[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

This is from a prepared speech. Prepared = written text, not necessarily
thought out, in fact, arguably critically short on thought, but nonetheless
a true reflection of what FM Livni is promoting.

#1. "Israel's ability to reach an agreement based on substantial territorial
concessions directly relates to our need to make sure we do not jeopardize
our security and our future. Here, I believe, the dialogue between Israel
and NATO begins." = FM Livni drops "land for peace" and concedes that "land
for piece" where the "piece" is a piece of paper signed by the Palestinians
is too ridiculous to try and palm off to the Israeli public. So instead she
seeks a "land for piece" deal in which the "piece" is some kind of piece of
paper that involves NATO.

It should be noted that FM Livni is not a protege of Minister Lieberman of
Yisrael Beiteinu - who just recently explained that the problem of the
absence of Palestinian security compliance can be overcome by introducing
NATO forces in place of Palestinian compliance.

#2 "Here comes the role of the international community. Helping the
capacity-building is not a task of less importance; without it any agreement
can be left on the shelf, abused by extremists." = by failing to put an
Israeli interpretation as to what "capacity-building" means, all that is
left of this is a call to arm the PA to the teeth.]
==========

Address by Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni
to the NATO-Mediterranean Dialogue Ministerial Meeting
Brussels, 7 December 2007
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Thank you for the opportunity to share ideas on mutual challenges and goals
and the ways to achieve them. This idea of a dialogue between NATO and the
Mediterranean countries represents an understanding and re-assessment of the
new nature of the challenges we all face and the need for new alliances to
challenge them.

From the Israeli perspective, this dialogue represents two important but
different perspectives:

The first - the relationship between Israel and NATO. I want to say clearly
that we are natural partners and allies, as we share the same values and
interests: the values of democracy and freedom, the willingness to defend
our common way of life, the need to cope with external threats and the
aspiration for global security. Therefore it is only natural that we come
together, under the auspices of NATO, and work together. Israel is keen to
further develop its relations with NATO, both in terms of the political and
strategic dialogue at all levels, as well as in the practical initiatives.

The second perspective is the fact that we meet here, members of the
Mediterranean Dialogue, to discuss mutual security needs and cooperation
between states in the region, some of them have no diplomatic relations with
Israel. This symbolizes new understandings of the common challenge and gives
hope for the future.

At first, we need to understand that there is a change in the nature of
global challenges. There are the old-fashioned threats coming from states
like Iran - a dangerous regime based on an extreme religious ideology and
speaks clearly about its vision of wiping a state off the map, denies the
Holocaust, works with radical elements in order to undermine other regimes
in the region and financing terrorist organizations - while simultaneously
tries to achieve nuclear weapons. Make no mistake: This is the Iranian
goal - this is the purpose of the continuous enrichment program - in clear
violation of the NPT and Security Council resolutions. There is not, and
there should not be any dispute on this. I was pleased to hear your
statement showing determination to continue the pressure and sanctions in
Iran, because any hesitation now is a victory to the extremists over the
camp of moderates that we are all part of.

The new threats come also from terrorist groups which act within weak states
that have no capability to enforce their sovereignty - Hizbullah in Lebanon,
Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. We need to understand the nature of this
problem, especially at the beginning of a new process of peace that was
launched in Annapolis.

A few words on Annapolis:

In Annapolis we launched three different processes:

1. The bilateral process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, aimed
to try and answer all issues revolving the conflict.

2. The process of actual changes on the ground -
a. the implementation of the Roadmap - an obligation that both parties took
upon themselves in Annapolis. Israel expects the Palestinians to meet these
obligations, to fight terror, as we are ready to implement our part.
b. Direct support of the international community to the capacity-building of
the PA - in order to create a functioning and effective government.

3. The process with the Arab world - it is needed for the legitimacy,
support of normalization in stages, to show that we understand the same
challenges and threats.

I know that you are interested in the bilateral process, you want to help.
However, the decisions for a peace treaty need to be made by both sides.
Only the direct parties of this conflict can make decisions about their own
destinies. The two sides need to bridge a gap, to reach a solution based on
two states for two peoples, to make sure another terror state will not be
created.

Israel wants to end the conflict while understanding there will be
territorial concessions in order to create a Palestinian state. We already
dismantled settlements in Gaza and we are willing to do more in the West
Bank.

On the 12th of December we will hold the first negotiations meeting, but as
the Israeli chief negotiator I want to say that our ability to bridge the
gaps, to make compromises on the issue of borders, directly relates to our
security needs. And so the gap we need to bridge is between the future
understandings we will reach and the situation on the ground.

One way to understand this is that the implementation of future agreements
will be subject to the implementation of the Roadmap. We can not just throw
the keys to the other side of the border. Gaza is an example for that.

Here comes the role of the international community. Helping the
capacity-building is not a task of less importance; without it any agreement
can be left on the shelf, abused by extremists.

Keeping the distinction between moderates and extremists is not a
theoretical strategy, it is crucial. We are now in a process that is
expected to strengthen the capabilities of the Palestinian Authority - so
they would fight terror instead of Israel. However, one can not exclude the
possibility that we will need to discuss what can be the role of NATO in
supporting the need for a change, a real change, on the ground.

I believe that it is our responsibility and aspiration to meet these goals
and to implement the vision of two states for two peoples, living side by
side in peace and security, but simultaneously we need to work together in
order to stop smuggling of weapons in Lebanon and Gaza, and to fight
terrorism wherever it arises.

There needs to be an understanding that peace requires not only a political
agreement between the parties - that is to be achieved only through direct
bilateral talks - but also through the assurances of its implementation on
the ground.

Israel's ability to reach an agreement based on substantial territorial
concessions directly relates to our need to make sure we do not jeopardize
our security and our future. Here, I believe, the dialogue between Israel
and NATO begins.