Only one path to peace in the Middle East
By Yossi Amrani,
Consul General of Israel in San Francisco

December 24, 2001

The continued crisis in the Middle East prompts almost everyone to question the logic of the parties concerned, wondering why it isn't possible for Israel and the Palestinians to reach an agreement that would end years of violence, bloodshed and suffering.

International concern is important for both parties of the conflict in emphasizing the crucial need to reach a workable resolution for the future of the relevant people as well as regional stability. In this light, I welcome The Chronicle's recent interest and editorials.

In reading the advice and recommendations of well-intentioned people I am, however, concerned with their comprehension of the facts and nuances of the situation. There is a view that Israel should restrain itself and refrain from taking direct military actions in the Palestinian territories. There are even those who would accuse Israel of aggravating the situation by its reactions.

The Israeli security measures that are in place are a result of the terrorism and war that have been thrust upon Israel by Chairman Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians -- not its cause.

Terrorist acts preceded Israel's security measures, which are aimed to pre- empt future attacks.

Additionally, each time that Israel has attempted to relax these measures, the response has been a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks.

If Arafat had lived up to his agreements, in which he had pledged to fight against the terrorist organizations that operate freely within the territory under his control, these Israeli security measures may not have been necessary in the first place.

Many wonder why Israel and the Palestinians cannot resume negotiations and reach an agreement. They question why Israel is demanding an end to violence first, and has not accepted Arafat's call for an immediate return to negotiations.

This ignores the fact that beginning 16 months ago, Israel began negotiations at Camp David, Taba and Paris and also accepted the Clinton proposal.

Israel cannot negotiate under fire any more. We have tried it -- only to be met with more violence, terrorism and bloodshed.

Besides, where else have negotiations taken place while the leader of one side preaches for holy war and violence?

If the Palestinians are sincere in their call to resume negotiations, they should first make a serious effort to stop violence. They will then find Israel not only willing to negotiate but also compromise.

I read in The Chronicle that Israel should pull back its "war machine," but since when does self-defense equal a war machine? Are we expected to suffer terror and initiate concessions?

Israel is doing what any other country would do in the same situation, including the United States. Israel has been attacked and it is taking action to try and prevent future attacks.

At the same time, Israel is clear about its quest for peace with the Palestinians, as long as the violence and terror stop.

Israel is not just concerned, however, with military measures and the need to defend itself. We are also concerned that we may have lost our Palestinian partner for the time being. There is nothing more we would like to see than a reliable Palestinian leadership with which we can negotiate and reach an agreement.

It is our hope that Arafat will assert his authority and in turn become a responsible leader in the negotiations. He can become that leader by implementing his own commitments to put an end to terror and by sending a clear message to the Palestinian people in favor of peace. His speech at the end of Ramadan was a good start; unfortunately it was followed by a less publicized speech praising holy war.

Is that responsible Palestinian policy? Which Arafat should we trust?

Israel has been repeatedly criticized for its policies of exerting pressure on the Palestinian Authority, but how else is Israel supposed to fight terror when the Palestinian Authority turns a blind eye on terrorism and undermines its own authority?

In more than a year now, we have tried different approaches. We negotiated, we fought, we defended ourselves and we conveyed messages to the Palestinian leadership and people.

Now, it is time for the Palestinians to realize that violence will not shift the positions of either side.

Only through negotiations can we resolve the conflict and reach a viable solution.

As terrorism continues and the cycle of violence takes its toll, both sides are losing their trust and confidence in peace. It is time for the Palestinian leadership to take concrete actions against terror before it is too late.

The Chronicle advises us to drop our demand for seven days of quiet as stipulated in the Mitchell Report, but at the same time calls on Israel to immediately implement the other aspects of the report. The Mitchell Report, accepted by all parties, suggests a sequence of action starting with seven days of quiet. The whole point of the Mitchell Report is the sequence of acts expected of the two parties.

One lesson from recent negotiations is the lack of respect for signed agreements and commitments. Since both parties accept the Mitchell Report, it is incumbent on the Palestinians to make an effort to get to the seven days of quiet. Then Israel will follow with its own obligations. This cannot be a chicken and egg argument anymore, but must be addressed with the seriousness and respect that agreements warrant.

As we continue to deliberate and debate what caused the current crisis in the Middle East, we should avoid scapegoating and instead focus on some simple facts. Violence and terror must stop. No one should legitimize terrorist activities or try to rationalize them with different Israeli policies.

Everything is negotiable except for violence.

No one should doubt that it is Israel's hope to live side-by-side with the Palestinians. We have no other neighbor and neither do the Palestinians. We will have to learn to live together by accepting each other's right to live in a sovereign state. We recognize that the Palestinians have that right.

In helping the parties reach that moment of truth, the United States plays a major role in facilitating the negotiations and bringing the parties together.

The Bush administration policy, thus far, should be credited with bringing about Arafat's recent speech. Now, it is time for us to see how his recent commitment is translated into action on the ground.

Though disappointed in the past, Israelis are still hopeful.