ARAB DELEGATION REPRESENTATIVES
TO THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS NEWS CONFERENCE
Location: National Press Club
Time: Noon
October 29, 1992
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today marks the first
anniversary of the Madrid peace conference, and we thought that it is a
good idea if the Arab heads of delegation would give a general wrap-up,
an assessment of the progress of the talks so far. We will have each
Arab head of delegation give a brief statement, maybe three to five
minutes, giving his own wrap-up with a focus on his particular track,
after which we will open the floor to questions. Please raise your hand
and I will point you out, and please indicate the person to which, to
whom the question is directed. We will start with Dr. Majali.
ABDEL SALAM MAJALI (Jordanian delegation spokesperson): Well, ladies and
gentlemen, we feel it's a great honor at this anniversary of, the first
anniversary of Madrid conference to be here and in this building, in
particular in the Press Club national building. And I thought that just
to give our own brief, because we are talking at a time of one year,
what has happened in this year, and no doubt most of you are very expert
on the subject which we are dealing with. But no doubt, I feel it's my
duty, at least from our particular point of view, to say a brief about
the whole beginning.
Now prior to Madrid convention, let me put this type of image, or what
we know was the image at the time. The Palestinian question is the core
of the whole problem. To us, to everybody, they know that the
Palestinian problem is the core of the whole Middle East problem, and
without it, without the Palestinian to be there, it was impossible to
have any peace negotiation. Now Madrid came after many, many years of
many trials, for many different statesmen in this world, and leaders, to
try and get the Arabs and the Israeli together to the negotiating table,
most of these things failed. But in Madrid, with the efforts spent by
President Bush and Secretary Baker, the success came that we could sit
together and negotiate the problem directly.
Now what I want to say here is that with the Palestinian problem there
was a conference there, and they could not invite the Palestinian
because they are not a state. So Jordan and the Palestinians, with the
sponsors, agreed to provide a Jordanian umbrella for a joint delegation
for this conference in Madrid to be formed of Palestinians and
Jordanians. In other words, two delegations formed together under one
umbrella. I just want to say this because many concepts in other people
that we are one delegation and we split, it's not true. We are onetwo
delegations under one umbrella.
In Madrid, what has happened, that it was clear that the Palestinian
entity is there, and it's a civil entity, and again Jordan is a civil
entity and Jordan is not Palestine. Now since Madrid, we came here and
we struggle to implement this properly, and the very first round, as you
all remember, went on in our track, the Palestinian-Israeli track, and
the Jordan-Israeli track, went into the corridor trying to establish
this fact as a clear one, which was in Madrid. We succeeded in
convincing the Israeli side that this is the benefit of everybody, that
there should be a Palestinian-Israeli track, and a Jordanian-Israeli
track, and they are absolutely separate ones, but we could meet now and
again for common interest, or common problems which relate to the three
parties.
Now in our Jordan track, we started straightaway of trying to put an
agendawe put an agenda on our side, they put an agenda on their
sideand we started negotiating this agenda. Now this agenda is not a
procedural thing. In fact it is a substantive matter in many of the
headings which it has, and the way it is to be put in words, and in the
language to be put. The real difference was that we thought that in the
agenda we ought to put all theclearly, in a clear-cut language, the
principles which these items are built on, so when we come to negotiate
these items we would be easier, and not to spend too much time, and not
to go into a long argument.
We have succeeded in many aspects in this, but other things, where it is
very sensitive, whether the term or the notion was very sensitive to
either of us, either to the Jordanian side or to the Israeli side, then
we succeeded in finding most of this common language to be accepted by
both sides, and up to yesterday we almost came to agreement on many of
these items, and both of us, we sent our deliberations to our superiors
to get the approval. We are waiting for the approval to come from our
side, but more or less the language is almost in its final stages.
This is what I can tell you. I think the year was not spent in vain. I
think there was a lot of understanding between the both sides, unfolding
both sides, understanding what's on the other side. Because both of us
now in the proper, proper state of mind that in peace negotiation
everybody is gaining and now it is the duty of each side to prove to the
other side where are his gains so we could be successful in our peace
negotiation. Thank you very much, indeed!
MODERATOR: Ambassador Allaf.
MOWAFFAK ALLAF (Syrian delegation spokesperson): Thank you very much. I
am very pleased also to be with you, colleagues and friends, on this
opportunity. It happens to be today the first anniversary of the Madrid
conference, which reminds us that a full year has passed since that day,
which was considered by many as a historical breakthrough. And it was
considered as such because it is for the first time ever, in history,
that all the parties to the Arab- Israeli conflict, that tragic conflict
which has lasted now for nearly half a century, and which has caused a
lot of misery, suffering, destruction and this to all parties involved
in it. For the first time ever all the Arab parties are sitting together
with the Israeli party, in order to establish peace.
There were previously some other meetings, for armistice, for truce, for
military purposes, but that was the first time a political conference, a
peace conference of that nature taking place. People, and the world
public opinion, including the Arab public opinion, I guess also the
Israeli public opinion, expected that this would lead soon to progress,
to improvement towards peace. Because Israel, for decades was saying, as
long as there is no direct negotiations face-to-face between us and
between the Arabs there is no hope for progress.
And yet we are today celebrating the first anniversary, not in great
joy, unfortunately, because whatever progress has been achieved is
minimal. Today, we see that Israel is really committing the same mistake
that it has accused the Arabs for decades to be committing.
Israel has said that the Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss
an opportunity. And it seems this time that it is Israel which is
missing the opportunity. Here you have all Arab parties involved in the
Israeli conflict negotiating for seven rounds, for 100s of hours, during
the mandate of two Israeli governments, and yet not being able to agree
on any of the core issues, or the essential issues necessary to
establish peace, a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace between them.
This, in my opinion, is a pity because the impact of an ongoing peace
process with no substantive results is serious on the credibility of the
peace process. Now, we understand that maybe sometimes many of the
motives or the reasons why that progress is not assured are because of
elements or issues that are not directly within the scope or the sphere
of the peace process itself. Sometimes, the internal difficulties are
invoked. Sometimes other political happenings in important countries who
are directly involved, or indirectly involved with the peace process is
also involved. But it's always, we feel, trying to find and excuse not
to proceed with the peace process in a satisfactory manner. And I stress
especially that the new Israeli government, Mr. Rabin's government, has
been elected, and came to power on the understanding, or so it was
presented, that it was the decision of the Israeli voters to bring to
power a government which is more engaged, more positively engaged in the
efforts to reach peace.
And therefore, Mr. Shamir's government, which was considered as a
government blocking the peace processMr. Shamir later said he was, in
fact, trying to do that, if he can do it for ten yearsbut still the
new Israeli government, after now four months in power, after nearly two
rounds, and so many meetings did not really permit the peace process to
move in any meaningful way. And the reason is because Israel still too
refuses to commit itself to the core elements, to the principal issues,
to the principal components of a just and comprehensive peace. They
refuse to commit themselves to withdrawal from the Arabfrom the
occupied Arab territories, as required in Resolution 242 and in
Resolution 425. They refuse to accept the aim, the objective of a
comprehensive peace involving all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict,
trying on the contrary to play the game of tracks, and a progress in
this track, slowing in the other trace, and vice versa, and by insisting
always on pre-conditions that are not warranted under the instruments of
the peace process, nor in Resolution 242, and preconditions that cannot
be imposed on other parties because they related to matters of
sovereignty and because they relate to situations which are only
consequences of peace, and cannot be preconditions, prerequisites for
peace, because they are the fruits of peace by themselves, and they can
only be reached after genuine peace, after trust if built between the
parties.
Therefore, now we end the first part of the seventh round. In spite of
the improvement in the discussionbusiness- like discussiondiscussing
really the core issuesthatI say that it is positive because we are
able now nearly on all tracks to discuss seriously about peace. But
discussing without reaching a result or a progress can be accepted for
only a while. But if we want to increase the credibility or at least to
keep the credibilty of the peace process, I think we have to insure that
we try to move the peace process forward, and to insure some progress in
order to assure our public opinion, our people that we are not only
meeting here in order to mark time.
I hope that when we reconvene on the 9th of November for the second part
of the 7th round many of the reasons and the ulterior motives for which
progress was not assured will have been at least removed out of the way,
and that we see from the Israeli delegations, on all tracks, evidence of
more seriousness and willingness really not to miss this historic
opportunity of having all the Arabs saying and endeavoring to reach
peace with Israel. Thank you very much.
HAIDER ABDEL SHAFI (Palestinian representative): Good morning, ladies
and gentlemen. Indeed, I face you with a sense of concern and
frustration that we have not been able to achieve the objective in the
negotiations of this first year. That is to say the agreement on the
interim self-arrangements (sic) in the occupied territories, the
negotiations conducted betweenon the Palestinian-Israeli track.
As you know, the peace process is based on the United Nations
Resolutions 242 and 338. Now, the United Nations Resolution 242
stipulates two important principles. One is the inadmissibility of
acquiring territory by force, and the second emphasizes the need for
withdrawal to make it possible to reach peace with cooperation of all
the states in the region, to reach a just and fair peace where all
states and people will live in peace and security.
Now, as you know, this resolution really is addressed to Israel in
particular, being the occupying power. But Israel, for the last 25
years, has taken things into its own hand, in violation of this
resolution that was adopted in the Autumn of '67, and Israel has worked
to establish an administrative, economic and legal reality in the
service of its long term objective of annexing the occupied territories
to Israel.
So when this peace process had been established, really I think of
course this came as contrary to the objectives of Israel as Israel has
been working for the last 25 years. And I think really, and as it was
evident, Israel came to the peace table, to the peace process, veryin
reluctance, and imposing unnecessary conditions that are in frank
contradiction with the prospects of peace.
Now, I think Mr. Baker, when he started making the visits to the Middle
East, promoting the peace process, he admitted that the continued
settlement process in the occupied territories is incompatible with the
prospects of peace. However, and I say that there has been a
contradiction to the spirit of peace right from the beginning, as Israel
insisted as a condition to continue with establishing settlements in the
territories, in spite of its participation in the process, and in spite
of the start of this process.
So there was a contradiction. However, we accepted to participate on the
strength that things are not going to continue to work in Israel's
objective of keeping control of the occupied territories. Now, the
reason that we went, I could assure you, that we went into this peace
process and negotiations in good faith with a sincere commitment to the
objective of peace, but also not at the expense of our basic and innate
rights, but in consistence with the terms of reference, and that's to
say, with Resolution 242 primarily.
Now, this reality that has been established by Israel, and which has
been dedicated to the service of its long term program of annexing the
territories, certainly is incompatible with the requirements of peace.
And that's where we thought that it is imperative that this reality must
be dismantled gradually, and that's why we accepted the interim period,
because we knew that things could not be reversed overnight.
And so all that we have presented on the negotiating table was in this
spirit. That we thought that during this interim period, where an
interim self-government would be established, that this government
should enjoy real power. Especially that it should have a territorial
context, and there should be a reversing of the legal process that was
dedicated to the objective of annexing the territories.
Now here, where we came in direct opposition to the Israeli side, and
they rejected our position, our understanding, claiming that we are
heading for an independent state, and all this talk that you have, that
you came to know, and that was propagated in the media. Now, just to
make things short, and not to take more than the time alloted to me,
I'll say I think the problem that we have not been able to advance is
simply because Israel is not committed to the terms of reference.
They refuse to implement the meaning and the spirit of resolution 242.
242 is the basis for the negotiating process, for the whole peace
process. Now Israel claims that is not applicable to the interim period.
I don't know why. But of course they want to evade commitment on the
question of territory and the legal situation that is in contradiction
with the prospects of peace.
I think, in short, really, it's my impression, and without being unfair
to Israel, I think it is very frank, that Israel is trying to legitimize
its intended, continued control of the occupied territories, and
certainly this is not going to lead to peace. I think the timeframe that
has been established, that is, the end of the year, that to reach the
agreement on the interim self-arrangements has not been reached. I think
we are in need of a new timetable, because we can't see ourselves
participating in an open-ended negotiating process. And I think the
thing that is needed from the co-sponsors is to insist on respect of the
terms of reference, resolution 242. That's where I think the gist of
this negotiating process rests. The insistence that there should be
respect of the terms of reference of this process.Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Ambassador Chammas.
SOUHEIL CHAMMAS (Lebanese delegation spokesperson): This is the first
anniversary of the Madrid peace conference, that the fact that we are
holding together, as chief Arab delegates, a peace conference, augers
well, and I hope that one year hence we shall hold a joint peace
conference, maybe in order to celebrate together the consolidation of
the basis for peace, and more than thatthe structure of peace, and
fulfillment for the objective set and the terms of reference of the
Madrid conference.
Having expressed this hope, and within the time allotted me, I will try
to emphasize what has the Lebanese- Israeli track taught us; what
experience do we draw from the long, extensive negotiations which have
taken place? Very briefly, I'd say this. Of course our objective, our
ultimate objective is the attainment of real peace. The goal is real
peace, such peace is supposed to be manifested in the necessary legal
instruments. That cannot be contested as being the real objective. And
the final objective of the peace process.
The question is how do you get there. We have submitted, in vain, to the
Israeli delegation, all through these negotiations, that the Lebanese
track offers the opportunity to create the proper climate which will
give not only impetus to peace, but create the proper and favorable
condition which will help push the negotiations forward on all the other
tracks. And central to that is the need for Israel to terminate its
occupation of Lebanese territories and implement resolution 425 through
the mechanism afforded in resolution 426.
The Israelis speak of their security concerns. We accepted to address
these security concerns. We have been discussing them. They took a
negative position on our proposal that paragraph eight of resolution 426
offers an ample mechanism for the implementation, but they informed us
that they will stay in the securityin the self-declared,
self-proclaimed security zone until such a time that we have concluded a
peace agreement with them.
I will not qualify this as a negotiating position of coercion and
duress, but I would like to signal out to you the following lessons
which could not but be drawn from the deteriorating situation on the
ground which Lebanon has seen during the last few days.
One, the self-proclaimed, self-declared security zone brought neither
tranquility nor security and continued to be a serious impediment in the
progress and movement towards peace, and its ultimate objective.
Two, Israel retains and states in the self-declared security zone
totally oblivious of the security needs of Lebanon and of how
destabilizing the presence and the occupation of Israel, of our
territory, has been to Lebanon, as though we have not suffered enough
from the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Three, on the subject of security, if you have your own requirements,
they cannot be measured in void, and you have to take into consideration
the security needs of others, and this applies not only on the Lebanese
track, it applies on other tracks. We have suggested to the Israelis
that if really security is their concern, it should not be at the
expense of Lebanese security, Lebanese tranquility, and Lebanese
stability.
And we have explained to them, in detail, that the ongoing situation in
Lebanon will not find an end until such a time that Israel dismantles
its security zone and concentrates on its security needs in order to
ensure peace and tranquility for its people in northern Israel and all
along the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon, where the
Israeli withdrawal will make it possible for the Lebanese, legitimate
authorities, to not only extend and expand, but really ensure peace and
tranquility all along our international border, Israel forgetting always
that there has been an international force, namely, the UNIFIL, which
Israeli has never allowed to deploy with the five thousand soldiers at
the command of the UNIFIL commander all along our south borders, which
if they were to have been deployed there, would have created the
necessary conditions of tranquility and peace. I don't want to abuse of
the time. I'll be happy, later on, if you're interested, in Lebanon and
the Lebanese track, to answer any questions you may address. We txank
you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. The floor is now open to questions. Please keep
them brief in an effort to get as many asked as possible. If you can
raise your hands, please. Jim.
Q: I'd like to ask Dr. Abdel Shafi what happens if you don't get an
agreement on a definite future timeframe for the talks, and if the
Americans don't make a commitment to involve themselves more deeply in
the negotiations?
ABDEL SHAFI: Well, it's obvious that Israel is in the occupied
territories by sheer military power and that all that it is doing is
also based on its military power. And so it's obvious that unless there
is some pressure on Israel to desist from this position, I think there
are no prospects for peace, and my direct answer to your question is
that that means that peace will not be reached, and the door will be
open for all kinds of negative developments in the area.
Q: (inaudible)
ALLAF: Not yet. I haven't reached, I haven't got from home the formal
agreement, but as I said in my conference, that in a sense most of the
language has been accepted. Still there may be little minor things, but
on the whole it's been all right.
Q: (inaudible) correct me if I'm wrong, but does Syria (inaudible)?
ALLAF: We are not yet there, as I said in my introduction, remarks. We
are still bogged down by the refusal of Israel to accept any of the
essential principles for an agreement of peace, which is total
withdrawal from the occupied territories, which is comprehensiveness of
the, of the solution. Now concerning security arrangements and
guarantees, we have said very clearly in the paper we have presented to
the Israelis during the previous round, that we also consider security
very important to ourselves as it is important to them.
Whatever security arrangements agreed upon between the two sides should
be subject to the condition that it not affects the rights, territorial
integrity and the security of the other side. It should be reciprocal
and it should be on equal footing between the two sides. Now we
mentioned also in our paper the possibility of having security
guarantees by the Security Council of the United Nations or by any big
power or a number of powers agreed upon between the parties. So it is
too early to talk about the answer to your question.
Q: (inaudible) A question for all members of the delegation. Do you feel
that the momentum has been reached now which is self-generation,
generating the talks, so that you don't have to have interference from
the sponsors at this stage? The second part is if there is a change in
the administration here in the United States on November 3rd, are you
apprehensive that the talks might lose their self-generating momentum?
MAJALI: Well, my answer is that it has been all along, I must recognize
that it's been all along this year, and even before the Madrid, the
sponsors have pretty good effect and persuasion on the peace
negotiation. How much that influence on each track I do not know, but
for a fact I think first we couldn't have met without the sponsors. We
may not be able to continue without the sponsors because we feel that
it's a driving force, and honest driving force.
The second point that a change of leadership in the United States, we do
not interfere in that, but we believe the strategy of peace is a United
States' strategy which is built by the proper institutions, and which
would continue whoever would come. This is our impression. This has been
again, the assurances which we get from all sides, that whoever will be
on the 3rd of November, that the peace process certainly will go. But
all of us, we are human beings, we know even sometimes an individual or
the head of an organization may be more forthcoming than others. This is
always there. I mean they will come up and deny this.
CHAMMAS: That's right. It was thetwo parts of the question, as they
relate to all the tracks, and they would benefit movement on all the
tracks. The first part, there must have been enough momentum in the
talks for us to have accepted to have the 7th round resumed on the 9th
of November. This should be enough of an indication. As whether the
momentum is enough, surely not. So it's left for the negotiating process
to give a push ahead to itself through the parties involved in it.
The other reflection which should be addressed is of course it's the
obligation of the sponsors to fulfill the commitments undertaken in
their invitation and for the United States also in its letter of
assurance. You referred to theyou put a question to be commented upon
in case there is, or there is no change in the American administration.
Let it be clear that for us, as we're concerned, we're dealing with the
United States of America and President Bush and Secretary Baker have
considered, and we have considered, accepted their consideration that
this peace process is vital for the area, but it reflects, too, what's
vital for the United States. And we think the evaluation of the
importance of this process, and its successful conclusion will be a sort
of a constant in America's policy and consequently there is no need for
us to reevaluate or reassess our position as far as the peace process is
concerned, or as far as our relationship with the United States of
America is concerned.
And I would want to, on behalf of my delegation, express my appreciation
and that of my government to the assistance we've been having from the
U.S. administration, and because of our very, very difficult
negotiations which we're undertaking here in Washington.
ABDEL SHAFI: If I may just comment on this. The question about whether a
momentum has been created that can carry the peace process onward,
really is with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict isit has
its special character, this problem, because it is a colonization
occupation. It's an ideological matter. The Israeli public has been told
all the past 25 years that the occupied territories are Israeli
territory and so they are free to go and establish settlements and this,
that, and everything.
So at this late hour I understand it's even difficult for Mr. Rabin to
tell them apparently we are mistaken, you havewe have to do things,
things otherwise. So no matter what momentum has been created certainly
it doesn't apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I think even
if Mr. Rabin is sincere about reaching a just and fair settlement, he
should appeal to the Americans and to the sponsors to make pressure on
Israel so that it will help him to meet his situation within Israel.
As far as the second part of the question about the American, who will
be in the White House, it's our understanding that this matter, the
peace process, is a bipartisan concern and certainly we don't feel that
we should be afraid, or should make any intervention on what goes on in
this respect.
Q: (inaudible) Ambassador Allaf and Dr and Dr. Abdel Shafi. Both of you
have expressed feelings of disappointment at where things stand right
now. Both of you have suggested that this kind of discussion can't go on
indefinitely. I think Dr. Abdel Shafi, you said it (inaudible). What is
it that each of you, at this process now, after a yearis there
something going on in the process that is keeping you here, or are you
being kept here by something else?
ALLAF: Well, what keeps us here is our sincere desire for peace. If we
want to rely only on the seriousness and the good will of the Israeli
party, we would have left the peace process since long ago. But as my
colleagues have said, we feel that there is a serious conviction, not
only on behalf of us as directly concerned parties, but on behalf of the
sponsors, and especially the American sponsor, who is hosting most of
these rounds. And we have always the hope that that sponsor will
implement one day when he finds that things are really in danger of
collapsing, will implement the promise of being a driving force, an
honest broker, and try to help solve this problem resulting from Israeli
delaying and blocking tactics.
I would like to say in this respect that the non- participation of the
sponsors in the talksin the bilateral talksis a condition imposed by
Israel when first the terms of reference of Madrid were negotiated
because they insisted that such participation should be with the
agreement of all parties concerned, which means that they impose always
a veto on the participation of the co-sponsors.
As for the Arab parties, they would be very happy to see a third party
as respectful (sic), as influential as the United States of America, or
the other co-sponsor, to sit with the parties and, as in so many other
international conferences, and peace process, we see the peace process
concerning Yugoslavia and Bosnia, we see other peace process, and then
you have the mediators and the co-sponsors participating. So it is not
us who are blocking progress. It is Israel which is blocking progress,
and preventing also any assistance from the co-sponsors.
ABDEL SHAFI: Certainly there is reason for you to ask this question. On
the surface, it appears illogical and impractical that we continue to
sit on the peace table. But really the unique thing about the problem is
that the Palestinian cause is supported by international law, by the
principles of human rights, by United Nations resolutions. So our
presence here is actually an appeal for the world conscience to see that
justice and fairness is established. It is also an appeal for the world
democracies, and the United States comes in the first rank, to be
consistent with the values and principles that it proclaims about a
world based on justice and fairness and the new values.
We have seen the United States interfere in a strong and terrible manner
in the Gulf, and so we at least would want to see a measure of this
concern to be exhibited in the case of Palestine, where there is, Iraq
was in occupation of Kuwait for only six months. Here there is an
occupation that's sitting there for 25 years. So why this double
standard? That's why we are on the table.
Secondly, and an important manner, you can be sure if we leave this
table, and I think maybe many of us in the delegation personally feel
very much that we want to leave this table on personal grounds. But if
we do, that means it is a signal for recourse to all things that I'm
sure everybody hates to seeradicalization, violence, bloodshed and all
this. That's why we are here.
Q: (Inaudible).
SHAFI: Well, I think as regards the first part on the question, we
remain sincerely committed to the peace process, and certainly we call
on the co-sponsors to actively play their role as the situation demands.
And I think the matter has become very clear, and what is needed is
really very clear. I don't think that Israel by itself, and for obvious
reasons, is not going to come about and do what it needed to reach a
peaceful solution. This is mythis is my belief. So, that's what we ask
from the co-sponsors. The second partI'm sorry, I didn't put it down
here
Q: Mr. Rabin's statement.
SHAFI: Yes. Mr. Rabin's statement. Well, this is not the first time that
Mr. Rabin speaks in this manner. They have always had ultimatums for us,
in one way or another. So this is not a new thing.
Q: (Inaudible).
SHAFI: I think it's really very simple. I think occupiers should cede
what they have occupied, and then a tedious and serious work should be
made to see that peace rests on fair and just principals. The only
guarantee that peace can stand, that can stick, is that peace should be
fair, that the settlement should be just. And that's where, I think, all
parties should know this. To deter people from recoursing (sic) to
violence is really to see that they are contented, that the settlement
is fair and just. There isn't going to be, in absolute terms, is no
fairness and justice, but it would come to within recognized borders
that peace should be established on fairness and justice.
And I think this is a responsibility of everybody, and I think
especially for theI say this to the Israelisfor the welfare of
future Jewish generations in the area, I think it is very important for
Israel to desist from its present position and be forthcoming for the
sake of peace, not for our sake only, but also for the sake of future
Jewish generations in the area.
MAJALI: I just wanted to compliment what Dr. Abdel Shafi has said. If I
understood well the question, it is about the nature of peace. And what
I say in answer to that, allow us to reach that stage, allow us to see
that peace by removing the roots and the reasons why that peace doesn't
exist between Israel and the Arab countries.
Now, I remind you that in this Madrid conference, there are three
phases. The first phase was the convening of the Madrid conference. The
second is this phase, the bilateral negotiations, and the third one is
the multi-lateral negotiations, which is supposed to be discussing what
sort of peaceful relations should exist between the two sides when war
has ended. What sort of cooperation on regional level, cooperation in
economy, cooperation in environment, cooperation sharing water,
disarmament, all these things. So that would create the sort of peace
you are asking about, but in order to be there first you have to remove
the aggression and the occupation committed against those very parties
you want to cooperate with. Thank you.
Q: I was (inaudible) intrigued by your opening remarks concerning the
American role in this round. And yet the Palestinian delegation
(inaudible) play a more active role. (Inaudible). Can you give us your
assessment at the end of the road during this first part of the round,
can you see, or do you sense any diminution of the American role because
of the elections? And specifically for Dr. Abdel Shafi, when you called
on the United States to play a more active role. Can you be more
specific? (Inaudible).
CHAMMAS: Well, if my turn comes first, as I said, the American influence
on what's been going on in the last year or so was clear that we are
still sitting there, that is, as my colleagues have said, and this is
quite a good sign. The second, in our track, I think it's been
continuously behind the scenes the persuading for both sides, trying to
explain to them the point, and trying to bridge the gaps, whether in the
language to be used, or in the ideas, or in the analysis of it. And
trying to help this.
In fact, we noticedI mean you must have noticed again in the last
three or four years, one almostalmost, as I said, in the
Jordanian-Israel track, either you make it or break it, so to speak. And
luckily there is a good making. So this does not come from heaven. It
came from persuasion from the sponsors. So I would say it is there. But
I mean it's not, you know, muscle twisting. It is persuasion and trying,
because every time we meet, we brief the sponsors, and the Israelis, I
think they brief the sponsors, and we listen to them.
SHAFI: I think, really, sincerely I believe it was a mistake that the
United States accepted that Israel continue the settlement process as
the peace conference started. This was a negation of the spirit of
peace. And so we continue to ask the United States to play a role, and
it is the party that is more and more capable than other parties to play
a decisive role in this respect, vis-a-vis Israel. And there lies the
main leverage that could be applied in favor of a peaceful settlement in
the process.
We are not asking for anything drastic. Let me refer to the precedent of
1956, when Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and occupied the Gaza Strip,
and then it did not want to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in the face of
clear United Nations resolutions. And it was only until President
Eisenhower, then, served an ultimatum to Mr. Ben Gurion, the
then-Israeli prime minister, that they should withdraw, and if they
don't, he is going to take matters with regard to the financial
assistance, and the Israelis withdrew overnight. So there is the
historical precedent.
Q: (Inaudible).
CHAMMAS: I make a remark, and this is not addressed to any individual.
On Monday and Tuesday, the press was in full force at the State
Department, trying to query about the deteriorating situation in
Lebanon. On this day, the presence kind of changed. Should we have
150,000 dead in the Lebanon as we had the last sixteen years to generate
interest in the international public opinion? Many people tend to forget
that because of the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, Lebanon
was heavily on the receiving and the paying end. We have suffered a lot,
and we continue to suffer a lot. When you speak of loss of life, can you
be insensitive to the fact that 150,000 died in Lebanon in the last
sixteen years? Can you be insensitive to the fact that you have at least
400,000 people, human beings, wounded, thousands of them mutilated? And
I do not want to downgrade the value, priceless loss in human life. Have
you ever taken stock of the material damage which had befallen my
country?
Of course, we are in this peace process, because we don't think there is
an alternative, and I do not think, or want to think what the
alternative would be. I leave it to your imagination. This is why when
we say, the attack on the Beirut airport, an invasion of the South of
Lebanon in 1978, an invasionfull scale invasion in 1982 up to the
Lebanese capital, the only Arab capital to have been invaded. And Israel
still says I want to stay in Lebanon to insure my security. And I do
not, they say, consider this as an occupation. Is that an act of God? Is
that an act of mercy? We know what the response and the reaction was,
because there was a loss of six Israelis soldiers and four wounded.
They're precious to the Israelis. We know that. We understand it. But
can we be oblivious to the fact of what Lebanon has suffered, how much
it has paid in the past, how much it continues to be suffering? Can we
generate interest only when there is a deteriorating situation in the
Lebanon? I suggest that the Lebanese-Israeli track, believe you me, in
the interests of peace should be addressed, and the Israelis should seek
to find with us other alternatives for the security needs than their
continued occupation of our territories, and that should not be at our
expense.
One has to remember, ladies and gentlemen, from this peace process how
much Israel has gained. I would not pursue this any further to preserve
the time of others. But you have to have a global look. Israel has
already, and is already negotiating as of the international demarcation
lines. And the Arabs have in their only quest for that, let's not forget
the (inaudible). And the meaning of security, and the concept of
security has changed radically. Unless you admit and you address that,
the next thing you find your security interests, if you follow up this
logic, may get even to the Nile, not to speak of the Euphrates and the
Tigris. Is this what we're seeking for? No. We're seeking to live all
together in peace, in real peace. Peace is a frame of mind. You have to
decide yourself whether you have it in you, you want it, you want to
take the risks. Of course, there will be experimentations, but it's a
question of commitment.
I feel, we, on our part, though we thought this would be a dream a few
years back, we have (inaudible) to a state of mind, which is the state
of peace. We hope our Israeli counterparts will match us in that. Maybe
this is a much better battlefield to have the minds fight it out in all
peacefully. Thank you.
MODERATOR: I think our time is up, unfortunately. So thank you very
much.
END NEWS CONFERENCE