Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi:

I thank the Deputies for their very good questions. The peace process is not a goal by itself. The peace process is an instrument or a method used to achieve peace. In the Palestinian case, unfortunately we have ended up with a peace process that has become a substitute for peace because the US has a monopoly over the so-called peace process, a total bias in favour of Israel and an inability to play an impartial role. We have ended up with a peace process that has become a substitute for peace and a cover for the expansion of Israeli settlements. The Israeli facts on the ground are destroying the very potential for a two-state solution. It is ironic that the peace process has become a cover for actions that are killing the possibility of peace and the possibility of a two-state solution. After 26 years of negotiations, nobody can hide the reality that there is no peace process. It is unacceptable that the peace process is being used as an excuse to delay the recognition of Palestine as a state. To be specific and technical, there have been no peace negotiations for many years. The process is dead. It is used to cover the Israeli actions. It is not leading to a solution.

I tried to show the committee some slides. They have been printed for the committee. The green area of the map on the first slide depicts what was supposed to be a Palestinian state on almost 44% of the historic land of Palestine. The map on the second slide depicts the so-called two-state solution, which we accepted with great pain because it meant giving up half of what we should have had according to the UN resolution. Palestinians accepted the two-state solution option that was based on the 1967 borders, as shown in the second map. Unfortunately, a third map was offered to us when we went to Camp David in 2000. This offered us a state without borders, without sovereignty and without Jerusalem, which is the most important city in Palestine. Ariel Sharon went further at a later stage by deducting more of the proposed Palestinian state and transforming it into three separate sectors. The real map I would like to show the committee today shows how Palestinian communities have been fragmented across 225 isolated bantustans or ghettos. Israel is devoting the black area on the map, which represents 62% of the land of the West Bank, to the use of illegal Israeli settlers. How can we have a state with such a map? How can we speak about a peace process which is being used as a cover to produce this system of fragmentation and killing the very foundation of the possibility of having a Palestinian state?

I think the only possible alternative to the US is a true international body which includes major players. That is what France tried to achieve when it initiated the idea of having an international peace conference with the participation of many countries from across the world. Unfortunately, this idea, which would have eliminated the US monopoly, was paralysed when Israel refused to attend the conference in question. Israel refuses to deal with any country or entity, including the EU, that presents itself as an alternative peace mediator. We are stuck with an imbalance of power that cannot be changed unless the facts on the ground are put across to counter the Israeli facts on the ground. That is why the recognition of Palestine is important, to come to Deputy O'Brien's second question. The recognition of Palestine would send a message that the Israeli facts on the ground are not going to dominate. It would show that there is an alternative fact on the ground: the recognition of the state of Palestine, which would have the status of a state under occupation, as the UN has indicated. Such recognition would have a very important legal aspect, a very important fact aspect and a very important moral aspect for the Palestinian people in feeling that the world is supporting their goal.

Before I speak about reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, a process in which I am participating, I will ask Dr. Rima Khalaf Hunaidi to speak about the issue of apartheid. Deputy O'Brien asked for specific information about the system of apartheid. I can show the committee some figures that show we do not have much water. The West Bank produces approximately 132 cu. m of water every year. Israel takes more than 86% of that. The outcome of this is that on average, a Palestinian is allowed to use more than 50 cu. m of water per year, while illegal Israeli settlers are allowed to use 2,400 cu. m of water each year, or 48 times more than us. The Israeli GDP per capitais $38,000. The Palestinian GDP per capitais less than $2,000. We are obliged to buy products at Israeli market prices. Moreover, we are obliged to pay double the price for electricity and water. If we need to send a patient to an Israeli hospital, we are obliged to pay four times more than what an Israeli citizen pays. In addition, there is a system of road segregation. This is the first time in human history that roads have been segregated. This did not even happen during the South African apartheid system. There are major roads inside the West Bank - not in Israel - which we are prohibited to use. If we are caught driving or walking on these roads, we will be sentenced to six months in jail.

I was born in Jerusalem. I worked as a medical doctor in Jerusalem for 15 years. I committed a sin, from the Israeli perspective, in 2005 when I decided to run for president and to meet voters in Jerusalem. I was arrested on four occasions for being in the city where I was born. Since then, I have been prohibited from entering Jerusalem and visiting my sister who lives there. If a Palestinian man in Jerusalem decides to marry a Palestinian woman in Ramallah, which is just 16 km away, legally they will not be able to live together. She could not go to Jerusalem because she would not be given a permit. If he decided to move to Ramallah to live with his wife, he would lose his residency, social security and health insurance and would not be allowed to come back to Jerusalem. This must be the worst system of apartheid in the 21st century. It is totally unacceptable.