Examination of Witness (Questions 1-19)
4 NOVEMBER 2003
MS NOMI
BAR-YAACOV
Q1 Chairman: Ms Bar-Yaacov, may I
welcome you to the Committee, as part of our inquiry into the
foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism. You are an
expert from the ISSS in respect of Israel and Palestine and it
is in that area I should like to begin and then open the questions
to colleagues. As you probably know, the Committee visited the
Middle East in the middle of September. We went to Syria, Jordan
and then Jerusalem, where we met representatives of the Palestine
Authority during the period when Abu Ala was in the position of
being nominated but not fully confirmed, senior representatives
of the Israeli Government and a number of important non-governmental
organisations working in the area. Since that time in September
there have been several negative developments and it is on that
first that I should welcome your own views, particularly on the
Haifa bomb attack and the Israeli reaction against Syria and the
attack on the US convoy moving into the Gaza Strip. First of all,
in respect of the Israeli strike against Syria, is it your view
that that does mark a shift in policy on the part of Israel? Why
was that attack mounted?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: Thank you very
much, Chairman, for inviting me here. It is a great pleasure and
honour to be here and I shall do my best to answer your questions.
It is my view that it marks a potential escalation. It is a bit
too soon to judge how it will play out in the region. The reasons
Israel mounted the attack are as follows. A suicide bombing in
Haifa had just been carried out, on the eve of the holiest holiday
in Israel, Yom Kippur. The Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, felt
that he had to respond; his response would have been to expel
Arafat, but the US had quite clearly instructed him not to do
so. He felt that he was running out of potential options and he
wanted to send a very strong message to "terrorist organisations"
and states supporting terror. In his view Syria is an easy target,
it is Israel's neighbour, it harbours a number of terrorist organisations
with links to Palestine and he chose a target which was an empty,
non-functioning training camp because he wanted on the one hand
to send a message that he was serious about combatting terror
and on the other hand he did not really want to strike Damascus
or kill too many people.
Q2 Chairman: That said, he publicly
claimed that it was still a training camp, although others said
it was a Palestinian refugee camp. I notice that a spokesman for
Islamic Jihad denied having any training camps in Syria and the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine said that the camp
was no more than one of its disused training camps. Are you accepting
that position? What is your view of the current intelligence in
respect of that camp?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: My view on the
current intelligence is that it was not operating as a camp at
the time it was bombed and that the reason it was chosen was in
order to send a very strong message to neighbouring states to
stop harbouring terrorist groups with links to Palestine.
Q3 Chairman: Was that strong message
received?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: Yes, to a certain
extent.
Q4 Chairman: What has been the response
of the Syrian Government?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: The official response
has always been that they are not harbouring terrorists and that
Palestinian terrorist groups do not operate out of Damascus. What
we have seen is that Israeli Intelligence say that they have taken
some action in that regard and that the message was well received.
I am not really in a position to comment on those reports, but
I can confirm that is the line of reporting coming out from the
Israeli security services.
Q5 Chairman: You said that the Israelis
were not able to attack or deport Arafat because of pressure from
the US. Is that part of the reason for the lack of condemnation
on the part of the United States Government?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: It is my belief
that Israel would not have attacked this camp in Syria without
prior US consent.
Q6 Chairman: How best is that lack
of condemnation to be construed? Does it give an indication to
Israel that they can attack other camps if they so choose or is
it limited?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: I believe that
there is quite an open dialogue between Israel and the US and
that the US is dictating to Israel what they can and cannot attack
outside the boundaries of the State of Israel and the Palestinian
Occupied Territories. In that sense I believe that it is a limited
choice.
Q7 Chairman: From your own knowledge,
you have mentioned the extent to which the US does have a hold
on Israeli policy. Are there any areas where there is a divergence
of view on the part of the Israeli and US Government in the region?
You talked about a close working together of the US and Israeli
Governments. Where are the points of divergence between those
two governments?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: It is a very good
question and quite difficult to answer because I am not sure that
the US is speaking with one voice. The US has allowed Israel to
carry out far-reaching policies, especially in the Palestinian
Occupied Territories. I think in that regard Prime Minister Sharon
has won the support of President Bush. I also think that with
the US being so involved in Iraq now, they do not really have
the time, the energy and the resources to engage in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. I do not think they really have the interest to take
any risks at the moment, especially since they are running into
an election year. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an extremely
difficult issue to deal with and it is a no-win situation or it
is perceived as such at this time in the US. I think I could sum
up the American policy at present, certainly since your visit
to the region, as one of disengagement and therefore I do not
really think there are many points of divergence: they are just
allowing Israel to carry out more or less whatever policy the
Israeli Government would like to carry out. The main point of
divergence is on Arafat and Israel has accepted that they will
not be able to expel him and they do not plan to do so. I do not
think they will carry out an expulsion of Arafat without US approval
and the US stance is unlikely to change.
Q8 Chairman: Presumably the attack
on the US convoy only underlined that US policy.
Ms Bar-Yaacov: The attack on the
US convoy only strengthened the US's support of the Israeli stance
that they are fighting the same sort of war that the US is fighting
against al-Qaeda and terrorism: Israel is fighting against terrorist
organisations on the West Bank. That is the Israeli view and the
attack on the convoy in Gaza strengthened that view.
Q9 Mr Pope: I want to move on to
the other side of this equation. As you rightly say, it is quite
difficult to judge what the link is between the Bush administration
and Israeli policy. The other side of this equation is the link
between Syria and Iran and Palestinian terror groups. Could you
give us your opinion on how much control the Syrians and the Iranians
have over these groups? Can they command and control them or are
the links more informal than that?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: The main group
which Iran and Syria back up is Hezbollah which operates out of
southern Lebanon. Both Iran and Syria have very strong links to
Hezbollah and they have a fair degree of control over that organisation,
even though that particular organisation is also fractured to
a certain degree. I am not suggesting that they have 100% control
and the funding and the training do come primarily from Iran.
This is not necessarily the case with other groups operating in
Palestine, although a number of them have offices in Damascus
and some links to Iran. The terrorist groups operating in Palestine
and those like the al-Qaeda sort of network are funded. They are
not fighting the same cause. Al-Qaeda is fighting the US occupation
and the US control of the West: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad are primarily fighting Israeli occupation.
Q10 Mr Pope: I got really confused
about this whole issue when I was in the Middle East and I never
really felt I received very clear answers, especially in Damascus
where the question was repeatedly put about what links there were
between the Syrian regime and Hezbollah. I never felt I received
a full, frank and honest answer to that. When the cease-fire broke
down in August, do you think that was at the behest of Damascus
and Teheran? Could they control it? What level of command and
control do you feel they have?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: The cease-fire
was between the Fatah organisation, the Hamas and the Palestinian
Islamic Jihad. Those organisations are primarily run from within
Palestine and the reason that it broke had more to do with an
internal debate between these organisations inside Palestine than
with the countries you mention. It became a cease-fire on 29 June
this year because of an internal debate between Fatah, Hamas and
Jihad, with the support of the Egyptian Government. The Egyptian
Government plays an incredibly important role and that role should
be encouraged by the UK Government and other governments in brokering
deals. They understand how these groups operate, they understand
what kind of support they have, what makes their minds tick and
that is something which is often misunderstood outside the region.
The reason that the cease-fire broke did not have that much to
do with outside pressure, but had more to do with internal pressure.
Q11 Mr Pope: That is really helpful.
Colleagues have passed me a note saying that my confusion is not
limited to my stay in Damascus. The last point I want to raise
is about the European Union. The European Union, following a British
move, moved against funding of Hamas recently. Do you think there
is more that either the UK as a state on its own or the EU as
an organisation could do to discourage states in the Middle East
from promoting or sponsoring terrorism?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: Yes. There is more
that the UK Government can do and the EU and the dialogue that
the EU has been conducting for the last five years with the militant
organisations has been extremely important and very much helped
to broker the cease-fire of 29 June. On the one hand it is important
to keep a dialogue going, otherwise there is a serious misunderstanding
of what these organisations are all about. On the other hand it
is very important to keep the pressure on those who fund the organisations
and there can be closer monitoring of such activity and more pressure
can be put on. However, I should like to emphasise that it is
important to do both at the same time. I do not think they lie
in conflict with one another. It is important on the one hand
to keep a dialogue with these organisations in order to understand
what the trends are within the organisation. For example, within
Hamas, there is a big difference between the Izzedine al-Qassam,
which is the military wing of the organisation, and the political
wing of the organisation and within the political wing of the
organisation there is a big difference between the thinking of
various leaders and likewise within Izzedine al-Qassam, but that
is less important because Izzedine al-Qassam is a military terrorist
organisation. In order to understand where Hamas is standing,
and Hamas are gaining political support within Palestine and they
are going to continue to be a political force as well as a militant
force, it is very, very important to continue that dialogue which
to the best of my understanding was cut off very, very recently.
In my personal opinion, that was a mistake and it is important
to renew that dialogue and to have a team which works closely
with Solana and it has been working closely with him for the last
five years, operating on the ground and feeding the UK Government
information about the subtlety of what goes on within.
Q12 Richard Ottaway: In the past
you have placed emphasis on the Road Map, which is very complex.
To what extent have the parties implemented it so far?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: I still think that
the Road Map is an important document, even though I sadly recognise
the fact that its implementation is currently stalled. The parties
have not really done much to implement it and that is because
there has been no pressure on them to do so. That goes back to
the Chairman's first question about the US policy. The US has
taken the lead on the implementation on the Road Map and frankly
has not really done anything. It sent Ambassador John Wolf to
the region as the special representative. He came in with a team
of very young and not sufficiently experienced monitors and insufficient
numbers—only 12 of them. Their work was not public and the
parties were not happy with it and quite frankly they failed in
the implementation thus far. What is needed in order to make the
Road Map work is a very serious third party intervention, which
is exactly where this government can contribute to it. It is very
important to have enhanced monitoring at the initial stage, verification
and compliance and to build up towards a multinational peacekeeping
force. The parties alone clearly cannot implement the Road Map.
The Israeli Government does not have any interest in doing so
at present. They have made it very, very clear, that they will
not move on the Road Map, they will not implement their obligations
under the Road Map until the Palestinians cease all violence and
all terror attacks. The Palestinians are not capable of ceasing
all terror attacks and violence and restructuring their security
apparatus and disarming all of their militant groups and collecting
all the weapons. It is very important to carry out all those activities,
but I do not think the Palestinians alone can carry out those
activities and the international community, including this government,
can help them carry out those activities. The Road Map or any
other international plan or any other national plan such as the
Geneva Accords, which call for a multinational force and for what
they call an implementation verification group (IVG), which is
something they called for in the preamble and which runs across
every single article of the proposed accords.
Q13 Richard Ottaway: Who do you think
that third party should be? Should it be the UN, EU, NATO?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: Hopefully all of
the above working together, but that is wishful thinking down
the line. Answering your question quite frankly, yes, it would
be fantastic if you could get all of those to engage. I do not
think that is realistic at present. All the groups you mentioned,
the UN, EU and NATO should start thinking about what role they
can play, but in the immediate stage, now, yes, the EU and the
UN can take a much more active role to make things happen.
Q14 Richard Ottaway: If that does
not happen is it doomed to fail?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: Yes, if it does
not happen it is doomed to fail; absolutely.
Q15 Sir John Stanley: You said that
the Road Map was currently stalled. I have to say, as one of the
members of the Committee who have been recently into the occupied
territories and to Israel, it looks to me to be absolutely dead
in the water. There is almost a complete divergence between the
political rhetoric which we hear from politicians and what is
actually happening on the ground. The reality of what is happening
on the ground is that the settlement programme is continuing and
indeed you will have seen the announcement made only a few days
ago by the Israeli Government that they were extending more utilities
to more outposts; so the settlement programme is going on. The
wall building is continuing and we saw a further announcement
on that as we returned from the occupied territories. On the issue
of the Palestinian state being economically viable, all the evidence
we saw on the ground was that all the steps the Israeli Government
is taking inside the occupied territories is actually completely
counter to the possibility of a viable state emerging. The farmers
are being separated from their lands by the wall. We went to see
the large town of Qalqilya, 43,000 people and we saw for ourselves
how, as a result of the policy of not allowing Israelis to come
into the town with the building of the wall right the way around
it, down the high street about half the shops were now shuttered
up. We were told that a lot of those had been joint Israeli-Palestinian
businesses. I must put it to you that when you simply say it has
stalled, it looks to me as though there is absolutely no possibility
of the present Israeli Government, regardless of the pressure
being brought to bear on it, being unwilling to give up any significant
amount of the occupied territories to stop the settlement building
programme and most certainly not to stop the wall building programme
taking place within the occupied territories.
Ms Bar-Yaacov: I could not agree
with you more, not about the death of the Road Map but about the
analysis, the fact of the construction of the wall, the continuing
expansion of settlements, depriving Palestinians in and around
Qalqilya and other towns. I know this Committee visited Qalqilya
but there are plenty of other small enclaves where Israel has
built either walls or fences surrounding entire villages or towns.
It is important to note that and it is important to recognise
what is happening on the ground. The reason I say the Road Map
is stalled is because it is possible to revive it and death implies
that there is just no resuscitation process available. The majority
of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians do want peace. In
a poll published today 87% of the Israeli population still says
it believes in a two-state solution and believes in resuming negotiations.
For a long time Israelis and Palestinians did not want to resume
negotiations. There was a feeling that there was a war, they were
the victims of terror, there was this whole business of "rewarding
terror" and a lot of Israelis and a lot of Palestinians,
the majority at times, felt that it was not the right time to
resume negotiations. Today that is not the case and the only document
which has been accepted by both parties, with some reservations
on the Israeli side, is the Road Map. I do not know how long this
government will last. There may be a call for early elections
in Israel sooner or later. We have seen the Israeli chief of staff
come out with overt criticism of the precise trends you have just
spelled out before us. Moshe Ya'alon came out last week with extremely
harsh criticism of the Israeli counter-terrorist measures and
said that they are choking Palestinian society, humiliating Palestine
and will only cause more violence in the short and long term and
that they are not serving Israel's security interests. For the
chief of staff of the Israeli army to come out with a statement
saying that Israel's policies in the occupied territories are
not serving Israel's security interests is quite a far-reaching
statement and has created a very serious debate and it will have
a lot of impact. In addition to that you also have the Geneva
Accords which were provisionally signed in Amman three weeks ago
which also started a debate. These are all trends which have started
since your visit to Israel, Palestine and the region. The fact
that a group of senior Palestinian officials and a group of left-wing
members of the Israeli Knesset and others have managed to come
up with a 45-page document outlining the final status issues,
coming up with creative solutions on Jerusalem, on refugees and
on other delicate issues like borders and settlements, even though
this is not a document which has been endorsed by the government
and naturally was criticised by the parent government in Israel—the
Palestinian reaction was somewhat more ambiguous—proves
to the Israeli people and to the Palestinian people that there
is an alternative. I go back to the will for peace: it proves
that there is a will to move forward and some Israelis are beginning
to recognise that the trends you mentioned are not going to serve
Israel in the long run.
Q16 Sir John Stanley: There have
been any numbers of productions of paper documents and that is
a relatively easy exercise, indeed a new one has emerged since
we returned from Israel and the occupied territories. Can you
tell us the basis for your apparent optimism that in a democratic
election in Israel it is going to be possible for a party or coalition
of parties to be elected as the Government of Israel based on
putting to the electorate that if elected they are going to take
down the whole of the security wall which is inside the occupied
territories and remove every Israeli settlement inside the occupied
territories and return the land to the independent Palestinian
state?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: First of all, the
document does not say they will do that. It does not say any of
that. The Geneva Accords do not talk about removing the wall and
they do not talk about moving back all the settlements from the
West Bank. I do not think that this document will be the next
peace agreement either; the Geneva Accords are not going to be
acceptable to both parties as they are drafted today. My point
is that there is a debate which did not exist in the society previously
about alternatives and it is a very significant debate. The significance
of the Geneva Accords is that they show there is an alternative.
This will not be the alternative. I am saying two different things
here: yes, it is significant; no, it will not be adopted as it
is. However, it has started a very serious debate within Israeli
society. One in five Israeli lives below the poverty line. That
is unprecedented for Israel. The economic situation is in a shambles,
parents do not want their children to serve in the occupied territories,
they do not want their children to guard settlements or to man
checkpoints between Palestinians. There is a beginning of a debate
and I would not be surprised if this government did not last its
full term.
Q17 Ms Stuart: We mentioned the United
States and there is a very serious accusation that the Road Map
was simply something Bush agreed to because it was part of the
deal the United Kingdom required for domestic purposes in many
ways, but there is no real engagement, particularly now in the
runup to the election. We have the European Union which, whilst
it provides funds, does not provide a coherent political will.
You mentioned Egypt. We are getting quite clear who is analysing
the problem. What I do not have a sense of is who in the current
situation will actually have the political power to get people
round the table and have the political will and political power
to provide solutions. Who, in your view, would be the key players
who would have to engage seriously? Is it just the United States?
Does the European Union have a political voice there or is it
just funding? If you had to pick your dream team which has to
meet round the table one evening who would be capable of delivering?
Who would that be?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: It is important
to try to get the US engaged, but it is not realistic at the moment.
I just do not think that the US is going to engage until the elections
and then inauguration, so we are talking January 2005. In terms
of how to approach this we need to think about what we can do
between now and January 2005 and how we can plan for a more robust
meaningful engagement with the US and potentially with NATO later
on down the line. It is incredibly important to engage moderate
Arab states at this stage in the debate. Following the occupation
in Iraq a lot of Arab states feel alienated and very bitter about
what goes on in Israel and Palestine and the American disengagement
and I do think that the UK Government is in a very good position
to do that, to take the lead. The UK is in a slightly different
position to the rest of the EU. The EU has just come out with
a poll that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace and Israel
is not a great fan of the EU. I do not think Israel and the UK
have the same relationship. A direct dialogue between the UK and
Israel is possible. I also think it is important to keep the pressure
on the US, even though I do not think they will necessarily engage
at a high level, but I would not work behind their backs, I would
certainly keep them appraised of what is going on and consult
with them on the one hand and on the other hand take direct action.
Sharon does not want to lose his seat as Prime Minister. The fact
that, for example, his rhetoric is suddenly reverting to the Road
Map and saying we need to give this Abu Ala new government a chance
and the Road Map needs to be implemented is mainly a reaction
to the Geneva Accords, the fact that suddenly there is an alternative
on the table. I agree with Sir John, that it is very easy to produce
a document and I agree with Sir John as well that it is not going
to be the next peace agreement. I do think it is important as
a document at this given moment; the mere fact that it was produced
should not be undermined.
Q18 Ms Stuart: Do I understand correctly
that you are almost saying we have to get through this period
between now and the next American presidential elections and then
move on from there?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: I am saying two
different things. In the short term what we need to do between
now and the next presidential elections is for the UK to take
the lead, for the UK to say okay we cannot count on the US, putting
pressure on the US is not going to work because they are engaged
in an election year. I am merely being realistic here. The EU
is also problematic because they are not seen necessarily as particularly
credible. It is working with both: within the EU and keeping an
open dialogue with the US, but taking the lead in terms of dialogue
and keeping the pressure on.
Q19 Ms Stuart: I was very unhappy
about that EU poll and I thought it was extremely damaging. What
do you think the effect of that will be in Israel?
Ms Bar-Yaacov: Very negative.
It is extremely serious. Israel has enough problems with the EU.
The EU has not really done enough to reassure Israel that some
of Israel's fears are for historical reasons and things have changed.
Every time a European minister or a Member of the European Parliament
makes a statement that is anti-semitic, Europe has not done enough
to rebut that and to reassure Israel that in fact its intentions
are not anti-Israeli. This poll will just highlight to the Israelis
that Europe is problematic.
| 
