From: "Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com"
<Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com>
To: Arutz-7 List <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>, Israel News List
<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: THE PRIME MINISTER'S REPORT
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:30:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>From Voices United for Israel
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: THE PRIME MINISTER'S REPORT

---------------------------------------------------

ISRAEL NEWS THE BATTLE FOR THE TRUTH

BY THE NATIONAL UNITY COALITION FOR ISRAEL

The Prime Minister's Report

Looking Forward

By Benjamin Netanyahu,

Jerusalem Post 20 April 1999

--------------------------------------------------------

In his appearance before the Palestinian legislature in February,
Shimon Peres passionately called for the establishment of a
Palestinian state. A few weeks before, 22 members of the Knesset's
Labor faction, including six in leadership positions, either
abstained on or voted for two separate resolutions calling for a
Palestinian state with eastern Jerusalem as its capital.

The Peres speech and the Knesset vote faithfully reflect the Labor
Party's position on the final-status settlement with the
Palestinians. Labor supports a Palestinian state as a historic
imperative, and while its leaders vow during the election campaign to
preserve the integrity of Jerusalem, there can be no doubt that
a Labor government will be ready to accept a "territorial compromise"
in the city and redivide it.

I do not believe a sovereign Palestinian state is a historic
imperative, any more than the triumph of socialism - which the same
leftist parties once touted as inexorable - was preordained. Nor do I
think that Israel can achieve peace only by making egregious
unilateral concessions. On the contrary. I am convinced that Labor's
way will endanger Israel and cause war.

My position on the peace process has been consistent. I say now
precisely what I said in the 1996 election campaign: Israel should
adhere to the Oslo agreements because democratic governments honor
accords signed by their predecessors.

But the only way to make these agreements viable is to insist on
reciprocal fulfillment of Palestinian commitments, particularly in
the fight against terrorism. With reciprocity, "territory for peace"
may work. Without it, we shall have "territory for terrorism," which
is sheer insanity.

The consistency of my position has disappointed both those on the
Right, who wanted me to scuttle the Oslo, Hebron and Wye agreements;
and those in the leftist opposition, who wanted me to put my faith in
a chimeric "New Middle East" and overlook Palestinian non-compliance.

It was this middle-road consistency which caused the fall of the
government. The Right withdrew its support, and the Left reneged on
its promise to provide the government with a "safety net."

Yet my aims remain the same: maximum self-rule for the Palestinians,
with minimum risk for Israel.

After a half century of hardship, poverty and humiliation caused by a
self-inflicted catastrophe in 1948, it is time the Palestinians had
peace, prosperity and progress. They can thrive and flourish if
hostilities truly cease, if there is free movement of people and
goods between Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian entity, and if the
Palestinian economy adopts transparency, accountability and free-
market principles.

Over 95% of the Palestinians are already ruled by a Palestinian
administration. But a Palestinian state and all it implies would
threaten Israel's security.

If peace is to prevail, the Palestinians must not have a large army
equipped with tanks, missiles and artillery, a contiguous border with
Jordan, and the capacity to form alliances with such regimes as Iraq
and Iran. Israel cannot relinquish control over air space, strategic
areas and vital water resources, and must retain security supervision
over seaports and airports. Jerusalem, never the capital of any other
nation, must stay Israel's undivided capital.

To return to Labor's policies of unilateral withdrawals, indifference
to the Palestinian coddling of terrorists, and acceptance of virulent
incitement in official Palestinian pronouncements and school books is
to turn the clock back to the bad old days of fear and terror.

It is a prescription for Palestinian irredentism, and the
radicalization of the whole land mass stretching from Kfar Sava and
Jerusalem to Baghdad and Teheran. It ensures violence, terrorism and
war.

The return to Labor rule would be disastrous in the economic sphere,
too. The Likud-led government has begun a transformation of the
Israeli economy - moving it from irresponsible spending and stifling
centralization to budgetary prudence and sound free market principles.

Without such a change, Israel will be unable to compete in the coming
era. In three years, we have halved inflation, cut the budget to the
tune of NIS 8 billion, dramatically reduced the trade deficit,
privatized more than all previous governments put together,
deregulated the currency, attracted more foreign investments than
ever, instituted the "computer for every child" project and a longer
school day in development towns and the minorities sector,
and survived the worldwide economic crisis - all without raising taxes.

The economy is now poised to receive and integrate hundreds of
thousands of immigrants, to expand its high-tech industries to the
point of making Israel the second largest "Silicon Valley" in the
world, and to begin real, large-scale and solid growth. It is no
wonder that the world's leading economists praise our performance
with unalloyed superlatives.

As in all major transitions, some painful side effects are
inevitable. In Israel it has taken the form of a two percent rise in
unemployment. That the number of Palestinian and foreign workers is
double that of the jobless indicates that the problem is more social
than economic, but this does not diminish the humiliation and
hardship of the unemployed.

The latest statistics are encouraging - unemployment has been going
down steadily - and I have no doubt that if we continue our policies
the number will reach an acceptable level.

In the next few years Israel will face crucial decisions. The
negotiations with the Palestinians on the final status will begin,
and the negotiations with Syria will resume.

To secure our future, we must not only achieve safe agreements with
our neighbors, but make economic conditions and the quality of life
in Israel attractive enough to draw Jews from the West and the former
Soviet Union.

Internally, too, much must be done. We shall have to ease tensions
between the secular and religious, Arab and Jew, Diaspora Jews and
Israelis. The intensity of these tensions is often exaggerated, but
they do exist. They should be ameliorated through dialogue and
compromise, not judicial coercion, abrasive legislation and offensive
rhetoric.

These are daunting challenges, and the people of Israel will soon
have to decide who will best lead the nation in meeting them. I am
sure they will make the right choice.

#

**********************************************************************

Jerusalem Post - Internet Edition

Shoval: US to set 'target period' for
final-status negotiations

By HILLEL KUTTLER

WASHINGTON (April 25) - The Clinton administration
apparently intends to set a "target period" for
completing final-status negotiations, and in so doing
seeks to avert a repetition of the current
Israeli-Palestinian dispute over the rules of
engagement once the interim period set in the Oslo
Accords expires next month, according to Ambassador
to the US Zalman Shoval.

Shoval suggested on Friday that the "target period"
could be one year, but distinguished that possibility
from a "target date," by which the talks should be
concluded.

Israel opposes a "target date" out of concern that it
would be perceived as a deadline, while the
Palestinians prefer it for the same reason. The US
has opposed a firm deadline.

Speaking the day after he met for 90 minutes to
discuss the matter with the US's special Middle East
coordinator Dennis Ross, Shoval said: "I can say that
the basic American view - that all decisions have to
be reached as an outcome of negotiations, and there's
no room for unilateral decisions, and that there
can't be on May 4 or in the future a cut-off date -
is a view that we accept, and we're satisfied."

The American positions will likely be presented in a
letter from President Bill Clinton to Palestinian
Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat before May 4.

In such a letter, the US would state that even if an
agreement is not reached within the one-year time
frame, Israeli-Palestinian relations would remain
governed by certain principles so as to avoid a
vacuum, Shoval said.

The Americans would assure both sides that it will
carry out its declared intent to accelerate
negotiations following the Israeli elections and
would work to prevent foot-dragging by either side,
he added.

"It would have been better if there were no letter at
all," Shoval said, "but under the circumstances, it
won't say what the Palestinians hoped it would say or
what the Europeans wanted. It won't say anything
about [the US's supporting] self-determination or a
state."

Meanwhile, in Damascus, eight radical Palestinian
factions - all of which oppose the peace process -
called yesterday for the May 4 declaration of a
Palestinian state "on the occupied territories to the
border of June 4, 1967, including Arab Jerusalem."

"We call on all the Palestinians inside and outside
Palestine to consider May 4 as an exceptional turning
point which will be the basis for a new stage of
struggle," it said.

(News agencies contributed to this report.)

***********************************************************************

Jerusalem Post - Internet Edition
Monday, April 26, 1999 10 Iyar 5759

Hamas invited to PLO statehood debate

By DANNA HARMAN and MARGOT DUDKEVITCH

JERUSALEM (April 26) - Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu yesterday passed a
message to Palestinian Authority Chairman
Yasser Arafat warning him not to declare a
state on May 4, or the government would "take
severe measures," a source in the Prime
Minister's Office said.

The source would not elaborate, but in the past
Netanyahu has threatened to annex parts of the West
Bank if the Palestinians unilaterally declare
statehood.

The source added that "the prime minister was
surprised by reports that members of the
rejectionist front are to take part in the debate,"
referring to Arafat's invitation to Hamas leader
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to attend tomorrow's PLO Central
Council debate about whether to declare statehood on
May 4.

The issue should be worked out solely between Israel
and the PA, the source said.

Meanwhile, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat
said in Ramallah that the PA, before agreeing to an
extension of the interim period, wants the US to set
another deadline for concluding a final peace deal.
"We are trying to set a time for the end of the
interim period, and we are continuing consultations
and negotiations with the Americans," he told the
Palestinian Legislative Council.

In addition to Yassin, Arafat has invited three
other Hamas officials to the meeting. According to
Israel Radio, invitations are also being sent to
members of Islamic Jihad.

Yassin said he is considering the invitation. "This
is the first such invitation for us to attend a PLO
meeting," he told reporters."We are studying whether
to attend."

Yassin said that, while Hamas differs with the PA
over the kind of state that will be formed, he
believes "any step that rids the Palestinians of the
Oslo deals is a step in the right direction."

Senior PA officials expressed confidence that the
council will vote in favor of delaying statehood at
the end of a two-day debate in Gaza. Although public
opinion is in favor of declaring a state, senior PA
officials said they are looking for ways to extend
the interim agreement.

Leaders of the PA's security apparatus are meeting
with Fatah activists and leaders of unions in an
attempt to explain to them the risks of declaring
statehood at this time.

Central Council member Abdel Razak Yihya said the
council will first affirm the right to declare
statehood, and then "we may decide to delay the
declaration of statehood for some time."

He said the most important issue is that Arafat has
gathered international support for a Palestinian
state in the future.

The EU has issued a statement that it recognizes the
Palestinians' right to self-determination and has
asked Arafat to delay the declaration of statehood
for a year.

Channel 1 reported that the Palestinians have
suggested the end of 2000 and demanded an end to
settlement activity. Erekat told reporters that he
believes Israel has asked the US to allow for an
open-ended extension of the interim period.

Nabil Amr, the PA minister of parliamentary affairs,
said that the majority of countries Arafat recently
visited advised against making a unilateral
declaration.

The Central Council is expected to look at ways to
extend the interim agreement and to extend the
powers of the Palestinian institutions after May 4.
The Legislative Council, for example, will legally
lose its powers once the interim agreement expires.
According to Yihya, the Central Council may decide
to extend the powers of the Legislative Council.

The legal issue is the main problem, a senior PA
official said. He said the PA fears a legal vacuum
in its relations with Israel, but is more concerned
with the chaos such a vacuum could create inside the
PA areas.

He said all those who are dissatisfied with the PA
may use the vacuum to challenge its authority. He
said the danger not only comes from opposition
groups, but also from members of Fatah and the PA.

At the UN, Ambassador Dore Gold wrote to
Secretary-General Kofi Annan arguing that the
Palestinian claim that there is a need to declare
statehood soon, because a political vacuum will be
created on May 4, is simply not true.

Gold pointed out that May 4 is "a suggested target
date alone" and that "if the two sides do not
succeed in concluding the permanent-status
negotiations by May 4, the interim arrangements will
continue until these negotiations have been
concluded."

Gold added that "the false argument of a vacuum is
clearly being advanced in order to totally change
the agreed terms of the peace process: to replace a
negotiated resolution of Israeli-Palestinian
differences with a unilateralist alternative."

(Lamia Lahoud and news agencies contributed to this
report.)

*******************************************************************

Jerusalem Post - Internet Edition
Tuesday, April 27, 1999 11 Iyar 5759

US calls for peace deal within a year

By DANNA HARMAN, HILLEL KUTTLER and news agencies

JERUSALEM (April 27) - The United States,
seeking to persuade the Palestinians not to
declare a state, yesterday urged Israel and the
Palestinian Authority to set themselves a new target
of agreeing on a permanent settlement within a year.

The two sides should look beyond the current
May 4 deadline to tie up peace talks, carry out old
promises, and avoid unilateral acts, such as the
independence declaration which the Palestinians
might make next month, the White House said.

After the elections and the formation of a new
Israeli government, urgent negotiations should
resume on final-status issues - Jerusalem, refugees,
borders, and the status of Palestinian territories,
it added.

"The United States calls on both parties to engage
in accelerated permanent-status talks and to
rededicate themselves to the goal of reaching an
agreement within a year," said a White House
statement, released by spokesman Joe Lockhart.

"We stand ready to help at the highest level,
including if it's appropriate and useful, for the
president [Bill Clinton] to be involved in bringing
the parties together," he added.

Officials at the Prime Minister's Office tried to
downplay the US statements and the expected US
letter, saying they were "not ecstatic" about the
content, but stressing the US pronouncements are
"nothing new."

"It appears to me that what is happening with the US
is essentially an attempt to help the PA to climb
down from the tree," Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu told Israel Radio. "The aim is essentially
to give the PA tools to go to the Palestinian public
and say 'No, we are not declaring.'"

One senior official admitted that while some of the
US language is not so "comfortable" for the
government, all in all there are no major
complaints. He said the promise to the Palestinians
that they would someday "create their own fate on
their own land" was the language of Clinton's speech
in Gaza last year, and that the denunciations of
settlement building had "all been heard before."

He pointed out that, most importantly, the US did
not mention any concrete new date for a declaration,
but rather talked in terms of a goal or target date.

He said that Israel is not expecting to receive its
own letter from the US administration at this point.
"Why would they send us a letter, it is not we who
are holding a meeting about state declarations," he
said. He added however, that Israel has recently
reiterated its position to the US regarding both the
PA's plans to unilaterally declare a state and its
stand on settlement building.

A statement from the Palestinian leadership said PA
Chairman Yasser Arafat found the US stand "positive"
and "pushing the direction of peace forward."

"The US is willing, with the consent of both parties
to conclude an agreement within a year," top
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, reading the
statement.

The White House statement was the outcome of long
consultations with Israel and the Palestinians on
how to prevent a legal vacuum and possibly a crisis
on May 4.

Diplomatic sources said Arafat is expected to
receive the statement in a letter today. The content
of the letter is said to have been worked out in
Washington in a series of meetings between a team of
Palestinian negotiators, led by Erekat, and members
of the US peace team, headed by Dennis Ross.

The agreements that launched the peace process did
not say what should happen if May 4 went by without
a deal. Some lawyers say in theory the whole
agreement could lapse.

But the immediate challenge to US diplomacy is the
possibility that a meeting of the Palestinian
Central Council, the PLO's mini-parliament, in Gaza
today might decide to go ahead with the unilateral
declaration of statehood.

Netanyahu has threatened to retaliate by annexing
parts of the West Bank.

US officials said they had no guarantee that the
White House statement, and a separate letter from
Clinton to Arafat, will persuade the Palestinians to
change their minds.

"But Arafat has assured us that he will take our
views into account," one State Department official
said.

Lockhart stopped short of calling the one-year time
frame a deadline, but stressed that the peace
process begun in Oslo was not meant to be
open-ended.

"If Israelis and Palestinians are to reach an
agreement, it is essential that they do their part
to create a serious, fair, and credible environment
for negotiations," he added.

State Department spokesman James Rubin said the US
did not mean the one-year period to start
immediately or on any day it is willing to name. US
officials said they are deliberately avoiding
setting a new deadline.

Asked if Washington would penalize failure or offer
incentives for success, Rubin said it is up to
Israelis and Palestinians to achieve progress.

"We think that if both sides approach this seriously
and in good faith, that that can be completed within
a year. If the parties don't do what they need to do
to create the right kind of environment and don't
demonstrate a serious commitment, even 20 years
wouldn't be enough," he added.

US officials are hoping that Israel and the
Palestinians can resume serious talks after the
Israeli elections.

The US does not plan to publish Clinton's letter,
but Lockhart said Clinton will argue against
unilateral acts.

"The president will use the letter to reiterate the
important work that Chairman Arafat and the
Palestinians have done... but reiterate our view
about how the US government views unilateral
declarations," he said.

The White House statement said, "The US calls upon
both parties to continue to adhere to the terms of
reference of the peace process as defined in Madrid
and Oslo." This includes the principle of land-for
peace, it said.

"The US calls on the parties to continue to carry
out all their interim period responsibilities,
including full implementation without any further
delay of the interim agreement and the Wye River
Memorandum," it added.

**********************************************************************