Why is this violence occurring?

The root of today's events stems back to the July Camp David summit less than three months earlier, when Arafat clearly demonstrated his rejection of balanced compromise by dismissing all the proposals advanced by the U.S. government. Israeli Prime Minister Barak, for his part, was willing to consider these proposals. Consequently, President Clinton placed the blame for failure of the talks squarely at Arafat's feet.

It is no accident that this violence exploded at a time when Israel was expressing its willingness to make unprecedented, far-reaching compromises in order to reach a workable, enduring agreement. Arafat was given a real opportunity to achieve a resolution through negotiations and compromise, and to bring tangible, considerable benefits to the Palestinian people.

But Israel's olive branch was met with a hail of gunfire, rocks and firebombs. Rather than risk being labeled as weak by Palestinian extremists opposed to any form of compromise or conciliation with Israel, Arafat has preferred to cast himself as a relentless revolutionary. He has opted to use violence as a negotiating tool.

Are violence and peace talks compatible?

Since the start of the Israeli-PLO negotiations seven years ago, Israel has gone very far in addressing Palestinian national aspirations in the West Bank and Gaza. On the basis of Arafat's pledge of 1993 to abandon terrorism and commit to a negotiated solution, Israel negotiated the establishment of an elected Palestinian Authority which has gradually expanded its jurisdiction and authorities, and now administers 97% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza.

But Israel did not stop there. The Israeli government made known to the Palestinians, at the Camp David Summit and now publicly, its willingness to move forward in the peace negotiations, toward the establishment of a Palestinian state in the framework of the permanent status agreement between us -- a state which is viable, contiguous and economically prosperous, one that bolsters regional stability rather than the opposite. In doing so, the Israeli government has made far-reaching political, historic and strategic compromises.

However, despite these compromises, when it became clear to the Palestinian leadership that Israel could not fulfill every single Palestinian demand, and that we also have aspirations and interests which need to be addressed through reciprocal compromise on their part, they chose to break off the negotiations and to re-embark upon the path of violence, which they had pledged to abandon.

From Israel's perspective, ending what the Palestinians view as 'occupation' or a 'denial of rights' is not the issue of contention. For us, the core issue now is the Palestinian violation of the bedrock principle of the peace process -- that the solution must be predicated upon compromise rather than intractability, upon negotiation rather than violence.

For this reason, the Israeli government has decided that the first order of business in any contacts with the Palestinians will be ending the violence.

Is the IDF using excessive force in its response to the violence?

The oft-repeated charge that Israel has used excessive force is worse than a distortion; it is the opposite of the truth. Virtually every day during the last months, Israeli soldiers and civilians have been confronted with dozens of organized, violent and life-threatening attacks by Palestinians, only a small percentage of which are reported in the media.
These attacks have included gunfire directed at residential neighborhoods, firebombings, roadside charges, parcel and car bombs in crowded shopping areas and violent riots. Under these difficult circumstances, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is acting with the greatest possible restraint, doing its utmost to prevent injury and the loss of life.

Israel has no interest in escalating the violence. To the contrary, Israel believes it is imperative that the violence be ended so that both parties can return to the negotiating table. Israel maintains that a just and sustainable solution can be found only through dialogue, not armed conflict. However, as long as the violence exists, the IDF has a clear responsibility to protect Israeli citizens and security personnel.

The Israeli government regrets the loss of any life, whether Jewish or Arab. In the final analysis, however, responsibility for these deaths lies with the Palestinian Authority, which has initiated the violence and stubbornly refuses to implement a cease-fire.
For example, Arafat would not sign an agreement which could have brought an end to the violence, after committing to do so, to American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in his meeting with her in Paris on October 4, 2000.
Nor did he live up to his commitments under the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings of October 17, 2000 including his promise to publicly call for an end to the violence, to restore security cooperation and to resume the peace talks. Indeed, to this day, Arafat has yet to issue a serious public call for an end to the violence.

Israel, on the other hand, has fulfilled all the obligations it took upon itself at Sharm el-Sheikh, including redeployment of IDF forces.

Why are there more Palestinian casualties than Israeli casualties?

The IDF has done everything in its power to act with restraint in the face of dozens of shootings, violent riots and other life-threatening acts. Given the widespread violence engulfing the territories, it has been relatively successful in keeping down the number of casualties.

The main reason there are fewer Israeli casualties is that fewer Israelis involve themselves in the violence. Most violent incidents in the territories have involved hundreds of Palestinian rioters attacking a small handful of Israeli soldiers.

It should be stressed that in order to confront Israeli soldiers, the Palestinian protesters must leave their residential areas and go to the outskirts of their towns and villages. Only there will they find the Israeli military, manning the positions which were designated to them in the Israeli-Palestinian agreements signed by both parties.

Moreover, Israel rejects the notion that justice can be determined by the relative number of casualties on either side. By way of comparison, casualty totals among the allied forces in the Desert Storm campaign in Iraq, and of the NATO forces in Yugoslavia, were much lower than the Iraqi and Serbian casualty totals - which also included innocent civilians tragically caught in the cross-fire of the conflicts.
Yet, unlike the civilian casualties in Iraq and Yugoslavia, Palestinian civilians hurt in the 'intifada' have deliberately chosen to involve themselves in initiated violent confrontations with Israeli armed forces.

Why are Palestinian children being wounded in the conflict?

The Palestinians send children to throw rocks and firebombs at Israeli soldiers. On many occasion, the Palestinian Authority has even provided transportation, since the Israeli military positions are located outside population centers, far from the neighborhoods where these children live.
Armed Palestinian policemen and members of the Fatah militia, the Tanzim, often stand just behind this human shield of juvenile martyrs and direct gunfire at Israeli soldiers, knowing they can exploit the children's wounds for their propaganda purposes. These macabre operations generally have one purpose: to generate footage of Palestinian casualties in time for the evening news.

The calculated use of children as pawns in the conflict begins in the Palestinian education system. Palestinian textbooks (many of which have been recently published by the Palestinian Authority itself) openly teach hatred against Israel and Israelis.
Palestinian children's television glorifies martyrdom in the struggle against Israel. Palestinian children are trained in the use of firearms in summer camps and in youth groups. These tactics, which have been extensively documented by the international media, are gross violations of all existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

The use of children in armed conflict is immoral and against international (and even Islamic) law.

Member of the Tanzim trains two Palestinians boys
how to shoot automatic weapons, Nablus, Oct 14, 2000.

What has happened to Jewish and Muslim holy sites?

As part of their decision to pursue violence, the Palestinians have also been waging a campaign of destruction and vandalism against Jewish holy sites.
The most blatant example occurred when a Palestinian mob sacked, demolished and then torched Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus).
This was done just after the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the holy site as part of an agreement under which the Palestinian Authority undertook to protect the Jewish holy site from harm. Following the attack, the Palestinians repaired the site, and rededicated it as a mosque.
Subsequently, there have been further Palestinian attacks on Jewish synagogues, including the ancient synagogue of Jericho, which was severely damaged in an arson attack, and the synagogue in the Jewish town of Efrat.

In fact, only when the holy sites of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been under Israeli control has freedom of worship and the sanctity of the sites been guaranteed.
Even during the present wave of violence, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has remained open for Muslim services, despite the fact that prayers there have become a platform for incitement and rioting. Muslims have even used the Temple Mount plaza as a base to hurl stones down on Jewish worshippers at the Wailing Wall below.

The forced closure of Judaism's must revered site of prayer - the Western Wall - on the eve of the Rosh Hashanah High Holiday, as a result of Palestinian stoning of Jewish worshippers, is tantamount to the evacuation of St. Peter's Square on Christmas, or the shutdown of Mecca's Qabaa during the height of the Haj.
And yet various Arab spokesman continue to maintain that the greatest travesty to have occurred, the grossest violation of a sacred site, and the most unforgivable provocation, was that brief visit of an Israeli politician to his people's most holy site.

What is Israel's position regarding the Palestinian claim of a 'right of return'?

The Palestinian refugee problem did not spring from a vacuum. Its immediate cause was the refusal of the Arabs to accept UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) in 1947 and, consequently, their invasion of the newly formed State of Israel, initiating the war that led to Israel's independence. During that

war, many Arabs living in the battle zones abandoned their homes, whether following calls from the Arab leaders, out of fear of the fighting, or in apprehension over their fate under a Jewish regime. If the war had not been forced upon Israel by the various Arab countries and the local Arab population, the refugee problem would not exist.

The Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) made sure to perpetuate the refugee problem in order to use it against Israel in their struggle to destroy her.
From 1947 to the present day, the refugees were confined to crowded camps, where they lived in poverty and despair, and as a deliberate policy, no attempt was made to absorb them into society or to provide for their welfare. This policy was pursued in order to engender international sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Since Israel is neither responsible for the creation of the refugee problem nor for its perpetuation, it cannot declare, even as a gesture, its responsibility for this problem, since such a declaration would have far-reaching implications:

A. It would encourage the Palestinian right of return to areas that are part of the State of Israel. The arrival of millions of Arabs in the State of Israel (whose present Jewish and Arab population is just over 6 million) would effectively end its independent existence as the Jewish state.

B. It would be used by the refugees as a basis for their claims against Israel for compensation for lost property, as well as the suffering they have undergone for the last 52 years.

C. It would facilitate claims by the refugees' "host countries" for compensation from Israel for the cost of "hosting" the refugees, when these same countries are in fact responsible for creating the problem to begin with.

It should be remembered that many Jews were forced out of Arab countries, leaving behind vast property and wealth for which they were never compensated. Israel took them in and integrated them into Israeli society, despite the burden on its developing economy. Furthermore, Israel never renounced its right to submit claims regarding these Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

What is Israel's position with regard to the Jewish settlements in the territories?

Jews have been living in Judea and Samaria ("the West Bank") and Gaza throughout history. Excluding the period of the Jordanian occupation (1948-1967), Jewish settlements have existed in the area for centuries. The most prominent among them was the Jewish community in Hebron. During the British Mandate (1919-1948), Jewish settlements were established in the Etzion Bloc, in the areas north of Jerusalem (Atarot and Neve Yaakov), north of the Dead Sea (Kalia, Beit Ha-arava) and in the Gaza area (Kfar Darom).
The establishment of these communities was consistent with the mandate that the British received from the League of Nations. They were evacuated or conquered in the War of Independence. Following the Six Day War, the Jewish presence in these areas was reestablished and today numbers more than 200,000 people.

Israel's position is that, since Jordan never had legal sovereignty over the West Bank, and Egypt never had legal sovereignty over the Gaza territory, these areas could not be considered "occupied territories" under international law when Israel took control of them in 1967, in an clear act of self defence. Nonetheless, Israel took upon itself to apply the humanitarian provisions cited in the international laws of occupation to the territories under its control.

Similarly, none of the various agreements between Israel and the Palestinians that have been signed from 1993 onwards contain any prohibition against building or expanding settlements. Although the Palestinians wanted to include such prohibitions, Israel objected and demanded that discussion on the subject be postponed until the final stage of the negotiations.
The only restriction, set down in the interim agreement, was that neither side take steps to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to the discussion on final status. Now that these discussions have begun, we must deal with this topic. Israel's position, as expressed by its leaders, is that most of the Jewish residents should remain.

What is Israel's position on a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state?

A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would not only be a breach of all existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians; it would also contribute to the escalation of the conflict, the worsening of violence and the destabilization of the entire region.

The Palestinians have the option of pursuing their national aspirations through peace negotiations aimed at finding a stable, mutually-acceptable solution which will guarantee the security of Palestinians and Israelis alike. The one-sided establishment of a state that is not achieved through negotiations and mutual agreement, cannot be considered legitimate.

The establishment of a Palestinian state is acceptable, in Israeli public opinion and by most components of the Israeli political map. We would like this state to be established through agreement and peaceful means, to ensure, as far as this will be possible, that it will not be a hostile state. Israel will oppose any unilateral declaration, because it is intended to establish a Palestinian state through conflict and not through good neighborly relations. Such a proclamation would undermine regional stability.

What is the situation in Israel today?

Life in Israel continues without major disruptions. Restaurants and shopping malls are full. Tourist attractions remain open. Industry and factories are working normally, without hindrance or interruption - including, of course, Israel's hi-tech sector.

In the course of the peace process, there have been many ups and downs. Whatever the political environment, the Israeli economy has continued to grow and develop.

How does Israel regard the severing of relations by Morocco, Tunisia and Oman?

The breaking off of relations with Israel by Morocco, Tunisia and Oman is extremely regrettable. At a time when all parties in the region should be working to contain the conflict and to restore calm to the region, it is of utmost importance to keep all possible lines of direct communication and cooperation open. In this light, the limiting of relations between states runs counter to the interests of the region and is particularly unfortunate.

And what about cyber-terrorism?

What is Israel doing about attacks on Gilo and other Jerusalem neighborhoods?

The attacks against Gilo have been launched from the adjacent Christian Arab village of Beit Jala. Israel believes that they are a deliberate attempt by Palestinian militias to draw the Christian world into the conflict by provoking Israeli reprisals.
As a result, Israel has done its utmost to respond to these unprovoked attacks on Gilo with the greatest possible restraint, pinpointing only those buildings from which the attacks have been launched.

How are the Palestinians faring economically?

Israel has made substantial efforts since the signing of the Oslo accords to facilitate Palestinian-Israeli economic cooperation in the context of the peace process. As a result, there was a marked expansion of Palestinian trade and employment in Israel, as well as other forms of economic cooperation from 1994 until the present outbreak of violence.

Israel, in collaboration with the Palestinian Authority, has taken a broad range of actions since 1994 in order to promote and improve the free movement of goods and labor from the Palestinian Authority into Israel. Industrial parks have also been set up in the Palestinian Authority, involving substantial Israeli investment and economic incentives. These measures have had a significant, positive impact on the Palestinian economy.

Unfortunately, the recent events have led to a sharp decline in economic activity in the area, with economic repercussions for both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Measures taken to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens in Palestinian-controlled areas - protecting them from atrocities like the lynching in Ramallah - have had an adverse economic impact.
At the same time, to prevent the spillover of violence from the territories into Israel, and to minimize the possibility of terrorist attacks, security forces are restricting entry of Palestinians from the territories. Exceptions are made for the movement of commercial goods, food, medicine, ambulances and medical crews, which continue to circulate freely. Moreover, procedures have been simplified to enable speedy delivery to the Palestinian Authority of humanitarian goods, such as medical supplies.

It must be stressed that the purpose of the closure policy is not punitive, but has become necessary to ensure the security of Israeli citizens in these trying times.

What about the outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide?

Israel is concerned by the recent, significant rise in anti-Semitism, which has targeted Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere. These anti-Semitic attacks, which are occurring against the backdrop of the present conflict in the territories, have included bombings of synagogues, violence against Jews, desecration of Jewish cemeteries and other forms of vandalism. These incidents should arouse the deep concern of all civilized peoples.

Israel calls on the governments of countries where the plague of anti-Semitism is spreading to take all measures necessary to ensure the security of Jewish communities - and to bring the perpetrators of these cowardly attacks to justice.