Ambassador Karim Kawar

Americans for Peace Now
Ambassador Forum

March 14, 2005 

Speakers: The Honorable Phyllis Oakley, Former Assistant Secretary of State; His Excellency Nabil Fahmy, Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt; His Excellency Karim Kawar, Ambassador of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and The Honorable Hasan Abdle Rahman, Chief Rep. of the the PLO and PNA in the U.S.

DEBORAH DELEE: Good morning. I'd like to welcome you all to the Americans for Peace Now Ambassadors Forum on disengagement and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. My name is Deborah DeLee. I am the president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now.

For those of you that may not be familiar with Americans for Peace Now, we are a Jewish Zionist organization that works to enhance Israel's security through peace, and we support the Israeli Peace Now movement, which is our sister organization. And you can learn more, and we encourage you to learn more by going to our website, www.peacenow.org.

For many years, Peace Now in Israel and Americans for Peace Now in the United States have been the leading advocates for a secure peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors. We work in support of peace initiatives with officials from abroad, political spectrum, both in the United States and in Israel. In fact, Peace Now in Israel was originally formed to support then-Prime Minister Menacham Begin's quest for peace with Egypt -- very successful, long-lasting peace -- and over the years we have worked with many prime ministers from Likud and Labor alike in their search for a better future for the region. And it is in that spirit that Peace Now and Americans for Peace Now are supporting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to evacuate settlers and soldiers from all of Gaza and part of the West Bank.

In Israel, Peace Now is a key player in the Majority Coalition, which is an umbrella organization bringing together political activists from various parties in the kibbutz movement in favor of evacuation. There has already been a number of successful demonstrations and there will be a large demonstration in support of disengagement this Saturday night in Tel Aviv. And in the U.S., Americans for Peace Now is urging Congress to approve, with no new conditions, the additional financial aid that President Bush is recommending for Israel and the Palestinians in order to promote Palestinian reforms to stabilize the Palestinian economy and to allow Israel to build high-tech crossing terminals along the Green Line to improve the flow of people and goods in a more -- in an easier and more secure fashion.

We are fortunate -- we're extremely fortunate today to have a very distinguished panel with us. This is one of these times when we actually welcome some logistical challenges. As you know, we had to change the room this morning because the overwhelming response that we had to our event, and we believe it's for two reasons. One is this incredibly unique moment in time as relates to the peace process; the other is the very distinguished panel that we have who have a unique knowledge and perspective on what is going on in the Middle East, and we hope that you take away this morning a better understanding of both the opportunities as well as the challenges that face us at this time, and certainly for the need -- the imperative for the U.S. to provide the assistance that's necessary to take advantage of this historic moment.

To lead this discussion we are very grateful to have someone with us who is no stranger to Middle East diplomacy. Before introducing her I want to mention that we are doing a transcript of today's forum and that you will be able to get it on our website -- access it in our website shortly after today's forum.

We're very pleased to have with us the Honorable Phyllis Oakley, who is going to be our moderator today. She has served twice as assistant secretary of state, as a career Foreign Service officer, leading both the Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration as well as the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. She was also the first women spokesperson for the State Department, a role that she filled with distinction from 1986 through 1989. In addition, she worked in the Congressional Affairs for the Near Eastern bureau and as the Afghanistan desk officer.

So it's my great pleasure to turn the program over to Phyllis Oakley. Thank you. (Applause.)

PHYLLIS OAKLEY: Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here this morning with a very distinguished panel of speakers who will take a very serious look and lead a discussion about the prospects for Israel-Palestinian peace, including Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank.

For those of us who have been watching and observing the Middle East for some years -- and I will give away how long that is when I refer to the beloved late Roy Atherton, and Roy Atherton always used to say, it seemed to him in the Middle East as if there was a carousel and every now and then it came around and there was an opportunity to grab the brass ring. Sometimes we grabbed it for a little bit and held it and then other things happened. So I think, as Deborah said, right now we're seeing that reappearance of the brass ring coming around, an opportunity when there really is a chance to make some progress toward peace I think that we all desire.

Americans are basically optimistic people, so I think that the optimism, however cautious, comes around. We all know the numbers of things that have been happening in the Middle East, this coming together of all the factors. And of course we all know, with any experience in the Middle East, how quickly it can all change. Flare- ups of violence, flare-ups of assassinations again have, unfortunately, the habit of upsetting the best-laid plans. So I think that cautious optimism perhaps is the right word to use, but it really ought to, I hope, invigorate us all to make a greater effort.

We have four speakers today who will provide us different perspectives. After I introduce them they will give their opening statements, and when they're done, you will all have an opportunity to ask questions. I will be extremely strict about statements and questions, and we all know what happens if people get to speak too long.

We will first hear from His Excellency Daniel Ayalon, the ambassador of Israel to the United States. He has served in his present position since July '02 and has been deeply involved in the negotiations over the roadmap and the disengagement plan. He has served the last three consecutive Israeli administrations, has been an Israeli delegate in '97 to Sharm el-Sheikh, the Wye Plantation, and the 2000 Camp David peace accords.

Our second speaker will be the Honorable Hasan Abdel Rahman, chief representative of the PLO authority and the Palestinian Authority in the U.S. And he's head of the Palestinian mission, here since 1994, having previously served in Canada at the U.N. And he too, of course, has been part of several peace conferences and delegations and worked in various capacities representing the Palestinian cause in Washington since the early '80s.

Our third speaker will be His Excellency Nabil Fahmy, who has been ambassador of Egypt to the U.S., a post that he has served since October '99. In addition, he has been ambassador of Egypt to Japan and has headed the Egyptian delegation to the Middle East Peace Process Steering Committee in '93 as well as being on many other Egyptian delegations including Madrid in '91.

Our fourth speaker will be His Excellency Karim Kawar, ambassador of Jordan to the United States. He has served in Washington since September of 2002. And I understand you were one of the younger ambassadors of Jordan. He had a well-deserved reputation as a prominent leader in developing Jordan's information and communications technology sector before becoming a diplomat, and we are very glad to have all of them here this morning.

Let me turn the podium over to Ambassador Ayalon now.

AMBASSADOR DANIEL AYALON: Well, good morning and thank you very much, the Honorable Phyllis Oakley, for this introduction and also for letting me the opportunity to feel like a congressman. Now I know what it feels. (Laughter.) I also want to thank Deborah DeLee and American friends of Peace Now for this gathering here. I think it is very timely and I think that it has been quite some time since there was a forum which included the ambassadors from Jordan, Egypt, Israel, and a representative of the PLO together in one forum. I think maybe also it symbolizes the changes of the time, and I hope the time is changing.

I think that the very successful free and fair elections in the Palestinian territory, with the emergence of new Palestinian leadership lends itself to many new opportunities. Israel was very instrumental in bringing about the success of these elections. We are very proud to have been doing that, and I think that the success will lend itself now to a new path.

Conversely, on our side I think that the disengagement plan that was introduced by Prime Minister Sharon, albeit it was done in a different era and maybe for a different reason, I think it proves itself -- renders itself quite visionary and timely for now. And with a departure from the past, Israel is very much interested to conduct this disengagement in a coordinated manner with the Palestinians. I believe that a complete Israeli departure from Gaza and also substantial parts of the West Bank -- I don't know if many of you know, but territory-wise, the area that, according to the disengagement plan, that we will leave in the West Bank is double in size territory-wise than the Gaza itself.

Also, since the election of Prime Minister of -- the new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and the new government that he constituted, we are very much interested in working with them together. We feel comfortable in dealing with them. There were various meetings. The prime minister met -- Prime Minster Sharon met with Mr. Abbas in Sharm. There was a meeting between our Defense Minister Mofaz and his counterparts and also with Mr. Abbas just recently two and three days ago, and we will continue to do that.

Also, because we are preparing for the disengagement, we are going to work on a daily basis with the Palestinians, and here I would describe two major efforts. I would say one is the security effort where we were working with the Palestinians and trying to transfer over responsibility to them wherever they can do it. We are talking now about five major Palestinian towns, starting with Jericho, hopefully with Tulkarm, Kalkilia, Bethlehem and others, coordinating with them on the ground.

So this is the security package by and large. And also, we have introduced a confidence-building measures, I would call it, or gestures whereby we're trying to do the utmost to ease the life and the humanitarian condition in the Palestinian territories. That means lifting all the possible checkpoints, roadblocks. We're going to continue to do that. Releasing prisoners -- 500 were released already; 400 more are in store -- and we are willing to embark on this road, working together with the Palestinians, understanding that all of us have a mutual stake for the success of the process.

As Phyllis mentioned, there were many opportunities in the past which were not taken, which were missed. We do hope in Israel that this time the opportunity will not be missed. And we are determined to do everything in our power not to let this opportunity being missed. For us, achieving peace is not just a strategic choice; it's a moral obligation and we are willing to make painful concessions in order to achieve this peace. We want to make sure that this peace is a durable one; peace which is predicated also on security for all, on stability and economic prosperity and new economic opportunities for everybody -- Palestinians, Israelis and everybody in the region itself.

Having said that -- and I emphasize how we see our interests now intertwined with the Palestinian Authority. There are many risks to the process, risks from within -- terror organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front, Democratic Front. There are a few other splinter organizations -- and there are some risks from the outside, whether it's the terror organizations that reside in Damascus, whether it's the Hezbollah, which is a proxy of Iran for all practical purposes, and we do see stepped up, an increased effort by Hezbollah to organize the terror cells to recruit terrorists and to effect terror activities as we speak in order to derail any kind of traction that we have already achieved.

So this is something that we are very much mindful of, and here we hope that we can work together with the Palestinian Authority, as I mentioned, that we have now a common stake here, and I hope we are sharing a common vision as we move along. I think that this element that I have described, the terroristic ones, as they have been identified -- by the way they have been identified in the past but nothing was taken -- no steps were taken in order to confront them, I think that they should be isolated and they should be really under constant pressure so they cannot derail the process.

For the long term it is very important that all terror organizations will be dismantled; otherwise any kind of lull or peaceful period may be just a ticking bomb for the future where terrorists can at will, or when they find conveniently or strategically important for them to act. This is something that it is very, very imperative to do away not just with the terrorists on a daily basis but also with the potential of a terrorist to act. And as we speak, we know of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and others who are reorganizing, regrouping, rearming. So this is something that we will all have to contend with.

I will end my remarks by saying again the importance we see of working together with the Palestinians, with other neighbors, important countries in the region like Jordan and Egypt, and Israel is willing to do its utmost and to work together with the region, with the international community to bring about a better future for all of us.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MS. OAKLEY: And now the representative of the Palestinian Authority.

HASEN ABDEL RAHMAN: Thank you very much for the invitation. I'm delighted to be here in the company of my colleagues from Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Less than two months ago today, President Mahmoud Abbas was sworn in as the president of the Palestinian Authority. He was elected -- in fact, given a mandate by the Palestinian people. Sixty- two percent of the voters gave him that mandate on the basis of a very important political platform. One is end of the Palestinian armed intifada. Second, he'll reform administrative as well as financial to the Palestinian institutions and security services, and the establishment of the rule of law in the Palestinian Authority territories, the only territories under the Palestinian Authority, and strict adherence to the roadmap, negotiations with Israel to achieve a permanent and lasting peace.

So it's a peace and reform agenda.

He was very clear when he addressed the Palestinian public and the Palestinian public gave him that mandate. Thus, giving a message to Israel, to the international community that the Palestinian people are interested in living in peace side by side with Israel. Abu Mazen, when he assumed the presidency of the Palestinian Authority, he is facing many challenges. The last four years resulted in the destruction -- or about the destruction of the economic and administrative infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority. Today we have an average of 40 to 50 percent unemployment in the Palestinian territories, in Gaza in particular. Well, most of the people depended on work in Israel. We had about 120 (thousand) to 150,000 Palestinian workers in Israel. Today probably the number is less than 5,000 to 10,000 people who are allowed or can work in Israel.

The Palestinian territories are dissected into almost 60 little ghettoes as a result of about 700 military checkpoints that today you'll find in the West Bank and Gaza, and an almost nonexistent security force in the West Bank. So for Abu Mazen to succeed in implementing his agenda, we need the cooperation of the Israelis, first of all, the international community, and the Arab brothers, especially Egypt and Jordan and other Arab countries.

From Israel we cannot succeed if the settlement activities continued and abated in the West Bank and Gaza, especially in the West Bank, because the West Bank is the territory over which the Palestinian people want to build their own state. Of course, together with Gaza we have a promise from Israel that they want to do withdraw from Gaza, but we have witnessed an increase in settlement activities in the West Bank, especially in the last few years, and in particular in the last few months, and I believe that Israel Peace Now published a report on the level of settlement activities.

Let me tell you what: we believe that the most destructive activity by Israel in the Palestinian territories is building settlements because for the average Palestinian who does not have contact with the average Israeli, they only see Israelis through the settlers who are living in the West Bank and in Gaza, or they see Israelis only through the soldiers who man the checkpoints in the West Bank and Gaza. So as a matter of priority, Israel needs to assist Abu Mazen, who has a very clear peace agenda, to succeed by acting and not only talking.

What we hear from our Israeli counterparts is very good, but we need action on the ground. We need for the average Palestinian to see that there is a change in the quality of life that he or she can move freely from one town to the other. We understand that Israel needs security but there are, out of the 700 checkpoints on the West Bank, very few that are security related. We do not believe settlement activities in the West Bank are security related. We are ready and we have made a commitment in Sharm el-Sheikh to do all we can and exert more than 100 percent effort if there is a possibility to do so on the security front, but for us to succeed, we need to persuade our people that this is going to bring change into their life. That's extremely important.

We want to achieve what Abu Mazen declared in his platform, and that is there's one Palestinian Authority and there's one legitimate gun in the hands of the legitimate institutions of the Palestinian Authority. We want to achieve that, but we want to achieve it without having to confront -- to go into a civil war, and tomorrow the Palestinian leader will be meeting with representatives of 13 Palestinian organizations in order to achieve a permanent cease-fire. That will allow us to carry on our agenda to implement our platform on having only the Palestinian security institutions and apparatus having guns. So we have our plan to achieve that.

You know, democracy has been chosen as the only path for the Palestinians. But democracy by itself is not enough because democracy must be able to bring freedom to the Palestinian people. Today the Palestinian people are not free. Today the Palestinian people live under military occupation. So we want to make the Palestinian people able to be free because in order for us to achieve the coexistence that we all struggle for and that we have the Palestinians and the Israelis paid a very heavy price for its absence. We need to work as partners, as equals, that we respect the right of Israel to live as an independent and a sovereign state within the 1967 boundaries, and Israel also respects the right of the Palestinian people to have their own state on the 1967 territories. That is the only way for peace to be achieved. We welcome every step by the Israeli government in that direction, including the disengagement from Gaza, but the disengagement, if it is going to be coupled with building and intensifying settlements in the West Bank, it is going to not lead to the objective that we want to achieve.

I know that I am taking more time than my colleague but I hope that I would be able to expand on those issues in the question and answer period. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)

MS. OAKELY: And now to our third speaker, Ambassador Fahmy of Egypt.

AMBASSADOR NABIL FAHMY: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you, Ambassador Oakley, and thank you, Deborah, for this kind invitation to come and speak this morning.

As all of you know, Egypt has been at the forefront of peacemaking in the Middle East, frankly from the inception, and if there's anything that I regret in this process, that we have not been able as of yet to bring together a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace in its entirety, although I would argue at the same time that 30 years of peacemaking have realized an Egyptian-Israeli peace which remains the foundation for all the processes that came after that. There is of course the Jordan-Israeli peace, and there is a realization that a Palestinian-Israeli peace will only be realized through a two-state solution.

That's really where I'd like to focus on. You've heard my colleagues from the PA from Israel talk about the details of what they'd like to see, but the point I'd like to start off with is we have to understand here and we have to have a common commitment to what we're doing. What we are trying to do is finally realize a two- state solution between Palestinian and Israel living side by side based on the 1967 parameters and a mutual agreement between the two sides. That is where the roadmap falls in and that is where the Gaza First withdrawal falls in, and that is where the most recent meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh, where Egypt hosted the Palestinians, the Israelis and Jordan together to restart the peace process falls in. If we don't realize that, this will be just a simple -- another effort at peacemaking that will stop, hopefully not in the near future.

So the commitment by all the parties to a two-state solution has to be at the forefront of everything they do, and their actions in the months to come have to be consistent with that objective. It's not simply being consistent with the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings or the roadmap. No, it has to be consistent with those two issues but also with the establishment of a two-state solution.

Now, what did Sharm el-Sheikh bring to this process? Well, where are we now? We are, as Ambassador Ayalon said, at a unique situation where we're actually coming together here to speak to you, as Arabs and Israelis, about peacemaking, which we weren't able to do in the past for reasons that I don't have time to deliberate on.

So finally, by coming to Sharm el-Sheikh, the parties themselves, and Egypt and Jordan with them, are finally talking to their own people and saying, we have a partner on the other side and we have a common objective; now we have to get there. Now, that's a fundamental shift from where we were in the past, because where we were in the past was basically a process of demonization, that one side was right; the other side was wrong, and we knew what the parameters of peace would be but there's not partner on the other side. And that process of demonization, if left unsettled, would ultimately have eroded the basic fundamentals of peacemaking five, 10 years from now. So the very important point is, yes, the two sides still haven't agreed, and there are a lot of details and problems but they're finally back to, we have a partner and let's try to figure out the details.

The second point is they actually are trying to respond to each other's concerns and they realize that both of them have responsibilities. If you look at the language on ending violence, it relates to both sides. If you look at the language on the other understandings, Israel without a doubt is trying to respond to President Abu Mazen's need for political dividends for his people on the issue of release of prisoners, on the withdrawal from the cities, which we hope will occur very soon, and the Palestinians are trying to respond to Israel's concerns about what's considered to be incitement or hatred towards Israelis.

But more importantly, I think the most important element at Sharm el-Sheikh, or at least equally important, is that they establish a margin (?) committee between them. And where we, and I think Jordan, will be happy to help if required, to look at how these are implemented and where their problems are and how to move forward, because neither side, the Palestinians or the Israelis, or for that matter countries like my own, can accept to hand over the agenda for peacemaking in the Middle East to those who do not believe in a two- state solution, to those who will resort to violence against one side or the other to destroy this objective.

Now, are we there yet? No, of course we're not there. If there are more settlements it will be very, very difficult for the Palestinians to believe that the a viable Palestinian state will be realized in the near future. If there is more violence, the Israelis will of course find it very difficult to believe that the Palestinians are truly committed to pursuing peace through negotiations rather than through violence. But the international community, my country of course included, has to help them get there. We have to help them get there by holding them to the standard that we are moving towards a two-state solution, so if there's erosion of territory, that has to be clearly indicated to be unacceptable. If there is a resort to violence, that has to be held accountable.

We also need, in the months to come, to start building the bridges between the Gaza First withdrawal, the roadmap, and final settlement. We don't need to negotiate those issue now but we need to start realizing the bridges because if there is one lesson that we've drawn from 30 years of peacemaking in the Middle East, the minute we stop we either fall down or fall backward.

The one very important message that I wanted to leave you with is on the one hand the two sides -- the Palestinians and Israelis -- have to fulfill their commitments at Sharm el-Sheikh completely in the near term -- not in months and years to come, in the near term. But as we do that we have to always look at where the position will be one step ahead. In other words, how to link a successful Gaza First process with the roadmap into stage two and state three of the roadmap, and ultimately where are we going in this issue of the roadmap because you will not be able to move from one stage to the other without stabilizing the situation on the ground, on the one hand, and showing Israelis that the Palestinian Authority has been able to exercise its authority consistent with its mandate, and it will not work if the Palestinians and the Authority per se are not able to deliver a political dividend, but what's coming next in this generation, not in another generation -- in this generation, that they will be able to deliver to the Palestinians themselves a Palestinian state that is viable and independent within their own border, sometime in the near future.

I don't want to get into details more than that but I'll be happy to take questions as to either our role, or for that matter, what we see as the role of the U.S. and the rest of the world in the question and answer session. Thank you. (Applause.)

MS. OAKLEY: Last but not least, the ambassador from Jordan, Ambassador Karim.

AMBASSADOR KARIM KAWAR: Thank you, Madame Chair. It's wonderful to join such a distinguished panel and to address such a distinguished audience. I want to thank APN and all our friends on the Hill for the time that they are giving us. I want to state at the out-front that Jordan has a vested interest in establishing peace -- a comprehensive peace that's inclusive of all parties. And as we are constantly reminded by the words of his majesty, King Abdullah, who cites his father's words, the late King Hussein, who said, we are working towards peace for our children. And King Abdullah reminds us that we are the children that King Hussein was referring to, and we certainly don't want to miss a generation in trying to achieve that vision.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel. There is a framework, the roadmap, and that is the basis by which we can move forward. Today I share my colleagues' optimism that we do have a window of opportunity. President Abbas's election on the platform of no violence is certainly a reflection of what the majority of the Palestinians believe in, and hopefully the outcome of Sharm el-Sheikh and the ceasefire that was established would allow us to work with both parties, with the Israelis and the Palestinians, to move this process forward. But we're also reminded of how fragile that cease-fire is, that any attack or anyone who intends to disrupt this process have the means to do so, but all parties have to remain committed to the implementation of the roadmap.

Speaking specifically about the Gaza disengagement, I think sometimes when we use certain words -- is it a Gaza disengagement or a Gaza withdrawal -- it makes a big difference in how this disengagement is perceived. When it was first introduced it was based on having no partner on the Palestinian side, and thus the term "disengagement." Today there is a partner on the Palestinian side, through President Abbas and the government, and we hope that this would be the Gaza withdrawal, and not just from Gaza but also from the four settlements in the West Bank and hopefully all settlements, which would have to be agreed to by the Palestinians and Israelis in their final status negotiations.

We stress the need to avoid the experience of South Lebanon, and that the withdrawal from Gaza has to be coordinated with the Palestinian Authority because we dread the alternative. Gaza has to be proven a success, and in order for it to succeed, it needs all parties to cooperate, and most importantly, the Palestinian Authority to be empowered to take on that responsibility in Gaza to ensure the security situation but also to ensure that there is an economic potential for the Palestinians living in Gaza and elsewhere. I believe that this is also an opportune time for Israel to support the moderates in the region, to empower the moderates and not to allow the radicals and their voices to be overstated or overheard. On the contrary, it's the moderates that have the wise words that should be listened to. And we believe that, finally, on the Gaza withdrawal, that this should be part and parcel of the roadmap, and we have to look at marrying both the Gaza withdrawal with the roadmap.

Just to talk a bit about Jordan's role, we see, of course, ourselves playing a key role in this process. We want to invest our peace treaty with Israel, which was concluded in '94. Our ambassador has returned to Tel Aviv and has been playing a very significant role in communicating with both sides. Our foreign minister visited the Palestinian territories in Israel last week and had very good meetings. And finally, His Majesty King Abdullah addressed Israel television too, that we believe it's also important to communicate with Israeli citizens and to understand what they want. And His Majesty always says that we have to put ourselves in Israelis' shoes and see how they perceive the situation and how their needs can be addressed as well.

We do have an opportunity that presents itself next week, March 21st and 22nd, and that's at the Arab Summit in Algiers. May I remind you that the Arab League and its members, the 22 Arab countries presented the Arab Peace Initiative in March of 2002. Unfortunately the situation that happened right after did not allow for that initiative to take any steps forward. We hope that in the upcoming summit that the Arab countries can revisit that initiative, to write it in a language that appeals to both the Israelis and the Palestinians so that it can be supportive of the roadmap and of moving forward.

I would like to conclude with just stressing a few points. The first is what are the lessons learned from the summer of 2003 when President Abbas was prime minister there and in Jordan we hosted, in Aqaba, the leaders of the region? What were the missed opportunities then and what caused them, and how can they be avoided this time around? Two, that this is a very fragile situation and that anything could happen to disrupt the process. And that's why it's important for us to invest in a contingency plan to make sure that this process does not break down, that those enemies of peace who want to see this process disrupted, not to allow them to cause that effect but to maintain the communication channels so that we in the region and specifically the Israelis and the Palestinians can overcome those problems.

And we also -- point number three: we need to work to ensure that the Palestinians can have a contiguous and a viable state. If it is not viable, it is not going to work.

And I will close by my fourth remark of saying we need to help the Palestinians to stop seeing it greener on the other side of the fence, literally.

We have to give the Palestinians something worth living for rather than something to die for. Thank you. (Applause.)

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you all very much for very thought-provoking remarks and that we have kept them relatively brief so that we have a good long time for questions. May I remind you that it is very helpful for speakers if you will identify yourself, give your name, and not make a long statement but provide something that people can really chew on and grapple with. I think probably it will be easier if we address questions to one ambassador or representative rather than having the same question for all four speakers. With that, can I ask -- oh, good, good -- people are -- let me start over here with the man in the blue and then black, and then we will go back over here. Please.

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Well, not yell, thank you very much, but we will expect a good strong voice, and if there is a problem I think there is some microphones here.

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Okay, I am going to call time right now because you're a perfect example of making a statement, which I understand is heartfelt but I want you to get the to the question.

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. AYALON: Okay, thank you. I would take on what my esteemed colleague here, Ambassador Alarabi (ph) mentioned before. Part of the problems that we couldn't really reach any kind of contact was lack of partners or demonization. I would say we also should not fall into the trap of dealing now with the contours of a -- I would say a permanent status because I think we have benefited from experience in the past that by frontloading the most sensitive issues, this may collapse the whole process.

Now, the Israel position on Jerusalem is clear and has not changed. I don't think this has ever been in the way to make progress. Also, the issue of the settlements -- if you recall, long before the first settlement was established, there was still terror. Terror preceded that in a very, very forceful way. The attempt to dehumanize or de-legitimate the right of Israel to exist in its homeland was always very persistent before 1967 and the enterprises of settlement.

But I think we should not concentrate now on these points of contentions as we should not concentrate on the contours. I think that any suggestion which directs to a finality or a very specific outcome is in a way a dictate which cannot hold. I think it's up to the parties to negotiate directly and this is also what is prescribed out of the roadmap, which was universally endorsed. So this is something which is very, very delicate and I think we should be smart about it and not contentions, and not provoking each other on this sense.

Israel has its position very clear, including the concession of understanding and accepting the two-state solution in the way it was prescribed, in the way it was mentioned in the roadmap. We have already dealt with political concessions that we were taking, we are taking, and we will take. Conversely, we would like to see also the other side -- the Palestinians maybe also assuring us in a way that we know that we have a partner, not just for a technical reason in the short term, but the duration -- for the long term. And for that we dealt with the issue of terrorism.

There is also an issue which is very, very important to us and that is the issue of incitement, not just in the media but I would say equally important and even maybe more so is the incitement in the curriculum, in the textbooks that Palestinian children learn by, where there is no recognition of Israel whatsoever, where there is no attempt for historic reconciliations. This is a danger that also we have to address and address it now. And we have not seen that taking place.

So both sides have a lot to deal with for the future. What we should do is compliment each other, help each other, and do everything in a way which is a gradual way, which is also what the roadmap envisions. And, as you know, the roadmap is called the roadmap to peace, which is performance-based, and we cannot move ahead without having results on the ground. And the results on the ground will be assured when we see the end of incitement as we know it and we will see also the end of the potential of terror. And I very much commend my colleague here from the PLO that they really are trying to achieve one rule of law, one authority, and one gun. That will be very important.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

Yes, black.

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. AYALON: As the aid package to the Palestinians, we were very much for it. I think it is very important to try and help economic opportunities over with the Palestinians. I think when we talk about responsibilities -- and the roadmap also was mentioned here by my good friend Nabil -- the roadmap puts responsibilities for each of the parties, but also it puts responsibilities for third parties, mainly countries in the region and the international community. And I hear -- and I think here the member states in the region can do a lot by supporting politically, by helping economically, and by also encouraging the sides to move ahead. So we were very much for it.

We are in no way or shape engaged in the political or the internal politics and the negotiations between the White House on the Hill, so I have no comment to make on that except that we are encouraged by the fact that this part of the package, the assistance package, is being use also as a bridge between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, allocating some of it for special terminals with high-tech and technological equipment which will expedite, really, the move of Palestinian merchandise in a way which will not really delay, and that is very, very important.

On the issue of the outpost, the unauthorized outpost, there is an ironclad commitment by the Prime Minister Sharon and now by the Israel government. And I think this is the importance of the report that was introduced to the Israeli government yesterday -- was adopted by the Israeli government and now it is a commitment by the Israeli government to deal with the outposts, and we will deal with it and this is something which we are not going to let go away.

Having said that, most of the energies now are being focused on the disengagement, the evacuation from Gaza and the four communities in the West Bank, and I do appreciate what the PLO representative said about the Palestinians trying to do everything to avert civil war among themselves. We do not wish them any evil or any civil war, but you also have to be mindful of the explosive situation in Israel, and we do not want to be a in a situation of a civil war with our own communities and brothers, so things have to be dealt with in a manner which will be both timely and effective.

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. AYALON: Thank you very much, by the way, for this show of support. And I really feel popular here. (Chuckles.) Keep going, that's fine.

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. AYALON: No, no, I wouldn't if it goes this way continually. (Laughter.)

Well, about the Hamas, I would say we are very careful. We are not in the business of intervening with the internal politics of the Palestinians. But there are two caveats here with Hamas or other terror organizations: if there is an attempt to co-opt them and others into the political system of the Palestinians, it is something clearly for the Palestinians to decide. I would say that the limits here or the criteria should be twofold. First of all, if there is a real co- optation to the political system, then they cannot have arms. I do not know of any political party which has a private army or which has caches of explosives or labs of munitions and terror squads. So this is something which has to be made clear, I think.

I don't want to speak for them but otherwise it's a challenge to their own system, but this is not for me to discuss. I'm concerned with a threat that they pose to us, what they pose to a peace process.

And secondly, there is issue here of an ideology. Now, clearly, in any democracy -- and you know that the United States here, Israel is a great democracy; we know that ideology cannot be harnessed to anything, it has to be free; we know what academic freedom and everything is in that order. However, ideas I think should stop where there is an incitement or there is a call to hurt others. And I think this is also another litmus test to be put to any organizations like Hamas, and that is as long as there is an ideology of destruction of the state of Israel -- and this is the current ideology of Hamas -- as long as they have a strategy of advancing this ideology through violence and terror, then they are totally illegitimate.

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. AYALON: I may as well keep my microphone all of the time. Okay. (Chuckles.)

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. AYALON: (Chuckles.) Thank you. Well, we call it the fence, the anti-terror fence, and we see it as really a non-violent means to counter terrorism. You have to understand that this fence, the rationale for it was after a thousand Israelis were killed -- we had suicide bombings in markets, in our schools on a daily basis, sometimes two or three a day, which was very, very difficult. And it is a very, very effective way to stop infiltration of suicide bombers, and we see it works. It almost boils down to a science. Where we have the fence, there is no suicide bombing infiltrating from that area. Where there is no fence, there is a problem. So the importance of the fence is just to save lives and ultimately to save the peace process because to the extent that it can thwart or prevent terror, it is also preventing derailment of the negotiations and the political dialogue.

Having said that, we have always stated and we are stating now that this fence is not a permanent solution. On the contrary, it is there so long as there is a threat of terror. Once we will feel no threat of terror, the fence is not there. And we have said it and we are saying it now: in the past we have had even greater fences, whether it was in the Sinai or whether it was on the border of Egypt. We made peace with them; the fence went down.

So I won't look at it as anything which can prevent building bridges. On the contrary, it may help building bridges by preventing bloodshed and killing right now. Now, the fence itself has gone under the scrutiny of the Israeli Supreme Court and the Israeli government has been challenged many times. And we abide by the rulings of the court whereby we give I would say equal weight to security consideration but also to humanitarian conditions for the Palestinians.

MS. OAKLEY: (Off mike.)

Q: (Off mike.)

AMBASSADOR KAWAR: The Arab summit usually addresses several issues but what we hope when it comes to the peace process, that this time around it would restate the Arab peace initiative, which offered a collective security arrangement for Israel based on a comprehensive peace treaty that calls for the return to the 1967 borders and the dismantlement of settlements. It also calls for the normalization of relations. But this would be -- this would allow Israel to normalize relations not just with its neighboring states but with the Arab countries stretching from Morocco to Oman. When this peace initiative was first written, it was written in Arabic and probably addressing an Arab audience.

What we're hoping that we will be able to do in two weeks is that we address it to the Israeli citizens where we probably write it in English and then translate it into Arabic so that language doesn't come out as dry as did. But that the offer is still there and I would like to remind everyone here that when peace initiative was first agreed upon, the 22 Arab states included Iraq under Saddam's regime; it included Syria and Libya. And frankly, I hope that Israel would say -- would turn around and say, let's take the Arabs for their offering and say what can we do more to make this a workable solution.

Thank you.

MS. OAKLEY: Excuse me, Ambassador Fahmy, do you want to add anything? Thank you.

Excuse me, the woman in the center please.

Q: (Off mike.)

MR. RAHMAN: The conference in London was very helpful in terms of the assistance pledged by the participants to the Palestinian Authority. I mean, you know, that the purpose of the conference was to assist the Palestinian Authority to rebuild its institutions and carry on the forms in the areas that we need to carry those three forms.

Now, on the issue of needless engagement, let me make the following remarks. The Palestinians have a deep concern about Gaza -- disengagement from Gaza in exchange for intensification of Israeli presence in the West Bank. Another one -- we have noticed that in the last few weeks there is an increase of the number of housing units built in the West Bank.

You see, settlements are not built in a vacuum. When you speak about incitement, for the average Palestinian who sees -- even according to the report of Ms. Sassoon when she says that most of the Jewish settlements that were built in the last -- the 105 Jewish settlements were built on privately owned Palestinian land. In other words, it was taking from peasants, from farmers. And those settlements were built on -- this is the highest form of incitement because when you see your land taken away from you, that is an act of incitement.

Second, the settlements are not built in no-man's land; they are built in the heart of the Palestinian territories. And so you cannot say that those are contentious issues. You have to leave -- because they are there; they are happening in the daily -- they are affecting the daily life of the Palestinians.

Third, the issue of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not just an empty city; Jerusalem is the homeland of the 250,000 Palestinians. It is a city where you have 250 -- it is the place where you have an actual mosque and the Church of the Holy City, so when you surround Jerusalem with a wall and cut it off for the rest of the Palestinians, that, for the Palestinians, is an act of aggression. So it just something -- anything is happening; it is something that is an act by Israel that affects the feelings, the emotions of the Palestinians.

Also the wall -- the continuation of the building of the wall. The wall is really separating people from each other. If you go to Alam and you have lived there and you have a sister who lives across the street Alam, today, instead of walking in two minutes needs three hours to go around the wall to visit your sister. So the wall is impacting on the Palestinian life. We understand the security needs of Israel, but why not build the wall on the borders of the 1967? Why do you have to build it in the heart of the West Bank and Gaza and go around curving out territories from the West Bank and building that wall? That is what impacts -- we are not against -- in fact, we have said that we are willing to contribute to the building of the wall if it was built on the Green Line. But don't build it, for heaven's sake, on my land. That is our objection to the wall.

Now, you ask, how do you link -- listen, I personally believe that we have to fast track the implementation of the old map. You cannot extend it over a long period of time because in my view this is a prescription for perpetuation of the existing situation. Abu Mazen -- President Abbas said before the Palestine Legislative Council that we are not for an interim state. So we have a democratically elected government. We are committed to all of the elements in the old map. Let's sit down with the Israelis and negotiate a final status so where we can know where their borders and our borders.

If we have to spend two weeks in negotiations about a checkpoint around Jericho, then imagine how long it takes us to discuss 700 checkpoints and the issue of Jerusalem and the refugees. I believe we have really to fast track the old map; we have to sit down. And you have a government in Palestine and a government in Israel that -- they say they are committed to peace.

Let's test each other's intentions; let's test the possibility of finding a final settlement because that is the only way really to save us from deeper perpetuation of the existing situation. And that is why I believe that just talking about Gaza and ignoring the West Bank is not a good prescription for building confidence because while Israel is appeasing its settlers on the West Bank, the Palestinians are suffering the results of this appeasement.

So it is not -- and even -- you saw the Israeli government visiting yesterday. Even when Sharon said that he believes that the old map calls for the dismantlement of those outposts, he took that issue and turned it to the committee -- a ministerial committee that is headed by the very person who assisted the building of those settlements. This is reported in The Washington Post today. So let's be serious, let's be frank, let's discuss the issues, the difficult issues, because that is how we reach agreements.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. Ambassador Fahmy.

AMB. FAHMY: Thank you. Just a brief comment since I was the one who sort of threw in this issue of bridges. From our experience in negotiating with Israel -- we were the first proponent of step-by- step negotiations and yet we were the first county to actually sign a peace agreement between Israel and a country in the Arab world. That is what drove me to make the suggestion that we have to have a bridge.

If you look at what has happened in negotiations over the last 30 years, if you simply negotiate and bring to the public the sacrifices they make, you develop a negative memento. On the other hand, if you bring to the public what they will get in exchange for that sacrifice, what is the next dividend that they get, then you develop a positive memento.

A simple example is what the opinion polls in Israel and among Palestinians just before the Oslo negotiations became public. The polls were generally negative towards the other side. When Prime Minister Rabin and President Arafat were able to announce that this is what the deal was and this is what each one of them was going to get to his people, the polls were overwhelming in support for the Oslo Agreement.

So my point really is this has to satisfy Israel and the Palestinians. And it is going to be painful -- let's not ignore that fact -- but to make it a continuum, it will have to be in exchange for an understanding of what comes next. Otherwise the pain on each side will be so difficult you won't be able to move forward and it will be fertile ground for people who oppose peace to say, this is too much, resort to violence and you end up disrupting the process.

So it's the sustainability of the process that's important and that the actions of both sides remain consistent with that ultimate objective. I'm not suggesting that we negotiate final settlement tomorrow, but we have to know where we are going and we have to have the same commitment to that objective in this generation.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, before we go on I would like to acknowledge the arrival of Congressman Barney Frank and ask if he would like to say anything or ask a question.

REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): (Off mike.) (Laughter, applause.)

MS. OAKLEY: All right. Now, excuse me, you had a follow up -- a quick –

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. FAHMY: No, I don't want to get into that because that means we're starting the negotiations now. What I'm saying is that each side has to have in mind, as they implement their commitments to each stage, what the next stage is and what their commitment is. And they have to talk talking with their partner before you get to the last stage.

MS. OAKLEY: I will call on the woman in black and then the man at the back of the room, and then over here with the yellow tie. Please.

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Okay, wait a minute, did everybody hear that?

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Stand up.

Q: Representative Abdel Rahman, both of your parties -- both of your governments understand that you have demands to make of each other to achieve -- a sustainable peace process will require strengthening moderates on both sides. I would ask both of you to address how your governments are or will be helping to empower moderates on you side.

MS. OAKLEY: Ambassador -- excuse me -- Ambassador Ayalon, do you want to take that up?

AMB. AYALON: Well, we will do everything to really encourage moderates from all sides and from all sides in the region, and we would very much like to see what my colleagues talked here about fast- track negotiations. But when you -- when you talk about fast-tract negotiations, we also want to see a fast-track dismantlement of terror organizations, you want to see a fast-track abolishment of incitement so you really can create not just the goodwill but you can really create the bridge and the track to move ahead.

And there is -- I would say people here talk about negotiations on one hand and on the other hand they talk about what the end result should be -- you know, what will be the final borders, what will be the different conditions. This is in a way an oxymoron and I think the negotiations -- and very well it was put in the roadmap -- should be discussed between the parties before we put any preconditions. And if you put preconditions, then I think you cannot really move ahead. So I would say this is something which is very, very important.

On the other hand, we are being asked, including here, what do we want to do with the issue of the settlements or Jerusalem or the borders -- by the way, these are not borders; these are -- the armistice line on the fourth of June so there is no any legal way into this line. But on the other side, we are not asking the Palestinians what are they willing to give up in terms of what they see -- the status of the permanent solution -- the issue of refugees. I have not seen a Palestinian leader talking yet about the fact that if, for the first time in history, a Palestinian state -- independent Palestinian state is going to be created that they will welcome all Palestinian refugees into their state.

So there are many issues that if we discuss now, we cannot move ahead. So I think what we should concentrate -- and I think this is the wisdom in the roadmap, the roadmap which was universally endorsed, to go on a step-by-step -- first of all to stabilize situation -- understanding that under terror and violence nothing can be moved or advanced -- this is the first thing. And secondly, we have a disengagement plan which will lend itself hopefully into the embarkment on a dialogue -- political dialogue according to the roadmap and then step-by-step, we can move forward.

So I think this something which has to be very much understood and to the extent that we will see the end of terror and the end of terror organizations -- and I told you, as we speak, there are terror cells, which are preparing terror activities. And when we see that this is no longer on the table and the issue of incitement, then we can move ahead.

MR. RAHMEN: I think –

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. RAHMEN: I was asked to comment on this. Can I do --

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, please.

MR. RAHMEN: On our side, I believe that we have obligations that we have to carry on in order to build confidence against the Israeli public. I think it's obvious that the level of violence has decreased dramatically in the last two months. I believe that according to even Israeli reports, 95 percent to 98 percent of the violence has disappeared. And what we have is a very, very, very minimum level and we are working extremely hard on this issue through negotiations and through the implementation of what Abu Mazen -- Mahmoud Abbas stated in his platform.

That is, to one legitimate gun, rule of law, peaceful negotiations with Israel, end to incitement that my colleague spoke about.

We are ready to do all of this and we have to do it -- unconditionally even -- towards the Israelis because after all, it is with the Israelis that we are going to make peace. But having said that, we have to understand also that violence does not happen in a vacuum. We have to look at occupation. Don't ever forget that the Palestinian people are occupied by Israel and you have to get the Palestinians the promise that this occupation is coming to an end.

When we speak about negotiations with Israel, we believe that the issues of refuges, the issue of settlement -- what prevents us -- the issue of Jerusalem, the issue of the borders -- what prevents us from sitting down with the Israelis to talk about those issues today? Why do we have to wait five years, or 10 years, or three years, or six years in order to sit down and talk about those issues while we are working on the other issues?

On the issue of the refugees, we have said to the Israelis that we and the Arab states all together agree to a negotiated, agreed upon, solution for the refugee problem negotiated with Israel. We are not going to impose on Israel in settlement of the refuge problem. We have to negotiate with Israel. But there is a refuge problem -- you cannot ignore it. It is half of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The issue of the territories: you cannot map negotiate -- tell the Palestinians, are you going to leave open-ended those territories, as my colleague is suggesting, there is an armistice line? If the armistice line is not the legal, then what are the legal lines? Are they the 1947 boundaries because some Palestinians would want to talk about that? So it is in your interest to talk about the 1967 boundaries because if that -- if you want to go to the United Nations, the 1947 boundaries are the only legal boundaries. We are not talking about that; we are talking about the 1967 boundaries. So it is in your interest to accept the 1967 boundaries as the boundaries between Palestine and Israel.

We can negotiate and we can accelerate the negotiations because that will give hope to the Palestinians but if you leave the status of the West Bank and Gaza open-ended forever, why -- what incentive are you giving to the Palestinians who want to be free from Israel? That is why we talk about accelerating the negotiations. Let's get to that and negotiate.

AMB. AYALON: Can I answer to this?

MS. OAKLEY: Please.

AMB. AYALON: I wholeheartedly agree and I would like to accelerate it. And I think the best incentive I think for the Palestinians to do away with the terror is understanding that only by taking away the terror from the equation, then we can discuss all of the things that my colleague here spoke about. And we never said that we are not willing to negotiate. On the contrary, we will negotiate on this and we have not put any timeline -- not months, not years, or decades. I think that as I mentioned before, the overriding principles for making a progress according to this roadmap is a result-oriented plan. And we make progress according to performance on the ground, according to results.

So if my Palestinian colleague here -- and I respect his desire and wish to accelerate all of the issues -- we would like to accelerate the issues for tomorrow, but let's make sure that if we do that then there is no terror, there is no incitement in the schools, and then we can talk about all of the things without this constant danger and threat that we all still are facing now.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. I was going to call you -- all right -- (chuckles) -- and then the man in the yellow tie, and then I will get to you.

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Equal opportunity -- does anybody want to take that?

All right, I'm going to -- be a little briefer this time.

MR. RAHMAN: Yes. Let me attach to the question one comment only and that is my colleague, Ambassador Ayalon is speaking of ending Palestinian terrorism against Israel. How can the Palestinians end terror if they are not responsible for the territory? For anything? I mean, if you want the Palestinians to be able to control and eradicate violence against Israel, the Palestinians must have control over those territories. You cannot deny them control and ask them for responsibility. That is why the last suicide bombing in Israel happened in Tucal (ph) when the Israelis are in control there. We are not in control and we were blamed for it. Give us the power and then the responsibility but you cannot ask us for responsibility when we do not one.

We are -- listen, as far as spending aid money internationally, the government of Mahmoud Abbas is committed to a transfer, accountable extending of all the international aid and we are assisted in that by the international community, by the World Bank, by any institution that will assist us in that like we have done in the past.

AMB. AYALON: Yes, we would like to see this money also spent for bettering the humanitarian life and the economic conditions among the Palestinians. We do not want them -- and we heard that the have high unemployment rate, especially in Gaza, so we would like this money to go for creation of jobs; we would like to see this money for creating an infrastructure. And I think this is what the main idea behind the bill was.

Now, there is about responsibility and control over -- this is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to hand over the responsibility and control so they will take full measures as possible in the areas that they are and we would like to see a situation and I think we can achieve a situation -- when we talk about the 28th of September before the intifada started -- 28th of September 2000. Well, I would say that about 95 to 97 percent of all Palestinians were under the total control and sovereignty and rule of the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, the violence started and we know where we are now.

So it is our aim to hand over control and to give responsibility for the Palestinians. And as we mentioned, we started with Jericho and hopefully as many areas as possible can be handed over to them in a very expeditious manner.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

Please.

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Okay, you're going to have to speak a little louder.

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. AYALON: No, our position is very consistent and this -- the fence is over there for security reasons and security reasons only, and we would love to see it rendered obsolete when the time comes and we don't face this potential and terror activity.

MR. RAHMAN: You know, the -- from our point of view, the wall is an illegal –illegally established by Israel. It infringes on the Palestinian lives. It has a very disastrous impact even on the psychology of the Palestinians, and there is an international legal opinion on this issue, that the wall creates a great deal of suffering and pain to he Palestinians. Israel has been -- this is not secret. Israel has been engaged in unilateral action, in Jerusalem in particular, in East Jerusalem. That was criticized by the secretary of state in Jerusalem when she was there on the 7th of February, and she said clearly that what Israel is doing in Jerusalem is inconsistent with the commitments of Israel and the international legality, because Israel is literally separating Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. Thank you.

We're going to have to start watching our time, so perhaps we have time for two or three more questions. Fine. Please.

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Wait a minute; I didn't hear you. (Chuckles).

Congressman what?

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. FAHMY: With regards to the meetings among Palestinian factions and the history of meetings in the past, it's important to look at what happened in the context in which it happened. We have had an endless commitment to pursuing peace among Arabs and Israelis, even in the worst of times. And consequently we have some successes and some failures. We've had these meetings in the past, you're correct in saying. And frankly, they were not ultimately successfully, but understandably so. And this is the point I've made previously.

To create a success story, you need to have a dividend on both sides. Unless we can provide the Palestinian factions with a logical reason and have them believe that the future is better for them than the present, then obviously we will fail again. And that's what was happened in the past when each side looked at the other as the demon. You weren't obviously going to give up your cards to the demon, but we had to keep trying because we knew we would come to this point again and you need to have a foundation. Where I see a difference this time, one, is that I interpret the continued commitment of the Palestinian factions to come and talk to each other under our auspices as a positive step in itself.

I believe that the relationship between President Abu Mazen and them is one of confidence, and that will also help evolve a positive movement. Whether we will succeed in one meeting or more, I don't know -- we have to start these meetings again -- but I seriously believe that in a political context, looking at a two-state solution, there is a higher potential for success of these meetings than we would have in the absence of that context.

With respect to the Arab Summit, we will basically go to the Arab Summit. We will report on what we have done. We will listen of course to the Palestinian president reporting on his experience and his objectives. And I think that we will find Arab support for our efforts within the context of the Beirut Summit declaration on a comprehensive peace.

And I want to also just throw out here what's very important to take into account is we have always given priority to the Palestinian- Israeli track because it is the core and the most emotional of issues. But ultimately we want a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, so we would also like to see, in the near term, engagement on the Syrian track and to bring that also to closure.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

I'm going to take the man at the back of the room, and I'm going to take you over here, and those will be our last two questions.

Q: (Off mike.)

MR. RAHMAN: I think I stated my opinion on this issue. I believe that we need to give assurances to the Israelis that we are not contesting the right of Israel to exist within the 1967 boundaries, and this is from the Palestinian side. But Israel also needs to give assurances to the Palestinians that Israel is not in the West Bank and Gaza to stay there forever through creeping settlement activities. So we need -- that's the reason why I say that we need to get to the negotiations over final-status issues because if the issues remain open the Israelis will always have that feeling that of lack of security that the Palestinians want to take over Israel. And the Palestinians feel today, through the actions of Israel, that Israel wants to stay in the West Bank forever.

We need to sit down and assure each other that's not going to happen, that Israel is respected -- the right of Israel to exist and the right of the Israelis to live in peace within their state -- and the Palestinians have the right to live and the possibility to live it within their own state. Definitely the Arab countries and the international community can assist a great deal in achieving that sense of security for both parties. I believe that is the only way to achieve a sense of some sort of relationship between the parties on both sides of the fence.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, last question.

Q: (Off mike.)

MS. OAKLEY: Can you speak up a little bit more?

Q: (Off mike.)

AMB. FAHMY: Well, I think the choice is an important one. I think it's one that benefits the Middle East. You have somebody who is that well connected within the system. It reflects that the messages that you will receive in the Middle East will be conveyed throughout the system here and the administration here, so I support and I welcome the choice. The challenges she will face: years of frustration on the Arab-Israeli peace process that of course spills over in terms of how Arabs at least tend to look towards America even though American was instrumental in achieving the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement and making the Madrid peace process give birth, and of course was also supportive to the Jordanian one and to the Oslo process. So the anxiety relates to the failures but not to the whole story. She will also be faced by challenges resulting from the situation in Iraq, so there are some substantive issues that affect day to day life that people see, and of course, have a negative implications on how America is perceived.

I think where she will benefit is that -- I believe that all the Arab countries actually want to develop a better relationship with the U.S., that it does not serve Arab interests for the U.S. to be seen in a negative light in our part of the world. Quite the contrary. So she will find partners in that process, but it will require substantive deliberations, not only issues of which media vehicle do you use and what publication do you use?

But again, this is an effort which we support because it does help us in moving our own interests forward and we will be an honest, frank and candid constructive partner in this process.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you all for very good questions, and thank you all for refraining from long statements.

Congressman Frank, you get the chance to make a statement.

REP. FRANK: (Off mike.)

MS. DELEE: Thank you, Congressman.

I want to thank -- (applause). I want to thank Phyllis Oakley for being such a fine moderator this morning. I want to thank Ambassador Ayalon, Representative Abdel Rahman, Ambassador Fahmy, Ambassador Kawar. Thank you so much for this panel. Thank you all for coming.

I want to remind you that there will be a transcript for this. You will be able to get it on our website, also a summary. Check our website as well for action alerts that we're sending out. I want to thank Louis Roth, our assistant executive director for putting this together; Lara Friedman, who is the best legislative director I have ever worked with; Noam Shelef, who does our action alerts. And please send the action alert today in support of the aid package that was mentioned a number of times today. I agree with Ambassador Ayalon; I think this is a sign of these incredible times that we have now, and I'm honored that this very distinguished panel was gathered under the auspices of Americans for Peace Now. Thank you for coming. (Applause.)

END.

Biography II Events with the Ambassador II Archive of Speeches, Statements & Interviews