December/January 1992/93, Page 21

Words to Remember

Round 7 of The Middle East Peace Talks—Day by Day Oct. 21 through Nov. 19

"The negotiations, which resume in Washington on Oct. 21, have bogged down after a burst of progress and high hopes when they convened two months ago with Israel's strategy guided for the first time by its new Labor-led government...All parties—Israel, Syria, the Palestinians, Jordan and Lebanon—are basically marking time until after the presidential election in the United States, which is the chief sponsor of the Middle East talks."

—Correspondent Clyde Haberman, The New York Times, Oct. 19, 1992

"The new round of bilateral talks begins at a sensitive time, less than two weeks before a U.S. presidential election whose outcome could change U.S. policy in the region, however subtly. . .The Arabs have expressed nervousness at the prospect of a Clinton presidency, which they believe would tilt more toward Israel than has the Bush administration . . . The Palestinians insisted that Israel accept the application of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which they interpret as calling for 'land for peace,' to the current round of talks. Israel has maintained that 242. . . applies only to the talks on the final status of the territories, which are slated to begin after three years. "

—Staff Writer Cynthia Mann, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Oct. 19, 1992

"While Mr. Rabin has expressed willingness to return land in the Golan Heights to Syria, he has offered the Palestinians none. Instead, he would let them exercise administrative autonomy under Israeli rule for a 'probation' period, only after which might he agree to end the occupation . . . The Palestine Liberation Organization, in Tunis, keeps the negotiators, who all are from the territories, insisting on an independent state. But if Mr. Rabin put land on the table, this might change. The possibility of ending Israeli rule would find such favor among most Palestinians that even assassins would be loath to challenge it. The negotiators' real mandate comes from the overwhelming majority of Palestinians in the territories who want the occupation ended. These people are not about to let anyone—fundamentalists, leftists or the PLO—obstruct their liberation now."

—Israeli academic Clinton Bailey, The New York Times, Oct. 19, 1992

 "The occupation has to come to an end so that we can approach it as human beings and not as two parties in conflict."

—Palestinian delegation spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, Oct. 19, 1992

 "Extremists always strengthen extremists from the other side. "

— Chairman Yossi Sarid of the Israeli leftist Meretz group, Oct. 19, 1992

 "The Syrians are offering 'total peace for total withdrawal.' They insist that Israel surrender all of the Golan Heights, captured in the 1967 war and annexed by Israel in 1981. The Syrians maintain that any agreement on the Golan must be part of a broader agreement covering southern Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The current round of talks will continue to Nov. 20, with a one-week recess for the election."

—Correspondent Robert Pear, The New York Times, Oct. 21, 1992

"The terms of reference for the peace talks, agreed to by the participants, call for negotiating a five-year period of self-rule for the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to be followed by negotiations to determine the final status of the territories. The Arabs see the self-government authority as a step toward an independent Palestinian state. The Israelis are divided on the issue . . . In Israel, Rabin was quoted as saying . . . that there is a better chance of agreement with Syria than with the Palestinians [who] 'have not yet accepted the idea that we must go, step by step, toward an interim accord. "'

—Staff writer John Goshko, The Washington Post, Oct. 21, 1992

"Because of the conditions on the ground and because of the deterioration in the human rights conditions, there is increasing skepticism by the Palestinians pertaining to the peace process and its efficacy, its ability to change conditions. But I think that we have a very clear mandate to continue the discussions."

—Palestinian delegation spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, Oct. 21, 1992

"From the standpoint of the talks, the Nov.3 election could hardly have come at a worse time. Now that the parties seem poised for serious talks, the authority of the U.S. mediator may be about to unravel. . . Arab negotiators concede privately that they are concerned about the unabashedly pro-Israel rhetoric of Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton . . . These Arabs said they will try to make as much progress as possible between the election and Inauguration Day next Jan. 20 if Clinton wins. "

—Staff writer Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 21, 1992

"Among the stories making the rounds is that Gov. Bill Clinton, if elected president, will appoint Jimmy Carter as a special Middle East envoy for the peace talks . . . Some officials say they believe it is possible the Syrians might have an interest in doing a quick small deal with a lame-duck Bush administration. They might agree, for instance, to a joint declaration on principles of peace with Israel, provided they get what they want most in return—being removed from the State Department's list of countries supporting terrorism . . . Traditionally the parties to the peace talks have always preferred to make their concessions to each other, after they were assured not only of what they would get in return from their neighbors but also what they would get from Washington."

—Correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, Oct. 23, 1992

"Besides the round under way in Washington—consisting of direct discussions between Israel and Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinians—negotiations began today on another track in The Hague. These are part of 'multilateral' talks that involve some 35 countries on broad issues affecting the entire Middle East: arms control, economic development, refugee problems, water resources and the environment. The 'multilaterals' are supposed to complement and bolster the 'bilateral' negotiations in Washington, but diplomats here caution that unless there is movement in the face-to-face talks, the region-wide discussions will remain little more than a sideshow."

—Correspondent Clyde Haberman, The New York Times, Oct. 26, 1992

"Mainstream Palestinian leaders are aware that Rabin has a finite window of opportunity to make peace. But negotiations have been hindered by Syria's latest challenge to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its chairman, Yasser Arafat, over the issue of who speaks for the Palestinians. Last month Syria convened a coalition of 10 radical Palestinian groups to denounce the peace talks. The effect was to harden opinion in the territories."

— Correspondent Peter Ford, The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 29, 1992

"Israel is trying to legitimize its intended continued control of the occupied territories . . . Israel is in the occupied territories by sheer military power . . . Unless there is some pressure on Israel to desist from this position, I think there are no prospects for peace. "

—Chief Palestinian delegate Haidar Abdel-Shafi, Oct. 29, 1992

"That Lebanese and Israeli delegates continued their discussions, even as Israeli tanks made preparations to enter Lebanese territory, was eloquent proof of all sides' desire to keep the talks going."

—Correspondent Peter Ford, The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 29, 1992

"The negotiations are working. . . These negotiations have survived extreme violence and rhetoric and the efforts of extremists such as Hezbollah to sabotage [them]."

—Asst. Secretary of State Edward Djerejian, Oct. 29, 1992

"The most promising opportunity for Middle East peace since Israel's founding was created by a convergence of circumstances that convinced three key actors in the region—Syria, Israel, and leading Palestinians—to abandon long-cherished ambitions. In 1988, Palestinians capitalized on a moment of strength provided by their uprising against Israeli rule in the occupied territories [and] formally relinquished claims to Israel, proclaiming the approximate boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza as the outer limits of a hoped for state. Last year the collapse of the Soviet Union, Syria's main patron, persuaded Damascus that peace, not a war to destroy Israel, offers the best hope of regaining the Golan Heights. Israeli elections last June ended the dominance of the right-wing Likud Party, which was committed to solidifying Israel's control of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip. The sudden disposition to compromise has been reinforced by a recognition among all three parties that the moment for peacemaking is perishable."

 —Staff writer George D. Moffett III, The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 30, 1992

"Haidar Abdel-Shafi, the chief Palestinian negotiator, accused Israel of obstructionism and said 'there is no possibility of peace' unless the United States takes a more active role and, in effect, forces the parties to agree on a large-scale Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in the 1967 Middle East war."

—Staff writer John M. Goshko, The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1992

"On the first anniversary of the peace talks between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin today criticized the basic approach set at the opening conference in Madrid, saying it had not produced results . . . Rabin said Israel would prefer to have talks with one country at a time."

—Correspondent David Hoffman, The Washington Post, Oct. 31, 1992

"If there is going to be a transitional period, the United Nations must supervise it so that power is transferred to the Palestinian people."

—PLO foreign affairs spokesman Farouk Kaddoumi, Nov. 9, 1992

"Now poised at a critical juncture, the year-old peace process could still be brought to fruition by a Clinton administration as determined and as personally engaged as President Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker III have been . . . In addition to a possible hiatus in the peace process, Arab leaders are wary of Clinton's nearly unqualified support for Israel, a position buttressed by policy advisers known to have strong ties to the Jewish state. In weighing Arab political and territorial rights equally in the balance with the security needs of Israel, the U.S.'s closest ally in the region, Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker have won the confidence that has drawn the Arab parties into the peace process. But what Arabs see as evenhandedness on the part of the Bush administration, some Clinton advisers have criticized as undue pressure on Israel to make one-sided concessions. "

—Staff writer George D. Moffett III, The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 10, 1992

"The sense of fairness Bush and Baker brought to the process can't be tampered with. It was critical to getting both sides to the bargaining table."

—Executive Director Khalil Jahshan  of the National Association of Arab Americans, Washington, DC, Nov. 10, 1992

"Progress in the talks is desirable, but there is a risk that some of the key Middle East players will be tempted to delay until the new administration takes office. If so, it will mean they have calculated that they want any concessions on their part to be conspicuously visible to the new adminstration and to its top policy makers."

—Prof. Robert Leiber, Georgetown University, Nov. 10, 1992

"In secret, Mr. Rabin has hinted in the most intricate and deniable diplomatic language that he is prepared to withdraw totally from the Golan Heights in return for peace. . . In public and in Arabic for all Arabs to hear, Mr. Assad has responded that he will give 'total peace' for 'total withdrawal.' But he will not be specific about peace until Mr. Rabin commits to full withdrawal . . . Skillful, experienced negotiators like James Baker and his team could do a lot with these Syrian-Israeli hints and openings. President-elect Clinton could keep them on this case to reassure Middle Easterners and prove his commitment to a bipartisan foreign policy at home. Mr. Baker and company would be performing a vital service for Arabs Israelis, Republicans, Mr. Clinton and America."

—Syndicated columnist Leslie H. Gelb, The New York Times, Nov. 12, 1992

"Two days of Middle East talks aimed at easing the plight of several million refugees and attended for the first time by Israel ended on Nov. 12 without any agreement other than to keep talking."

—Emirates News, Abu Dhabi, Nov. 14, 1992

"This issue is still the right of displaced people to a homeland . . . This is our position, it always has been and always will be . . . We are talking about a real human tragedy of disrupted family lives . . . Israel has permitted only a miniscule percentage of families to reunite."

—Palestinian delegate to multilateral talks on refugees Muhammad Hallaj, Nov. 12, 1992

"The fighting in and around a strip of southern Lebanon that Israel controls and calls its security zone created a volatile situation at the border in the last week and cast a pall over the Middle East peace talks in Washington."

—Correspondent Clyde Haberman, The New York Times, Nov. 15, 1992

"In Israel we have changed not only the government, we have changed the policies, and we have a clear mandate from our people to go ahead upon the policy we have suggested. The present government has offered the Palestinians to have a political election, not a municipal one, and the ones they elect, the municipal body, will report to the people, not to us. We have suggested to implement the interim solution in a matter of 9 to 12 months."

—Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Nov. 15, 1992

"Worsening regional water scarcity was a driving factor behind the drafting of an Israeli-Jordan 'peace agenda' during the last round of Middle East peace talks in Washington. Israel is already using 80 percent of the reserves in the mountain aquifer that straddles the West Bank and Israel, and Palestinians insist that equitable water distribution be part of any autonomy agreement. Moreover, Israel won't give back the Golan Heights to Syria without guaranteeing access to the Golan springs that feed into the Kinneret.''

—Correspondent Amy Dockser Marcus, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 1992

"Israeli and Egyptian officials said Nov. 15 they are optimistic that obstacles blocking Middle East peace negotiations can be overcome, and the Egyptians pressed Israel to make stronger commitments toward meaningful self-rule for Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. . . Egypt launched a new round of mediation in the deadlocked peace process last week after Israeli officials left—and then rejoined—multilateral talks on refugees in Canada, bilateral talks dragged on without progress and rising violence on the Israel-Lebanon border threatened to upset the relative calm that has prevailed in the region since the peace talks began last year in Madrid.''

—Correspondent Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 16, 1992

 "The peace process into which Baker has invested so much time, effort and reputation is on the verge of collapse."

—Syndicated columnist Jeane Kirkpatrick, Nov. 16, 1992

 "The general feeling among the Palestinian leadership is that the continuation of the negotiations could not achieve any progress and is becoming useless...In fact the Palestinian leaders and the negotiators have the feeling that we are all going in a vicious circle. "

—PLO foreign affairs spokesman Farouk Kaddoumi, Nov. 16, 1992

"Rabin has . . . been adamant in his refusal to link events on the ground with the peace talks in Washington, rejecting calls to pull out of the talks until Syria and Lebanon put an end to Hezbollah's attacks. To do so officials [in Israel] argue, would be to hand Hezbollah on a plate the power to sabotage the peace negotiations— one of the fundamentalists' goals."

—Correspondent Peter Ford, The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 17, 1992

"The strength of the doves in Rabin's cabinet could have important ramifications for the Middle East peace talks, putting a brake on ambitious military entanglements that might interrupt or endanger the negotiations."

—Correspondent David Hoffman, The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1992

"With the U.S. government changing hands, most analysts do not expect any breakthrough in the talks, which began 13 months ago. Meanwhile President-elect Bill Clinton, in a news conference in Little Rock, Ark., said if former Secretary of State James A. Baker decided to resume shuttle diplomacy in the region 'I would support it."'

—Jordan Times, Nov. 17, 1992

"On the bare bones of a peace treaty—an exchange of land, the Golan Heights, for a relationship of full peace—Syrian and Israeli negotiators might agree in an afternoon."

—The Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1992

"There has been no tangible progress on any of the Arab-Israeli tracks. Out of our deep faith in the peace process, the Arab parties involved in the negotiations have decided to pursue the process and continue the negotiations in the coming sessions, regardless of the Israeli intransigent position . . . We will continue to meet until we hear from the other side its consent to the final version of the agenda."

—Chief Jordanian negotiator Dr. Abdul Salam Majali, Nov.18,1992

"There is no progress whatsoever. We are still bogged down concerning withdrawal."

—Chief Syrian negotiator Mouwafak Al Allaf, Nov. 18, 1992

"They insist on hearing full withdrawal as a precondition to progress. Israel must first utter the words 'full withdrawal' before any further elaboration can be made. This is a recipe for stalemate. "

—Chief Israeli negotiator with Syria Itamar Rabinovich, Nov. 18, 1992

"It was Syria that scotched suggestions that Baker might take on one last mission to the Middle East to move the stalled Arab-Israeli talks during the transition. Baker was never keen about the idea, which was floated by his principal Middle East maven, Dennis Ross. Syria's unenthusiastic response to U.S. feelers doomed the idea. . . The arrival of a Democratic president who voices friendship for Israel and who promises not to repeat George Bush's mistake of 'coddling dictators' like Iraq's Saddam Hussain completes a shakeup in the strategic landscape that brought Assad into the talks in the first place."

—Syndicated columnist Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post, Nov. 19, 1992

"If the current peace process fails, the situation will not return to what it was, but will be much worse."

—Former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, Nov. 19, 1992 

"Palestinians called Israel's proposal for autonomy 'impracticable and unworkable' as the seventh round of bilateral Mideast peace talks ended Nov.19. The Syrians, meanwhile, finally agreed to return for an eighth round of talks on Dec.7th. Previously, they had hinted they might not want to resume negotiations before Bill Clinton assumed the presidency. Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi . . . said that unless Palestinians were granted authority over all of the territories, a future Palestinian state would be 'preempted.' 'The settlements are illegal and we cannot accommodate or give them equal rights on our land,' Ashrawi said."

—Correspondent Allison Kaplan, Jerusalem Post, Nov.20, 1992 

"The seventh round of the Middle East peace talks ended here yesterday with little progress reported and increased recriminations on several sides . . . Statements yesterday by spokesmen for the main participants were marked by bitter language that contrasted sharply with the hope-verging-on-optimism expressed in late August when the peace talks resumed after the return to power of the Israeli Labor Party headed by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, displaying intense disappointment, called Israeli proposals for autonomy on the West Bank and Gaza 'unworkable, impractical,' and said they failed to address the real issues. Holding up big sheets of paper on which the Israeli plans had been outlined, she said they would 'create very clearly an apartheid system' for Palestinian residents, while favoring Jewish settlers. Israeli spokesman Yossi Gal, at a separate news conference, accused the Palestinians of 'futile declarations' and 'harsh and inflammatory terminology' . . . Speculation faded about a potential deal-making trip to the region by White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker , who initiated the talks in his previous role as secretary of state. Comments by Israeli officials displayed no enthusiasm for a Baker trip."

—Staff Writer Don Oberdorfer, The Washington Post, Nov. 20, 1992

"As the round ended, Washington called for new talks starting Dec.7. Israel immediately accepted and officials of the Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese and Palestinian delegations said they intended to be there, too, though the final decision will be made by Arab foreign ministers at a meeting in Beirut later this month . . . Israeli and Arab spokespersons agreed that it is important to keep the momentum going into the Clinton administration."

—Staff writer Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 20, 1992