Blog

Translated by: Eitan Behar

From this stage, I would like to send my warm greetings to the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, and to the Egyptian people.
The peace between Israel and Egypt changed history and proved that the swords can indeed be beaten into plowshares.
The peace agreement with the most important country in the Arab world changed the face of the Middle East and created the basic partnership between those who seek peace in the region.
“Mr. President, we are seeking a full peace, a true one, that will combine an absolute reconciliation between the Jewish and the Arab people.” So said Menachem Begin, late Prime Minister of Israel, to Anwar Sadat, President of Egyptian President, on the Knesset podium.
Thirty years have passed, one generation has passed and a new one has arrived, and these words are as true today as they were the day they first were spoken.
The courage and vision of those two gentlemen, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, made the impossible possible, 30 years ago.
Sadat’s call for “No more war” touched Israeli hearts.  That call fostered a situation in which Israeli citizens became willing to make generous concessions and to go far for the sake of peace.
As a matter of fact, Israel takes this stand whenever an Arab leader shows he is truly committed to peace, whether it is President Sadat of Egypt, whether it is King Hussein of Jordan, whether it is a Likud government under Menachem Begin or a Labor government under Yitzhak Rabin.
The people of Israel strive for peace, dream for peace, long for peace.
The great aspiration to peace, and the willingness to act, with a true heart, for it, has always existed.  And, make no mistake, this same aspiration is valid and it exists in all its strength, even today.
Only those who have tasted the bitter taste of war and suffered the terrible grief of bereavement, may understand and value the importance of peace.
The government that I am about to form will do everything necessary to achieve a just and lasting peace with all our neighbors as well as the entire Arab world.
Any of our neighbors who would truly be willing to walk toward peace will find our hands open.
Thirty years ago, Anwar Sadat proved his true commitment to peace.  He permanently abandoned violence and chose true peace.  He did not speak peace while secretly preparing for war.  He did not negotiate with Israel while providing shelter for terrorist organizations.
He spoke about the hope for a new and better future for both Egypt and Israel, and the concern for the wealth and lives of Jews and Arabs, as one.  And, he meant everything he said, word for word.
But, in the end, peace is not to be examined by the beauty of declarations and fancy speeches.  The test of peace is its durability, and the peace with Egypt has proven its strength and stability without doubt.
The peace between us has lasted more than a generation.  Facing all storms of time, our peace has not weakened during regional wars, it has lasted through waves of terrorism and stood strong as the world and governments have changed.
The agreement that so many expected to be short lived has proven itself to be permanent, solid and irreversible.
What is the secret of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty?
The answer is clear: the existence of peace serves the deepest interests of both countries.  It promises the future of our children and the future generations of both people.
We certainly hope the roots of the peace with Egypt will deepen, and that it will sprout branches of blessing, that the political ties between us will become even stronger and that the peace will spread to the horizons.
True, we would be happier if our relationship would grow closer, most importantly in the arena of economics, and I believe there is a lot we can do in this field.
In 1956, we had to tape our windows because of bombing.  In the beginning of June 1967, I landed in Lod airport, into absolute darkness, and I recall the flashes of the light bombs and the sound of cannons on the banks of the Suez Canal.  I remember my fellow soldiers who fell and the grief of their families who lost their most precious loved ones.
It happened in Israel.  It happened in Egypt, too.
But, today we mark three decades with no war, no bloodshed, and for this historic change, we should be grateful.
Let us mark this moment by traveling back in our minds, to that landmark meeting that took place over this podium, between the president of Egypt and the prime minister of Israel.
May it be that we, too, will be blessed with the spirit of those distinguished leaders, and take it upon ourselves to strive indefatigably to see their exalted vision of peace be fulfilled in many more fronts.

Prime Minister designate Netanyahu has been occupied appointing his cabinet members positions since 09:00 AM, this morning. Up to this stage the following positions were distributed:

Gila Gamliel - Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s office, responsible for the status of women and youth

Michael Eitan - Minister of Governmental Services Improvement

Yossi Peled - Minister without Portfolio

Moshe Kahlon - Minister of Communications

Yuli Edelstein - Minister, portfolio to be announced

Gilad Erdan - Minister of Environment, the mediator minister between the government and the Knesset, member of the Judicial Electoral Cometee

Limor Livnat - Minister of Culture and Sport

More updates will be published soon

By Eitan Behar 

POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES OF A NETANYAHU GOVERNMENT.

(Briefing: The “Presidents’ Conference of Major Jewish Organizations” - New York, March 12, 2009)

Over the last few months all sorts of genuine or self-proclaimed well-wishers, including parts of the media, have been falling over themselves, about the disaster that would befall Israel if Netanyahu became Prime Minister. Everybody was looking for quotations from this or that book of reminiscences - as if in politics it makes any difference what a person might have thought or said 10 years ago.

But for some quaint reason the Israeli people thought that it was their democratic prerogative to make up their own minds about who is right to lead Israel in these crucial times. Nor, strangely, did the Obama people seem to have been overly impressed by those crocodile tears - and this shouldn’t surprise anyone either. After all, there is a new administration in America - a very pragmatic one - it has its own priorities, and it doesn’t necessarily want to be tied to the failed ideas of its predecessors - and being pragmatic, it realizes that in Netanyahu it can have a partner who no less than they, wants to succeed.

I shall perhaps start with the Netanyahu-Clinton meeting. It was a very good meeting. There were actually many things agreed upon. First, there was Iran - and you may have read in the American press that Mrs. Clinton isn’t very optimistic about the outcome of the diplomatic engagement there. Neither are we. And, by the way, one very important point in this matter is that there must be a time-limit to negotiations, as otherwise, the Iranians will go on with building the bomb under the cover of the negotiations - as Nazi Germany did in planning aggression under the cover of her supposed peace-intentions. Iran has reached the stage where it could produce a bomb within a relatively short time - so, time is of the essence!

It is not for me to second-guess American foreign policy priorities - but one can try to interpret them. My impression from what I read and heard, including from what we heard from Mrs. Clinton, is that as far as the broader Middle East is concerned - Iran, and perhaps even more so Pakistan and Afghanistan - come before the Palestinian-Israeli problem. And frankly, rightly so. In this connection, one should be wary of the view according to which settling the Israeli-Palestinian problem is supposedly the key to solving all America’s other problems in the Middle East and beyond. That’s nonsense - the shoe is actually on the other foot. If Iran will be allowed to go nuclear, this will spell the end of any chance of achieving progress on the peace-front - and it will considerably diminish America’s leadership position in the whole region as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt understand that - some people in Washington apparently do not.

Then there is the matter of “Palestinian unity”, namely a joint Fatah-Hamas government. I believe, the U.S. is still a bit doubtful about the unity - and rightly so - because what this would mean is not only legitimizing Hamas but also giving them the upper hand, not only in Gaza but eventually also on the West Bank. It will also mean the end of the Dayton mission - which has achieved some positive security results in the West Bank.

“O.K., but what aboutAnnapolis and the two-State solution?”

Elliot Abrams, who was President Bush’s deputy National Security Adviser, and very closely involved with the whole Annapolis effort, has said that it has achieved nill results, and that furthermore, “a Palestinian state cannot come into being in the near future - and that the focus should thus be on building the institutions that will allow for real Palestinian progress in the medium or longer term”. He’s not the only one; General Giora Eiland, former Head of Israel’s National Security Council under Ariel Sharon, and not a member of “Likud”, has written that a Palestinian State at this point, whether we like it or not, is just not feasible or realistic - not because of ideological reasons, but for practical reasons, both Israeli and Palestinian ones. Hamas is one reason, but not the only one. He also calculates that removing the 100,000 Jewish settlers who live outside of the agreed to large settlement blocks, would cost at least 30 billion dollars. Even the deputy editor of the “Washington Post” has written that the “U.S. President should focus on building a foundation for peace from the ground up”. As Netanyahu put it after the Clinton meeting: “We need to think creatively in order to move forward and create a different reality, both in terms of security and politically - and this is a common goal for both sides”.

I want to state our position very clearly: The so-called “2-State solution”, or in its full formulation “2 States for 2 peoples” has become a sort of mantra, almost an ideology - but as far as we are concerned, we don’t want to turn it into an anti-mantra either; it’s a formula which has to be judged by its practicability - and not ideologically, for or against. Netanyahu 2009 is a very pragmatic leader and a statesman; he puts Israel’s interests first, but he does not ignore that one of those most important interests is the close relationship with the United States. He also understands that the number one threat facing Israel today is not only this or that Palestinian terrorist activity, or this or that Israeli check-point in the territories - but a rapidly nuclear-going Iran and her genocidal intentions against the Jewish people. His approach to the Palestinian question is pragmatic and logical: No, we don’t want to rule over the Palestinians; yes, we want them to take their destiny into their own hands - but we shall not agree to an arrangement which could jeopardize our security; putting the cart of Palestinian statehood before a weak and divided Palestinian horse would create the worst of all possible worlds; therefore there should, first of all, be a major effort to bring economic prosperity, or at least economic betterment, to the Palestinian people, plus institution-building - more or less along the lines of what Tony Blair, the representative of the “Quartet” proposes - not instead of political negotiations, but as a conduit, a corridor towards a political settlement. To act precipitately could easily create some kind of political Tonzi scheme. What we heard from Secretary Clinton was not all that different: Yes, she still thought that whatever is done or planned, should ultimately lead to Palestinian statehood - but she has also said that there are other views - and that the “goal of the Palestinians should be control of their own destiny” - which, by the way, more or less corresponds to Netanyahu’s formulation - and she has also spoken about the need for economic viability - again just like Netanyahu. Also, the Netanyahu government will respect Israel’s international obligations, which do not contradict security - as he did, by the way, also last time.

Furthermore, in our talk with her in Jerusalem, she made some interesting and, I think, encouraging statements - such as: “we don’t want to be encased in old formulas”; nor were settlements and indeed the 2-State solution mentioned by the way, also not in our meetings with Senator Mitchell - in other words, she made it clear that the U.S. does not want to necessarily be tied to old formulas. While the main topic, and rightly so, was Iran, and not the Palestinians.

I don’t want to gild the lily or to paint too rosy a picture. Of course, there will from time to time be disagreements, even confrontations - there always were. Jerusalem may be one of them; or Syria; the way we shall have to deal with Gaza may be another - especially if the missiles don’t stop; there is the still ongoing lack of consistency and logic in the U.S. position on building even in the settlements inside the large settlement blocks; there are different interpretations with regards to the so-called “Arab Peace Plan”, or Saudi Initiative; and there may be others.

The point I am making, and with this I conclude, is that on both sides there seems to be a genuine will, and interest, to co-operate on a wide range of issues important to both countries and both leaders. Our roads may not always run parallel - but there is certainly no reason for a smash-up.

by: Eitan Behar

Netanyahu at the Likud Parliamentary Party meeting: “The nation of Israel is in dire need of a strong government”
“we have signed the agreement five minutes ago” MK Gideon Saar, chairman of the Likud Parliamentary Party said at the opening of the meeting and stated that “Habayit Hayehudi” party had officially joined the coalition. “That’s really fresh off the press” Netanyahu replied. A day after Labor party’s official announcement on joining the coalition, and just moments before the new Likud government, the Likud Parliamentary Party is meeting under a new and fresh spirit.
“I wish to thank Gideon and the negotiations committee for the great and important work they are doing, but I would like to begin by greeting the Labor party for the important step that they took. They have gratefully contributed to the formation of a stable and broad government. That is a real example of unity”
“I intend to present this National Unity Government in the Knesset by next week we wish to complete the coalition building in the next couple of days, and would like to speak with you following the completion”.
“Likud Parliamentary Party members have shown a remarkable respect and understanding, a behavior that cannot usually be found in Israeli politics” I know it is difficult and that it takes compromise in order to achieve a unity government” Netanyahu said after giving the Labor party five ministries in the coalition. “In this case, the price of unity was high”.
“I wish to perform all the necessary steps in order to bring into action the leading forces sitting around this table. The nation of Israel is in dire need of a strong and responsible government, now more than ever” Netanyahu concluded.

Netanyahu: “I’m urging you to invest in the Palestinian economy”

In a Wealth Management Conference,  held in Jerusalem, Mr. Netanyhau spoke about the importance of developing the Palestinian economy. “I am calling upon you to invest in the Palestinian economy as well as the Israeli-Palestinian economic relations” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu began his short speech to the conference participants and referred to the current political situation, “I would like to greet Barak and his party members, for acting correctly for Israel (by deciding to join the government)” Netanyahu said and stressed the importance of a national unity government. “Government of National Unity is essential for achieving three objectives: security, prosperity, and peace”.

“Peace is a goal of every Israeli government” Netanyahu said and promised to continue the negotiations with the Palestinians.

“The economic path is not but an additional step towards achieving strong foundations for peace”.

Netanyahu’s approach of the ability of an economic growth to bring a different reality into the region, has not changed due to the world’s economic crisis, “all world economies today are under the threat of the world crisis, but I do not accept the approach that economies are prevented of getting better”, ” I did not accept such an approach five years ago, and I would do so today either” Netanyahu said and promised: “we can achieve things that may surprise the world”

Netanyahu noted that there is an existing infrastructure of Palestinian businessmen and leaders, who share the faith of a growth and change, and that following his meeting with Mr. Tony Blair, ways were formulated in order to create such a growth. “We will reduce bureaucracy boundaries, which limits the Palestinian growth, without effecting (Israel’s) security” Netanyahu promised and concluded by saying that there will be a future for the Palestinian economy.

Translated by: Eitan Behar