Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you two gentlemen with whom
you are very familiar in Davos.
President Peres, I think we should nominate you senior citizen of the Annual Meeting,
because your first participation dates back over 20 years ago.
Prime Minister Fayyad, I think since over ten years
we have had the pleasure to welcome you here.
And of course it is very significant that those two leaders
are sitting together this afternoon.
If I introduce, which in principle is not necessary, President Peres.
He is the longest serving member of the Israeli Knesset.
His efforts in the peace process have earned him the Noble Prize,
the respect of his nation, and the respect of the world.
As a personal experience, I had the pleasure to sit with you yesterday,
and you will be surprised, I never have learned so much in my life
about brain research through the discussion with you.
Prime Minister Fayyad, you are, of course, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority.
Your courage and conviction have created a new legacy for the Palestinian people.
You are very much recognized for your enduring commitment.
And I repeat, your enduring commitment to build strong Palestinian institutions,
as well as for your efforts to secure a peaceful future for both Palestinians
and Israelis.
We have this special conversation today, and I would like to ask immediately,
after all what we hear, and with the impressions,
that people are just annoyed, if I may say so, the world population of listening
to what is happening and to see a lack of progress.
Let me ask you, is there still reason for hope, that we will have a reconciliation in
this very crucial question for the world, for world peace, President Peres.
Thank you very much Professor Schwab.
First let me comment as a senior citizen of Davos, that this conference is different
from all the other conferences I did participate in.
Usually the conferences in Davos were in search of answers to known questions.
This time, the questions are unknown.
It is a conference to decide what are the questions of our time, for the first time.
You cannot cure an illness if you don't know the nature of it.
We are in the situation of uncertainty all over the world,
not only in the Middle East, but as usual the Middle East is more
a question than all others.
Now to answer your question, I am convinced there will be peace
between the Palestinians and us, based on a two-state solution.
I don't have the slightest doubt, I wouldn't give it up.
I am not in desperation, and I want to give several reasons why.
First of all, I believe things were not standing still as people are thinking.
I do believe the Palestinians did a good job, both President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad
in two ways.
In addition to the diplomatic negotiations, they started to build a state
with the agreement of Israel, so time wasn't wasted.
We have to distinguish between building a state and running negotiations.
You can build even if you don't have negotiations, so negotiations are necessary.
The fact is that the situation on the ground, for the first time, has changed
and people can feel the real taste of peace.
When you come to Ramallah, the lights are open like in Tel Aviv, and people are more hopeful.
And now the Palestinians are constructing a totally modern city next to Ramallah.
They don't sit idle, and I really wanted to compliment my friend, Fayyad,
for doing an excellent job on it, with the full support of Israel.
On that there is no division. We may have some arguments here and there.
The second thing, in addition to building a state, they have built a force
for their own security.
There are 15,000 young Palestinians that were trained in Jordan under the guidance
of the United States of America, and they can provide for the first time
in the Palestinian history, a security force of their own, totally loyal
to the Palestinian leadership, to President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad.
Those are two developments that I suggest not to ignore.
I don't want to create the impression, that instead of negotiations
you have to build.
It's not instead, it's in addition to.
Now we have to negotiate.
I think even on the negotiations, the gap was seriously narrowed,
and neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis, have any serious alternative but to make peace.
The uprising or whatever you call it, the Spring in the Arab midst,
is not about the conflict.
It's not about Israel, it has nothing to do with it.
What is happening in Syria, what happened in other countries,
in Egypt, is not part of the conflict.
Yet, the extreme people are using the conflict as justification
for their own search of power.
We don't want to serve anymore as an excuse.
We think that the best thing we can do to enable the Arab people to go their way,
is really to take out this conflict from the contest, and to take it out by having
an agreement between the two of us, so it should not serve as an excuse.
Let me say about Israel, I have to say it very clearly,
for us to make peace with the Palestinians is not just a strategy.
It is an historic commitment.
We are trying to make peace not to achieve a political strategic comfort,
but to be true to our tradition.
The Jewish tradition does not permit us to rule other people.
We are against slaves and we are against rulers.
We have to remain true to our history and to our tradition so we are
committed in the depths to make peace.
Now after a long time how to translate the peace into reality,
finally most of the world has agreed that there is just one solution and no other.
That is to have a solution of two states, a Palestinian state, and an Israeli state.
The Arabs will have a Palestinian state, the Jews will have an Israeli state,
living side by side with peace.
In the negotiations, there were some achievements, there remain some problems.
People are extremely nervous, by the Quartet putting dates,
which shortens the time of negotiations.
I think the date of 26th of this month is arbitrary.
I suppose it will take some more dates, and I am afraid under tension and pressure,
we shall commit mistakes, because in the meantime
the Middle East has changed already to a different Middle East.
Egypt is no longer the same Egypt it used to be.
It is entirely a new country.
I don't want to either criticize or analyze now, but the position of Egypt
inside the conflict is not the same as it used to be.
I believe that with a little bit of patience, and by the way the remaining problems
in my judgment, are more psychological than realistic and real.
I don't say that if it is psychological, it is easier to solve whatsoever.
But we can solve it, and from my experience I know that when you come to the end
of the road and you think this is the end, it may be the last day of the crisis.
There is enough ground on both sides, and understanding on both sides,
and I have the highest respect for Abbas and for Fayyad.
I think it's the best thing that could have happened for the Palestinians,
the best thing that could have happened for peace, the best thing that could have
happened for us.
We respect them, we want to talk with them.
Each of us has our domestic problems, peace is a very serious problem
domestically, not only outwardly, because you have to convince your people
to make concessions.
The people say we are for peace, we are ready to pay the price,
but why are we paying so much?
You don't know how to negotiate.
What can you answer? My only answer is that peace is like love.
Unless you close your eyes a little bit, you will never achieve it, either of the two.
You have to be a little bit forgiving, and a little bit elegant, and constructive,
and even ambiguous because negotiation is a very hard experience, but not a lost one.
So to answer your question, I do believe that it will happen.
I hope it will happen soon.
I think postponing is damaging, and I think we have to continue
and walk on the two legs, on the constructive one, building,
and the diplomatic one, negotiating.
If we shall do it despite all the disappointments,
we shall find that we come out with a peace between the two of us, and let the Arab world
deal with its own real problems.
Dr. Fayyad: do you feel we are close?
Can we do it?
Thank you very much Professor Schwab.
I will try to take advantage of the introduction made by President Peres,
and answer the question posed in a direct way, but not before I thank you for giving me
the opportunity to once again be here in Davos and also President Peres
for his statement of goodwill.
The answer that I can give to the question unfortunately cannot but be normative.
It will not be satisfactory in the sense of providing an objective reason or reasoning,
leading to the conclusion that there is hope.
The answer I give is that there must be hope.
We have to have hope at the end, and if you are Palestinian,
as I have maintained on a number of occasions, hope is something that has to be
the product of conscious decision making.
The question is can we do what is necessary in order to provide an objective underpinning
for this commitment, to continue to be hopeful until we are indeed able to bring this
conflict to a resolution.
Here is where I would like to take advantage of the outline or
the introduction just given by President Peres when he said there are two tracks,
building a state, and negotiating peace.
They are interrelated obviously, both are necessary, both are equally
necessary, and both reinforce each other when they are working well,
and would work to the detriment of the outcome that we are all pursuing
if either is not working well.
Both have to work well.
Right now I think one would have to really work hard to be hopeful at this stage,
insofar as where the political process is concerned.
In my own assessment, the political process since inception, if we take inception to mean
since the beginning of the Oslo process, has never been lacking in focus
in my own assessment. That's an objective assessment.
Where we have a process that is driven by the Quartet's strong desire,
understandable desire, to get something to go, and I actually refer here to what has been
happening since September 23rd, the latest statement.
Putting the process in a position of having to respond to that desire,
while I do not believe that the conditions are actually ripe or right for a meaningful
resumption of a political process.
Some might argue that this is, at worst harmless.
Why not try?
That would be okay, if in fact concurrently while pursuing the attempt to get the
political process to move again, the Quartet was making adequate effort
to really watch over this other track mentioned by President Peres,
building a state.
Building a state has a lot of requirements.
First and foremost, so far as we Palestinians are concerned, to do that which is necessary
to really ensure that we have all the elements necessary for that state to emerge in the
form of strong and competent institutions of the state.
But also that requires a lot of attention and to detail by the international
community, in the form of adequate support to sustain this effort.
It also requires the cooperation by the State of Israel in order to project,
to make it possible for us Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority,
to begin to be effectively able to project that which we have been doing over
the past few years on the path of getting ready for statehood as a state in the making.
This is political, and that's where you begin to have that interface between
the building track and the political process track.
What I would argue must happen in order for us to begin to find
an objective reason, and to be convinced in fact that there is hope,
and that this process is going to take us somewhere politically,
I believe that these issues on the state building track require a lot more attention
than they have been getting.
The Palestinian Authority, which is the key instrument of this whole process
given that the key outcome that we are looking for,
the key deliverable of this political process, the most important one is the emergence of
that independence sovereign state of Palestine of the territories occupied in 1967.
That being the case, the Palestinian Authority itself cannot but be viewed
as a key instrument of that, but the Palestinian Authority finds itself
right now in a very difficult position of having to manage with a very little
barrel of resources, for example.
Is there enough attention being paid to this issue?
Is the Palestinian Authority in this kind of condition
because of its own failures, or is it because of something that is completely
exogenous in the form of a)not enough assistance being given
to the Palestinian Authority relative to commitments
and b)the Palestinian Authority not being enabled adequately to operate in the entire
economic space that would represent an integral part of the territory
on which that state of Palestine is going to emerge.
I am talking here about nearly 60% of the land masses of the West Bank,
where the Palestinian Authority labeled Area C on the Oslo accord,
where the Palestinian Authority cannot pursue development in an orderly fashion,
without getting permits.
The situation in Gaza also requires close attention, with the siege still being there,
although not to the extent that it has been before.
And there is finally the issue of what do we do in order
to be able to put our country back together, because that too is a requirement
in order for us to be able to have a state.
There is a lot of work that needs to happen in order to validate our shared
commitment to continue to be hopeful, something which I believe
we should continue to work on.
Thank you Dr. Fayyad.
President Peres, would you be ready to make some comments,
to react to what Dr. Fayyad said?
I think right now the major diplomatic effort should be done directly between the two of us,
because the Quartet has its own split, because there are elections
both in America and Europe, and I think we are mature to conduct
the negotiations.
We need the help of Europe, we need the help of the United States,
we need the support of all other people. I don't underrate it.
But there is a danger that if things would be done under pressure,
we should have an absurd situation.
If you ask me, what is the greatest problem to make peace in the Middle East,
my answer is Iran.
Iran has two agencies that don't permit to make peace, one agency is Hamas.
We left Gaza willingly, Hamas took it over
and made it a base of shooting rockets to Israel.
Iran is financing it, sending arms that endanger Israel,
smuggling, training, pressing, that they will be more
extreme than they are.
The second agency is in Lebanon, Hezbollah.
They almost put an end to Lebanon as an independent integrated country.
There are known troubles because of the situation in the Middle East.
What we would like very much is the international community
will take upon itself to bring an end to the intervention of the Iranians
in the situation of the Middle East.
What do they want, the Iranians?
They want to be hegemonic, they donג€™t want peace.
Since they are not Arabs, they want to have a religious, not a national hegemony.
I believe they will lose, and also the problem is not just the nuclear issue.
Iran today is the only country in the world which took moral corruption
as a way of governing.
They hang people without trial, they encourage every terrorist act.
They don't have any expression, respect for human rights.
That's the only country, mind you, the only country that threatens openly
to destroy another member of the Middle East, Israel.
I think the steps that were taken by Europe and America are promising,
but they are not enough, and I believe that we have to put the pressure
on human rights.
I believe that values are as strong as economics,
and I believe that we have to make the people in Iran hopeful that they can get rid of
this government that suggests nothing to the Iranians, nothing to the rest of the world.
It's the first force that I can think of, that doesn't have a message of any positive
approaches and I am glad that steps were taken.
If we shall be free, Hamas wouldn't exist as they do without the Iranian support.
It wouldn't split the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians were united, it would be easier for them
and for us to make peace.
We should continue in spite of the split.
It will relieve Lebanon from being under pressure.
I believe if there is international support, it should be expressed in two ways,
to support the peace process, including the construction
of the Palestinian state, as Dr. Fayyad has mentioned,
and relieve the conflict between the two of us to let us settle the problems.
There is nothing concerning the Arab future hanging upon the conflict
within the Palestinians and us, but it is being used as an excuse.
The body is small, the shadow is large.
It overshadows unproportionally the value of the conflict.
We would like to get out of that, we wouldn't like it to be an excuse
for the extremists to say that the conflict between
the Palestinians and Israel is the major issue.
It is not, it is a major issue between the two of us, but it shouldnג€™t disturb
the young generation of the Arabs to go ahead.
The real problem in the Middle East is poverty, not politics.
The real problem in the Middle East is the social and economic situation.
There is unemployment, there is a terrible level of poverty, of one or two dollars a day.
The young people are unemployed, there is a great deal of corruption.
Nobody can save the situation in the Middle East, but the people themselves.
There is not enough money to solve it.
I think we can help the Palestinians entering the new age,
because we live in a new age.
The old governments in the world became weak
because the most important instrument to govern was taken away from them.
Usually governments govern by controlling the economy.
Since the economy is no longer national but global, it affects every country
and no country can run it, and the economy is unpredictable.
You can sit as much as you want, but all of a sudden,
a young boy of 27 years old, that doesn't have an army, doesn't have a party,
doesn't have police, introduces a Facebook and changes the world.
They didn't cheat, they didnג€™t kill, he didn't kill, and looks what's happening.
It's a new world and I think the only way to return to growth, to overcome poverty
and hunger, and starvation, is to adopt the modern means of growth,
which is on the one hand global, and on the other hand,
scientific and technological.
Let me say as a person, I am convinced that if the Arab world
will have better conditions, Israel will have a better chance
to live in peace.
It is in our interest to see them successful.
It doesn't give us any pleasure to see anybody suffering.
What for? I think it's a great occasion for the world too,
because if there won't be peace in the Middle East and there won't be
enough growth in Africa, the whole global structure will suffer.
It comes together, and our small contribution which we can do,
we are not the greatest countries in the world is bring an end to the conflict.
Let's handle the real issues for the betterment of the Middle East,
of its people, all people, Arabs, Jews, and Christians.
There is no reason, because economy is no longer a reason.
I would like to make one remark again.
People are criticizing globalization.
Let's not forget that globalization brought some hope as well.
I think globalization unintentionally became the greatest force against racism.
Since economic global companies want to sell all over the world,
they cannot discriminate anybody because of his color or religion
or anything else.
In an indirect way, for the first time we have the strongest anti-racist
economy in the world.
The second point is it opened up the world, it's transparent, nobody can control it.
Don't envy any dictator anymore in the Middle East,
those that remain alive, because they cannot bluff,
they cannot blind the people.
It is opening up, and it permits a young generation to become modern,
and save their lives and their future.
So globalization is not only negative, and it has arrived in the Middle East,
and I think the youngsters will win.
I think the extremists don't have a future because they don't have a message,
not for their people, and not for other people.
I think if the new governments that will be elected, whoever they will be,
will not handle the real issues which are economic and social in a new age
which is global and open, there won't be peace.
Dr. Fayyad, I would like to come back to three points President Peres mentioned.
The first one is the question, can the Palestinians and the Israelis
solve the issues through direct negotiations?
The second point is related to the external factors which have to
be taken into consideration.
President Peres mentioned Iran.
The third point is the impact of this, we call it here at the Annual Meetings,
the great transformation, I refer to the young generation,
I refer to the Facebook, millenial, the Arab Spring generation.
How does it change the situation and possibly the cards
in the Middle East?
Thank you, the answer to the first question is yes, but in the context in which we have been
talking about the need for those negotiations actually to be based on a set of principles
that are agreed and are also consistent with what is required
under international law, in order to bring this conflict
to a resolution on a sustainable basis, for the outcome to be not only viable,
but sustainable, sustainably viable.
That is why both tracks indentified by President Peres were necessary.
He said the political process, meaning negotiations and
building the Palestinian state.
Both are necessary in order to bring an end to this conflict, but it seems to me,
that we , and the idea has been there all along. That we need some help for this.
The fact is that direct negotiations are a requirement, in order for us to be able
to wrap things up.
It is almost a matter of definition, so far as I am concerned, because if you will look
at the nature of the conflicts and issues, and the parties agreed to negotiate,
and the language of the agreement itself, how else is it going to be done?
Obviously we need to sit down and negotiate, but it has been recognized all along that
we need significant amount of international help and shepherding
in order for us to be able to do this.
What I argue is needed in the light of nearly 18 yearsג€™ experience to try to do this is
that it is really time to look at the factors of weakness.
Why is it that this process has not delivered to the fullest extent it could have?
After all, the state of Palestine should have happened by May, 1999.
Here we are nearly twenty years later, and still that goal eludes us.
I think it is time for that pendulum to swing back in the direction
of that which is required by international law, and international legitimacy,
as opposed to that international intervention continuing to be guided on the basis
of that which is thought to be acceptable ex-ante to the parties.
Why?
Because here we are eighteen years later still struggling.
We are still struggling, actually getting back together, to sit at a roundtable, to negotiate
to do that which is necessary by definition, in order to bring this conflict to an end.
I am not really suggesting that what is required is an improved solution,
but I am really suggesting strongly, that the process is in bad need of serious direction.
It cannot really be left alone, time is of the essence.
The fact that we believe that it is inevitable for this conflict to come to an end
does not mean that there is a sense of inevitability that by itself
it is going to happen.
It is time to recognize the failings of this process, it has failed for a reason.
The context is important, which brings me to the second part of the question.
I believe both elements, the two questions asked relate to the regional context,
although the international context is absolutely important.
I agree with what the President said about the United States, given where it is now
in the political cycle, but also where the European Union is, in terms of understandable
preoccupation with the Euro-zoneג€™s problems.
These considerations add to reasons, what I believe, conditions are not exactly ripe
for a meaningful, effective, workable resumption of talks between the sides.
Regional context is most challenging in the two senses that we described.
I myself have a small country bias, almost by definition.
I have to, although some argue there are too many too small countries in the world,
as Palestinians try desperately to see yet another small state added to an already
long list of too small countries.
I believe given that disposition, we cannot really be too enthralled by regional powers,
trying to throw their weight, regardless of who they are. One of the consequences.
I hope, this is a hopeful statement, of the Arab Spring you talked about transformation
in your third point of inquiry.
Would be a reawakening of that sense of who we are as Arabs, and to actually
begin to find our way on the basis of a much better understanding of what the role
of government should be, what good government is about, out of a much better understanding
or deep understanding of what it is that actually, belatedly
caused the Arab Spring to happen.
The Arab Spring happened as a direct consequence of decades of people governed
not in an effective or competent manner or in a fair or adequate manner insofar
as citizensג€™ rights are concerned.
This is a much better understanding of how important it is to have
that kind of government, both responsible and responsive government.
How do we take advantage of that, when at some level, it seems to me that this movement
should help us, because at its core, it is very much fundamentally consistent
of what the nature of what we Palestinians are looking for.
We are looking for being able to live as free people with dignity in a country of our own.
These are the higher meanings of the Arab Spring, and that is why from
the very beginning, going back to December of last year, I said this movement should be
respected and honored, definitely not resisted.
Here we are in the realm of the should of things, the normative side of things.
There is another side to this, which is important, and I will close with this.
As a practical metaphor, and as it seems to me, the immediate consequence
of the Arab Spring, our cause while fundamentally consistent,
and it very much so the cause of the Arab Spring broadly defined, our cause has been
marginalized by it in a substantial way.
Indeed, I do not recall that the Palestinian cause has been marginalized
to the extent it is today, pretty much for many decades, since the cause
of Palestine actually came to being referred to as Palestine.
There is obviously the understandable preoccupation of the region,
with the ramifications and the aftermath of Arab Spring, how to deal with it, and the
natural consequence of it, countries trying to find their way around.
Economically speaking from the governorsג€™ point of view, what do you do, how do you
constitute yourself, elections, and all, adequacy of government.
Very important questions, and it may take quite a number of years, before regions
actually settle down, with a better state of equilibrium.
There is that, and of course there is the other dimension of preoccupation of
international, that we talked about, where the United States is,
where the European Union is, and therefore a key challenge facing us, trying to translate
the hope we are looking for into something that can be invested in, is to begin to answer
the question, how do we deal with this marginalization?
This is from our point of view as Palestinians, this is the question I think.
President, Prime Minister, we are coming to an end, and I would just like to mention
for those who have not followed the process, since ג€˜94, since the aftermath of Oslo/
Madrid Conference, we were sitting practically every year on the stage.
I remember the great hope which people had in the Casablanca Conference.
You definitely remember.
I recall when we were sitting together just after Taba.
There was such a great hope in 2001, and now we are sitting again together.
I think the audience can only share my impression, two such reasonable, enlightened
people, full of goodwill.
My last question to each of you is, what is the single most important factor now
to finally translate this hope into reality?
I donג€™t want to hear what you will do.
I want to hear what you suggest to you first, President, Prime Minister, what you would wish
the most important factor that we can finally go one step forward, and afterwards
if you would conclude, Prime Minister.
My dear friend, you know I am listening to you, and I hear it time and again.
Twenty years have passed, and things didnג€™t happen as we would have hoped for.
Let me first remark, twenty years is a long time for a person.
Historically it is not a very long period, usually those processes take time.
And weג€™re impatient, but in those twenty years we talk about the
remaining disagreement, forgetting the agreements we have achieved.
Let me mention the most important one.
First of all I agree with Dr Fayyad, that we have to work on the two legs,
on the diplomatic and the building.
One without the other will not make us work as fast as we should.
Talk too much, and walk too little, but what happened in those twenty years.
Letג€™s not forget, we have a government today that has agreed to a two-state solution.
It is a major ideological change in the annals of Israel, donג€™t forget it.
The President, Prime Minister, doesnג€™t come from the Left side,
which usually supported peace, he comes from the Right side.
But the government agreed to a two-state solution, which never existed before.
Then again the government agreed, to what you call the construction, and maybe Mr. Thaler
will call economic peace, it doesnג€™t matter.
But the construction is done in an agreed manner, it takes time.
To build a country, to build a land is not a simple proposition.
Israel is 64 years old, and in these 64 years, we have had to go through seven wars.
Imagine what a burden it is upon the young people, upon the State, upon the people.
Itג€™s hard to understand, we never gave up hope, and finally wars today
have been replaced by terror, but terror is also a problem.
We have agreed to a two-state solution that wasnג€™t 20 years ago, and wasnג€™t ten years ago.
Thatג€™s a basic agreement, very profound, we have agreed that you will build a state,
and we do it in full agreement.
We may have some arguments about here and that.
Then we also understand that we have to negotiate directly between the two of us.
I believe what we have to do right now.
We cannot solve the remaining problems overnight.
They are heavy, they are complicated.
You know Jerusalem all told is two square kilometers.
That is the whole story that gave birth to three revolutions.
There were already in the last 2000 years, twenty wars about these two kilometers.
There are a hundred holy sites in these two kilometers.
It is very complicated, itג€™s beneficial, but it is also complicated.
Now what we have to do is to move in two steps.
Step number one is to open the negotiations.
We need a bouquet of agreements which will not cover all the issues, to enable the
Palestinians and Israel to reopen the negotiations.
This should be done soon.
Once we reopen the negotiations, the negotiations should be conducted discreetly,
because otherwise the press will take over, and it will be an ongoing press conference.
I believe if it should reopen, and we will negotiate, peace will come,
maybe sooner than we think.
But the years were not wasted, itג€™s not like it used to be.
I am sorry it takes time.
It is costly to you, to us, to all of us, but we are advancing.
I wish it could have been done quicker than it does.
What I believe, and my hope is that the young Arab people will bring their peoples
and nations to a modern economy, to escape poverty.
Only they can do it, and they can do it.
I believe in their sincerity, I believe in their future.
I do not consider them, neither strangers nor enemies.
It may take again a year, two years.
We should have a transitional period, which will be extremely difficult to overcome,
but we have to handle it with restraint, with wisdom, with patience, with hope,
and not become victims because something was disappointing, or we had a setback here.
I donג€™t know anything in life that you can achieve just by jumping.
I know that (inaudible) says the sport I like is jumping, jumping to conclusions.
Donג€™t jump to conclusions, it takes time.
We are nearer than most of us think, itג€™s more complicated than most of us
would like, but we are at the final attempt to complete
a very long and complicated war.
In Ireland, it took hundreds of years.
Europe was for a thousand years a broken continent, with civil wars, with hatred,
with mistrust, so I am hopeful.
I do not think we have to wait a hundred years.
I do not think we have to wait twenty years.
I think it will come sooner than we think.
We need to now negotiate the present crisis with elegance, wisdom, restraint, and
put the moral judgment on top of everything.
My mentor was David Ben-Gurion, I learned several important things from him.
Never cheat, always dare, do not be afraid to dare, and be careful not to bluff.
The second thing I learned from him is that the highest level of wisdom,
the top of wisdom is the moral prevalence.
There is nothing wiser then to keep the moral code, to respect values.
It is very powerful, it is the best way to go, and I am sure this peace will
rest on moral foundations, not just on economic cooperation,
and not just on diplomatic understanding.
Letג€™s have a sense of proportion, and letג€™s look with open eyes to what was achieved,
not only with an angry mood because we didnג€™t achieve everything as soon as we would like.
Thank you very much.
Thank you Shimon.
Short reaction, Prime Minister.
Short reaction, I am looking at the clock too.
At two levels, weג€™re looking for the micro level first, an assurance as to what it is
exactly that the Prime Minister of the government of the State of Israel today means
when he says two-state solution?
What kind of state does he have in mind when he says Palestinian state?
If my arithmetic is right, it was about two and a half years ago,
that Prime Minister Netanyahu, for the first time signaled willingness in a formal way,
to accept a two-state solution.
I believe it took too long before we got to that point, but we should not look backwards.
Looking forward what we will need at the macro level is an assurance as to what
exactly is meant by that.
Let me be clear in terms of what it is we Palestinians are looking for.
We are looking for an independent viable state of Palestine on the territory
occupied in 1967.
That is our definition of it.
It will be reassuring if we in fact begin to know what it is exactly that is meant by it,
and not to just say two-state solution.
Some eighteen years after Oslo, I think it is high time for that to be defined
with much greater specifics, then just basic subscription to the theme.
At the more macro level, the list is long, but all items there relate to the objective
of building towards statehood.
It should not be a surprising list in terms of its composition.
For example, allowing the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian people the scope
to work, develop, and indeed just live, in that area where the
state of Palestine is going to emerge.
I made reference in my earlier remarks to the so called area C under Oslo,
where our capacity to develop is severely constrained.
Jordan Valley Area is about 26% of the overall area of the West Bank, yet inhabited
by only 50,000 Palestinians, not an area that is hospitable to the Palestinian presence.
What is it that could be done to make it so?
The stoppage of military insurgence into Area A, cities of the West Bank,
in accordance with the agreement.
Measures like this, would be suggestive of a state in the making, which would be
transformative, to use your own phrase, both to us Palestinians,
but also to Israelis, to that majority on both sides that still subscribes to the validity
of a two-state solution, but to the very same majority that still does not think
it can happen.
What is it that must begin to happen incredibly, in order to begin
that process of transformation?
I just gave you a list of a few items, and I think attention to this would be a
very good beginning. Thank you.
Thank you President, thank you Prime Minister.
We all hope that the hope which was expressed here is soon followed by what you would call
a just peace which will last, and bring finally the two people together.
When we are here President Peres again, and Prime Minister in the next years,
lets hope that we see progress.
That is my prayer.
Thank you.