Briefing Paper : War of Words in Mideast Talks

The Background:

Nearly two years of negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors have not yet brought peace, but they are adding new terms and new meanings to old terms in the already complex lexicon of Middle East conflict.

The negotiations themselves are the core of the “peace process,” and they focus on the differences between “withdrawal from” and “withdrawal on” the Golan Heights, the nuances of “early empowerment” and the evolution of “Gaza first” into “Gaza plus.”

“We are almost inventing a whole new language in efforts to communicate across the table,” said Hanan Ashrawi, spokeswoman for the Palestinian delegation to the peace talks and a professor of English literature. “But there are also efforts to use language to compel the other side to accept a position, to open options and to foreclose them.

“Many of the terms, in fact, distill agreements, or disagreements, and thus constitute a sort of shorthand or code. But other terms are still evolving, and their meanings are the very subjects of the negotiations.”

Some of the terms:

Peace Process:

Uncertain initially that they wanted to be in full-fledged negotiations with each other, and what the political implications of that might be, Israel and the Arabs settled on the vaguer term peace process.

Now it has grown to mean the face-to-face bilateral talks in Washington, the wide-ranging multilateral, regional discussions in various world capitals, U.S. mediation efforts and other contacts quietly taking place through unannounced meetings and intermediaries.

Madrid Formula:

In bringing the Arabs and the Israelis together in the Spanish capital of Madrid in October, 1991, then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III worked out a complex, interlocking set of understandings on the basis and the goals of the negotiations.

Both Israel and the Palestinians are complaining that some elements of the Madrid formula are too constricting. The Palestinians, for example, want the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate directly in the negotiations. But the United States is warning that the Madrid framework took a long time to work out, and to discard or modify it substantially could put peace at risk.

Territory for Peace:

When Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin took office a year ago, he renewed Israel’s commitment to exchange territory it captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War for peace with its neighbors. But talks are continuing on whether that will be all of the territory--including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlements established on the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the full Golan Heights. Territorial compromise, the phrase used by Israel, is deliberately ambiguous.

Golan Heights:

Syria is demanding Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, captured in 1967, as the basis for peace.

Israel so far is offering only a pullback of its forces--that is, a withdrawal on the Golan Heights--with the extent dependent on the character of the peace that Syria offers, demilitarization of the area and other security measures.

Defining Peace:

Syrian President Hafez Assad has said that for the complete return of the Golan Heights, there will be full peace between his country and Israel. Jerusalem is seeking a definition of what that means--whether it includes not just an end to the 45-year-old state of war but also diplomatic relations, the exchange of ambassadors, open borders, trade and tourism. Israel is disappointed that, 15 years after a peace agreement, its relations with Egypt are still what it calls a cold peace.

Declaration of Principles:

A Declaration of Principles--already abbreviated by diplomats to DOP--is now the focus of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and is meant to lay the foundation for a Palestinian Interim Self-Governing Authority, dubbed the PISGA, in the territories. U.S. mediators have drawn up two drafts, which Israel accepted but the Palestinians rejected, largely over the lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Israel is also discussing a joint statement with Syria and is near completion on one with Jordan; when agreed, they will lay the basis for negotiations on actual peace treaties.

Territorial Jurisdiction:

What area will the PISGA administer? All of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Those areas--except for the Israeli settlements? Does the West Bank include East Jerusalem?

Palestinians want to know what territory will be theirs. Israel, wanting to protect its settlers, to adjust the borders of the future Palestine and to retain all of Jerusalem, is refusing to define the territory; instead it proposes that the Palestinian government administer Palestinian affairs, Israel administer the settlements and remaining army units and a joint authority administer what is shared.

Jerusalem:

The future of Jerusalem, a city beloved by both Israelis and Palestinians, may prove the most difficult issue in their negotiations. Israel claims it all as the country’s eternal capital and rejects the notion of diluting that status. But Palestinians insist on Jerusalem as their capital too, on the basis of the historic Arab and Muslim presence. They propose a one city, two capitals approach--a unified Jerusalem that would serve as the capital of two countries.

Left-wing Israelis suggest that distinctions be drawn between Holy Jerusalem , which might be administered by an interfaith council, and Administrative Jerusalem, which could be broken into Israel and Palestinian boroughs but kept united through a city council.

Gaza:

Israel has offered the Palestinians autonomy in the Gaza Strip as soon as agreement is reached on the joint declaration of principles that will lay the basis for self-government. The Palestinians, afraid that Gaza first might become Gaza only, came back with a proposal for Gaza plus, which would include Jericho and perhaps other towns on the West Bank to ensure that autonomy is not limited to the Gaza Strip.

Early Empowerment:

To break the impasse in negotiations with the Palestinians, Israel offered them immediate control over a wide range of activities--education, health care, transportation, electricity, agriculture and industry--on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, calling it early empowerment.

The Palestinians, fearing that this would trap them into administering their own occupation, countered with a proposal for immediate implementation, perhaps in the Gaza Strip, of the permanent status, which they see as independence, not autonomy.

Permanent Status:

Although the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations are ostensibly intended to focus on a five-year interim period of autonomy, they repeatedly have edged into issues that would determine the permanent, or final, status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some Palestinians and Israelis are now arguing that the Madrid formula should be changed to make permanent status the focus.

Confederation:

The prolonged impasse in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations has revived the old concept of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation --a state that would combine the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jordan, basing it on common foreign and security policies but regional administration.

Such an arrangement has long been seen by Israelis such as Foreign Minister Shimon Peres as the best solution to the Palestinian problem--and rejected by the PLO in its desire for full independence.

Full Partner:

The United States has evolved from being an honest broker to a full partner and, in Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s visit last week, an active intermediary in the peace process. Having brought the parties together in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, Washington remains determined to see the negotiations through to peace.