EXPERTS IN MADRID DISCUSS ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE EFFORTS

EXPERTS IN MADRID DISCUSS ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE EFFORTS

MADRID, 17 July (UN Information Service) -- No side could enforce a unilateral solution, an Israeli Knesset member, Yossi Katz, told the United Nations Meeting on the Question of Palestine this afternoon in Madrid.  Only when there was a bilateral ceasefire could the Israeli peace camp demand that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicate his intent regarding a permanent accord.

He said that although a clear majority of Israelis thought the settlements interfered with the advancement of peace and should be evacuated, by force if necessary, each attack on the roads led to an increase in solidarity with the settlers and a decrease in confidence in the peace process.  A cessation of violence might force the Prime Minister to show his hand at the negotiating table and allow Israelis to judge whether he had taken advantage of the intifada for his political needs.  An important task was to implement the Mitchell Report without any excuses.

A member of the Spanish Parliament, Manuel Marin, said the possibility for peace was greater under the Labour Government, but international agreements should be respected regardless of what party was in power.  Agreements were the responsibility of the State, not of the party.  He went on to say that violence was the main adversary of the Palestinian Authority.  It was pointless to try to single out who had the greatest responsibility.

The Minister for Information, Culture and the Arts of the Palestinian Authority, Yaseer Abdel Rabbo, said there was no better time for peace lovers on both sides to make their views known.  No one suffered more from violence than the Palestinians, and there was no one more eager to put an end to it.  He understood the need of the Israelis for security anywhere in Israel, but there was no way to deal with the violence without a political resolution of the settlement issue.  Israel’s demand that there be no violence for seven days was an unrealistic precondition and an attempt to put an end to the Mitchell recommendations.

The two-day meeting in Madrid, under the sponsorship of the Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, will convene again tomorrow morning to hear panellists discuss the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory.  Under that heading, experts will review the security situation since September 2000; the need for international protection of the Palestinian people, including the application of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention; international efforts to end the crisis and restart the peace process; the issue of Israeli settlements; and the state of the Palestinian economy.

Other panellists this afternoon included Valerian Chouvaev, head of the Division for Palestine and Israel, Department of the Middle East and North Africa,

Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Moscow; and Ignacio Alvarez-Ossorio, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Alicante.

Prior to the panel presentation, the representatives of the Dominican Republic and Mexico made statements.  Representatives of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) also spoke.

Statements

The representative of the Dominican Republic said his Government had always been a firm supporter of the United Nations and the international community and Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).  It also supported the guidelines of the 1991 Madrid Conference.  He condemned all types of violence and terror, stating that there was only one way to peace between Israel and Palestine - dialogue and negotiation.  Even though his was a small country, both larger and small countries must cooperate on this issue.  He appealed for intensified and redoubled efforts to re-establish the much-desired peace.

The representative of Mexico said his Government was deeply concerned about the rapid deterioration of the situation in the Middle East.  The excessive use of force would only exacerbate the negative feelings between the two parties.  The Mitchell Report should shed new light on the situation and help the parties to return to dialogue.  He supported the full recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination.  A political solution was the only way to peace.

The representative of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) said that after 10 years the peace process had ended in violence and breakdown.  The stalled peace process had been accompanied by continuing hardship for the Palestinians, with Israeli settlements being the major obstacle towards peace.  In most cases, settlements either surrounded Palestinian communities or huge tracts of Palestinian land were confiscated for future Israeli settlements.  Prospects for Palestinian sovereignty were compromised by Israeli security arrangements.  An ESCWA report examined the actions carried out by Israeli forces and how they affected the lives of the Palestinian people.  The report registered the negative repercussions of the Israeli occupation and indicated that the upsurge in settlement expansion had continued to negatively affect the peace process.  According to the report, water and the environment remained critical issues.  The deforestation of land further contributed to the deterioration.

The report also revealed that Israeli occupation inhibited investment and growth, he said.  The restriction on the movement of goods and people contributed to the loss of income, and Israel’s practice of withholding revenues further accentuated the problems.  The ESCWA was not a funding agency but it was concerned with the situation of the States in its area.  It was currently seeking funds for intensifying its assistance to the Palestinian territories.  The expanding settlements continued to undermine the numerous bilateral agreements.  He stressed that the Mitchell Report and the principle of land for peace had not yet been put into practice.

The representative of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) said Habitat was the United Nations agency that had Shelter for All and Sustainable Human Settlements as its two main foci.  In relation to the Palestine question, the Centre was mandated to implement its resolution entitled “Illegal Israeli human settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories”.   The resolution called on Israeli authorities to implement a number of measures to enable the Palestinian people in the occupied territory to ensure their housing needs, including ending the confiscation of Palestinian lands and the establishment of settlements.  It also called on Israeli authorities to restore to their original state occupied lands that were altered before and during the recent illegal actions; to refrain from policies that prevented or hampered the issuance of building permits to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem; and to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the occupied Palestinian territory.

Also under the resolution, he said, was a request to the Executive Director of Habitat to organize a meeting on the establishment of a human settlements fund for the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory.  He invited the participants to join in the organization of the meeting by providing political and/or financial support for the preparation of these studies needed for the establishment of the fund during an international meeting.

Overview of Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts:  Presentation by Experts

YOSSI KATZ, Labour Member of the Knesset, Tel Aviv, said that although the golden era of Jewish culture had occurred in Spain under Muslim rule, the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492.  As someone who fought for the peace process, he wanted to ensure that Israel did not expel another people from its land.  The political programme that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak had outlined in Camp David, with minor changes, would be the basis of peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians.  He had no doubt about the end of the process.  The only question was how many deaths of innocent people would pave the way towards peace.  The accords would call for an independent Palestinian State and the establishment of one or two blocks of Jewish settlements within the borders of 1967.  The rest of the settlements would be evacuated.  The Palestinian State would receive alternate land and the right of passage in exchange for the lands it relinquished.

Under the peace accords, as he saw them, the State of Israel would be at the centre of wide-scale international efforts to solve the Palestinian refugee problem, aiding States with Palestinian refugees, particularly the Palestinian State.  Israel would absorb about 100,000 refugees within the green line.  Jerusalem would be divided so that Israel’s sovereignty would be recognized in the western part, including Givaat Zee, Maale Adumim and several other new neighbourhoods established since 1967.  The Palestinian Al-Quds would include the East Jerusalem neighbourhoods and the villages around Jerusalem.  The status of the Holy Places would be dealt with in a separate agreement.  The Old City should be run by a special regime and its status should be determined in another 10 or 20 years.

No side could enforce a unilateral solution, he said.  The demolition of Palestinian houses was a foolish act that was condemned by him and some of his colleagues.  Any Israeli who used brutal and disrespectful language against Yasser Arafat was making a serious mistake.  Instead, the Palestinian leadership should be encouraged to take all necessary measures to prevent terrorist activities.  Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres was a member of Government because he believed that he could advance peace and that the sides could be brought back to the negotiating table.  For that to happen, however, the violence must stop.  The Palestinian leadership must reach serious decisions.  Only when there was a bilateral ceasefire could the Israeli peace camp demand that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon shows all his cards regarding a permanent accord.

He went on to say that the decline in Israeli public support for the peace process had been dramatic.  Although a clear majority of Israelis thought the settlements interfered with the advancement of peace and should be evacuated, by force if necessary, each attack on the roads led to an increase in solidarity with the settlers and a decrease in confidence in the peace process.  A cessation of violence might force the Prime Minister to show his hand at the negotiating table and allow Israelis to judge whether he had taken advantage of the intifada for his political needs.   

He said the immediate important task was to implement the Mitchell Report without any excuses.  Only full implementation might lead the parties back on track.

VALERIAN CHOUVAEV, head of the Division for Palestine and Israel, Department of Middle East and North Africa, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Moscow, said the important place the Middle East occupied in the world made the situation fraught with consequences for international peace and security.  In recent times, tensions had decreased slightly, but incidents such as that which happened yesterday could eliminate any progress.

He said the Mitchell Report was critical primarily because the two parties and the international community had accepted it.  The first step towards the realization of the Mitchell plan was that both parties must implement the understanding for a ceasefire.  It was essential to prove flexibility and a will to compromise.  The plan was like a package deal and the political elements were aimed towards the resumption of substantive negotiations.  He stressed that it would be impossible to ensure security without the return of the parties to the negotiating table.  While it was difficult to say what would happen in the future, one of the points to be discussed would be putting into place measures for the transitional period.  The problem now was to convince political circles and the public to embody the recommendations. 

He said the approach of the relevant Security Council resolutions on the principle of land for peace should not be cast by the way side or forgotten.  He noted that the peace process launched in Madrid had come a long way, but it remained fragile and must be kept from dangerous reversals.  All parties concerned must encourage positive statements and actions.  Violence led to nothing:  pursuing violence did not contribute to the security of the Israelis or to the realization of the rights of the Palestinian people.  Within the context of international relations, the Middle East played a particular role and had a strategic position.  The task of drawing up specific agreements rested primarily with the parties concerned, but it was sometimes difficult to untie the knot of accumulated problems.  Only by charting a course with the participation of the two parties and the co-sponsors could peace be achieved.  The 10 years since the Madrid Conference had not gone by in vain.  Russia would do its best to see that the lofty goal of peace in the Middle East was accomplished.

MANUEL MARIN, Member, Spanish Parliament, said there was hardly any peace process to which so much attention had been devoted as the Madrid Conference and the subsequent agreements and understandings.  He did not question the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people or the right of Israelis to security.  International agreements must be respected.  When there were Labour governments, the possibility for peace improved. Under conservative governments, the possibilities for peace shrank.  However, international agreements should be respected regardless of what party was in power.  Agreements were the responsibility of the State, not of the party.

He went on to say that violence was the main adversary of the Palestinian authority.  It was pointless to try to single out who had the greatest responsibility.  One of the problems with the peace process was that international diplomacy had put it into a capsule.  Time and again, there was talk that there would be a war, but it had not happened.  The peace process had gone on too long.  Compliance with the existing arrangements was imperative.  The burden of proof lay on Sharon and since that was so, he was pessimistic.  If the Labour Party were in power, the outlook would be better.

IGNACIO ALVAREZ-OSSORIO, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Alicante, said it was important to look back at the beginning of the peace process.  The framework of the negotiations in Madrid had so many limitations that any observer could have predicted difficulty.  The peace process had a loose foundation.  Since it had been launched long before Madrid but when Security Council resolution 242 (1967) had been adopted, other actors had been marginalized. The framework defined by the United States Administration clashed with United Nations resolutions and showed suspicious similarities to Israeli negotiating proposals, which also marginalized other international actors.  From the first, the will of the United States was manifest.  There was a token role for the Soviet Union despite its being a co-sponsor.  Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) should guide the process.

The George Bush Administration had submitted a letter guaranteeing that certain lines should not be crossed, he said.  No favour was given to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.  At the same time, the Palestinians were assured of the United States’ opposition to continued Israeli settlements. It did not exclude, however, a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation. The Bush administration had attempted to maintain an even-handed stance.  While it got the Israelis and the Palestinians to the negotiating table, the shortcomings emerged in the long run.

He went on to say that Israel had military and economic power.  The peace process would perpetuate that asymmetry.  Once the Declaration of Principles had been signed, it was clear that the Israeli criteria of separation of land from peace prevailed over Palestinian criteria.  During the five interim years, Israel had a free hand to expand its settlements.  The Palestinians had to give up or postpone their claims to a sovereign State.  The delaying tactics assumed by successive Israeli governments had created new facts.  The demographics of Jerusalem and Gaza had been altered by the expropriation of lands and modification through the cantonizations that divided the Palestinians into three separate zones.  The main drawback was that it was not based on principles accepted by all parties.

In Madrid, he continued, certain issues were being avoided.  Palestinian refugees were hardly mentioned, although 4 million people were affected.  Other fundamental aspects were the fact that Israel had occupied Arab territories since 1967.  Another issue not fully considered was the establishment of an independent Palestinian State.  Any such agreement would be doomed to failure. 

YASSER ABED RABBO, Minister for Information, Culture and Arts, Palestinian Authority, Representative of Palestine, said that the main concern of the Israeli Government was to prove that the dialogue had come to a standstill and there was not a Palestinian partner.  Among Palestinians, there was great disappointment, perhaps based on their experiences over the years.  The question was, if Sharon was not interested in the peace process, what was its future? 

He said the situation was more complex than it used to be, but it was not blocked.  There was no better time for peace lovers on both sides to make their views known.  In the current confrontational atmosphere, extremism flourished.  It could not be dealt with simply through technical means.  Political means had to be employed to deal with the reasons for extremism.  In the case in point, the reason was the occupation.  No one suffered more from violence than the Palestinians, and there was no one more eager to put an end to it.  More than

3-1/4 million people lived under occupation, and violence was practised on a daily basis.  He understood the need of Israelis for security anywhere in Israel.  Palestinians also needed normal living conditions.  It was possible for the Israelis to have security without it being at the expense of minimum living conditions for Palestinians.  That minimum included self-determination. 

Continuing, he said there could be differences when the issue of settlements entered into the question of security.  That entailed an extension of security within the green line -– the borders established in 1967.  There was no way to deal with the violence without a political settlement of that issue.  Israel had accepted only the parts in the Mitchell Report which dealt with security, demanding that before the implementation of the Report’s recommendations, there must be no violence for seven days.  That unrealistic precondition was an attempt to put an end to Mitchell.  When the Americans had accepted that stipulation, Sharon had put forth another condition -- that he be the one to decide whether there had been a week free of violence.

He said the attacks against President Arafat and others, including insults and calls for assassinations, had reached levels unknown since the end of the cold war.  The extremists in Israel had said that the President had refused the generous offer for peace but, in fact, it was they who had refused peace.  In an interview two days ago, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak joined the voices of those who put the responsibility on President Arafat.  Yet, when the Palestinians had gone to Camp David, they had sat for two weeks alone.  Barak had refused to meet with Arafat except to go for a walk and discuss the weather and one dinner where they praised American cuisine.  Arafat had not rejected a generous offer of peace at Camp David.  The offer put forth did not meet the minimum requirement –- the right to self-determination.  He stressed again that the intifada was not the choice of the Palestinians.  Peace was their only choice.

* *** *