[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 102 (Wednesday, September 6, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EGYPT'S EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF THE CAMP DAVID MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, September 6, 2000

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I submit into the Record a letter from His 
Excellency Nabil Fahmy, Ambassador to the United States, representing 
the Arab Republic of Egypt.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Camp David Summit ended without an agreement 
between the leaders of Israel and Palestine, a vigorous campaign was 
activated to paint an arbitrary picture of what supposedly went wrong--
to the effect that Mr. Arafat was intransigent, had rejected all 
proposals put before him, and was supported in this intransigence by 
Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
  I firmly believe that Egypt's response to those arbitrary and much 
publicized charges will go far to put a better light upon what, in 
truth, occurred. I submit for the Record the August 17, 2000 letter I 
have received from Ambassador Nabil Fahmy on this subject, and commend 
it to my colleagues for their close consideration.

                                                    Embassy of the


                                       Arab Republic of Egypt,

                                  Washington, DC, August 17, 2000.
     Hon. Nick Rahall,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Rahall: To follow upon the latest summit 
     negotiations at Camp David, I would like to share with you 
     some of my thoughts.
       As soon as the Camp David summit ended without an 
     agreement, a vigorous campaign painted a subjective picture 
     of what went wrong in the 14 days of closed negotiations. In 
     short, the story was that Arafat had been intransigent, had 
     rejected all proposals, and was encouraged by Egypt and Saudi 
     Arabia.
       These accounts overlook how far the Palestinian position 
     had moved over the last few years. By accepting the 1967 
     borders, Palestinians had already compromised on about 80% of 
     what many in the region believe to be the land of historic 
     Palestine. Also, at Camp David it was reported that they 
     further agreed to an exchange of land leaving some 
     settlements under Israeli sovereignty. They have accepted 
     intrusive security measures to satisfy Israeli concerns. No 
     one underscored that Arafat compromised on many issues. While 
     many issues remain outstanding, progress has been witnessed 
     in numerous areas. The issue of sovereignty of East 
     Jerusalem, particularly El Aqsa Mosque, was among the 
     outstanding issues. It is especially sensitive to 
     Palestinians. We have to recognize that the Palestinians were 
     flexible, however, they also have legitimate concerns that 
     are dear to them.
       The issue of Jerusalem remains outstanding, not only for 
     the Palestinians. To this day, the international community 
     has not recognized the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem. 
     Numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions 
     considered that all legislative and administrative measures 
     taken by Israel, to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are 
     invalid and cannot change Jerusalem's status. They urgently 
     called upon Israel to rescind all such measures, and to 
     desist form further actions changing the status of Jerusalem. 
     Almost every country in the world, including the United 
     States, respected those resolutions and have not established 
     diplomatic Missions to Israel in the Holy City.
       On the eve of the Madrid Peace Conference (1991), the basis 
     of the current negotiations, the United States reassured the 
     Palestinians that ``The U.S. is opposed to Israeli annexation 
     of East Jerusalem and extension of Israeli law on it and the 
     extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries.'' This remains 
     the pronounced U.S. official position today.
       We must not forget that the negotiations at the Egyptian-
     Israeli Camp David summit were also about to collapse on how 
     to deal with the issue of Jerusalem. Each side stated its 
     position in a letter to President Carter who would provide, 
     for the record, an affirmation of the United States stance on 
     Jerusalem. In his letter, dated September 22, 1978, President 
     Carter asserted: ``The position of the United States on 
     Jerusalem remains as stated by Ambassador Goldberg in the 
     United Nations General Assembly on July 14, 1967, and 
     subsequently by Ambassador Yost in the United Nations 
     Security Council on July 1, 1969.'' The two statements 
     unequivocally declared that:
       ``The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem 
     that came under the control of Israel in the June (1967) War, 
     like other areas occupied by Israel, is occupied territory . 
     . .
       The actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem 
     . . . give rise to understandable concerns that the eventual 
     disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced and the 
     rights and activities of the population are already being 
     affected and altered.
       (The United States) government regrets and deplores this 
     pattern of activity, and it has so informed the government of 
     Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967.
       (The United States) has consistently refused to recognize 
     these measures as having anything but a provisional character 
     and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of 
     Jerusalem.''
       Forcing a compromise on the Palestinians would ultimately 
     mean the postponement of the end of the conflict and would 
     plant the seeds for a bloodier confrontation between future 
     generations. We have learned, the hard way, that military 
     superiority and ``qualitative edges'' have never prevented 
     wars nor provided security, and will never do. We have no 
     alternative but to reach a comprehensive Palestinian-Israeli 
     peace accord, including Jerusalem, and to reach it now, to 
     bring to a final close the Palestinian-Israel conflict.
       In a NY Times Op-Ed article on August 6, 2000, President 
     Carter wrote: ``Accolades for one side and condemnation of 
     the other is always a political temptation after an 
     unsuccessful effort, but this makes it very difficult to 
     orchestrate future negotiation sessions where mutual 
     confidence in the mediator is required. Such statements made 
     since Camp David discussions have aroused concern in the Arab 
     community, and the possible movement of the American Embassy 
     from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would create an even greater 
     impediment to further progress.''
       Let us look for solutions rather than waste our time and 
     energy trying to find excuses.
       As for Egypt's role, when asked on Israeli television about 
     this issue, President Clinton answered ``I think that the 
     truth is that because this had never been discussed before 
     between the two parties--and because when we went into the 
     negotiations, they were usually secret or sacrosanct--that 
     I'm not sure, number one, that they thought they knew enough 
     to know what to ask for''.
       President Clinton also spoke about Egypt's role in the 
     peace process in an interview with Al-Hayat Newspaper 
     published Friday the 11th of August. He said: ``The fact is 
     that all that has happened since the original Camp David in 
     September '78, including Madrid and Oslo, is an indication of 
     the courageous and visionary policy of Egypt. Egypt was a 
     pioneer for peace and continues to be a key partner for the 
     United States. We agree on the fundamentals of the peace 
     process and we will not be able to reach an Israeli-
     Palestinian agreement on these core issues without close 
     consultations with Egypt. We are engaged in such a process 
     today.''
       What more can be said to dispel rumors that Egypt and other 
     Arab countries were not helpful to the negotiations in Camp 
     David. Egypt has been a key player in brokering almost all 
     Palestinian-Israeli agreements, and has taken an active role 
     in the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace 
     settlement. When faced with a crisis or a stalemate in any 
     Arab-Israeli negotiations, the parties and the United States 
     always turn to Egypt for fair and objective advice. One 
     recent example was the Sharm el Sheikh Summit in September 
     1999.
       It is noteworthy that Prime Minister Barak sent an envoy to 
     Cairo even before leaving the U.S. and then proceeded himself 
     to Cairo to meet President Mubarak after his return to the 
     region, as did President Arafat. In the meantime, contacts 
     between Egyptian and American officials continued in search 
     of ways to overcome this impasse; Ambassador Walker, the 
     Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs went to 
     Cairo where he met with President Mubarak and conferred with 
     Foreign Minister Moussa to coordinate both countries' 
     efforts. President Clinton has recently corresponded with 
     President Mubarak and Secretary Albright has since then 
     called Foreign Minister Moussa. As always, we are now 
     examining avenues of working with Palestinians and Israelis 
     to give a creative boost to the negotiating process.
       It is a difficult task before us, let us focus our efforts 
     on finding a truly historic compromise to finally bring peace 
     between Palestinians and Israelis. I look forward to working 
     with you toward this objective.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Nabil Fahmy,
                                                       Ambassador.

     

                          ____________________