tend for their needs as well. Soldiers are trained to fight and defend, they should not man check points. the "blue" defence forces should be the ones in charge of those check points.

At the same time we have to prepare for possibility of the process failing and not reaching an agreement and then, go to a unilateral process.

There is an awakening process, they thought that if one chain rattles everything might fall a part, what I was surprised to see is that more and more people have spoken their mind since my comment last week.

The American opposition to a unilateral withdrawal draws its reason from the following 2 statements:

1. Unilateral withdrawal in essence is declaring the road map as dead.

2. Unilateral withdrawal does not allow any further interpretation and discussion regarding the

The Unilateral approach should be discussed among the European community and the U.S. and not with our enemies. What are the chances for unilateral steps? The larger the congestions are there will be less of a conflict with the international community. Naturally the agreement option is the preferred over all other options. There should be no argument on this issue.

Israel must remove illegal settlements so that the exploitation of the road map as a true option may exist. Once the international community realizes the difficulties involved in the evacuation of settlements, the homes of thousands of people, it will understand the level of determination that exists within the Israeli government. It will also come to realize what the extent of its actions may be in the future. We should not take small steps toward this objective but create a plan and go through executing it fully and at once.

The demographic issue is becoming more of a problem. When Ben Gurion accepted the partition of Israel and declared independence the state of Israel was defined a "Jewish democratic state." I would like to keep it that way. In the near future these two might come into conflict.

I choose ben gurion's decision we need a Jewish state and we need it to be democratic. Equality is a basic fundamental in a democracy in the future we might come in conflict with this fundamental if the current situation stays as is.

When you talk about the unilateral steps do you consider a situation in which the vacuum left after Israel's withdrawal is one that leaves only room for the chamas ?

In addition I must ask what you expect of the international community to do when it steps into these territories?

Demography and topography are the main problems the most effective elements are army and the fence. Whether it is based on the green line or not is not the issue. A fence should be built at first the actions against terror should be applied and later the formation of a political system will be inevitable.

Your question refers more to a bilateral situation where I am sure I was clear about a unilateral withdrawal. When I say unilateral I mean unilateral. Israel should not have control and be separate entity. There seems to be a wrong assumption regarding the elimination of terror after reaching a final agreement. I have no doubt in my mind that terror will continue; however it will endanger less people after a unilateral act. In addition it will create a new way of approach to the conflict from the international community.

Mr. Avi Dichter, Head, Israel Security Agency

There Is life after teror

From 1967 we have been living together and along side with the Palestinians ever since Oslo, a good example for it is The Israeli 'shekel', it is still the official currency in the Palestinian authority.

A claim towards the Israeli administration would be the attempt to

Change the engine while it's working

What are the real proportions?

This is the state of Israel and this is the only state we have.

There are controversial areas but we cannot over look the Israel's right to exist.

I would like to address 3 major issues we have problems with today :

1. Terror and terrorist organizations supported by Iran as well .

2. Israelis Israeli Arabs participate in Terror.

3. PA leaders and their unwillingness to fight terror.

The security forces have not been providing a proper security suite for the Israeli population.

What would France do if they had 9000 wounded 80% of them civilians.

what would the us do if 36 K civilians were killed, the answer is obvious.

The suicide bombers cause the most casualties. In addition, all fatal suicide bombers come from the west bank.

The terrorist leaders in Gaza conducted most of the attacks but actually launched them out of the west bank. Since Maxim- the suicide attack in Haifa, things have calmed down but it's an illusion since a lot of suicide bombers have been apprehended (Yokneam, Tel Aviv, etc.) while attempting to commit an attack. This is a strategic threat to the state of Israel. All means have to be taken in order to fight the suicide bombers.

The connection and mobility the Palestinians have between east Jerusalem and Israel has become a very dangerous issue. They can move freely within Israel. 70% of the suicide bombers received help from Israeli Arab's. The Arab population helps terrorist organization including the Hezbollah.

It is true that now there are smaller numbers than ever however Hizbulla is still recruiting, and the number of Arab Israeli's involved in suicide bombing and terrorist attacks has decreased. Good examples are the dolphinarium suicide bombing and the maxim restaurant bombing.

The PA leaders are not helping, Arafat hasn't told his people to stop terror, he's the only one who has the power to tell his people not to decrease terror, but instead he funds them.

Arafat betrayed the trust Israel gave him as well as the international community since Oslo and I include the past three years of Intifada. The Karin A is a good example.

In July 94, when Arafat came in from Jordan to Gaza in a special convoy he brought in with him 4 terrorists that hid in his vehicle. Rabin made Arafat throw out those terrorists.

Increasing military ability is a growing threat for Israeli. In every diplomatic way, the Palestinians should not be able to have military ability. Iran is not far behind and we can call it the no.1 terror state, an example would be the bombing in Buenos Ireas against the Israeli embassy.

Iran is supporting Islamic organization such as the Jihad, Tanzim, Hizbulla in their war against Israel. Iran has pinpointed Israeli Arab's; Iran is a clear strategic treat. No other country is supports terror the way Iran does.

The Jewish terror is also a problem, 7 Palestinian were killed only because they were Palestinians. Their fight symbol is the destruction of the mosque on the temple mount. This is a strategic threat. Looking ahead, I can't predict change of any significance on the Palestinian side.

A strategical change is needed in Gaza and the west bank. The wall must go up as fast as possible we have seen terrorists who tried to come into Israel but encountered difficulties due to this fence that is partially built. The same idea could have prevented the rosh haayin attack. The fence definitely prevented the bombing in Yokneam, the terrain and geographical borders of this fence are irrelevant. First there should be a fence and then a discussion about the issues that are controversial.

Comparing the pa to the other Arab countries they are superior to our neighbors. Many leaders in the pa recognize the process of democratization and know it is possible to implement. I see a good future for both sides after terror.

Discussant: Dr. Shmuel Bar, Institute for Policy and Strategy, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya

What can be expected for the near future?

Looking at the slide that Arafat is a symbol of the Nakba, the 48 disaster, he has the biggest military power. After Arafat, we have some people conducting talks with us. Our team has a ray of prediction; Arafat will not pass all the authority to one figure. We expect that there will be complex coalition. Palestinians who wish to be as democracy like in Israel has little influence on the ground. The Hamas is stable organization and enjoy the public support but it not the stronger. In "post Arafat situation" the younger cut will get into power, any leadership has to convince public support. The pa might regard the fence as a stabilize tool, elections and national elections might get into the hamas and therefore will be stronger. IL has no one to talk to, there is no one who can talk to Israel and with the pa along side. Isreal is able to devote some efforts into promoting possible pa leader. Israel have some influence, Israel was instrumental in the past but not always successfully. There are some moderate people among the Palestinians but not all them