MIFTAH’s Experts Conference on Permanent Status Issues, September 16-18, formed a significant landmark in the Palestinian peace drive.

Bringing together an impressive participation of experts, officials, and the public at large for a candid presentation and discussion of the issues and strategies involved in the negotiations on final status, it provided a much needed forum for genuine and inclusive interaction.

While attempting to lay the foundations for a national consensus on these issues and to increase public awareness of the intricacies and complexities involved, it provided a participatory framework for the articulation of policies and assessments.

The Conference also sought to contribute qualitatively to the negotiations by providing information and fact sheets, expert evaluation and analyses, suggested terms of reference and priorities, as well as projections and implications for the future. A common framework, both legally and procedurally, provided the unifying reference for all papers and interventions. The integrated, comprehensive approach to negotiations was advocated and adopted.

All documents will be made available to the public, in addition to some strategic formulations to be shared with the negotiating bodies.

The deliberations of the Conference in many cases provided solutions, answers, and options. In some significant cases, they raised serious questions.

Following are some of the issues raised that require responsible consideration and handling:

The actual conduct of negotiations and the decision-making process was a theme of common concern throughout the sessions. Most participants wanted assurances that no secret or back channel negotiations would be conducted to undermine or circumvent the official channel—i.e. no repetition of the Oslo experience.

They also stressed the need to utilize the skills and expertise of qualified people rather than adopting a system of political patronage, favoritism, or consolation prizes. Questions about competence and national confidence in the negotiators were raised, demanding assurance and decisive responses.

The record of the Palestinian Authority on issues of efficiency, meritocracy, professionalism, transparency, accountability, and responsiveness to the public was brought up. The need to establish confidence and trust within the domestic arena was apparent. Questions on internal reform as a basis for the restoration of confidence persisted.

The issue of representation was raised, particularly with reference to the four million Palestinian refugees outside Palestine, and the one million Palestinians in Israel.

While the PNA is an outcome of interim phase agreements, the national dimension of the PLO was stressed. The need for institutional and political updating and reform was made clear. In this context, questions concerning comprehensive national elections and/or referenda were raised in response to the legitimacy and inclusiveness of any decision making or any agreements that may be reached on behalf of all (and not part) of the Palestinian people.

The degree of adherence to international law and the rights of peoples as guaranteed by international charters and conventions was raised. No Palestinian leadership or official body could claim the right or the mandate to violate these rights and laws or to abandon them in the course of negotiations. In particular, the demand for assurances concerning the relevant UN resolutions (on statehood, settlements, refugees, and Jerusalem) as well as international humanitarian law was repeatedly emphasized.

Questions pertaining to the proposed “framework agreement” were raised, particularly in relation to Israeli attempts at linkage with the interim phase and the carrying out of the necessary redeployments.

Severe reservations were expressed concerning the five-month time frame as a means of putting pressure on the Palestinian side to make concessions on the “framework” or to adopt it as the binding terms of reference in place of international legitimacy for the ensuing talks.

The issue of a trade-off involving Israel’s acceptance of a Palestinian state (with diminished territory and continued settlement clusters) at the expense of Jerusalem and refugees within such a “framework” presented a major area of concern for the participants. Most interventions cautioned against fragmentation, functional orientation, and any type of gradualism or further phasing of agreements and implementation.

The consensus was for a Palestinian state on all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, with Jerusalem as the capital (without being redefined or relocated!), and with the Palestinian right of return being implemented on the basis of UN resolution 194. Any Israeli extraterritoriality or maintaining of settlements was illegal and unacceptable.

Significantly also, the participants repeatedly stressed the need for Arab coordination and solidarity. The Palestinian issue must remain as the core of Arab national security at the territorial, political, economic, military, and strategic levels.

The role of Arab civil society and the Arab public as a whole was raised in contrast to the often-divisive stances of the regimes. Questions were raised on the transition to democracy as the cornerstone of a unified Arab strategy which in itself is the safeguard for Palestinian rights.

A redefinition and reformulation of such a policy of national security while maintaining respect for diversity and specific interests were called for. In particular, this was seen to be of relevance to such permanent status issues as refugees, Jerusalem, borders, security, and economic cooperation. The independence of Palestinian decision-making is not in contradiction with the requisite coordination and cooperation on these issues which are of direct relevance to the Arab world as well as to specific Arab states.

Participants also questioned Israeli intentions in view of Barak’s notorious “red lines” on Jerusalem, borders, refugees, and settlements. In this context, it was seen that the prospects of an agreement within the announced time frame were remote. The interface between Israeli hard line positions and minimal Palestinian rights was non-existent. In the absence of any convergence, all options and alternatives must be studied and prepared.

Protracted negotiations, international pressures, and Israeli unilateral actions were perceived as a lethal combination of adverse forces.

Ultimately, the Palestinian side must be responsible (and accountable) for the rights of the Palestinian people, with the process being a vehicle for the attainment (and not the abandonment) of these rights. Anything else would lead to the perpetuation of the conflict and for internal disintegration.

A cohesive and solid internal front is imperative, and the question of participation, engagement and public awareness is vital.

No peace can be attained or maintained without a supportive constituency. This constituency can neither be excluded from nor surprised by the negotiating process and its outcome.

A qualitative shift in the attitudes, performance, and methods of the Palestinian leadership and its relationship with its public is essential. Its partnership with civil society is indispensable. Mending fences with the Arab world and forging a rejuvenated relationship of solidarity is imperative.

The participants also raised questions and provided recommendations on specific permanent status issues which will be addressed in the specialized papers currently under preparation.

Without doubt, however, the enormity and historical import of the pending talks were clear to everyone.

Such a moment of truth will determine whether a genuine and historical reconciliation is in the making, or whether the whole region is preparing for a new era of further conflict and instability.

As such, the Conference may be seen as a modest “word to the wise.”