A
Stocktaking Conference on Palestinian Refugee
Research
13h30-15h00
Tuesday, 9 December 1997
Discussion
Session: Linkages to Other Final Status Issues
Clearly the various "final status" issues are linked in a
number of different ways. To begin with, the give-and-take
of negotiation is such that concessions by one party on one
issue may be traded opff by concessions by the other party
on another issue. Second, the resolution of territorial
issues--notably the delineation of borders between Israel
and a future Palestinian state, the fate of the settlements
(including their possible use as housing for Palestinian
returnees), and the future status of Jerusalem--all have
direct bearing on the refugee issue. Similarly, the
resolution of the refugee issue has important security and
economic implications for both parties. Finally, the refugee
issue is a regional issue, thus linking progress on the
Palestinian-Israeli track to the status of other bilateral
negotiations.
This session began with one (Israeli) participant warning
that both Palestinians and Israelis should not expect
complete success on all issues in final status negotiations.
Rather, both parties should establish clear priorities.
According to this participant, Israel has two main
priorities. The first priority was termed "finality", which
implies that final status agreements will bring an end to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The second Israeli
priority is the Palestinian refugee problem. This is so
because unless the refugee problem is resolved, the conflict
will continue, and because Israel can show little
flexibility on this issue. In terms of Palestinian
priorities, the same participant contended that the first
Palestinian priority is self-determination/statehood. After
all, unless final status negotiations lead to the creation
of a Palestinian state the conflict will not be fully
resolved. The second Palestinian priority was identified as
the demand for Jerusalem to be named the capital of the
future Palestinian state. However, in what parts of
Jerusalem and in what form this would take place is still
open for discussion.
Another (Palestinian) discussant noted that although
priorities are essential, this does not mean that important,
though difficult, issues (such as the right of return)
should be ignored. He noted that the process of compromise
on both sides is important and already underway. The same
discussant offered an alternative list of priorities, noting
that the refugee issue is at the top of the Palestinians'
list . Moreover, Palestinians consider it a top priority to
reconstitute the integrity and security of their own
community. Another participant suggested that more honesty
is required in the search for peace. The discussant
continued by remarking that Israel will not allow the right
of return to become a vehicle for transforming Israel into a
state for two minorities, and he added that all parties
should recognise that under a climate of "cold peace",
Israel may be willing to engage in risk-taking, while the
same is not true under a condition of "cold war". He
continued by stating that the impact of the Egyptian role in
the final status negotiations cannot be ignored. The quality
and extent of Egyptian participation in this latter process
may determine the possible outcome. It is difficult for the
Palestinians to make significant concessions unless they are
supported by Egypt.
Others suggested that a package-like solution which
includes all the interlinked factors is preferable to
separate solutions. This is especially important given the
significance of timing in the whole process. The loss of
precious time may close the few windows of opportunity that
are available. One discussant was quick to add that the
envelope of issues resolved must be practical for
implementation, and that it should allow both sides to
sucessfully present it to their respective constituencies.
These are the two necessary conditions for a viable peace.
The same participant noted that the argument in favour of the
creation of a Palestinian state has already been won inside
Israel. However, the crucial question pertains to what kind
of viable Palestinian state will follow. The participant
closed his comments by noting that under the present
conditions, there are issues (such as the right of return)
which Israel cannot deliver to the Palestinians, and that
the present Israeli government's refusal to implement signed
agreements is dangerous to the whole peace process. Other
participants warned against fixating upon the security
requirements of Israel, ignoring those of the Arab
states.
The PRRN/IDRC compensation workshop was funded
by IDRC and the Canadian
International Development Agency thrrough the
Expert and Advisory Services Fund. PRRN is a project of the Interuniversity
Consortium for Arab Studies (Montréal).
Last modified 15/12/97. Rex Brynen/info@prrn.org