Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, speaking at the Jerusalem Conference today, was asked to explain his position on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He did not totally rule out such an eventuality, but said that it could be acceptable only if it "shakes off all dreams of destroying Israel, and instead nourishes the idea of co-existence and appeasement." He said that the critical question is, "Who will control the borders?"
"Our problem with a Palestinian state," Netanyahu said, "is, first of all, that if it aspires to the liquidation of Israel, then its establishment is essentially giving a platform and base for the hope of our destruction. The assumption that this hope will disappear even as it receives the basis for the implementation of this hope - is mistaken. But just like President Bush said, there must be total reforms in their political system - this is the very foundation [of what is necessary]. Not just dismantling the terror infrastructures, but shaking off all hopes of destroying Israel...
"Establishing a state that wishes to destroy its neighbor, i.e., Israel, will clearly not serve the interests of peace, but will rather harm the peace – unless it gives up its dreams of destroying Israel, and instead nourishes the idea of co-existence and appeasement. This is a simple test.
"But since we can't know if this positive change will happen, and even if it does begin, we don't know whether it will take root, we have to prepare for the other possibility. Even if we reach agreements, we have to assume that they can be reversed. When I carried out agreements that I inherited [from the Rabin-Peres government], I reduced them in scope, and I made them contingent upon the other side carrying out its commitments. And when they didn't, the process was stopped, on the spot...
"But the most important issue is that of borders: Who will control the borders of that state? If they can import weapons and rockets and terrorists, [then what have we done?] In these tentative agreements... we encourage their 'evil inclination' of destroying us, because we're giving them not only territory, but territory that will be ready to take in terrorists and weapons... If we allow our control over the borders to be weakened, then their natural tendency to want to destroy us will become stronger. And therefore I objected and continue to object to giving up control to Egypt of the Philadelphi Route [between Gaza and Egypt]. What, we should rely on Egypt? We see the difficulties we have now in controlling the area even when we're in charge – the new dangerous missiles that have been smuggled in; so we should allow them to be in charge? ... So it doesn't matter what exactly will happen inside those areas, or whether it's called a state or whatever; what's important is what happens on the borders of that entity."
"Our problem with a Palestinian state," Netanyahu said, "is, first of all, that if it aspires to the liquidation of Israel, then its establishment is essentially giving a platform and base for the hope of our destruction. The assumption that this hope will disappear even as it receives the basis for the implementation of this hope - is mistaken. But just like President Bush said, there must be total reforms in their political system - this is the very foundation [of what is necessary]. Not just dismantling the terror infrastructures, but shaking off all hopes of destroying Israel...
"Establishing a state that wishes to destroy its neighbor, i.e., Israel, will clearly not serve the interests of peace, but will rather harm the peace – unless it gives up its dreams of destroying Israel, and instead nourishes the idea of co-existence and appeasement. This is a simple test.
"But since we can't know if this positive change will happen, and even if it does begin, we don't know whether it will take root, we have to prepare for the other possibility. Even if we reach agreements, we have to assume that they can be reversed. When I carried out agreements that I inherited [from the Rabin-Peres government], I reduced them in scope, and I made them contingent upon the other side carrying out its commitments. And when they didn't, the process was stopped, on the spot...
"But the most important issue is that of borders: Who will control the borders of that state? If they can import weapons and rockets and terrorists, [then what have we done?] In these tentative agreements... we encourage their 'evil inclination' of destroying us, because we're giving them not only territory, but territory that will be ready to take in terrorists and weapons... If we allow our control over the borders to be weakened, then their natural tendency to want to destroy us will become stronger. And therefore I objected and continue to object to giving up control to Egypt of the Philadelphi Route [between Gaza and Egypt]. What, we should rely on Egypt? We see the difficulties we have now in controlling the area even when we're in charge – the new dangerous missiles that have been smuggled in; so we should allow them to be in charge? ... So it doesn't matter what exactly will happen inside those areas, or whether it's called a state or whatever; what's important is what happens on the borders of that entity."