ARAB DELEGATIONS TO THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE
Time: 11 a.m.
Location: National Press Club
December 18, 1992
MODERATOR: Good morning everyone. There will be an opening statement by
each of their excellencies. Dr. Saab Erekat is filing in for Dr. Haider
Abdel Shafi who is not feeling well. Dr. Saab Erekat is vice chairman of
the Palestinian delegation. After the opening statements, their
excellencies will take your questions. I ask that you please identify
yourself and your media affiliation, and that you state who your
question is addressed to. Thanks. Dr. Majali.
ABDEL-SALAM MAJALI (Jordanian delegation spokesperson): Well, ladies and
gentlemen, we are again very happy to meet with you. This is the third
time we have this press conference at the end of each round, and we are
very glad to meet with you and listen to your questions and inquiries.
As far as we are concerned in our track, still, we are at the same place
we were before in the seventh round, and we still talk of, discuss
without deep negotiation on various subjects on theon still awaiting
approval agenda.
Once this agenda is over, I think we will go more deep into the
negotiation of the various subjects. So one can say that this round was
useful, but I cannot report to you that there is any definite progress
on the Jordan-Israeli track in this round. We hope that the next round
would be a better one, and I hope that the Israeli will accept and
understand our concern about the language of the agenda, so to have
everything clear and out of the way.
The second point I'd like to raise this morning, I am sure ourmy
colleagues are going to raise it, especially Dr. Erekatis the
continuous acts offrom the Israeli side on the Palestinian people.
This time it is a major one, it's a big one to deport 400 people, which
they themselves did not commit crime, because if they did commit crime
they would have been in courts, and to be charged. But none of them has
been charged. But it is a capital punishment for a crime which they
themselves never committed. And here it reminds me that I think it is in
the religion, and even Jewish religion and the Muslim religion, that eye
for eye, teeth for teeth. But it seems this time that the teeth needs
hundreds of skulls instead of one teeth on opposition, or one eye needs
so many souls. So this capital punishment is against the principles, and
against the principle of international law, of legitimate rights of the
Palestinians, and it is a disaster and I believe this is a great blow to
the peace process itself.
We hope that it will be taken care of, especially the Security Council
will take a proper action in the same sort of way and manner other
actions taken by the Security Councils in other circumstances. So we
feel appalled by what happened. We do not believe in fact this capital
punishment has been used several times in the past, never had proper
effect on the cause. The cause, everybody know what is the real cause of
the disturbances as the denial of the Israeli authorities to give the
Palestinian their right of life, to their life, to their land, and this
is, is the source of all this problem. The peace is the answer. The
progress on the peace is the answer and the progress cannot be without
the right of the Palestinians to have their right on their land, of
their independent state on their own soil.
So this is the source; otherwise I think the violence is going to
continue from one side to the other and the peace is really in jeopardy.
Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Dr. Allaf.
MOWAFFAK ALLAF (Syrian delegation spokesperson): Well, just a few
remarks to say that you do not need to hear details of what happened, or
what did not happen. As a matter of fact we are suffering from what did
not happen in the negotiating rooms, and of what is happening in the
region, in the field.
I think there are certain things that are causing this failure every
time we come to the end of a round, and we report that there is no
progress whatsoever. After nearly 14 months of the Madrid peace
conference, there should be a reason why every time we come and we say
there is no progress. I think the reason for that is that while the
invitation was very clear when it was sent by the co-sponsors to the
participants in the peace process, that they are in a peace process
based on two Security Council resolutions. One of them, 242, prescribes
what is required in order to establish a just and lasting peace.
When the parties to the peace process accepted the invitation of the
co-sponsors they were supposed to have accepted those instruments on
which the peace process was based. But what's happening is that while
the Arab partiesall of themaccepted their commitments under
Resolutions 242 and 338 Israel is still arguing until this moment, after
14 months whether 242 is applicable or not applicable, whether it means
withdrawal from all territories or only from part of the territories or
whether they accept the representative of a party if he's coming from
this town or this city, something which Resolutions 242 or 338 or the
peace process does not permit and does not accept.
The Arab parties were very clear in their commitments. Israel, until
nowfor instance, on the Syrian-Israeli track until now Israel is not
committing itself to clearly and without any ambiguity that it is ready
to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967. This raises the
question what Israel thinks. Did Israel I think enter this peace process
in order to legitimize the occupation by its forces of Arab
territoriesall of it, most of it or part of it? Does Israel expect
those Arab participants to sit here in Washington and to negotiate peace
while Israel is still refusing to commit itself to the withdrawal from
the occupied territories?
This is one question. The second questionevery time we say we are
disappointed, we are frustrated, there is no progress, we hear some
voices saying the mere fact that you are sitting, negotiating together
is in itself a positive thing. This, if it was accepted at the start of
the peace process, because in fact, it was a historic development, this
no longer is convincing or logical. We are not here only for the sake of
having the pleasure of sitting with the Israeli delegations, exchanging
futile views and not obtaining from these talks any results. So the
peace talks by themselves, if constantly they do not lead to positive
and fruitful results, then they become meaningless and we cannot say
that every time we sit with the Israelis this is a positive fact in
itself, per se.
I think the other thing is what I said. While Israeli delegations are
meeting with us here in the negotiating bilateral tracks, the actions of
the Israeli government, the acts of the Israeli governments are exactly
contrary to the spirit of the peace process. I think there is no better
proof and indication to that from what happened yesterday and what's
happening now.
How thenot only the Palestinians, because I think this is not a
question which concerns only the Palestinianshow the Arab participants
to this peace process would have any trust in the peaceful intentions of
Israel if Israel is resorting to this act which is contrary to any
internationalto every international and humanitarian law.
Collective punishment is something which is rejected completely by
international law, rejected by the Geneva conventions, rejected even by
all the countries of the world. When we met President Bush yesterday and
when we refer to this and when he referred to that, he made it very
clear that the United States of America has been always and has been now
against deportation and expulsion of people. The United Nations, I
think, is considering at this momentthe Security Council of the United
Nationsa resolution condemning this action. So you cannot sit to
negotiate peace with the parties and at the same time commit acts which
are exactly contrary to the spirit and the letter of peace.
So this is, I think, the third problem which Israel until now did not
understand. Israel is still, unfortunately, behaving in the negotiating
rooms with a mentality of belligerency with the Arab parties not with a
mentality of peace. It is looking always to the past era of conflict and
war between itself and the Arab sides; it is not looking forward to what
peaceful relations are hoped to be established if Israel fulfills its
obligations under the resolutions of the United Nations. If we were to
think about the past era and the past period, we would not have been
here. The Arab countries are the countries, are the parties, which
suffered most of Israeli attacks, aggressions, and occupation. If we
were to think under the weight and the pressure of those memories, then
we will not be able to sit here and talk peace.
We are even talking peace under the weight of occupation of our
territory. This in itself was a great indication by the Arab parties
that they want peace and they are serious in wanting peace. Otherwise we
could have insisted that before Israel withdraw completely from our
territory, we shall not sit with Israel in order to think about how to
establish peace.
But we see that continuously Israel is refusing even to admit that it is
in a peace process based on the principle of withdrawal in exchange of
peace. Now, that withdrawal is obligatory even without any exchange,
because according to international law Israel occupation of the Arab
territories is inadmissible. This is the Resolution 242 which says it;
it is not Syria or Lebanon or Jordan or the Palestinians who are saying
this. It is Resolution 242 which says the inadmissibility of acquisition
of territory by war. And therefore that resolution puts two principles,
one principle of withdrawal, the counter-principle which will realize,
after withdrawal, the establishment of peace, end of the state of war,
all sort of peaceful relations between the two sides.
So in summing up I think there is now still no trust that Israel,
including the present Israeli government, because at a certain time it
was said that it was only Mr. Shamir that was blocking progress, and
that was correct and true, and admitted by Mr. Shamir himself. But we
have to remember also that Mr. Rabin's government has been in place now
for more than six months, and this is the third long, lengthy round of
talks which ends under the new government with no progress whatsoever,
which means with the same results as the rounds with the Shamir
government used to be.
So I think now, after these 13, 14 months of direct face-to-face
negotiations with Israel, it is nearly the conviction of the Arab
parties that Israel does not want peace and is not serious and sincere
about peace. We hope now that our meeting with President Bush, which was
a symbol of the interest the United States of America gives to the peace
process; we hope that interest will be also a part of the transition
operation to the new administration and that President-elect Clinton,
when he will be responsible, will also express the same conviction, that
the peace process is not only in the interest of the parties themselves
but also in the interest of the United States of America and of the
world. And without this happening, I think Arab patience cannot last
forever.
So we still have the hope of the peace, the possibility of reaching
peace in this peace process if it continues free from such violations
which are committed by Israel every day in the territories. We hope that
the action which has been committed by Israel in this deportation of all
these Palestinian human beings, persons, is rescinded. And we cannot but
condemn the way in which Israel even committedthat really flagrant act
was committed also in a very inhumane way. We have seen all the photos
of those innocent people blindfolded, their hands tied and kept in this
severe weather at this time of the year in the region in buses.
So we hope that in order to pave the way for a successful continuation
of this peace process that the Israeli government rescinds this crime
and that it permits the way for future rounds to be held in a more
positive spirit and with a more responsible attitude. Thank you.
MODERATOR: His Excellency, Mr. Chammas.
SOUHIEL CHAMMAS (Lebanese delegation): I concede to my Palestinian
colleague to make his statement.
SAAB EREKAT (vice chair, Palestinian delegation): Good morning, ladies
and gentlemen. Sorry that Dr. Haider is sick, and I'm filling in for him
this morning. To start with, when we first heard about the order to
deport the 418 Palestinians, we were sitting at the negotiating table
with the Israeli delegation discussing preparatory measures and
confidence-building measures. One of the main points was the return of
deportees and displaced persons. And at that moment, when we were
talking about creating the necessary support systems to give this peace
process a chance, a note was forwarded to us at the negotiating table
that the decision had been taken by Mr. Rabin to deport 418
Palestinians. Dr. Haider was prompt in his reaction, and he delivered a
message immediately to Mr. Rabin through his chief negotiator, telling
him that if this order is carried out, then the peace process is in real
danger. Ironically, two years ago Rabin said in the Knesset, while
debating with the Likud, that in his two years as defense minister he
had deported more Palestinians than the Likud did in seven years. And
for Mr. Rabin to carry out such an orderhis choices are very clear.
I'm sure he had calculated these steps. He knows very well that such
numbers, 800,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, could be equivalent to
200,000 in the U.S. He knows the consequences very well, and on the
peace process in particular.
Simply, Israel before then with the Cold War was treated like a country
above the laws of man with rights and no obligations, and Rabin is
delivering the message again: Israel will continue to be a country above
the laws of man with rights and no obligations. This peace process has a
sponsor, two sponsorsone has internal difficulties and the second,
ever since the Madrid conference convened, in my opinion decided to
indulge itself in a non-risk policy, not to impose solution and not to
abandon the peace process, and between the two options there is a vast
ocean of options.
We had a meeting this morning with President Bush again, the delegation
headed by Mr. Faisal Hasseini met with President Bush, and the points
were put very clear. I don't know how many resolutions were passed at
the Security Council concerning deportation orders, condemning Israel,
deploring Israel's actions. And at this time we need more than that if
we want this peace processor if we want future rounds to be held.
Of all parties to the conflict, Palestinians, we are the most interested
in this peace process. It's we who are under occupation, it's we who are
paying the price with our lives daily. And for 13 months we tried our
best to give this peace process a chance. But it seems to me that in our
track and other Arab tracks, Israel, whether Shamir or Rabin, is trying
to get the results of negotiations before they begin.
In the compilation of points in our track, what they are offering is a
much more complicated situation than the existing situation today. We
urged the Israeli delegation to try to reach common grounds on the basis
of the terms of reference of this peace process, but in all honesty I
could say that most of the time they were dictating rather than
negotiating. And there is a big difference between dictation and
negotiations. We are leaving for Tunis todaywe were summoned yesterday
by our leadership in Tunis. And as far as our future positions, I'm sure
something will come out after these meetings. Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Dr. Chammas.
CHAMMAS: Thank you. Yesterday, Israel carried out its decision to deport
418 Palestinian nationals. This act of deportation is objectionable,
condemnable in itself, for itself, and by itself. In particular, that
it's carried out in contravention of all the norms and rules of
international law and of the pertinent conventions, in particular the
Fourth Geneva Convention. It's in contravention of basic human rights,
if not to say in contravention of the general understanding of what
human rights are, and truly runs contrary to all the obligations and
responsibilities incumbent upon an occupying power, as Israel is in the
occupied territories. So it's only natural for us to condemn it. And
more so, we, the Lebanese. We have through the negotiations with the
Israelis explained to them that Lebanon has been on the receiving end of
the Arab-Israeli conflict and that Israel's assertion of what it claims
to be certain rights it attributes to itself and which are not its
rights has been at the expense of Lebanon, its welfare, its stability
and its security.
This last act has demonstrated how Israel decides for itself freely to
dispose of the territories of other states, choosing on its own to make
of the Lebanon a dumping ground, and inhuman acts it has committed
against an occupied people, namely, the Palestinian people.
We object strongly to that act which by deporting those nationals into
the Lebanon would have demonstrated that our worst expectations on the
Israeli position in occupying our territories have been realized.
Israel, an occupying power in Lebanon, has refused to qualify its
presence there as occupation. It acts in the Lebanon worse than any
occupier would act.
How could they explain that they have allotted to themselves the right
to deport those Palestinians into the Lebanon, using the security zone,
so-called security zone, as though it were there own and as though it
were an Israeli territory, and deporting them right into the imaginary
lines of that proclaimed security zone, creating or planting the seeds
for future problems which could not be gauged before the fact, meaning
that Israel has for one year argued with us that it is where it is in
the Lebanon for security reasons.
Yet yesterday, yesterday, it sent those 418 Palestinian fighters into
the Lebanon, planting the seeds of future instability, insecurity, and
further deterioration of the situation. The question I put to you,
ladies and gentlemen: Is this an act geared towards creating the
propitious conditions for peace and security and consequently preparing
a background for a fruitful conclusion of the peace process in which we
are engaged? Until further notice, we reply that the answer is no; it
seems Israel is not ready for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
And we said from the beginning its action in Lebanon and towards Lebanon
will be the testing ground, and, I'm sorry to say, while testing its
will, it has failed the test. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you, your excellencies. We'll go to questions now.
Q: (Inaudible.) Can you tell us if you asked for specific things that
the United States could do? What are they? And what was Mr. Bush's
reaction? (Inaudible.) The Palestinian said that unless Israel rescinds
the deportation and expulsion, they will not return. Have you consulted
with your governments what you intend to do if the order is not
rescinded?
EREKAT: We said to President Bush, yesterday actually, because we met
him just 15 minutes before the deportation order was carried outwe
said to him that our meeting here could be the last chance to save the
peace process. And this morning, Faisal told the president that the
decision must be rescinded even if it takes whatever actions that will
be imposed on Israel to rescind this decision. The president reiterated
his country's position vis-a-vis condemnation of the deportation, and
that their ambassador to the United Nations Security Council is
consulting to do something. But he did not specify anything.
Q: (Inaudible.)
MAJALI: In response to your question, I think, after every round and
after even a bit provocation of what has taken place in the last few
days, the ministers of foreign affairs of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and
the Palestinians will meet and evaluate and make a decision about future
rounds. I don't think we had time to consult with them, and we are
waiting for evaluation, what's going to happen as a result of the
meeting with the president and as the Security Council.
By the way, I have to apologize, I used the word "capital punishment." I
mean "collective punishment." And in this sense I just want to say one
word more. Israel has been saying that these people are terrorists, as
was last said, and Lebanon could not have peace because there are lots
of terrorist acts. How can one say that these people are going out of
this place, they call them terrorists, they are going to a place, and
they complain that Lebanon is a place of terrorismand they add fuel to
the fire. I mean, this doesn't go with any type of common sense itself.
We have a saying in Arabic: you kill the victim, you walk in his funeral
and say why did he die. This is the problem.
Q: (Inaudible.)
ALLAF: I think Ambassador Majali answered the question. It's not our
task to take a decision whether there would be other rounds or not. This
is the task of the foreign ministers of the participant countries, and
usually, as His Excellency, Mr. Majali, said, usually they meet after
each round in order to make an appraisal of the situation. And it is too
early to talk about what they will decide.
MAJALI: Just one brief comment on that. It should be remembered that the
participation of the Arab delegations in the peace process was a
decision taken at the highest national level possible in all our
respective countries, and that decision will be implemented unless the
top leaderships of the respective countries of the participating
delegations decide otherwise.
Q: I'd like to ask you gentlemenyou've all said positive things about
the Bush administration's participation in moving these talks along. Do
you believe that a Clinton administration would be equally committed,
and do you have any feeling that Israel's actions are in anticipation of
the change in the team in the U.S. White House?
EREKAT: I think that U.S. policy in the region and worldwide is shaped
by its interests, and with all due respect to names and faces, as far as
the Middle East I think it's the American interestthere are many
variables shaping American policy there and stability in the region is
an important element in this policy, in my opinion, and stability means
peace, means a solution to the Palestinian problems in all its aspects,
and an Arab-Israeli peace which means the continuation of the peace
process.
MAJALI: We got several signals from the Democratic side that they are as
interested in the peace process as the present administration; in fact,
Mr. Bush, the president, yesterday said the same thing. This is an
institutional decision, I think, in the states; it's not, as Mr. Erekat
said, just an individual person.
Q: (Inaudible.)
ALLAF: Well, in addition to what our colleague said, I think I heard
this morning on the TV, on the news, that President-e|ect Clinton stated
that he will follow the peace process with the same interest and with
the same importance that the present administration is doing. Now, we do
not like to form already an opinion of what would be the case. I think
the new administration will be just according to its acts, to the way it
will intervene with the parties, especially with Israel, because of the
well-known influence of the United States of America on Israel.
Now, as my colleagues stated, I think we believe that whoever is the
president of the United States of America, he cannot ignore that the
very interest and the credibility of the United States of America is at
stake in the region with the parties in the whole region, and therefore
I think any decision which would be taken, any policy which would be
followed, we would like to think that it is also in conformity with that
interest of the United States of America.
CHAMMAS: Just a few words on that. It's a matter of fact that President
Bush has personally initiated this peace process and entrusted quite a
role to the then secretary of state, Mr. Baker. But the commitment of
America through the commitment of President Bush was evident, and this
is why this peace processand this is why we are here today. Up to the
20th of January, President Bush is the president of the United States,
and it's he who makes the decision on behalf of America. It's not for me
to reassert that fact. But concerning the president-elect and the new
administration, diplomatically I think I would be allowed to say that an
expression of hope is possible. It's our expressed hope that the Clinton
administration, once in office, will commit itself strongly to this
peace process and will labor with all means at its disposal in order to
bring it to a fruitful conclusion, because our feeling is that when this
American administration has conceived of this peace process because it
did think that it was not only in the interests of the people of the
area, of the countries of the area, but, too, that it's concomitant with
the vital interests of the United States. If that were to be so, of
course you'd expect the president-elect to have his own style, we will
acclimatize for that. But we hope that his commitment will not be less;
we express the hope that it will be strong and keep the dynamics of the
process going on. Thank you.
Q: Dr. Erekat, you mentioned a range of options that you are
considering. Could you be more specific in specifying those options that
you are considering as a reaction to the deportation? And the second
question: Are you satisfied with the reaction of the U.S.
administration, specifically President Bush, to the deportation?
EREKAT: Well, if I were to answer your first question, that means I
don't have to go to Tunis. So I'll keep my optionsI'll give them to my
leadership. As far as the U.S. reaction, the condemnation that we heard
is fine, and then we are waiting to see the results of the deliberations
of the United Nations Security Council.
And just one other thing to that is that the action of Mr. Rabin is so
dangerous thatfor 15 years Sharon was talking about doing, and
thinking about whatyou know, deporting Palestinians in these numbers,
and Mr. Rabin was portrayed as the man of peace. To come and deliver it
and to carry it out I thinkin the U.S. assessment, in the Europeans'
assessment, in the world assessment I think there should be only one
word: they were deceived by Rabin.
Q: (Inaudible) two-faced?
EREKAT: Well, you know, we are engaged in a peace process. Rabin won the
elections in Israel on a platform of peace, and now what he's doing is
totally opposite to the requirement of peace. I think, as I said, Rabin
had done what Sharon was thinking of doing, and I think also the
position of Ma'aretz in supporting this position is also very, very,
very ironic. And then for them, the Israelis, to say that they are
supporting the peace process in the same logic, then Ma'aretz and Rabin
must agree to deport 50 percent of the Israeli population who oppose the
peace process.
Q: Did you speak with President Bush about the possibility of resuming
the dialogue with the PLO as a reaction to what has happened in
(inaudible)?
EREKAT: Mr. Faisal Hasseini spoke to Mr. Bush this morning, and handed
him a letter actually that contained three main points. The first was
the question of Jerusalem, since the American position on Jerusalem,
east Jerusalem, considering it occupied territory, part of the occupied
territory, and reiterating our position vis-a-vis Jerusalem, to consider
it an integral part of the occupied territories, and we cannot imagine a
peace without it.
Secondly, there was the question of the resumption of dialogue between
the U.S. and the PLO. We think it's really appropriate, not today after
the expulsion, but we have thought all along the way that to shorten the
road to peace, a dialogue between the U.S. and the PLO must be resumed.
And also direct contacts between the PLO and the government of Israel
would shorten the road to peace.
The third issue that Faisal raised this morning with President Bush was
the expulsions and the need to have the government of Israel rescind its
action.
Q: (Inaudible.) What I would like to know is how do you interpret 242,
what does it mean to you, how would you like to see it (inaudible)?
MAJALI: Well, 242 is quite clear, that inadmissibility of land by force,
so the land should go back to its owners, in this case the Palestinians,
the Jordanians, and the Syrians, certainly the Lebanese in a different
resolution.
Second, to withdraw from these places and again to solve the problem of
refugees, and to have peace and respect peace for everybody. These are
the principles; this is the way it should go. They should not be paid
presents for the war of 1967. You want peace, you have to return the
land to their owners and the right of the Palestinians to decide their
fight. This is the whole thing.
CHAMMAS: Your question is very pertinent, but this is the type of a
question through which you'd have to go through all the transcripts of
the meetings, because this is what the negotiations are all about. The
only thing is that the conference is found, based on, land for peace,
the principle and this is the issue. And the application of these
resolutions 242 and 338. And resolution 242 is a position by the
international community on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of
territories through the use of force. This is a clear principle; it has
to be applied. Then the contours within which withdrawal should be
undertaken is drawn therein. Then you discuss the subjects of peace, and
this is what's going on inside the rooms.
I'm sorry, since I'm not directly involved. In our
discussion of that, on our track, I hope I have not used up the rights
of any of my colleagues to do so, and I think our Syrian colleague is
mostly qualified for that.
ALLAF: No, no, just to say that 242 is an equation. It was adopted after
the war of 1967, and during that war Israel occupied territories of
several Arab countries. That resolution said as an umbrella it is
inadmissible to acquire territory by war, inadmissibility of acquisition
of territory by war. And then he said, in order to solve that conflict,
and to have peace, two principles should be implemented. That was the
equation, what we call the equation of peace. These two principles: the
first one, it was stated like thatthe first principle in 242 is
withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in recent
conflict. After having said that inadmissible to acquire territory, said
the first principle then is to withdraw from those territories which
were occupied in 1967.
The second principle, which will be the result of the carrying out of
the first principle, is end of state of war between those parties and
acknowledgement of sovereignty, political independence, territorial
integrity of every state in the region, meaning all these Arab
countries, also Israel, and their right to live within secure and
recognized boundaries. So these two principles, which one of them cannot
be implemented except after Israel implements the first principle, is
called the equation of peace. And that's why President Bush, when he
launched his initiative, he said land for peace.
But land for peace doesn't mean that Israel has to give any part of its
land: Israel has to return to the Arabs the land it has occupied
inadmissibly, in accordance with the resolution and international law.
And then the Arabs, they have to accept to establish peace with Israel.
That's the equation.
EREKAT: Since you report to Jewish newspapers, all the nations of the
world have one definition of 242. The only nation that has a different
definitions and interpretation of 242 is Israel. So I urge you to ask
the Israeli leaders to interpret 242.
Q: (Inaudible.) In the first place, the United States has recognized the
territories, if I may correct you, way back in 1969. Secretary of State
William Rogers said that there should be changes in the borders
(inaudible). But I'd like to know precisely: do you want Israel to
withdraw to the pre-June 1967 lines where barbed wire cut across
Jerusalem?
ALLAF: No, this is what I meant when I said we think with the mentality
of peace, while Israel thinks with the mentality still of war and
enmity. When we say Israel has to implement resolution 242 and that it
should withdraw from those occupied territories to the lines of 4 June
1967, we did not say that there will be barbed wire on those lines.
These would be the lines which would permit the Arab parties to
establish peace with Israel.
Q: (Inaudible) deportees yesterday as being innocent people, and Mr.
Chammas referred to them as people who were likely to stir up trouble in
Lebanon; therefore Israel was trying to (inaudible). (Inaudible.) Can
you give us some background on that? The second question deals with each
of your evaluations of (inaudible).
CHAMMAS: Well, I'll try myself and address myself to the part which
relates to Lebanon, and this is very important. I do not have detailed
information as to what's the make-up of those who have been deported.
And the Israelis would be compelled sooner or later to give the details
to the relevant international organizations, in particular the Red
Cross. But I want to work on assumptions. I want to assume that these
are innocent people who have done no harm, who have done nothing. Then
why the deportation?
Q: You called them fighters.
CHAMMAS: Well, I will come to that, I will come to that, if you bear
with me. I know I'm not that bad in the English language, and I think I
use language to reflect what I think. Any citizen, to reply to an
interjected remark, who withstands the effect of occupation and stays in
his own homeland, under the yoke of occupation is by definition a
fighter, because by his continued presence on his own national
territory, he acquires the qualification of the fighter. You don't have
to resort to arms. And especially that essentially Israel's policy was
to uproot the Palestinians by every ways and means available to them,
and being an Israeli yourself you have the experience.
The basic policy of Israel was to uproot the Palestinians and have
others take their place. And we don't want to go into that because we
are in the process of peace and we're trying to be mutually
accommodating. So either those deportees are innocent people, and then
the act of Israel would become more abominable than we ever thought, or
they pose a threat to the security not of Israel, of the Israeli
occupation of the occupied territories.
So what you do, you come and deport those people from their occupied
territories and the Lebanese-occupied territories and through them right
into the free territories of Lebanon. And what are you doing there? As
innocent people you have invited them to resist and object to the status
and of course they would join hands with whomever opposes this
abominable act. And if they are activists among certain movements, would
you expect them to come there and ensure the security zone, so-called
security zone, which the Israeli delegation has been for one year trying
to explain to us how important that is for its own security? And by the
fact of bringing them it is inviting destabilization, it's inviting
resistance. And it's inviting serious opposition to the very act which
originated, because of the acts of the Israeli authorities in the
occupied territories, and now you export that to Lebanon.
But more dangerous, but I didn't refer towho will tell me that the 400
now will not be 4,000 next month and 40,000 in six months, and who knows
what in a year or so? We know what the explosive situation in a
demographic context (unintelligible) in Gaza and elsewhere. Do you
propose that Israel disposes freely of our land? Do you think that this
is the road to peace, to make our country just purely disposable to suit
the purposes of Israel's self-defined security needs? We fail to see the
logic, and I assure we're just people who really want peacebut not
peace at any price.
EREKAT: Concerning the first part of your question, the 418, because
they added 35 to the 383 who were deported
Q: (Inaudible.)
EREKAT: They were free people; they were not in jail till 48 hours ago
before their deportation. So these people, were they to constitute any
threat to Israel's security, they could not have been walking on the
streets, teaching. As a matter of fact, Dr. Mohamed al-Hazar (phonetic)
and myself had a conversation on a radio station, him from Gaza, I'm
from Washington, last Sunday, and then to be rounded up and then
deported because they constituted a security threat is something that
tells us a lot about what Rabin is all about and what I think he proved
to Sharon and to Shamir that no one can be to his right. I think the
message is clear. These people are innocent people. None of them were
jailed before they were rounded up 48 hours before their deportation.
And they were expelled. None of them had the right to see a lawyer, none
of them was indicted.
And then peopleif any other nation in the world had done this, I'm
sure that the nations of the world would stand on their feet. But, as I
said from the beginning, as long as Israel is treated as a country above
the laws of man, I don't think we'll ever have a chance for peace. Thank
you very much.
END NEWS CONFERENCE