Home
  
Middle East peace talks flashback to 1991
Raleigh News.Net
Thursday 9th September, 2010
The Israelis and Palestinians are back in the United States for yet another round of peace talks.
These talks have been going on for decades and have yet to yield a single tangible dividend. Nonetheless the parties continue to go through the charade, often at the urging of other countries including the United States. Whether any of the parties actually sets out to achieve goals at these talk fests or whether they like to initiate or engage in talks because they are electorally popular in their sphere of governance, is really unknown.
Heading the Israeli delegation this time round is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Coincidently Netanyahu, as Deputy Minister, headed the Israeli camp in talks almost twenty years ago, again in the United States. Prior to those direct talks there was a conference in Madrid hosted by U.S. President George H. Bush and Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev at the end of October 1991.
“Today we have a unique opportunity, and it would be unforgivable to miss this opportunity,” President Gorbachev said in a speech at the Madrid Conference. “In my view, the Conference can only succeed if no one seeks any victory for one side over the other, but all seek a shared victory over a cruel past. I'm speaking of peace, rather than merely a cessation of the state of war, and a durable peace implies the implementation of and respect for the rights of the Palestinian people,” Gorbachev said.
The Soviet Union at this time in history was forging close ties with the U.S., its bitter enemy for several previous decades. It had also restored diplomatic relations with Israel. “Now that a real process towards settling the Middle East crisis is getting underway, the absence of relations with Israel was becoming senseless. We hope and will try to make sure that this will be of benefit to the peoples of our two countries and the entire Arab world. Peace in the Middle and Near East would benefit all,” President Gorbachev told the 1991 conference.
“The region has vast potential. Turning to constructive pursuits, it will help not only to resolve the problems of the nations that live there, but would also become an important pillar of support for global international progress and prosperity. We must break the fetters of the past and do away with hostility, militarism, terrorism, hostage-taking, and those actions that turn people into refugees.”
The Madrid conference co-chaired by Gorbachev and Bush Snr., was to lay the groundwork for direct talks in December between Irsael and the Palestinians, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. Orchestrating the conference and talks was U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, who spent eight months organising the affair. All the Arab nations had participated in the lead-up with key roles played by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. Baker had also successful engaged President Assad of Syria, and President Hrawi of Lebanon, and enlisted the wholehearted support of King Hussein of Jordan.
Baker paid particular tribute to Israeli Prime Minister Shamir, “whose steady determination and strong leadership proved essential in reaching agreement to convene this Conference and to launch direct bilateral negotiations for real peace between Israel and its neighbors.”
“Even in a period of dramatic and far-reaching change around the world, this Conference stands apart. Fourteen days ago, President Bush and President Gorbachev invited Israel, the Arab states, and Palestinians to this Peace Conference and to direct negotiations that follow. In response to that invitation, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, Syria, and Lebanon agreed to attend the Conference and to participate in the direct negotiations. In addition, the European Community, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania agreed to participate in this process,” Secretary Baker told the Madrid Conference.
“Our work - making peace through negotiations - has just begun. As we look at the challenges ahead, it is worth noting and learning from what we have already accomplished”.
“For decades, agreement on whether to negotiate eluded the parties. This weekend, direct, bilateral negotiations aimed at comprehensive, genuine peace will start,” Baker confidently declared.
“For decades, agreement on how to negotiate eluded the parties. This weekend, negotiations will begin on two tracks and in phases; and in a few weeks, those parties who wish to participate will convene to organize multilateral negotiations on a wide range of issues that affect the well-being of all peoples in the region”.
“These are not mere platitudes. During these eight months of diplomacy, though the parties sometimes fell back on old slogans and outmoded code words, they also came to understand the need to engage concretely and pragmatically to resolve problems,” Baker continued.
“A basic tenet of American thinking is that negotiations are the best way to resolve disputes and achieve peace. Negotiations do not guarantee peace. But without negotiations, there is no way to produce genuine peace and no mechanism to develop understandings that can endure. The United States is willing to be a catalytic force, an energizing force, and a driving force in the negotiating process. Our involvement in this process will be rooted solidly in the core principles enunciated by President Bush last March. They will remain the cornerstone that guides our participation in the negotiating process,” Secretary Baker said.
“The U.S. is and will be an honest broker. We have our own positions and views on the peace process, and we will not forego our right to state these. But, as an honest broker with experience - successful experience - in Middle East negotiations, we also know that our critical contribution will often be to exert quiet, behind-the-scenes influence and persuasion,” he aid.
“Let no one mistake our role as an honest broker to mean that we will change longstanding U.S. policy positions; and let no one mistake our policy positions as undercutting our determination to help the parties reach fair and mutually acceptable solutions to problems. As President Bush and I have both said this week, it is not our policies that matter; it is those of the parties. They are the ones that must negotiate peace.”
While the U.S. Secretary of State was praising the participants in the conference he didn’t hold back his dismay in the parties resolve to tackle the human issues emanating from the continuing conflict in the region. “I want to be perfectly honest, standing here as I am before colleagues with whom I have spent many, many hours since last March. The unwillingness of the parties to take confidence-building steps has been disappointing. You have dealt successfully with formulas and positions. You have agreed on terms of reference that are fair and equitable. You have launched a process of negotiations that can succeed. But you have failed to deal adequately with the human dimension of the conflict. As I travelled through the region, I witnessed terrible scenes of human tragedy, suffering, and despair. Innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of a conflict they wish would end. Refugees and displaced persons wandering across the vast expanses of time. Mothers and fathers, afraid of the future that awaits their children. And children, being schooled in the lessons of animosity and conflict, rather than friendship and accommodation.”
“Formulas, terms of reference, and negotiations are not enough,” Baker told the conference. “Support for a negotiating process will not be sustainable unless the human dimension is addressed by all parties. A way must be found to send signals of peace and reconciliation that affect the peoples of the region. Don't wait for the other side to start; each of you needs to get off the mark quickly. You should know best what is needed.”
“In closing, let me speak to each of you person ally and directly,” Baker added. “For over four decades, the world waited for this week. Peace-loving peoples everywhere tried time and again to get you - the makers of this intractable conflict - to join together to discuss your differences. This week, here in Madrid, you finally have met and held such a meeting. This has been a start - a good start - an historic start that has broken old taboos - an important start that opens further opportunities. But it is only a start - and that's not enough. You must not let this start become an end.”
President George Bush Snr. , rallied the participants with more support and encouragement. “We come to Madrid on a mission of hope,- to begin work on a just, lasting, and comprehensive settlement to the conflict in the Middle East. We come here to seek peace for a part of the world that in the long memory of man has known far too much hatred, anguish, and war. I can think of no endeavor more worthy, or more necessary,” the president told the conference.
“Our objective must be clear and straightforward. It is not simply to end the state of war in the Middle East and replace it with a state of non-belligerency. This is not enough; this would not last. Rather, we seek peace, real peace. And by real peace I mean treaties. Security. Diplomatic relations. Economic relations. Trade. Investment. Cultural exchange. Even tourism.”
“What we seek is a Middle East where vast resources are no longer devoted to armaments. A Middle East where young people no longer have to dedicate and, all too often, give their lives to combat,” Mr Bush said.” A Middle East no longer victimized by fear and terror. A Middle East where normal men and women lead normal lives.”
“Let no one mistake the magnitude of this challenge,” he continued. “The struggle we seek to end has a long and painful history. Every life lost - every outrage, every act of violence - is etched deep in the hearts and history of the people of this region. Theirs is a history that weighs heavily against hope. And yet, history need not be man's master. I expect that some will say that what I am suggesting is impossible. But think back. Who back in 1945 would have thought that France and Germany, bitter rivals for nearly a century, would become allies in the aftermath of World War II? And who would have predicted that the Berlin Wall would come down? And who in the early 1960s would have believed that the Cold War would come to a peaceful end, replaced by cooperation - exemplified by the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are here today - not as rivals, but as partners.”
“No, peace in the Middle East need not be a dream. Peace is possible,” said President Bush Snr., “The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty is striking proof that former adversaries can make and sustain peace”
“Peace will only come as the result of direct negotiations, compromise, give-and-take. Peace cannot be imposed from the outside by the United States or anyone else. While we will continue to do everything possible to help the parties overcome obstacles, peace must come from within. We come here to Madrid as realists. We do not expect peace to be negotiated in a day, or a week, or a month, or even a year. It will take time; indeed, it should take time - time for parties so long at war to learn to talk to one another, to listen to one another. Time to heal old wounds and build trust. In this quest, time need not be the enemy of progress,” said President Bush.
“What we envision is a process of direct negotiations proceeding along two tracks, one between Israel and the Arab states; the other between Israel and the Palestinians. Negotiations are to be conducted on the basis of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The real work will not happen here in the plenary session, but in direct bilateral negotiations.”
And so it came to the direct talks, a few weeks later in December 1991. Talks did in fact proceed between Israel and the Arab states, but not with the Palestinians. Baker’s best efforts, and the support of superpowers, the United States, and Soviet Russia, in the end yielded very little. The Palestinians and Israelis didn’t even meet.
The twin tracks the parties agreed to didn’t eventuate. When the parties arrived in Washington for the direct talks, Israel, under the direction of Deputy Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, refused to meet with the Palestinians direct. Netanyahu told the Palestinians he would only meet with them in conjunction with the Jordanian delegation. “We agreed to discuss all the issues in a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation,” Mr Netanyahu told a press conference on December 10 1991. “We are not averse at all in fact, we suggested that we have separate subcommittees for separate issues. There could be two or three or even four or maybe more such issues, if the parties can agree on it. But we did not necessarily agree and we did not agree to make separate delegations. We have separate subcommittees. That, I thought, was very clear when we left Madrid, but, apparently, there is an attempt to redefine those agreements and to change them. And that's a pity,” he said.
“Well, I suppose the good news is that at least we're talking about it now, admittedly not in the rooms yet, but in the corridors, but that's something. And I hope that as we continue this afternoon, Mr. Rubenstein, and the Jordanian and Palestinian representatives who will talk to him, I hope that we can come to an agreement and get this delegation and this particular forum moving.”
A reporter interrupted Mr Netanyahu, “The Palestinians are saying that the terms of reference agreed upon after Madrid indicated that talks would proceed between the Israelis and the Palestinians. You have a different interpretation. Can you explain how that may have come about, and how you expect to break this impasse, if you expect to break it this afternoon or when?”
” Yes, we expect to break it,” Mr Netanyahu responded. “I hope it breaks this afternoon, but I think that we had an idea of a roof for these negotiations and this committee, and the roof, the structure for that is a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. In all our discussions leading to Madrid, with Mr. Baker and through him, with the Arab parties, including the Jordanian and Palestinian parties, the understanding was that the negotiation will be done in a joint delegation.”
“We ourselves have suggested on a number of occasions, including at Madrid, that we form in the context of this common forum, separate subcommittees to deal with various issues that obviously should be treated separately, and we are going to suggest such subcommittees. What we did not agree to, and certainly cannot agree to is that somebody decides in advance to split up this forum. We come here, we are sort of presented with a fait accompli. I would like to think that it's a basis of misunderstanding. I am not sure that it is. In fact, I suspect that it isn't, but the important thing is to get into the room together and to decide these issues and the course of negotiations. I think that the day of trying to force positions on each other, something we never subscribed to in the first place, that day is over. I mean we spent the last week making the point that we are not going to play that game. The important thing, right now, I think, is to get on with it, in a combined room, in a joint room, let's discuss the subject of the subcommittees and I think we can get on with it.”
Reporter: “Mr. Minister, whether you believe it is playing games or not, can you explain to us in substance your objection to sitting down this morning, for example, with the Palestinians? What difference would it have made?”
Mr Netanyahu: “We don't object to sitting down with the Palestinians. The Palestinians object to sitting down with us in the agreed upon context, that is of a joint delegation. What they are trying to do why are they doing this? I suppose they are doing this because what they are trying to establish from the start is of course a separate political entity. They are trying to press, through procedure, their claim for separate statehood. And as you know, our position differs.”
Reporter: “So you were afraid of acceding to their format this morning would have given some procedural legitimacy to their claim to statehood?”
Mr Netanyahu: “This is one of the two reasons we object to it. There is a substantive division here. They want to force, right at the beginning of the negotiations, their position for the ultimate negotiations, three or four years down the line. That is what they are trying to do now. That is not the ground rules. They are moving the goalposts and we are insisting as a second order for a second reason, that we not move the goalposts. There is substance and there is fair play. We disagree substantively but we also insist on fair play. Maybe they are not used to negotiating, but we are. And when we negotiate, the most important thing is to build trust, and to build trust means you don't move the goalposts every two minutes.”
Reporter: “ You said, earlier in your talks when you gave your opening statement, that you have the time, that Israel has time. One of the points the Palestinians have stressed is that they don't have time because their land is continuously being eroded through new settlements that are being built. There was a new one just a few days ago. How do you answer their concern about not having the time that you say you have?”
Mr Netanyahu: “Number one, I'm not suggesting that we take time indefinitely. I'm suggesting that we make use of the time for substantive negotiations. We're interested to get this thing on the road. We're the ones who have in the three weeks since Madrid have tried to make contacts with the Palestinian and Jordanians and they have refused. So the question of time really should be addressed to them: Why are they piling up these surprises and these obstacles, why are they changing the ground rules, because that's consuming time.”
“Right now Mr. Rubenstein and his counterparts are going to waste time to correct the attempted change of ground rules until we can get this thing going, so we're not interested at all in stalling. This is simply a total misreading or falsification of our position.”
“As far as our interest in negotiation, I think that what we need to have on the ground is a cessation of violence,” said Mr Netanyahu. “As we speak right now, Arabs are settling in that land and Jews are settling in that land. Of course, Arabs are settling in that land, daily. They're expanding their villages, they're bringing in Saudi and PLO money, and we're saying, of course, go ahead; we're not stopping it.”
“I can't see this vision of peace that people have that Arabs can live there but Jews cannot live there. Arabs of course can live in Tel Aviv and in Jaffa and in Haifa, but Jews cannot live in the West Bank. It's a particular apartheid vision of peace that the world has come to accept without thinking about it, without thinking what kind of vision of peace that entails. Now, if you want to talk to me about coexistence, about Jews living there with Arabs, I say absolutely, that must be, under any vision of peace, just as we don't say Arabs leave Israel, in whatever border it ends up, because Arabs cannot live among us. We will live among them, they will live among us.”
“But I think what is now consuming time, what is consuming time is the attempts to change the ground rules. Stick to the ground rules, get in the room, negotiate we'll save a lot of time,” he said.
Reporter: “ Mr. Netanyahu, on Wednesday there were four rooms available when the Arabs showed up and the Israeli delegation had not arrived. And it was understood by everybody that the four rooms were designated for all the parties and the Arabs went to separate delegations. Today the Arabs say that they found two different rooms, connecting rooms and different doors. So who has really changed the goalpost? Has it been the Americans, has it been the Israelis, has it been the Arabs? Nobody seems to know what is going on here.”
Mr. Netanyahu: “We changed nothing. We were told we agreed, not merely with the Americans, we agreed with the Arabs that we are conducting negotiations with a single, joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation. That was our understanding then, that's our understanding now. We are not adverse, and we have suggested in fact, that we conduct the negotiations in separate subcommittees, but separate subcommittees does not mean separate delegations. And it certainly has to be an agreed-upon procedures on how to establish these subcommittees, and organize their agendas, and decide on the number of subcommittees, and the way that they proceed. That is something that we can do under this joint delegation, and we're prepared to do it. There's no reason to play the corridor game, none whatsoever. It's a stalling business, it's another attempt at well, what shall I say pointing the finger at Israel, whatever it is.”
“It is true that if the Arabs now get into the room, this afternoon as my colleagues and I will head at 4 o'clock head to have this negotiation. If they come into the room, we'll discuss these questions that you raise right now, we'll discuss with them and I'm sure we'll reach an agreement very quickly. What we don't agree is a unilateral decision on the part of the Arabs to decide where the committees will be, who will be in the committees and so on. That's not a negotiation. That's a fiat, that's an ultimatum, and that we cannot accept, of course.”
Reporter: “ Mr. Netanyahu, several Palestinians I have spoken to would like to be recognized as Palestinian people and would like to be negotiated with as equals to the Israelis. Can you say the word "Palestinian people"? And will you negotiate with them as equals?”
Mr. Netanyahu: I'm of course willing to discuss with Palestinians. I myself have met many times with Palestinian Arabs. And yes, I can say the word "Palestinian people." But I have a question for you. How many Palestinian people are there? Are you going to tell me that there's one Palestinian people on 40 by 60 kilometers in the West Bank, and another Palestinian people, a separate people, who live across that narrow stream called the Jordan 20 miles away? That's their brothers and their sisters, the same families. I don't mean that figuratively. I mean that literally.”
“And I guess one of the arguments that we have is that we have to resolve the question of the Palestinian people, as you say, in the context of this joint entity; that is this entity where the Palestinian Arabs in fact reside, which is in the area, this larger area of Jordan and Israel. That's where you're going to have a solution. So we envision without now getting into details we envision an ultimate settlement that has from the desert to the sea two states. A state an Arab state, that is Jordan of course, that comprises a Palestinian majority and satisfies the national aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs, and a Jewish state. We can argue about the border agreement,” said Deputy Minister Netanyahu.
“But what the Arabs are positing is that there is a separate people. They are positing a third state interspersed which I think would be a danger a danger for Israel certainly, but a danger for Jordan and a danger for peace. They are trying to create an artificial state on the false assumption that there is a separate peoplehood, Palestinian People B on this small rock, this barren rock, called the West Bank. They're saying that a new people has formed. That's simply not true. No one will tell me that an Arab living in Nablus or an Arab living in Hebron, or an Arab living in Bethlehem, a Palestinian living there, is of a different people than his brother or his cousin or his mother that is living 20 miles away in Amman or in Irbid.”
Reporter: “In Madrid after Madrid, the Palestinian-Jordanian joint delegation and the Israeli delegation came to a statement, joint statement, saying that there will be two tracks, a Palestinian track and Jordanian track, and Israeli agreed. Now, you are changing the.... you say no”.
Mr Netanyahu:” Again you were not listening to what I am saying and you are distorting my words. I did not say that we will not agree to negotiate separate issues in separate subcommittees. We are. Yes, in two tracks, in two general tracks there could be several subcommittees in these two general tracks. We did not agree to split up all the negotiations from the start into two delegations. This is simply not true.”
“As far as the allegation that you said, that I am denying the existence of the Palestinian people, that is not true either. I merely am saying that one would be hard pressed to define the vast number of Palestinians in Jordan as a separate peoplehood, as a separate national entity from their brothers and sisters, literally their brothers and sisters who live on the West Bank,” said Mr Netanyahu. “What we would like to do is to solve this problem. I am not saying to the Arabs, agree to my definition of the border, but I am saying that what we ultimately have here is a border dispute. Maybe some would like the border on the Jordan River as we do, maybe others would like to move it westward, but ultimately a stable Middle East, or at least this part of the Middle East, for it to be stable requires a solution between two entities and not the inclusion or the incorporation of a third, artificial Palestinian state.”
Reporter: “You refer to the Palestinian brothers and sisters in Jordan. Do you see a distinction between Jordanians, as a nationality, and Palestinians? And how would they work that out if you know, under your plan?”
Mr. Netanyahu: “Well, I suppose that if you consult Jordanian leaders and Palestinian-Arab leaders until about two years ago, three years ago, they saw no distinction and they made it very clear that this was one people and one nation. All the time. All the leaders, from Hussein to his brother to Yasser Arafat. If you'd like I'll be happy to supply you with ready quotes in which they say Jordan is Palestine and the Jordanian-Palestinian people are one and so on. These are not Israeli quotes; this is not Israeli leaders talking these are Arab leaders. They have always stressed the unity or the solidarity of Jordanians and Palestinians. And certainly it is true that Jordan itself is part of mandatory Palestine 80 percent of mandatory Palestine the other 20 percent being Israel and of course the administered territories. So Jordan is geographically 80 percent of mandatory Palestine. And demographically, however we define Jordanians and Palestinians, Jordan is now overwhelmingly Palestinian in population.”
“So what we are saying, for that reason, we are saying that the solution has to come in the context of these two states. Again, we can disagree about where we draw the border between them. This is the question of territories. But there is no need and no justice and no common sense in creating a third separate entity as long as we take care of the civil rights on the side I hope on both sides of the border,” continued Mr. Netanyahu. “As far as this is a different concept from what is usually discussed. Usually this is discussed as the need to create a third entity, a third entity spliced in between them.”
Reporter: “Mr. Netanyahu on the rights of the Palestinian people, you said "I am not going to deny the existence of the Palestinian people, but people would be hard pressed to define the nature of that people, how many peoples are there." Now somehow this sounds oddly familiar, a debate in another context, because it was always the argument the Arabs threw at the Jews and said, "Where's the Jewish people? There are Jewish Americans, there are Jewish Russians, there are German Jews." Does it mean that you and then the answer from the Jewish side was always, "It's up to the Jews to define their national identity. Do I infer correctly that you do not apply this same argument to the case of the Palestinians?”
Mr. Netanyahu: “No, it is not true. I just said that we are not going to decide for the Arabs the Palestinian Arabs who rules them, either in...”
Reporter: “ identity of nationhood and nation”
Mr. Netanyahu: “Well, we can discuss the differences and we can quibble and split hairs here, but one thing you cannot deny, and that is that there are not 21 Jewish nations, and there is not a question that there is only one. There is only one Jewish nation. There is not a situation where you have a nation around the world where the Jews are the majority. That is, if you had 21 Jewish nations and a 22nd nation which may not be called Jewish but the Jews are the majority, I'd say we're in pretty good shape. That is not the case for the Jews.”
“The Jews have only one tiny country, and the Arabs have 21 nations. One of them is a nation where the Palestinian Arabs form an absolute majority by now reaching 70 percent. What the Arabs are saying, that's not enough, we want a 22nd Arab state in which the Arabs also form a majority the Palestinian Arabs also form a majority. And yes, we think it's unjust. We think it's unfair, especially since the land involved is land that is vital for our defense, that has been used to attack us in the past, and that is a land that we have historical attachment to that goes back over 3,000 years, including attachments of Jews who lived there just 40 years ago and were kicked out by these same Arabs.”
“So, we have our claims and they have their claims, but I think that right now we could waste a lot of time discussing it, whereas we could, I think, productively use our time to put aside the final status questions, to put aside the attempts to force a decision right now,” said Deputy Minister Netanyahu. “If the Arabs want to raise their demands for separate statehood, I'm sure they will, and their territorial claims, I'm sure they will, too. But we've decided in our procedure, I think wisely, to defer these questions down the line after a period of a few years where we live together and coexist.”
To wrap up the press briefing on December 10, 2010, the Israeli delegation head Benjamin Netanyahu was still optimistic of the outcome of the peace talks. “Now, I believe that with all the difficulties, if we follow this procedure, if we follow this road, I think we can get to I think we can achieve many miles on the road to peace. I think that we are in a position, with all the difficulties, even today's difficulties, I think we are moving towards a kind of reconciliation,” he said. “I think we are moving towards a negotiation of an interim settlement. I think we are moving towards something that Israel desperately wants and I think the Palestinian Arabs in the territories want as well, and that is a framework of coexistence as opposed to a framework of confrontation. It may take some time and we may have some delays here, but I'm confident that if we pursue it with patience and determinations, we will achieve it.”
Following Mr. Netanyahu’s press conference, a similar conference was helf by the spokesperson for the Palestinian delegation Ms. Hanan Ashrawi.
“Let me just say that we are still involved in corridor diplomacy rather than negotiations, unfortunately, and there seems to be a serious misunderstanding,” she opened by saying. “The Israelis seem to think that if we ask for a separate room that we are asking for an independent state. As far as we know, both rooms are still closed. And we're asking for a room, as of this morning.”
“The Palestinian delegation and the Jordanian delegation went at 9:30 and the heads of the two delegations met with Mr. Rubenstein, the head of the Israeli delegation, in the corridor, from 9:30 to 1:00 and so far nothing has been resolved. We are hoping that we would be able to open doors and not close them, and we're hoping that as soon as possible we should be able to start serious negotiations on substance, rather than start the acting or tackling more and more procedural issues.”
“We sincerely hope that Israel will not continue pulling procedurals on us every time we get ready to talk,” said Ms. Ashrawi. “ It's very dampening, frankly speaking; I mean, you've built up a momentum and you think you're all set and you're ready to tackle issues and you end up, again, grappling with procedure. We are not interested in procedures, we are interested in substance.”
“But at the same time, let me state very clearly that at no point did the Palestinians ever consider themselves a subcommittee and we will not be treated as a subcommittee. We are a people with a national identity and with rights and we are negotiating with the Israelis on the basis of parity and mutuality, Ms. Ashrawi. continued . “We have reached out to the Israelis. We have asked for mutuality. We have been involved in dialogue for a long time. And now we want to be involved in negotiations on that basis.”
“I know we have been referred to as, quote-unquote, "these people." We are not "these people," either, nor are we a subcommittee. We are the Palestinians and we are the core of the conflict. And solving the Palestinian issue will solve the Middle East conflict, frankly speaking. So I don't see why they continue to pursue this turning a blind eye policy. We said this in Madrid, we will say it again: If you ignore us, we will not go away; and if you deny us, we will not disappear; and if you insist that we do not exist, we will continue to make the point that we do exist.”
“We did not come here to be subsumed under a Jordanian delegation, nor to be negated as a people, said Ms. Ashrawi. “On the contrary, we came here to affirm our rights as a people, and that is precisely the point of strength of the Palestinians in these negotiations, the fact that the Palestinians themselves are offering are reaching out and are offering peace without coercion, out of our own free will.”
“We are reaching out to the Israelis and saying, "We want to make peace with you." And the Israelis say, "Wait a minute, we want to talk to the Jordanians." Or, "We don't want to recognize you as a people," or "We don't want to talk to you because this might be misunderstood as a recognition of you as a people."
“They have been dealing with us as a people ever since they occupied the West Bank and Gaza, continued Ms. Ashrawi. “They have known us from their position of occupier. We have known them from the position of the occupied. And we told them in Madrid that the occupied cannot hide any secrets from the occupier, that we do know oh sorry, that the occupier cannot keep any secrets from the occupied. We have known them at their best and at their worst, and we have scaled the walls of fear and we are willing to face them as equals and we are willing to talk to them as equals. We do not negate their presence or their identity. All we ask for is mutuality, and we hope that they will reciprocate.”
“Another meeting is scheduled and I hope it's not corridor diplomacy again is scheduled this afternoon at 4:00. I do hope that they will come without any additional obstructionist moves. We do hope that they will show up willing to engage immediately in direct bilateral negotiations on the basis of the invitations that we got, on the basis of the agreements in Madrid. And we don't want any more shifting of the goal posts or changing the rules after the game has started.”
Reporter: “Can you give us any insight into how this misunderstanding came about and what exactly went on from 9:30 to 1:00?”
Ms. Ashrawi: “I think the misunderstanding came about when the Israelis accepted the twin-track approach, and all the time they've been insisting that they wanted to negotiate with the Palestinians without the PLO, only with the people under occupation. So the Americans did their utmost to deliver the Palestinians under the occupation to the Israelis to be involved in direct bilateral negotiations. And this is precisely what happened. After months of diplomacy, Secretary Baker convinced all sides that we are going to start on a two-track approach, Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli. It seems to me after Madrid they discovered that perhaps the Palestinians are too visible as a people, and all the time they've been trying to deal with us as inhabitants of the territories, quote-unquote, or as a minority in Israel, and not as a people with a national identity and with rights.”
“The whole idea of the joint delegation was also raised as an overall framework involving two equal partners, two distinct national identities who have a distinct relationship, a very special and unique historical relationship and a future relationship, the Jordanians and the Palestinians. And we thought that would be a positive idea, so we set up structurally a joint delegation with a Palestinian on the Jordanian side and a Jordanian on the Palestinian side. And we are willing to discuss issues common to both jointly, but at the same time, there is a separate agenda for each side. Jordan is a sovereign country with its own agenda and its own particular needs and rights, and the Palestinians are a separate people with their own national identity and with their own separate agendas,” said Ms. Ashrawi.
“So now Israel wants to use the idea of a joint delegation as another red herring, saying that we will not talk to the Palestinians separately, we'll talk only to the Jordanians with Palestinians in this joint delegation, and they are quite willing to break up into subcommittees afterwards. That's why we insist that we are not a committee nor are we a subcommittee; we are a full delegation. We spoke in Madrid as an independent delegation. We have a 14-member delegation. We had a 45-minute speech. We responded as a delegation.”
“In the first bilateral meetings, we went jointly with the Jordanians as two separate entities who are working together in order to facilitate negotiations, and there was an agreement that there will be separate negotiations from then on. We agreed in Madrid to preserve the umbrella, to preserve the structure, and this was agreed by the Israelis as well, if you read their press statement,” said Ms. Ashrawi. “They agreed to negotiations, separate negotiations with the Palestinians and separate negotiations with the Jordanians. That's why we're astounded to see them pull this on us again. Yesterday we heard some rumors, but today it became very clear that they are not willing to meet with the Palestinians separately.”
“I'll tell you very frankly that it is perfectly respectable these days to talk to Palestinians. It's quite kosher. We are no longer the pariahs of the world and we are perfectly harmless people. On the contrary, what we're offering is genuine peace. And we are reaching out. And I do hope they will have the maturity and the courage to transcend all these petty trivialities and to start discussing issues with us directly. All we want is direct bilateral negotiations to discuss issues in order to achieve a genuine peace.”
Reporter: “Ms. Ashwari are you disappointed that the United States has not taken a more assertive role in trying to resolve this procedural dispute?”
Ms. Ashrawi: “Well, I wouldn't use the term disappointed. If you expect a lot, you get disappointed. (Laughs.) If you don't expect much, you don't get disappointed.”
“I would say that there is a responsibility that the US as a sponsor has, especially when they are the ones who drafted and very carefully crafted the invitation letters, the letters of assurances, and they've been pursuing with us a very candid and ongoing diplomacy. Everything has been up front. We have discussed with them very frankly our plans. Nothing has been hidden from them. And they know that the basis of the formation of the joint delegation has been equality, parity, and mutual respect for the independent sovereignty of each state. And they have agreed to all these things.”
“So at a certain point, we expect them to step in and say, you know, enough monkey wrenches, let's get down to business. And I hope that they will take a more active and a more reasonable role. I think that they wlil,” she saidl.
Reporter: “ Michael MacMillan, BBC Television. What happens if the Israelis continue to treat you in the way they have done this morning? Will you stay in the corridor?”
Ms. Ashrawi: “I think, the first briefing, the first day we got here, I told you that we are a very patient people as Palestinians, but even Palestinians have a limit to their patience. We are going to pursue in every way possible a positive diplomacy with the Israelis. We are going to continue to press for direct, immediate, bilateral negotiations with the Israelis on the basis of the two-track approach which is in the letter of invitation. I think you all have the letter of invitation, don't you? You have all read the press statement that came out from Madrid by the Jordanians, by the Israelis and the Palestinians.”
“These are agreements that we felt were binding on everybody and we have maintained our commitment to those agreements. The Israelis now are introducing new suggestions and placing more obstacles. We will be patient. We will try very hard to overcome these obstacles. We are interested in seriously engaging with the Israelis as Palestinians. They haven't been occupying people from Mars. They haven't been occupying an unnamed population or a subcommittee. They have been occupying the Palestinians, on Palestinian soil, for the last 24 years. And if this hasn't dawned on them, there is something seriously wrong.”
Reporter: “I'm with the Moroccan New Agency. Most of us here know that the road to peace is going to be a very, very difficult one. And we have seen your courage at a time when we have recognized the State of Israel to live in secure boundaries. And you've been very courageous doing that although you were under attack and your people were under occupation still. And you did it as Palestinians, and the world applauded. What is the problem now, why cannot you be accepted as Palestinians to continue the negotiations so that we can put this horrible nightmare of thirty years behind us?”
Ms. Ashrawi: “I think you should ask this of the Israelis. I think they are a bit scared of recognizing the fact that there are Palestinians. You see, ever since I think was it Golda Meir who started this whole mess of, “what Palestinians, there are no Palestinians.” They've been having a hard time coming to grips with the reality, with the fact that Palestinians do exist, and we've been dying every day, and we've been talking to them every day, and they've been demolishing our houses and taking our land, and we've been defying them every day. So it's a question of recognition of reality, and I think, as I said earlier, if you close your eyes we're not going to disappear.”
Reporter: “My name is James Foreman and I'm with the Black American News Service. One of the stumbling blocks in the United States and I know concretely this has been that the fact that the Palestinians have not accepted the right of Israel to exist. (Groaning.) Now that has been done, that has been stated into the Reagan administration. Now in 1947, the United Nations divided, created a state for the Jews and a state for the Arabs, and the Israeli government said this would be our state, and it accepted it in 1948. Has the Palestinian delegation given any consideration to the United Nations decision which guaranteed you a homeland, a homeland for the Palestinians exists in the Middle East at this particular moment?”
Ms. Ashrawi: “Yes.”
Reporter: “But the decision has not been enforced, whereas the decision to create Israel has been enforced. What is the position of your delegation on that question?”
Ms. Ashrawi: “We stated this very, very clearly from the beginning, that we accept Resolution 181, United Nations Resolution 181 which established two states in the historic land of Palestine, a state for the Jews and a state for the Palestinians. We said that we accept Resolutions 242 and 338, which ends the state of belligerence here or ends the state of occupation also in the region. We are willing to abide by all UN resolutions that are pertinent or relevant to the question, every single one without exception. And we consider the body of all these resolutions to be the basis of what we call international legitimacy, to be the legal reference for the Palestinians. And, frankly speaking, because we don't have any resources and we don't have any weapons and armies and so on, our only strength actually is the determination of our people and the will of the international community as expressed in all these resolutions, and we adhere to them very strongly. We just hope they get applied at a certain point in our history.”
Reporter: “Dr. Ashrawi, Allison Caplin from the Jerusalem Post. Just to try to clarify some of the things you just discussed earlier, you said that the Israelis are pulling sort of a procedural trick on you now by insisting on having the meeting being jointly in one room. Can you interpret from that that when they shook hands at the end of the bilateral meeting in Madrid there was an explicit understanding between the two sides that from then on, from that moment on, the talks would continue on two separate tracks, or was it the Israeli understanding the Israelis seem to be saying that there was no such explicit understanding, that they assumed that it was general language saying at some point, at a point further on, the meeting will break up into two tracks. Can you clarify?”
Ms. Ashrawi: “Well, I don't know what the Israelis understood or misunderstood. I read you the statement at the end of the Madrid bi-laterals which says that these negotiations will be conducted along two tracks, a Palestinian-Israeli track and a Jordanian-Israeli track.”
Reporter: “Last Wednesday when the Arab delegation arrived, it was clear almost on every network that there were four separate rooms at the State Department and you went there and you waited, and the Israelis didn't show up. My first question is are those rooms still available in the State Department? And secondly, my second question is, if today at 4:00 you should go there and you still remain in the corridors, would you expect the other Arab delegations to stop their negotiations in solidarity and come out and join you in the corridors?”
Ms. Ashrawi:” Well, you are right, there were two separate rooms, one for the Palestinians, one for the Jordanians. There was one site, the C Street entrance, which is fine. Today we found two closed rooms and that's why we said we don't want a closed door policy. We came here to open doors, not to close them.”
“We have ongoing discussions with the other Arab delegations. This is a decision that has to be taken collectively. Yesterday the decision was not to allow this last minute Israeli obstacle to impede the progress on all fronts. We are going to do our best not to allow them to sabotage all the negotiations. But if we feel, at a certain point that the Israelis are attempting to sabotage the whole process, then there has to be a serious reappraisal. But let's say that there is ongoing evaluation and assessment and the decision will be taken collectively and seriously because it's no laughing matter.”
Reporter: “The trouble that we have now in Silwan, the 200 families that will be entering or will be forced to enter in the presidium, and the lack of reaction that the State Department has not any good reaction about this, about the expansion of settlements. And also the attack on El-Oxamos all of these issues were raised at the State Department in the last few days and there was no reaction,n good reaction.”
Ms. Ashrawi: “This is very, very serious. That's why we are taking it extremely seriously. We raised the issue of the escalation of the Israeli irredentist policy in the occupied territories, of the escalation of the settlement activities, as a wilful and deliberate act of spite of defiance, not just to tell the Palestinians that peace is going to cost you a lot, but also to tell the whole world that whatever is happening that Israel continues to call the shots and to use the politics of domination and aggression against the Palestinians.”
“We told the US that normally, even without a peace process, even without a negotiating process going on, the US does deplore, does do something about such blatant human rights violations. These prolonged and cruel curfews, where you have settlers on the rampage in Damala for instance, the Palestinians are not allowed to step outside their homes; and the settlers can roam around freely, enter houses, break into houses, break windows and doors and vandalize cars and so on. This is what has been happening. They have arrested more than 150 Palestinians from my home town, from one town. This is the 10th day of curfew, and these are not human conditions that are conducive to peace.”
“Again, the US constantly talked about settlement activity as being an obstacle to peace,” Ms. Ashrawi said. “And the moment we started the peace process, Israel immediately intensified the settlement activity, expanded four settlements or more, built three new settlements, confiscated extensive lands, built new roads. And you have even official Israeli statements from Cabinet officials not just supporting this, but participating in this, in direct defiance of the peace process, of the principles of peace, and of our own rights, and of every single UN resolution pertaining to the settlement activity. And we haven't heard any responses.”
“We think that Israel and I said this, and I will repeat it, is exploiting the power of the occupier by using the captive Palestinian population as hostages and there is no other word for it. Every day we get phone calls, we get pleas, we get messages, we get petitions from people at home whose houses are being demolished, who are held in this gigantic prison and who are being deliberately brutalized by government policy in Israel. I think this should stop,” Ms. Ashrawi said. “If Israel is serious, if Israel is willing to engage in good faith, this has to stop. At the same time, what saddens us is that there has never been a real process of accountability for Israel. literally, they have gotten away with murder, they have gotten away with all these practices. Nobody has held them accountable.”
“We are in the middle of a peace process and Israel is violating the whole integrity of the process in addition to our rights, and nobody is telling Israel this has got to stop. I think the Palestinians are saying it and, in a way it explains, it enhances our deep commitment to peace that in spite of everything that Israel is trying to do to victimize our people and to provoke us, we continue to be committed to this peace process and we continue to try our utmost to make it succeed and we will make it succeed.”
Have your say on this story
|
|
