ISRAELI DELEGATION PRESS CONFERENCE
OPENING STATEMENT BY
MR. YOSSI GAL
SPOKESMAN OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATIONS TO THE PEACE TALKS
November 19, 1992
YOSSI GAL: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, everybody. Today we
are concluding the seventh round of bilateral Arab-Israeli peace
negotiations and we thought that a wrap-up of the talks is in order.
Today's a special day in the history of the Middle East. Today marks
the 15th anniversary of the historic visit to Israel by the late
President Sadat of Egypt. And as much as I would liked on a day like
this to report to you on a large measure of progress in this round of
talks, I'm afraid that this is not exactly the case.
I would like to begin with a few comments on the negotiations with the
Palestinians.
Last month we had begun in this track with the Palestinians substantive
discussions in small groups on key issues regarding the interim
self-government arrangements. We were encouraged and hoping that
rhetorical exchanges were giving way to negotiations.
Today, however, I must regrettably report that positions of the past
rather than substantive dialogue have returned to the talks. We had
hoped for a beginning of fertile discussions. Some of this did take
place in the negotiations this week, yet we have still not rid
ourselves of futile declarations.
On a personal note, as a spokesman and a member of our negotiating team
to the talks with the Palestinians, I must admit that I have learned
something from my Palestinian counterparts in this round.
An hour before our opening meeting this round, the Palestinian press
center provided journalists with a read-out of the session even before
it took place. When we read the statement summarizing the meeting which
had not yet begun, including the role we, the Israelis, were supposed
to play, my colleagues and I felt that we had experienced something out
of "Back to the Future".
Now, I may present this incident in a jocular vein, but it is indeed
serious business. It is serious business because this behavior is
indicative of the priorities of some of our Palestinian counterparts.
To us, it sounded like a classic case of "my mind is made up; don't
confuse me with the facts" .
We have also paid special attention to what the Palestinians have been
communicating to their constituency in the territories. Most of these
press release in Arabic appear to have been prepared in advance of or
irrelevant to the events actually taking place in the negotiating room.
And here the damage is significant because the harsh and inflammatory
terminology of this announcements undermines the confidence of the
public in the concept of a negotiated settlement, a negotiated peace as
a whole. This is not good for us. This is not good for the
Palestinians. This is not good for the peace process.
In the negotiations themselves with the Palestinians, the situation
also is not really that encouraging. We are constantly confronted with
Palestinian claims that what's being offered is insignificant if it
falls short of their stated ultimate requirements and needs.
We are meant, in this process, to discuss interim self-government
arrangements. Interim talks, by their nature, do not entail final
status issues. And the interim self- government glass, by definition,
cannot be completely full. However, in our case, if and when that glass
is almost full, the other side prefers to see it as almost empty.
And we appeal to our Palestinian friends and counterparts. He who wants
to find gloom will find plenty of it in the existing situation.
Therefore, let us try and work for what is workable, and let us realize
what is realistic. We do have an opportunity to improve our lot. Let us
not pass it up, but let's do it according to the rules of the game. And
the rules of the game are very strict and very clear. The Madrid
process speaks about two stagesthe interim arrangements and the final
statusand we are now negotiating the interim arrangements.
We feel that demands for an all-or-nothing will lead us all to nothing
for all. And we say to our Palestinian friends, please recall that we,
that Israel has obligated itself to negotiate the final status of the
territories in the third year of the interim period, as prescribed
exactly in the Madrid invitation.
It is therefore in their interest, it is therefore in our interest, in
everybody's interest, to move forward on this present stage of interim
arrangements so that the clock can start ticking, so that we can begin
our countdown for the start of negotiations on the next phase.
And now for the good news. This week we started a new phase in our
negotiations with our Jordanian counterparts. In the negotiations with
Jordan, we are discussing in great depth items from the agenda. These
negotiations are being carried out in small subgroups instead of the
full plenary. These groups are comprised of the regular delegates and
additional experts that were brought in, both on the part of the
Jordanians and both in our delegations.
In each and every one of the agenda items under discussion, and right
now we are discussing item number 3 in the agendawaterand issues
from item number 6 in the agendathat is, cooperation in the areas of
environment and energy. There will be new items coming up in the
negotiations next round. The Jordanians have informed us that they wish
to discuss the item of refugees next round.
And now I'll move to our negotiations with Syria. In that set of
negotiations we kept trying to advance the work on formulating a joint
statement of principles. Our work has been made very difficult by the
fact that our Syrian counterparts obstinately demand that we commit
ourselves to full withdrawal before they discuss their view of the
peace they intend to offer us. And as we have stated before, this is
tantamount to demanding that we agree to the price before we're even
allowed to see the goods.
For our part, we have tried to make clear to the Syrians that until we
know what kind of peace is being offered, what is the essence of peace
they have in mind, we cannot possibly elaborate further on the question
of withdrawal.
With Lebanon, the fourth set of negotiations represented a compromise
offer dealing with the establishment of military working group in the
framework of the negotiations plenary. This offer is still under
discussion. The Lebanese said that they would be taking it home, study
it there and come with whatever comments they have on it for the
beginning of next round.
By making this proposal and by engaging with the Lebanese on this
proposal, we hope to give both sides a better chance of avoiding the
kind of violence and terrorism that we, as you'll recall, have
witnessed at our common border with Lebanon throughout the first week
of this round.
To sum up, I think that in this round we have witnessed many of the
reasons why peace has so far alluded our region. We have seen
extremists putting pressure on peacemakers. We have seen indiscriminate
terror and violence meant only to breed hatred and fear. We have seen
the all-or- nothing attitude which makes compromise impossible. And we
have also seen direct dialogue made subordinate to public posturing.
Earlier this week we said yes to the cosponsors when they offered to
hold another round of talks between the 7th and the 17th of December.
We're headed back home still not knowing if all the Arab delegations
will show up. I understand that the Syrians have announced that they
will be coming. No announcement from the others.
This is the time to repeat our commitment to a continuous and
uninterrupted process and I hope that it won't take long before the
other delegations make up their minds and decide to come on the 7th, as
well, because this is the time that we have to move on and seriously
work in order to make our Middle East a better place to live, a Middle
East where the rules of decency, respect and logic apply. This is what
we are here to do. This is what we are here for, and I hope that our
counterparts will do the same and engage with us on the 7th when we
come back.
Q: What effect do you think the U.S. presidential election has had on
this process?
GAL: We are of the opinion that democratic processes or constitutional
processes here in the United States should not have any bearing or any
influence, direct or indirect, on the negotiations. That's why we were
in favor of holding a round before the elections. That's why we were in
favor of holding this round immediately after the elections. And that's
why we think that we should renew our negotiations before January 20. We
believe that there should be no direct or indirect influence. And if
others are having second or third thoughts and if others are hoping that
something will indeed occur that will put them in a better position to
negotiate, I think that they are wasting their time. I think that we
should all concentrate on the process without any delays, that too much
is at stake, that the future of our region is at stake and negotiations
should continue regardless of developments anywhere around the world.
Q: If I could just follow up. You said this is what should happen, but
what is your analysis for the rather sharp contrast between the opening
of the first round of peace talks after the elections in Israel, and
this sort of downer report which you and all the other delegations as
well have given today? What do you think has happened to change the
prospects so dramatically?
GAL: Quite frankly, I don't think I should analyze the motives of the
other side. I speak for the Israeli delegations, and as far as the
Israeli delegations, nothing has changed. Nothing should have changed in
our need to pursue this peace process. We came to Washington after the
elections in Israel with new sets of proposals, both on the Syrian set
of negotiations. Some very significant changes and on the Palestinian
negotiations as well. This created an open atmosphere, a much better
atmosphere. Nothing has changed on the ground in terms of Israeli
commitment to carry on with these changes.
Q: I have two questions. First, has the United States been in touch with
you suggesting a possible Baker mission to the region before the
transition of power? If so, what's your attitude to that? And the second
questionlet me just get them both out of the way and give the
microphone away. When you left for the recess before the election, you
had a near or virtual agreement on the agenda with the Jordanians. This
time the Jordanians say they came back with some minor changes, which
didn't change the sense of anything. They transmitted these to you at
the beginning of this rounds of talks. They haven't heard a response.
Is there a problem? And how important is it to finish this business of
the agenda, since you seem to be kind of leap frogging over it and going
on to the substance anyway?
GAL: Okay, on your first question, the answer is no. We have not heard
of a mission by Mr. Baker to the region. We are of the opinion that
direct negotiations are being held now in Washington and that both sides
Arabs and Israelis should do their utmost bilaterally inside the
negotiating room in order to solve their differences.
As far as the Jordanian question is concerned the question of the
agenda I heard and we heard and I guess everybody heard His Majesty
the King of Jordan praising his negotiators for achieving that
achievement in the negotiations. We've heard similar statements from the
Crown Prince. As far as we are concerned, we have a working document in
our negotiations with the Jordanians and that working document is there.
As far as we are concerned, we are an agreed document in our
negotiations with the Jordanians and this round we started to tackle
items on that agreed document.
Q: There's some conflicting advice going to the transition team in
Little Rock about the advisability of appointing a special envoy to the
peace process. I'm sure you're familiar with the contours of that
argument. You said now that you are of the opinion that the sides
directly involved in the negotiations should do their utmost to solve
their problems bilaterally inside the negotiation room. Does that mean
you would oppose that kind of intervention or engagement by the Clinton
administration?
GAL: I think we should not jump our horses. I think it will be highly
inappropriate for me to say anything about the intentions of the
upcoming administration. All that I said and I'll repeat it is
that we are finally engaged in bilateral negotiations. Those
negotiations have their ups and downs, but that should not prevent us
from continuing in that same framework of direct bilateral negotiations
with the Arabs.
Q: Have the Jordanians submitted to you some proposed changes in wording
in the agenda?
GAL: We did say at the opening press conference of this round that the
Jordanian counterparts came with some few minor changes that they wanted
to introduce. We talked about these minor changes and that's where it
stands. That did not prevent us from going into items on the agenda. And
as far as we're concerned, this is the course that we should all
continue takingtackle issues from the agenda and hopefully we'll take
some more next time when we come.
Q: The Palestinians are saying that what they have discovered during
this round of talks is the fact that you are not offering autonomy for
the entire occupied territories, but only for part of these territories,
leaving another part for the settlers and yet another part which is for
what they call the state land, and again even the state land you want to
share it with them.
So what they are saying is in essence that what you are offering is
actually sharing the occupied territories rather than allowing them to
have the autonomy on all the occupied territories.
They also say that everything that you have done, what you have offered
in terms of the judicial system or anything else is actually preempting
the final results or the final negotiations when it comes to that. Also,
the judicial system that you have offered is so complex that they have
actually offered you some questions which I think, according to a very
highly placed source among them, they're saying that the Israeli
negotiator was not even able to answer some of these questions to the
extent that they spent a third of the time speaking in Hebrew, rather
than in Arabic or in English.
GAL: Oh, please, please. What we have offered to the Palestinians, and
this must be clear, was in the framework of the Madrid formula,
negotiating an interim arrangement. There are certain issues that do not
belong in an interim negotiation, and the Palestinians know it very well
and it is accepted by all of those parties to the Madrid invitation.
There are certain things that are not to be negotiated right now. One of
these issues is the question of the territory, the question of the
sovereignty, who is the sovereign over this territory. This, we decided,
we all decided, should be left to the negotiations over the final
status.
However, in order to show to the Palestinians our seriousness, we
introduced, with the new government in Israel, we introduced some
territorial elements, we introduced some discussion on questions of
infrastructure, questions of land and questions of water, and we started
exploring with our Palestinian friendswe're not actually negotiations
over this, but we started exploring these land issues, and there were
certain ideas floating, but nobody speaks right now about sharing or
about the division.
The territorial issue, as such, is not on the table. What we are trying
to discuss right now is find arrangements for the interim period on the
question of the management, management of land. There is land that is
now in the Jewish settlements. There is land that belongs to the
municipalities and villages, and there is state land. And what we are
offering, and you'll excuse me if I don't go into the heart of the
matter because this issue belongs into the negotiation room, we
introduced some practical offers on the question of management, but much
more than that, much more than that.
What we are offering them is a lot of executive authority over all of
the walks of life of the average Palestinians in the territories. We
have offered them some authority in bilegislation. We have offered to
establish a court system, a totally independent court system and many
other aspects. The problem is that they are not willing to engage with
us in negotiations over these details.
When we came up, right after the elections in Israel, with a detailed
33-page document outlining all of this authorities, the reaction of the
Palestinians was you're trying to drown us in details, let's not talk
about the details. We said okay, that's fine with us, so let's speak
about the concept.
Now we are speaking about the concept and they say but you are not
willing to give us anything in terms of "where's the beef" ? And we are
willing to take both roads, I mean to discuss the concept, but at the
same time go into each and every one of these spheres that you
mentionedcourt systems, for example. We are willing to engage and show
them the depth and the seriousness of what the Israelis are offering.
But as I said at the beginning, when someone is determined to see the
half-empty side of a glass, it is the negatives that he is seeking.
And one last comment about the prejudging the final settlement. The
Palestinians don't make a secret of their intention or their ultimate
goal which is the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Israel
has not yet made the decision of what the final status of these
territories or what its position is going to be once these negotiations
start.
And what we are saying, that what we will insist doing in the
negotiations, is make sure that all the arrangements we agree upon do
not prejudge the final outcome of the future of these territories, that
all the options are open and all the options are on the table. I'll take
two last questions.
Q: (inaudible) Israeli-Syrian negotiations. If indeed the Syrians are
unwilling to discuss security or describe the peace they have in mind,
waiting for a commitment of total withdrawal. I'm at a loss as to
imagine what actually goes on in the room. I mean is there anything to
discuss if they say, say total withdrawal, Israel wont' say it, so what
happens? Is there any conversation going on?
GAL: I wish it was as simple as that. It's unfortunately much more
complicated, and in today's session, for example, both sides have taken
the time in order to sum up the, what went through this last round, sum
up all the areas of agreement and disagreement, and identify the
question to be tackled next round, and this is what they'll try to do
when they come back. One last question because we have to rush to the
airport. No last questions, thank you very much, and thank you for your
patience.
END