Mr Chairman,

Mr Director,

Conference participants,

Guests,

Tsipi Livni, if I may be so bold as to single out one participant,

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today and to have this opportunity to speak at the Institute for National Security Studies.

You have come together at this conference to consider the impact of new risks and global dangers to national security in your respective countries. I don’t think you could have chosen a more topical issue, given that we are seeing how the world really is changing in various ways.

At home in Germany and in Europe we are all still feeling the major effects of the international economic and financial crisis. This was the biggest such crisis for decades, the biggest since the 1930s. I said at a very early stage that this crisis would reshuffle the cards internationally, that new powers and balances would emerge. Now, in the upswing, we are seeing that this is quite obviously true: I need only think of the economic importance of Asia, and especially of China.

The impact of this economic crisis on Europe was one we did not foresee. Namely, it shifted the markets’ focus onto the weakness of the euro. This is not a weakness of the euro in itself, but rather an excessive level of indebtedness on the part of various euro countries which is posing tremendous challenges for us. It demands that we make a firm commitment to the euro, and we are doing that politically. But it also demands that we in Europe move closer together, improve our coordination, cooperate more efficiently in economic terms and at long last learn that we cannot live off credit and debt, but that we have to earn what we spend.

In recent weeks and days your region here, in the area around Israel, has seen unrest which will have huge repercussions. The situation in Lebanon is very difficult; there’s a Hezbollah-dominated government; there are protests in Tunisia the like of which the country has never seen. Today protests are taking place in Egypt on an unprecedented scale. One can only hope that the general strike in Egypt will roll out peacefully. The fact that the army said the people had the right to demonstrate was an important signal. Nonetheless, the question of how the political process in Egypt will develop is a matter of great uncertainty. We can only hope that it will all pass off peacefully.

It is very, very difficult to say at this stage what all this will mean for Israel’s security situation. I just want to say that Germany is committed to Israel’s security and that we will do everything we can in political terms to guarantee Israel’s security. But the situation here is also a reflection of change and poses entirely new challenges for Israel’s national security.

Global developments have a great deal to do with national issues and national security. Of course, the question of national security is very different here in Israel from in Germany. Because the dangers for your country are manifest, they are visible. You have a large number of hostile neighbours. For that reason, the close partnership between Germany and Israel is naturally of the utmost importance.

What are the key features of this partnership? This above all: our partnership is founded on shared values – democracy, human rights, freedom, freedom of science, freedom of economic activity, freedom of expression and democratic structures. Needless to say we demonstrated this once again in our 3rd German-Israeli intergovernmental consultations yesterday.

These intergovernmental consultations have become a fixture of our cooperation. In the wake of the terrible experiences of the past, the Shoah, and given that we have succeeded in building up a partnership and friendship, I believe it is incredibly important that we develop cooperation projects in all everyday policy fields, projects which will bring us closer together and of course make our understanding of each other much, much clearer. In this way the anxieties of one country, in this case Israel, are of course also our anxieties, and it is our task to solve these problems.

What springs to mind in this context is a subject which must particularly be addressed in this forum: the Middle East peace process. In my speech on being awarded an honorary doctorate at Tel Aviv University I concentrated more on our scientific and economic relations. Today, however, I want to focus on the peace process. The situation at the moment is one for which I have to use the word “standstill”. To my mind, this situation – standstill, stagnation – is unacceptable. It serves no-one, and certainly not Israel’s interests.

Of course, as I discussed yesterday in a very intensive and very friendly conversation with the Prime Minister, there seem to be many reasons – some more acceptable than others – why this isn’t a good time for negotiation, or why there’s something more important at hand, or why it might be better to wait. But let me say this quite clearly, and I am speaking as a friend of the State of Israel: the situation in Egypt should not be used as an excuse for not continuing the peace process. Indeed I would go so far as to say that waiting might make things worse and that in the current situation it might actually be very, very important to act.

I know there may also be many people in your country who say this: the economy’s doing well – and we’re all happy about that –, we’re seeing a good upswing, unemployment is low. So they are very sceptical about whether this is the right time for further negotiations. There is also great scepticism as to whether the Palestinian partners are the ones who are really able to conclude peace. But let me say this quite frankly: I am convinced that continued standstill will help nobody. The apparent calm could turn out to be deceptive.

And where can this lead? Let me give you an example from Europe, a situation which we didn’t look at properly for a very long time. Greece was accepted into the European Union. There were even times when Germany and France together undermined the Stability and Growth Pact for the euro. We did not pay enough attention to how we could meet the criteria for reducing debt. All of a sudden, following the international economic and financial crisis, after we had saved banks and drawn up stimulus packages, we saw that a point had been reached when everything became very difficult, first with regard to Greece and then with regard to the euro per se. We were forced to take massive action in a short space of time, and to do things which even a year ago I would never have dreamed I would have to do. We acted in a situation of very great pressure.

I know that the euro and the Middle East are two completely different subjects. What I want to say is just that sitting back and waiting for things to take their course can in the end lead to situations in which you have to act very, very fast. Then you might not always take the best action and you might not always represent your interests in the best way.

Basically the objectives are clear: there must be a two-state solution with Israel as a democratic, Jewish state and a viable Palestinian state. I don’t think I am saying too much when I say to you here that such a solution will only be possible if both sides make painful compromises. If you consider what the result of such a compromise, such a conclusion, would be, then the advantages are obvious.

It’s a matter of security. It’s a matter of borders. And of course it’s a matter of all the final status issues. But let me say this quite openly: perhaps one doesn’t have to resolve all the issues in the first round; perhaps one can look at security and border issues first. It seems to me that a solution has often been very, very close on these issues, and so these are the things that should be pushed now.

Again, quite openly, as I said to the Prime Minister yesterday: if it is necessary to call a halt to settlement construction, then I realize it may be painful for many people; but looking back in 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years’ time, how will you feel about the fact that no construction took place for three, six or nine months? If the result truly is a conclusion which makes a peaceful, secure life possible for Israel, then I would say the end result would outweigh the hardship of the compromise that would be needed now.

To sum up: anyone who thinks waiting is best is wrong. Things are plain to see. I do not believe the situation will improve over the next few months, in the near future, rather that interests can be well represented if one seriously gets down to it. It is not a matter of negotiation for negotiation’s sake; it is a matter of really achieving the result. I know – and I have often talked with the Palestinians about this too – that all this is not easy. I know too that one can have many doubts. But I believe there is no better response than to say: we will try our utmost and are willing to compromise because the country’s interests, Israel’s interests, are so plain to see.

Ladies and gentlemen, what can Europe do? We have the feeling that we certainly should speak out and that we should show our readiness to help. We should speak with our American friends, with the American President and the American Secretary of State, as well as within the European Union. We know that we have obligations and responsibilities. We are also aware that the resolution of the Middle East conflict and the realization of a two-state solution might bring us new responsibilities. But if we are serious about what I told you, that Israel’s security is an integral part of the Federal Republic of Germany’s raison d’être, then we must be ready for that.

I would like to mention another of the dangers we have to be aware of: the situation in Iran. Iran’s nuclear programme is a threat. Iran’s whole attitude especially with regard to Israel is a threat. After a long time we managed to impose international sanctions together with China and Russia. I cannot rule out that there will have to be further sanctions, because Iran shows no signs of being willing to negotiate about its nuclear programme or to provide transparency. I know that this threat is felt very much more immediately here in Israel. But as I say again and again in Germany, the capabilities of launchers mean that it is a threat for Europe too, not just for Israel.

In addition to the threat inherent in Iran’s nuclear programme, there is another danger, namely that of international terrorism. Here, too, we have a shared responsibility. Allow me to men¬tion Afghanistan, for instance.

When we talk about global upheaval, we are thinking also of access to energy, of climate protection, of free world trade. There are many global challenges. The world is changing. I think we share this view of the situation. If a world is changing, it is very important to represent our interests clearly, but also to implement them clearly. This undoubtedly means that painful compromises will be needed. I hope that in our discussion we can go into greater detail on how we can turn these changes to our own advantage.

I think that in Israel, in an environment where there are few friends, and in the country which has lived in stable peace with Israel for decades, the upheaval we are currently seeing is more likely to cast up new uncertainties and questions. My conclusion, then, is this: it is all the more important that everything we and in this case Israel can do should be done, for the good of the country and for the good of each and every one of us.

Thank you.