Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

The International Institute for Strategic Studies Presentation of the Geneva Accord by Chief Architects

Geneva Initiative
April 11, 2004

Monday 2nd February 2004 at 7:00pm
The Fitzalan Room, The Howard Hotel, Temple Place

Co-Chairs:
Dr. John Chipman, Director IISS
Nomi Bar-Yaacov, Research Fellow for Conflict Management, IISS

Speakers:
Yasser Abed Rabbo, Former Minister of Information and Culture, PA
Yossi Beilin, Former Minister of Justice and head of the new Social Democrat Israel, Yahad, Party.
Dr. Eyad El Sarraj, Chairman of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme and a human rights activist
Elias Zananiri, media consultant for the Palestinian Peace Coalition and the Geneva Peace Initiative
Nehama Ronen, former Likud Member of Knesset and current member of the Likud Central Committee
Daniel Levy, former adviser at the prime minister's office on Jerusalem affairs, drafter of the Geneva Accord

Dr. John Chipman: I am delighted to see here tonight the founder of the London Middle East Institute, the MBI Foundation, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Issa Al-Jaber, who has given very robust support to this process, both in private and in his public statements. Without his help, the people you see here on the panel wouldn't have arrived here for 7 o'clock this evening. So we're very grateful for him indeed. We will chair this meeting and run it from the panel. What I will do is first introduce each of the speakers, ask them one or two questions and invite them to make certain responses. We hope that after 35 minutes or so the panel statements will be completed at which point we will take questions. Can I confirm that both the statements from the panel and their answers to questions, and indeed the questions themselves, will be on record?

I'd like to invite to speak at the podium Yasser Abed Rabbo who is a Palestinian leader of the Geneva Accord and member of the PLO Executive Committee. I first met Yasser Abed Rabbo in Tunis in 1987 where we spoke for about two or three hours on a peace process that was not yet remotely in being. He struck me then as a man passionate about his call but eminently reasonable in his pursuit and it's a delight to see him again here in these circumstances. Yasser, I wonder whether I might ask you to take the floor at that microphone so that people can see you better and perhaps in eight to ten minutes answer two difficult questions: One: what was the most difficult issue for you in this negotiation - the toughest, as it were, concessions you felt you had to make. Secondly, now that you have this Accord and it's on paper, how do you think you can help its implementation in the months and years ahead?

Yasser Abed Rabbo: Good evening. Thank you very much for inviting us tonight. I'd also like to thank all those who helped us in arriving here tonight, because it was one of the longest days for us all. We started so early and I think for Yossi Beilin as well, who started early today, or say even late last night. Anyway, thank you very much.

In fact, responding to the question, I would say the most difficult thing in the Geneva Accord is that we tried to search for a line of balance that will cross all the issues and a line of balance inside every single issue of the final status. Why is that? Because we wanted to introduce a formula to both public opinions: the Palestinian and the Israeli. Everyone on each side will consider it as a win-win formula. Each side will find his/ her basic aspirations and needs in that formula. In the past we were introducing, each one of us, Palestinians and Israelis separately, our plans which represent the maximum or our views of how this conflict should be resolved. This was legitimate and is still legitimate. Together, we tried to introduce a plan, as compromised, comprehensive and detailed as possible. We tried to introduce a plan where ordinary Palestinians and ordinary Israelis can look for their basic interests and find them there. The plan we worked on proves to both Palestinians and Israelis that their basic needs and interests do not necessarily conflict till the end but they can co-exist and even can complement each other. This was our target because we were and we are still living in an atmosphere where the famous slogan was, and has not changed. This slogan claims that there's no possible solution and that there's no possible partnership. Until today there are those in the Israeli Government who claim that they want to take unilateral steps. They say they have a unilateral plan because there is neither a possible solution nor possible partnership.

From another point of view we think that unilateral plans and steps will lead into more deterioration. Any plan should be agreed upon. Any solution should be a negotiated and an agreed upon one in order to guarantee that this solution will not cause more confrontation between the two sides or more deterioration. We believe that the possible solution - the solution that will lead to a breakthrough - is not a solution that is imposed by one side on the other. The possible solution is not a one based on a unilateral decision to define where the borders should be but a solution based on the borders of 1967. The possible solution is one that is based on sharing justly, on international legality, and on a just solution for the refugee question. It has to be an agreed upon solution on the basis of UN Resolution 194, the Arab Peace Initiative and President Clinton's parameters. Taking into consideration the experience of previous negotiations, we went through our path that after two and a half years of continuous and extensive work between the two sides led us to the Geneva Accord.

I can say that the accomplishment we made had defined for the first time in our history what the solution could and should be. For the first time we had shown that this is the solution where the aspirations of both sides can go on side by side and can be implemented also side by side. Of course, we had faced a lot of criticism. But let me say simply that any compromise - take any compromise, small or big, all kinds of compromises - become the easiest to criticize, because every compromise includes weak points for one side and strong points for the other. But the best way to judge a compromise is by looking not only at the empty half of the cup, but at the full half of the cup as well.

What to do now? Maybe, as President Clinton said in Davos last week, we want a systematic support for the Geneva Accord by governments, by groups and by individuals. It is not enough, as he said, to clap our hands and to say this is a good achievement and we welcome it and that's all. A systematic support is what we need. Today we heard from Prime Minister Blair and from Mr. Straw, very encouraging statements that they support this effort we are doing. They consider our effort to be very courageous and that it introduces a very important platform for the final status solution. We need more effort in this direction. We had a long day because in the morning we saw the President of the European Commission in Brussels, President Prodi. We also met with Mr. Chris Patten and with Mr. Solana. In the afternoon we had meetings here in the Foreign Office and at 10 Downing Street. And I would say this: there is a need for support that could be expressed politically by all governments and by all groups. This support should be systematic and continuous. This is our main idea. Here is an example on this support: we were in Paris two weeks ago, invited by the French parties - all political parties. We were amazed when we were told that this was the first meeting held in Paris in many, many years where representatives of the Arab Community and representatives of the Jewish Community were seeing each other and talking to each other on the basis of the Geneva Accord. We believe that this is one of our important achievements. Thank you. [Applause]

Dr. John Chipman: Yossi Beilin negotiated the Geneva Accord. Many of you remember that he was Minister of Economy and Minister of Justice. I met him when he was Deputy Foreign Minister in 1992. Perhaps he can answer two similar questions: what one or two toughest issues were for him to compromise on and secondly, what do you think needs to happen now to implement this Accord? Specifically, what is the role that countries like the United States and the United Kingdom can play to help implement this agreement?

Yossi Beilin: Thank you very much. I would like first to thank you, the IISS and the MBI for hosting us here and all of you for coming. I must admit that the most difficult issues are not necessarily the obvious ones. For example, I had thought that the most difficult issue for Israelis would be the division of Jerusalem and the issue of the Temple Mount - handing over the sovereignty of the Haram Al Sharif, the Temple Mount - to the Palestinian state and having international presence there; while, for the Palestinians, the most difficult issue would be the issue of the refugees. Eventually, as it turned out, the toughest issue for both sides was the refugees. That was something which I admit I did not expect.

If one asks me what the toughest issue to negotiate was, I would have to answer that it was the territories. The border was the most difficult issue because never in the past have we reached this moment of truth (besides, perhaps, the talks with Abu Mazen, but the map thereof was never revealed). And even in the talks in Taba or beforehand in Camp David, the issue of the exact drawing of the border - what would be included and what would not - was seen as something obvious. We, representing the more moderate side of the public opinion, knew that it would be more or less the 67 border- since the Rogers Initiative of 1969 we always knew that this would be the eventual border. However once one speaks about modifications each may have his or her own vision about what kind of minor modifications are acceptable, and when you return to Israel and find that the Kibbutzim, which are the most dovish group in the Israeli public opinion, are demonstrating against you for having suggested a swap between the West Bank and those areas which are adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and which, as it happens, are currently being used for agricultural aims by these Kibbutzim, then you know you have touched a very sensitive issue. You have moved beyond from principles - say, the principle of the 67 border - to the actual thing.

In other words, you have translated an idea - a principle - into reality. After all those years in which we discussed "more or less" the 1967 border, we now finally discussed not a "more or less" but a rather "precise" line. We issued 30 maps on our website in order to allow all to see exactly what is going to happen in Jerusalem and in other parts of the land, and it is not by accident that on 12th October, the last day of our negotiations in the Movenpick Hotel in Jordan, we almost found ourselves amidst a very big crisis, including perhaps the decision to pack and go, because of three houses and one school in Jerusalem. I assure you that had anyone told me beforehand that this could be the case I would have said that the issue of the refugees' compensation would be a more difficult one. But then when we negotiated the borders - and here we have the photographer of our endeavor, Paul Usishkin, who was always with us and can testify that there was a real crisis. So this was the case for me, and, I believe, not only for me. At the end of the day the most obvious issue became the most difficult one because we had to have a very precise decision.

Another question is what can be done and what is the role that the international community, namely the United States and Europe, should play? I don't think we need the world to adopt the Geneva Accord. The Geneva Accord is an option, it is a model, it is an educational model, and it is a virtual agreement. Eventually, when the governments sit together and negotiate, they might have a different result. What is important for us is exactly what Yasser said before - to say to the people that it is just around the corner. We have an agreement; we know the details. It may eventually turn out to be a little different, but this is more or less it.

And, of course we have a partner. These are real people - dozens of people on the other side. It is not easy for them. They were criticized and threatened. But they were ready to pay the price and to expose themselves. They are part of the Palestinian establishment - ministers, deputy ministers, director generals, former ministers and future ministers. This is the real partner that we have. If we ignore this partner, if we give up on this partner, are we Israelis going to deal with Hamas or with the Islamic Jihad? With whom exactly? So we have a partner, we have a plan. And what the world can do with the Geneva Accord is to offer the parties carrots rather than sticks. That is, not to boycott, not to threaten, not to impose, but rather to say to both parties: if you are capable of signing something like this - then you would be eligible for an upgrade in the relations with the EU. Or for example, that you may be considered as potential partners for some kind of an enlarged NATO.

The world has so much to offer. If this endeavor, this agreement, becomes a realistic one it will be very expensive - perhaps sums of money which amount to approximately $30 billion for implementation - but the world should say that the money for this will be provided because, expensive as this permanent agreement is, it is much more expensive to finance wars. For having stability in the Middle East, to solve this longest conflict in the world since World War II, the world should be there for us.

Finally, of course, our real target is our own public opinion back home. We have already convinced 40% of our respective publics. And we need to convince more and we can convince more, and with it we can convince our governments to change their policies. Thank you. [Applause]

Dr. John Chipman: Now the tempo quickens. We've got four important members of the negotiating teams here and I will ask each of them to speak for just five minutes. First Dr Eyad Sarraj who's a psychiatrist, founder and Director General of the Gaza Mental Health Project. He made lots of public statements on human rights. He's been criticized by the Palestinian Authority. For you, Dr Sarraj, how do you convince a no-doubt skeptical Palestinian public opinion that this Agreement or its outlines are even a concept of an agreement should be supported by them and the pressure should be put on the Palestinian leadership to move in this direction?

Dr. Eyad Sarraj: Well, it's a very difficult question. I just want to tell you that I was not part of Geneva Accord negotiations but when it came to be known public I came to support it from my background of human rights and peace activism. I support Geneva because, as a psychiatrist, I don't want to have more patients. Today the situation in Gaza is so traumatic, so desperate that over 35% of the population suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, 36% of our children - boys of 12 - say that they believe the best thing in life is to die as martyrs when they become 18. So many homes have been destroyed. So many lives have been taken on both sides. To live or imagine living in Gaza today or in any part in the West Bank is devastating. It is frightening to walk in the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. I've got that experience myself. In this tiny place called the Holy Land, which in the big map of Earth you cannot even see, so much killing and so much devastating and so much murder. I support Geneva because I don't want my children to live in that place in agony and pain forever. I don't want my grandchildren to live in agony and pain forever. I know that Israel will have to survive if I am to survive. I know that Palestinians will have to be liberated if Israel has to survive.

I know that security for Jews in Israel is a guarantee of my freedom and that my freedom and dignity are a guarantee of Israel's security. Neither the tanks, nor the F16s can bring security. Yet, my war against all this evil should not be suicide bombers but talking peace. I have come as a refugee to Gaza; I was born in Beersheba which is now part of Israel. I personally can surrender my right of return but I cannot take that collectively on behalf of the Palestinians. They have to endorse it themselves. I believe strongly that if they see that there is hope and that this Geneva Accord will be implemented, the majority of the Palestinians will support the Accord even more than I do. They only need to know that there is hope in life, in dignity, in freedom and in being treated as equal. I believe that the Israeli public is so terrified today. And by the way, this is why Sharon is in true control. It is because we help to terrify the Israelis into believing that somebody over there is coming, pretending that he is a big father and can protect their children. If the Israeli citizens feel safe, and Israelis want to live in safety and security, they will come and help.

Today the Palestinian society is leaderless and chaotic. The Palestinian Authority has no presence whatsoever. The Palestinian policeman cannot control the traffic because his President is a hostage himself. His President is humiliated. That is humiliation for Yasser Arafat, whether you like it or not. I was put in jail by Arafat for criticizing him and I will continue to do so. But the way Arafat is treated humiliates me. The Palestinian police or soldier cannot confront Hamas if he's so humiliated or disempowered. What you need is to empower people; and you can empower them through hope. I was given so much hope by people like Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo who had this courage to confront the very critical and very important issues in order to give me the hope that one day we will have peace in this Holy Land instead of evil destroying and killing everyone. Thank you. [Applause]

Dr. John Chipman: Nehama Ronen is a former Likud member of the Knesset and a current member of the Likud Central Committee. She might be very well placed as a supporter now of the Geneva Accord to answer the question, how could more members of the Likud come to support an agreement like this?

Nehama Ronen: It's also a tough question. After I left the Knesset, the parliament, I joined Yossi and Yasser in those meetings to try and achieve solutions to the major problems. At the beginning I didn't think that it will find a way to do it because the gaps were so large mainly on questions like the right of return, the question of Jerusalem and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish country. It was something that I didn't think that at the end there will be a paper that the Palestinians and the Israelis can sign. When we were in Movenpick in Jordan, and Yossi Beilin can relate to this, we had a long discussion, three or four days. On the second day I decided to come back to Israel. It was holiday. My children were at home. I thought why should I waste time on the Palestinians? They are not serious. They are not going to make it and the gaps between us are so big. Probably they say the same about us. But we had an agreement. And the reason that I didn't return home is because of my children. You know, I have three kids. My youngest son is ten years old. In eight years he will have to recruit to the Israeli Army. What is the future of his life? To be an occupier? Is that what I am educating my children to be - occupiers? He will stand in checkpoints and decide who will pass this checkpoint, and what will happen to him in that checkpoint? I want him to defend Israel, the same as his father did. Of course he will recruit to the Army but the question is whether defending Israel is to be in Nablus and Jenin and all those places and I think that most of the Israelis believe that we shouldn't be there.

The only question now is how to divorce from the Palestinians, not how to remarry them. This is the real the question so how we are going to do that? So what I understood is something different. Most of the Israelis understand that. I guess this is the reason that you find 40% of the Israeli people supporting the Geneva Accord. It is because they want hope to their children. We send these children to study here in the United Kingdom and in the United States, wherever. And they will stay there. There are many, many children in Israel who are doing this. There are also children like them in the Palestinian Authority, as I understood. Everyone who has enough money wants his children to be away. I cannot find the other solution for many children in Israel which is the place they should live in. Because of that I want the future to be different. Therefore we have to pay the price, which is not simple, neither for us nor for the Palestinians. I do believe that most of the Israeli are ready to pay the price.

But, still there is the question, the big question: do we have a partner? Yes, we do have a partner. Listen, we are sitting here with people that six months ago I didn't think and I didn't realize that they could be my partner. They must have thought the same about me. It was like a slogan from both sides. We don't have a partner and we have no one to speak to so the solution is to continue on fighting because this is probably what we know to do better. We are professional in killing each other. We have been doing it for 30 or 35 years. If you want it to be stopped we have to do something. That is the reasons why we are doing this agreement. I'm paying a big price for that. I was criticized very much in Israel. I am part of the Likud Party and they don't want me to be there anymore although there are more than 20% of the Likud voters who support this Geneva Accord. I think that we have more than that. If we want to get more than 40% of the Israeli public to support the Geneva Initiative we have to show them that there is hope right now.

I'm very sorry to say that with all the terror attacks, with the suicide bombers, it seems as if there is no hope. It seems that we are playing a kind of mutual game that has no connection to reality because we can sit here and speak about the Geneva Accord and the future peace and then in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, the suicide bombers come in and blow themselves. Children, women and others are killed quite every month. So I think that if the Palestinian Authority will not be decisive enough in order to stop these terror attacks we won't have the 40% support and we may even have less than 20%. If there will be no hope in our region I don't even want to think of what will be. If there are people from both sides who are brave enough and ready to pay the price and ready to rid the public from both sides of this conflict, I think that we should get their support and the support of Europe, the United States and all leaders who think that they can support us. Otherwise, the alternative is something that will affect the whole world. It's as someone said before. We live in a very small place but probably we are the solution for the safety of the world. Therefore, it is in our interest and in the interest of the whole world to help us achieve reach a solution. Thank you. [Applause]

Dr. John Chipman: Elias Zananiri is a journalist. He's been a media consultant to the Geneva Peace Initiative in the Palestinian Peace Coalition. He was the spokesman for the Ministry of Internal Security in the former government of Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen. I wonder whether you would comment in five minutes on how you would do a public relations campaign in Palestine in favor of this Accord.

Elias Zananiri: It is not easy to market something that people have not been used to or have not heard of like he Geneva Accord, parts of it or in its entirety. Over the past years and precisely in the last three years, we, and I mean us the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, have been hijacked, literally hijacked, by forces of extremism on both sides. On one hand we had a stupid extreme right-wing government in Israel that was trying to impose on the Palestinians a settlement of its own. And on the other hand we had forces of extremism on the Palestinian side. We had fundamentalist groups that were trying to impose their own agenda on the history of the Palestinian people and on their future as well.

When we talk to our people about the Geneva Accord people do want to hear good things. It's nice to market a good product but if people don't have the chance to try it they wouldn't be able to judge if it is good. I can hear about lots of good things, about a certain kind of drink made somewhere in the world for instance, but if I don't have the chance to test it, to taste it, it wouldn't appeal to me at all. When we talk about peace and about reaching a peace deal with the Israelis, the question number one and the question number two and the question number 1,000,000 is what peace are we talking about and with whom are we going to make this peace? Is it with the Israeli Government? Or is it with the Israeli tanks? Or is it with the F16s and the M16s and with everything that goes in between? It is a tough job and it's not so easy to convince a man or a woman or a child who spend almost three or four hours of their time daily at an Israeli Army checkpoint going to work, to school, to the clinic or to wherever. By the way, they also spend the same amount of time on their way back home. We address this kind of people, who make some 95% of the Palestinian population, who have been subjected to this kind of very humiliating, embarrassing and harassing situation day after day, hour after hour. When you talk to them about peace they don't even know what the word peace means. However, when we talk, we try to explain that a new situation has emerged after the Geneva Accord was launched.

It is the new situation in which partnership exists between two sides, between our two peoples regardless of who is sitting in power at this very moment. This partnership is the only way for both sides to peace that ends this vicious cycle of violence and bloodshed on both sides. The best definition of the Geneva Accord at the moment is a process of virtuality because we haven't seen anything taking place and we haven't seen any action on the ground. Therefore, there is a very urgent need to transform the Geneva Accord from a process of virtuality into a process of reality by means of implementing the Accord and through creating a new international coalition. We've seen international coalitions in the past. There was an international coalition that launched war against a certain country. I believe it is much better and much more positive and very constructive for humanity all over the world to build an international coalition for peace. An international coalition made up of as many countries as possible in order to support not necessarily the Geneva Accord as it is today but at least the parameters of the two-state solution that had been designed by the Geneva Accord.

Today the Americans are very busy with their domestic campaign of presidential elections. We strongly believe that the EU, the European countries as a whole, and precisely the United Kingdom, can play a very constructive role in order to fill the current vacuum. Forces of extremism have used this vacuum over the past three years to impose unilateral solutions or what we call unilateralism in the Middle East. Israel's Sharon wants to have his unilateral strategy imposed on the Palestinians by means of building the separation wall and setting up the regime of Bantustans, something exactly identical to what existed in South Africa in the old days. On the other hand we do see the extremist forces on the Palestinian side and in the Arab world as well trying to impose their unilateral agenda in a way that would prevent any kind of rapprochement between the two sides, between Palestinians and Israelis, or on a wider scale, in the Middle East between the Arab world as a whole and Israel and the West on the other hand.

We can go on and on, listing what we need but political support is on the top. It is very crucial, very important. Financial support is very crucial and very important too but on top of all, political support is strongly needed. We are talking about the kind of diplomatic support the European countries can provide. We talk about the Europeans because with the absence of the Americans and with the absence of an effective role by the US Administration, there's only one party, one force, one international force that we can rely on and that is the European countries and the United Kingdom in particular. We have heard quite a lot of promising statements and assurances from leading officials in the United Kingdom and in the European countries in general. We do look forward now to see that these promises are interpreted into action, an action that would tell Sharon to stop this unilateral approach and to end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There's only one way to peace. It is the way of negotiations, of a negotiated settlement based on a two-state solution. Otherwise we're going to continue, I am afraid and I hope not, to live in this kind of vicious cycle of violence. Regardless of whether a conflict continues for a week, a year, ten years or even a whole century, at the end of the day we will get back to the same point of discussion that we are addressing today and to the same parameters of the Geneva Accord. Every day that passes without an agreement is very likely to lead to further casualties on either side. If we can do it today, it's fine. If we can't make it today, let's make it tomorrow or even the day after tomorrow - at least we should prevent further casualties. Thank you. [Applause]

Dr. John Chipman: And the last speaker before we go to the questions is Daniel Levy. He's one of the drafters of the Geneva Accord. He worked with Mr. Beilin when he was Minister of Justice and perhaps he can give us a sense of what the plan is now and how you answer people who say, well, you've got the road map as a plan and this somehow isn't consistent with the road map. Can you deal with that?

Daniel Levy: I think that comment are largely laid to rest and I think what we've tried to do is drive a public debate. It was simply too easy a narrative that said, and everyone has referred to it here, there's no partner and there's no plan. It is such an easy narrative and the challenge to it, prior to Geneva, was too flimsy. The challenge was no to this narrative. We were there and we were really close. We had to come with a stronger receipt and I think that was the challenge of Geneva. Now, the lack of that challenge for the last three years bred a reality of no expectations. For the political actor who seeks to do nothing, who seeks not to pursue a solution, no expectation is a very, very strong comfort zone. So I think what happened post the leaking, actually, initially of the Geneva Accord in October, is that for the first time there was a challenge to this narrative and the onus was on the other side. Okay, you don't like Geneva. You disagree with what they're suggesting. Well, Mr. Sharon and Mr. Lapid [minister of justice] what do you suggest? What is your solution? It was the first time in three years that they have to address that question. Now, the responses may not have been to my liking, whether it was the Sharon Disengagement speech, the pitiful Shinui suggestion of changing the settlers in Netzarim for soldiers. However, the Geneva Accord had driven a debate. Suddenly they had to come up with answers. Doing nothing was no longer easily accepted. Now, once you've shaken up the debate you begin to narrow the room for maneuver and the options of those who are trying to do nothing. I think that's what we've tried to do in pushing this forward. Geneva came against the backdrop of a vacuum. Today it's different. Today the debate that we're trying to drive is agreement versus unilateralism. It is within the context of the road map. It feeds right back into where the road map is supposed to be going. Again, it is the question of unilateralism versus agreement. And we're trying to drive the debate that highlights the benefits in an agreement, and the shortcomings in unilateralism, also in terms of what the Palestinians can take on themselves, as commitments. A unilateral withdrawal asks no commitment on the part of the Palestinians. And also, in terms of the benefits that will accrue to the Israeli side in what the international community can bring to the table, and Yossi has just spoken of that earlier. But the international community will bring that to the table if it's in agreement, not if it's a unilateral move. Paradoxically, today it is not just any Likud leader but it is Ariel Sharon himself who talks about evacuating the 17 settlements in Gaza. This should be a day of back patting and ad day for those to say to the Israeli peace camp: I told you so. But I think many of us feel that that's not the order of the day and that we're beginning to have a new illusion sold to us, which is thinking that we can solve our problems, security wise, demographically, by imposing unilateral solutions on the other side. You've got to look at what it does to the other side. Is it in my interest to negotiate with the moderate leadership, the secular pragmatic leadership on the other side? When I intend to withdraw from Gaza, is it in my interest to make them look like fools and give a prize to Hamas? Similarly, was it in my interest to release prisoners to Abu Mazen and strengthen his government, or release prisoners to Sheikh Nasrallah of Hezbollah? I think my answer to that is clear because Palestinian public opinion is in my interest as well. What we are trying to do in the Geneva Accord is to create a sense of partnership and a sense of a coalition of sanity. Now, there's an imbalance of power, undoubtedly, but I would still suggest, if I may, that the path of least resistance for those seeking to radically change the Palestinian reality passes via Israeli public opinion. And it's time for, I think, if possible, for dramatic gesture politics on the part of the Palestinians. I understand how difficult it is and I'm not dismissing that, but Geneva provides a tool for it and I would even go as far as to say that the real cord of appeal that can change the Palestinian reality is the cord of appeal of Israeli public opinion. I'd finally add by saying that the other thing is a message that we've tried to convey to the international community. That message is the purpose of the political visits such as today's in Brussels and in London. Our message is that peace is doable so get yourselves re-engaged because there is hope. The end game, which is phase three of the road map that, by the way, is supposed to be next year, is out there and it's been given in full detail in the Geneva Accord. Now, the worst possible thing for us would be a continuation of what I sense to be an impression in the international community in the last months and that is to begin to file us under the intractable conflicts category because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Finally, I would say especially to an audience like this that there's perhaps one other intended consequence that we'd like to see as a result of Geneva Accord and that is to lay to rest two of the most abused labels, and those labels are, friends of Israel and friends of Palestine. They are so often the product and the easy comfort zone of irresponsible diasporas, because a victory where you humiliate the other side isn't a victory. A victory where you give the other side hope and a future is a victory. So please re-define yourselves. If you consider yourselves friends of Israel and friends of Palestine, as friends of Geneva. Thank you very much. [Applause].

Dr. John Chipman: Thank you very much, we have about 25 minutes for questions. The IISS would not have been able to put this together without having somebody on its staff who had good diplomatic relations with both sides represented here, and so I've asked Nomi Bar-Yaacov, who works for us, to chair the Q and A session. We have 25 minutes. Please indicate to her to whom your question is principally addressed.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Please be very, very brief. If you're making a comment, make it a brief comment and or a question and state whom you are addressing. Paul Adams, BBC.

Paul Adams: Thank you very much. I'd just like to say, and I suspect this may echo the thoughts of many people here, that it is extremely inspiring to be in the presence of a panel like yourselves. It is very reassuring that after the last three years people like yourselves still exist and can speak the way you do. It's a little humbling, frankly. But, Ariel Sharon is still in charge. The Americans, as has been noted, have washed their hands of the whole process, and, as Daniel just said, a new illusion is being sold to us even as we speak. That's a pretty difficult challenge for all of you. When Sharon starts to do whatever he is planning to do with Gaza, a lot of people will hang fire and say, well, maybe he means it, maybe this is serious, maybe this is the answer, and they will not look to a group of unelected or out-of-office figures like yourselves for the solution. Are you in danger of being overtaken by this new illusion?

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: I think we'll have Yasser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin respond to this question please.

Yasser Abed Rabbo: One of us is enough, please. [laughter].

Yossi Beilin: The problem for us is not to be overtaken. The problem for us is that every day we think that there is still an opportunity which we should try to use rather than lose. It's not only the opportunity of Geneva. The Geneva Accord represents a plan which has its own points of strength because it is detailed and comprehensive. What we are afraid of is that if the opportunity of a peaceful settlement in the near future will be missed, it will mean the beginning of a new era. Maybe, as we said once before, Israel would then become larger. But such a larger Israel would also become an apartheid state. Annexing more land and encircling the Palestinians will not lead to fulfilling the dream of a greater Israel. And on the other side, it will make the road of the Palestinians more difficult since it will increase the role of the extremist forces among the Palestinian people as well as regionally. This will endanger our immediate region as well as the entire Middle East. We are at a cross point. We have no guarantees for anything. But if our opportunity is missed, I believe the consequences will be greatly damaging not only for Palestinians and Israelis but for the entire region as well as for those in the international forces and the world community who have the basic interest of seeing this region peaceful and prospering. Thank you.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you very much. Nehama Ronin, as a member of the central committee of Likud Party would like to address the current reality.

Nehama Ronen: Just a few comments: first of all, you must understand that Sharon is the most popular leader in Israel. Second, most of the people in Israel, left and right, think that he's the only one who can supply the goods. And third, I think that the step that he's going to take, the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is not an illusion. He is very serious. We should try to explain to the public in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority that this is a real mistake because we might achieve through negotiations much more than we can if we do it unilaterally.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you very much. I think in the interest of time I'm going to take questions in batches of four, if that's all right. I'll start with Anton LaGuardia, Daily Telegraph, then Jonathan Paris, Paul Usishkin of Peace Now in the UK, and Jonathan Friedland of the Guardian.

Anton LaGuardia of the Daily Telegraph: I'll try to be even more concise. The Geneva Accord addresses the issue of a partner and I think that essentially most Israelis and most Palestinians would accept a deal along the lines that you have outlined. However, it seems to me that the other problem is a lack of trust. A lack of trust on the Israeli side that, once this agreement is agreed, that Palestinians will not demand more; and on the Palestinian side, trust that if they give up violence and the struggle, that they won't be double-crossed by Israel who will say, the violence is over, there's no need to make more concessions.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: The next question from Jonathan Paris, please.

Jonathan Paris: This a question for Yossi Beilin: Yossi, ten years ago you came to Aspen when we were working on a different accord, the Oslo Accord. Are you more hopeful this time around than ten years ago?

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Paul Usishkin, Peace Now, President of Peace Now, UK.

Paul Usishkin: Just Chairman. I spent last week visiting a number of universities in the West Bank, seeking to find out whether there was interest in a joint scholarship program here for City University and, in talking to a number of Palestinians, heard the following theory, more like scenario, and obviously quoted out of desperation. It was as follows: the Palestinians, rather following on what something Daniel said before, appear to be contemplating issuing an ultimatum to Ariel Sharon, and the ultimatum is, come to the negotiating table within six months; if you don't, we will take down the Palestinian Authority such as it is, recognize the Israeli army occupation as the only agency, and begin the process of seeking our civic rights. What I'd like is comment from Yossi and Yasser on such a scenario.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you very much, Paul, and, last but not least in this batch, Jonathan Friedland, columnist for The Guardian.

Jonathan Friedland: Both Yossi Beilin and Daniel Levy spoke of the appeal, the call to Israeli public opinion being that, here is a partner in the form of, I think the phrase was, the secular, moderate leadership of the Palestinians, and that if this opportunity is not seized then radical Islamist movements stand next in line. What many people, who would describe themselves as friends of Israel rather than friends of Geneva, would say is that the generation or the tradition represented by Yasser Abed Rabbo and others is fading and that those people can make a deal on their own behalf, that the streets, the Palestinian street, the grass roots, the next generation, have moved on and is not any more represented by them. What can you say to that fear that Israel might cut a deal with you but the people on the ground, the next generation among the Palestinians has moved into a completely different place?

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: I think we'll start with Yossi Beilin and then give Yasser Abed Rabbo, or any other panelists who want to, very briefly respond. Can we have Yossi please?

Yossi Beilin: I agree that the Geneva may prove that we have a plan and we have a partner. It doesn't prove that we can implement an agreement which will be signed by both sides and the mistrust by both sides is very, very deep. The last years proved that such distrust is not only a kind of imagination. Now, I can speak only for Israel, and I can say the following: the worst case scenario, which means that we have a partner, we sign an agreement, the agreement is more or less like Geneva, and then it is not implemented because of violence or because of other reasons, is for Israel the best case scenario for the unilateral withdrawal. Why? Because the Geneva Accord is addressing the issue of Jerusalem and the capital of Israel will be recognised for the first time in history by the world. For the first time in history the eastern border of Israel will be recognised by the world. The solution for the refugee problem will not hover around us and in the sky but will be solved in the eyes of the world. The UN resolutions, which were very problematic for us, will be replaced according to our agreement by the UN canceling all the resolutions and endorsing the Geneva Accord, and in such a situation, even if we are having an enemy adjacent to our state, we will have to refer to the present state, God forbid, as an enemy with which you have to deal, rather than punishing people who are under our occupation - sending tanks and planes to punish them when they are still under our occupation. I hope that it will never happen. But I am saying to my people, who are very suspicious, and I can understand that, go for it, because if you think that since you don't have a partner you should have a unilateral solution, it will be much, much worse than this worst case scenario. Whether I am more optimistic than before? No, I am more pessimistic than before. These are the bad news. The good news is that, because of my pessimism, I'm trying to change a situation because I feel that if we go business as usual, we are doomed. I mean, ten years ago I was a little bit more optimistic, I thought that there were other options, different options, that if we fail then something like else will happen. Today we don't have too many options. It might be the end of many, many dreams of my parents, my grandparents, and of me if we don't move right now. I think that the window of opportunity is closing down, that we don't have but four, five, six years, and that is why we have to move now. If the Palestinians claim that they want to be citizens of Israel, they don't ask for a Palestinian state, and that eventually it will be a bi-national state, I can imagine a situation whereby the world might accept a demand for one person, one vote, which might be devastating for those people who believe that the Jewish people deserves its own state. But the result of something like that will not necessarily be that, once the world is accepting the demand, that Israel will give up on its Jewish character. What might happen then, God forbid, is a very long war whereby Jews will feel that they have to protect their home, their only state, a state like Massada, and where Arabs who are Palestinians will feel that since they are the majority and the world may be then with them, they have the right to fight against Israelis. And such a war might be longer and tougher than the wars that we knew. And that is why it is not such a simple thing that Palestinians will say we want to have one state and everything will change. It might be conducive to a disaster which is even worse than the current nightmare in which we live. And about the young generation, this is true that we are already old, but among our ranks you find the younger generation. (Yasser Abed Rabbo: Speak for yourself, okay) [laughter]. So Yasser is young and I am older and I am very happy to see the young generation amongst us. Not only Nehama and Daniel but also Kaddoura Fares and other people who belong to the FATAH and to the Tanzim people in their late 30s, in their early 40s, who feel exactly like ourselves. And you know, I must just tell you one thing. I ask Kaddoura Fares, some months ago before we signed the letter to the Swiss Foreign Minister, what does he say about this bi-national state? Why doesn't he wait for a demographic situation which might be more convenient for the Palestinians? And he said to me, Yossi, I am 41 years old, about 17 years of my life I spent in your jail. I have three kids from the ages of 7, 5 and 3 and I know that in six years we may become a majority to the west of the Jordan River. So what? He was the one who told me this would be hell, what will happen is that I will never see peace and my kids will have the same destiny, will go through the same biography that I myself had. I don't want it. And it is not because I love you, it is not because I believe that the Zionist cause is right or wrong, it is because I want to live. And, I must admit, he convinced me.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you very much, Yossi. We have three minutes and three speakers who would like to speak. I think we have a minute each. So, Nehama, Elias and Eyad, just please be brief. Yasser asked not to speak.

Nehama Ronen: I think that the world belongs to the youngest, it's not only slogan, and I think that people are much… the youngest have much open mind to… to do changes and not to go with their head in the whirl and therefore I think that some of the Israelis, some of the Palestinians, are ready to lead this process and, of course, we have extremists from both sides, if we don't want them to win we have to take the power.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you. Eyad.

Dr. Eyad Sarraj: I will address the two questions. Regarding the one on the Palestinian Authority dissolving itself, I can say I am one of the people who actually campaigned for the dissolving of the Palestinian authority, not as a gesture to Sharon or to force him into a certain position, but because of the situation today. The Palestinian Authority deserted the Palestinian people and has become a buffer between us and the occupation. It is much better to have a frank or a clear occupation rather than having to live under the humiliation and the despair in which we are today. Let Israel, the Arab world, and the rest of the world face their responsibility rather than having this fig leaf called the Palestinian Authority. In reality what exists is the brutal occupation of the Palestinian areas. The other question is of generation. There will always be peacemakers and there will always be extremists. The important thing is that the majority of people will always need leaders. Today, unfortunately, the Palestinian people are leaderless, leaving the vacuum for the extremists to lead, while the Israeli people are in a way led by almost a dictator and by violence.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you, Eyad. Elias, please.

Elias Zananiri: I just want to address the question of trust. In the case of an agreement being signed between the two sides, first of all it will be an agreement signed between the two governments of Israel and Palestine. The second thing refers to the fact that the overwhelming majority on both sides supports peace and they would like to see a peaceful end to all this conflict. Nevertheless, the chance or the likelihood is always there for extremist powers to exist on this side or on that side. In such a case these forces should never be given the veto power that they have enjoyed over the last three years. They were the ones who dictated the agenda. We have to prevent them from dictating the agenda of the future. Thanks.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you. Daniel Levy would like a minute, and then I'll let Yasser Abed Rabbo wrap up the whole discussion.

Daniel Levy: In response to Jonathan Friedland's question, I'd say the following: for those who say, hey, these guys are yesterday's people. The question is, what do you do? Shall we face a future with the Hamas, or do we do everything in our power day after day to strengthen the moderates? That's the answer on that side. The second one is, okay, but are even those guys a partner or aren't they really hoodwinking me? After the Geneva initiative came out and I had to do an interview on Israeli radio, I asked a friend, how do you say, you can't take yes for an answer, in Hebrew? And apparently there is no way, a Hebrew way of saying it. And I think sometimes it really is a question of taking yes for an answer. And my final point, which I think is a legitimate concern, is do they have the carrying capacity? In other words, okay, I've gone through the mental hurdle of are they really going to stick to it, do they really mean it, etc, but do they have the carrying capacity? And I think here we tried to build into the Geneva agreement the components which facilitate that carrying capacity especially with a third party i.e. international role.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Thank you very much, Daniel, and the final word from the panel goes to Yasser Abed Rabbo.

Yasser Abed Rabbo: Thank you very much. A few months ago it was very difficult to find a gathering like this one where people regained their interest once again in our conflict and in solutions for this conflict. A few months ago it was very difficult to speak with people - our people, or to people outside our country. Now there is a debate. And the debate is growing and expanding every day. This is a very important case where, through the debate, we will hopefully gain more and more support for our initiative. Our main weapon is the public opinion. I know that so many of those who oppose our initiative belong to the old guard. By the way, so many of those who support our initiative, like the person who was mentioned a while ago, I refer to PLC member Qaddoura Fares, belong to what is considered the Marwan Barghouthi group, for example. They support the initiative not because they belong to this generation or that. Even the younger generation has suffered a lot. They spent long years in prisons and they paid in blood for the experience they had gained. For all these generations and for the coming generations we are going to continue the line we have started. We will make peace in spite of all the difficulties. I thank the IISS, I thank MBI, and I thank you all for your participation with us tonight. Thank you. [Applause].

Nomi Bar-Yaacov: Please remain seated everyone, the Israeli delegation needs to leave, they have an airplane to catch, so please remain seated. IISS Director, Dr John Chipman, would like to say a couple of words.

Dr. John Chipman: I just want to thank all the panelists for having left us with a sense of inspiration and invite you all to stay seated while Nomi Bar-Yaacov escorts them out. Thank you very much indeed. [Applause].