Jerusalem Summit
Arrow 1st Jerusalem Summit Arrow Press conference
Jerusalem Summit
Arrow Presidium
Arrow JS Europe III (Rome)
Arrow JS Asia V (Jerusalem)
Arrow JS Europe II (Berlin)
Arrow JS Asia IV (Tokyo)
Arrow JS Europe I London
Arrow JS Asia III (Singapore)
Arrow JS Africa
Arrow JS 2004
Arrow JS 2003
 
Arrow Full Program
Arrow Participants
Arrow Topics and Speeches
Arrow Jerusalem Declaration
Arrow JS Asia II (Seoul)
Arrow JS Asia I (Manila)
Arrow Newsletters
Arrow Seminars
Arrow Get Involved
Arrow Letters and Comments
Arrow Contact Us

Arrow SIAH - Public Diplomacy Course
Arrow On One Foot

The Michael Cherney Foundation
National Unity Coalition for Israel
1st Jerusalem Summit. Press Conference 14.10.03

Dmitry Radyshevsky:
It is my pleasure to introduce the fellow participants of the press conference: Minister Uzi Landau, Richard Perle, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and member of the Defense Policy Board, Dr. Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, recently appointed by President Bush to be member of the board of the US Institute of Peace, and Cal Thomas, syndicated columnists, Fox News Host. A few words about the overall purposes of the Jerusalem Summit, who gathered here, these outstanding experts and thinkers and public leaders, from the US and from Israel, to make a first step, toward a creation, in Jerusalem, of an international forum which will think about the joint strategy, about twin dangers our civilization faces. The first one is the totalitarianism of the East, represented by radical Islam and moral relativism of the West, which aroused our resolve to fight that evil and moral clarity in our understanding of that evil. And there are three major subjects, which we discussed during the summit, the first one being global self-interest of the free world in defending and fortifying Israel. The second one is the idea of making Jerusalem a center of coalition against the twin dangers of totalitarianism and moral relativism. The idea is to make Jerusalem the highest platform for truth, that's why the slogan of the summit is "building peace on truth". The idea is that Jerusalem has to take moral leadership, provide moral leadership to the free world, based on the biblical values of Israel. The third idea is the need to discuss the new modalities, in the international politics, based on values, with Israel as moral and strategic center of that new unity.

And now, it is my pleasure to introduce the first speaker at the press conference, Minister of Tourism, Benny Elon, whom I didn't introduce, initially. Minister of Tourism, Benny Elon.

Minister Benny Elon:
Thank you very much, Dmitry, and this is an opportunity to thank you for all of your efforts. I think it is, and it was and there's going to continue a real impressing summit. I want just, in one sentence, to act as a Minister of Tourism, and to thank all of the distinguished guests, that are sitting here next to me, that came, and this holiday of Sukkoth, the Feast of Tabernacle, if I compare it to the last holiday, last year, you can't compare the situation, you can judge it in the hotels - thank God, something good happened here. We have to finish it not so late, because of the march that's going to take place in Jerusalem when thousands of Christians that came for the Feast of Tabernacle celebrate with us Hag Sukkoth, and since last April, we see this real change, and it's something that says a lot. And believe me, I'm following, and every month, we are every month around 54% better than the year 2002, and it started immediately after the Iraq War, and when I try to look for the Hudna, I don't find it. I don't remember when it started, I don't remember when they decided that it was nothing, but no influence since April until this October. It just goes and climbs, and I really hope that we'll have a better geo-political situation here, but the basis of solidarity, kinship, brotherhood and sisterhood of Jews and Christians, that are coming in spite of the situation, the difficult times and hard days, are more than appreciated, so I stole one or two minutes from my words, to say something, real thanks to all of the distinguished guests here, and to all of those that are not here.

I believe that the so-called Right wing, I don't like this tern, I prefer - someone told me I am too far right, I asked him: maybe you are too far wrong - and anyway, I really think that the time came that the Right Wing will know how to create facts on the ground, we knew how to do it in settlements, we know how to say no PLO, no to a Palestinian State, and no to many things, to demonstrate, etc., but we have also to know how to create facts on the diplomatic and political grounds. It can't be that a Prime Minister that comes to his chair, when clear election says: Change the policy, has to continue, and to move from Oslo to Wye Plantation, from Wye Plantation to the Road Map, now from the Road Map, instead of Abu-Mazen, they're looking for Abu-Ala, or some other Abu, to exchange Abus is not a creative way of thinking. It's not a creative way of seeing things. I, at least know, that peace that you don't build on truth will not hold. I have no debate with others that succeeded. I'm not going to waste my time to prove those that did not succeed, why they did not succeed. I just know that we did not try. I believe that the government has to declare after 10 years of Oslo that started with high expectations and concluded with deep disappointment, that the Palestinian Authority is not a partner anymore. We have a war against the Palestinian Autonomy. Then, who is the partner? That's how I see summits like this. This is the role, I think, this is the task that they have to discuss, or convince me that another guy in the Palestinian Authority can be a nice partner, because we cannot continue without light at the end of the tunnel. We can win, and we need victory, but we have to know in advance that after the military victory, we know how we'll continue. And I believe, in my way, that Palestinian Authority passed away. They killed all of those agreements, they did not prove themselves. I personally think that Jordan can be the partner, like they were the representatives of the Palestinian issue until '88, and I don't think that it's irreversible. But, those are my five minutes. For me, this summit is an outstanding event, in such a level of speakers, that can have creativity, creative way of seeing things, not to be in hostage and jail of the formulas that we all know the cliches that we all use. I enjoyed all of the lectures that I heard, and I know that this is not the last summit, this is just the first one, and many good things can come from this summit. Thank you very much.

Mr. Radyshevsky:
Thank you Minister Elon. Our next speaker is Richard Perle, member of the Defence Policy Board, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Richard Perle:
Thank you. It has been a pleasure to participate in this event. There could not be a more appropriate place for the discussion of these issues than this beautiful city, and we've been blessed at Sukkoth, this year, with perfect, absolutely perfect conditions. In fact, it's amazing that so many of us stayed inside so much of the time. I want to make only one, very brief point. All of the diplomacy about which we debate endlessly, whether it's the road map, or Oslo, or Geneva, or any of the many plans that have come and gone over the years, all of that diplomacy takes place on the surface, when the heart of the problem we face is deep beneath the surface. And we won't achieve through any of these diplomatic initiatives a stable and reliable peace, until some fundamental underlying attitudes are changed, until schoolchildren, under the authority of the Palestinian Authority, are no longer taught that it is right to kill Israelis. And the next diplomacy must, if it is to succeed, be centered on the fundamental transformation of a cultural and political nature, a transformation of values. And that is why meeting in Jerusalem to discuss values seems to me the right way to approach the process of peace.

Mr. Radyshevsky:
Thank you, Mr. Perle. Our next speaker, Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.

Dr. Daniel Pipes:
Thank you, Dmitry. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. With the collapse of Oslo and the Road Map, we are at an opportune moment to discuss alternative approaches, and what this conference has done over the past couple of days, is talk about, hash through a variety of ideas on how to do that. We are sure that the Jerusalem summit will continue to take these ideas forward after this meeting, and I congratulate the organizers for taking on that responsibility.

My own contribution is akin, but slightly different from Richard Perle's. I agree entirely that we have been approaching the matter superficially and we must go more in depth. My way of portraying it is that we have assumed, it has been broadly assumed in recent decades, that the Palestinians have accepted the existence of the Israeli State, of the Jewish State. And therefore, diplomacy has been directed toward settling the outstanding issues, concerning borders, armaments, resources, sanctity, residential patterns, all premised on the idea that the hard work has already been done, that the Palestinian acceptance of Israel is the premise for further diplomacy.

I would argue that was a mistake, that there is abundant evidence to suggest that in fact the Palestinians have not accepted an Israeli State, a Jewish State, of Israel, and that in fact is the work that lies ahead. To gain that Palestinian acceptance of Israel, through changes in schoolbooks, through changes in rhetoric, through a sense, on the Palestinian side, that they have lost the war to destroy Israel. 1948 happened, nothing has taken place to change that, the time has come to adjust to reality, move on to better things, to build a decent economy and culture and polity, and accept Israel maybe not happily, but to accept it. This, I believe is at the hard of the matter, and I believe there can be no diplomacy until there is what I call, a Palestinian change of heart. This, I believe, what we have assumed to be the case, then the Palestinian acceptance of Israel, is in fact, the one and only item on the agenda, ahead of us. Thank you.

Mr. Radyshevsky:
Thank you, Dr. Pipes. The next speaker is the Minister of Strategic Cooperation Between the US and Israel, Dr. Uzi Landau.

Dr. Uzi Landau:
Thank you very much. For me, the importance of this gathering is that for the first time, I do see a basis of people, throughout the world who gathered here, and who think that what we have to do, is simple, persistently, find those ways to combat terrorism, that have the source of either Muslim fanaticism, or Palestinian fanaticism. Basically, what we simply have to do is change those enemies that we have in their cultural hearts. There is no chance to really have peace, unless we totally uproot terrorism. There is chance to have peace, globally, and of course here, in our place, once people on the other side understand that no cause should justify terror, and that they have to accept living in peace, with us, side by side, and that our confrontation is not just on the military level, but our confrontation, and the real challenge is an intellectual one, is a moral challenge, and this part of shield of freedom we have to build, this shield behind which we will continue to develop our societies as democratic societies, improve our standard of living due to these social fabric of our society, in this moral clarity, only with which we will be able to prevail. I guess the terror, like organized crime must be persistently fought. No compromise, no negotiation like it is abroad, like in Colombia you don't fight organized crime, it's to get out of your doorsteps. But if you fight organized crime, as New York City under Giuliani, you still might have, here and there, some crime, but it's impossible to find empty rooms in your hotels. At the bottom line, I think President Bush's approach to combating terrorism, that is you either fight terror or we fight you, is exactly the things that we have to adopt here in Israel, vis-a-vis the Palestinian Authority. If you are an entity that promotes terror, either you fight terror or we fight you. We stop the case that you, if you don't fight terror, we'll fight terror. And I guess, as of this basis, I do see great hope in developing cooperation throughout the world, in combating international terrorism and Palestinian terrorism. Thank you.

Mr. Radyshevsky:
Thank you, Minister Landau. Our next speaker is Cal Thomas, Fox News host.

Cal Thomas:
Thanks. I'll be brief. It's unusual for me to be on this side of the microphone. I think one of the great virtues of summits like this, here in Jerusalem, is to network with one another, and to realize, to encourage one another with the fact that Israel has a story to tell. It is a historical story; it is a political story; it is a moral story; it is a religious story. Unfortunately, in recent years, in my judgment, much of that story has been filtered by some of my colleagues in the media, and has been distorted, so that when it comes through the filter, it is a different kind of story than what went in on the front of the filter. This is my 14th visit to Israel and the Middle East. I'm always incredibly impressed by the people I meet and the places I go, when I come here, and I try to tell the story of Israel, the only democracy in a sea of dictatorship, that reflects the moral, and political, and cultural values of the United States, and much of the rest of the free world, that has become more free in the last 20 years because of the United States and much of free Western Europe stood against the totalitarian system, known as Communism. I believe there is an equal, or even greater threat now, to freedom around the world, it is radical, unrepentant, unforgiving, and even, we would say in another context, Evangelical Islam. It must be dealt with, it must be defeated, and those who are moderates among this faith must stand up and be partners in defeating it, for the sake of not only Israel and the United States, but souls that yearn to breed free, and practice meetings such as this, that would be impossible in many parts of the world, including many of the nations that surround Israel today. So, I'm delighted to be here on my 14th visit and I thank Dmitry and the Jerusalem Summit for inviting me.

Mr. Radyshevsky:
Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Now, the questions please.

Speaker:
There's just one other bit of business we would like to share with you at the moment. The Jerusalem Summit sponsored a national opinion survey, here in Israel, about 10 days ago. We would like to distribute the results to you at this point. This is a PS sort of thing to the content that you have before you now, but I think you will find it of extreme interest. I just wanted to, this was conducted by the Smith Institute, and I just wanted to mention, as you'll see on the front page here, summarized - you have all the data, in depth, in the subsequent pages, but on the front page I just want to very quickly emphasize what some of the key findings were, which are very much in consonance with the spirit and the principles being examined at the Jerusalem Summit. Point number one: The Road Map for peace is very, very significantly not understood by the people of Israel. On a ratio of actually 9 to 1, those who do not understand it clearly, contrasted with those who do. Second point: The majority of Israelis generally oppose or have no opinion on the Road Map approach, and again, you'll see that that's true of those who identify themselves as right of center, on a 2:1 basis, while those who identify themselves as left of center, do support it on a 5:1 basis. Again, I'm racing through these things, but all of the statistics are here for you to take a look at later on. A third point: The United States should be doing almost anything other than promoting the Road Map to peace. This is interesting, because again, it reflects a lot of the discussion we've been hearing here, at the summit, over the last 48 hours. Many alternatives were suggested. The people of Israel feel that the United States should in fact be withdrawing part of its active role in the Arab-Israel dispute at this point. Again, take a look at the significant demographic figures that support that, but it seems to me the disengagement is as much a desire of the Israelis on the part of the White House as many other alternatives. 70% of the population of Israel embrace either a Likud-style approach of critical reservations about the Road Map, or the more right of center, or rejection of this approach. Only 14% of the Israeli people today would like to see the Road Map implemented. Fourth point: The Palestinians intend to destroy, that's what 55% of Israelis believe today. The intention of the Palestinians is not actually to reach a true peace agreement. Again, all these speak to the premises on which peace based on truth must be formulated. Next point: 81% of Israelis do not believe that a Palestinian State would result in peace between Israel and the Arabs. On a 4:1 ratio, Israelis say that the Palestinian State would create corruption and unrest, not peace or democracy, and finally, last point: Israelis overwhelmingly view the United States as Israel's best friend in the world. Now, that's really not news, except when one puts it in the context of that same question being asked in many other countries around the world these days, be they friendly countries, such as the United Kingdom, be they others - Indonesia, Pakistan - take a look at the results and you will find totally a diametrically opposing statistic. The gut reflexive feeling of the people of Israel is to feel at one with the United States, and again that has serious implications. By the way, as you'll see in the demographics, 91% of the Right and 91% of the Left share that particular finding. Thank you very much. I invite you to look at the more detailed findings in the poll here.

The floor is now open to questions. And as always, we ask that you must identify yourself and you must limit yourself for first round, to one question. David.
(question - inaudible)

Dr. Pipes:
I haven't seen the details that have been agreed and I gathered that details have not been disclosed. This would be a most unusual event in the United States. In fact it would be illegal, under our laws, for a private citizen to reach an agreement with representatives of a foreign government or a foreign entity. In a democracy, we elect people to represent us and negotiate for us, and when others take that responsibility upon themselves it seems to me, anyway, just profoundly undemocratic. That's without regard to the substance, because I simply don't know enough about what they have concluded, but I would merely repeat what I said earlier, about where the problem lies. It is not, in my view, on the concoction of diplomatic formulas, it is on a fundamental change in the value structure that the parties bring to the negotiation, and in the press accounts of what has been agreed in Geneva, I saw nothing to suggest that as part of this agreement, the practice of teaching Palestinian children that they should hate Israelis, is in any way a part of that agreement. It was a serious omission at Oslo, and it would be a serious omission if it's not part of any proposal today.

Mr. Perle:
The pattern of diplomacy since September of 1993 has been that at every time the diplomacy fails, the Israeli side offers more, and hopes that by giving away more, and demanding less, goodwill will be engendered, and a resolution will be achieved. I think 10 years of failure point pretty directly to the impossibility of yet one more try working out. It's never worked until now. I mean, Camp David failed, and then came Taba. Taba failed, then came another effort by the Labor candidate for Prime Minister, Mr. Mitzna, and this goes even further. This is not the way to do it. It's got to fail.

Mr. Thomas:
I'd like to analogize this to a mortgage: if you've been paying on your house for 6 months and you go to the bank and say: We'd like not to pay the rest of the mortgage. There are 29 and half years left, and the bank says: "No, you have to pay it. You have to pay it all". And this is what we're involved in, not only with Mr. Beilin's plan, but all of the others that have gone before. The people who think they hold the title to the land don't want just a part of it, they want all of it. And yet, so many in the West, including some here in Israel, continue to say: Let us throw some more payments at you. We don't want to give the whole thing, we want just a few payments. And the other side says: No, because we believe we own all of it, we want all of it. So, all of these formulas are doomed at the beginning, because they are based on the wrong concept, that somehow we can make a partial payment, those of us who are practitioners of democracy and freedom, and religious tolerance and pluralism, when the other side says: No, we hold the title and we want all of it. So I think the formula fails at the beginning, because it's based on the wrong premise.

Mr. Perle:
I said in my opening remark that there could be no more appropriate place to be discussing great questions of the enduring values. This is not only a beautiful city as a historic city, but it is a city which because of the amalgamation of the world's great religions, it's a place where questions of value are everywhere around us. So, for me, Jerusalem is a place where one cannot be without contemplating the largest questions of human values.

(Question - inaudible)

Mr. Perle:
The policy recommendation I'm making is that we all, governments, institutions, individuals, do what we can to urge the Palestinians to reach the conclusion, that they have lost in their attempt to destroy Israel, and to move on to do better things. That will soon have a military component, but it need not be only military, I think it is something that is in the interest of the Palestinians themselves more than anyone else. You don't have to go far from this city to see the unhappy circumstances in which the Palestinians now live, due to their unwillingness to accept Israel and their determination to hurl themselves against Israelis in order to destroy Israeli lines. Once they stop that effort, and once they truly, in a protracted and consistent way, show that they are ready to accept Israel, then diplomacy can start, also its benefits can flow, real progress can take place. But none of that will take place, in my view, until there is this profound change. And this profound change will take place when the Palestinians, through pain rather than through pleasure, come to the conclusion that the attempt to destroy Israel is a failed effort.

(Question - inaudible)

I don't think that the Palestinians are immune to the same factors which affect everyone else. I don't see suicide bombers arising out of despair and unemployment and poverty. I see them arising out of ambition, exhilaration and optimism that by attacking Israel they're demoralizing the Israelis and coming closer to their desired goals. I do think that as they realize that this is not working, and this is clearly not working, with three years into the war, and the Palestinians have failed to demoralize Israel, and in fact had a counter-productive effect: They are much further away from a Palestinian State than they were three years ago, they are poor, their institutions are eroded, it's of much less desirable situation. I don't think they are immune to the realization that this is not working, and that something else needs to be tried, and eventually that something else is coming to terms with the existence if the Jewish State.

Let me answer briefly on the Palestinian refugee question. The key, I think is a technical one. There is one institution in the United Nations that deals with the world of refugees, and there's one that deals with the Palestinians specifically, and they have different definitions of refugee. The international, the global definition of a refugee, is the persons who were forced to leave their countries. The Palestinian definition includes those persons, plus their descendents. So, by this peculiar definition of the Palestinian refugees we find the second, third and fourth generations are yet refugees, the population grows, there is no effort to integrate and assimilate them, and I think a focus needs to be on the United Nations to disperse this special United Nations Relief and Works Agency devoted to the Palestinians, and bring the Palestinians under the same wages as refugees the world over.

Minister Elon:
I'm not sure, David Badin, if your question is about the exchange, deal, or about regular releasing of prisoners. I really think that to release prisoners in a status of war, it's to give more soldiers to the enemy. That's all. They had it in '87, in the Ahmad Jibril deal, and immediately after it, the Intifada started, and the officers of the Intifada were those that were released. So, for me, Israeli families that their sons were soldiers, and I understand the issue, but I have to say, according to the Jewish law, and according to out tradition, I'll just remind you a famous story, about Maharam mi Rottenburg. His name was Rabenu Meir, he was the outstanding spiritual and Halachic leader 800 years ago, in Germany, in Rottenburg. He was kidnapped and the community was ready to pay whatever was necessary, and even more and double. And he refused. He was dying in jail. Until his last day, he said: "no, if you'll do it, it will be against our Jewish law, that says - don't release prisoners. It will create the appetite to kidnap more. So, if there are two states and after war they have to exchange prisoners, that's how we have to do according to the international treaties, and it makes sense. We did it with Egypt, we did it with Syria, but to start with terror organizations - you know how you start, you don't know how you'll conclude it. This is in principle, my opinion.

(Question - inaudible).

Minister Elon:
Hizbullah is one of the terror organizations, a well-known terror organization, and I think that it is a big mistake to discuss with them and to deal with them, and I didn't see the details, maybe they are doing it for free or voluntarily, so I'll change my mind, but if the price is illogical, doesn't make sense, I don't think that in a time of war you can give soldiers to your enemy.

Dr. Landau:
Two comments. First, when it has to do on a regular basis, no exchange of prisoners. You cannot equate the release of terrorists to the release of prisoners of war. Prisoners of war fought following the rules of war, that you don't hit civilians. At certain things you do but at other things you don't do. Terrorists are in jails because of crimes against humanity which they performed. I see it very negatively, on the moral grounds, first, that they are released, and secondly, also on a reality basis: Their release is simply rewarding terror, and you are therefore going to see the future of more terror. When it comes to the exchange and freeing terrorists, because of your prisoners which have been kidnapped and jailed, there is a sense in it. The only problem there is the price. You should always keep in your mind the very fact, that already now we are demanded an exorbitant price of too high of a price we paid before, and therefore we have basically planted an incentive for the Hizbullah to kidnap our people, and our government, and I believe this was done, as well as taken into consideration, these very elements, so that when we are now exchanging our people, we are not providing an incentive for more kidnapping in the future.

Mr. Perle:
I'm not particularly competent to address this issue, I would only observe that many Christians in the United States, for great many reasons, are strong supporters of Israel, are looking, and are successful in finding ways to express that strong support, and it is a significant in American politics. The pro-Israel group in America is not made up principally, or I would even say arithmetically, by a majority of Jews.

Dr. Pipes:
That wasn't my point. My point is that Palestinians have to understand that they lost, not that we have to change their textbooks. In other words, I would make this comparable to, say, the Soviet Union, where there was 80 years of indoctrination. But, by the 1970s nobody believed it anymore. Or, to take a more contemporary example, in Iran, that the teaching of Islamic Republicans, nobody, or very few, believe them anymore. So, my concern is less with the contents of the textbooks, which I would hope to change, but that's not my prime emphasis. My prime emphasis is on changing circumstances, so that those textbooks are no longer meaningful.

Mr. Perle:
I agree with Prof. Pipes. Changing the circumstances is fundamental. I referred to what children are taught, because it is an indicator of whether there is enough of the cultural change, so that one can repose any confidence, in a signature on a piece of paper. The inconsistency between making promises and signing documents, on the one hand, and teaching violence and murder on the other, is ought to cause diplomats to pause. And it isn't simply what is taught in the schools. It is what is seen on television. It is the celebration of suicide bombing, as heroic acts of martyrdom. As long as those posters appear on the walls among the Palestinians, no one could have any confidence in any diplomatic process, because the inconsistency is so fundamental. So, all I wanted to suggest is that Israel's international diplomacy be based on something more substantial than arranging the surface, without digging beneath the surface.

Mr. Thomas:
I think that peace is a byproduct of nations, deciding to live together without threatening other nations. It is not an objective, it is a result, and so you might as well seek to possess clouds, which are impossible to grasp. It's like Thomas Jefferson's pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence: He didn't tell us where to find it. Happiness is also a byproduct. So in that sense, I think that evil and those who would seek to exterminate you, which is a definition of evil, must not be accommodated. It must be defeated, and that is how I interpret Alan Keyes' address, that we are approaching it from the wrong formula and the wrong perspective. We need to have victory over terror, as President Bush has correctly set the agenda, not in accommodation with it, not make peace with it, but have victory over it, as we did with Fascism, as we did with Communism, the twin evils of the 20th century, so we must do with terroristic, fundamental, unforgiving, unpluralistic radical Islam. And I think that will produce the peace, not only here, but throughout the world that we seek.

Dr. Pipes:
I don't know how those in the administration who notice these proceedings will react to them, but it does seem to me that the problems of the Roadmap, caused by the failure of the Palestinians to take any of the actions required, is so much larger than any criticism that has been voiced here, that the administration has rightly said that the responsibility for the current impasse lies with the Palestinians, and I don't think there will be change by what has been said here.

Mr. Perle:
It's important to note that the administration undertook the Road map in a spirit of (inaudible) - as one policymaker told me, it's a shop for peace. It was an attempt. And unlike the Israeli seekers, such as those I mentioned before, including Mr. Beilin who will never give up, and who will give away more and more, in the face of failure, redouble their efforts, the Bush administration, has acknowledged that this hasn't worked and has not indicated that it plans to redouble its efforts. I commend it, for the realism implicit in that decision.

Minister Elon:
As long as the Palestinian Authority exists, and this is the partner, officially, and the State of Israel and the government of Israel did not decide that 10 years is enough, and we have to change partners, and I'm sorry, they didn't do it, I won't recommend King Abdullah to jump and to risk himself. After all, he's afraid of the Palestinian Authority more than we, and he knows the area, and the history of this place, and we couldn't be so loyal to the Christians in South Lebanon, and you know what happened there, and those that cooperated with us in Judea and Samaria when Oslo came, they were abandoned. If King Abdullah will see that Israel and America backing this partner and we are not speaking about bringing down King Abdullah - the opposite - upgrading him, and trying to see a situation of another partner that can represent the Palestinians, I think, and I'm trying to put it in my booklet, that he has many reasons why to join. But first, he has to see that it's a serious thing, and he's not trying to conclude his life like the first Abdullah.

Mr. Perle:
One word about the terrorism issue. In my view, President Bush transformed the American approach to terrorism on September 11, 2001, when he said: "We will not distinguish between terrorists and the states that harbor them". That is at the core of American policy and what is going to be a long struggle against terrorism, and I was happy to see that Israel has now taken a similar step in responding to acts of terror that originate on Lebanese territory by going to the rulers of Lebanon in Damascus. That seemed to me long overdue, and I hope that is now a policy like the American policy of responding to acts of terror against the state sponsors of terror.

go back Arrow

 
Design: Gala-Studio   Layout, programing, hosting: Virtual Style Ltd
All rights reserved © Jerusalem Summit
 
VISITS
Page:1