A Palestinian-Israeli encounter on Prospects
for Peace in the Middle East
HE Afif Safieh and Yael Dayan

On the evening of the ninth day of the seminar, PASSIA hosted an evening reception for all involved, as well as for representatives of Palestinian institutions, the diplomatic corps in Jerusalem/Jericho and friends of PASSIA. As part of the 1996 reception, PASSIA invited HE Afif Safieh, PLO Representative to the UK and to the Vatican, and Yael Dayan, Member of Knesset, for a Palestinian-Israeli encounter on Prospects for Peace in the Middle East. The event took place on Tuesday, 17 December 1996, at the Ambassador Hotel in Jerusalem, prior to the reception, and was attended by some 120 guests.


Summary:

Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi:

Thank you for coming to this meeting, which comes as part of the PASSIA seminar on educating new graduates in the field of foreign affairs. This year’s seminar covers the foreign policies of Arab countries, and believe me, it comes at exactly the right time. Now is the perfect time to gather all of these Palestinian graduates from all over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to learn about the various foreign policies and the related Palestinian stand. In December 1992 we held a similar seminar titled Strategy and Security Studies, with an emphasis on security issues.

Afif Safieh’s first visit to the homeland in December 93 was a very joyful, wonderful occasion, and we were delighted to welcome him back to Jerusalem. His arrival coincided with that of President Arafat, but the happiness, the joy, and the hope was not complete. We realized that we needed to bring in a partner, but this partner in the peace process, as I see it, has now been lost. The partner was the Labor party, representing half of the Israeli population, prior to the assassination of Rabin. Today we need this partner; there is a real conflict in which we need to be able to talk to each other, share ideas, and think together about the current situation in Jerusalem and what will happen to the Palestinians during the transitional phase.

After Yael and Afif have spoken, the floor will be left open for discussion. This will be followed by a reception in honor of our young graduates, who, together, form a cadre of young Palestinian diplomats, which will work in the name of the future Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. We would love to share Jerusalem, and for it to be an open free city, with two peoples, two capitals, two flags, and mutual recognition. In addition to Jerusalem, the West Bank, also, should be open, so as to prevent the isolation of Palestine.

It is a great honor and pleasure to welcome Yael Dayan, a member of the Knesset, as well as my colleague Afif Safieh, a genuine Palestinian, who has returned to Jerusalem.

MK Yael Dayan:

Shalom, masa’a al-kheir, and good evening to all of you, and to those who are celebrating Christmas very soon, a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I would like to begin by saying that my partner and I have a long history together, which began when it was still illegal and virtually impossible. Originally it was not very joyful, because the first meetings we had were held in the absence of real trust. I was not comfortable, but we had to go through this phase in order to talk as equals. Although we recognized the existence of problems and arguments, there was always the sense that we shared the same bottom line. Perhaps Afif Safieh most accurately described the stages of our relationship when he said that a long time ago he actually rather liked me, although it was easier at the beginning because he loved to hate me. Then it became very difficult because he hated to love me. Now I think we love each other, and we have had a long talk on hate-love relations. I would like to say, basically, that I don’t think you will hear or witness a real debate of the kind we had before. Hopefully, you are also not going to witness two failure stories.

We are not here to commiserate with my friend Afif Safieh or my host Dr. Abdul Hadi, because I think that for a while, after Rabin’s assassination, we were in a state of shock, and we are still in a state of mourning. We are also still in a state of great rage; we know exactly what this murder signifies, because it is not only connected to the peace process, but also to Israeli democracy. There is a lot of grief. It was not a question of new elections or a new prime minister; protecting the life of a man is difficult enough, but protecting the life of Israeli democracy, the way things are today, is going to prove even more difficult.

For a while we were really commiserating, we were sitting and saying how awful it was and what was likely to happen. Eventually, however, despair turned into concern for the future, and the intention to fight on its behalf. I would not call the present feeling optimism, but there exists a kind of clarity regarding our vision of the future, and the notion that our achievements to date are irreversible. The future will be determined by the will of the people.

After the assassination, and according to the democratic process, Likud replaced Labor. I believe that what stands between us and the next war, and us and the impossible idea of not having a Palestinian state, is the very strong will of the Israelis and the Palestinians, the existence of which has been proven by polls. Even if we put the polls aside, (remember the elections are not a poll in which people choose between peace and war), I really believe that both people know very well what our future is as neighbors. We do not know where, exactly, the borders will be, and we have many things to negotiate and debate, but there is no question in the mind of the Palestinian majority, and in the mind of its Israeli counterpart, that at the end of the day we are going to have a Palestinian state, and we are going to find solutions to all the in-between things that are still being negotiated.

We are probably going through the worst ever period, because we were given hope, and we had given the Palestinian and Israeli (Labor) leaderships a good head start. Some Israelis ask, "Is this the peace we were promised?" and I answer, "No, we are still not there." We are not there, but we know where are we going; it is a very clear road, but we cannot afford to stall.

What we have now is a situation in which Netanyahu is unable to break away from his commitment to the Oslo agreements, not at the end of the day as I see it, concerning a Palestinian state, nor a solution to the refugees problem, nor a division or an agreement on East and West Jerusalem as two capitals for two peoples, but on the whole notion of ending the occupation, separating Palestine from Israel and remaining committed to the Oslo Accords until reaching the final status negotiations. I really believe that Netanyahu has no way out of it. The problem is "the pace," the insecurity of the person himself.

We had no problems - our voters were backing us. Netanyahu is - and this is not an excuse - having problems, but not with us, from whom he derives backing and support, in the parliament and in the streets; we will go and demonstrate for him and with him on every little step that he takes towards the implementation of Oslo. Netanyahu has problems with his own voters; he cannot simply stand up and say, "Forget Oslo," because that would lead to a problem with the majority of Israelis, the US and North America, the European countries and the entire Arab World. He is stuck but his hands are not tied; he is an elected prime minister with the full authority to do everything he wants. He cannot say he does not want to do it, or that he is not committed to doing it. I am saying that there is something missing in his personality, let us call it leadership or integrity of leadership. He does not want war. He is afraid, he is moving and speaking, he is having his photo taken; for him, the entire world is some kind of a photo opportunity. We are not able to stop him because we certainly do not want him to withdraw his commitment to the Oslo agreement.

The existence of optimism amongst the Israelis will, I believe, help Netanyahu. It will help him to re-deploy in Hebron, which I believe he is going to do. He will, however, have to understand the meaning of settlements. I think he understands he can waste words, but he cannot waste our lives and dreams or intentions: he does not have the freedom to do so, nor does he have the right to change the prospect of peace and an improved world economy into the prospect of war. Yes, I think he understands, but the question is, how are we going to push him into acting? We are going to do what is within our power to remove the major obstacles. I believe the PNA is doing everything in its power to remove obstacles from the Palestinian side, for terror does to Israelis what settlements do to Palestinians. We cannot really move forward when a state of mistrust or disbelief exists. Neither side is really attempting to advance towards what was agreed upon. I believe there will be no additional settlements; and if there are, we are going to demonstrate and attempt to prevent their construction in every possible way.

I am not going to give advice; I have too much confidence in the business of peace. The Oslo agreements are stronger than their details. We have to go step by step. I question whether the current government is capable of reaching further agreements. The Prime Minister does not include Palestine in his vision. The problem is that the Prime Minister thinks that trust and confidence are the condition of peace and not its consequence: we need security first, and then, as a result confidence, and then, finally, also as a result, peace. We oppose this because it does not work this way. Our notion is to build security and confidence as the base and as a result peace. Netanyahu thinks differently. My hope is that Netanyahu’s government will be replaced, so as to allow the realization of the peace that our two peoples deserve. My hope is that we will achieve the two-state solution.

HE Afif Safieh:

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: Yael robbed me of my opening lines, of how when we first met I loved hating her, and then how I hated loving her. You know there is this popular saying, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?" Allow me, Yael, knowing that you support a two-state solution, to reverse the question and ask, "With enemies like that, who needs friends?"

I for one naively thought that the Washington Summit would lead to a kind of an agreement concerning the disputed issues. Why did I, Afif Safieh, think this was possible? The answer is because I thought that, for the very first time, all of the pieces of the puzzle were in the right place at exactly the right time.

The first piece in the puzzle was the fact that scientifically conducted Israeli polls had revealed that there was widespread disapproval of the newly elected Prime Minister’s policies vis-à-vis the peace process, and especially the way in which he managed the crisis that erupted after the tunnel incident. Some leading commentators in Israel had questioned his ability to lead, and they were uncomfortable with his policies for working with issues connected to the Palestinian problem.

The second piece of the puzzle comes from inside the ruling coalition itself, where various members have shown discontent with the way Netanyahu has handled the recent crisis.

The third piece of the puzzle was the fact that he didn’t listen to his security services, and that the fact that he was more aware of the regional policies of the US than those of his own country added to the mounting discontent.

The fourth component of the puzzle was the fact that among Jewish Diaspora communities, especially among the American Jewish community, scientifically conducted polls showed that 60% of Jews outside were uncomfortable, uneasy and unconvinced that the attitude of the newly elected government was wise, sages and all the rest. This means that if President Clinton, for once, had taken an assertive position against Israel, he would not have been faced with the opposition of the Jewish lobby and he would been supported by many an ally within the pro-Israeli lobby.

The fifth component was the fact that Europe, which had been marginalized in 1991 when we were pre-negotiating the negotiating exercise, was no longer content to merely continue its role as a financier of the peace process and was demanding, with our encouragement, to have a say in the geopolitical geo-strategic equation. You all remember the Chiraq visit and Rifkind’s speech and all the rest. The argument in Europe was that the US used to say, because of the bipolar system, that there was a price to pay for the protective American umbrella, and the Europeans have accepted a sort of junior status in the international arena. But there were voices in Europe that were saying: now that there is no longer neither a nuclear nor a conventional Soviet threat, we need to re-negotiate the trans-Atlantic partnership, making it a more equal partnership.

The sixth component that was encouraging was the fact that the Arab world, especially after the Cairo Summit, has become more cohesive than it was after the Gulf crisis of l990. This new cohesion of the Arab system was publicly and unanimously in favor of the peace process including its Oslo component, approved for the first time by Syria and Libya, although the Arabs were still emphasizing that they wanted a just peace based on UN resolutions.

The seventh factor was the fact that Clinton was a candidate in the presidential elections and had a comfortable lead vis-à-vis his opponent Bob Dole, who never posed a serious threat to the re-election of Clinton. Therefore, he could have played a more effective role during the Washington Summit. Unfortunately, another good opportunity was missed.

What I would like to say today, ladies and gentlemen, is that if we, the local regional actors, are left to ourselves, unfortunately we will never reach an acceptable compromise, for a variety of reasons, but mainly because the military forces will always have the upper hand. I believe there is a very decisive need for external forces: the role of third parties is indispensable if we hope to reach an acceptable compromise. Today we are living in an international system that is no longer bipolar, and this being the case, we need to win public opinion; until now, I confess, we have failed to win the support of the Israeli public for the two-state solution. I believe that we still need to wage a battle so as to win a larger segment of the Israeli public opinion.

There are two authors for whom I have great respect. The first one is Isaac Deutcher, a Jewish Pole who became a British philosopher and historian. Deutcher summarized the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as follows: "It is a conflict that resembles a dispute between a person who had to jump from a building on fire, and the person on whom he landed and whose back he broke. Each time the injured person get up he receives another beating, out of fear that he might seek revenge or compensation."

The other author whose work fascinates me is Nahum Goldman, who was the leader of the World Zionist Organization for 40 years. Goldman said three things that today would help us in our search for a possible solution regarding cohabitation: the first thing he said was that there should be a decisive American role, and that the Americans should use all of the leverage they have to affect the final status talks, not only vis-à-vis re-deployment here or disengagement there, but also with regard to more serious issues, such as preventing the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

During the 70s and in the wake of Kissinger’s work, Nahom Goldman defined diplomacy in the Middle East as the art of delaying the inevitable for as long as possible. In one of his books, he said: "I once talked with Moshe Dayan (Yael’s father) and told him, ‘Moshe, the Americans give you aid and advice, but you always take the aid and leave the advice. What would happen if the Americans were to tell you that you could have the aid only if you took the advice?’ Moshe answered that under such circumstances, he would have to take the advice." I believe that this linking between American aid and advice is the key to the future salvation of the peace process and our visa to get out of where we have been.

There are two schools of thought concerning the analysis of the US-Israeli relationship. Some believe that we are facing an American Israel, while others believe that we are facing an Israeli America. Allow me to explain. The first school of thought thinks it is America that dictates to Israel what its regional policy should be in accordance with the needs of the US. The other school thinks the opposite, that is, that the US simply adopts and integrates the Israeli regional preferences into its global strategies. I personally believe that the two schools of thought are both correct, but depending on which period of history we are referring to, and depending on the president and his position in congress.
I believe that the battle should be waged in the US, and Yael, you should start a joint effort by the Israeli peace camp and the Palestinian National Movement. America’s siding with one belligerent actor in recent conflicts has led to devastating domestic repercussions. Being an American Arab has been difficult during the last 50 years: Arab Americans believe that the country by which they were adopted is siding with the enemy of their country of origin. I believe that the US today, in the unipolar system, should adopt a policy of non- alignment: non-alignment should be the US foreign policy and not that of Third World countries. Why? Because America is a nation of nations and siding with one belligerent party in a regional conflict can have serious, negative effects on the social fabric. So Yael, I think that we should think seriously about a joint campaign in the US to win public and governmental support for our opinions, meaning the two-state solution as the desirable outcome of the peace process.

With regard to the Israeli domestic arena, I think that many of us were devastated by the discourse we heard during the last elections in which, unfortunately, Labor decided to run as hawks and not as doves, and the commentators asked, "With doves like that, who needs hawks?" and "With a Left like that, who needs a Right?" For us, the Palestinians, it was very disturbing to witness an attempt by Labor to outdo Likud, instead of presenting the dovish alternative.

Dr. Mahdi, allow me to conclude by saying that Yitzhak Shamir ended his speech in Madrid by referring to Israel’s hunger for peace, and I think I can say without the risk of being contradictory: "We can satisfy Israeli’s hunger for peace, if Israel abandons its appetite for territory."