In an unprecedented press conference with Palestinian journalists from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, Foreign Minister Peres dealt with the need for the Palestinians to resume the negotiations, outlining the benefits that would accrue to the Middle East in general and to the Palestinians in particular. He answered questions about the Israel-U.S. understanding on the Hamas deportees, the issue of violence in the territories, the question of the settlements, elections in the territories and the future of Gaza. He proclaimed that Israel does not "intend to remain in Gaza. Gaza belongs to the Gazan people. " But Israel does not wish to leave Gaza abruptly, leading to chaotic conditions. He also discussed economic problems in the areas. Text:
Our hope is that the Palestinians will return to the negotiations. That is basically the advice of most of the Arab countries, the Americans and in fact, the Security Council too. The compromise that was worked out between the United States and Israel is consistent with Resolution 799. 1 think that when the negotiations continue, then the Palestinian delegation will find Israel more forthcoming in order to advance the negotiations. Our feeling is that if there is room for gestures, it should be done after the negotiations are opened, not before, because we do not feel there is any need to link them to the return to the negotiations.
As you know, on the issue of deportations, we have declared that deportations are not our policy. What happened was an exception to our policy, and what happened was an unprecedented step. That should be an indication for the future. But since Israel never made a condition that the Palestinian delegation should totally stop acts of terrorism, maybe because the Palestinian delegation cannot make such a promise. So this handicap should make the Palestinian delegation understand that if there is no end to terror, nobody can promise an end to anti-terrorism. Anyway, I think that let's let bygones be bygones.
On a more general level, I would say, that I am convinced there is a need for a comprehensive peace: peace with the Palestinians, peace with the Syrians, and peace with the Jordanians, and peace with the Lebanese. And while no peace negotiation should be handcuffed to other peace negotiations, we have to try and attain an agreement that will relate to all parties, that will relate to all issues. The need to solve the Palestinian issue is as urgent as ever. We don't suggest that the tactics will frustrate the strategy: the strategy is the comprehensive peace. Then as far as I am concerned, I believe that all of us concentrate too much on the cost of peace and too little on the nature of peace.
The great issues of our time - which are arms control and regional security, economic conditions, the democratization of the acts of the governments and human rights - can and should be solved in regional frameworks rather than just in national negotiations.
If you take arms control, the distance of the missiles exceeds the size of any country and missiles do not stop at borders, nor are they impressed by frontiers. If the nations of the Middle East want security, there is a real need for regional security - namely to agree about a Middle East free of non-conventional weapons, carried by ballistic missiles.
And this can be achieved, only when we should establish a mechanism of verification and mutual control, which means once we shall have peace, the reduction of the arms race, the freeing and directing of resources that can be invested in economic and social development will take place.
When the child wakes up in the morning, he needs food and school.
Cartridges and guns are not the substance of the subsistence.
The Middle East today has the largest concentration of soldiers, tanks, planes, missiles, and the countries are spending an unbelievable amount of $50 billion to continue the arms race. Just by cutting this amount into half, you can have $25 billion for the people instead of for guns, in place of guns.
The same goes for economy. In economy you have to look for food and for jobs. The problem with food is that the more the population is growing, the less fertile land is available. There is an increase in the fertility of the people and a decline in the fertility of land. We are quarreling so much about the size of the land, that we ignore the quality. Sahara is a very large of piece of land, but what is the value? Unfortunately, 89% of the land which is available to the Arab countries is already desert, and until the end of this century, a quarter of the 11% may become desert as well.
The way to fight desert is by rationing the use of water. Then water, like missiles, is of a regional nature. Waters are undisciplined by politics and they do not follow maps of sovereignty. The rivers are not parallel to the borders and the rain doesn't go through customs. We have to minimize the use of water, to recycle it and to produce more water. When it comes to water, the choice is clear. Either more water or more wars, and the way to overcome these wars is by producing more water. This again can be done on a regional level and in a spirit of cooperation between our parties.
Postponing would mean the creation of larger suffering, of greater starvation among the people. May I say in general that all of us for the last 45 years, we were listening too much to the rulers, and we were paying too little attention to the people. We need a Middle East for the people, not for the rulers.
When it comes to jobs, the best promise to the Middle East is the modern industry called tourism which has awakened several economies all over the world from Spain to China. The Middle East can be a paradise. Since our forefathers prepared the groundwork, they built the great Pyramids, and other holy places, and in addition to the blue skies and wonderful weather, the Middle East is the cradle of the three major religions. Millions of pilgrims and guests can enjoy its history and landscape and by doing so creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Then, from our own experience, we know that the best ground we have is a successful economy or a just society, or a stable peace is the introduction of democratic procedures and governing ourselves.
We know the Palestinians are divided, as we are. But I feel very strongly that the Palestinians can gain greatly if their majority for peace can become an elected majority. And their minority which is against this, should give up the arms, and argue as it should in a peaceful manner.
I want to say very clearly that morally, we do not want to govern the Palestinians. The Palestinians wherever they are, in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza should govern their own destinies. Politically, I consider, it is in our interest to see the Palestinian society a successful society, which enjoys freedom and economic health.
Let's not forget that all of us are lagging behind in our national and individual incomes after European countries and Americans. A high standard of living is important because that is the only way to provide a high standard of education, a high standard of government. We are facing an unmistakably great opportunity to return the Middle East to the ranks of the most civilized countries, civilized regions in the world.
Peace can be obtained only through compromise, and it can be lost through extremism. All of us are in the same boat. I hope it will navigate in the right area.
Q: (About the six points):
A: I think two points are concerning the Americans, and four points are concerning Israel. But we have an agreement with Christopher which is unchanged, we shall stick to our promises. I don't think the United States has asked for any changes or additions.
Q: (inaudible)
A: I think that, to be honest, there may be a difference between the interpretation of the six points by the Palestinians and the other parties. But not necessarily with us, because we do not have any misunderstandings with the Americans. What we have agreed is valid and the Americans admit that that is the case.
Q: Will Israel be willing to declare that it will never use deportations in the future?
A: I do not think that that was the wording of the six points. The wording of the six points was that Israel said that deportation was never a precedent in our policy and will not be our policy. What happened was an exception to the rule. That is what we have said and that was what was agreed upon.
Q: (inaudible)
A: No, I am not aware that this was requested from us. What I am saying was what was requested. I want to tell you very frankly. Even in the National Unity Government, some of our ministers said that Israel should not enter the negotiations unless the Palestinian side promised that there will be an end to terrorism. We didn't accept this condition, for the simple reason that there may be some terrorists that will try to spoil the peace negotiations. Now, against those terrorists, shouldn't we agree to take the necessary steps. If you cannot stop the small groups of terrorism, the people that are using violence, how can you guarantee that they can use violence and nothing will happen. Nobody can do it. So as I have said, there was not our intent?
Q: Will there be a change in the Israeli position regarding land, 242, Jerusalem? Because the Palestinians say the negotiations have come to a deadlock.
A: It will be unwise to announce gestures before the negotiations start, and even compromises should be for the negotiations. But I can tell you in general terms that Israel will make an extreme effort to overcome difficulties between the Palestinians and us. We are negotiating with the aim to achieve an agreement and not to maintain the negotiations.
Q: (inaudible)
A: You know that the Palestinians still must understand that the process of negotiations is a process of mutual compromise. Not just one-sided compromises.
Before the negotiations started, the Palestinians claimed that the major obstacle to peace was the policy of settlements, that is all. We stopped settlements - introducing new settlements; we stopped the subsidies for settlements; we have changed the law regarding contacts [with PLO members); we have suggested political elections instead of municipal elections. And we went, in many aspects, a long way to meet the Palestinians' request, including what is being called "a mixed model" where we have made a proposal not just of a functional nature, but also in reference to the land.
So all these are Israel's concessions, one-sided. And we chose to do so. It was raised with the Israeli Government, it was agreed, as an indication of good will.
May I tell you where our criticism is when it comes to the Palestinians, that when we are negotiating, each party thinks that its major task is to convince the other party. It is not. The major task is to convince your own. That's more difficult. And I am not sure the Palestinians appreciate how difficult it is for us to convince our own. Think of all the stabbing and terrorism and violence.
But we are a government, we are elected for four years so we do not every day have to be very popular. There are days that we can be, there are days that we cannot.
On the Palestinian side the problem is that since it is not an elected delegation, it must satisfy its own people every day. It cannot take a single step which is unpopular. And that would make the negotiations so difficult. The Palestinians are starting every time, even when they have many achievements, with a very disappointed face. They started every morning with the greeting "Good morning sorrow." You cannot negotiate like that. Because if you will take this, you will ask yourself, what are the concessions that Israel can make and what are the concessions the Palestinians can make. You will find that until now, most if not all of the concessions are taken by Israel.
Q: (On continuation of settlements):
A: We have explained, there are several thousands of houses that are in the middle of construction and that we could not stop. We said it very honestly, very openly, because we also submitted to the law of the land. But most of the houses were stopped, ones that were just in the planning stage.
Q: (On deportees):
A: ... We said 100 can come immediately back; we said about the rest, the other 300, their time of deportation will be halved. The ones that were sent for nine months will be sent for four and a half months and the others that were sent for two years, will be for a year. This means that all of them will return before the end of the year.
Then we told every deportee that wants to appeal before a tribunal, has the right to do so. He can come with an attorney at a place which will be considered secret.
Now if the deportees do not want to use their rights to appeal, or if they don't want to enable the 100 people to come back home, they are trying to make it political. That is the difference. So when we talk about deportation, we are talking about politics.
You know Hamas intended to assassinate some Palestinian leaders, including Faisal Husseini.
Then again we had found out that they had planned to attack schoolchildren which again would have been a terrible tragedy. And what Hamas wanted really was to kill the negotiations.
On your second question, if there were secret talks in Jerusalem, then-it will remain secret.
Q: (inaudible)
A: I said openly that I met in the past with Faisal Husseini, and I imagine that I shall do so in the future. I am not going to go into any specific points.
Q: (On Gaza):
A: We do not intend to remain in Gaza. Gaza belongs to the Gazan people. But, we don't want to leave behind us a Lebanese-like situation. We would like to negotiate, because a chaos in Gaza will not only be a danger to Gaza, it also a danger to all of us. As long as we are responsible for Gaza, we are responsible for the well-being of the people. We are aware of how complicated the situation in Gaza is, and how demanding the economic situation is there.
So we will gladly negotiate a withdrawal from Gaza provided we shall know who will replace us and we shall be ensured the replacement will guarantee the existence of the Gazan people and the avoidance of terrorism.
Q: (On casing conditions in the territories):
A: Even now we are trying to ease life in the West Bank and Gaza. We have opened the Gazan and West Bank economy to every investor who wants to come, without our intervention. We have invited all sorts of capital, and call on the Palestinians to come and invest in the good places and to try to improve the life there.
We are permitting political assemblies - different organizations which are among the Palestinians - to go and have their elections and have a political exchange.
We are permitting the opening of banks. We have reduced the price of the ticket to cross the [Allenby] bridge. And we are really interested, including the military government, to make life much easier.
It doesn't give us any pleasure to see Palestinians suffer. So actually, we started in a quiet way, to try to improve. We are urging the Europeans to invest; we are urging the UN to increase its participation. So, we would like very much to see the quality of life being improved in the West Bank and Gaza.
Q: (inaudible)
A: On the political level, I said we made many concessions, including the mixed model. And as we shall go along the negotiations, both parties, we will make sure our party will make more suggestions to bridge the differences. We cannot make those concessions before the negotiations will start.
Q: (inaudible)
A: The minute the Palestinians will return to the negotiations, the minute the negotiations will start, a group of deportees from previous times will be permitted to return.
We have said that the deportation was not a precedent and it will never be a policy of Israel, but an exception, and if there won't be a need for it, there won't be any more deportations.
But we cannot give immunity to every terrorist ...
Q: (On Palestinians from Jerusalem or outside the areas participating in the negotiations):
A: In the multilateral negotiations, we have Palestinians from the diaspora. There is a Palestinian delegation which is accepted by all parties.
In order to change the delegation, it will require a lot of time, and a great deal of disagreement. So we say keep the delegation as it is. It is accepted by you and by us. In the future, we would like to enhance the status of the delegation by elections, by open elections. Because when it comes to appointments, it was already so difficult to agree to existing appointments, that any change will endanger the negotiations.
Q: (On elections and residents of Jerusalem):
A: No elections are probably ... Jerusalem should be kept as an item for a later date. You know we shall have uncountable problems later on?
Q: (On elections):
A: You elect a political body, even if the people who are negotiating are nominated, they are nominated by an elected body. I thought that the same delegation can come back to the negotiations and later on become the executive council for the self-government arrangements. So it is not necessarily in contradiction, when the people who are negotiating are nominated, not elected, but they get orders from an elected body.
For us, an elected body is a body that should be elected by the people.