Avigdor Lieberman UN General Assembly address (65th session), 28 Sep 2010

We are ready for a fair solution and we are ready to cooperate with the international community. However, we are not ready to compromise our national security or the vital interests of the State of Israel.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that contrary to what is often shown in the international media, the political arena in Israel is not divided between those who seek peace and those who seek war. Everyone wants peace and the controversy in Israel centers on the specific question of how to achieve this peace...

In fact, contrary to the prevalent view that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the heart of the instability in the Middle East or is the main reason for the region's numerous conflicts, the reality is entirely different. More than 90% of the wars and war victims of the Middle East since the Second World War did not result from the Israeli Palestinian conflict and are in no way connected to Israel, stemming rather, from conflicts involving Muslims or conflicts between Arab States.

The second flawed explanation... is that the root of the problem is [the] so-called "occupation," the settlements in Judea and Samaria, and the settlers themselves... Firstly, all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were under Arab control for 19 years, between '48 and '67. During these 19 years, no one tried to create a Palestinian state.

...In trying to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, we are dealing with two types of problems: emotional problems and practical problems. This is why the solution must also be a two-staged one. The emotional problems are first and foremost the utter lack of confidence between the sides and issues such as Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish People, and refugees. Under these conditions, we should focus on coming up with a long-term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades.

...As is true everywhere, where there are two nations, two religions, two languages with competing claims to the same land, there is a friction and conflict. Countless examples of ethnic conflict around the world confirm this... Where effective separation has been achieved, conflict has either been avoided, or has been dramatically reduced or resolved.

Thus, the guiding principle for a final status agreement must not be land-for-peace but rather exchange of populated territory. Let me be very clear: I'm not speaking about moving populations, but rather about moving borders to better reflect demographic realities.

...precisely this notion -- that a mismatch between borders and nationalities is a recipe for conflict -- has long been accepted as a virtual truism in the academic community. Leading scholars and highly respected research institutions have even coined the term "Right-Sizing the State"...

...Two thousand years of forced exile, and interim conquest by Byzantines, Arabs, Mamelukes, Ottomans and others, cannot, and never will, impair the unbreakable bonds of the Jewish People to its homeland. Israel is not only where we are. It is who we are.