1 December 2000

Mr. President,

Today's agenda item, the Question of Palestine, first came before the General Assembly at its second session more than fifty years ago, and is one important part of the larger question of peace in the Middle East, an issue which has been of primary concern to the United Nations since its establishment. Over the years, this question has taken on many different forms. It is our belief that in that time the parties have found the appropriate formulas with which to address this question.

When the question first arose, Israel was in a state of war with every one of its neighbors, each one of them committed to the destruction of the nascent Jewish state. This arose from the categorical rejection in 1947 of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) by all the States members of the Arab League as well as the Palestinian leadership. Rather than abide by the will of the international community, those states chose the path of military aggression. While this aggression was successful in destroying resolution 181, it failed in its other avowed purpose, namely, the crushing of the State of Israel..

And yet, we have since made great strides, under the stewardship of noble, courageous, and visionary leaders -- both Arab and Israeli -- who were capable of seeing beyond the immediate political imperatives, who dared to picture a future that held more promise than the war torn past, and who marched relentlessly towards that goal. Guided by such leaders, Egypt, and later Jordan, embraced the reality that the future of the region would henceforth be determined, not on the battlefield, but through peaceful negotiations and econciliation with Israel. In both cases, Israel responded, and eagerly sought to anchor the political agreements with tangible gains, in tourism, trade, and increased prosperity. These efforts have bestowed upon Israel, Egypt and Jordan the benefits of quiet borders, diplomatic contacts, and the freedom to pursue life's bounty free from the threat of war and bloodshed.

These efforts have also illustrated a powerful point: rejection of violence, direct negotiations, and courageous leadership, can reverse decades of hatred and hostility. In such an environment, peace is no longer an abstract ideal. Nor is it a mystery. History has shown us a path, all that remains is for us to follow it.

And so, the question of Palestine is not today what is was a half-century

ago. We no longer need to debate the question of how best to achieve a peaceful settlement in the region. The method has been proven - twice - and the formula is well understood: it requires the renunciation of violence and a commitment to bilateral negotiations. Today, the 'Question of Palestine' is no longer how to achieve a settlement, but are we ready to do so? Are both sides prepared to take those courageous steps that are so demonstrably the most expedient way to resolve our conflicts and create a better world for our children?

On the Israeli side, the answer is clear. Israel has gone to great lengths to ensure that the historical breakthrough of the Oslo agreements results in a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. At the Camp David Summit this past July, Prime Minister Ehud Barak expressed a willingness to consider compromises which would have been inconceivable a mere two years ago. The major points of contention between Israel and the Palestinians were deliberated and significant progress was made on all fronts. Prime Minster Barak even expressed his readiness to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state, provided it was born out of negotiation and compromise with Israel. The goal of peace was within reach.

Even the most sensitive of issues, the future of Jerusalem, was discussed at Camp David. I would like, at this point, to speak a few words on this issue which lies at the core of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and specifically, that sacred tract of land at the city's heart, known to Muslims as the Haram Al-Sharif, and to Jews and Christians as the Temple Mount.

The Temple Mount is not merely another holy site in the eyes of the Jewish People. It is not just one place among many where one can pray and feel the intimate presence of God. Rather, the Temple Mount is, in the words of Foreign Minister Ben-Ami, "the genetic code of the Jewish identity."

For over two thousand years, Jews the world over have faced the Temple Mount three times a day in prayer. Twice we have been forcibly evicted from Jerusalem and twice we have returned. Throughout our two millennia of exile, the city has served as a focal point, uniting the Jewish people and sustaining our hopes and dreams for a return to our ancestral home in Zion.

How refreshing it is that even the sources of other faiths speak of the special connection between the Jewish People and Jerusalem. The Koran mentions the Temple in several places, specifically in verses 17:7 and 34:13, but in other places as well. According to Muslim tradition, Caliph Umar wanted to build his mosque on the Temple Mount specifically because that was the location of the Temple built by King Solomon. This is even acknowledged by Muslim scholars, among them Court Judge Mujir Aldin Alkhanbali, who wrote in his The History of Jerusalem and Hebron, that "David reigned for forty years and before he died he passed the monarchy on to his son Solomon and told him to build the Temple (Beit Almikdas)." This expression, Beit Almikdas, that is the House of the Temple, became in many Moslem sources a synonym to the word Jerusalem.

And yet, despite this unique and powerful connection, Israel was willing to consider various compromise possibilities that could have ended the conflict over this site, and satisfied the needs and aspirations of both sides.

To our great sadness, barely four months after Camp David, virtually all evidence of Israel's efforts has been erased from the Palestinian consciousness. The current crisis is the single greatest setback in Israeli-Palestinian relations in decades. This situation has emerged despite the fundamental commitment made by Chairman Arafat at the outset of the peace process. In his letter of 9 September 1993 to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Chairman Arafat stated the following:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security... The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.....the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

At the time, Chairman Arafat spoke on behalf of all the Palestinian people, including all the various factions. Therefore, we cannot except a 'division of labor' between the Palestinian Authority on the one hand, and the Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the other. As a leader, Chairman Arafat must embrace not only the glory of his charge, but the misery of his task.

Despite his commitment -- a commitment which was an obvious prerequisite for embarking on the road prescribed by the Declaration of Principles -- the events of the last two months shed serious doubt on whether the Palestinian leadership remains intent on its fulfillment.

Beyond this uncertainty lie other questions which cast aspersions on the commitment of the Palestinians to finish the process that we have jointly undertaken. We know that the renunciation of violence is only a beginning. Peace requires far more -- it requires a culture of peace, born out of a recognition of the legitimacy and the right of the other side to live in peace and security. Peace requires an end of boycotts, of contempt and defamation, the end of incitement and confrontation. Peace requires a language of peace, expressed in the way leaders address their nations, in the way teachers teach their students, and in the way religious leaders inspire their followers.

Unfortunately, in this realm as well, we fail to perceive a resolve on the part of the Palestinians to engage us in the language of peace. The Palestinians' resignation to Israel's existence has not been internalized; it has failed to percolate down to all levels of Palestinian society. The Palestinian educational system, media, religious leadership, and preachers in mosques, continue to foment an abysmal hatred for the State of Israel, Zionism, and the entire Jewish nation. Textbooks in Palestinian schools fail to even recognize the existence of the state of Israel. The official media continues to incite the population to violence against Israelis, and perpetuates the image of Israel as the eternal enemy of the Palestinian people, as the source of all their misery. Moslem clerics, whose voices are regularly transmitted over the airwaves, have encouraged a violent jihad against Israelis and Jews around the world, a call which has already reverberated in Europe, the United States and beyond.

To cite but one example, Nabil Shaath, Minister of Planning and International Cooperation for the Palestinian Authority, in a speech made back in January of 1996 - a period in which negotiations were going forward - said as follows:

"We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step... Should Israel continue - no problem. And so, we honor the peace treaties and non-violence... if an when Israel says 'enough' ... in that case it is saying that we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers and in a land with elements of freedom... If we reach a dead end we will go back to our war and struggle like we did forty years ago."

And so I submit to you once again that the real question of Palestine is: are the Palestinians truly ready and willing to make peace? This is the question to which we must direct our attention today, for it is this ambiguity which stands as the final obstacle to achieving a lasting settlement and commencing a new era of peace and coexistence in the Middle East.

Mr. President,

In recent weeks, there have been increasingly frequent calls for the deployment of an international force in the region. The position of my Government on this question is well-known but I wish, at this time, to speak a few words on this subject.

Israel maintains that just as the current violence began with a calculated and deliberate order from the Palestinian leadership, so must it end. There is no need for international intervention to bring about an end to the hostilities, rather what is required is the necessary resolve from the Palestinian leadership to renounce the confrontational approach and to implement the steps outlined at Sharm Al-Sheikh. This has yet to occur. Chairman Arafat has failed to abandon the path of bloodshed, not because he is unable, but because, from his point of view, it is far too valuable for improving his negotiating position to be relinquished. It is this ambiguity which leads us to the worrisome conclusion that Chairman Arafat prefers to pursue his objectives unilaterally rather than standing by the commitments he has undertaken to address claims and grievances through direct bilateral negotiations.

We consider Chairman Yassir Arafat's demand that the UN send an international force to the region to be the first step on the path to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, an action which runs completely contrary to the bilateral spirit of the peace process. If there is a place for an international presence in the region, it is only after the parties have found an agreed political solution. This has always been the accepted sequence. Israel was able to conclude durable peace treaties with two of its neighbors without the need for an international force or direct UN intervention. In the case of Egypt, a multi-national presence was established to monitor the peace and security arrangements in the Sinai only after the parties had reached an agreement of their own volition.

We still hold out hope that the Palestinian leadership will fulfill the numerous commitments they have made to restrain their people, disarm illegal militias, control terrorist elements, end incitement in the official media, and act immediately to prevent all forms of attack on Israeli soldiers and civilians. This is the obvious course of action, one that would bring the violence to a speedy conclusion and lay the groundwork for a return to peaceful negotiations.

The current situation stands as one in which there is both a formula for ending the violence, as well as a formula for establishing peace. What is lacking is the determination on the part of the Palestinian leadership.

Mr. President,

As a body which has been concerned with the fate of the Middle East for more than half a century, the General Assembly must take care to lend its unqualified support to the parties as they seek to reach a comprehensive negotiated settlement. Attempts to use this forum to legitimize a departure from the path of negotiation, or to utilize this podium as a sounding board for anti-Israel rhetoric, must be roundly rejected.

Israel is therefore opposed to the draft resolutions currently under consideration. Three of these resolution refer to UN programs and bodies which promote a distorted and one-sided perspective of the issue. The fourth contradicts bilateral agreements already signed between Israel and the Palestinians and thus undermines the peace process it professes to support.

For these reasons, we would urge Member States to oppose these resolutions.

I would further urge Members, in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, to call out to the Palestinian people to abandon the spirit of confrontation, and to determine their future on the road of peace, dialogue and reconciliation.

Thank you, Mr. President.