By Mohammad Omar
Amman
Palestinian minister of NGOs and top negotiator in the Palestinian-Israeli talks, Hassan Asfour, has defended the decision taken last week by the PLO Central Council to delay the declaration of Palestinian statehood, stressing that the delay acknowledges that political flexibility is a necessary factor in the peace negotiations.
In an interview with Albawaba.com during his visit to Amman to take part in the conference on Palestinian Diaspora last week, Asfour said that “in fact, there was no definite date for the declaration of state, and it was the media that supposed the end of the interim period would be the deadline for the declaration.”
“Last February, the Central Council said the state would be declared by the end of the year, and in July it said the declaration would be by the end of the interim, and not exactly on the day the transitional period ends,” Asfour explained.
However, at the time when Palestinian statehood was postponed, there was talk at the PCC meeting of arrangements of sovereignty that were to be carried out by the Executive Committee of the PLO before the next meeting of the PCC on November 15, the anniversary of the 1988 Palestinian state declaration in Algeria, the official added.
According to him, the PCC recommended three steps that should be taken before the next meeting. First, revising the Palestinian constitution draft, which was prepared by an ad hoc committee, and drafting an electoral law for the parliament and the state presidency. The third step is to prepare legally and politically for Palestine’s membership of the UN.
“Therefore, the postponement was a political move towards giving the peace process a chance without conceding our rights to take steps of a political sovereignty nature. This is what differentiates the recent meeting of the PCC from the previous ones [where statehood declaration was delayed.]”
The Palestinian minister denied that the PCC’s decision came as a result of US-Israeli pressures saying that the Palestinians would not succumb to Israeli orders.
“It is not a secret that the Americans did not want a confrontation and preferred that peace be given a chance, but there was no pressure on us,” he said.
Asfour added that it is premature to say that the ongoing peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis would lead to a final agreement, ascribing that to the unpredictability of the Israeli positions.
“Our position is that a solution to the conflict should be based on UN resolutions 242, 338 and 194. If Israel cannot negotiate on this basis, there will be no agreement,” he said.
Asked whether the Palestinian negotiators have accepted concessions on the Jerusalem issue, the official said that Israel and the US are misleading the world and the Arabs on that, stressing that the Palestinians have not changed their stand as to the holy city.
“Israel should withdraw from east Jerusalem, and sovereignty over the holy places should be Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Israelis can have access to visit the Magharbeh quarter and pray there.”
However, Asfour said that the PA would accept that sovereignty over the holy sites of Jerusalem be given to Islamic states.
“This is our official position, so it is either agreement or a total failure,’ he stressed.
On the refugees’ issue, the top negotiator said that the Palestinians at Camp David clinched to UN Resolution 194, which sanctions the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
“As for the right to compensation, it was discussed in general, but there were no numbers mentioned…Compensation is a multifaceted issue: there is compensation for the individual if either he returns to his land or he does not want to; and there is compensation for the host countries,” he said, adding that on the basis of UN resolution 181, there was a Palestinian state whose public property was confiscated by Israel, and consequently the Palestinians can claim compensation – Albawaba.com
© 2000 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
