I  will open with a general assertion, one that, while often repeated, remains as true today as it was when first uttered: 'Peace is more than the absence of war.' The latter is achieved through a state of non-belligerency; the former can only be attained through justice. Only a just peace can be lasting, peace that has deep foundations in international legality and law, in the respect of the human rights and dignity of all, and in the recognition of responsibility for past wrongs. Only if these conditions are met can we indeed talk about a permanent settlement.
We come here with a vision for the future. A sincere vision that foresees the real termination of a conflict that has been going on since the beginning of the century. In this vision, there are two states living in peace within recognized, secure, and open boundaries. The relationship between these two states is that of equal sovereigns, engaged in cooperation and in neighborly relations. The people of both states will be able to enjoy the benefits of economy, culture, art, and all that is entailed in open societies. Then, and only then, will there be a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
In this future, both states will enjoy security. Security that is not founded on fear, oppression, and occupation. Security that is not achieved for one at the price of trampling the human and national rights of the other. Rather, security that is mutual, security that is premised on the inviolability of sovereignty, one that is guaranteed by prosperity of the people and by respect for their rights.

The Permanent Status Negotiations have three starting points, the observance of which constitutes the test of our success. If these are not fulfilled, agreement can never be reached.
The first starting point, one which the Parties have constantly reiterated in past agreements, is the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Paramount in these resolutions is the emphasis on the rule of international law against acquisition of territory by war. This norm, enshrined in the UN Charter and reaffirmed repeatedly in countless global, regional, and bilateral instruments, is so entrenched in and basic to international law that it is non-derogable. Withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 borders is an absolute requirement for peace. Without return by Israel of all land acquired by war in 1967, including Jerusalem, our efforts will amount to no more than the deferral of crises. The only formula that is acceptable is land for peace.
The second starting point underlying the whole Middle East Peace Process, of which the current negotiations are an integral part, is the realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. First and foremost among these is the right to self-determination.
As the second millennium draws to an end, it is inconceivable that the Palestinian people remain under occupation. Like the first aim, this one, inherent in the status of the Palestinian people as a people, is so firmly established in international law that it cannot be denied or forfeited. Our aim is thus to ensure that self-determination, as enshrined in the UN Charter, and in the human rights instruments by which we all abide, is realized to the full.

The third starting point pertains to the rights of Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict did not start in 1967. Without justly solving one of the most lasting consequences of the 1948 Nakba, the other issues cannot be agreed upon. The right of Palestinian refugees to return and to receive compensation and restitution has already been affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international humanitarian law, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and its subsequent affirmations, and in countless other international instruments. Peace and dispossession are mutually exclusive. We in Palestine are committed to the former. I sincerely hope that our Israeli partners share this commitment.

The agenda for the negotiations is full, and many matters remain to be agreed upon in the course of the coming weeks and months. Before moving to these issues, though, I will recall our terms of reference: The Middle East Peace Process has had international dimensions from the outset, and rightly so in view of the historic responsibility of the international community towards the Palestinian people, both within Palestine and in Exile. We trust that the international community, and in particular the sponsors of the Peace Process, will continue to discharge their responsibility in accordance with the Letter of Invitation to the Madrid Peace Conference of October 30, 1 991.

The current negotiations also come within the context of the bilateral Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Thus, I reiterate our commitment to the Declaration of Principles of September 1993, the letters exchanged between the late Prime Minister Rabin and President Arafat, the Cairo Agreement of May 1994, the Interim Agreement of September 1995, the Hebron Protocol of January 1997, the Wye River Memorandum of October 1998, the Sharm al- Sheikh Memorandum of September 1 999, and other relevant instruments.
Finally, Palestine and Israel are members of the family of nations, and as such we must reaffirm our firm commitment to international law and legality as our overriding reference. It is our position that, in working out the details of our agreement, we remain bound by the principles of international law and by the resolutions of the United Nations. We expect our partners in Israel to share this position.

Please allow me to avail myself of this opportunity to reaffirm the PLO's unwavering commitment, in word and deed, to undertake all measures needed to ensure the continuation of a negotiation environment conducive to the realization of a just and lasting peace. We believe that good faith should govern our whole process so that we may attain our common goal In this vein, I urge our Israeli partners to refrain from illegal acts which will prejudice the outcome of the negotiations. In particular, I am referring to settlement activities. Disregarding the scores of UN resolutions, international law, the consensus of the international community, and the Parties' commitment not to 'take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the final status negotiations' and to '[preserve] the integrity and status of [the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit] during the interim period', negates the very foundations of the Peace Process. The credibility of the peace process has been badly damaged by over three years of stagnation. I urge you to restore this credibility by ensuring that nothing is done further to undermine the national and human rights of the Palestinian people.

In our meeting in Oslo last week, we conveyed a very clear message: settlement activities, whether expanding existing settlements or building new ones, must be stopped immediately, and all plans and policies regarding the issue must be revoked. Present in our minds then was the man we were remembering in that gathering, the late Prime Minister Rabin, who made a commitment that no new settlements would be built, no settlements would be expanded, no government subsidies would be given to settlements, and that fences would be erected within fifty meters of built up settlement areas. Yet we learned yesterday of the decision to expand the Itimar Settlement tenfold as a reward to the settlers for recently evacuating 10 so-called settlement outposts.
I cannot help but wonder how this serves to create the positive environment we agreed on. And I cannot help but wonder how this can be consistent with President Clinton's statements during the Oslo summit that "the two sides agree to refrain from... actions that could create difficulties for the other side while they are trying to share an agreement".
For the sake of ensuring the success of the negotiations, I urge you to honor what you have signed to immediately revoke all settlement decisions, plans, and policies. We find it inconceivable, and quite contrary to the logic of negotiation, to continue changing facts on the ground while we make arrangements for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 on this very same occupied ground!

The negotiations will be conducted within certain parameters.

Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 borders is the result of implementing Resolutions 242 and 338.

The predicament of Palestinian refugees can only be resolved in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

Jerusalem is at the heart of the Middle East conflict. East Jerusalem is territory occupied in 1967, to be treated in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. However, the access to the holy sites is a right for all.

Settlement activity is illegal under the Geneva Convention and under numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. It can never be a pretext for the acquisition of territory.

The strategic resource of Water is a fundamental issue which we must reach agreement on. The principles in the matter are simple enough: the right of every people to control their natural resources, the sharing of cross-boundary water courses in accordance with international law, and compensation for damages arising from actions prohibited under international law.
Finally, there is the matter of Security Arrangements. The right of all people of the region to live in security is not in question. Indeed, it constitutes one of the aims of the negotiations as it is a basis for UN Security Council Resolution 242. However, we regard security not as the domain of one party alone. Nor can it ever constitute a pretext for the encroachment on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any of the parties. If we accept these starting points, the remainder can be solved with relative ease.

The choice between success and failure is ours. The opportunity is there. Let us not waste it.