This summary should prepare the ground for Mr. Van Agt's speech. In general one can say that preparing this summary was facilitated by the fact that there was a principal broad agreement among most speakers on the various aspects of the subject of this conference. This certainly also applies to what has to be considered as the essence of what has brought us together, namely the observation of illegality of the occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories. Therefore, there was a general feeling among the participants, namely that conclusions on the illegality of the 'Wall' require a translation of this conclusion into political action. As one of the participants of the panel, Ambassador Peck had formulated it as follows: we are dealing with a situation, which cannot be adequately described as the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, but as the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The case of the 'Wall' goes not only further than the part of the occupation policy, but is an instrument of annexation.
In this situation, which is essentially determined by power, the question arises whether outside powers are able to influence the occupier in order to end its illegal occupation. According to most speakers one of the remarkable aspects of the discussions was - although some of the speakers declared that the so-called 'Road Map' had failed and practically did not exist any longer - the emphasis on this 'Road Map' to be an essential condition for breaking through the present stallmate. By emphasising the importance of the 'Road Map', the question arose what could be expected from the main actors in this process, the so-called Quartet: United States, European Union, Russian Federation and the United Nations.
As could be expected, there was a lot of sceptisism with regard to a constructive role of the United States, in particular in view of the re-election of President Bush. This scepticism was expressed by Mouin Rabbani in his paper that he prepared for this conference as follows: “The current irony is that the Bush administration has, at least in rhetorical terms, gone further than any of its predecessors in explicitly endorsing a two-state settlement, replacing the previous formulation of 'land for peace'. Yet at the same time, the Bush administration has no peer when it comes to undermining this scenario in practice. This refers to formal declarations, such as the April 2004 exchange of letters between Bush and Sharon, in which the United States - among other gifts - endorsed Israeli annexation of West Bank Palestinian territory.
On the other hand, almost all speakers agreed that in this situation the role of President Bush can be considered as crucial for any solution of a problem, because if anyone would be able to put pressure on Prime Minister Sharon, it would be Bush. Others like Sir Harold Walker, gave some spark of hope from the presumption that President Bush in his second term might have the ambition to play a 'historical role' to bring parties together, not only whithin the United States, but also in the case of Israel/Palestine.
In general, speakers were more positive in their assessement of the European Union as a constructive partner in the Quartet, because of the crucial role the United States is playing in this process. The role of the European Union should primarily be considered from the point of view that the European Union is at least economically equivalent to the US. Remarkable was also that several speakers in line of this observation put their hope on Prime Minister Blair as one of the few leaders who will be in a position to have influence on President Bush. Several speakers however wanted a more independent role of the European Union. Radi Suudi remarked that anyhow the position of the European Union should be clear about the general applicability of the opinion of the International Court concerning the occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories. This should not prevent the EU to try playing a more positive and active role in disengagementplan from the Gaza strip, as was proposed by Premier Sharon.
The EU could fill the vacuum where the United States and others would not take the initiative with this plan, whatever one might think of Sharon's motives. It is also in the interest of the Palestinians that this initiative will succeed and will not produce a situation of chaos within the area, or even a danger of violent actions across the borderlines into both directions. In order to prevent such a situation it is important that one of the major parties should take responsibility of providing the military forces that are needed for it. For several reasons the EU might be considered as the most obvious candidate to play a leading role in accordance and under the auspices of the United Nations.
There are arguments why some parties, in particular on the right in Israel will deny not only the effectiveness, but also the moral right of Europe to play such a role. These arguments will refer to the colonial past of Europe and especially to the presumed antisemitic tendencies in present Europe. Hajo Meyer, in his introductary speech, rejected this argument by stating that it serves nowadays mainly as an argument to manipulate politicians and the public opinion used by the Israeli Government. 'Nowadays the real victims of antisemitism are the Palestinians'. The discussions between the Israelis and the Palestinians are now a vicious circle of emphasising on the one hand the illegality of occupation and on the other hand the murderous terrorism against citizens. Only outside force will be able to break through this vicious circle.
With regard to Russia, Vladimir Petrovsky remarked that at presence an active role could be expected from it, because of the great interest and worries that exist with regard to this area, in particular with regard to the danger that nuclear weapons will become at the disposal of terrorists.
Another major actor, absent in the Quartet of the 'Road Map' should be - as suggested by Gerben Meihuizen - the participation of the Arab League for instance, represented by countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, in view of the so called 'Abdallah Initiative' at the summit in Beirut.
Of course, it is in line with the theme of this conference that a special role should be played by the International Court of Justice and other institutions of the United Nations. Pieter Bekker formulated the following points:
But of course, ultimately decisive are the positions to be taken by the parties themselves: Israel and Palestine. It was however clear for most speakers that now or in the near future there is little room to expect that the Israeli Government will comply with the ruling of the International Court or even for Israel to be expected to withdraw from the West Bank or to agree on internationalization of Jerusalem. Most speakers also agree that it is in the long term interest of Israel to put an end to this illegal and blind-alley situation. Menachem Klein: 'Israel's interest dictates withdrawel to the 1967 borders and to put an end - and not as a favour - to the settlements”. What makes it so difficult is the fact that it is not a matter of compensation or drawing lines, but that the settlement project is a national project that is considered by many Israelis to concern their very national identity.
The question on which an unambigious answer was not easily found was the question of the desirable sanctions. Most speakers were very hesitant on this matter. Although the statement of Ambassador Peck that no international agreement can be reached without force was not contested, most speakers seemed to agree with Carolyn Parrish - as the case of Iraq has shown - that in general, a boycot is a bad policy because it tends to harm the majority of the people that cannot be held responsible. However, under clearly formulated conditions, actors like the European Union could, in line with the ICJ judicial opinion of July the 9th,make use of the paragraph of the Association Treaty if and when the Israeli Government would act contrary to the international legal norms on Human Rights.
The Palestinian speaker As'ad Abdul Rahman, puts his hope in his moderate statement on the narrow path that might be followed by the present Palestinian leaders who are expected to be the successors of Chairman Arafat. This course is based at present on the assumption that (a) unlike ten or five years ago in both countries, the United States and Israel, large militant religious-conservative minorities are disproportionally influential; (b) as a consequence of this development both leaders will have to seek their political support in the centre; (c) the strategy of influencing Sharon will have more succes when it will be based on an indirect approach by influencing Bush.
For the foreseeable future the only realistic goal seems to be the two-state solution, based on a real peaceful, democratic co-existence. As Mouin Rabbani stated:
Some have celebrated its alleged death on the grounds that the resolution of the conflict within the framework of a unitary secular, democratic and/or bi-national state is both more just and even more practical. Perhaps. But the reality is that once the two-state settlement is no longer available, the conflict is for many years likely to revert to an existential struggle with profound and devastating repercussions rather than progress to a unitary resolution. One could even make the argument that it is in fact the two-state settlement that will over time, and more effectively, lay the basis for voluntary, peaceful democratic coexistence within a unitary state.