|
Euro - Arab Parliamentary Dialogue
Item 1: Political Cooperation
Arab Paper
A. Comprehensive Peace Process in the Middle East:
The issue of the realization of peace and stabilization in the Middle East (M.E) and the establishment of a just and permanent settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is considered one of the main axes of the Euro-Arab relations and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (E.M.P) because the establishment of peace in the M.E and the Mediterranean basin constitutes a necessary priority for the success of the programs of economic, social and cultural cooperation among the states of the region and between these states and the European ones.
Since the last Euro-Arab Parliamentary Dialogue, held in Damascus (July 1998) until now the M.E. peace process has passed in the most dangerous periods of its evolution. Now it has reached to a serious deadlock. Regional and international attempts are being made nowadays to get it out of that deadlock.
The prominent events which played their roles in the march of this process and its developments were as follows:
- The failure of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations sponsored by the United States in Camp David in the time of the Barak Israeli government owing to the obduracy of this government and its insistence on rejecting the Palestinian demands, particularly those relating to the status of Al-Qods and the right of the Palestinians to return.
- The explosion of the Second Palestinian Intifadah (Intifadat Al-Aqsa) in the wake of the provocative visit made by Sharon.
- The rise of the influence of the fanatic rightist groups in Israel and the formation of the Israeli government by Sharon.
- The events of September 11 in the U.S.A, and the attempt of Israel to make use of these events and invest them against the legitimate Palestinian resistance.
- The convening of the Arab Summit in Beirut and the declaration of the M.E Arab peace initiative which was welcomed by the international community, and was rejected by Israel alone. Moreover, Israel’s brutal war against the Palestinian people was a retaliation to that initiative.
- The lucidity of the Israeli position based on the consolidation of occupation, repression, and expansion of settlement - against the main Palestinian demand: the elimination of occupation. Israel also escalated the conflict with the Palestinians to an open unequal war in the frame of which it re-occupied and destroyed the Palestinian cities (Jenin Camp), the blockade of the headquarters of the National Palestinian Authority and isolating its President for about forty days, destroying the Palestinian infra-structure, the assassination of tens of Palestinian fighters, the arrestion of several thousands of Palestinian activists in concentration camps very much like those of the Nazis, the announcement by Israel of the death of the Oslo accords and their annexes, the rejection of the resolutions of international legitimacy 181, 194, 242, 338, the Madrid terms of reference and the principle of “Land for Peace”.
The brutal war against the Palestinian people is still going on, and the circle of violence, destruction, killing and arrestion is also continuing and escalating.
What do these developments reflect from the political point of view?
The Israeli Position:
It has been clear to every body that the current Israeli government does not want peace, and has no realistic programme for achieving peace in the region. Israel’s aim from its war is to create new realities on earth in order to impose its concept of peace through unachievable conditions aiming at subjugating the Palestinian people and forcing them to surrender to occupation. Israel sees the final solution to the Palestinian issue in giving the Palestinians an insignificant entity with no more competence than that of an autonomy, in categorical rejection of the refugees right to return and the refusal of the international legitimacy resolutions.
In all its practices Israel declares that its seeks to “guarantee the security of its citizens”.
It thus flagrantly ignores that the continuation of its occupation is the main reason why its citizen cannot enjoy security. Consequently, Israel likes to get land, security and peace without offering anything. This equation is categorically refused by the Palestinian people.
The American Position:
The American position vis-à-vis what is going on in the occupied Palestinian territories is characterized by one-sided reading of the situation. This reading was illustrated in complete alignment to Israel, bestowing legality upon its practices by declaring that the U.S.A “understands Israel’s security motives”, by classifying the legitimate Palestinian resistance among terrorist organisation, by ignoring the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, contrary to the UN resolutions which were adopted by the U.S.A, by threatening to veto any draft resolution tabled in the Security Council to send international forces to protect the Palestinian people, by refusing to send a fact-finding committee to the destroyed Jenin Camp, by covering the Israeli stand to receive the international committee for collecting information in Jenin and by publicly announcing that the Palestinian leadership is not eligible to lead the Palestinian people or to continue the peace process.
The European Position:
The majority of the states of the European Union (EU) have expressed their condemnation of the Israeli military attacks against the West Bank cities and the destruction of the Jenin Camp in particular. They also refused the ill-treatment and the violations to which the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and its president were exposed. They demanded to put an end to the occupation of the Palestinian cities, and condemned, at the same time, the operations made by the Palestinian resistance inside Israel. The EU also sent several representatives and delegations. Issuing from its convictions of the uselessness of a military solution to the M.E. conflict, the EU called always for the “stop of violence” and the resumption of negotiations.
The Valencia Declaration of the Euro-Med states also demanded the elimination of the Israeli occupation of 1967, the resumption of negotiations which should lead to establishment of an “independent Palestinian state”, and the recognition of Israel’s right to live “within safe and recognized borders”. The declaration also urged the donor states to continue their support of the PNA and help the reconstruction of the infrastructure destroyed by the Israeli occupying forces.
All those European movements have confirmed the serious attempt of Europe to assure its attendance in the M.E. arena and its desire to play a characteristic role in spite of the Israeli uneasiness vis-à-vis such a role. However, the European stand remained far from using the strong cards it owns, whether in assuring European’s presence and effectiveness or in curbing the escalating aggression against the Palestinian people.
Prospects of the European Role:
At the time when the Israeli aggression is escalating against the Palestinian people, the European role becomes increasingly required – on the European, the Arab and the international levels. In fact the effective European presence would be an important element for the achievement of political equilibrium, and for the provision of an objective factor that could alleviate the American monopoly of the peace process and the U.S alignment to Israel in this process. If we take into consideration the fact that Europe has increasingly become aware of the close connection between stable peace in the M.E. and the future of the Euro-Med partnership in which the Arab World constitutes the cornerstone, it is quite natural then to call Europe to find ways and means to activate its role in the M.E. This would serve our common objectives and would also serve international and regional peace and security.
The Arab side also believes that the unity of the European stand and the use of economic pressure on Israel (the volume of Israel’s commercial relations with Europe reaches about 72% of its total external trade) are capable to make qualitative European impact on the M.E. situation.
General Remarks:
1. Despite of the ugliness of the crimes which Israel has committed and is still committing in the occupied Palestinian territories, the international stand, in general, and the UN stand, in particular was very clear on several occasions, such as: the inability to adopt a decision on providing international protection to the Palestinians, giving up the sending of the fact collecting committee to Jenin Camps … etc. It was very clear that the above mentioned impotence was due to the great pressure on the part of the U.S.A.
2. A considerable number of the international parties which condemned the Israeli war against the Palestinian people have ignored the fact that the Israeli occupation is the main reason behind what is going on in the occupied Palestinian territories. They have, consequently, overlooked the right of the Palestinian people to resist that occupation which lasted for 35 years, despite of tens of international resolutions calling for its elimination. Moreover, some of these parties saw in the Palestinian resistance a kind of terrorism. This is why the demand to “stop violence” was unobjective because such demand puts on the same level the victim and the executioner, on the one hand, and cancels the right to resistance of a people whose homeland and rights had been expropriated, on the other. The least which can be said vis-à-vis such a stand is that it contradicts the International Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter.
3. The Arab initiative released by the Beirut Arab Summit is still a good basis for the reactivation of the M.E. peace process and the attainment of a comprehensive and just solution to the conflict in the region. This is because this initiative is balanced as it is based on UN Resolutions and it takes into consideration the new international developments.
4. The current idea of convening an international Conference on the Middle East is still vague. It is said that the conference is not called to adopt decisions, but to exchange views. Dose the M.E. conflict really need more conferences and further exchange of views? If the aim is to exchange views why are main Arab parties excluded from participation? What we are afraid of is that the real aim behind the idea of that conference would be the creation of new terms of reference based on the results of the ongoing Israeli war, in preparation of the cancellation of the terms of reference embodied in the UN Security Council’s Resolutions and the principles of the Madrid Conference of 1991.
5. The events which took and are taking place in occupied Palestine have clearly confirmed that co-existence is impossible with the occupation. They also confirmed that the only way to peace in the region is the elimination of occupation, the liquidation of settlements, the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all the occupied Arab territories (in Palestine, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Lebanese Shabaa Farms) to the borders of 4 June, 1967, the recognition of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, including their rights to return and to establish their national independent state with its capital Al-Qods. This is the only solution which guarantees the establishment of comprehensive peace in the region and makes Israel live within safe and recognized borders.
B. Prospects of the Embargo Imposed On Iraq And the Necessity To Respect International Legitimacy To Guarantee Stabilization In the Gulf Region:
Twelve years have now elapsed since the embargo was imposed on Iraq in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. Most of the reports issued by the international inspection committees have showed that Iraq fulfilled its commitments as regards the destruction of the chemical and biological weapons as well as the long-distance rockets. Iraq has also recognised the independence and sovereignty of the State of Kuwait, as well as its internationally recognised borders. As the embargo is continuing the suffering of the Iraqi people is aggravating and the rate of death, especially among children, is even increasing.
The stand vis-à-vis the embargo on Iraq is not now the same as it was in the nineties of the previous century. Many states and international organisations have adopted resolutions and recommendations demanding the lifting of that embargo. This refers to the existence of an international public opinion including a European spectrum of wide representation gaining increasing impact in its demand to lift the embargo imposed on Iraq.
What increases our concern nowadays is the escalation by the United States and Britain of their hostile position towards Iraq in the wake of the events of September 11 in the U.S.A, and the declarations they have publicly made on their intention to topple the system existing in Iraq.
Arab Parliamentarians express their deepest concern over the continued imposed embargo on Iraq. They call upon all states to express their solidarity with Iraq and to work for the lifting of that embargo. They refuse all forms of regional or international intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq. They also refuse the hostile American British campaign and consider it as a violation of the Sovereignty of Iraq and of the UN Charter.
While Arab parliamentarians reconfirm their Keeness to have the wounds between Iraq and Kuwait healed, they also call for finding, as soon as possible, a fair solution to the issue of the Kuwaiti and other missing persons and detainees in order to close the file of this human issue.
 Top of this page
|
