CORRESPONDENT: The second round of the Mideast peace talks got underway in Washington, D.C., last Wednesday. Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and Palestinians were there, but conspicuously absent were the Israelis who said they couldn't make the December 4th date scheduled by the United States, but they would be here on the 9th.

CARL ROCHELLE: Joining me today on Newsmaker Sunday is Linda Scherzer, our Jerusalem correspondent. The first question to you, Mr. Khatib, we hear that the Palestinians will show up for the talks. Will you show up and what day?

GHASSAN AL-KHATIB, Palestinian Negotiating Team: Well, we are -- We have been prepared and we already showed up on the 4th of December upon the--

MR. ROCHELLE: Let me rephrase, show up with the Israelis there?

MR. AL-KHATIB: Yeah well, as I told you, we have been waiting according to the invitation, and we are supposed to be showing up on the notice from the co-sponsors -- from the United States in particular -- on Tuesday.

MR. ROCHELLE: And Mr. Ambassador, when will you be there?

AMBASSADOR SHOVAL: We are here, we are here. We are waiting, we would be ready to start talks tomorrow. I understand our friends, the Arabs, want to delay for another day. We'll be there Tuesday, no problem.

MR. ROCHELLE: Mr. Ambassador, you're one of the delegates to these peace talks. Why was there all this moving and shifting and shuffling around about dates? Why didn't you show up on the 4th?

AMB. SHOVAL: You know why all this moving and shifting was?

MR. ROCHELLE: No.

AMB. SHOVAL: Because we didn't talk to each other. We tried to establish a direct link of communication, we phoned. We tried to get together some other way, we didn't talk to each other. So, you know, when you don't talk to each other, you can't agree on a place, you can't agree on a time. Hopefully that problem will be taken care of now.

MR. ROCHELLE: And you weren't willing to accept the time frame that was set by the United States.

AMB. SHOVAL: It was impossible for us, it was unacceptable for us. It wasn't also convenient, we had the holiday. We had other reasons. But if we are going to settle problems which are much more serious, like the future of our country, of our land, of our peoples, we should be able to talk direct and say, 'When do we meet and where do we meet?'

LINDA SCHERZER, Jerusalem Correspondent: But, Mr. Ambassador, you were also, at the same time, trying to make a point in telling the United States, in sending a signal to the Arab states, that you don't want dates and venues imposed on Israel. Isn't that true?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, if you say we were trying to make a point, you have a point. And I think we made it. I think it is important for the peace process and I think everybody understood it and I really don't want to go into that any further. It's water under the bridge now. It is important for the peoples themselves who have been at war to talk to each other, to make peace with each other. Nobody else can do it for us, it can only be the Israelis and the Arabs.

MS. SCHERZER: Mr. Khatib, then has that point been impressed on you? Do you understand that the United States may not serve as 'Big Daddy' as you perhaps want, as the Israelis don't want? Do you understand that you may have to talk directly to this delegation and not have the United States in between?

MR. AL-KHATIB: Well first of all, we have to say that we are the ones who have been waiting to talk, but actually to talk seriously and substantially. And we are the ones who have been waiting for seven days for the other side to show up in order to talk. So we are not escaping from talking, but we, in fact, do not find anybody to talk to. And the other party did not even bother on the 4th, according to the invitation, even to send somebody to apologize that they were not able to show up on the right time. So, we are willing to talk always, but this peace process, this game, has certain regulations and roles. And according to the set-ups of this peace process, there is a certain role to the co- sponsors. The co-sponsors are supposed to set up the time and according to this, the two parties should come prepared to talk substance. Now, we came according to this invitation; they did not come, that is the point.

MR. ROCHELLE: Mr. Ambassador, you disagree with that.

AMB. SHOVAL: Isn't it true, Mr. Al-Khatib, that on the 15th of November, you wrote to the American government, 'We don't want to communicate with the Israelis at any level. We want to communicate only through the sponsor.'? Isn't it true that I, myself, tried to telephone members of your delegation here in Washington and say to them, 'Let's get these technical questions out of the way. Let's get the procedurals out of the way so that when we meet Monday or Tuesday, we can get right down to substance.' Well, I'm still waiting.

MR. AL-KHATIB: Well, can I -- can I answer?

MR. ROCHELLE: Please.

MR. AL-KHATIB: In fact, we have to differentiate between the good will to come to the official sessions of talks and negotiations and avoiding that and looking for other channels that are one, not needed and two, not part of the agreement for the channels of communications. If the other side -- if the Israeli side is really willing to talk, why did they decline to show up in the official sessions for serious negotiations and try to make the point by picking up the phone and calling this or that?

MR. ROCHELLE: Okay, but we're beyond that now. You're both going to be there on Tuesday of next week? How long are you going to be there? We hear reports this morning that the Israeli delegation is going to stay until Friday, just a few days.

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, this is a possibility, this is a possibility. But only to reconvene I hope, very, very, shortly after that. This is not a matter of protest or anything like that or technicalities. One of the reasons why we didn't want to come to Washington or to any place which is very far from Israel -- from the Middle East, is our delegation has to go back and forth, has to report to the government, get new instructions. Now if we do get to substance, hopefully we will, that's going to be a very serious matter. We will have to go back.

MS. SCHERZER: If the talks are going well though, Mr. Ambassador, why cut them short? Why give a Friday deadline?

AMB. SHOVAL: It's not cutting them short, it's making a break and we have not made a deadline at the present time, so let's see how things proceed.

MR. ROCHELLE: But it seems so much like what you're really trying to say is, 'Let's get this little thing in Washington, let's do it and get it out of the way and get on to something else.' Is that really what you feel?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well no, it's not this little thing in Washington. It's --

MR. ROCHELLE: But that's the perception, that you believe it's a little thing.

AMB. SHOVAL: But we believe that Madrid is out of the way, all these things are out of the way. We are going to come to the table with tens and -- tens of substantive points, both to the Palestinian component and Jordanian-Palestinian delegation and to the Jordanians. We will start discussing them, it won't be an easy thing. At the end of the day, I hope we'll have an arrangement, we'll have an agreement. I mean, the rules of the game have been agreed, before this process started, by everybody. We know what we are talking about, now we're talking about the contents. So, we are very serious about this.

MR. AL-KHATIB: We were very serious a few years ago, too.

MR. ROCHELLE: We need to take a break. We'll come back and talk about what those substantive issues are, in just a moment.

[Commercial break]

MR. ROCHELLE: This is Newsmaker Sunday, we're talking with two members of the negotiating team who will be at the talks beginning on Tuesday. Mr. Ambassador, you were talking about items of substance that you will bring to the table. Can you be specific?

AMB. SHOVAL: Well, I can't be too specific because if we're going to negotiate here, we may not need these talks. But we are going to bring to the table proposals which effect the lives of the Palestinians in the territories in most walks of life, I'd say 80 percent. All civilian matters, all internal matters, municipal affairs, economic affairs, taxation, the courts of law, foreign trade, our health, our agriculture, education, all these things are -- perhaps even, local police. I don't know, local security.

MR. ROCHELLE: How about the settlements?

AMB. SHOVAL: That's not part of this chapter at all. We're talking about an interim stage which is going to last for five years only. At the end of the third year, we're going to start talking about the permanent status. According to the outline --

MR. ROCHELLE: Mr. Khatib, is that part of the issue or not? I think you'd probably disagree with that, wouldn't you?

MR. KHATIB: First of all, I have to question the seriousness of the Israeli government in these issues and points, because I would like to attract attention not only to what they are saying and what the Ambassador is saying, but, in fact, what his government is doing. While they are preparing files in order to discuss these administrative matters -- which is not really what need to be discussed if we are going to be talking substance. His government is actually determining the outcome of the negotiations for the final settlement and determining the nature of the interim stage by creating facts. And creating facts that contradict with the basis of the negotiations, with the basis of the invitation for this --

MR. ROCHELLE: Could you be more specific when you say 'creating facts'?

MR. KHATIB: In particular, I mean the settlements. Because if they would continue this process of settlement building and we here continue talking about all the issues that the Ambassador has mentioned, then we will come to the final settlement and we will not find any land or territory to negotiate about. So it should be clear for anybody, starting with Mr. Ambassador, that those two processes cannot go together because they contradict with each other. One of them should stop and the Israeli government should decide whether they want to stop the settlement process or they want to stop the peace process.

AMB. SHOVAL: My friend, Mr. Al-Khatib, we have 100,000 Israelis living in Judea-Samarian territories. We have 1,750,000, almost two million, Arabs living there. There are 750,000 Arabs living in Israel proper. The whole future of this whole thing is co-existence, Jewish-Arab co- existence. How are you going to tell us you -- because you're Jews or Israelis -- are not allowed to live there? You're not allowed to live and build schools and build houses and build rooms. We don't tell you to do that. We -- the future -- the future --

MR. KHATIB: But this is not what --

AMB. SHOVAL: The future of this country, which is common to us both, will be to live together.

MR. KHATIB: First of all, there's two countries --

AMB. SHOVAL: Another settlement, another Arab village, another person, another school -- that is the future. We will not be able to take a line and cut it, like with a knife. We'll have to live together and we are for it. We want to live together with the Arab-Palestinian population, I would like you to show the same attitude.

MR. KHATIB: I would like to show the attitude that can be practical in bringing peace. What you are saying cannot be a starter to bring peace at all. We are two peoples, there should be two countries and there should be a line between the two countries. And there should be a kind of agreed-upon co-existence and peace relations between the two countries. We are going to negotiate territories. There is something called Palestinian-occupied territories, West Bank and Gaza Strip, and we're supposed to be negotiating the future of these territories. So you shouldn't have the right to continue creating facts, confiscating land, building settlements in the territories that are supposed to be negotiable. Just -- if I may continue.

In fact, this is not the only sign of not being serious, for the Israeli government. There are many other policies that have been implemented and intensified, especially during the period between Madrid and Washington. And it was really ironic that while I was staying in Washington personally, in the last seven days, my wife and children were confined into curfew in Ramallah, the town where we live, for the seventh successive day. That is not only for this particular town -- for also in other places. So if we are really serious in talking about peaceful future -- peaceful co-existence, then this should be expressed not only on the TV cameras, but also in practice on the ground.

MS. SCHERZER: Mr. Khatib --

AMB. SHOVAL: I'm really glad you mentioned the last point -- I'm sad you mentioned the last point. Since the peace process started, since Madrid, there's been an increase of violence. There's been an increase of stone throwing, of fire bombs. Is that the spirit of making peace? Stop Intifada, stop violence. You know very well that since the beginning of this year, 170 Palestinians were killed by fellow Palestinians in the Intifada. We want to create the right atmosphere, stop violence; we will not have to impose curfews, we don't have fun in imposing curfews.

MS. SCHERZER: Mr. Ambassador, we could trade accusations back and forth, but getting back to the reason for why you two are here -- Mr. Khatib, are you willing to accept this idea of autonomy, what the Ambassador has outlined? What will be their opening bargaining position when they sit down with you next week? Are you willing to accept this idea of self- rule without guarantees for the future, without the guarantee that the Israelis are prepared to offer you your own state?

MR. KHATIB: Well, there is basis for the interim phase and basis for the final solution that was set up by the co-sponsors and was agreed by Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs. These do not talk about autonomy, these talk about interim self-government authority. We have our own understanding for this concept, probably they have their own understanding and we are coming to negotiate, substantially, this interim period.

Concerning the final status, there is also basis. The basis was set up in the letter of invitation and the letter of assurances and it made it very clear that the United Nation resolution, Security Council resolution 242338, is the basis for the negotiations over the final settlement. This is what we are coming to talk about and that's why we are eager to have the other party actually sitting in front of us on the table in order to start talking about this thing.

MS. SCHERZER: Mr. Ambassador -- excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Khatib -- but a very quick answer to this, Mr. Ambassador. The fact that this delegation has stayed around, has waited it out for the Israelis to show up, does that indicate seriousness on their part?

AMB. SHOVAL: I certainly hope so, as everybody has said, the Palestinians stand most to gain from this process and most to lose if the process does not go on. But we are also interested in that, we want to solve the problem. We have to live together.

MR. ROCHELLE: Gentlemen, thank you for being with us this morning. Linda Scherzer and I will be back in just a moment, stay with us.

[Commercial break]

MR. ROCHELLE: This is Newsmaker Sunday and we're discussing the issue of the Mideast peace talks which are slated to get underway on Tuesday here in Washington. And with me is Linda Scherzer who has been with us for the broadcast and who is our Jerusalem bureau correspondent. Linda, you've watched these people, you've watched these talks go down. Do you think they are really serious about getting anything done here?

MS. SCHERZER: I think we can expect, Carl, to see some progress on the Palestinian-Israeli front. The two sides are coming with very clear bargaining positions, they both know what they want. I think we probably may see less progress on the Syrian front. But I think the fact that everybody is here and that the Arabs waited it out until the Israelis decided to come to Washington -- I think the fact that everybody is here and everybody is prepared to get underway is significant in itself.

MR. ROCHELLE: This laundry list of items that the Ambassador gave, that he was willing to consider that they would put on the table. Is this a smoke screen or are these really substantive issues?

MS. SCHERZER: These are the issues -- this is what the Israelis are offering in terms of self-rule, the mechanics for the Palestinians to work out an arrangement of self-rule -- of autonomy for themselves. The problem that I foresee, is that autonomy has become something of a four- letter word for the Palestinians. They don't want to negotiate the idea of self-rule without getting guarantees for the future, without knowing that the settlements will stop, without knowing that the status of the territories will be unaffected, certainly for the duration of these talks.

MR. ROCHELLE: These settlements are really a stumbling block, aren't they?

MS. SCHERZER: Well, they are and as you know, just last week another military outpost was put in place in the territory that could become a civilian settlement in the future. And so the Palestinians are genuinely concerned about the territories being effected -- more Israelis moving out there.

MR. ROCHELLE: Linda, thank you very much for being with us and she'll be covering the talks here in Washington. I'm Carl Rochelle and this is Newsmaker Sunday, good day.