"If we do not want to be pushed back to the 1967 lines, the territory should be divided"
"Wenn wir nicht auf die Grenze von 1967 zurückgeworfen werden wollen, sollten wir das Gebiet teilen"
Premierminister Scharon Rede in der Parlamentsdebatte über den Abzugsplan
Prime Minister Sharon addressed the Knesset at the Opening of its Discussions on the Disengagement Plan
Das israelische Parlament hat am Nachmittag des 25. Oktober 2004 die Debatte über den Gaza-Rückzugsplan
von Ministerpräsident Ariel Scharon aufgenommen. Scharon betonte zu Beginn der Aussprache, er sei entschlossen, die Trennung von Israelis und Palästinensern in die Tat umsetzen. Er sei überzeugt, dass dieser Schritt Israel stärken werde. Der Plan solle nicht an die Stelle von Friedensverhandlungen mit den Palästinensern treten, sagte er weiter. Zugleich betonte er: "Wir können nicht ewig über Millionen von Palästinensern regieren, die sich mit jeder Generation in ihrer Zahl verdoppeln." Als "demokratischer Staat" könne Israel eine solche Situation nicht länger unterstützen. Das Land stehe vor einer "entscheidenden Wahl". Mit dem Schwert allein werde Israel seine Ziele nicht erreichen.
Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir die Rede von Sharon im Wortlaut (englisch). Gleichzeitig weisen wir auf die Kritik aus dem Friedenslager an Sharons Position hin: Gus Shalom hat acht Bedingungen aufgestellt, unter denen der Abzugsplan allein Sinn macht. Hinter dieser Kritik steht die - nicht unberechtigte - Befürchtung, Sharon wolle sich aus Gaza zurückziehen und dafür die Siedlungen im Westjordanland weiter ausbauen. Dies würde auf lange Sicht nicht nur einen Palästinenserstaat unmöglich machen, sondern auch die Gewalt in den israelisch-palästinensichen Beziehungen weiter fördern. Sharon hat diesen Befürchtungen in seiner Rede neue Nahrung gegeben, als er sagte: "Ich bin fest davon überzeugt und glaube wahrhaftig, dass dieser Abzug die israelische Präsenz in den Gebieten festigen wird, die für unsere Existens lebenswichtig sind..." (I am firmly convinced and truly believe that this disengagement will strengthen Israel’s hold over territory which is essential to our existence..."
Parlament stimmt Abzugsplan zu
Das israelische Parlament hat am Abend des 26. Okt. dem Gaza-Rückzugsplan von Ministerpräsident Ariel Scharon zugestimmt. 67 der 120 Abgeordneten stimmten für den Plan, 45 dagegen. Sieben Abgeordnete enthielten sich.
Kurz nach der Abstimmung hat Ministerpräsident Ariel Scharon zwei Kabinettsmitglieder entlassen, die gegen den Plan votiert hatten. Wie Scharons Sprecher Raanan Gissin mitteilte, erhielten der Minister ohne Geschäftsbereich, Usi Landau, sowie der stellvertretende Minister für innere Sicherheit, Michael Razon, unmittelbar nach dem Votum ihre Entlassungsurkunden. Der israelische Regierungschef hatte bereits im Vorfeld allen Ministern mit Entlassung gedroht, wenn sie sich im Parlament gegen seinen Plan stellten, den Gazastreifen bis nächsten September komplett zu räumen.
Kurz darauf haben vier Minister mit ihrem Rücktritt gedroht, sollte nicht nochmals per Referendum über den Plan abgestimmt werden. Sollte Scharon nicht innerhalb der nächsten zwei Wochen einer Volksabstimmung zustimmen, würden er und drei Minister gehen, sagte Scharons Erzrivale, Finanzminister Benjamin Netanjahu, dem israelischen Fernsehen. Wie er weiter ausführte, spreche er im Namen seiner Kabinettskollegen, Bildungsministerin Limor Livnat, Gesundheitsminister Danni Naveh, und Landwirtschaftsminister Israel Katz.
Scharon habe die Forderung der vier Minister zurückgewiesen, sagte ein Vertrauter des Regierungschefs der Nachrichtenagentur AFP. Nach seinen Worten ist Scharon der Ansicht, eine solche Volksbefragung werde nur zu weiterem "Streit, Bruderkrieg und Gewalt führen und den Beginn des Rückzugs um mindestens sechs Monate verzögern".
Die US-Regierung hat die Verabschiedung des umstrittenen Gaza-Abzugsplan durch das israelische Parlament begrüßt. Der stellvertretende US-Außenamtssprecher Adam Ereli sagte am Abend des 26. Okt. in Washington, der Plan von Ministerpräsident Ariel Scharon biete die Chance auf eine Rückkehr zum Nahost-Friedensprozess. Falls sich der Abzug in Übereinstimmung mit dem Friedensplan des Nahost-Quartetts aus USA, UNO, EU und Russland und mit Unterstützung der internationalen Gemeinschaft vollziehe, sei eine Annäherung an die "Vision" von US-Präsident George W. Bush von einem israelischen und einem palästinensischen Staat möglich.
"The end of the occupation is a vital national interest" / "Das Ende der Besatzung ist von größtem nationalen Interesse"
Die Position des israelischen Friedenslagers zum Abzugsplan von Ariel Sharon / Gush Shalom's position on the "Disengagement Plan"
Prime Minister Sharon addressed the Knesset at the Opening of its Discussions on the Disengagement Plan
Mr. Speaker, Members of Knesset,
This is a fateful hour for Israel. We are on threshold of a difficult decision, the likes of which we have seldom faced, the significance of which for the future of our country in this region is consistent with the difficulty, pain and dispute it arouses within us. You know that I do not say these things with a light heart to the representatives of the nation and to the entire nation watching and listening to every word uttered here in the Knesset today. This is a people who has courageously faced, and still faces the burden and terror of the ongoing war, which has continued from generation to generation; in which, as in a relay race, fathers pass the guns to their sons; in which the boundary between the frontline and the home front has long been erased; in which schools and hotels, restaurants and marketplaces, cafes and buses have also become targets for cruel terror and premeditated murder.
Today, this nation wants to know what decision this house will make at the end of this stormy discussion. What will we say to them, and what message will we convey to them? For me, this decision is unbearably difficult. During my years as a fighter and commander, as a politician, Member of Knesset, as a minister in Israel’s governments and as Prime Minister, I have never faced so difficult a decision.
I know the implications and impact of the Knesset’s decision on the lives of thousands of Israelis who have lived in the Gaza Strip for many years, who were sent there on behalf of the Governments of Israel, and who built homes there, planted trees and grew flowers, and who gave birth to sons and daughters, who have not known any other home. I am well aware of the fact that I sent them and took part in this enterprise, and many of these people are my personal friends. I am well aware of their pain, rage and despair. However, as much as I understand everything they are going through during these days and everything they will face as a result of the necessary decision to be made in the Knesset today, I also believe in the necessity of taking the step of disengagement in these areas, with all the pain it entails, and I am determined to complete this mission.
I am firmly convinced and truly believe that this disengagement will strengthen Israel’s hold over territory which is essential to our existence, and will be welcomed and appreciated by those near and far, reduce animosity, break through boycotts and sieges and advance us along the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors.
I am accused of deceiving the people and the voters because I am taking steps which are in total opposition to past things I have said and deeds I have done. This is a false accusation. Both during the elections and as Prime Minister, I have repeatedly and publicly said that I support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.
I have repeatedly and openly said that I am willing to make painful compromises in order to put an end to this ongoing and malignant conflict between those who struggle over this land, and that I would do my utmost in order to bring peace.
And I wish, Mr. Chairman, to say that many years before, in 1988, in a meeting with Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir and with the Ministers of the Likud, I said there that I believe that if we do not want to be pushed back to the 1967 lines, the territory should be divided.
As one who fought in all of Israel’s wars, and learned from personal experience that without proper force, we do not have a chance of surviving in this region, which does not show mercy towards the weak, I have also have learned from experience that the sword alone cannot decide this bitter dispute in this land.
I have been told that the disengagement will be interpreted as a shameful withdrawal under pressure, and will increase the terror campaign, present Israel as weak, and will show our people as a nation unwilling to fight and to stand up for itself. I reject that statement outright. We have the strength to defend this country, and to strike at the enemy which seeks to destroy us.
And there are those who tell me that, in exchange for a genuine signed peace agreement, they too would be willing to make these painful compromises. However, regrettably, we do not have a partner on the other side with whom to conduct genuine dialogue, in order to achieve a peace agreement. Even prime ministers of Israel who declared their willingness to relinquish the maximum territory of our homeland were answered with fire and hostility. Recently, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority declared that “a million shaheeds will break through to Jerusalem”. In the choice between a responsible and wise action in history, which may lead to painful compromise and a “holy war” to destroy Israel, Yasser Arafat chose the latter – the path of blood, fire and shaheeds. He seeks to turn a national conflict which can be terminated through mutual understanding into a religious war between Islam and Jews, and even to spill the blood of Jews who live far away.
Israel has many hopes, and faces extreme dangers. The most prominent danger is Iran, which is making every effort to acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and establishing an enormous terror network together with Syria in Lebanon.
And I ask you: what are we doing and what are we struggling over in the face of these terrible dangers? Are we not capable of uniting to meet this threat? This is the true question.
The Disengagement Plan does not replace negotiations and is not meant to permanently freeze the situation which will be created. It is an essential and necessary step in a situation which currently does not enable genuine negotiations for peace. However, everything remains open for a future agreement, which will hopefully be achieved when this murderous terror ends, and our neighbors will realize that they cannot triumph over us in this land.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will read several lines from a famous essay which was published in the midst of the Arab Revolt of 1936 – and we must bear in mind that the Jewish community in Israel numbered less than 400,000. This essay by Moshe Beilinson was published in “Davar”, as I mentioned, during the murderous Arab Revolt of 1936 (and I quote): “How much longer? People ask. How much longer? Until the strength of Israel in its land will condemn and defeat in advance any enemy attack; until the most enthusiastic and bold in any enemy camp will know; there are no means to break the strength of Israel in its land, because the necessity of life is with it, and the truth of life is with it, and there is no other way but to accept it. This is the essence of this campaign.”
I am convinced that everything we have done since then confirms these emphatic words. We have no desire to permanently rule over millions of Palestinians, who double their numbers every generation. Israel, which wishes to be an exemplary democracy, will not be able to bear such a reality over time. The Disengagement Plan presents the possibility of opening a gate to a different reality.
Today, I wish to address our Arab neighbors. Already in our Declaration of Independence, in the midst of a cruel war, Israel, which was born in blood, extended its hand in peace to those who fought against it and sought to destroy it by force (and I quote): “We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
A long time has passed since then. This land and this region have known more wars, and have known all the wars between the wars, terror and the difficult counter-actions undertaken by Israel, with the sole purpose of defending the lives of its citizens. In this ongoing war, many among the civilian population, among the innocent, were killed.
And tears met tears. I would like you to know that we did not seek to build our lives in this homeland on your ruins. Many years ago, Zeev Jabotinsky wrote in a poem his vision for partnership and peace among the peoples of this land (and I quote): “There he will be saturated with plenty and joy, the son of the Arab, the son of Nazareth and my son.”
We were attacked and stood firm, with our backs to the sea. Many fell in the battle, and many lost their homes and fields and orchards, and became refugees. This is the way of war. However, war is not inevitable and predestined. Even today, we regret the loss of innocent lives in your midst. Our way is not one of intentional killing.
Forty-eight yeas ago, on the eve of our Independence Day in 1956, against the background of the return of the bodies of ten terrorists who committed crimes in Israel, murderous acts in Israel, and who were delivered in wooden coffins to the Egyptians at a border crossing in the Gaza Strip. On this, the Hebrew poet, Natan Alterman wrote the following:
“Arabia, enemy unknown to you, you will awake when you rise against me,
My life serves as witness with my back against the wall and to my history and my G-d, Enemy, the power of whose rage in the face of those who rise to destroy him until the day Will be similar only to the force of his brotherhood in a fraternal covenant between one nation and another.”
This was during the time of the terrorist killings and our retaliatory raids.
Members of Knesset,
With your permission, I wish to end with a quotation from Prime Minister Menahem Begin, who at the end of December 1977, said on this podium (and I quote):
“Where does this irresponsible language come from, in addition to other things which were said? I once said, during an argument with people from Gush Emunim, that I love them today, and will continue to like them tomorrow. I told them: you are wonderful pioneers, builders of the land, settlers on barren soil, in rain and through winter, through all difficulties. However, you have one weakness – you have developed among yourselves a messianic complex.
You must remember that there were days, before you were born or were only small children, when other people risked their lives day and night, worked and toiled, made sacrifices and performed their tasks without a hint of a messianic complex. And I call on you today, my good friends from Gush Emunim, to perform your tasks with no less modesty than your predecessors, on other days and nights.
We do not require anyone to supervise the Kashrut of our commitment to the Land of Israel!
We have dedicated our lives to the land of Israel and to the struggle for its liberation, and will continue to do so.”
I call on the people of Israel to unite at this decisive hour. We must find a common denominator for some form of “necessary unity” which will enable us to cope with these fateful days with understanding, and through our common destiny, and which will allow us to construct a dam against brotherly hatred which pushes many over the edge. We have already paid an unbearably high price for murderous fanaticism. We must find the root which brings us all together, and must carry out our actions with the wisdom and responsibility which allow us to lead our lives here as a mature and experienced nation. I call on you to support me at this decisive time.
Source: Prime Minister's Office. Homepage: www.pmo.gov.il
Zurück zur Israel-Seite
Zur Seite "Naher Osten"
Zurück zur Homepage