Israel at Sixty: Destined to Succeed
Gelegenheid:Celebration – the dream of a Jewish state
Ladies and gentlemen,
Good morning. I am delighted to be here today, at this symposium organised by CIDI on the occasion of Israel’s sixtieth anniversary.
There is much to celebrate. That is why I would like to start out by offering my hearty congratulations to Israel. The State of Israel was built on a dream; a dream that long pre-dated the nightmare of the Shoah but that only came true after the horrors of the Second World War. It is a dream that kept Jews going in their darkest hours, a dream the Jewish people embraced even more firmly when dawn finally broke. When David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, on 14 May 1948, it was not just a sovereign state that would be created; it was a Jewish state, and it symbolised the justified homecoming of an entire people. Let me stress that I feel a close bond with the people of Israel. The suffering inflicted on the Jewish people in the 20th century is one of the blackest pages of human history. This must never be blotted out from our collective memory.
I remember from my early childhood how strong the popular support was for Israel. People were enthusiastic about the state’s idealism and energy. We saw images of young people devoting themselves to a common future: they worked on kibbutzim, they started businesses, they did everything to make their country succeed. Israel was built on the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of hundreds of thousands of new immigrants, from over a hundred nations, who had all been drawn to the Jewish homeland. Among them were many Dutch people.
One of them was Celientje Heilbronn-Dingsdag, who went into hiding during the War and came to Pardes Channa near Haifa in her late twenties – the sole surviving member of her family. Her story was documented by Yaèl Koren and Constant Vecht. She told them that her best memories were of Ben-Gurion. The idealism, the hard work, the joy of accomplishing something – that was the best time of my life in Israel, Celientje said. And she went on to say: what Israel achieved, despite all the political setbacks, despite the traumas of the War, despite all the hostility, I don’t believe the world knows of any other such example. It was such a positive experience, and everyone did their part.1 These personal stories are so rich. They really make you relive Israel’s exceptional past.
The Netherlands has supported the State of Israel from its early days. Successive Dutch governments have stood by Israel, providing both political and military support in times of crisis. And these exceptional ties have endured. To date, we share many values with Israel. Israel is the only country in the region to boast a modern democracy based on the rule of law. Its economy is flourishing, its cultural dynamism unprecedented. The way the Israelis have put their talents to use and built their country from the ground up commands deep respect and admiration. Golda Meir once said, ‘We do not rejoice in victories – we rejoice when a new kind of cotton is grown and when strawberries bloom in Israel.’ Well, many new kinds of cotton have been grown, and strawberries continue to bloom, though today’s ‘strawberries’ are to be found in technological development, knowledge-based industries and telecommunications. Economically, Israel is a victory that is worth celebrating.
Contemplation – the reality of the peace process
Anniversaries are a time of contemplation as well as celebration. In the past weeks many have taken the time to reflect on Israel’s past, present and future, both within Israel and elsewhere. Today’s symposium offers us an opportunity to do the same. And this is a good thing: we need to look back in order to move forward.
The founding of Israel as a state that would serve as a Jewish homeland led many Palestinians who were living on that land to flee, leaving behind everything they had. Six decades later, this remains an emotionally charged issue which we cannot afford to ignore. Many Arabs also stayed in Israel, and today they make up about 20% of the Israeli population. Although this minority are well integrated into Israeli society and represented in Parliament, the need to ensure equal rights and equal opportunities for Arab Israelis remains an important issue. Balfour’s warning that nothing should be done to undermine the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities is as relevant today as it was in 1917.
But the absence of peace casts a shadow over this week’s festivities. Sadly, a protracted peace process has not resolved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor has it achieved a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world (with Egypt and Jordan as notable exceptions). Progress has been made, and the occasional breakthrough has occurred, at Camp David in 1978, and in Oslo in 1993. But the road is also littered with near-breakthroughs, memories of what might have been, like the 2000 Camp David Summit. The Middle East peace process has been a long and bumpy ride, and no one is sure what lies around the next corner.
We are lucky to be in the company of Minister Ami Ayalon and Mr Dennis Ross today. Both are long-time participants in the peace process who have put great personal effort and energy into shaping the contours of a peace package. Both have an in-depth knowledge of what Israelis and Palestinians want and need. Maybe you can begin to answer some of the questions we all have, the most important being: why is it so difficult to break the cycle of violence and hopelessness? The stakes for peace are so high, but even if some are willing to take a chance on peace, no one seems able to do so. Do the costs of peace really outweigh the benefits? I don’t think so. Mr Ross, in your memoir, you talk about the ‘psychological inhibitions’ that make peace a distant hope.2 I greatly look forward to hearing your analysis of this issue.
I agree with you that the building blocks for peace have been put in place over the last decade. The terms for producing peace agreements are no longer a mystery, as you say.3
Only the parties involved can ultimately decide what form a peace agreement should take. But we do now have a clear indication of what both parties want and need. There is an emerging consensus about the main points of an agreement. This consensus has been built on the long-propagated two-state solution, which entails a safe and secure Jewish Israeli state and a viable Palestinian Arab state. First of all, any comprehensive settlement will have to include guarantees for Israel’s security. Israel must in principle withdraw to its borders of the fourth of June 1967. This means it will have to give up a large proportion of its settlements. And the Palestinians will have to be given adequate territorial compensation for the settlements Israel does keep. As for Jerusalem, a solution could be found along the lines suggested by President Clinton in 2000: Jerusalem as the capital of two states. An acceptable solution will also have to be found for the refugee issue, whether through integration in host countries or resettlement in the future Palestinian state or in a third country. The large-scale return of Palestinian refugees to Israel is not a realistic option. It would put the Jewish character of the State of Israel in jeopardy, and would render the two-state solution irrelevant. Those who cannot return must be compensated for their losses.
While the details of this package must still be hammered out by the parties, the broad outline is known – and I dare say acceptable – to both parties. Minister Ayalon, you set up the People’s Voice, together with Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh. This initiative collected over 240,000 Israeli and over 160,000 Palestinian signatures in support of a peace agreement. It evolved around basically the same principles. In 2004, you wrote, ‘Most Palestinians understand that a Palestinian state alongside Israel will mean giving up the right of return to Israel. Israelis understand that in order to get where we want to be, which is for Israel to be a safe and democratic home for the Jewish people, we must give up most of the territories, most of the settlements, and to share Jerusalem.’4 So the main challenge is not to think up an entire new agreement. The main challenge is how to make this package palatable to the parties involved.
Once again, 2008 is a crucial year. After a period of seven years of what Ross refers to as ‘a preoccupation with crisis prevention and the defusing of conflict’, parties are now back to the business of peacemaking.5 In Annapolis at the end of last year, Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas committed themselves to engaging in negotiations aimed at reaching a peace settlement before the end of this year – the last year of the Bush administration. The starting position of each party is far from favourable: both men face fierce opposition within their own societies. And Gaza, which is under the firm control of the terrorist organisation Hamas, presents additional complications for both. One cannot negotiate with those who glorify violence against Israel and commit suicide attacks against innocent Israeli citizens.
And yet there is a sense of urgency, which could make a positive difference. Prime Minister Olmert is clearly aware that if Israel does not work towards a two-state solution, the Jewish character of Israel will be lost, due to simple demographic realities.6 Developments within the region may also bring parties closer. Iran presents an existential threat not only to Israel, but also to its neighbours. Curbing Iran’s influence is in the interest of both Israel and its neighbours. The presence of many Arab countries at the Annapolis meeting was a positive sign, as was the revival of the Arab Peace Initiative, which is regarded more favourably by Israel these days.
I am cautiously optimistic that the unfavourable circumstances both parties face may drive them closer together. Maybe Olmert and Abbas can succeed where Barak and Arafat failed. After my visits to Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and my conversations with Prime Minister Olmert, Minister Livni, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, there is one thing that is absolutely clear in my mind. Right now, both parties need all the support they can get. I have pressed the European Union to enlarge its political role and step up its support for the peace process. The EU, which already is the largest donor to the Palestinian Territories, should take the lead in assisting in the creation of a viable Palestinian state. At the same time, the EU should intensify its relations with Israel at political level.
Israel and the Netherlands have already intensified their political dialogue. Exactly a month from now, we will welcome three Israeli directors-general to The Hague. These contacts enable us to continue our discussion in a systematic way. Meetings like these should assist us in answering the question of how we can best help to guarantee a lasting peace. The Dutch government has made a commitment to play an active role, and I intend to honour that commitment. I will travel to Israel again next week to reaffirm the excellent relations between our countries and to express my support for the peace process. The Netherlands stands ready to assist in any way, including contributing to security guarantees for Israel once a peace agreement has been brokered.
Working with the Other
Ladies and gentlemen,
There is one more reason why I am optimistic that the peace process will have a positive outcome this time around. I was heartened to see that in Annapolis, Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas showed that they were aware of each other’s needs, concerns and fears. Showing empathy, understanding each other’s situation, and recognising the suffering of the Other, is indispensable for peace talks to succeed. As Golda Meir said, ‘An Arab mother who loses a son in battle weeps as bitterly as any Israeli mother.’
But for the longest time, this simple truth has been overshadowed. The debate has been so emotionally charged, and the parties so suspicious of one another, that little heed is given to the other side’s feelings, arguments and concerns. But in order to move forward, reason must prevail. I believe that the current negotiators are extremely reasonable people, even if they lack the backing of certain segments of their constituencies. In the end, the best solution will probably be to present the respective populations with a complete package deal, which will include painful concessions from both sides.
In order to lay the groundwork for a lasting peace, we should encourage dialogue and practical cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians at all levels. This is an area in which the Netherlands is especially well equipped to help. In the next few years I want to contribute to a climate of rapprochement and understanding between Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs by encouraging dialogue and practical cooperation. For example, we are working on joint water projects in Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan. We have also offered to host a joint training course for Israeli and Palestinian diplomats at the Clingendael institute in The Hague. Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians need each other: working together is in everyone’s interest. We clearly saw this in the Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in flower and strawberry cultivation in the Gaza Strip, which we supported. Palestinian growers would sell their flowers through Israeli exporters to the Aalsmeer flower auction, and both benefited as a result. It is my dream to see Golda Meir’s Israeli strawberries on the shelves of Dutch supermarkets next to strawberries from Gaza. It was possible once, and I am certain it will be possible again!
Dialogue and practical cooperation will build trust. But that trust can only be sustained if actions on the ground reflect the promise of the peace process. Palestinians will again question Israel’s good faith if its words do not match its deeds. Any mistrust that may exist, not just among Palestinians, but within the international community, could be mitigated by the resolute implementation of Israel’s obligations under the Road Map. Halting the expansion of settlements and dismantling outposts would make a big difference, as would facilitating free movement for the Palestinians.
True, there are some countries that will criticise Israel no matter what. Together, we should isolate these countries and make them irrelevant in the discussion. They should not be given extra ammunition to persuade more moderate countries to join them in their relentless attack on Israel. The Netherlands has been working hard at the United Nations to promote a more balanced approach towards Israel, and we will continue to do so. Now that preparations are under way for a follow-up to the UN anti-racism conference in Durban, we are particularly vigilant. You will remember that the Durban conference in 2001 turned into a tense and heavily politicised event, in part because of the suggested link between Zionism and racism and proposals to include anti-Israeli paragraphs in the Durban declaration. I would like to assure you that we will not allow this to happen again. The Netherlands is involved in the preparations for this follow-up conference, which is planned for 2009, so that we can exert a positive influence over developments, together with the rest of the EU and other likeminded countries. But as soon as I get the feeling that events are taking a negative turn that cannot be offset by a minority of countries I will not hesitate to withdraw. It is unacceptable for Israel to be persistently denounced by countries that still have such a long way to go in terms of democracy and respect for human rights.
One of these countries is Iran. The Iranian president makes hideous and monstruous statements about Israel. And Iran supports terror organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. When one also takes into account the serious doubts that exist about the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme, then there is reason for grave concern. Iran is a threat to Israel, the Middle East and the rest of the world. A peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and its neighbour countries will severely limit Iran’s influence in the region. Israel and its Arab neighbours share a common interest.
Ladies and gentlemen,
My biggest wish for Israel, on its sixtieth anniversary, is normality. Israel’s past is truly exceptional. Its present is filled with uncertainties, as Israel stands at a crossroads. But its future should be normal, no more and no less than that. That is why I am so pleased that next week, during my visit to Tel Aviv and Haifa, my schedule is filled with completely ‘normal’ activities. Of course I will meet with Minister Livni and we will talk about the peace process. But I will also take part in talks on everyday issues, such as cultural exchanges, economic cooperation – even bicycle paths! To me, that is a good sign – a sign that Israel, at sixty, is succeeding. As it was destined to succeed.
Once again, congratulations, and thank you.
1: Quoted from Yaèl Koren and Constant Vecht, Verzonken Heimwee: Jo ods hier, Israëlisch daar, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 29-30.
2: Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace: the Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, New York, 2004, p. 14.
3: Ross, 2004, p. 14.
4: Ami Ayalon, My Vision of Peace, Zionism and Peace
5: Ross, 2004, p. 13.
6: Interview in the Jerusalem Post, 1 January 2008.