Accentuated debate between Moussa and Bin Ami

In the issue of the 22nd of September of the Egyptian weekly Al-Musawar, the full text of the accentuated debate between Amr Moussa, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, and Shlomo Ben Ami, the Israeli acting Foreign Minister, was published in which Moussa highlighted certain important points.

In the debate held on WETA Television station on the 14th of September, Moussa underlined that Egypt is supporting Palestinian rights, and it is absolutely up to the Palestinian side to reject or accept any proposals or any particular settlement.

Moussa also reiterated that President Hosni Mubarak has always been keen on urging Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to continue negotiations, not to give up the peace process. He also emphasized that Egypt would not be giving green or red lights to Palestinians ushering to a certain position.

Moussa rejected categorically allegations against President Arafat, accusing him of not being flexible enough, during Camp David negotiations. It would not be conceivable, he noted, to put President Arafat in a position where he would be choosing between a bad agreement and no agreement at all.

The very notion of having Jerusalem on the negotiating table does not mean imposing any proposal put forward to President Arafat. He further noted the proposals offered in Camp David did not show readiness on the Israeli side to go to the outer limit for a final settlement.

Moussa also refused the notion of consensus with regard to claims that Israeli Prime Minister did his best in Camp David for peace. He noted, in this context, that what is published by U.S. and Israeli press would not be enough to say there is a consensus, in this respect.

Moussa expressed appreciation of Mr. Barak spirit, and willingness, in view of discussing and having Jerusalem on the agenda of talks. But this is not enough, when it comes to opening the file for discussion, looking into the differences between the two sides and viable proposals for settlement.

Differences, he further noted, are not only related to sovereignty on the Haram Al-Sharif. There are other issues such as coexistence, interaction between East and West Jerusalem, notion of open city, refugees, security and water.

He clarified that President Arafat had already offered concessions, during Camp David negotiations: sovereignty of Israel over Jewish quarters, in return for Palestinian sovereignty over Islamic, Christian, Armenian quarters, and respecting Jewish right to prayers at the Wailing Wall.

In response to Ben-Ami's criticism of President Arafat position, Moussa clarified that President Arafat was absolutely right in articulating those opinions, given that East Jerusalem and Holy sites are under occupation, subject to implementation of Security Council resolution 242.

He further added that Israel did not have any sovereignty or administrative authority prior to 1967 occupation, on territories dealt with in 242 resolution.

The tone of conversation was accentuated between Moussa and Ben-Ami when the Israeli official claimed that June 1967 war was in self-defense, that Jerusalem has always been the capital of the Jewish people. Moussa answered back by noting that such allegations are just historical fallacies. The 1967 war was an aggression. He urged Ben-Ami to engage in discussions aiming at building peace, not talking about the past and going back to history.

Responding to what Ben-Ami said about the existence of a limit to any concession any Israeli government would offer, Moussa questioned whether Ben-Ami would equally realize the limits available for the Palestinian side, in terms of accepting ideas or proposals.

Moussa also stressed that any concessions, in settlement process, have to be within the framework of international legitimacy. The annexation of occupied territories should not be invoked when talking about concessions (in accordance with resolution 242, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war requires the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories).

He further highlighted that deferring the declaration of the Palestinian State represents a message to the effect of underlining President Arafat determination to continue negotiations with the Israeli side, in pursuance of final settlement.

The Egyptian side, he went on clarifying, does not find those proposals on having the Haram Al-Sharif under Israeli sovereignty, or emanating from shared, divided sovereignty, acceptable or conceivable.

On post-Camp David phase Moussa indicated that Egypt advised President Arafat of looking for new ideas, coming up with suggestions, different from those put forward in Camp David. He noted, in this respect, he had proposed a package of ideas with a view to overcoming the obstacles facing the issues of Jerusalem and Haram Al-Sharif.

Moussa refuted Ben Ami's claims on Jerusalem being under Israeli sovereignty. Moussa articulated the fact that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory under foreign military occupation.

He also cautioned against deciding the fate of Jerusalem outside the framework of negotiations. This would put off the peace process, thus making settlement inconceivable.

Moussa plainly refuted Ben-Ami's attempts to put into doubt that Egypt civilization goes back to seven thousand years. He pointed out the Pyramids, the Sphinx and pharaonic monuments, all attest to Egyptian civilization and history.

Upon conclusion, Ben-Ami underlined the important role of Egypt in the Middle East, and in maintaining stability in the region. Moussa underlined, on his part, the role of Egypt is mainly reflected in encouraging, helping parties involved, and engaging in discussing ideas, proposals, with all parties concerned.