December 1992
BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS GENERAL BACKGROUND
A YEAR AFTER MADRID
INTRODUCTION
After over four decades of non-dialogue and conflict, Israel's Arab
neighbors have finally agreed to sit down face-to-face with Israel and
work together toward peace in direct bilateral negotiations.
The past year of negotiations has seen many advances and changes. Talks
have moved from the corridors to the conference rooms, from procedural
squabbles to joint agendas. The change in the Israeli government
following the June 1992 elections brought an intesification in peace
negotiations within the Madrid framework. Accordingly, negotiations have
changed from fragmented, intermittent sessions to a continuous
uninterrupted process with rounds that have lasted up to one month at a
time.
To further the spirit of continuity, Israel has repeatedly proposed to
establish channels of communication between rounds especially with
the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. Regrettably, this proposal has not
yet been accepted by their Arab counterparts. Similarly, Israel's
invitation to the Arab leaders to visit Israel, in the manner of the
Sadat-Begin meeting, have not yet received a positive response.
THE MADRID FRAMEWORK
On October 30, 1991, an historic opening conference was convened in
Madrid. The conference was co-sponsored by the United States and the
Soviet Union, who issued a joint invitation to Israel, Syria, Jordan,
Lebanon, and the Palestinians. This invitation provides the mutually
agreed upon program for peace negotiations, which has become known as
the Madrid framework.
According to the invitation, the objective of this process is the
achievement of 'real peace,' expressed in a 'lasting and comprehensive
peace settlement' between Israel and her Arab neighbors. As described in
the invitation, the opening conference served to launch the direct
negotiations, which are now taking place.
The invitation defined Palestinian participation in negotiations as
follows:
'Palestinians will be invited and attend as part of a joint
Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.'
The framework of the Madrid formula regarding negotiations was mapped
out as follows:
ISGA negotiations with the Palestinians :
[1] 'Negotiations will be conducted in phases, beginning with talks
on interim self-government arrangements [ISGA]. These talks will be
conducted with the objective of reaching agreement within one year.
Once agreed, the interim self-government arrangements will last for
a period of five years;
Permanent status negotiations with the Palestinians:
[2] 'beginning the third year of the period of interim
self-government arrangements, negotiations will take place on
permanent status.'
242 and 338 :
[3]'These permanent status negotiations, and the negotiations
between Israel and the Arab states, will take place on the basis of
Resolutions 242 and 338.'
TERRORISM DURING PEACE TALKS
Since the beginning of the peace process, the region has been plagued by
a rash of anti-Israeli terrorism coinciding with each new round of
talks.
Incidents range from attacks against the civilian population within
Israel to organized raids, bombings and ambushes on its border.
Increasing terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinian extremists have
employed weapons ranging from knives and hatchets, to grenades and
firearms. Recent border violence includes the Hizbollah firing of
katyusha rockets from Lebanon into northern Israel, killing an
14-year-old Russian immigrant the second Israeli child killed by
rocket attacks this year. These incidents are not only intended to kill
Jews, but also to kill any prospect of peace .
Since the Madrid peace conference (30.10.91) till today (1.12.92):
*34 Israeli citizens and IDF soldiers were killed by terrorist
attacks, and 573 wounded.
*There have been 1,032 firebomb attacks in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
*There were 263 attacks using edged weapons (knives, hatchets,
etc.) in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
* Dozens of Hizbollah rockets were launched toward Israel, killing
a boy and wounding four members of his family in the northern
Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona, and killing 2 Lebanese civilians, a
father and his one-year-old baby, near the border.
Arab responses
Unfortunately, the Arab delegations have not publicly condemned the
actions of these terrorists who wish to undermine the common
Arab-Israeli efforts toward peace-making.
On the contrary, on October 10th, following an ambush of Israeli troops
on the Israeli border in Lebanon which killed five IDF soldiers and
wounded another five, the chief of the Syrian negotiating team, Mowaffak
Allaf, went so far as to justify such acts of terrorism. 'Syria is not
responsible for the national resistance movements...resistance action in
this case is something which is accepted by international law and by the
charter of the United Nations.'
Israel's position
Despite terrorism, Israel has remained adamant in its commitments to
peace. Israel will not allow the peace process to become a shield for
terrorist attacks, neither will it allow terrorism to threaten the peace
process itself.
With those committed to peace, Israel will continue to pursue peace as
if there were no terrorism. However, regarding those who use terrorism
to destroy peace, Israel will pursue these terrorists as if there were
no peace process .
Israel has no intention of halting the peace negotiations with its Arab
counterparts. At the same time, Israel sees no contradiction between
making peace with its neighbors, and keeping peace on its borders.
Therefore, Israel reserves the right to defend itself and to act against
terrorism, in the north, within the territories, or wherever it may
strike.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH JORDAN
Both Jordan and Israel stand to reap great benefits from a peace treaty.
Economic cooperation between the two countries holds the promise of
mutual advancement and profit.
During the latest (seventh) round of bilateral talks in Washington
(20.10.92), Israel and Jordan reached a joint working agenda, acceptable
to both sides.
The agenda outlines the structure of the talks, the principles governing
the negotiations, and the issues which are to be negotiated.
The agenda itself contains three major subheadings:
A. General goal of the Israel-Jordanian negotiations the achievement
of just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel and the
Arab states and Palestinians.
B. Components of Israel-Jordanian peace negotiations including the
issues of borders, water, security, refugees, and the essence of
the future relations between Israel and Jordan such as
cooperation in the realm of economy, health, transportation,
communications, education, energy, and the like.
C. This endeavor will ultimately culminate in a peace treaty.
The parties have already begun substantial talks on the agenda items,
and have structured the talks in small, professional, and
subject-oriented working groups in order to facilitate the detailed
negotiations. The groups are comprised of non-political experts in the
field under discussion, as well as diplomats and legal specialists.
To date, the items on the agenda which have already begun to be
discussed in depth include water and cooperation in the areas of
environment and energy.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PALESTINIANS
It is Israel's goal to resolve the situation of the Palestinians in the
territories in a two-phase process, as stipulated by the Madrid
framework. The first phase of negotiations is meant to address interim
self government arrangements (ISGA). The second phase is comprised of
negotiations regarding the permanent status of the territories. Israel
and the Palestinians are presently in the first phase of the
negotiations.
The ISGA period is meant to prepare the ground for permanent status
negotiations. Such negotiations will begin in the third year of the
five-year interim period, and will be based on U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338.
Israel's proposal for Interim Self Government Arrangements
In August 1992, Israel put forth a detailed proposal for Interim
Self Government Arrangements (ISGA), which includes a timetable for
negotiations and implementation.
Israel feels that this proposal will accord Palestinians living in
the territories an opportunity to substantially improve the general
quality of their lives, by creating a fair and extensive framework
enabling them to administer their own affairs.
Palestinian Administrative Council
Israel's proposal includes the establishment of a 15 member
Palestinian Administrative Council (PAC) to act as the organ of the
ISGA period. Under the ISGA agreement, this body would be elected
by free, open and general elections. The elected council members
would, in turn, be accountable to their electorate. The election
modalities would be based upon the preservation of the right of
free assembly, free expression and secret ballot. Such elections
would be historic and unprecedented for the Palestinians.
In the ISGA, the proposed PAC would be vested with wide-ranging
powers and responsibilities over the entire Palestinian population
of the territories. Israel has suggested 15 spheres of operation
including independent courts of law and infrastructure aspects,
such as land uses and water.
Due to the interim nature of the ISGA, issues relating to Israel's
security and vital interests in the territories, and the affairs of
Israeli citizens in the territories would remain in Israel's hands
in the framework of residual powers. The disposition of these
issues is subject to the further negotiations regarding the
permanent status.
In the latest round, talks began to be held in small informal working
groups, and core issues such as the concept of ISGA, are now being
tackled.
These small groups dealt with substantive issues such as the body which
will administer the interim arrangements,its structure, jurisdiction,
authority, powers and responsibilities. Other groups dealt with specific
aspects and spheres of the proposed self government arrangements.
Although substantial negotiations have indeed commenced, it should be
understood that basic disagreements of the past remain, and the distance
separating the sides is still great. What has changed today, however, is
that in the Madrid process both sides are now obligated to work toward a
common goal an agreement on the interim arrangements. In addition,
important tools which are needed to advance to that goal, such as small
negotiation group, have together been developed.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH LEBANON
The fact that there are no territorial disputes between Israel and
Lebanon already put the two countries one step closer to peace. Israel
recognizes the international border and strives to maintain and assure
the security of that border through the achievement of a peace agreement
with Lebanon.
Repeated acts of violence carried out against Israel by extremist
terrorist elements operating on Lebanese soil during the latest round of
peace talks have brought the issue of security to the forefront of
negotiations.
During the latest (seventh) round of talks in Washington (20.10.92),
there were a number of attacks by the Hezbollah which caused six Israeli
fatalities and over a dozen injuries. The Hezbollah is a fundamentalist
Islamic terrorist organization which operates freely from
Syrian-controlled Lebanon with Iranian training and support. It carries
out its terrorist operations with the express purpose of undermining the
peace process.
As the security situation on the Lebanese border stabilized toward the
end of the latest round, Israel presented the Lebanese with a compromise
proposal dealing with the establishment of a military working group in
the framework of the negotiations. In making this proposal, Israel hopes
to provide both sides with a mechanism to avoid the kind of violence
which had plagued the talks. This proposal is still on the table, and
will be further discussed in the upcoming rounds.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH SYRIA
Israel views the future peace treaty with Syria as being comprised of
three central components: security, peace and borders. Ultimately,
Israel envisions a peace with Syria which includes open borders,
exchanges of goods and services and full normalization of relations
between the two peoples. In addition, this peace must be viable in its
own right, and not dependent upon Israel's agreements with other Arab
parties.
Within this context, Israel, in the latest round of talks, presented a
reformulated position paper to the Syrian negotiating team, mentioning
an Israeli willingness to consider an element of withdrawal on the Golan
Heights.
With this position on the table, Israel had hoped to promote the efforts
to arrive at a joint statement of principles which would guide the
negotiations in the future. The talks, however, did not advance much
beyond this point, due to the Syrian demand that Israel commit itself to
a full withdrawal from the Golan even before describing the shape of the
peace which it is willing to offer.
Syria remains unwilling to explain its intentions regarding the future
peace with Israel, its depth, content and substance. The Israeli
delegates explained that without knowing whether there would be a
complete peace, and whether that peace would exist on it own right,
Israel would be unable to elaborate further regarding withdrawal. Such a
Syrian expectation is tantamount to expecting that Israel agree to a
price before even being allowed to see the merchandise.
In the upcoming round of talks, Israel hopes to continue work on the
formulation of a joint statement of principles for the negotiations.
Though not much progress was made in the latest round, more progress may
be made in the next round, if Syria will enter the talks in the spirit
of 'give and take', and understand that the ball is now in their court.