PRESS CONFERENCE WITH PALESTINIAN DELEGATION SPOKESPERSON HANAN ASHRAWI
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1991
MS. ASHRAWI: I have a brief statement.
MS. ASHRAWI: I don't know if you've seen the we had the
press release earlier this morning, I don't know if you got it.
Q we have it.
MS. ASHRAWI: You have it? Okay. So I will not repeat what's
in it.
Let me just say that we are still involved in corridor
diplomacy rather than negotiations, unfortunately, and there seems
to be a serious misunderstanding. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
I'll be glad to take any questions.
STAFF: Before I take questions, although we don't want to be
caught up in procedures, I know some of you, but I'd ask all of you
just to announce yourself when I take the questions just to make
sure.
Thank you.
Yes, please?
Q Charlayne Hunter-Gault, MacNeil-Lehrer. 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.
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. 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 trivalities 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.
STAFF: John Wallack (sp)?
Q Ms. Ashwari, John Wallack with the (inaudible)
news. 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 disapointed. 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 they US as a
sponsor has, especially when they are the ones who drafted and very
carefully crafted the invitation letters, the letters of assurances,
the 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 will.
Q Are you
MS. ASHRAWI: But I from what I understand, and this is
nothing but surmise on my part, that they're going to allow the
parties to keep trying to work it out, and if they don't then they
will step in at any deadlock. I certainly hope they do, because the
basis of negotations, 242 and 338, indicate that negotiations will
be carried out under the appropriate auspices.
Q Have you signalled to the Americans that the Palestinian
delegation, together with the Jordanians, would accept a compromise
an American-proposed compromise now?
MS. ASHRAWI: Well, we don't need signals. We speak very
frankly to the Americans. And we told them that it is time for them
to step in at a certain point. I don't think that they have, as
yet, but we don't believe in a closed-doors policy. The door is
still open for them to step in, at least to open the doors so that
we can start negotiating (laughs). This is becoming too much of
a formula.
Q Yes.
STAFF: Yes?
Q (Name and affiliation inaudible.) If I may follow up on
this point, Margaret Tutwiler, in her daily briefing, did not seem
to subscribe to your interpretation of the terms of reference in the
in the invitation. She was implying that in the invitation it
was clearly made reference to a joint Israeli-Palestinian
delegation, thus seeming to comfort the Israeli occupation.
MS. ASHRAWI: Now, of course, in the letter of invitation there
is a reference to a joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, not
Palestinian-Israeli delegation,
Q Sorry I was being toungue-twisted. (Laughter.)
MS. ASHRAWI: Well, let's disengage in order to reengage.
(Laughs.)
No, there is a refernece to that, and it states very clearly
that this is the American preference, for a joint
Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, and it is actually a
preference that was expressed by the Jordanians and the
Palestinians, but as part of an overall political agreement. And
the US is perfectly aware of this agreement and of the basis on
which this joint delegation was formed. And they have agreed to
respect the integrity of this delegation, not to interfere in the
internal workings, the distribution of authority and responsibility
and positions and so on. They knew all along what was happening
that there were, for instance, co-chairmanships,
"co-chairpeopleships. They knew that we will be discussing
separately with the Israelis and they knew that we have maintained
the integrity of the structure of the overall structure by having
a Palestinian on the Jordanian delegation and a Jordanian on the
Palestinian delegation for purposes of quick coordination and
discussion. And this is something that we agreed to.
But I don't think it is a misunderstanding. I just think that
the Israelis want to exploit this "umbrella," as the Jordanians call
it and we call it a framework, in order to try to dissolve the
Palestinian identity within the Jordanian identity. We have always
said that the Jordanians that the Palestinians do not want to
negate their own national identity or to melt within a Jordanian
structure; nor are the Jordanians interested in abandoning their
sovereignty to the Palestinians or accepting Jordan as an
alternative homeland for the Palestinians' proposal. So each side
is committed to its own separate identity.
STAFF: Michael MacMillan.
Q 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: If they continue to what
Q to treat you in the way they have done today?
In other words, not recognize you as a separate delegation?
MS. ASHRAWI: Okay. Well, I told you, I think, the first
briefing, the first day we got here, 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.
And if they want to make peace, it is the Palestinians they
have to address to make peace with,
not anybody else. Precisely, the Palestinians are the ones who are
offering the key to genuine peace. That's why I think we are
willing to be persistent, we are willing to press ahead, we are
willing to continue to reach out to the Israelis, and to insist that
they engage with us in these direct bilateral talks and to stop
playing games with tracks and with rooms and to get down to serious
business. But, again, we're not going to stay here forever.
Q Hanan, the problem seems to be with numbers, because
would it be would it make any difference if the delegation the
joint delegation, because you're not giving up on the joint
delegation would be 12 and 2 rather than 13 and one? And
furthermore, do you plan in the two-track approach at one part or
another one time or another to go back to the joint
delegation, or is the Palestinian position that they would go
directly to the Palestinian track and stay in that track until there
is some kind of an agreement?
MS. ASHRAWI: You see, we don't want to get into discussions of
numerology, either. We're saying that there is a
Palestinian-Jordanian agreement, that we will have a Palestinian on
the Jordanian team delegation, and a Jordanian on the Palestinian
delegation.
Now, the Palestinians and the Jordanians have the right to
decide how they want to structure this work. It is not up to the
Israelis. We are quite willing to consider according to need,
according to agendas, according to priorities different ways of
coordination. But for this meeting we have decided and this
decision was taken at the highest political levels that there
will be a Jordanian on the Palestinian delegation and vice versa.
We are not indulging in whether one or two make the difference,
whether you have one Palestinian or two Palestinians on the
Jordanian side. That's not the issue.
The real issue is that these are two sovereign entities: two
peoples who are coordinating closely and who accepted a framework
and who feel perfectly free to coordinate on how to work out this
framework. Whether at certain times we want to join on certain
issues or we want to separate, whether at times we want to add,
depending on the nature of the discussions this is up to us. I
just don't see the presumption that Israel wants to dictate to both
the Jordanians and Palestinians how to run their own work. I think
we're perfectly flexible about the workings of the two delegations
within the joint Jordanian delegation. But this is something that
has the Palestinian-Jordanian delegation that's something
that's up to us. It's not up to the Israelis.
Q Nora (last name inaudible), from the Washington Post.
Dr. Ashrawi, do you expect by the end of the day any kind of
agreement whereby you may meet jointly as two joint
Jordanian-Palestinian delegations, the Israelis (inaudible)
before splitting up into two separate delegations? Is such an
arrangement being worked out?
MS. ASHRAWI: There are many possible options. We are not
ruling out options finally, but I do not
MS. ASHRAWI: We said we are quite willing to consider
different options, but at the same time we have to start the way we
agreed, on the twin track approach. Now once you start clashing the
twin track appoach, then you can collapse it in many different ways,
and you can say, why not have an all-Arab and an Israeli delegation?
Why not have different tracks, multiple tracks, one track and so on?
We are committed to a two track approach. We accepted this, we
are willing to proceed with it. Now according to need we are
willing to be flexible. But at the same time today, I don't think
that you will see any drastic changes. Hopefully we will be able to
start negotiations, as Palestinians with the Israelis. We are
saying we, the Palestinians, want to talk to the Israelis. They
have been saying for years, "The Palestinians don't talk to us or
don't want to talk to us." Now we want to talk to them and they
refuse. They say only through the Jordanians or only under the
Jordanian auspices. We are saying we want to talk to you directly
because we are the core of the conflict in the region. And if you
make peace between Palestinians and Israelis, then you have prepared
the way for peace in the whole region. But you cannot make peace
and exclude the Palestinians or continue to deny them or negate
their identity or their existence.
STAFF: Yes, just behind.
Q (Off mike) do you feel that you need the American
involvement (off mike) please do something, please (off
mike)?
MS. ASHRAWI: (If you note ?), the Palestinians, we haven't
been pleading with anybody and we have never adopted this posture
with anybody, even under the most grusome and grim conditions under
occupation. We haven't gone to the Israelis or anybody else,
pleading for any kind of salvation. But we expect, we say very
openly, we expect the sponsors to carry out their responsibilities
according to their written letter of invitation and letter of
assurances and the agreed upon principles and bases. We are not
changing the rules, we are not asking for anything new.
Okay, and I think that it is their responsibility to step in
and to do something. In the letter of invitation and assurances,
the US states that it will not allow prolongation or stalling, and
that in case of any deadlock, the sponsors will step in. We expect
them to behave accordingly.
Q I'm Mary (off mike). Do you accept the idea of the
(open all ?) Jordanian-Palestinian framework, and you accept the
possibility of negotiating jointly on some issues and separately on
others? Why doesn't it make more sense for all of you to meet once,
off the top, all together, define your agenda, define the issues, and
then go jointly in one direction, and perhaps a dual track in another.
It appears that you are just abandoning this whole idea of a joint
framework by not even meeting once all together with
MS. ASHRAWI: I think you've gotten that upside-down or inside-
out, I don't know. (Laughs.) We met once all together in Madrid;
we did discuss overall things; and we did agree in Madrid that we
will split and the next time we will meet separately. And after
all, as we said, the working of the joint Palestinian-Jordanian
delegation is a matter that the Jordanians and the Palestinians
decide upon. This is not something that Israel can dictate. It is
not something that Israel can decide upon.
It has placed constraints and preconditions on the manner of
participation of the Palestinians. It has placed preconditions
which the sponsors adopted, and we entered negotiations with
handicaps, in an unevenhanded manner. At the same time, we cannot
allow them now to place preconditions and new conditions on the
nature of participation and on the internal decisionmaking process
between the Palestinians and the Jordanians.
Q I mean, they have said that they would be willing to
MS. ASHRAWI: Yes, we did start off jointly in Madrid, and
there was an agreement. I don't see why they have to renege on
that.
Q John Daskow (sp) from the Washington Post. Mrs. Ashrawi,
you'll have to excuse me, but I'm little bit confused by some of
your responses. You keep talking about the Jordanians and
Palestinians. You keep saying there is a Jordanian-Palestinian
delegation and there is a Palestinian delegation. And what I do not
understand is where this is recognized in the letters of invitation
and how this fits into what the State Department spokeswoman called
the "terms of reference." Also I would hope you would cite for me
the specific language in Madrid or elsewhere where Israel accepted
your formulation, because I've been unable to find them before.
MS. ASHRAWI: Okay, well, it's all right, I'm used to
explaining again and again for my students and so (laughter).
There is a framework called the Joint Palestinian or
Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. This was set up on the basis of a
political agreement between the independent sovereign Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinians, as again a national identity
through their own representations.
Within that agreement, this delegation was established on the basis
of equality, parity and mutual respect of the independent
sovereignty of each side.
Now, when we were invited, the letter of invitation I don't
know if you've seen it; I'm sure you have, as a journalist
states that negotiations will be carried out on a dual track or a
twin-track approach. I quote, that the wait a minute. The
invitation to the parties by the cosponsors, dated the 18th of
October, 1991, specifies and I will quote: "Direct negotiations
on two tracks: One, an Israeli-Arab track; and two, an
Israeli-Palestinian track. With respect to negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinians who are part of the joint delegation,
negotiations will be conducted in phases beginning with interim
self-governing arrangements."
Then we have the US letter of assurances to the Palestinians
dated the 18th of October, which states I quote: "The process
will proceed along two tracks through direct negotiations between
Israel and Arab states, and Israel and Palestinians. With respect
to negotiations between Israel and Palestinians, negotiations will
be conducted in phases beginning with talks on interim
self-governing arrangements."
Then, the invitation to the parties by the cosponors on the
21st of November 1991, which states: "With regard to issues
relating to the West Bank and Gaza, it is similarly our
understanding that Palestinians would take the lead but would be
accompanied by Jordanians as part of the joint Jordanian-Palestinian
delegation. Israel and the Palestinians should avoid as much as
possible" et cetera "protracted debate" and so on.
Number four, the Israeli statement, which was issued after
Madrid, on the 3rd of November, 1991, quoted the statement of the
joint delegation and of the Jordanian component of the delegation
saying: "These negotiations will be conducted along two tracks: a
Palestinian-Israeli track and a Jordanian-Israeli track." And then
the Israelis added the Israeli head of delegation added that the
Israeli delegation basically agreed.
(Cross talk.)
MS. ASHRAWI: We agreed. Now, I do not see in any place where
it says that the Israelis will not negotiate with the Palestinians,
that they will negotiate only with the Jordanians or with the
Palestinians only as part of the Jordanian delegation, and so on.
We are not here to discuss polemics. Let's say that we have
adhered very strictly and very closely to these terms of reference.
We have accepted them. If they want to change them, they're
perfectly free to propose changes, but then we have to reconsider
the whole process, and I think it is up to the cosponsors to propose
changes and establish a new framework. And we are open to
suggestions; if they have a new framework, if they want to have
a Jordanian-Syrian-Lebanese track or and Palestinian track all
together with the Israelis, or whether they want to discuss other
options, we will discuss them. But that means that you have changed
the terms of reference, you have changed the whole principles, the
very foundations of this process. And I don't believe anybody
unilaterally should do that. And I don't think we should all fall
into the trap of discussing rooms and semantics and exegesis on
these letters of assurances. I think the message is very clear, our
position is very clear, and just because the Israelis are bothered
by a high visibility profile for the Palestinians doesn't mean that
they should start introducing new conditions and new constraints on
the process.
STAFF: Rullah (ph), CNN.
Q When the Palestinian and the Jordanian delegations were
in the lobby, the Syrians and Lebanese had already conducted their
negotiations with the Israelis. What kind of Arab agreement is
there on this point?
MS. ASHRAWI: Well, there is Arab agreement. We met yesterday,
and of course, we did not want
Q (Inaudible.)
MS. ASHRAWI: She asked that the Palestinians and the Jordanians
were still discussing whether they should
Q Corridor diplomacy.
MS. ASHRAWI: corridor diplomacy, while the Lebanese and the
Syrians started their negotiating sessions. Well, we are glad they
did, and we do not want to be in any way responsible for impeding
their process. We wanted there was an agreement yesterday. It
is important that negotiations start as soon as possible. The new
conditions that Israel is trying to place on the Palestinians should
not prevent other negotiations from going on because we thought,
frankly speaking, we thought that this would be just a procedural
issue that they want to make another point the way they made their
point by delaying us from last Wednesday. We thought they wanted to
make another point by saying we will discuss venue, or let's discuss
rooms. But we certainly did not expect them to delay much further.
And I hope they will understand that at this point, you do need
not just to reach out to the other side, you do need what we called
in Madrid the willing suspension of disbelief or the imaginative
leap in order to transcend all these obstacles, all these little,
petty technicalities and to get to the issues. And I think we
should be able to overcome them today. Otherwise, of course, we
will meet and we will coordinate and we will see what unified steps
and positions will be taken.
Q If nothing develops?
MS. ASHRAWI: We will meet and we will evaluate every day what
is happening, and we will take coordinated positions. It was agreed
that we don't want to sabotage the whole peace process because
Israel wanted to place more obstacles today. We hope that these
obstacles will be seen in their proper perspective and their proper
light and will be overcome as soon as possible so that we can
proceed.
STAFF: Yes?
Q I'm (name and affiliation inaudible). I have three
questions. One is: You seem to be very adamant, very stubborn
about this issue of (inaudible word) joint delegations, and so
do the Israelis. Is this something that you would be willing to
actually sabotage, fail the negotiations over? That's one question.
The other is: We haven't seen Mr. Arafat today in the meeting at the
State Department. Did you decide not to send him, and if so, why?
And the third question, if I may
MS. ASHRAWI: Can I answer two, and then we'll have a third
later. (Laughter.)
First of all, I do think that your choice of words is rather
biased. We are neither stubborn nor adamant nor are we sabotaging
anything. If you have listened very carefully and if you have seen
what we are trying to do, you will understand that, on the contrary,
we have been extremely flexible and we have tried very hard to
overcome any impediment and any obstacle. And we insisted that the
process itself not be jeopardized because Israel decided to pull
another procedural at us.
So we are going again to deal with it in as responsible and
flexible and positive a manner as possible. But at the same time we
are not going to succomb to Israeli dictates. Those who know us
know very well that for 24 years living under occupation we have not
in any way surrendered our sovereignty, we have not surrendered our
will, and we have not surrendered our (utterance ?) to the Israelis.
And now that the peace process has started, we are not going to do
what Israel failed to force us to do even with the threat of arms.
As far as your other question is concerned, as you know, every
meeting, every negotiating session we do not send 14 people. We
meet every night before and we discuss what it is to be done and who
is to go and people are selected collectively and the number ranges
from 8-9 to 10-11. I don't think you need 14 people at the meeting;
this is an internal Palestinian matter. And I think 3 or 4 people
did not go to today's meeting
Q So that means that
STAFF: Sorry.
Q one more person you said one (inaudible)
four.
STAFF: Yes, you had a third. Are you ready?
Q Yeah.
Q He's next.
Q Okay, thanks. Two people on the Palestinian delegation
who are not on the list for journalists to meet and seem
to be sort of hiding in their hotel rooms and these are Mr. Arouhi
(ph) and Mr. Hanea (ph). Why is that? Have the Americans asked you
to keep them on a sort of a low media profile or what's the
reason for that?
MS. ASHRAWI: (Chuckles.) We do not surrender our decision
making to the Americans, either, frankly speaking.
No, I don't think everybody wants to appear before the media.
We even have people who are on the delegation who don't want to talk to
the media. I think it's they're perfectly free to decide whether
they want to or they don't want to. Both Mr. Arouhi (ph) Mr. Hanea
(ph) feel that their role is not a public role, and it was entirely
their decision.
STAFF: Yes, just in front.
Q The road to peace is going to be very difficult
STAFF: Could you identify sorry could you identify
yourself?
Q (Name inaudible), I'm with the Moroccan New Agency. Most
of here know all of us 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 you cannot 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.
Q Just to follow up on that
STAFF: I'm sorry the gentleman in the back.
Q My name is James Foreman (sp) 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.
Q 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: It's 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.
STAFF: Yes, just here.
Q Dr. Ashrawi, Allison Caplin (sp) 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 the on,
from that moment on, the talks would continue on two separate
tracks, or was it the Israeli understanding the Israelis seem to
e 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 into two tracks.
Can you clarify ?
MS. ASHRAWI: Well, I don't know what the Isralis understood or
misunderstood. I read you the statement at the end of the Madrid
bilaterals which says that these negotiations will be conducted
along two tracks, a Palestinian-Israeli track and a Joranian-Israeli
track.
Q But it will
MS. ASHRAWI: And the Israelis said they agreed to this.
Q But will be agreed
MS. ASHRAWI: So
Q they will from now on?
MS. ASHRAWI: (Laughs.) I don't think we set a date because
nobody knew exactly when the next bilaterals will be.
Q So
MS. ASHRAWI: But it was an agreement, and when you agree on
principles, when you agree on a way of working, you do not set dates
and time and places. The venue and the date was not set yet. But,
of course, when you say negotiations will be carried out as such,
then you assume that this is a principle that has been agreed upon.
Q So
MS. ASHRAWI: And I think that let's see I don't
again, let's not indulge in sort of semantics. Let's say very
clearly
Q But it was your interpretation
MS. ASHRAWI: That the principal it's not it's not
interpretation. It is right there in the letter of invitations, the
letter of assurances, joint statements, even in the precedent. When
they met in Madrid, the Palestinians, the Jordanians, and the
Israelis met together. The Palestinians and the Jordanians said we
should split now, the Israelis asked to wait, and they said we'll
split next time. And they said fine.
I mean we have been as forthcoming and as positive about these
issues as possible, but I don't see why at this late date, having
pulled a delay on us of a few days, having introduced all sorts of
side issues, now they are pulling a separation business that, "We
will not meet with the Palestinians separately." And I hope they do
not get into venue again, but we do understand that they have
serious proposals. They have said this to everybody and we are
quite willing to sit down and discuss these proposals with them.
They have proposals for the Palestinians, (that's ) representative
to the Palestinians.
If we want to make peace with the Israelis, we do not want to
negotiate with the Syrians or the Lebanese.
Q Just a follow up
STAFF: Sorry. No. I'm sorry. Sorry.
Q (Inaudible) Hanan, last Wednesday
STAFF: Could you identify?
Q when you arrived I'm Adnan from London. Last
Wednesday when you arrived (laughter)
MS. ASHRAWI: Hello Adnan from London.
Q 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. (Inaudible).
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.
Q Professor Ashrawi?
STAFF: Sorry. Yes.
Q (Name and affiliation inaudible). One question and one
explanation if you can. The (ask?) will be the trouble that we have
now in (Silwan ?) the 200 families that will be entering or will be
forced to enter in the (presidium?) of the United the Israeli
government, 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 (ph) all of these
issues were raised at the State Department in the last few years
last few days and there was no reaction good reaction. And the
second question, which is the first question, would the Palestinian
delegation make public the text of the United States intivation, not
the assurances, to the Palestinians in order to put to rest all of
the speculations about what they said to you in the invitation, if
you can?
MS. ASHRAWI: To answer the second part first, I think the text
of the invitation is public because it's the same text that went to
everybody. And pardon?
Q (Does that mean it's public ?)? Nobody has published it.
MS. ASHRAWI: Nobody published the invitation text?
Q No.
(Cross talk)
Q the whole thing about the two track approach.
MS. ASHRAWI: No, we have quoted several issues from several
statements. Several times I have quoted from the letter of
assurances and from the letter of invitation. We will discuss this
and we will see, because if there is an agreement not to publish,
then we won't. But if we can get an agreement to publish I really
believe that all these things should be published. I don't believe
in hiding anything. I think if you have letters of assurances, if
you have statements, if you have invitations, they should be public
so that all the issues will be clear, right out there on the table
without any conjecture or semantics or interpretation or
misinterpretation, because we have been actually too literal. We
have stuck to the text of all these and we have tried to adhere to
the principles and the bases of the process. Unfortunately the
Israelis did not do the same.
Now the first question to me 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
willful 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 (ph) 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 this
is not human conditions that are conducive to peace.
Again, the US constantly talked about settlement activity as
being an obstacle to peace. 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. 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. And
thank you very much.
END