Peace with the Palestinians “could take a few decades,” and any
final-status
agreement would entail “not land for peace, but rather, [an] exchange of
populated territory,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the United
Nations
General Assembly on Tuesday.
Prime Minister Binymain Netanyahu’s office
distanced itself almost immediately from Lieberman’s remarks, informing
the
media that his speech had not been coordinated with Netanyahu.
RELATED:PM
silent amid world criticism of moratorium’s endLieberman
backs away from land swap proposalThe prime
minister is the one who is conducting the negotiations on behalf of the state of
Israel, his office said.
The various subjects related to a peace
agreement will be discussed and determined only around the negotiating table and
not anywhere else, the Prime Minister’s Office added.
US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley confirmed that its active talks about the peace process had been held with Netanyahu and Barak, not Lieberman.
"We are in direct discussion with the prime minister. We had meetings last week with the defense minister, and we are actively engaged in working to continue direct negotiations. I will let the Israeli government comment on what the foreign minister had to say and whether that actually reflects the views of the Israeli government," Crowley told reporters in Washington.
An Israeli government
source, however, noted that in a parliamentary system, ministers and MKs are at
liberty to express their opinions in international forums. Such expression is
not unusual and is understood by the international community, the source
said.
The source added that Lieberman’s position had come up from time
to time in internal discussions among Netanyahu, Lieberman and other
ministers.
There are those who believe that it could be of assistance in
finding a solution to the conflict, said the source. But there has been no
formal governmental decision on this matter, the source added.
Still, in
spite of the careful response from the prime minister’s office,
Netanyahu’s
people appeared to be angry about the content, the timing and the
location of
what Lieberman said.
Asked why they reacted in such a cautious manner,
they made clear that they did not want difficulties with their largest
coalition
partner at a time in which Israel was facing international
pressure.
Sources close to Netanyahu said, “We have enough problems
without this. This isn’t the time to spark more fires. We have conflicts
with
the international community, and we do not need internal ones. We said
we do not
agree with what he said. We do not have to say more than that
now.”
Lieberman said a “long-term intermediate agreement” prior to
final-status agreements would most likely be necessary as a first
component of a
“two-staged” solution.
The intermediate agreement, Lieberman said, would
be motivated by the “need to raise an entire new generation that will
have
mutual trust and will not be influenced by incitement and extremist
messages.”
Lieberman added that creating such an emotionally conducive
climate “could take a few decades.”
Lieberman stressed that he was not
advocating population transfer as part of a final-status agreement;
rather, that
“moving borders to better reflect demographic realities” would be part
of an
effort to recognize and address the deep-seated friction between the two
peoples.
Citing examples in East Timor, as well as the former Yugoslavia
and Czechoslovakia, Lieberman said that “where effective separation has
been
achieved, conflict has either been avoided or has been dramatically
reduced or
resolved.”
Lieberman said that “precisely this notion – that a mismatch
between borders and nationalities is a recipe for conflict – has long
been
accepted as a virtual truism in the academic community,” referencing the
term
“right-sizing the state.”
“States and nations must be in balance in order
to ensure peace,” Lieberman said. “This is not a controversial political
policy.
It is an empirical truth. Israel is not only where we
are,” Lieberman asserted. “It is who we are.”
In his remarks, Lieberman
expressed a desire to dispel flawed explanations of why the
Israeli-Palestinian
conflict had continued although 17 years had passed since the signing of
the
Oslo Accords.
Lieberman noted that “more than 90 percent” of wars and war
victims in the Middle East since World War II had not stemmed from the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but “from conflicts involving Muslims or
conflicts
between Arab states.”
Addressing those who believed the conflict’s
intransigence stemmed from “the so-called ‘occupation,’ the settlements
in Judea
and Samaria and the settlers themselves,” Lieberman noted that “all
Judea,
Samaria and Gaza were under Arab control for 19 years, between 1948 and
1967.
During these 19 years, no one tried to create a Palestinian
state.”
Pointing out that peace with Egypt and Jordan had been reached
despite the settlements, Lieberman added that 21 flourishing settlements
had
been removed in Gaza and more than 10,000 Jews had been transferred.
“And
in return, we have Hamas in power and thousands of missiles on Sderot
and
southern Israel,” Lieberman said.
The foreign minister said he also
sought to disabuse those claiming that the Palestinian issue “prevents a
determined international front against Iran.”
“This argument is not only
flawed, it is completely irresponsible,” Lieberman said. “The same
argument
could be made that the Palestinian issue prevents action on North Korea,
piracy
in Somalia, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan or the challenge of
Afghanistan.”
The connection between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, Lieberman said, is “precisely reversed.”
“Iran can exist
without Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah, but the terrorist
organizations
cannot exist without Iran,” he said, adding that Iran was currently
capable of
foiling any peace agreement by means of terrorist proxies.
Therefore,
Lieberman said, “in searching for a durable agreement with the
Palestinians, one
which will deal with the true roots of the conflict, and which will
endure for
many years, one must understand that first, the Iranian issue must be
resolved.”
Additionally, the foreign minister said, the emotional
component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be addressed, as well
as the
practical one.
The “emotional problems,” he said, are “the utter lack of
confidence between the sides and issues such as Jerusalem, recognition
of Israel
as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and refugees.”
Due to these
problems, he continued, focus should be on coming up with a “long-term
intermediate agreement.”
Lieberman’s address was greeted by applause in
the General Assembly. Among those in attendance was Deputy Foreign
Minister
Danny Ayalon.
“I think this was one of the best speeches I’ve heard,”
Ayalon said of Lieberman’s address. “I think it was a speech with great
vision,
wisdom and courage.
“Maybe some people are afraid of the truth, but
Mr. Lieberman was showing to the world a mirror through which realities
in the world, and especially the Middle East, could be seen clearly,”
Ayalon
said.