Interview: Geneva Initiative Promoter Tzvia Greenfeld on Agreement Details

Aaron Lerner

Date: 24 October 2003

[Effrayant! A entendre cette activiste irresponsable - qui connaît très mal le texte qu'elle promeut - on se demande comment on peut sérieusement faire confiance à cette initiative! M. Macina]


IMRA Interviewed Tzvia Greenfield, who is known as an ultra-orthodox public figure active in support of withdrawal, in Hebrew, on 24 October 2003 (Greenfield has been interviewing with the media as part of the promotion campaign for Yossi Beilin's "Geneva Initiative". She has benefited from funding from the European Union in the past. During the course of an interview on Israel Radio earlier in the week she stated that the agreement guaranteed the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.):

IMRA: I understand that you are connected to the "Geneva Initiative"

Greenfield: Yes.

IMRA: I wanted to ask you if you understand the agreement to assure Jews the right to "visit" holy places such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb or the right to "pray" there?

Greenfield: To visit and to pray.

IMRA: Where is it written in the agreement? I have it in front of me and I do not see it. The agreement says "access" with regards to holy places. The only reference in the agreement to the right to worship is in the Western Wall Tunnel. In the Oslo agreement the terms "right to worship" and "religious practices" appear while in this agreement the term "access" is used.

Greenfield: I have to check it. To the best of my knowledge we are talking about full rights such as there are now in the Tomb of the Patriarchs to visit and pray. Freedom of worship in every place.

IMRA: So it could be that you simply are not aware of the wording.

Greenfield: I will check into this matter. What you are saying is interesting. I do not have the wording in Hebrew so I have to look at the English.

IMRA: That is to say that you haven't yet read the agreement itself.

Greenfield: I haven't yet read the agreement "with a microscope" since we went through the discussion process itself and the summation of the discussions was that there would be the full right to full religious practices at the holy sites.

IMRA: That includes the Temple Mount?

Greenfield: Yes. Yes.

IMRA: Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount?

Greenfield: Also Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount.

IMRA: There is a section that deals explicitly with the Temple Mount…

Greenfield: You have the text of the agreement?

IMRA: Yes.

Greenfield: The approved one?

IMRA: Yes. The full text in English. And according to Article 6 Paragraph 5(b)iii the Waqf will determine what may "disrupt religious worship decorum on the site". And since the Waqf has the authority to determine what may "disrupt religious worship decorum", and since, as you know, the Waqf believes that Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount is blasphemy, it follows that they will bar Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount on the grounds that is disrupts decorum.

Greenfield: Of course there are places on the Temple Mount that would not cause this.

IMRA: The position of the Waqf is that the entire area of the Temple Mount has the status of a mosque.

Greenfield: I think that it is a mistake to ask the Waqf what it thinks.

IMRA: But it is written here that the "Waqf will determine".

Greenfield: OK. But in the meantime I do not think so. This agreement was not made with the Waqf. It was made with the Palestinian Authority. Everything will be under Palestinian sovereignty. And it is true that traditionally the Waqf has been responsible for the entire area.

IMRA: This isn't a question of tradition. This is written in the agreement.

Greenfield: Yes. Yes. Certainly yes. The Waqf has traditionally been responsible for the area but the agreement wasn't made with the Waqf. It was made with right now with a group that doesn't even represent the Palestinian government but instead a very important group. I think that these things will be finalized on the basis of freedom of worship in all the places for everyone.

IMRA: I understand. So when you say that everything is OK it is based on what was said orally and not based on what was written.

Greenfield: The truth is that I have to check how it is written exactly. I concede that I don't recall how it is exactly written.

IMRA: It isn't that you don't remember - it is that you simply do not know. Right? You don't know what is explicitly written in the agreement.

Greenfield: No. No. I simply do not remember the exact wording. I have to see how it was written. In the English text. But when we went over it the summary was that there would be freedom of worship.

IMRA: And that was verbal.

Greenfield: Of course the agreement is that it is without interference to the religious practices of the Palestinians.

IMRA: That is determined by the Waqf.

Greenfield: The place will be under Palestinian sovereignty and the traditional authority in the place, as is the case today, is the Waqf. Today prayer is prohibited on the Temple Mount. That is the situation today. Now we concluded this agreement and our interlocutor at this time is not the Waqf. The Waqf will be responsible for the place but our interlocutor is not the Waqf. Our interlocutor is the same group that informally represented the Palestinian Authority.

IMRA: But it could very well be that there is a discrepancy between what you understand from the verbal summation and what is actually written.

Greenfield: No. No. Absolutely not.

IMRA: But that is what is written.

Greenfield: You are assuming that the Waqf won't allow it. That they will claim that it interferes.

IMRA: It isn't written here that there will be freedom of worship for Jews on the Temple Mount…

Greenfield: As long as it doesn't constitute interference.

IMRA: What is written here is that the Waqf will determine what interferes.

Greenfield: There will be freedom of worship.

IMRA: If the Waqf agrees.

Greenfield: The Waqf is responsible for the place and the agreement is not with the Waqf.

IMRA: That is to say that you see a situation that if the Waqf were to say that in their opinion that Jewish prayer interferes that you assume that some international group would then take a different position.

Greenfield: The entire process is a matter of 30 months of transition during which the entire process is observed.

IMRA: At the start of these 30 months a sovereign Palestinian state will be established.

Greenfield: No. No process will be completed before the end of the 30 months. Also if in the beginning there will be arrangements under which the Palestinian state will begin the entire transfer of territories, of Jerusalem, the Old City quarters, all this will be completed in 30 months.

IMRA: That wasn't my question. I asked when there would be a sovereign Palestinian state.

Greenfield: It is important. Why? Because those 30 months were meant to see if we can work together with the Palestinians.

IMRA: It happens to be written in Article 5 Paragraph 7(b) that "immediately upon entry into force of this Agreement" that there will be an Israeli withdrawal that will give territorial contiguity to the Palestinian state.

Greenfield: It is not that way.

IMRA: At the start in the beginning there will be significant moves. That give them a sovereign state with territorial contiguity.

Greenfield: It isn't exactly that way. That is not correct. Again, I am working from memory as the agreement is not in front of me. The entire process, until it is completed, will take 30 months. And in the course of the 30 months the cooperation of the Palestinians will be studied. With regards to all the critical questions.

IMRA: That is to say that you understand the agreement to make the sovereignty of the Palestinian state conditional?

Greenfield: What does that mean?

IMRA: Well, you are telling me that…

Greenfield: First of all it is a non-militarized state.

IMRA: That wasn't what I asked. Do you think that it is a conditionally sovereign state?

Greenfield: I think that the agreement is conditional.

IMRA: But is its sovereignty conditional?

Greenfield: No. What I am saying is exact: the agreement is conditional.

IMRA: I am asking about the sovereignty of the state.

Greenfield: The thing that is conditional is the agreement. That is to say that if the Palestinian state fulfils it part of the agreement, as of course the State of Israel does, then the Palestinian state would be completed as per the agreement.

IMRA: I understand. And since the agreement says that "immediately" there will be Israeli withdrawals to give territorial contiguity, there will be a sovereign Palestinian state with territorial contiguity from the start.

Maybe you do not understand.

Greenfield: I do not know what kind of news agency you are from but is clear
to me that the agreement annoys you.

IMRA: I believe that people should understand documents. That someone who
goes before people to promote an agreement should be familiar with the text
of the documents that they are promoting. And I am simply trying to
understand if you actually understand the agreement.

Greenfield: The steps will start immediately. The steps will not be held up
until the Palestinian state proves that it is OK in the way that Sharon, for
example, wants, the measures will start immediately. But stepwise.

IMRA: I don't want to belabor the point.

There will be a sovereign Palestinian state at the start.

Greenfield: Yes. It will be established.

IMRA: And you do not think that it will be a sovereign Palestinian state?

Greenfield: Not on the Temple Mount.

IMRA: I am not talking about specific areas. I am saying that there will be, someplace on the map, an area at the beginning of this story that will be a sovereign Palestinian state. I am not talking about what area. I am asking you if you think that at the start of the process that there is a sovereign Palestinians state in some area.

Greenfield: Yes.

IMRA: OK. And according to the agreement "immediately" there is an Israeli withdrawal so that there is territorial contiguity. So it is correct to say that at the start of the process that there is a sovereign Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. Correct?

Greenfield: With a certain amount of contiguity. The process begins.

IMRA: Now do you think that if afterwards the Palestinians violate the agreement that the sovereign Palestinian state that exists will be cancelled? Or will it continue to exist?

Greenfield: The sovereign Palestinian state within that area would continue.

IMRA: Why do you think that while there is reference to a timetable for Israeli withdrawals - to be detailed in the yet to be written Appendix X, there is no talk about any kind of timetable or even the timing of the disbanding of the "irregular forces or armed bands" and there isn't anything written at all about the confiscation of weapons. Nothing at all about timing: when the confiscation of weapons begin, when it ends. Nothing. Why do you think that this is the case?

Greenfield: Because we are coming to the agreement in the spirit of cooperation and the underlying assumption that each side has entered the agreement with the intention of honoring it in all its aspects including the end of terror, full withdrawals, full compliance on our part. Each side takes upon itself that it will fulfil the agreement in its entirety.

IMRA: In the course of your activities are you in touch with Irish?

Greenfield: Certainly.

IMRA: People say that the Protestants and the Catholics have had a dispute for centuries and it is possible to learn from their experience. That it is an example of what can be done.

Greenfield: Yes.

IMRA: Are you familiar with the Good Friday Agreement?

Greenfield: Recently I met with someone from Ireland.

IMRA: Do you know that the point that undermined the Good Friday Agreement was that it did not have a timetable for the removal of weapons?

Greenfield: I do not want to mix apples and oranges. I do not think that the Palestinian Israeli conflict is similar to the conflict between the Protestants and Catholics. Just as I do not think that what happened in South Africa is relevant. I think that my basic examination of the situation differs from yours.

IMRA: Do you see things going so well that 5 years is enough time to drop all monitoring arrangements of the borders of the Palestinian state?

Greenfield: I think that this whole discussion is wrong.

IMRA: You are promoting an agreement and according to this agreement after 5 years the international monitoring arrangements to monitor what enters and exits the Palestinian state can be dropped. After that they can do what they please since there won't be monitoring. Do you think that 5 years is enough time?

Greenfield: I think that until 1987 we lived in perfect peace with the Palestinians and there were no attacks and no Israelis were hurt.

IMRA: This is rhetoric. I asked a question.

Greenfield: Wait. I will tell you. Until 1987 there was peace. But then the Palestinians saw that the Israeli occupation was growing and that they were losing lands and the resistance movement started. First there was the first Intifada that was relatively quiet and it became progressively harsher. You ask me if we can reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians…

IMRA: That isn't what I am asking. You are promoting an agreement with its own specific details. I am asking if you think that it is reasonable to drop the monitoring mechanisms in 5 years.

Greenfield: I think that 5 years will give us a good idea.

IMRA: Now it isn't that after 5 years Israel has the option of changing this if Israel isn't happy with the results. The agreement doesn't provide for Israel to be able to insist that the monitoring continue after 5 years.

Greenfield: Israel is a regional power. It knows quite well how to let both Syria and Jordan know what it considers to be a casus belli. And it did this all the years. And when it let these countries know what it considered to be a casus belli those states were extremely careful not to cross those red lines.

IMRA: That is to say that you see a situation under which the presence of an international force may interfere.

Greenfield: No.

IMRA: Because if an Israeli threat is required and there is an international force present to protect the Palestinian state against the Israeli threat then…

Greenfield: You want to force me into your framework of analysis.

IMRA: I am simply analyzing what is written in the agreement.

Greenfield: A cold examination of the agreement goes this way: We are giving a certain amount of time for the process to prove itself as a healthy process. And we expect that there will be difficulties. There will be difficulties. Now, within a certain period of time if it turns out that the program isn't working out then Israel isn't hopeless when it comes to defending its interests.

IMRA: I read this agreement in my mother tongue (AL: English), so it wasn't a problem for me. And there is no place in this agreement where it is written that if Israel is not satisfied with Palestinian compliance that Israel has the right to walk away from the agreement. Perhaps if Israel was able to convince the entire world that the Palestinians were not honouring their obligations they would do something. That is to say: are you saying that after 50 years during which Israel failed to convince the world that it was in the right that in the future if the Palestinians violate the agreement that Israel will be able to convince the world that this is the case.

Greenfield: Not at all.

IMRA: Then basically what you are saying is that if things don't work out that there will be war.

Greenfield: Not at all. Listen to what I am telling you - and write it down: I think that if we do not have an agreement that we should unilaterally withdraw.

IMRA: Knowing that then a sovereign Palestinian state would be formed.

Greenfield: The occupation is devouring us.

IMRA: Now you are going into rhetoric. I am discussing the agreement.

Greenfield: Listen. If you are calling me right before the Sabbath then the least you can do is hear me out on this fundamental truth: I believe that we should immediately withdraw. Without conditions. We also have to defend ourselves. These two things must exist at the same time. I do not think that the occupation protected our interests . It only hurts our interests.

IMRA: So in conclusion, it really doesn't matter what is written here because in any case you want to withdraw.

Greenfield: No. The agreement is excellent. It is beyond my best dreams as to what agreement it is possible to reach with the Palestinians and I hope that the agreement can be carried out. I think that we cannot continue with this insane luxury we call occupation. We must withdraw. And the moment that we withdraw there will be a sovereign state there. It is our obligation to be concerned for our citizens. And we will do everything that is required to protect them if that same Palestinian state that is established in the territories should hurt the citizens or the security of the State of Israel. This is exactly the situation. Within the framework of this agreement the Palestinian side agrees to take limitations upon itself along with clear rules of the game. I hope very much that this agreement will be honored. I am considerably certain that it will be honored and if it is not honored then the State of Israel will know well how to protect itself. The occupation must be halted.

IMRA: Do you believe that people who promote a product, such as this agreement, should know it in depth?

Greenfield: Certainly.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
pager 03-6106666 subscriber 4811
Website: www.imra.org.il

--------------------------------------------

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Mis en ligne le 28 octobre 2003 sur le site www.upjf.org