On December 28, 2006, the Palestine-Israel Journal (PIJ) held a
roundtable discussion at the American Colony Hotel in East
Jerusalem on the role of the international community in the
Israel-Palestine peace process. The participants were Mr. Ghassan
al-Khatib, former minister in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and
director of the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC);
Mr. Reuven Merhav, former director general of the Israeli Foreign
Ministry and member of the executive board of the Council for Peace
and Security; Mr. Ziad AbuZayyad, PIJ co-editor and former member
of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC); Mr. Gadi Baltiansky,
director general of "Education for Peace Ltd." (Geneva Peace
Initiative), former press secretary for Prime Minister Ehud Barak
(1999-2001) and press counselor at the Israeli Embassy in
Washington; and Mr. Roy Dickinson, EU Head of Operations European
Commission Technical Assistance Office (West Bank and the Gaza
Strip). The moderators were journalist Nasser Atta and PIJ
co-editor Hillel Schenker.
Hillel Schenker: I would like to welcome you all to this roundtable
discussion on the role of the international community in trying to
promote the Israel-Palestine peace process. We think this theme is
very timely now in the wake of recent developments. Following the
UN resolution at the end of the war in Lebanon, the Iraq Study
Group report and the fact that everybody is trying to get the ball
moving, the key question is: What role can the international
community play?
Reuven Merhav: We have seen a very important transformation in the
role of the international community in the last century and also
the first years of this century. There is a great lesson to be
learned: less direct involvement - some people would say
interference - by the international community in local conflicts,
and more of the creation of an environment - legal, economic and
regulatory - that will give the adversaries a plethora of
advantages in all spheres, which will overshadow the existing
reality. While one cannot avoid the existing realties here, which
are actually two national movements competing over a small plot of
land, we have seen similar situations in Europe in which nations or
countries that competed over a tract of land came to the
realization that creating a climate that benefits all is better
than continuing the ongoing strife. This doesn't mean that they
reached a paradise in terms of international relations, but they
did reach manageable relations, which will eventually create a very
positive environment. I would like to draw your attention to some
examples.
My family were refugees from Germany, who left at the last moment
before it was too late. My late aunt was a pupil in a girls' lyceum
in the eastern part of Germany during the First World War. When a
teacher entered the class, all the girls would rise and say, "Let
the Lord punish France, let the Lord punish England." Some 80 years
later, I was consul general of Israel in Hong Kong, and the German
consul general told me that he'd just gotten news of a new army
division with Frenchmen and Germans serving together, and I thought
to myself: Here we are 80 or 70 years after 1916 and this is what
they are doing.
Take Brussels, the capital of Europe for all practical purposes.
The benefits Belgium got from this far overshadow the differences
between the Flemish and the Walloons. There were many difficulties
between them, but this is the new reality.
The last example is, of course, Ireland and Britain. With the EU
and the huge benefits that Ireland derived from joining it, the
incentive to continue fighting was diminished.
Nasser Atta: Ghassan al-Khatib, do you think that the international
community is on the right track?
Ghassan al-Khatib: No, I think that the international community is
on the wrong path vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict. This
conflict is unique and it is very difficult to draw parallel
examples. We have to learn from history and from other experiences,
but we have to appreciate the uniqueness of this conflict. One of
the characteristics here is that when the two sides of the conflict
are left to their own devices, the conflict deepens, and matters
deteriorate in terms of relations, economic conditions and increase
in violence. It was only when there was third-party involvement
that possibilities arose for stemming the deterioration or
encouraging progress towards possible solutions. The reason is
simple: There is a great imbalance of power between Israelis and
Palestinians. So when the two sides are on their own, Israelis
believe that, by virtue of their superiority in all respects, they
are at an advantage and can impose whatever solution or situation
they like. Whereas the Palestinians have a different way of
thinking - which is changing, but they will not accept an
arrangement that is based on the balance of power. Thus, whenever
we are alone, we fight fiercely; and whenever we move in the right
direction, we do that with the help of third-party intervention and
international community involvement. That's why I think that by
adopting a non-interventionist attitude, the international
community was, in a sense, responsible for the deterioration in the
situation during the last four to six years. And that is why we
have to encourage the international community to intervene.
We also have problems with the quality of intervention. The
international community treats this conflict differently from
others. First, when dealing with our conflict, the international
community is not sensitive to international law. Even Europe, which
usually prides itself on its adherence to international law,
compromises on its principles when it comes to this conflict.
Still, it is much more correct compared to American policy here.
Second, the international community limits itself to verbal
positions or resolutions, while in other conflicts it takes much
more forceful action. The international community was able to reach
an agreement on the Lebanon War and immediately moved to enforce
the resolution, including sending military forces. This is how the
international community has been dealing with many conflicts,
except ours. The lack of sensitivity to international legality and
the lack of willingness to enforce UN Security Council resolutions
are the problematic aspects of the international treatment of this
conflict.
Nasser Atta: What is the best scenario to bring back international
involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Gadi Baltiansky: I believe that when we speak about the
international community in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict
and the efforts to resolve it in the last decades, I think we are
actually speaking about the U.S. All negotiations that have taken
place were either direct bilateral negotiations, like Oslo, or
under American auspices. Certainly in the case of Israel and Syria,
and in most cases between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it's a
nice code name, the international community, but the truth is that
it's the U.S. There were other players that touched different
angles of the issue. Europe described itself many times as a payer
and not a player. The fact is that, at the table, we only found the
Americans. UN Resolution 242, of almost 40 years ago, was a real
effort by the international community to suggest a solution to this
conflict. But since then, all real efforts were undertaken by the
U.S., and the others dealt only with the process itself.
I believe what we are seeing now is the decline of the level of
U.S. involvement. We see a kind of vacuum. It's been exactly six
years without any negotiations between Israelis and Arabs since
Taba. Part of this is due to the fact the U.S. is much less
involved. This trend could be reversed by future American
administrations, or by others, mainly by the Europeans. I believe
that now there is a kind of a different approach, or at least a
different approach within Israel vis-à-vis Europe. The
question is whether Europe is willing to really try to fill this
vacuum.
Nasser Atta: Mr. AbuZayyad, Who do you think the Palestinians would
like to fill the vacuum created by the disengagement of the U.S.
and the international community from the conflict?
Ziad AbuZayyad: The dealing of the international community with the
Palestinian cause covered three different stages. The first, from
1948 until 1967, totally ignored the political aspect of the
Palestinian issue. The Palestinian issue was seen only as a refugee
problem and there were even attempts to liquidate UNRWA. The second
stage was between 1967 and 2000, when the U.S. blocked any active
international involvement in support of the Palestinians. The U.S.
administration raised the slogan "Do not disturb the peace process"
even when there was no real peace process going on. The only period
when there was a genuine attempt by the American administration to
solve the problem was during President Bill Clinton's tenure. He
tried, but the time was not propitious. During the last six years,
from 2000 until now, since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada,
the international community has stood by and just watched.
Hamas's victory in the elections switched on a red light among the
international community that the "fanatics and the extremists" are
taking over. They feared the rise of the Islamic movement and
thought it was time to intervene.
Initially it was Britain's Tony Blair who started talking about
international involvement and about a role for Europe, followed by
the recent proposals of the Spanish and French leaders. While this
international consensus was building, Israel was moving, with U.S.
help, to exploit the internal Palestinian political turmoil and
pressuring President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to engage in
bilateral relations with Israel's prime minister. It is a mistake
on the part of the Palestinian leadership not to deal more
seriously with Europe's call for an international peace conference
and international involvement, and to initiate instead bilateral
contacts with Israel and re-embark on side-effect issues such as
the release of prisoners and the opening of blocked roads inside
the Palestinian territories. It is true that the lives of the
Palestinians are very bad and we are heading towards a humanitarian
disaster, but the efforts should deal with the roots of the problem
and not the side effects. We should be pressuring the U.S. and
pushing towards an international peace conference, and getting all
sides of the Middle East conflict, including Syria, Lebanon, the
Palestinians and Israel, to the negotiating table aiming to achieve
a comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
Nasser Atta: Who's filling the vacuum?
Ziad AbuZayyad: Europe is a rising power. No one can ignore its
growing role in the politics of this region and the world. Europe
should realize its potential and not underestimate its power. The
future of Europe and this region are directly linked, and Europe's
stability is affected by the stability of this region. We realize
that they will not be a substitute for the U.S., but they can work
together with the U.S.
Reuven Merhav: I think we should not only concentrate on
governments. Public opinion is very important, and we cannot ignore
what happened in Israel and the images which come from this region,
be it on the Palestinian side or on the Israeli side. One of the
most dramatic decisions within the Israeli body politic was taken
by Ariel Sharon, who back in December 2002 understood that Israel
faced a crossroad - that we had to do something to cut the Gordian
Knot. This was the evacuation of the settlements in Gaza, and a
very important precedent was set. This is now a part of the
political history after 1967. So when Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
now publishes her program - two states more or less on the 1967
lines more or less - what does it mean? Had she mentioned it 20
years ago in her party, she would have been crucified. This is a
major change that came about inside the Israeli body politic.
Hillel Schenker: Mr. Dickinson, do you see Europe taking an
independent role apart from the U.S., and do you see them being
able to influence the U.S.?
Roy Dickinson: Taking up the point made by Ambassador Merhav, I
think it is quite interesting to look at European history, at how
the EU was forged, to see what lessons can be drawn. The
relationship between France and Germany, after several centuries of
deep animosity, in creating a peaceful, stable, united and
prosperous Europe can't be underestimated. First, although I agree
that without mediation, progress here will be very difficult, the
development of the EU was largely unmediated. Those outside the
France-Germany axis played a supportive but not decisive role.
Nobody forced the sides to negotiate, no one from the outside
imposed a solution on France and Germany. Instead, the impetus was
given by major political figures, from visionary personalities,
from France and Germany themselves. So the project of European
integration was a locally devised solution to European insecurity
and instability.
Second, it was not about the negotiation of a peace treaty, but
about how to create a Europe in which conflict in the future would
be simply unthinkable. It wasn't primarily political in nature at
the beginning. It was primarily economic. The founders of the
European project saw that creating economic interdependence,
through the free movement of people, goods, services and capital
was key to putting in place a sustainable solution.
Third, and although the Franco-German axis was and remains at the
heart of the European project, the founding fathers saw that it was
absolutely necessary also to involve other partners, Italy and the
Benelux countries, as part of the vision of a new Europe, and to
create a wider zone of interdependence and security.
Turning to the role of the international community in the Middle
East, we still tend to talk about "the International Community" as
if it is a monolithic entity or group with a single vision. But the
reality can be seen differently. The EU's vision veers more towards
a multi-polar world with many actors acting in concert but in
pursuit of common broad objectives. In that context, many Europeans
would like to see a more assertive EU, not in competition with the
U.S., but as a complement to it in certain ways where the U.S. is
not able to act effectively. So when we apply this to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then the international community
articulates a vision through UN Security Council resolutions, but
there are still many players in this game, with different
approaches or comparative advantages. Perhaps then we should look
at the different roles of different international communities in
the Middle East peace process and move away from the idea that
there is a single international voice.
It is true that over the past 20 years or so, the EU itself has
been trying to forge an identity, for example through the
development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy, which enables
it to take a more decisive role on the world stage. This does not
imply competing with the U.S. or trying to replace it. If it is
perceived that in the Middle East there is a vacuum in terms of
U.S. leadership, nobody should expect that Europe is going to
provide a Kissinger or a Baker, or that we will act in the same
way. Europe's role is different and its way of working distinct.
Europe is based on the projection of soft power, the U.S. on the
basis of hard power. That colors very strongly the capacity of the
EU to be strongly involved and the nature of its involvement, and
that should inform what the parties expect from the EU.
Ghassan al-Khatib: The international community is represented as
far as the Palestinian -Israeli conflict is concerned by the UN
General Assembly and the Security Council. The international
community has a specific vision that is concrete and not haphazard.
We have the Quartet as well. This Quartet not only dealt verbally
with the issue but also came up with a concrete plan called the
Road Map. The problem is that they never put any political capital
into seeing it materialize - they just issued it and left it to the
parties, which is not good enough.
This lack of intervention by the international community is not
just a negative attitude; in my view, it's an indirect way of
influencing the conflict. When the international community,
especially the U.S., decides to refrain from intervening, it is a
decision to leave the Palestinian side at the mercy of the stronger
party. This is not neutral behavior; it is biased. It suggests that
Israel should handle the situation by force. When Washington
decided on behalf of the international community to refrain from
any interference in Sharon's unilateral strategy, it was a license
for Sharon to proceed with his plan. The catastrophe we are living
in now, whether in Israeli-Palestinian relations or on the internal
Palestinian arena, is in my view an outcome of this policy.
When the Palestinian people elected a government that the
international community correctly accused of not adhering to
international law and legality, it decided to punish the government
by cutting off funds. By the same token, the counter-argument is
that, while we might understand the behavior of the international
community, we have difficulty understanding why it's directed only
at the Palestinian side. Israel is violating international law
openly and in many tangible ways. The wall, or the part of it that
is being built on Palestinian land, is a very clear example. All
European countries consider this a violation of international law
and of the recommendation of the International Court of Justice at
the Hague and the UN General Assembly. Now we are confronted with
another example, the new settlement in the Jordan Rift Valley.
However, this does not goad the international community, including
Europe, to act against the Israeli government. This double standard
is another example of the problematic way in which the
international community is treating this conflict. The
international community, particularly Europe and the U.S., treat
Israel in a special way that is different from the way they treat
any other country and, consequently, any other conflict. This is
because of historical issues and strategic interests. This approach
is backfiring and is partially responsible for the radicalization
in Palestinian society and in Europe itself, where more than 20
million Muslims seem to be influenced by what is happening in the
Middle East.
Gadi Baltiansky: I think it would be a mistake for Palestinians and
Israelis to wait for an imposed solution from the outside. I doubt
such a thing will happen, and I'm not sure it's a good thing for
either party. By waiting for an imposed solution from the outside
you miss opportunities. You allow those who are opposed to become
more active, and the situation on the ground will only deteriorate.
I believe that the main effort should be taken by both parties, and
I disagree with the notion that the two parties themselves cannot
reach a solution; the mainstream on both sides are not so far away.
Not to have direct bilateral talks even without third-party
intervention would be a mistake.
The second point is that international involvement is not always
possible. The Road Map is a future plan; it's not a solution. It
was tailor-made for Arafat and Sharon, and then it became something
you can hide behind if you don't want any progress. We all know
that the first stage of the Road Map is not something that both
sides can, or will, implement on the ground. And if you insist that
without implementing the first stage you cannot go to the second
stage, then it means no progress. If the international community
and the Quartet will stick to this Road Map, without rethinking it,
without even updating the dates, it means that they don't take it
seriously. So the first step is to reshape the Road Map.
Theoretically we are not yet at the first stage of the Road Map.
The majority of the Israeli public, parliament and government
support the separation of the land into two states, and most of the
Israeli political parties talk about more or less the same
solution, which is not very far from the solution foreseen by Abu
Mazen. There are gaps, but they're not that far apart. Knowing
those views, just waiting for the first stage of the Road Map to be
implemented is ridiculous and counter-productive. Here the EU can
play a role. Israel has never met with the Quartet as such. The EU
special envoy resides in Brussels, not in the region. I think the
EU should reconsider this. The feeling among the parties is that if
the third parties don't take themselves seriously, how could we?
The test is the Road Map and starting from the second stage.
There is a growing interest in the international community to try
to solve this conflict - also against the background of what's
going on in Iran. Iran is seen as a threat, not only to Israel.
More and more people realize that solving the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict can be part of the answer to Iran.
It's almost unthinkable that the international community, led by
the U.S., the EU and the UN will not take a more active role - not
in imposing a solution, but in helping both sides negotiate a
solution that is already more or less known and agreed upon.
Ziad AbuZayyad: We have to differentiate between the international
community and international legitimacy. International legitimacy is
the UN and its resolutions. The international community, with all
its diversity and contradictory interests, is facing the threat of
a real explosion in this part of the world. The interests of the
different groups are becoming more and more interlocked. I do not
deny the importance of the American role. Without the U.S., Europe
may not be capable of doing anything. Therefore, we are looking
forward to seeing the Europeans take the initiative but, at the
same time, getting American approval for it. The U.S. will not let
Europe go it alone, in spite of the fact that the Americans are in
great difficulty now in various parts of the world. This
administration has practically destroyed the role of the U.S. as a
world leader, but hopefully, in the coming years, the U.S. - with a
new president - will perhaps change.
About Gadi's reference to bilateralism, it is true that if two
parties have a problem, they have to discuss it bilaterally and
directly. But this does not work in our case: We are weak and we
are under occupation. Four days ago there was a meeting between
Abbas and Olmert. They agreed on not taking any unilateral steps
which may jeopardize the outcome of negotiations over final-status
issues. And then, all of a sudden, Olmert decided to establish a
new settlement in the Jordan Rift Valley. So if you speak about
direct talks between Israel and Palestine, we are not equal
partners. We do not have the symmetry in power that would enable us
to be equal partners. We need a third-party mediation to bring the
parties to a solution.
Our problem with the Americans was that they were always saying: We
will facilitate the meetings; we will bring the Israelis and the
Palestinians together, but we will not pressure any side. This
voided the U.S. role of substance. I don't know if the Road Map is
still alive or not. I believe that it has to be revisited and
re-discussed because it is not useful. Israel succeeded in killing
the first stage of the Road Map by raising side issues like
"destroying the infrastructures of terror." The Road Map should be
revisited and updated, or, maybe we need to replace it with a peace
agreement with timetables and implementation mechanisms. We cannot
wait another five years because there is a lot of bloodshed and
destruction on both sides. We have to put a stop to all that and to
build a different kind of life, a different set of relations
between Israelis and Palestinians.
Hillel Schenker: I've been looking at this empty chair and I think
that symbolizes the empty chair in the role of the international
community. And I am referring to the U.S. When Bush was elected, he
had no interest in international affairs. His approach was
isolationist. It was 9/11 which made him create an agenda, and that
agenda was totally unilateral, very parallel to what Sharon was
doing. That approach has failed. Even the American voters in the
last mid-term elections said: It has failed; we need another
policy. The Iraq Study Group came forward with proposals for more
multilateralism, for more engagement. So my question is: To what
degree do you think there is a possibility that the Americans will
change their policy, and what would you recommend that the
Americans do now?
Reuven Merhav: I would like to say something about the previous
issue and then to the question. Every party uses legality for its
own needs. International legality is a very flexible thing. The
U.S. Congress passed a resolution mandating the administration to
move the embassy to Jerusalem and the president issues an executive
order every six months to defer it.
I don't represent the Israeli government; nor does Gadi Baltiansky.
I can only say that settlements can be dismantled and they will be
dismantled. Just as the Palestinians have their own political game,
the Israelis have theirs. So if Olmert wants to stabilize his
government he brings Avigdor Lieberman in. Don't forget that
Sharon, who built Yamit to a certain extent, destroyed it. The
Americans' attention span is limited. If they deal with Iraq and
Afghanistan, their hands are full. They have also the problems of
security in the U.S. To add on top of these the Middle East
problems, not to mention Iran - this is too much for them. The most
stupid thing is that they're not talking with Syria. Syria is a
major issue.
Gadi Baltiansky: On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I believe that
the U.S. will not act against the will of the Israeli government,
but I believe that Bush, when he approaches the end of his second
term, will have a very problematic legacy on foreign issues. And
when he thinks about where he can leave a positive impact, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the possibilities. I'm not
talking about an end-of-conflict, or reaching the final- status
agreement within the next couple of years, but leaving some kind of
a beginning of the translation of the Bush vision into reality.
Leaving a vacuum in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, with the growing
danger of Iran and with the mess in Iraq, is something that I
believe Bush doesn't want to do. This is not against the will of
this Israeli government because it wants to reach progress on peace
between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe they want to negotiate
and are willing to make concessions. As long as Abbas is the head
of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, I believe it is an
opportunity that Bush cannot afford to miss.
Ziad AbuZayyad: Reuven said something very important: that Bush's
biggest mistake is not talking to Syria. Syria can play an
important role in helping the U.S. get out of Iraq, and the U.S.
can play a role in helping Syria break away from Iran's influence.
This can be done if the American administration rethinks how to go
about solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem. What is happening at
the moment is the opposite. Prime Minister Olmert is ignoring the
signals coming from Damascus simply because he doesn't want to
offend his American allies. As Bush considers Syria part of "the
axis of evil," Olmert doesn't want to come out overtly and publicly
against U.S. policy. Will this be U.S. policy over the next two
years? Or will the U.S., under the pressure of a timeline for
pulling out of Iraq, change direction and think how to deal with
the Palestinian problem differently? Here lies the importance of
the European initiative. The Europeans have the Baker-Hamilton
Report; they have the new U.S. Congress and they have the growing
demand on Bush to get out of Iraq. They can take the initiative and
get the Americans to be allies - working with the Europeans, not
against them. This is not a lost case. There is hope.
Roy Dickinson: I worked for two years in Brussels on EU-U.S.
relations and know how complex that relationship can be. So I'm
wary about being drawn into comments on U.S. policy! But I do sense
that the vision of EU involvement in this region is becoming more
ambitious. As partners' expectations about our involvement here
grow, we are developing the capacity to become more involved in
more active ways. It is clear that there are differences in policy
between the EU and the U.S. You only have to look at recent UN
General Assembly resolutions. The 25 member states of the EU, as
well as many of its partners, voted one way on some issues and the
U.S. another way. We are not frightened to disagree with the U.S.,
but we shouldn't see those disagreements as symptomatic of a chasm
between the U.S. and EU, or a widespread belief in Europe that the
EU should pursue a radically different policy from the U.S. and
become separated from it in the future in the pursuit of shared
aims. As I said before, we use different types of power in
different ways. That's the reason the Quartet exists. There is an
increasing realization on the part of the U.S. that the EU has a
useful and distinctive role to play which can complement its own
role.
The EU is very consistent on its strong support for the relevant
Security Council resolutions and has been very consistent with
regard to illegal settlements, the wall and so on. But the way that
the U.S. is engaged with Israel is a unique relationship, and you
shouldn't expect the EU's engagement with Israel to work in the
same way or have the same impact. In Palestine, we have seen that
the European Community has taken steps to withdraw financial
support for the Palestinian government. With regard to Israel,
matters are more complex. We do not give such financial assistance
to Israel, so if we wish to exert pressure or leverage our
policies, that's not a possibility. The EU has used economic
sanctions in certain cases, but there's a discussion about their
effectiveness. And although the EU is by far Israel's biggest
single trading partner, economic sanctions would be an extremely
blunt political weapon. We have not used this instrument with
Israel, nor, for that matter, with Palestine; even after this
year's elections, and despite the suspension of financial support
for the government, we still trade with Palestine. The EU is still
searching for ways of exercising its influence to its full
potential, and we are not yet in a situation where we do that
fully.
But our assistance is clearly a vital part of what we do to promote
peace. EU assistance for Palestinians is not given just out of
humanitarian concern, but because we believe very strongly that if
you give Palestinians greater prosperity, if you give Israelis and
Palestinians a shared vision of how they can cooperate in economic
terms, it will begin to chip away at the underlying causes, the
political causes of the conflict. Poverty is one of the primary
causes of radicalization, not only in the Middle East but in the
entire world. We do believe, therefore, that the assistance that we
give is extremely important in chipping away at one of the major
causes for the conflict.
Nasser Atta: Do you see a shift in U.S. policy in the Middle East?
Do you see them adopting the Baker-Hamilton Report?
Roy Dickinson: I think things are moving quite quickly and there is
a sense that progress might be around the corner. There are
opportunities coming up that could produce rapid changes in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Others around this table have
identified U.S. credibility as a key issue at the current time. And
if U.S. credibility in the region continues to be perceived as an
issue, perhaps that is why there is around this table a sense of
urgency about the way the EU could get more involved, should
American policy change so that a more significant mediating role
for the EU is required.
Ziad AbuZayyad: I want to make it very clear that, although there
was no mention in this discussion about the Russian role, or the
role of other major countries, like China or Japan, this should not
be misconstrued as an underestimation of their role. On the
contrary, we believe that Russia can play a very important role
within the Quartet as well as unilaterally because of its relations
with Iran and Syria.
As co-editor of the PIJ, I want to stress the fact that we at the
PIJ highly appreciate the role of the EU and, as a Palestinian, I
highly appreciate the [EU] role in helping the Palestinian people,
and we encourage their activities in bringing Israelis and
Palestinians together. Our journal could not have continued its
efforts over the last 10 years without the support and
encouragement of the EU.
Gadi Baltiansky: At the end of the day, agreements will be signed
by the leaderships of both sides, but I believe that they can be
influenced a lot by two main players, the peace camp and the
international community. This coalition can help the leadership to
reach an agreement. While we in the peace camp do it out of selfish
reasons, because we want a better life for ourselves and our
children, it is not a given that everyone else in the world will
help us. I want to join Ziad in appreciating the role of the
Europeans and others who help us in this. It shouldn't be taken for
granted. I can see an effort in the next few years to build a
coalition of countries, organizations, of societies that want to
change the Middle East for the better, towards a more peaceful and
secure region. Such a coalition should include Syria, can include
many others in the region, but first and foremost should include
Israelis and Palestinians. If the international community focuses
on building this coalition, using existing models for future peace
agreements, including the Arab League Initiative and the Geneva
Initiative; if this road is taken, I think there is room for
optimism and for hope.
Roy Dickinson: The EU is very proud of its work to support
dialogue. We are convinced the solution to the conflict has to rest
primarily with the two societies, and we will support Palestinians
and Israelis to get together, on all levels, governmental and
non-governmental, whenever we can.
Nasser Atta: Last year, the most significant thing I covered as a
journalist was Hamas's victory on January 25. The second thing was
in Beirut covering the Israeli-Lebanese war. I would love to be
optimistic, but just seeing the two events and their results, it is
very clear that things are not going in the right direction. I know
the Americans have their hands full, but seeing what I saw last
year and predicting what will happen in 2007, I believe we are
headed towards a major problem regarding this conflict if the U.S.,
the UN, the EU and other forces will not intervene.
Hillel Schenker: 2007 may contain great dangers, but also contains
great opportunities, and it's up to the Israelis and Palestinians,
with the help of the international community, to take advantage of
the opportunities. As the Israeli co-editor of the PIJ, I'd like to
second what Ziad said about our great appreciation for EU support
for dialogue efforts. I would like to thank the panelists for what
has been a very constructive, stimulating and productive
roundtable.