Skip to main content

Home/ Geopolitics Weekly/ Group items tagged Comprehensive Peace Agreement

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Pedro Gonçalves

Prime Minister's Speech at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University - 0 views

www.pmo.gov.il/...speechbarilan140609.htm

Israel Palestine Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Settlements

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 15 Jun 09 - Cached
  • The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday.  The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons.
  • I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time.  I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem.I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace.
  • The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.
  • ...24 more annotations...
  • I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let’s begin negotiations immediately without preconditions.Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments. We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbors.
  • I do not want war.  No one in Israel wants war.
  • to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict. Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles. We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement.  We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal.  In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected. We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.  The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.
  • Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.
  • But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.
  • The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.”  I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.
  • Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.  To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders.  For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.
  • Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries.  Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s borders.
  • the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years.  Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us.  This is the land of our forefathers. The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust - a suffering which has no parallel in human history.  There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established.  But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occured. 
  • our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged. 
  • the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.   In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing. The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders. Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence. The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.  All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria .
  • In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect.  Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government.  Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.
  • This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed.  We must recognize this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel.
  • Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.  The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel.  Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza. 
  • In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran.
  • It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.
  • Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel:  Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today.  And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.
  • Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.
  • Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel
  • The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement.  In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements. But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere.  The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace.  Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.
  • Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbors.
  • If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel - we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy.  All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us. 
  • Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas.  Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction.   Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit
  • If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state. 
Argos Media

'World leaders must drop their slogans' | Israel | Jerusalem Post - 0 views

www.jpost.com/...Satellite

Avigdor Lieberman Israel Iran Palestine

shared by Argos Media on 24 Apr 09 - No Cached
  • JPost.com » Israel » Article Apr 24, 2009 0:14&nbsp;|&nbsp;Updated Apr 24, 2009 13:54 'World leaders must drop their slogans' By DAVID HOROVITZ AND AMIR MIZROCH PrintSubscribe articleTitle = ' \'World leaders must drop their slogans\' '; showOdiogoReadNowButton ('1002,1003,1005,1004,1006,1484,1560,1561,1562,1563,1564,1565,1566',articleTitle,'0', 290, 55); E-mailToolbar + Recommend: What's this? showInitialOdiogoReadNowFrame ('1002,1003,1005,1004,1006,1484,1560,1561,1562,1563,1564,1565,1566', '0', 290, 0); Talkbacks for this article: 117 &nbsp; | &nbsp;Avg. rating 4.61 out of 5</s
  • The international community has to "stop speaking in slogans" if it really wants to help the new Israeli government work toward a solution to the Palestinian conflict and help bring stability to the Middle East, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday, in his first interview with an Israeli newspaper since taking the job.
  • "Over the last two weeks I've had many conversations with my colleagues around the world," he said. "Just today, I saw the political adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Chinese foreign minister and the Czech prime minister. And everybody, you know, speaks with you like you're in a campaign: Occupation, settlements, settlers..." Slogans like these, and others Lieberman cited, such as "land for peace" and "two-state solution," were both overly simplistic and ignored the root causes of the ongoing conflict, he said.
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • Lieberman insistently refused to rule in, or rule out, Palestinian statehood alongside Israel as the essence of a permanent accord, but emphatically endorsed Netanyahu's declared desire not to rule over a single Palestinian.
  • The foreign minister spoke as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel on Thursday that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem's commitment to the peace process.
  • The fact was, said the Israel Beiteinu leader, that the Palestinian issue was "deadlocked" despite the best efforts of a series of dovish Israeli governments. "Israel has proved its good intentions, our desire for peace," he said. The path forward, he said, lay in ensuring security for Israel, an improved economy for the Palestinians, and stability for both. "Economy, security, stability," he repeated. "It's impossible to artificially impose any political solution. It will fail, for sure. You cannot start any peace process from nothing. You must create the right situation, the right focus, the right conditions."
  • Equally emphatically, he said no peace proposal that so much as entertained the notion of a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees could serve as a basis for negotiation. "It cannot be on the table. I'm not ready to even discuss the 'right of return' of even one refugee," he said. But he also made clear that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was not a precondition for progress. "You know, we don't want to torpedo the process," he said. "But somebody who really wants a solution, somebody who really desires a real peace and a real agreement, must realize that this would be impossible to achieve without recognizing Israel as a Jewish state."
  • Lieberman said the new government would have no dealings with Hamas, which needed to be "suffocated," and that the international community also had to maintain the long-standing Quartet preconditions for dealing with the Islamist group.
  • The real reason for the deadlock with the Palestinians, said Lieberman, "is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict. It started like other national conflicts. [But] today it's a more religious conflict. Today you have the influence of some nonrational players, like al-Qaida."
  • And the biggest obstacle to any comprehensive solution, he said, "is not Israel. It is not the Palestinians. It's the Iranians."
  • Lieberman said the prime responsibility for thwarting Iran's march to a nuclear capability lay with the international community, not Israel, and especially the five permanent members of the Security Council. He was confident that stringent economic sanctions could yet achieve the desired result, and said he did not even "want to think about the consequences of a crazy nuclear arms race in the region."
  • He said it would be "impossible to resolve any problem in our region without resolving the Iranian problem." This, he said, related to Lebanon, Syria and problems with Islamic extremist terror in Egypt, the Gaza Strip and Iraq.
  • Nonetheless, Lieberman stressed that Israel did not regard stopping Iran as a precondition for Israeli efforts to make progress with the Palestinians. Quite the reverse, he said. "No, we must start with the Palestinian issues because it's our interest to resolve this problem. But there should be no illusions. To achieve an agreement, to achieve an end of conflict, with no more bloodshed, no more terror, no more claims - that's impossible until Iran [is addressed]."
  • Noting what he called Syria's deepening ties with Iran, Lieberman said he saw no point whatsoever in resuming the indirect talks with Damascus conducted by the last government. "We don't see any good will from the Syrian side," he said. "Only the threats, like 'If you're not ready to talk, we'll retake the Golan by military action...'"
Argos Media

Think Twice on Bashir | Print Article | Newsweek.com - 0 views

www.newsweek.com/...print

Sudan ICC Omar al-Bashir Darfur Comprehensive Peace Agreement Justice and Equality Movement

shared by Argos Media on 13 Mar 09 - Cached
  • policymakers ought to think twice before following through on the ICC's decision. While the warrant sends a clear signal to Bashir and others with blood on their hands that justice will be served, it has already halted further progress at the Darfur peace talks that have been underway in Qatar between Khartoum and the most powerful rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement. While these talks have to date yielded little more than a good-will agreement to end the conflict, it appears that thearrest warrant for Bashir has shattered even these fragile gains, as the rebel group announced in the wake of the ICC warrant that it is pulling back from further negotiations. Bashir too may now see little to gain from them.
  • The warrant could also endanger the United Nations peacekeepers and humanitarian workers who have done so much to reduce the suffering in the region. Although the horrors continue in Darfur, they are nowhere near the level that existed before these workers were allowed to operate. Soon after the ICC ruling, Sudan announced that it was expelling many aid groups, which will clearly jeapordize the delivery of much-needed humanitarian assistance. The UN could be next.
  • Finally, and most ominously, the warrant could undermine the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between northern and southern Sudan, which brought to an end a civil war that lasted 20 years and cost more than 2 million lives. This landmark deal is fraying badly already. Elections scheduled for 2009 are behind schedule, and implementation of wealth and power-sharing provisions have stalled. Bashir fought many in his party to sign the CPA, and leaders in the south now worry that the indictment will jeopardize the 2011 referendum giving it the right to secede from Sudan. Collapse of the CPA would almost certainly lead to renewed conflict between north and south, with fragmentation and bloodshed that could rival the violence of Darfur at its worst.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • So what to do? Africa's regional leaders may provide the answer. The African Union has for some time been pushing to have the indictment deferred by the U.N. Security Council, which it has the authority to do under Article 16 of the ICC charter.
  • Support for deferral is widespread among African leaders
  • The Arab League, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the semiautonomous government of Southern Sudan have also voiced support for a deferral.
  • deferring the warrant would be contingent upon concessions from Bashir and his party—namely, agreements to work to hasten the implementation of the CPA, hold elections this year and work with the UN and international mediators toward peace in Darfur, starting immediately with a ceasefire.
  • the United States could always push to reinstate the indictment and use the warrant as leverage to compel Khartoum to act and honor its commitments.
  • A conditional suspension of the ICC's warrant for Bashir is the best way to prevent a collapse of the CPA, protect those still in need and force Khartoum to act toward ending the conflict in Darfur.
Argos Media

We're nobody's fig-leaf, insists Ehud Barak as Labour joins Israel's far right in coali... - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...-ehud-barak-binyamin-netanyahu

Israel Politics Israeli Labour Party Likud Benjamin Netanyahu Ehud Barak

shared by Argos Media on 25 Mar 09 - Cached
  • Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's next prime minister, was last night on the verge of forming a majority coalition after the Labour party agreed a last-minute deal to join his incoming government.
  • Netanyahu will be prime minister, with Lieberman as his foreign minister and Barak remaining as defence minister, where he was a key figure behind Israel's three-week war in Gaza.
  • Labour's central committee voted by 680 to 570 in favour of the deal, despite bitter divisions among the party hierarchy. Some at the meeting in Tel Aviv last night showed their frustration, shouting "disgrace" after the result was announced.Netanyahu already has Lieberman's Israel Our Home party on board, as well as the ultra-Orthodox Shas. Now with Labour he has a total of 66 seats - a majority in the 120-seat Knesset, Israel's parliament. However, it is unclear whether the seven Labour MPs who opposed Barak will accept the party's decision or rebel and refuse to support the government.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • In what appears to be a concession to win Labour's support, he and Barak agreed a joint platform that would commit the new government to working for a "comprehensive regional agreement for peace and co-operation in the Middle East", according to the Israeli press.Though that platform says the new government will work towards peace with its neighbours and will respect Israel's international agreements, there was no explicit mention of the creation of an independent Palestine.
  • Binyamin Netanyahu, head of the right-wing Likud party, will be prime minister and possibly finance minister.• Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right head of the Israel Our Home party, who campaigned in favour of a law demanding all Israel's Arabs swear an oath of loyalty to the country as a Jewish state, will be foreign minister.• Ehud Barak (below), head of the Labour party, who last month seemed resigned to going into opposition, will stay on as defence minister.• Eli Yishai, the head of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, will be interior minister.
Argos Media

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu visits Jordan - 0 views

news.bbc.co.uk/...8049724.stm

Jordan Benjamin Netanyahu King Abdullah Palestine Israel US

shared by Argos Media on 15 May 09 - Cached
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a lightning visit to Jordan for talks with King Abdullah.The previously unannounced trip is the Israeli leader's second this week. He went to Egypt on Monday, his first time on foreign soil since taking office.
  • The Jordanian ruler pressed the Israeli premier to endorse a Palestinian state which so far he has decline to do.
  • "The king demanded the Israeli government declare its commitment to the two-state solution, accept the Arab peace initiative and take practical steps to achieve progress," King Abdullah's office said after the meeting.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The king also pressed Mr Netanyahu to stop Israeli settlement building on Palestinian land and "seize the current historic opportunity to make peace with the Arabs".
  • The BBC's Paul Wood in Jerusalem says the frantic activity is because Israel fears being diplomatically isolated ahead of his Washington trip. On Monday, King Abdullah warned that failure to reach an agreement for peace in the Middle East would result in a new conflagration within 12-18 months.
  • In comments to a UK newspaper, he said the US was finalising a comprehensive solution to Israel's conflicts with the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese that would involve all 57 Arab and Muslim states. Our correspondent says everything appears to be leading towards a visit by President Obama to Cairo next month, during which he is expected to announce his support for the Jordanian plan in some form.
Argos Media

Foreign Policy: Ending North Korea's Endless Nuclear Drama - 0 views

www.foreignpolicy.com/...cms.php

North Korea US Nuclear Proliferation

shared by Argos Media on 13 Apr 09 - Cached
  • the United States and its allies have had serious disagreements over North Korea. Japan is prepared to obstruct negotiations until Pyongyang comes clean on the handful of Japanese kidnapped by the North some 30 years ago. The Chinese have wanted to moderate and ultimately change North Korea through reform and sizable economic support, but have little to show for it. Many of the cognoscenti see China as the ultimate arbiter compelling North Korean cooperation. That, of course, has not happened. China has its own interest -- keeping North Korea afloat -- and that's not likely to change. The U.S. and Chinese economies are now so enmeshed that U.S. leverage on China is very limited. South Korea's "sunshine policy," which provided large-scale aid in hopes of ultimately seducing North Korea, was despised by the Bush administration. (Ironically, a new South Korean government abandoned the policy just as the United States was softening its approach to the North.)
  • The U.S. administration seems content to resume six-party talks where they left off: completing the "phase two" agreement, exchanging fuel oil for disablement of the North's plutonium facilities, and an agreement on verification, the sticking point precipitating the breakdown of negotiations. Preventing North Korea from producing more fissile material makes sense. From there, the going gets increasingly tough.
  • The weight of evidence suggests that North Korea will be unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons for a long time, if ever. The apparent North Korean interest in trading the dismantling of its plutonium facilities for light water reactors will not likely go down well in Washington. It is not much of a deal.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Nuclear weapons are Kim Jong Il's trump card. They get international attention. If U.S. President Barack Obama wants to make real progress on denuclearization, he must take a more comprehensive approach with North Korea under the umbrella of the six-party talks. In addition to pursuing denuclearization, he should opt for a radical change in relations: a peace treaty for the peninsula, the normalization of all political and economic relations, and a big economic package for the North, including increasing integration into the global economy. Only a major improvement in its overall situation might lead North Korea to consider some change in course and give up its nuclear weapons.
  • There are, of course, difficulties and downsides. Heavy opposition in Washington might not be worth the cost of a highly uncertain, radically different approach. It could also be unacceptable to both South Korea and Japan, which are not eager to offer goodies to Pyongyang that might not be reciprocated. North Korea's opaqueness raises verification problems, which may be impossible to work out. And Kim Jong Il might simply not be interested in such a big-bang deal.
  • But without an approach like this, you can bank on endless, fruitless negotiations. Going down today's six-party route will also require the United States to shore up its deterrence in the area, particularly for Japan, and strengthen the antiproliferation initiative to guard against North Korean nuclear and missile exports. Enlarging the framework of negotiations looks like the only serious way of achieving a negotiated end to North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. Doing so will require lots of patience, intensive alliance management, and internal political risk with no certain result. But it's worth a shot. At a minimum, having such a package out there may be of some help should the Dear Leader depart the scene.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20▼ items per page