Co-Sponsored with the Nato Public Diplomacy Division
097 GSM 05 E1
MEDITERRANEAN SPECIAL GROUP
097 GSM 05 E
Original:English
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
seminar on "recent developments and new political perspectives in the broader middle east region"
co-sponsored with the nato public diplomacy division
and the jordan parliament
Held at the Jordan Valley Marriott, Amman, Jordan
5-6 MAY 2005
International Secretariat May 2005
This Secretariat Report is presented for information only and does not necessarily represent the official view of the Assembly.
Assembly documents are available on its website,
097 GSM 05 E1
The two-day seminar held by the NATO PA on the Dead Sea in Jordan held on 5-6 May focussed mainly on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Glimmers of hope exist – renewed American involvement, new Palestinian leadership, Gaza disengagement, Palestinian elections - which some suggest represent a unique opportunity. However, the overall situation and outlook remains grim. Prime Minister Sharon's commitment to Gaza disengagement appears firm. This withdrawal was said to be out of self-interest, not to please the Palestinians. Nevertheless, the withdrawal will encounter popular resistance, mainly from Israeli settlers, and will not be achieved easily. The consequences could further stall progress toward permanent status negotiations – "Gaza first but not last", was the aspiration but could produce another interim solution. Likewise, Palestinian insistence on the right of return for refugees also represents a permanent obstacle to progress. "The right of return would mean the return of the Right in Israeli politics", said an Israeli analyst. In the meantime, Israel continues to create facts on the ground through the extension of the Security Fence and the continuing expansion of the settlements. The envelope around Jerusalem gives particular cause for concern.
The nature of any settlement that would reconcile the requirements of both parties becomes more and more difficult to define. Furthermore, the domestic stability of both sides is far from assured and consequently their ability to make unpopular compromises appears limited.
Extremists on both sides remain ready to sabotage a potential settlement. These forces will have to be confronted. In particular, President Abbas has yet to demonstrate his capacity to dismantle the terrorist security infrastructure. On the other hand, some elements of Hamas appear interested in a political deal.
The keynote speaker, Robert Malley, Director of the Middle East Programme of the International Crisis Group, set the tone for the conference by identifying several trends: the physical exhaustion of both sides, a loss of faith in each other, a loss of belief in the prospect of a permanent settlement, the disintegration of the Palestinian entity and the emergence of other equally pressing problems in the region, notably Iraq and Iran. These have led to an increase in unilateralism and doing things outside negotiation – a break with the logic of Oslo -, to the loss of a common vision or agenda, and to a growing sense of the need for increased international involvement in the conflict. He stressed the urgent need for the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to talk to each other as they did not share the same vision; the international community should try to bridge this divide.
Discussion of the need for a third force pointed in the direction of NATO as the EU was regarded with suspicion by some in Israel and was not seen as being capable of always acting as the honest broker. The nature of this third force intervention varied from political stimulus to the now much-discussed possibility of providing forces on the ground to reinforce any political settlement reached. Such an intervention was ruled out for Gaza.
Whether the possible marginalization of the conflict as a US priority compared with the urgency of Iraq and Iran is a help or a hindrance to regaining momentum for permanent status talks remains to be seen.
A political deal is still conceivable – just - but faces enormous obstacles. Such a settlement would involve borders close to those of 1967 with minor adjustments or land swaps, right of return, in principle only, and in practice to the West Bank only, and special status for Jerusalem. The "Road Map" continued to command general support as the best thing on offer. Yet other outcomes, including the bi-national state or the "Bantustan" state unacceptable to one or other of the parties remain in the background.
The enormity of the refugee question both in practical and political consequences was underlined. The initial 800,000 have become 4.1 million. Many, particularly in Lebanon, live in poor conditions. In Jordan, most have become citizens, placing a heavy burden on the Kingdom's stability. Maintenance of the principle of right of return, it was said, remains the "deal breaker", as even a return to an independent Palestine would pose serious problems of absorption.
The centrality and often neglected question of access to water was also highlighted. Despite the claim that water should be above politics, it was evident that the disequilibrium in access between Israel and the Palestinians was a direct result of the political situation. Among many negative elements, the Palestinians may not enjoy access to the Jordan river until a permanent settlement is achieved. A "fortunate" Palestinian family has access to six hours of water every two days.
The recent Presidential elections were commended as being well ordered, peaceful and credible. "Fair and free" was not seen as an appropriate description because of the problems inherent in holding elections under occupation – notably freedom of movement. Whatever flaws were detected had had no impact on the final result. This had been clear-cut although a 65% vote in a 50% turnout implied that Abbas was not as secure as he seemed. With regard to the forthcoming parliamentary elections, there was a need for a more balanced and diverse local media, although it was acknowledged that Al Jazeera represented an influential new development.
The suggestion that the Palestinian Authority fitted the description of a failed state was roundly rejected, indeed international observers remarked that Palestinian achievements had been extraordinary given the nature of the occupation.
NATO PA President, Pierre Lellouche noted that while the situation was depressing, recent developments had created a unique opportunity. The urgency of the moment had to be pressed on both sides. Failure to seize this opportunity could be catastrophic. It was important for Israel to define its borders and to say clearly where they ended. He emphasized that history demonstrated the long-term fallibility of Walls and Fences. It was equally important for the Palestinian leadership to be honest with the refugees that there could be no absolute right of return.
He also believed strongly that the international community should now exert pressure. The Alliance certainly had a role to play. This was a view he would elaborate during his forthcoming presidential visit.
______