Netanyahu: Cooperation for peace can bring peace, deter Iranian quest for nuclear weapons

Remarks from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu
AIPAC Policy Conference 2009 May 4, 2009 [excerpt]

Summary: PM Netanyahu spoke about the common danger of Iran developing nuclear weapons and the opportunity it presents for Israel to work in cooperation toward peace with the Arab world.

The Prime Minister stated that Israel is "prepared to resume peace negotiations [with the Palestinians] without any delay and without any preconditions" in a context of simultaneous work on a security track and an economic track.

Netanyahu further stated that peace cannot come without security for Israel and that "for a final peace settlement to be achieved, the Palestinians must recognize Israel ...as the nation-state of the Jewish people."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: As [noted in my introduction,] I have met President Obama. I respect him, and I look forward to seeing him in Washington in a couple of weeks. We plan to continue our common quest for security, for prosperity, and for peace.

Friends, there is something significant that is happening today in the Middle East. And I can say that for the first time in my lifetime -- I believe that for the first time in a century -- that Arabs and Jews see a common danger. This wasn't always the case. In the '30s and '40s, many of the Arab world supported another country, believing that that was their hope. In the '60s and '70s, '80s, they supported another country that was at odds with the Jewish state. But this is no longer the case.

There is a great challenge afoot; but that challenge also presents great opportunities. The common danger is echoed by Arab leaders throughout the Middle East; it's echoed by Israel repeatedly. It's echoed by Europeans, by many responsible governments around the world. And if I had to sum it in one sentence, it is this: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. If I had to sum up the opportunity in one word, it would be cooperation – cooperation between Israel and the Arab world, and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians.

Next week I'll be visiting Egypt with President Mubarak, and I plan to discuss both values with him. We seek expanded relations with the Arab world. We want normalization of economic ties and diplomatic ties. We want peace with the Arab world. But we also want peace with the Palestinians. That peace has eluded us for more than 13 years. Six successive prime ministers and two American presidents have not succeeded in achieving this final peace settlement. I believe it's possible to achieve it. But I think it requires a fresh approach. And the fresh approach that I suggest is pursuing a triple-track towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians; a political track, a security track, and an economic track.

A political track means that we're prepared to resume peace negotiations without any delay and without any preconditions; the sooner, the better. The security track means that we want to continue the cooperation with the program led by General Dayton in cooperation with the Jordanians and with the Palestinian Authority to strengthen the security apparatus of the Palestinians. This is something we believe in, and something that I think we can advance in a joint effort.

The economic track means that we are prepared to work together to remove as many obstacles as we can, to the advancement of the Palestinian economy. We want to work with the Palestinian Authority on this track, not as a substitute for political negotiations, but as a boost to them. I want to see Palestinian youngsters knowing that they have a future. I want them not to be hostage to a cult of death and despair and hate. I want them to have jobs. I want them to have career paths. I want them to know that they can provide for their families. This means that we can give them a future of hope; a future that means that there is prosperity for all, and this has proved to be successful in advancing a political piece in many parts of the world.

I believe that this triple track towards peace is the realistic path to peace. And I believe that with the cooperation of President Obama and President Abbas, we can defy the skeptics; we can surprise the world.

But there are two provisos that I think have to be said at this point. First, peace will not come without security. If we abandon security, we'll have never security nor peace. So I want to be very clear. We shall never compromise on Israel's security. Second, for a final peace settlement to be achieved, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish state. They must recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

A few hours ago I spoke at the Knesset. We mark the birthday of Theodore Herzl, the founding father of Zionism. Herzl revolutionized the history of the Jewish people; a people that were scattered and defenseless throughout the nations. He revolutionized Jewish history when he published a slim pamphlet called The Jewish State. This was our salvation, and this is our foundation; the foundation of our future and the foundation of peace.

Good night from Jerusalem. God bless America. God bless Israel. Thank you all.

Elad: Abbas won't bring peace

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3709243,00.html

Abbas won’t bring peace

Unlike other Arab leaders, Abbas proves time and again that he cannot change

Moshe Elad

05.01.09,

While we were marking Memorial Day, the most moderate Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, stated that “the Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish State.” Perfect timing for him. This declaration joins previous statements he made in Jordan and Lebanon, saying that “there will never be peace with Israel without resolving the refugee problem,” and that “the Palestinians will never lay down their arms and won’t abandon the armed struggle.”

Mahmoud Abbas has a history of such statements and has displayed significant hatred for Israel. Despite his fatherly and pleasant appearance in his suit, it turns out that he does not want to or cannot change. The Palestinian-Israeli issue is too much for him to handle. In the absence of vision, his leadership is summed up with raising donations from the West, the obsessive believer in Abbas’ ability to create a complete change.

In the past we already saw Arab leaders “changing their tune,” or in a more diplomatic language, “sobering up.” Anwar Sadat despised the Zionist movement and viewed it as a bitter enemy. He felt so threatened by it that during World War II he joined a Nazi underground organization in the hopes of eliminating the Jews. Later on, as the president of the Republic of Egypt, he pledged “a wild and brutal battle where we shall agree to sacrifice a million victims” in order to eliminate Israel. In October 1973, he indeed took the path of war. However, after the war Sadat was able to “change his tune” and talk peace. He became the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and paid with his life.

The Palestinians, by the way, cursed him shamelessly, and referred to him as a “Sudanese slave” in protest of the unilateral peace treaty he signed. They will never forgive Egypt for renouncing the principles of the Arab nation – peace without resolving the Palestinian problem, without bringing the refugees back, and without liberating Jerusalem.

King Hussein, as it turned out after British archive documents were published, ordered his forces on May 25th and 26th in 1967 that any place to be occupied during the upcoming war (the Six-Day War) should see all its Israeli residents massacred. Indeed, Hussein’s hatred for Zionism and for Israel was clear. We must admit that the Hashemite king came a long way from issuing the terrible orders to butcher Jews to the signing of the peace treaty with Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, and later to kneeling as he offered his apologies to the families of the seven girls from Beit Shemesh who were murdered by a Jordanian soldier in 1997.

The Palestinians also have a score to settle with the Hashemite royal house, particularly since the killing of thousands of their people in “Black September” in 1970, and also as result of other actions by Hussein and his grandpa Abdullah against their people. Hussein also deeply hurt the Palestinians by signing a separate deal with us.

All or nothing

For many years, Syria served as a model for hatred and cruelty towards Israel and the Jews. We all remember the way the Syrians treated Israeli captives. However, some say that territorial compromise would prompt their leader Bashar Assad to sign a peace agreement with us, as the Egyptians and Jordanians did. Should that happen, the Palestinian attitude to the Syrians will be no different than their attitude to the Egyptians and Jordanians.

So why did this “work” with the Egyptians, Jordanians, and possibly with the Syrians, yet it’s not happening with the Palestinians? Apparently, it’s not going to work with them, because it appears the Palestinians will never “change their tune.” Yasser Arafat, who started the 1993 Oslo process with the hope that “we have found the Palestinian leader who will embark on a new path” and that “here is a leopard that will change his spots,” contributed greater servings of hatred and venom in his 10 years in office then what we saw in the past.

Several weeks after signing the deal with Rabin, Arafat called for jihad against Israel during a prayer session at a South African mosque. This is the same Arafat who smuggled wanted suspects and upgraded weapons to the Gaza Strip while at the very same time holding meetings in Tel Aviv.

Today, there is no fundamental difference between the Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal. Both of them express the same principles. One of them does it from his fortress in Damascus, while the other does it from the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, among other places. There are no two Abbas’, only the real one, just like the real, jihadist Arafat. The privilege granted in the past to Arab leaders to utter radical words for “domestic purposes” is today anachronistic and ridiculous.

Today, we can say that the Palestinian-Israeli issue is too much for Abbas to handle, as it was too much for Arafat to handle. We do not only have a territorial conflict vis-à-vis the Palestinian entity. Indeed, we share a national question whereby most people affected by it, in the region and beyond it, do not believe in compromise, but only in the principle of “all or nothing.” Time and again they publically declare that Israel does not exist in their mind. The old-time Arafat and current-day Abbas are merely a reflection of this public.

Therefore, we do not have too many choices; all we can do is cope with this, and wait for change to come.

Colonel (res.) Moshe Elad served as the head of the security coordination mechanism with the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo Accord period. Today he is a lecturer at the Western Galilee Academic College (in our Israel Partnership region.)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 28, 2009

 

Statement on the 61^st Anniversary of Israel’s Independence

On behalf of the people of the United States, President Obama congratulates the people and government of Israel on the 61^st anniversary of Israel’s independence.  The United States was the first country to recognize Israel in 1948, minutes after its declaration of independence, and the deep bonds of friendship between the U.S. and Israel remain as strong and unshakeable as ever.  The President looks forward to working with Israel to advance our common interests, including the realization of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, ensuring Israel’s security, and strengthening the bilateral relationship, over the months and years to come.

 

 

###

Abbas: "I don't accept Israel as a Jewish state"

Palestinian pres. Abbas said on April 27 he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. That's exactly what Hamas wants to hear him say bc acceptance of the Jewish state means the end of the conflict. Hence Abbas' refusal SHOULD mean that the establishment of a Palestinian state be put on hold. -- Mark Finkelstein

Abbas won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state

AFP and The Associated Press contributed to this report, published 4/27/09 on ynet.com

Palestinian President delivers harsh speech in Ramallah in which he says Israel can define itself as a Jewish state, ' but I don't accept it and I say so publicly.' Abbas also says talks cannot be resumed without Israeli settlement freeze


Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said on Monday that he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, as demanded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Abbas asked in a speech in the West Bank's political capital of Ramallah. "You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."

He said it's not his job to define the state of Israel. "Name yourself, it's not my business," He said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."

Abbas said that the topic was "extensively discussed" and rejected by the Palestinians during the November 2007 international conference in Annapolis, Maryland during which the two sides relaunched their negotiations.

Netanyahu has demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of an eventual peace deal.

Such a move would amount to an effective renunciation of the right of return of refugees from the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, when Israel was created, one of the most cherished and visceral principles to the Palestinians.


Abbas also said a complete construction freeze is a prerequisite for resuming talks. Netanyahu supports settlement construction and has not committed to the idea of Palestinian statehood.


In his speech, Abbas said he would not give in to possible Israeli or international pressure on the Palestinians to resume negotiations even if settlement construction continues.


"For sure, we won't submit to pressures. For example, if they say 'come and then we'll see, come.' No, we won't accept. Regarding the peace talks, this is our position, even if someone, if anyone in the world says 'you're wrong,"' he said.

Wapo: Iran is playing with the US

An editorial from the Washington Post, challenging the president's strategy with Iran.

What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. --editorial

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invitation to Appease Will the Obama administration talk to Iran while it persecutes Americans and libels Israel?

Editorial, Washington Post Wednesday, April 22, 2009

LAST WEEK, the Iranian regime brought American journalist Roxana Saberi before a closed court and in a one-hour trial convicted her of espionage -- a blatantly bogus charge. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was last seen inaugurating a new facility for Iran's nuclear program, appeared at the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva to deliver a speech seemingly calculated to cause maximum outrage in the United States and other Western countries. They had, he said, "resorted to military aggression" in order to create Israel "on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust."

Thus has Iran answered President Obama's offer of dialogue and the decision by his administration to join talks on Tehran's nuclear program. To the consternation of some European officials, Washington has insisted on dropping a long-standing demand that Iran obey U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. Iran could have responded to this concession by releasing Ms. Saberi, who holds U.S. and Iranian citizenship, and ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson, as the administration asked it to do in a State Department letter last month. Instead the charges against Ms. Saberi were ramped up, from practicing journalism without a credential and buying wine, to espionage; the regime does not even admit that it is holding Mr. Levinson.

Then came Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech, which repeated the numerous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic libels that have made the Iranian president a pariah in the West. Western delegates walked out on the address, which the State Department rightly called "vile and hateful." Yet Mr. Ahmadinejad had accomplished his aim: advancing Iran's claim to represent radical Arab and Islamic opinion, along with his own campaign for reelection in June.

Iran watchers point out that Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent other messages recently. He said he would welcome direct talks with Washington, and over the weekend he dispatched a letter to Ms. Saberi's prosecutor urging that she be allowed to defend herself. These are not necessarily contradictions. What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad's unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi's defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip -- to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has always said that talks with Iran must be conducted under the right circumstances and in a way that advances U.S. interests. The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda. It should postpone any contact until after the Iranian election in June -- and it should look for clear signs that Iran is acting in good faith before talks begin. The unconditional release of Ms. Saberi and Mr. Levinson would be one.

AJC Denounces Durban II Declaration that Singles Out Israel, Threatens Free Speech

April 21, 2009 – Geneva – AJC [American Jewish Committee] denounced today’s adoption by the Durban Review Conference of an outcome document that singles out Israel and endangers freedom of speech.

“Today, once again, the UN has chosen the unfair treatment of Israel over the real fight for equality and human rights,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris, who is attending the conference along with a group of 25 young AJC activists. “And this document also threatens democratic values with a vague effort to criminalize incitement. The United States, Israel and eight other democracies were absolutely right to stay away from this conference and not endorse the document.”

The document approved today “reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), as it was adopted” at Durban in 2001. The DDPA wrongly categorized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as racial, and described Palestinians as victims of Israeli “racism.” Israel was the only country specifically criticized in the entire document.

This year’s document also mandates that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This effort to criminalize certain types of speech is troubling in light of repeated efforts by Muslim countries to effectively wall off Islam from criticism by classifying any criticism as “incitement.”

AJC had encouraged nations of good will to withdraw from the conference once it became abundantly clear that it might well undermine democratic values and the struggle for racial equality – two causes to which AJC has been steadfastly committed for over a century.

AJC is online at www.ajc.org

Elie Wiesel Verbally Abused as "Zio-Nazi" by Ahmadinejad Entourage at Durban II This is evil.