This article reports on the Palestine-Israel Journal's
public event on November 30, 1999, at the Notre Dame Center in
Jerusalem, following our issue on "Towards Statehood"
(Vol. VI, No. 2, 1999).
Dr. Edy Kaufman (Truman Institute, chairperson of
B'Tselem) welcomed the speakers on behalf of the Editorial Board.
He thanked the Journal's donors, including the Government of
Belgium (which financed this issue), the European Commission, the
British Council (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and the Swedish
International Development Authority (SIDA). He then asked MK
Shimon Peres, Israeli minister for regional cooperation, to
make his short opening remarks, saying that, for this audience,
such a distinguished speaker needs no lengthy words of
introduction.
Shimon Peres: First let me say that peace cannot be only
between two nations but must be regional, for we cannot detach
ourselves in any way from the position in the region. If the region
lives in economic and social backwardness, we will not have peace
but, instead, we will live in misery, in hatred, in want, and in
danger. Ours is a period in which, while the infrastructure must be
regional, the economy must be global, for items like pollution,
water sources, transportation and tourism know no borders. Old
economies were national, new economies are global.
Next, a peace that is merely diplomatic won't hold water. We need
an economic peace as well, for this is an age of communications, of
powerful public opinion, of media, the Internet, and satellites;
and without the people, war and peace cannot be waged in our day.
People everywhere are now sick and tired of diplomats exploiting
photo opportunities on TV. They ask, What does it mean for us, not
for the diplomats? They want to see the fruits, and peace can no
longer be a service to the glory of the leaders, but must be an
answer to the needs of the people. We cannot have "pieces of peace"
in different parts of the region. It must be comprehensive,
geographically all-embracing, adapted economically to a changing
region, answering the call and the challenge of the new generation
in the region.
Finally, people ask me if I am an optimist. What is an optimist? If
a person is optimistic only about himself, he is not optimistic but
egocentric. An optimist is one who is optimistic about other
people, can understand that the mothers of others care about their
children as we do, that they have had enough, like us, of war and
want.
Objectively, there is no longer a need for war because the world
went from an economy of land to an economy of brains. Brains are
not limited geographically; they don't wear a uniform; wisdom is
not conquered by armies. The U.S.A. increased its economy several
fold over the last decades not because the country grew sevenfold
in area, but because of new means of production, of development, of
research, and of new harnessing of the capacity of the people. This
can also happen elsewhere and can show the direction of our answers
to the conflicts of the past and to the promise of the
future.
Edy Kaufman: Ziad Abu-Zayyad will now make his opening
remarks. He is Minister of State in the Palestinian National
Authority (PNA), co-founder of the Journal and a man who, over the
years, has made a special contribution to Palestinian-Israeli
dialogue.
Ziad Abu-Zayyad: I recall that Mr. Peres said when we had
lunch at his house together several years ago that it is not
difficult to make peace: all we need is a map, representatives of
the people concerned, and goodwill. He has always been fighting to
achieve peace and I take a risk here by saying that, without his
efforts, maybe the Oslo breakthrough would not have taken
place.
The heart of the subject for us Palestinians is that we went into
the peace process because we believed this, though not the only
option, was the best option before us. We believed peace was in our
strategic interest. Other means had not brought us nearer our goal,
and in a political peace process we could put an end to this long
conflict through negotiations.
Our understanding of the Oslo Declaration of Principles was that,
at the end of the interim period, we would have full control over
all the West Bank and Gaza, except for the Jewish settlements and
the military locations, which would be negotiated as final-status
issues. More than a year after what should have been its end, we
are still stuck somewhere within that interim period. From my point
of view, we cannot allow mixing together the interim period and the
final-status negotiations. All the interim period issues must be
settled and closed, but we are still trying to persuade our Israeli
partners to discuss the third phase of redeployment, which is an
interim issue. We have not yet succeeded in convening the committee
to deal with the displaced persons of 1967 and there are other
important issues still outstanding.
This is a time to work and not to make the sort of statements which
we today heard from the Israelis, that Israel "will allow some of
the refugees to return to the West Bank." This is not productive at
a time when the upcoming negotiations should start without prior
conditions and when the whole refugee issue is to be part of the
final-status negotiations. It increases the lack of confidence
between the parties. Nobody can fool oneself that there can be
stability in the region without a solution to the question of
Jerusalem, and in Oslo it was stated that Jerusalem is a
final-status issue, which means that Israel accepts negotiations
over Jerusalem. Israel also allowed the Palestinians in East
Jerusalem to participate in the Palestinian national elections.
These are positive aspects of Oslo, but each side should have the
courage to tell its people that this is not a picnic, that hard
decisions must be taken in an atmosphere of give and take. I am one
of the founders of the Palestine-Israel Journal and we have
always believed in continuous dialogue: it is in this spirit that
we, therefore, welcome Mr. Shimon Peres this evening.
Political Separation, Economic Integration
Shimon Peres (in answer to a question from the floor):
Clearly we would like to bring an end to Israeli control over the
life of the Palestinians and this is just a question of time. But I
ask you to think about how to educate in the future, and not to
concentrate on the past. The past you cannot change; only the
future can be changed.
We are nine million people between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean. This is an area of not more than 12 or 13 thousand
square kilometers, if one removes the Negev, which is unsettled. In
15 years, we will be 15 to 18 million people on a small piece of
land. There isn't enough land and water to enable people to make a
living and to avoid pollution. We can't continue with unequal
standards of living: Israel has $17,000 per capita; the
Palestinians have $1,700. One can't have a checkpoint between
terrible poverty and a highly developed society. The Palestinians
can't afford to pay for the desalination of water, for example.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world, with
an annual birth rate growth of 4.2%. In 12 years, there will be two
million people in the Gaza Strip on an area of 300 square
kilometers.
The only answer is to have a high-tech economy, to industrialize
both parts of the land. We have to separate politically, but
integrate economically. We breathe the same air, we drink the same
water. Nobody will subsidize our failure, nobody will pay for our
blindness. Ten percent more or less land is no longer the point.
The point is the standard of living. In the West Bank and Gaza
there are eight universities, with 53,000 students. If the
graduates get proper work in their professions they will be the
carriers of peace; if not, they will be the builders of
bombs.
We are arguing endlessly about the past, which is unchangeable. I
think that there is no need for the sort of history in which one
learns how many people Julius Caesar killed, how many countries
Napoleon attacked. The only history of worth is the legacy of
culture, and the main thing now is to teach our children how to
imagine our common future.
Some Arabs think that in proposing a New Middle East we have the
intention of controlling the Middle East. Nobody has any such
intention. There are three different economies today. One is the
global economy. Globalization was never an ideology, but the result
of the fact is that the world went over from an economy of land and
natural resources to an economy of science and technology, from an
economy of land to one of brains. Global village is not a correct
definition. Every child has a computer, the Internet and a cellular
telephone at home - their rooms are already as the globe, distances
are meaningless. Globalization leads to privatization. Since the
government could not become global, it handed over the economy to
the private sector. This created marginalization, since everything
that makes money goes into private hands and, everything which
costs money into government hands. The cost of education, health,
etc. increases yearly, but the elected people don't want to ask for
a raise in taxes. And those who made the money have no
responsibility as regards investing in health, education or peace.
To solve this problem demands an alliance between private business
and government, volunteering to handle the issues at home and
participate in making peace abroad. Otherwise they will face a
revolt.
The second economy is the regional economy, basically one of
infrastructure - if our water is polluted, and our roads
impassable, we won't be able to compete with anyone. Europe is not
making massive investment in improving the traffic system - it is
nonsense for us to have a checkpoint or a customs examination every
five minutes.
The third, the national economy, is of education and culture. Every
nation will maintain its traditions, its legacy, and must invest in
this. We, therefore, need a global economy to compete, and an
educational system to keep our traditions. It is a terrible mistake
on our part to look upon our Palestinian neighbors as a source of
cheap labor. This invites confrontation and hatred. We must look
upon them as equals, economically and socially. We must bring
business, because not all businessmen are evil, and many understand
that they have to contribute. All this demands a revolution,
particularly a mental revolution, because we want to remain in the
old world, and it is easier to remember than to think afresh.
Ziad Abu-Zayyad: This globalization is, among other things,
the result of the tremendous development in communication, and this
is going to have a greater influence than the Industrial Revolution
in its day. We Palestinians need first to guarantee that we have
our own national development, in order to be involved and absorbed
into this world process. We cannot be integrated into the Israeli
economy, but need to cooperate with our Israeli neighbors and
complement each other. Both of us should be ready to face the
globalization process.
Against Incitement
Ziad Abu-Zayyad (in reply to a question from the floor
referring to the petition signed by 20 Palestinian leaders accusing
the PNA of surrendering to the Israelis, and of corruption - Ed.):
Eighty percent of the leaflet deals with political issues and three
and a half lines with corruption. It seems more popular to speak
about corruption, but the leaflet is a sort of incitement against
the peace process and against the PNA. It calls to rebel and to
confront the Authority with arms. The issue of corruption is a
sugar-coat in order to help market the political issues. Two weeks
ago there was another Fatah leaflet in Rafah, only on corruption,
demanding the removal from office of a prominent personality:
Arafat took no steps against this, but he refused to be called a
traitor on the political issues.
The accusations against the PNA are that the leadership gave in on
Jerusalem and is involved in an underhanded conspiracy to liquidate
the issue of the 1948 refugees. It says that for six years the PNA
has enabled the Israelis to rob us of our land and has been
involved in expanding Jewish settlement in Palestinian territories.
In our delicate situation, you say to the 1948 refugees that the
PNA is selling you and you are out - imagine two-thirds of the
population of Gaza leaving. We are facing a conspiracy against the
refugees in South Lebanon and we believe that there are foreign
hands involved in this. Those who signed the leaflet are not
intellectuals but representatives of political factions like the
Popular Front general command, the Islamic movement -
representatives of factions sitting in Damascus and trying to
sabotage. There is a difference between, on the one hand,
democracy, criticism and freedom of expression and, on the other
hand, incitement.
Fifty Fatah members of the Palestinian Legislative Council met in
Gaza and we all urged President Arafat to immediately release those
who were arrested and to cancel the house arrest of two others. We
were against the president's decision on detention. We thought that
arresting them would only make them appear as patriots, and give
them publicity. Hopefully, they will all be released. We refused to
even discuss removing the immunity of the nine who signed and are
members of the Council. We didn't suggest a special session of the
Council to discuss the leaflet, but it can be put on the agenda of
any normal meeting of the Council. As a journalist, I suggest
people read the leaflet and see how the overall picture
concentrates on the political issues and not on corruption.
Human Rights
Shimon Peres (in answer to a question from the floor): The
question is more one of politics than human rights, but this
government and the last Labor government decided clearly not to add
more settlements and this is our policy. We have problems with
decisions taken in the past which we can hardly change legally, but
our policy is loud and clear against more settlements. As regards
Jerusalem, we recognize the communal rights of the Palestinians
living here and, as Ziad said, they were given the right to vote in
Palestinian elections. We are paying a high price for peace, like
the assassination of Rabin, and losing the elections. One conducts
negotiations not only with the other side, but with one's own and
must make compromises and concessions that nobody likes.
On human rights, I am proud that in Israel there are no gallows
even for terrorists. Nobody has been executed, except Eichmann, and
now we are putting an end to torture. We are making an
unprecedented effort to restore human rights.
Ziad Abu-Zayyad: We were expecting on the issue of Jerusalem
IDs that the new government would change the former policy. Under
the Netanyahu government, the minister of the interior adopted a
policy of ethnic cleansing, in which many people were forced to
leave the city after losing their ID cards. People are living in
fear because they cannot go to the Ministry for any official
business. Mr. Sharansky said he would change the policy, but until
now we have not seen a real change. I hope he will do this, because
in the end the victims who were suffering from the former policy
were both Jerusalem Arabs and Russian immigrants.
Shimon Peres (in reply to a question from the floor): I
think that the Palestinians, like us, have open media and have the
choice of reading all the papers and watching every television
channel. I heard almost with pleasure from a friend the explanation
of what happened with the arrest of the people who protested.
Corruption exists in many countries; democracy is the place where
you fight corruption and if you have people who fight corruption,
however few, it's a good beginning. The same with censorship -
there was an attempt to introduce it, but Arafat gave it up. But
young people today attend two schools, one normal school imposed by
their parents and the other of their own choice, the television.
They are being educated more by TV than by their teachers. So we
are trying to have joint Israeli and Arab television for the
children. The problems are old; the progress is new.
Ziad Abu-Zayyad: In general, I have been speaking to the
Israeli public since 1968 and there is a list of traditional
arguments by those who oppose peace. The school curriculum issue is
one of these. After 1967, the Civil Administration reviewed all the
Jordanian textbooks in the West Bank and revised them, replacing
terms like "the Zionist enemy" with the term "Israel." All the
anti-Israel terminology was changed. When the PNA came, we were not
yet ready to write new textbooks, so we formed a committee of the
Ministry of Education and it started first to plan the approach and
then to work on books, which are still not ready. We are using the
old books with a new PNA label. The same books are used in
Jerusalem schools and the municipality places their stickers over
ours. Nevertheless, we are accused by people who are against the
peace process and against the PNA of inciting against
Israelis.
Now one cannot change the Koran, as one cannot change the Torah or
the Mishna or the Talmud. But we do not concentrate in our
textbooks on writings which incite, and I challenge anyone to
examine the textbooks and prove otherwise.
Shimon Peres: In the domain of people-to-people, we have a
group of 60 leaders who meet frequently, with leaders also coming
from Jordan and Egypt. We've had a joint theater group, we are
planning joint television and we want to establish common
electronic communications centers, etc. We have to overcome a
difficult past, with youth that is not free of skepticism, and
though there is a long way ahead, I am sure we will succeed.