Leiberman’s redlines clarified

Principles of Permanent Agreement – Avigdor Lieberman with clarification from media advisor

Unofficial translation by Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA 28 October 2007

IMRA followed up on the document with the following conversation with Minister Lieberman’s media advisor, Yossi Levy (translated from Hebrew):

IMRA: Paragraph 1 of Guiding Principles states that ‘entry into final arrangement negotiations requires first and foremost the achievement of security for the State of Israel.’ But Paragraph 5 of the Guiding Principles relates to the possibility that the Palestinians are unable to deliver the
goods vis-a-vis security and NATO comes in.

Does this mean that if there is a commitment from NATO to come in then in Minister Lieberman’s view it is possible to enter into final status talks without first achieving security?

Levy: I do not think that this is the time to discuss final status. First of all we have to arrange for security for Israelis and economic development for the Palestinians. Only after there are these things would we discuss the final status.

IMRA: So the entry of NATO is not part of a final arrangement but instead before that?

Levy: Certainly. He says that if the Palestinians cannot supply the goods then bring in NATO.

IMRA: That is to say that even before there is an agreement NATO gets in the middle of it.

Levy: No. Not before there is an agreement. Before there is a final status agreement. Let us say that there is an interim agreement according to which the Palestinians commit to carry out security items 1, 2 and 3 and do not fulfill their obligations then NATO will take their place.

IMRA: Besides a final status agreement there will be an interim agreement?

Levy: I would call them interim steps.

IMRA: Do you see these ‘interim steps’ including population exchanges or the removal of communities or such actions would only take place in the final status agreement.

Levy: Only within the framework of the final status agreement.


Principles of Permanent Agreement


The accepted assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a territorial dispute in its nature is mistaken in principle. It has already been demonstrated beyond any doubt that in those instances in which we gave up territory as in the case of Lebanon and Gaza, we were not rewarded with either peace or security and instead received terror and Qassams in return.

If this conflict at the start of the 20th century was nationalist, with the passage of time the conflict has become religious in nature. As a result, in recent years the Israeli Palestinian conflict has become part of the general conflict between the free world and radical Islam. To this should be added the effect of the friction that exists any place in the world where there is the phenomenon of minorities such as in Kosovo, the entire Balkan area, the Kavkaz area of Russia or even Northern Ireland. Therefore, the conflict between us and the Palestinians is particularly complicated and a simplistic approach will bring to a dead end at best.

The Goals

The State of Israel’s goals, for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinians conflict, as I see it as:

    1. The permanent borders of the State of Israel will be based on historic, security, demographic and geographic parameters.

    2. Every future diplomatic arrangement must insure the Jewish, Zionist and democratic nature of the State of Israel.

    3. Every future diplomatic arrangement will include the recognition of the permanent borders by the international community, the neighboring states and the Palestinians,.

    4. Every future diplomatic arrangement will include a section that will insure the end of the conflict, namely the absence of any reciprocal claims of any kind in the future.

Guiding Principles

    1. The entry into final arrangement negotiations requires first and foremost the achievement of security for the State and Israel and a significant improvement in the economic conditions of the Palestinians. Any attempt to impose a diplomatic arrangement before a substantial end to terror, and in particular the firing of Qassams, and the reality that there are more than 60% unemployed on the Palestinians side – is doomed to fail.

    2. The solution of the conflict must be based on the agreement to exchange land and populations and the creation of a reality of two nationally homogenous states, such that the situation will not develop that that there will one and a half Palestinian states and half a state for the Jews. This principle is required particularly in light of the document presenting the
    vision of the Monitoring Committee of the Israeli Arabs. One cannot accept the reality in which a Palestinian state is established without one Jew while the State of Israel becomes a bi-national state with more than 20% minorities.

    3. The permanent borders of the State of Israel will insure the continuation of a Jewish majority and democratic rule, and will give long term security for all its citizens.

    4. The permanent agreement that will be signed between the sides will constitute a joint and international agreement and will replace Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

    5. The international community is obligated to be a party to the agreement, while giving guarantees and active involvement in security, state and economic affairs. To the extent that the Palestinians find it difficult to establish an effective security apparatus to end the terror activity, NATO will fill the vacuum created. The United States and the European Union will
    invest directly in the Palestinian economy in order to insure a proper standard of living and workplaces for the Palestinians.

    6. Jerusalem Israel’s capital, the Holy Basin, whose borders, to the East – Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus; North: Sheikh Jarrah; South – Silwan and Mount Zion, will remain under full Israeli sovereignty, while implementing arrangements that will enable free worship for all religions. In the permanent arrangements, the principle of land and population exchanges will also apply to the refugee camps and the villages near Jerusalem.

    7. The State of Israel will not permit passage between Gaza and Judea and Samaria via it sovereign territory. This situation is in accord with the reality that existed before the 7th of June 1967 and even the reality prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

    8. Refugees – The State of Israel will not permit the right of return. Not in principle and not in humanitarian cases. This matter is absolute and not subject to negotiation.

October 28, 2007 | 2 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. Lieberman in one form or another is also a prgmatist HE SUPPORTS A 2STATE SOLUTION: ONCE YOU REACH THAT POINT REGARDLESS OF ANY CONDITIONS YOU MIGHT WISH TO PLACE ON THEM ITS ALL DOWN HILL FROM THERE. IT’s LIKE THE JOKE ABOUT MAN AND A WOMAN negotiating over price for sex: PUNCH LINE – WE KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ,WE ARE JUST NEGOTIATING THE PRICE! LIEBERMAN HAS BECOME THE PROSTITUTE.The west bank has no possible economic viability except as a big sweat shop and an Israeli business pool of sweat shop labor. This is of interest to Lieberman as many of his associates would welcome and capitalize on such a situation. Lieberman is a pretty smart fellow but I have been in business with some dealings with FSRs, and I think it strange the Avigdor suddenly drops out of formal politics for 2-3 years makes many millions of dollars dealing with Same FSRs, divests his interests to his young daughter she is about 24-25, comes back into politics joins a government but not just joins pushes himself with no demands of Olmert and becomes some sort of secret security Zar! He has about as much security backround as I do, (Not Much).

    Main point here , it means little if his choices are to stay in coalition or leave so we will see much spin as to why he will backtrack on his stated red lines. Lieberman could have stopped this whole process dead in its tracks by actually leaving coalition when it was first announced that Olmert agreed to go to Annapolis. Yhe rest is spin for local consumption. If I can figure this out so can his constituency. All he has done today was to give himself a worst case ladder of decent.



  2. Shalom Ted,

    The Lieberman stuff sounds good but I’m into realpolitik and am a political pragmatist so the sounds don’t count.

    NATO will yield a different performance record than MFO, UNIFIL and UNDOF ? It’s called wishful thinking or psychological denial.

    One of the goals must be participation in diplomatic arrangements must be by nations with diplomatic relations with Israel. It is time to place Saudi Arabia in the spotlight. Saudi needs Israel because of the Iranian threat.

    Re 7; in realpolitik, don’t expect Gaza to remain isolated from Judea-Samaria. It is delusional to think otherwise.

    I like the Lieberman thinking but see he does not have a support system to refine and push the critical matters.

    Kol tuv,

Comments are closed.