When we
met in this very place in September last year, who
among us could have imagined that in barely one year
the world, already shaken by an unprecedented
economic crisis, would undergo such change? Within a
few months, the Arab Spring gave rise to immense
hope.
The Arab peoples, too long crushed by
oppression, were able to raise their heads and claimed
the right to be free at last. They fought back against the
violence and brutality with their bare hands. To those
who proclaimed that the Arab Muslim world was by
nature hostile to democracy and human rights, the
young Arabs produced the most cogent denial.
We do not have the right to disappoint the hope of
the Arab peoples. We do not have the right to destroy
their dreams. For shattering the dreams of those
peoples would vindicate the fanatics who have not
stopped pitting Islam against the West by stirring up
hatred and violence everywhere.
That appeal for justice shook the world, and the
world cannot respond to that call for justice by
perpetuating an injustice. That miraculous spring of the
23 11-50692
Arab peoples imposes on us the moral and political
obligation at last to find a solution to the Middle East
conflict. We cannot wait any longer. The method used
to date — I weigh my words carefully — has failed. So
we must change the method.
We must stop believing that a single country —
whether the largest or a small group of countries — can
resolve so complex a problem. Too many large actors
have been sidelined for our efforts to succeed. I mean
that no one can believe that the peace process can
succeed without Europe, without all the permanent
members of the Security Council and without the Arab
States that have already chosen peace. A collective
approach has become indispensable in order to create
trust and to provide guarantees to each of the parties.
Peace will indeed be made by the Israelis and the
Palestinians, and by no one else. No one can expect to
impose it on them. But we must help them.
The method no longer works. Let us together
acknowledge that setting preconditions for negotiation
is to condemn ourselves to failure. Preconditions are
the opposite of negotiation. If we wish to enter into
negotiation, which is the only possible path for peace,
there must be no preconditions.
Let us change the method. All the elements of a
solution are known — the Madrid Conference of 1991,
President Obama’s speech of 19 May, the Road Map,
the Arab Peace Initiative and the parameters agreed by
the European Union. So, let us stop endlessly
discussing the parameters and allow negotiation to
begin in line with a concrete and ambitious timetable.
Sixty years without one centimetre’s progress — does
that not compel us to change the method and time
frame to one month to resume discussions, six months
to reach agreement on borders and security, and one
year to reach a definitive settlement?
As of this autumn, France proposes hosting a
donor conference so that the Palestinians can complete
the construction of their future State. France wishes to
say that we must not immediately seek the perfect
solution, because there are no perfect solutions. Let us
choose the path of compromise, which is neither
renunciation nor repudiation, but which allows us to
move forward, step by step.
Thus, for 60 years the Palestinians have been
waiting for their State. Has the time not come to give
them hope? For 60 years, Israel has suffered from not
being able to live in peace. For 60 years, the question
of the peaceful coexistence of the two peoples —
Palestinian and Israeli — has continued to fester. We
can no longer wait to take the path of peace. Let us put
ourselves in the place of the Palestinians. Is it not
legitimate that they claim their State? Of course it is.
And who does not see that creating a democratic,
viable and peaceful Palestinian State would be, for
Israel, the best guarantee of its security?
Let us put ourselves in the place of the Israelis. Is
it not legitimate that, after 60 years of war and attacks,
they demand guarantees of that peace, so long awaited?
Of course it is. I say that forcefully. If anyone
anywhere in the world were to threaten the existence of
Israel, France would immediately and wholeheartedly
stand alongside Israel. Threats made against a State
Member of the United Nations are unacceptable, and
they will not be accepted.
Today, we are facing a very difficult choice. Each
of us knows — and let us stop with hypocrisy and one-
off diplomacy — that full recognition of the status of a
State Member of the United Nations cannot be attained
at once. The first reason for that is the lack of trust
between the main parties. But let us tell the truth: who
can doubt that a veto in the Security Council will
engender a cycle of violence in the Middle East? Who
can doubt that?
Must we therefore exclude an intermediate stage?
Why not envisage offering Palestine the status of
United Nations Observer State? That would be an
important step forward. After 60 years of immobility,
which has paved the way for extremists, we would be
giving hope to the Palestinians by making progress
towards final status.
To show their determined commitment to a
negotiated peace, the Palestinian authorities should, as
part of that approach, reaffirm Israel’s right to exist
and to its security. They should commit to avoiding
using this new status to resort to actions that are
incompatible with the pursuit of negotiations.
We have but one alternative — immobility and
negotiations that go nowhere or an intermediate
solution that would give hope to the Palestinians with
the status of an Observer State.
In parallel, Israel must observe the same restraint.
It must abstain from any actions that would prejudge
the final status.
11-50692 24
The ultimate goal must be mutual recognition of
two nation-States for two peoples established on the
basis of the 1967 lines with agreed and equivalent
exchanges of land.
The General Assembly, which has a power to do
so, should decide to move ahead, leave behind the fatal
trap of paralysis, missed appointments and short-lived
attempts to relaunch the process. Let us change our
approach. Let us change our state of mind. Each should
try to understand the reasoning, sufferings and fears of
the other. Each must open its eyes and be ready to
make concessions.
In conclusion, I would like to say to the
Palestinian people with the deep and sincere friendship
I hold for them: “Think of the Israeli mothers grieving
for their family members killed in terrorist attacks.
They feel the same pain as the Palestinian mothers
confronted with the brutal death of one of theirs”.
I would like to say to the Israeli people with the
deep and sincere friendship I hold for them: “Listen to
what the young people of the Arab Spring are saying:
‘Long live freedom!’ They are not crying ‘Down with
Israel’. You cannot remain immobile when this wind of
freedom and democracy is blowing in your region”.
I say with deep and sincere friendship for these
two peoples who have suffered so much that the time
has come to build peace for the children of Palestine
and for the children of Israel. But it would be a great
shame if the General Assembly did not seize the
opportunity of the reawakening of the Arab peoples to
democracy to settle a problem that brings unhappiness
to these two peoples, who are in any event condemned
to live alongside each other. If we take a compromise
solution, we will rebuild trust and we will give people
hope.
I say that with the utmost gravity to the
representatives of all nations. We must assume an
historic responsibility. It is the General Assembly of
the United Nations that must keep this appointment
with History.
Let us reassure Israel and give hope to the
Palestinian people. The solution is on the table. Let us
take this compromise solution over deadlock. Deadlock
might satisfy everyone here, but it will create violence,
bitterness and opposition that will imperil the
resurgence of the Arab peoples. To that, France says
that the tragedy must cease for a simple reason: it has
gone on for too long.