Related Resources

MK Sneh’s remarks summarized the potential and reality of the peace process between Israel and Palestine as well as the greater Middle East. To begin, he noted the successes of the meeting at Annapolis. Based on the meeting and MK Sneh’s personal discussions with both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmud ‘Abbas, he was confident that both parties are seriously dedicated to sustained negotiations and the completion of a comprehensive plan, or at a least solid draft, by the end of 2008. He also identified the unprecedented international support for the peace negotiations and highlighted the support of Arab states, indicated by their presence at Annapolis. MK Sneh credited these nations with understanding the new threats evolving the region, emphasizing the need for the moderate Middle Eastern powers to stand up against the menace of the Persian Empire. He reminded the audience that previous negotiations had failed partly due to the lack of widespread support in the region; therefore, the attendance at Annapolis was promising. Next, MK Sneh praised the future economic projects announced by Tony Blair on behalf of the Quartet of Mideast Peacemakers. He asserted that the best way to undermine the already declining support for Hamas was to improve the lives of Palestinians and economic conditions in the West Bank. He was optimistic about upcoming meeting of the states donating to the Palestinian economic projects in Paris.

His commentary then turned to the negative aspects of the situation post-Annapolis. The prospects of an effective peace will not improve if the smuggling of arms, munitions, money, and terrorist experts to Gaza continues. With this in mind, MK Sneh was highly critical of Egypt, which, contributes to the sustained violence in Gaza by not preventing smuggling or taking the initiative to curtail violence. In support of his argument, MK Sneh referenced how Egypt recently facilitated the reentry of terrorists to Gaza after training in Iran. Next, he discussed the “combustible” situation in Lebanon and its potentially negative impact on the peace process. The political uncertainty surrounding outcome of the presidential elections is precarious and is compounded by the continued flow of arms to Hizbullah. Lastly, he suggested that the growing pressure on the Olmert Administration within Israel — prompted by the ultra-orthodox Sephardic Shas party and also by fellow Knesset member Avigdor Lieberman — will burden the development of negotiations with Palestine.

MK Sneh concluded that ultimately, the possibility of having effective negotiations and reaching a final agreement rested on the Israeli and Palestinian leadership and public. First, Israelis need to give Prime Minister Olmert strong political support. Second, both Minister Olmert and President Abbas must take a courageous stance with regard to the necessary concessions of both parties that both leaders and the people “already know.” They need to be frank with the public about the unavoidable compromises to be made in order to reach a peace agreement. For Palestinians, it will be imperative they give up the demand for the right-of-return and accept alternative solutions for the current refugee situation. MK Sneh contended that to allow the refugees to return en masse would ‘[undermine] the integrity of the Jewish State’. With Israel, MK Sneh urged its citizens and leadership alike to accept that Jerusalem as the future home of the capital of two states. He commented further on the current state of Jerusalem, noting the complete lack of unity between Israeli municipality and citizens, and the neighboring Arab population. He also remarked that only one-third of Jerusalem’s population is Jewish and asserted there is a need for the city to become a Jewish majority city. He suggested eliminating the surrounding Palestinian villages and replacing them with a metropolitan Jerusalem with a solid Jewish character.

In closing, MK Sneh assessed the goal of having a comprehensive plan within 13 months as ‘ambitious but not impossible.’ Afterward, MK Sneh fielded several questions elaborating on the current situation in the Palestinian Territories and the region generally. Most notably he detailed the danger Iran poses to Israel, the peace process, and the Middle East. Additionally, he commented on the threat of Iran’s nuclear program and called for imposition of economic sanctions on Iran as an act of deterrence. He said he was doubtful that any part of the process was halted in 2003 and is certain that the threat persists of a nuclear Iran. In his opinion the responsibility to confront Iran and its political ambitions do not rest solely on the shoulders of Israel but also on the US and the international community.

MK Sneh also defended Israel’s current policies in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. He described the dire conditions of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, but given the daily attacks said that Israel could do little to facilitate economic development in Gaza. However, the economic development plans for the West Bank would hopefully provide a positive example of the incentives for stopping the attacks. Moreover, he was confident of the US Congress’ continued support of the peace process. He noted the importance of the US efforts to build new Palestinian security forces loyal to the government, which would significantly help change the realities on the ground. Furthermore, MK Sneh expressed reservations about engagement with Syria, considering its prominent support of Iran and its lack of actions against Hizbullah. Before Israel would consider giving back Golan Heights or otherwise pursuing diplomatic relations with Syria, he believed it would be necessary for Syria to make reconciliatory gestures towards Israel.