Israel

Let me begin by congratulating you, Sir, and the nation of Bulgaria, on your assumption of the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly. May I also congratulate the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros-Ghali, on his leadership in the struggle for peace. I wish him success in his endeavours. Today I speak for an Israel that has chosen to step out of the shadows of the past to prepare for the invitation of a new future. The world is alive with the impulse for change. The end of conflict is no longer a Utopian fantasy. It is the dictate of realism and of universal self-interest. We look to the future in a world that wants peace. Like a hidden Samson, the forces of change have pushed aside the pillars of conventional wisdom, which proclaimed that military power is the source of national strength and prestige. This is no longer true. The cost of maintaining a significantly large army can deplete the resources of the richest countries, even if the weaponry remains unused. Around our changing world, the flow of knowledge has superseded military might as the source of real strength and social stability. The flow of knowledge no longer stops at national frontiers. It is not possible in the age of modern communications to shield peoples from truth and reality. Eventually, even dictators must face the fact that the best censors cannot block the free flow of ideas. But knowledge cannot be acquired without the right to doubt, the readiness to change. Knowledge is not available without freedom, and so democracy is prevailing throughout the world. In this new era, the era of knowledge, the governing principles are those of democratic structures, market-based economies, open borders, demilitarized international and regional relations, and respect for human rights. But while all nations should embrace these new principles, national traditions and identities retain their power. Nation-States will remain the focus of allegiance and social pride. To reconcile national identity, regional cooperation and universal solidarities is the central issue of contemporary life. The United Nations was established in an era that no longer exists. Yet its ideals and structures can meet the challenges and dangers of this new age. We support the "Agenda for Peace" offered by the Secretary-General. We support and will participate in the attempt to build a global protection system. The United Nations must be the headquarters for an all-embracing struggle to safeguard the environment against new threats. It must be a powerhouse to arrest starvation. It must develop the institutions and the ability to intervene when necessary to stop otherwise insoluble civil wars. The United Nations must reorganize to face these problems in a global capacity. In our own region, we must understand that even if our geography and people have not changed, the world has changed. No longer can we live on disappearing premises. For generations, the conflicts in the Middle East were nurtured by global conflicts by the cold war and hot competition. Within the context of super-Power rivalry, the belligerents in the Middle East were generously supplied with shining armour. But where there were once evil empires, we now see only the desire for a peaceful world. Russia has changed. The United States has emerged from the cold war with renewed respect from the world for its democratic drive for peace. The third world is changing, with many nations ending old hostilities and building new economies. In Africa, the forces of racism are being gradually driven out. In the Middle East itself let's face it the peace between Israel and Egypt is attaining the respect of age. There is a fresh atmosphere in our time. The time is now upon us for the nations of the Middle East to come to terms with the new realities, to make a living on their own. We can learn to benefit from peaceful coexistence. If we are to survive, we must understand that the dangers and opportunities we face are regional rather than national. In an age of long-range missiles, national defence must be a collective effort. To provide our people with modern standards of living we must have open borders and mutually beneficial exchanges. For too long the Middle East has been caught up in national conflicts and national rivalries for the glorification of national leaders. We need to build a new Middle East of, by and for the people. In our effort to build this new future for the Middle East, Israel does not ignore its still existing disagreements with our neighbours. The record shows that we are working to solve them humanely, honourably and, wherever possible, permanently. We are currently engaged in bilateral negotiations to bring an end to the conflicts of the past and multilateral negotiations to lay the foundation for the future. In the bilateral negotiations, we are negotiating with the Jordanians, the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. The committed leadership of the United States has played a central role in bringing all the parties into face-to-face negotiations. With the Jordanians, the solutions are awaiting the parties. We face common problems we must confront together, including the possible Jordanian connection to Palestinian self-government and beyond. Our relations with the Hashemite Kingdom have seen open hostilities but also tacit efforts to overcome these hostilities. We look forward to a complete peace with the Kingdom of Jordan in the near future. With the Palestinian people, our conflict has been long and painful. We seek to end this conflict. We are looking for a bridge to cross the gulf of bitter memories, painful hatreds and emotion-laden suspicions. We have offered to negotiate an interim or transitional goal. There is no difference between the two. In fact, one can note with satisfaction that the Palestinians have agreed to this gradual approach. The direction is clear, even if the bridge will be built slowly. The suggested path is an interim self-government arrangement, as conceived at Camp David. We know that this proposal is imperfect in some respects. Self-government is less than independence. But it offers the flexibility of an arrangement that will last no more than five years. During this limited period of time, Palestinians in the territories will enjoy self-government. The opportunity to select, through democratic political elections, a Palestinian administrative council will enable the Palestinian people to exercise a double measure of freedom: the freedom to govern their own lives and to do so politically and democratically. But instead of attempting to draw a map of a self-governing territory and it is doubtful that this could be achieved now we have suggested a definite timetable. So, while this proposal lacks the clarity of a map, it provides the commitment of a calendar. This proposal is clearly a departure from the present situation. It has the dynamics of a voyage to a new destiny, a bridge which begins at one shore and reaches another. I know it will not be an easy choice for either side. But neither the existing situation nor the foreseeable future contains a more promising alternative. I am speaking for an Israeli Government that has firmly made up its mind and seeks the expeditious implementation of this proposal. In negotiations, the parties tend to scrutinize every letter, every dot. I hope that the Palestinians will also perceive the spirit of our intent, which is to extricate ourselves from the position of domination over another people. We have never in our history as a people sought domination over others. We wholeheartedly seek a future where the children of both peoples will escape the agonies of a distorted past and live under a clear sky of security and hope. With the Syrians, we have begun a dialogue in full daylight for the first time in 44 years. It is necessary now to translate the change in the mood between our two nations into viable and carefully constructed accords expressing a mutual interest in security and cooperation. We call for a departure from old dogmas and all-embracing dictates, and we hope the Syrians will adopt the same approach. We understand the need to safeguard the security and freedom of both nations, theirs and ours. It is our responsibility to ensure that those who have survived the wars of the past will have the opportunity to open a new peaceful chapter in the history of the two peoples. The leaders of both countries should be directly involved in these negotiations, which are in need of a new approach and creative thinking. I call on the President of Syria to set aside his reservations and meet with the Prime Minister of Israel. We have made clear to the Syrians that Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) contain a territorial dimension, combined with other components of peace and security which must be equally respected. We believe in a comprehensive solution involving all issues and all parties. Yet we do not consider it wise to link one negotiation to another, or to postpone an agreement with one country because of delays elsewhere. One negotiating process should not be handcuffed to another. With respect to Lebanon, Israel holds no territorial claims; nor does it seek to influence the political destiny of that country. We recall peaceful relations with Lebanon at a time when it was internally balanced and tranquil. We hope that such a time will return again. The moment Lebanon finds peace within itself and independence from outside intervention, Lebanon and Israel will live in peace again. Looking at the bilateral negotiations, we recall that the success of our negotiations with Egypt stemmed from dialogue at many levels of society: decision makers, leaders, businessmen, academicians. We appeal to all our Arab neighbours to establish the same dialogue today. There is no room for timidity, reluctance or boycotts in a peace process. Peacemaking should not be a hideaway operation. I hope our neighbours realize that Israel has implemented unilateral confidence-building measures. We have drastically changed our settlement policies, altered our policies towards the Palestinian people, offered new proposals for self-government and suggested target dates for the implementation of this process. We have done these things unconditionally. Yet confidence-building measures call for reciprocity. We seek an end to the unjustified economic boycott and the cessation of terror. We shall not allow ourselves or our adversaries to escape this chance for peace. Yet we cannot turn our region into a new Middle East by just negotiating old disputes. Our new challenges are on our horizons, not only in our frontiers. We say to our Arab neighbours: the real danger is not Israel. The real danger is poverty. The real danger is poverty that creates protest, even if it is occasionally cloaked in a religious mantle. Poverty and protest endanger both the Arab nations and Israel. Israel does not want to become an isolated island in an ocean of resentment. Two hundred forty million people live today in the Middle East. The majority of them live in a state of want. In 30 years, there will be 500 million people in the region, two thirds residing in Africa, one third in Asia. The poverty of the Middle East has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with the use and misuse of available and potential resources in the region. The gap between wealthy and poor nations is wide: the more prosperous nations enjoy a per capita income 10 times greater than their poorer neighbours. The earth beneath us will continue to tremble if the wealthy remain oblivious to the needy, both within and beyond national borders. The multilateral negotiations are composed of five areas: economics, arms control, refugees, ecology and water. Progress in these areas will more likely be attained if we can restructure the multilateral talks, which initially created two advantages: the cluster of issues and the participation of many Arab countries. But the talks suffer as well from loose organization, which has resulted in seminars rather than negotiations, and from the lack of a concentrated thrust to coordinate their work. We suggest the following changes. First, the separate negotiations should be conducted in a coordinated manner. Secondly, participation in the steering committee should be raised to the ministerial level. Thirdly, the multilateral negotiations should be intensified through more frequent meetings for longer periods of time. Fourthly, the Syrians and the Lebanese should participate. Fifthly, discussion of human rights and pluralistic values should be made part of the talks so as to combine the discussion of well-defined practical issues with the pursuit of common values very much akin to the Helsinki accords. And finally, the parties should agree not to postpone progress in the multilateral talks until the conclusion of the bilateral negotiations. Early planning can save crucial time for all parties without forcing irreversible commitments. And lost time cannot be regained. The bilateral negotiations are essentially political. The multilateral negotiations are essentially economic. We live in an age when financial assistance in itself is no longer the answer to the economic needs of the Middle East. In the past, belligerency created dependence upon the financial assistance of other nations. By diminishing the need for arms and building the right economic structure, we will be able create wealth of our own. There is no need to impoverish the wealthy in order to enrich the poor. Opening borders, paving roads, introducing modern communications, and exchanging technology will generate economic growth in the Middle East. Trade across borders is essential for economic growth. Markets transcend national boundaries. Water, tourism and commerce do not subjugate themselves to political maps. The Middle East should follow the example of the "seven tigers" in Asia, the European Common Market and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Let us understand: these regions are our competitors and they are far ahead of the Middle East in facing the new realities of the international economy. We have to build an open regional economy, for the same reasons and with the same promise that led others to do so. We have to build a common market in the Middle East. We have to set out upon the long and complicated road to arms control. That we can learn from the East-West negotiations and other attempts at arms control. We have to follow the patient path of confidence-building measures in the geographical and technical domains until we are able to rid the Middle East of the terror presented by weapons of mass destruction, both conventional and non-conventional. Israel has proposed the creation of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East numerous times, and we stand ready to pursue this goal today. We should address the problems of refugees, not by threatening to destroy the existing demographic balance, but by exploring a range of possibilities for restoring the dignity of refugees and offering them a new life. We should act to save our fresh air and historic landscape. Ecological pollution does not respect borders, and so we have to marshal forces to save our region from the danger of uncontrolled deterioration. Finally, the Middle East possesses vast desert land but meagre water resources. The land is static, the population is increasing and water resources are declining. Available water should be reused, and new fresh water produced from the sea. Either the land will be salinized by the sea or the sea water will be desalinized through available technology. The technology is available, and the necessary credit is attainable. We can satisfy the needs of man and land. The Middle East can be made green. It depends upon us. Here, I believe, are the pillars of wisdom for a new Middle East: economic growth, arms control, dignity for the refugees, environmental protection and water resources, coupled with religious freedom, pluralistic values and human rights. The nations of the Middle East must work individually and collectively to meet these challenges of a changed world. The agenda is ambitious. Is it merely a dream? No. It is a blueprint, and the necessary elements are within our grasp. Will these goals be achieved in our lifetime? We dare not hesitate, because the world will not wait for the Middle East. We are tragically late in making peace. If we do not face our economic challenges, we will be left hopelessly far behind. The agenda is new. The vision was already mentioned in Proverbs: "Wisdom builds the house. "Good judgment makes it secure." (The Holy Bible. Proverbs 24:3) "Wisdom prevails over strength; knowledge over brute force." (The Holy Bible. Proverbs 24:5) We have to go to work. For us, the Jewish people, this is Rosh Hashanah, the New Year. We pray that the year to come will bring peace, freedom and prosperity to build a new Middle East for all of its people Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Arab, Israeli for us, and for our children.