Israel Policy Forum

Ehud Olmert Addresses IPF in New York City

SHARE

Email this page

Author:

admin

Keynote Address by Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

at the

Carlyle Hotel, New York City

December 3rd, 2012

Seven years ago when I said what I just now—what you heard—in the event of IPF, I think it was the first time that a then Likud representative—and I was then the Vice Prime Minister—ever came to a conference of IPF. IPF at that time was not considered to be from the point of view of the Israeli government a representative of the mainstream opinions that the Israeli political establishment liked or appreciated. We haven’t reached peace yet, but I think that now to speak at an IPF event such as this one-- is always very important, [and there are very important] people present here. It’s not any more an act of courage. It doesn’t require any particular effort, from at least a certain part of the Israeli establishment. On the day that it will become common for all of the political spectrum of Israel, maybe we will have already signed the peace agreement between us and the Palestinians, but it seems that there is still a way to go. And the way that we have to go is not the way that we have adopted in the last few years.

Now, I have a certain dilemma that I want to share with you. How to be politically correct by the common standards of Israeli politics and not to say things that are not supposed to be said outside of Israel, criticizing the politics of the Israeli government, and yet at the same time to say what is burning in your heart, which is what we believe in, which is what we think is essential to be said clear and loud so that it would be heard and hopefully will be absorbed by those who are presently-- hopefully not for too long-- are still in the decision-making position in the State of Israel.

As Congressman Ackerman mentioned before, we spent a few days as guests of the Brookings Institute Saban Forum in Washington. And I must say that when I came to this event, I was astounded by the outstanding expression of courage manifested by the American administration standing alongside the State of Israel in the United Nations last week. To be honest with you, I’m not sure that there was a reason to oppose the request of the Palestinian Authority to upgrade their status. In fact I thought and I am confident that this move is maybe more important for the long-range interests for the State of Israel than it is for the Palestinians. At the end of the day, we all hope that there will be a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. We not only hope but we pray that the danger of one state for two peoples will be removed from the agenda. So when the United Nations General Assembly, 139 nations approved the concept of a Palestinian state, they promoted a solution, which is in line with the strategic interests with the State of Israel. [Applause]

I thought based on the somewhat vague statements made by the present leaders of Israel that this is precisely what we want. I think that Bar-Ilan University has never been publicized so much as it was when the Prime Minister spoke at the university and forced himself to say that at the end of the process there will be two states. I could think of somewhat clearer terms to describe this desired solution, but the fact is that it was said. And when it was said, even though it was somewhat vague, everyone was very happy. Because people really felt that this is, can be, a landmark that will start a process of a genuine dialogue between the State of Israel—and the leadership of the State of Israel of the day, and the Palestinian leadership towards a serious, candid negotiations that will end up with an agreement that must result with two states: a homeland for the Palestinian people, and a recognition of the State of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.

So if this [the two-state solution] is the strategic interest of Israel, why should we be against an upgrading of the Palestinian status in the United Nations that leads towards this solution? I felt that there was no reason to oppose it. But at the same time I admire the fact that the President, who until recently was not considered to be such a great friend of Israel by the government, stood up with only another eight countries, the most powerful leader of the world, the most powerful nation in the world, agreed to isolate itself, only in order not to leave Israel entirely alone and stood up in the United Nations and supported the Israeli position and made a very powerful statement by the American Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that was entirely in line with the Israeli arguments. I thought that the President deserves a vote of thanks by the Israeli people and by the Israeli government that he had the courage and ability to set aside perhaps some emotions that a normal person may have, given the circumstances of the last few months, and to focus on what he thought was important, from an Israeli point of view, towards the fulfillment of the desire to establish an acceptable basis for negotiations.

I was utterly surprised, as I can see now most countries in the world were, that in the next morning the Israeli government decided to do the one thing which was certain to offend the policy makers of the United States of America, which is to add 3,000 units in territories which are the core of a dispute that must be resolved in the context of negotiations between us and the Palestinians. I must be honest with you; I am very familiar with this block of land, which is called E-1. And I remember having some discussions with President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about this particular block of land that separates Jerusalem from Ma’ale Adumim. And it is true that while I was Prime Minister we did build in some areas in the territories, areas which were known to us and to the American government and unofficially also to the Palestinians that at the end of the day will remain under Israeli sovereignty as part of an agreement between the two sides. But there was one request by the American government and there was no question at that time, amongst everyone, that President Bush and Condoleezza Rice were wonderful friends for the State of Israel and the Jewish people, even to those in America who didn’t vote for them because of other considerations, which are legitimate, but which are not part of the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They asked me, “Please don’t build in E-1 because if you will do that, it will be beyond the capacity of the Palestinian leadership to accept it and they will not sit with you for negotiations.” And my answer to them was, ‘Mr. President, Ms. Rice, I want to be very honest with you, one day E-1 will be part of the State of Israel because we will not leave Maale Adumim as an enclave in the territories, but it will be part of greater Jerusalem, even when not all of what is known to be Jerusalem today will be under Israeli sovereignty. But I will not build in E-1 in as long as we negotiate because I want it and I will make sure that it will become part of the agreement that we will sign with the Palestinians.’ So to choose this particular piece of land in which to build as a public expression of respect and support of the American President who stood up for the State of Israel only two days earlier requires creativity, creativity which is beyond my comprehension.

I’m asked very often, and this is a serious question, which we have to do, “Why did President Abbas not say yes to you when you presented him with a peace plan that was the most far reaching and the most painful for the people of Israel.” I can say to you as a follow up to what Mr. Joseph just read from my words back in 2005 that it was the most difficult and the most painful moment in my life when I sat in front of the leader of the Palestinian people, particularly me after being mayor of the city of Jerusalem for ten years, to say to him that I understand that there can be no peace unless the Arab part of Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state, so I tell you Mr. President, we will pull out from those neighborhoods that are now part of the State of Israel and the city will be shared by the Palestinians and by the State of Israel. A large part of it will be recognized by you and by the world to be the capital of the State of Israel and the Jewish people as it was for 2,000 years and more, and part of it will be the capital of the Palestinian people. It was for me heartbreaking, but I knew that there can be no other way to achieve peace if we will set this aside and say, “No, that we don’t discuss.” I went one step further and proposed to the Palestinian leader that the Holy Basin, including the Old City of Jerusalem, which you know is really the heart of Jewish history, will not have a sovereignty of either the State of Israel or the Palestinian state; it will be administered by a group of five nations that will represent all of the major religions: the Christians, the Muslims and the Jews. And the five nations that I proposed were to be the United States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian state and the State of Israel.

And then I moved into another very delicate and sensitive area, the Arab refugees. And I said to the Palestinian leader and repeatedly time and again, publicly, so there will be no mistake about it, that we are prepared to negotiate the Palestinian refugee issue within the framework of the Arab Peace Initiative, an initiative which started with a press interview between Tom Friedman and the present King of Saudi Arabia and then developed into the Arab Peace Initiative which was approved in the Arab League of Nations Conference in Beirut in 2002 and was reconfirmed in March of 2007 in Riyadh. And we even discussed the number of refugees of Palestinians that would be admitted to the State of Israel within the context of such an agreement. He understood and I made it clear that it will be a symbolic number, but a number that will recognize that we understand that as a result of the wars between us and them and now it was immaterial to make the complete historical account of who started and who was guilty and who was to be blamed for what happened, but the fact remains that there were people that suffered and that we recognized the suffering of those innocent people. Part of my proposal was of course to find a way to compensate both the Palestinians and the Jews that suffered from the wars that were not to be relocated, but that their suffering was to be recognized and compensated in a proper and dignified way. There were of course other security interests, mostly by Israel, which were spelled out in a very explicit manner, which were submitted to the President of the United States, which were accepted by him and which were passed on to the following administration of President Obama.

I thought that this was a plan that must have been accepted on the spot by the Palestinians. It was not. It was not rejected; It was not accepted. I prayed then that the new administration in America would take it from where it was left and move along these lines with both sides in order to accomplish what was so close anyway in order to achieve peace between us and them because, regrettably, and this is part of the political life here, every president wants and falls in love with his own ideas and tends to ignore that which was done by the former president. It is true about all presidents and all parties so it is not a particular opinion about a certain president or another one. Clinton made a long way towards an agreement with Prime Minister Barak, which was not accepted by Yasser Arafat. I never suspected Arafat to really want to make peace with Israel. But Abu Mazen is not Arafat. Abu Mazen is against terror. Abu Mazen spelled it out explicitly at a time when he was deputy of Yasser Arafat and he kept saying it when he was elected President of the Palestinian Authority. And when the Palestinian leader, not outside of his own people but inside Ramallah, in front of all his supporters, talked explicitly and powerfully and consistently about his opposition to terror, no one can disqualify as a potential partner for peace between Israel and him. And the same as we said about Salam Fayyad. Both made an enormous progress in the quality of life of the Palestinians living in the West Bank. We obviously know that the Palestinians are not made of one opinion. We know the Hamas, we know the Islamic Jihad, we know that they are enemies of the State of Israel and they are enemies of most of the Palestinian people themselves and that comprehensive peace with all of the Palestinians will also have to deal with Hamas and the Jihad and try to see how we can get rid of these attitudes in order to make this peace a real, secure agreement for both parties.

But I think it will be a dramatic mistake if we—anyone—will use this as an excuse not to try and move forward rapidly with the Palestinian leadership and the President who was elected in a democratic process by a majority of the Palestinian people to represent them. I am certain by the way, I am not naïve, that once we will reach the agreement that there will still be difficulties: the difficulties of implementation, the dangers that it will be broken, the fear of potential terror by certain elements, will still prevail. But if we will come to that point, and it will be signed, and the international community will approve this agreement, then for the first time not only will the Palestinians have a state of their own, but the boundaries of the State of Israel for the first time in the history of the State of Israel will be then recognized by the entire international community, something which has not been done until today, 65 years after the creation of the State of Israel. That’s why it is so important for us. That’s why the signing of such an agreement is more important than the difficulties that will arise as a result of such an agreement. It has to be done. And time is not in favor of the State of Israel.

The congressman was, as usual, so eloquent and subtle when talking about the time element. Time is running out first and foremost for the State of Israel, because there are more and more people that have lost hope that there can be an agreement that results in a solution that is innot in total contradiction to everything that we were trying to build over generations, when our forefathers left their shtetls in Europe or other parts of the world—my parents came from China with the desire, with the aspiration, with the dream to live in a democratic, Jewish state in the land of Israel. And the choice that we have to make now is whether we prefer greater land and losing the nature of what this country was supposed to be from the first place, or whether we are prepared to divide the land to give full rights, to recognize, to respect the desires of others and to guarantee the nature of the State of Israel, supported by the entire international community, in acceptable boundaries that will be the State of Israel as we always wanted it to be. [Applause]

I know that some of you -- not too many, but I guess some -- might be curious of what is going to happen then. How are we going to achieve it, considering the fact that there are going to be elections? You thought that the American elections were important, of course you are biased, but what can you do? But other elections are coming up soon, on the 22^nd of January in the State of Israel. And these elections are important because they will determine to a large degree whether we will be in the position to accomplish this dream in a reasonable time frame or whether we will have to wait much further and to risk what I have just outlined, that when we will be ready to implement this we will not be able to do it.

I pray and I dream that we will be able to achieve that which is so important for the State of Israel and, of course, for the Palestinian people, before it’s too late. And I am absolutely confident that some will try to set this aside during the election campaign and deal with other issues, which are important. There are many important issues that bother the Israeli constituents. Many social issues. Many economic issues, which are growing now. But this one is the most important issue, more important than anything else, and I know that there is Iran—believe me I know. And I can say that perhaps I haven’t talked as much about this problem, but I did a lot more than those who made speeches every day about why we don’t have to speak about Iran and then outlined exactly what needs to be done and what needs to be done not by the world, not by the leaders of the world, not by the United States of America, but by the State of Israel alone. So I am fully aware of the danger of Iran, and it is true that the State of Israel will not be able to tolerate a nuclear Iran. And I am sure that America understands it. And I have no doubt that the President is absolutely committed, as he has manifested already in the policy of the United States to try and stop it before it’s too late, and I am sure that when the time will come according to the judgment of the international community led by the United States and Europe and the State of Israel, everything that needs to be done will be done in a decisive way.

But if we will use [Iran] as an excuse not to address ourselves, not to address the one issue which has affected the life of Israel for 65 years already and which affects our quality of living every day, it will be a historical mistake that will be disastrous for the life, to the people and to the future of the State of Israel. I can say this here that I will use every platform in the State of Israel, in whatever position I will have, in order to make sure that we will not miss the opportunity. And I will respect every one of our friends here and in many other places that will not allow any of us to ignore for a second our obligation to the future of our people and our country. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the very moving introduction and thank you for reminding me the exact words which I said seven years ago, in a somewhat more crowded hall if I remember well, but not less committed to the same ideas and the same dreams and expectations that I expressed then.

Let me first before I jump into these cold waters-- I mean the cold waters which will be spilled on me when I come back to Israel tomorrow after learning of what I say today. I want to say first of all to my friend Gary Ackerman, reminded each other that we first met in his first term, in 1983, when he was first elected as congressman by elections in America. This was my tenth year in parliament, so I was a veteran at that time, but his pace and the speed of his learning and understanding of the issues and his dedication and commitment to his country and to my country is exemplary. And it’s something that you ought to be very proud of, and all those who supported you over the years ought to be proud of. You were one of the most distinguished congressmen of the United States of America for Americans, as well as for the people of Israel and for the people who live side by side with us. And as you so correctly said, who deserve to be respected and to have their rights realized so that they will be able to live as citizens in their own country, side by side with the State of Israel, in peace and security. And I’m absolutely confident, Mr. Ackerman, that this day will come. I was very optimistic that it would’ve come somewhat earlier. I thought that I would be able to come to the point where we would be able to celebrate it, all of us. And yet, I never lost hope that the day will come. If-- all of us, first of all, since I speak for my country, for my people, if it will come from our side. Although of course, it must be understood that it has to come equally from the other side as well.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank General Dayton. I met him when he was commuting from one part to the other, from what we call the territories into the State of Israel. And you must understand, it requires a special character and a special power to be able to spend three years between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and in the end to be praised by both. Very few outsiders can claim to have the same kind of respect that General Dayton won over that period of time, trying to explain to the Israelis the sensitivities and the difficulties and the constraints with which the Palestinians were living and trying to explain to them sometimes the difficulties and the sensitivities and the concerns that we have. In dealing as a true American patriot who cares for the friends of America and I want to thank you General, for what you do. [Applause]