Palestine-Israel Journal:There are soon to be elections on the
Israeli side, Sharon has formed a new party, and there is a new
Labor leader. How will this affect the overall political
situation?
There is no doubt there have been some interesting political
changes on both Israeli and Palestinian scenes. The new leader of
the Labor Party is obviously someone who could play an important
role in political life. There are now also expectations that Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon will form a new government, thus changing the
entire political landscape.1 It is a dynamic situation; interesting
changes are taking place, but, of course, it is very difficult to
predict the final outcome. We have to wait and see; we have to keep
a close watch on the changes and see how the results pan out.
On the Palestinian side, too, important elections are coming up
[January 2006], with, for the first time, the official
participation of Islamic groups. I think it is fair to say this is
unusual in the region. We have maintained a clear and consistent
position that elections should be open to all Palestinians and all
political groups, irrespective of any reservations any party might
have. Here again the political landscape will change. To what
extent is not clear, though I expect the mainstream organization
Fateh will keep its majority and will remain the main force in
Palestinian political life. So, again, these are interesting times
and we have to wait and see what will happen in the next few
months.
There has been very strong Israeli opposition to specifically a
Hamas participation in Palestinian elections. It poses an
interesting point: if Hamas should put in a strong enough showing
so that it cannot be ignored in the formation of a future
government, this would seem to have very dramatic
consequences.
As I said, we have held a very clear position vis-à-vis the
right of every Palestinian to participate in elections and the
right of every political group to do so. The Israeli position is an
attempt to interfere in our internal affairs and probably to damage
the democratic process; this is not acceptable to us. We have
maintained that the participation of all forces is something
healthy, useful to Palestinian society, and will strengthen the
democratic process. Also, I think, it will impact the internal
situation of Hamas itself. The transformation process, if you wish,
will be encouraged by such participation.
Of course, we understand that there are certain decisions that must
be taken along with a participation in the [Palestinian]
Legislative Council. These include a clearer position on the
broader ceasefire issue; a position on the existence of arms,
especially in areas from which Israel withdraws; and, maybe, a
stand regarding the targeting of civilians in Israel, which
obviously violates international law. One has to look at such
important matters from different perspectives - as ones who share
the burden of fulfilling our responsibilities to the international
community and under international law.
It's a complicated process, but we are doing good progress.
Do you think this is a process that is already underway? The
mere fact that Hamas is participating would seem to be indicative
of change.
That's true. We have to remember that in 1996 Hamas boycotted the
elections and, in fact, I think there was some sort of fatwa
against participation. So the decision to take part in the
elections is in itself reflective of a major change. Nevertheless,
matters are not going to stop here. This is a dynamic situation,
and we will see further developments and further changes not only
with regard to Hamas but with all other Palestinian groups. This is
the nature of democracy.
The dynamics seem to have changed after the Israeli
disengagement from Gaza. How do you see this has played itself
out?
Personally I'm not very surprised. On the one hand, I believe what
happened in the Gaza Strip and part of the northern West Bank was
an important development. It constituted a reversal of the
colonization of part of Palestinian land. Settlements were removed;
settlers were withdrawn; the army left from within Gaza, and this
is important. Nevertheless, the political intention of Sharon and
the Israeli government is clear in this respect. The context is not
a positive one, although the act itself is important and
positive.
This, in my opinion, explains the absence of solutions to very
important elements pertaining to Gaza, at least for a long time to
come, including Rafah, the airport, the seaport, the removal of
rubble, the connection between the West Bank and Gaza. Recently, an
understanding was reached on some of these issues which provides
some kind of a solution. It's not perfect, far from it. Actually, I
think it is structurally flawed. Nevertheless, we needed an
agreement, we needed a solution, and we probably had to go along
with what we concluded. The implementation, I think is going to be
difficult.
The bottom line is that all this is linked with the political
vision and the political intentions of the Israeli side, which does
not appear to be genuinely striving to achieve a political
settlement based on the two-state solution.
A two-state solution or a viable two-state solution?
They don't want a serious two-state solution. I believe that Sharon
himself wants further disengagement in the West Bank leading to
some cantons that could together form an entity within Israel that
Palestinians might call a state, or even super-state if they
wished. That doesn't make it a state. I am talking about a serious
two-state solution, and this is not on Sharon's agenda.
One of the main criticisms by Palestinians of the disengagement
was that it was unilateral, that it wasn't a step on the Road Map.
What chances are there that the Road Map will start being
implemented?
I hope it will, but I have my doubts. The main issue here is not
the Gaza disengagement; it is the Israeli plans and activities in
the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Here, obviously, we all
know that settlement activity still goes on, the construction of
the wall still goes on, and so too illegal Israeli actions in and
around Jerusalem. Against such a background, one cannot expect the
resumption of the implementation of the Road Map.
On the other hand, I think the Palestinian side has to make of the
settlements and the wall a central issue. You can't expect any
progress toward peace, or toward the resumption of the peace
process, including the implementation of the Road Map without a
complete cessation of settlement activity and the construction of
the wall. The two are incompatible. We have to make this our top
priority. If we do obtain a halt to illegal activities, it would be
a promising beginning and pieces would start to fall into
place.
The key here strikes me as being a Palestinian strategy that
focuses on the role of international parties, particularly the U.S.
I think we saw with the Rafah agreement that the U.S. can be
effective when it wants to. How important is the U.S. role in terms
of pressuring Israel to cease its settlement building and the
construction of the wall?
It's crucial. Not only the U.S. - the Europeans, the Russians, the
whole international community, the Security Council if need be. It
is very important; the question is whether they have the will to go
along. This is our challenge, but we have to try.
Is there an alternative strategy beyond persuading the
international community?
This is not the core of the strategy. The strategy, in my opinion,
is to maintain a clear position that is understood by our own
people as well as by the international community, and to maintain
steadfastness in one's position.
In other words to say no…
If need be, to say no. And then you ask the world to come to your
support.
How important are the PLC elections in this context, in terms of
unifying the Palestinian position?
They are very important for Palestinian society, the political
regime, and the future of the Palestinian people. Like it or not,
some decay has permeated this political regime because of the
absence of such elections and because of the void created by the
demise of Yasser Arafat. It is true that we have been able to fill
part of this vacuum, but it is also true that we couldn't
accomplish all that is needed. Elections are, obviously, very
important, and not having them is very dangerous.
It would appear that a real danger exists of confrontation
between various Palestinian factions and the PA, and even within
groups themselves, especially Fateh, where there seem to be deep
divisions that often play themselves out on the street. What are
your observations?
It's not really divisions. I used the term decay, but you could
also use other terms: weakness of the social fabric, for instance,
or weakness of the political regime. Both, in my opinion, are the
direct result of Israeli policies and practices. The occupation,
the extensive destruction caused by the occupying Israeli forces -
this destruction targeted the economy, the security apparatus, and
all aspects of life. Now, you have the wall, the direct Israeli
interference.
This is not only occupied territory; it is occupied territory that
has been subject to colonization for quite a long time. The
Israelis to this day are not behaving as occupiers but as
colonizers and this by necessity means negating our national
existence. They are the strong party, so you can imagine what they
have done to the Palestinian side. Many of the negative phenomena
we now see originate from this basic fact. This, I think, is the
central problem, not political divisions. On the contrary, I see
more convergence than division now in the political position.
This issue of the Palestine-Israel Journal is on Islamophobia
and anti-Semitism. Perhaps you could say something about how this
conflict feeds Islamophobia and anti-Semitism here and around the
world?
Of course, the conflict feeds these things. What the Israelis do
clearly causes an increase in anti-Semitism, at least among those
who believe in the justness of the Palestinian cause and feel with
the Palestinian people. Now, this is probably a mix-up on the part
of these people between what Israel does and what Jews do or feel.
It is an unfortunate fact.
And then, the reaction of the Palestinian side, including some
illegal tactics such as targeting Israeli civilians, feed
Islamophobia. Gradually, these acts have come to be linked with
Islam. Again, this is wrong, but it is also an unfortunate
fact.
It seems to me that this conflict has an important impact on many
issues around the world, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
Let me add something though. The tactics of the Israeli government
is not helpful to effectively fight anti-Semitism. Some Israeli
circles are trying to link political positions vis-à-vis the
conflict and vis-à-vis Israeli policies and practices with
anti-Semitism. This is extremely dangerous and must be condemned
and rejected.
It also appears to be a very effective political tool in America
in particular.
In America in particular because of a lack of knowledge,
unfortunately.