Jerusalem’s Zion Square, located in the city center, where rallies mobilize, concerts convene, street fairs assemble, and pedestrians abound, caught the attention of local media and became the topic weekend table talk when it was learned that 17-year old Jamal Julani, an Israeli Arab from east Jerusalem who went to meet a friend who was working at a local restaurant nearby, nearly died from a savage beating unleashed by a gang of Jewish “tough teens,” who were out cruising the streets, apparently looking for a victim. The first responders from the United Hatzalah emergency response organization who answered the call, told us that Jamal wasn’t breathing when they arrived. It would be 24-hours before he would regain consciousness; but even then, he couldn’t remember what had happened the night before. I visited Jamal in Hadassah Hospital at Ein Kerem 36-hours after the brutal attack. Upon entering his room in the familiar facility, I was met with thoughts of so many Israeli victims of bus bombings we visited there during the height of the Intifada. But this time it was different. Jamal couldn’t remember the fifty or so youth who either partook in the beating or stood idly by doing absolutely nothing to intervene. His father, Subha, stood over him saying that his memory of the day was gone. His wife, Nariman, was grateful that Jamal was alive at all and soon to be released thanks to the Israeli medics who reached the scene on time. The underlying question, though, was what motivated these gang-like hoodlums –colloquially, arsim -- to attack an innocent youth? Reaction on the street went from, “How awful!”; “What do you expect from kids on drugs and booz?”; “Why can Arabs walk the streets of Jerusalem without fear?”; and “Why didn’t anyone do anything to help?” to “Where are the parents?”; Where were the police?”; and Where is the mayor?” It’s not difficult to reason that when youth set out to stir-up violence and chant “Death to Arabs,” no good can come of it. If the five Israeli teens -- Jewish kids, ranging in age from 13 to 19 -- who have been arrested turn out to be the ones responsible for the incident, it is only the quick response and skill of the medics that stand between them and manslaughter or even murder charges. Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld told The Media Line that this wasn’t the first incident of its kind and said he couldn’t point to other incidents in reverse, cases of Arabs beating up on Jews. In 2009, I wrote an op-ed which was printed on the same day in The Jerusalem Post and Al-Quds about the Acre riots signaling a tipping point exacerbating the need to redefine the Jewish vs. Arab rift. The trigger point then was rioting that followed an errant trip through a Jewish neighborhood by an Arab driver on Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, when even many secular Jewish Israelis avoid riding in cars. Seeking solutions, I turned to legendary folksinger and humanitarian Peter Yarrow (of Peter, Paul and Mary fame); and Dr. Charlotte Frank of McGraw-Hill publishers, who together fashioned an educational foundation that teaches students not to bully those not like themselves out of the song, Don’t Laugh at Me. Yarrow’s Operation Respect curriculum is now taught in more than 22,000 schools in America alone; and other educational systems throughout the world. After the piece ran, the American Embassy in Tel Aviv contacted me to learn more about the program and to connect with Yarrow. As a result, the Don’t Laugh at Me curriculum is being taught in 30 Israeli schools – Jewish and Muslim – and will be introduced into schools in Jerusalem and Bethlehem this year as the total number of schools in Israel and the Palestinian Authority reaches fifty. Resolving differences between Jewish and Arab Israelis needs to take priority and it begins with youth education in schools and at home. At the heart of Saturday’s near-fatal tragedy is not so much nationalistic fervor as it is simple bullying – the pack mentality of brutality in numbers not to preach politics, but to experience the perverse rush of hurting someone. It’s not a stretch to project Operation Respect as an antidote for the disease underlying the attack on Jamal Julani. Nor is it a stretch to believe that a school child exposed to programs such as Operation Respect from early grades will not be cruising Zion Square – or Acre or Jenin -- with a bloodlust ten years hence. I asked Subha whether this horrific incident changed his feelings toward Israelis. He said he works with an Israeli, many of his friends are Israeli, and he has Israeli citizenship because his wife is from Jerusalem. It might not be a bad thing that Jamal doesn’t remember the attack. But he did say he won’t be walking Yaffa Road alone any time soon.
Read More...
By: Amira Hass
Date: 27/05/2013
×
Slain Bedouin girls' mother, a victim of Israeli-Palestinian bureaucracy
Abir Dandis, the mother of the two girls who were murdered in the Negev town of Al-Fura’a last week, couldn't find a police officer to listen to her warnings, neither in Arad nor in Ma’ale Adumim. Both police stations operate in areas where Israel wants to gather the Bedouin into permanent communities, against their will, in order to clear more land for Jewish communities. The dismissive treatment Dandis received shows how the Bedouin are considered simply to be lawbreakers by their very nature. But as a resident of the West Bank asking for help for her daughters, whose father was Israeli, Dandis faced the legal-bureaucratic maze created by the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian police is not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians. It must hand suspects over to the Israel Police. The Palestinian police complain that in cases of Israelis suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian residents, the Israel Police tend not to investigate or prosecute them. In addition, the town of Al-Azaria, where Dandis lives, is in Area B, under Palestinian civilian authority and Israeli security authority. According to the testimony of Palestinian residents, neither the IDF nor the Israel Police has any interest in internal Palestinian crime even though they have both the authority and the obligation to act in Area B. The Palestinian police are limited in what it can do in Area B. Bringing in reinforcements or carrying weapons in emergency situations requires coordination with, and obtaining permission from, the IDF. If Dandis fears that the man who murdered her daughters is going to attack her as well, she has plenty of reason to fear that she will not receive appropriate, immediate police protection from either the Israelis or the Palestinians. Dandis told Jack Khoury of Haaretz that the Ma’ale Adumim police referred her to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination and Liaison Committee. Theoretically, this committee (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry) is the logical place to go for such matters. Its parallel agency in Israel is the Civilian Liaison Committee (which is part of the Coordination and Liaison Administration - a part of the Civil Administration under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories). In their meetings, they are supposed to discuss matters such as settlers’ complaints about the high volume of the loudspeakers at mosques or Palestinians’ complaints about attacks by settlers. But the Palestinians see the Liaison Committee as a place to submit requests for permission to travel to Israel, and get the impression that its clerks do not have much power when faced with their Israeli counterparts. In any case, the coordination process is cumbersome and long. The Palestinian police has a family welfare unit, and activists in Palestinian women’s organizations say that in recent years, its performance has improved. But, as stated, it has no authority over Israeli civilians and residents. Several non-governmental women’s groups also operate in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and women in similar situations approach them for help. The manager of one such organization told Haaretz that Dandis also fell victim to this confusing duplication of procedures and laws. Had Dandis approached her, she said, she would have referred her to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which has expertise in navigating Israel’s laws and authorities.
By: Phoebe Greenwood
Date: 27/05/2013
×
John Kerry unveils plan to boost Palestinian economy
John Kerry revealed his long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East on Sunday, hinging on a $4bn (£2.6bn) investment in the Palestinian private sector. The US secretary of state, speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea, told an audience including Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that an independent Palestinian economy is essential to achieving a sustainable peace. Speaking under the conference banner "Breaking the Impasse", Kerry announced a plan that he promised would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo accords, more than 20 years ago. Tony Blair is to lead a group of private sector leaders in devising a plan to release the Palestinian economy from its dependence on international donors. The initial findings of Blair's taskforce, Kerry boasted, were "stunning", predicting a 50% increase in Palestinian GDP over three years, a cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates and almost double the Palestinian median wage. Currently, 40% of the Palestinian economy is supplied by donor aid. Kerry assured Abbas that the economic plan was not a substitute for a political solution, which remains the US's "top priority". Peres, who had taken the stage just minutes before, also issued a personal plea to his Palestinian counterpart to return to the negotiations. "Let me say to my dear friend President Abbas," Peres said, "Should we really dance around the table? Lets sit together. You'll be surprised how much can be achieved in open, direct and organised meetings."
By: Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
Date: 27/05/2013
×
Isolation Devastates East Jerusalem Economy
Thick locks hug the front gates of shuttered shops, now covered in graffiti and dust from lack of use. Only a handful of customers pass along the dimly lit road, sometimes stopping to check the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, or ordering meat in near-empty butcher shops. “All the shops are closed. I’m the only one open. This used to be the best place,” said 64-year-old Mustafa Sunocret, selling vegetables out of a small storefront in the marketplace near his family’s home in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Amidst the brightly coloured scarves, clothes and carpets, ceramic pottery and religious souvenirs filling the shops of Jerusalem’s historic Old City, Palestinian merchants are struggling to keep their businesses alive. Faced with worsening health problems, Sunocret told IPS that he cannot work outside of the Old City, even as the cost of maintaining his shop, with high electricity, water and municipal tax bills to pay, weighs on him. “I only have this shop,” he said. “There is no other work. I’m tired.” Abed Ajloni, the owner of an antiques shop in the Old City, owes the Jerusalem municipality 250,000 Israeli shekels (68,300 U.S. dollars) in taxes. He told IPS that almost every day, the city’s tax collectors come into the Old City, accompanied by Israeli police and soldiers, to pressure people there to pay. “It feels like they’re coming again to occupy the city, with the soldiers and police,” Ajloni, who has owned the same shop for 35 years, told IPS. “But where can I go? What can I do? All my life I was in this place.” He added, “Does Jerusalem belong to us, or to someone else? Who’s responsible for Jerusalem? Who?” Illegal annexation Israel occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in 1967. In July 1980, it passed a law stating that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. But Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and subsequent application of Israeli laws over the entire city remain unrecognised by the international community. Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory – along with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights – and Palestinian residents of the city are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Jerusalem has historically been the economic, political and cultural centre of life for the entire Palestinian population. But after decades languishing under destructive Israeli policies meant to isolate the city from the rest of the Occupied Territories and a lack of municipal services and investment, East Jerusalem has slipped into a state of poverty and neglect. “After some 45 years of occupation, Arab Jerusalemites suffer from political and cultural schizophrenia, simultaneously connected with and isolated from their two hinterlands: Ramallah and the West Bank to their east, West Jerusalem and Israel to the west,” the International Crisis Group recently wrote. Israeli restrictions on planning and building, home demolitions, lack of investment in education and jobs, construction of an eight-foot-high separation barrier between and around Palestinian neighbourhoods and the creation of a permit system to enter Jerusalem have all contributed to the city’s isolation. Formal Palestinian political groups have also been banned from the city, and between 2001-2009, Israel closed an estimated 26 organisations, including the former Palestinian Liberation Organisation headquarters in Jerusalem, the Orient House and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce. Extreme poverty Israel’s policies have also led to higher prices for basic goods and services and forced many Palestinian business owners to close shop and move to Ramallah or other Palestinian neighbourhoods on the other side of the wall. Many Palestinian Jerusalemites also prefer to do their shopping in the West Bank, or in West Jerusalem, where prices are lower. While Palestinians constitute 39 percent of the city’s population today, almost 80 percent of East Jerusalem residents, including 85 percent of children, live below the poverty line. “How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t control your resources? How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t have any control of your borders?” said Zakaria Odeh, director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, of “this kind of fragmentation, checkpoints, closure”. “Without freedom of movement of goods and human beings, how could you develop an economy?” he asked. “You can’t talk about independent economy in Jerusalem or the West Bank or in all of Palestine without a political solution. We don’t have a Palestinian economy; we have economic activities. That’s all we have,” Odeh told IPS. Israel’s separation barrier alone, according to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), has caused a direct loss of over one billion dollars to Palestinians in Jerusalem, and continues to incur 200 million dollars per year in lost opportunities. Israel’s severing and control over the Jerusalem-Jericho road – the historical trade route that connected Jerusalem to the rest of the West Bank and Middle East – has also contributed to the city’s economic downturn. Separation of Jerusalem from West Bank Before the First Intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) began in the late 1980s, East Jerusalem contributed approximately 14 to 15 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). By 2000, that number had dropped to less than eight percent; in 2010, the East Jerusalem economy, compared to the rest of the OPT, was estimated at only seven percent. “Economic separation resulted in the contraction in the relative size of the East Jerusalem economy, its detachment from the remaining OPT and the gradual redirection of East Jerusalem employment towards the Israeli labour market,” the U.N. report found. Decades ago, Israel adopted a policy to maintain a so-called “demographic balance” in Jerusalem and attempt to limit Palestinian residents of the city to 26.5 percent or less of the total population. To maintain this composition, Israel built numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements inside and in a ring around Jerusalem and changed the municipal boundaries to encompass Jewish neighbourhoods while excluding Palestinian ones. It is now estimated that 90,000 Palestinians holding Jerusalem residency rights live on the other side of the separation barrier and must cross through Israeli checkpoints in order to reach Jerusalem for school, medical treatment, work, and other services. “Israel is using all kinds of tools to push the Palestinians to leave; sometimes they are visible, and sometimes invisible tools,” explained Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER). Al-Hammouri told IPS that at least 25 percent of the 1,000 Palestinian shops in the Old City were closed in recent years as a result of high municipal taxes and a lack of customers. “Taxation is an invisible tool…as dangerous as revoking ID cards and demolishing houses,” he said. “Israel will use this as pressure and as a tool in the future to confiscate these shops and properties.”
By the Same Author
Date: 03/11/2009
×
‘Fayyad’s Two Year Plan is a Very Smart Move’
James L. Wolfensohn, a former head of The World Bank, served as the first Mideast envoy of the Quartet, the entities sponsoring the Road Map peace plan: the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia. While Mr. Wolfensohn’s experience and reputation in world finance is unparalleled, his service as the Quartet’s first envoy provides an expertise very few can match. He speaks with Felice Friedson, President and CEO of The Media Line. The Media Line: When Israel unilaterally pulled out from the Gaza strip, there was a sense of cautious optimism that you apparently shared. What went wrong? Wolfensohn: Well, I think that two things went wrong. We established a basis for economic activity in Gaza, which had intended to be based first on agriculture, taking over the green houses that had previously been used by Israelis in the area. And secondly, a major potential for tourism, because the coastline is wonderful and really could be a place for both Israelis and Palestinians to have holidays. So we started growing the first crops and we had plans, beautiful plans for hotels and development in the region and then very sadly, violence broke out and that inhibited both things. The second thing was once the violence started, the military then closed the border for all but the most essential items. So the greenhouses, which had started with such hope, became impossible to develop because they were growing far too many fruits and vegetables for local consumption. They were just rotting, and it was tragic to see. Without economic activity and without travel, you couldn’t have hotels, you couldn’t fulfil any of the dreams. It was a wonderful dream for a short while, which included linkages between Gaza and the West Bank, which included a port, which included getting the airport going again. We had so many hopes and very sadly, the violence killed it. The Media Line: Israelis who opposed additional territorial concessions point to the Gaza withdrawal as their proof positive that Hamas militancy is unrelated to land. How do you respond? Wolfensohn: I think that’s not correct. There was a moment - and I’m not totally naïve because I have visited 130 countries and worked in some of their post-conflict zones. I believe if you can get economic activity going, you have a basis not only for development, but for peace, and I think most people want peace. I personally don’t think that Hamas at that time was setting out to blow the whole thing up. I think there were mutual mistakes made. Maybe the Gaza withdrawal was premature in terms of preparing the public. My own view was there was a tremendous desire on the part of the Palestinians who were in Gaza to have a peaceful and real economic development. I do not say for a moment that there were not extremists who would have wanted to blow it up, both emotionally and physically, and that there were not people who didn’t want to see peace. I have no doubt that there were some, just as there were on the Israeli side who didn’t want to see the development of this location, but several things happened. We had the sickness of the prime minister here. We had a change in control of the Palestinians, an election and I’m afraid the dreams we had that November were not fulfilled. The Media Line: We see numerous examples of private-sector entrepreneurs investing in Palestinian entities. We even see Israelis participating in some cases. Can private-sector investment become a stronger force in promoting cooperation than governmental obstacles are in preventing it? Wolfensohn: I don’t know if it can be a stronger force, but it is a growing force here. Even in the last year or two, while I have no official position, I have been engaged in discussions with both Israelis and Palestinians, to inform me of initiatives that are already being taken, a lot of them under the radar. But I think it’s hugely important that they continue. Basically you should understand that the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians would like to have peace and would like to have business. It’s not always reflected in the leadership and in public policy, but all the polls show, or have shown up until now, that the average Israeli and the average Palestinian would just like to get on with it, and get rid of all the tension and get back to living. That’s not a surprising human reaction. The Media Line: In this region, you hear over and over about the political process. Do you think the economic process is going to prevail? One that’s going to create a Palestinian state? Wolfensohn: I think it’s a very important consideration and it has a major chance of helping things. But if you have a million plus people living behind a wall, with nothing going in and out, unless it’s in tunnels or unless it’s for hospitals or for emergency use, and if you have 60% unemployment, that is not a recipe for any sort of future, except anger, frustration and violence. The Media Line: Politically, if both sides stand on their red lines and don’t budge an inch, how can they continue in the process? Wolfensohn: Well that’s why I feel that I, in the period that I was here, failed, because we had that hope of peace and everyone was thrilled with it and then it collapsed and then, for various reasons, the negotiations did not take the form that I’d hope they might, and both sides went their own way. In my opinion, now not involved in any official capacity, just as a citizen of the world if you like, I think that is tragic because if it goes that way, you will never have peace. The Media Line: We hear politicians speak endlessly about separation…do you argue that peace demands separation or cooperation? Wolfensohn: Peace, I think, demands both things. I think you want to give a sense of security to the people on both sides. My experience with Arabs and my experience with Jews is that they are not terribly different. They all love their families. They all want to have a quiet life and their instinct is not to go out and shoot somebody. They’ve lived together for generations, for centuries and they didn’t shoot each other. They may have had differences but they didn’t shoot each other. If you add to that a dimension of politics, which in turn affects the financial outlook for the people, you can have a high education rate, but if you’re educating people for unemployment, that is not a great recipe for peace. It never has been in any part of the world and it certainly isn’t here. So, I only see the problem getting worse unless you want to see a state with a wall around it and a wall is nothing. A wall keeps out people but it doesn’t keep out violence. It may keep out human violence but it doesn’t keep out rockets, it doesn’t keep out aspects that can destroy. The Media Line: Prime Minister Fayyad’s call for a two-year time table in which to firm up infrastructure and ultimately declare statehood appears to be gaining support… Is the Faya’d plan realistic? Do you support the idea of setting a time table? Wolfensohn: Well, I haven’t seen [Salam Fayyad] to discuss this. I have an enormous regard for him personally and would count him as a friend. I think what he’s done is very intelligent because he said ‘let’s not complicate things with the politics at the moment, let’s try to build infrastructure for peace and let’s make incremental steps.’ Of course he succeeded in doing that with four cities in the West Bank, which now have their own police, which now don’t have an Israeli presence other than occasionally to deal with some radicals or intruders or something. The Media Line: Police, but no judicial system. Wolfensohn: No, they don’t have it yet. But Salam would like to have that. He would love to have a functioning judicial system. But the truth is, you have an extraordinary group of Palestinian jurists, many of them trained in the United States and the young people that I met in my short year of working on this, I would have had the Palestinian team for my own team in a moment. There were a dozen of them and they were trained at Harvard and Oxford and you couldn’t have a more intelligent, exciting, global group. These were not radicals; these were people like their Israeli counterparts. The Media Line: Is the timetable realistic? Wolfensohn: Well it depends what he’s trying to do…But I think to carve out a two-year period in which you say, I am not going to be affected in terms of my economic planning and my structural planning by prior concerns about the politics, would seem to me to be a very smart move. He may or may not achieve his political objective but he will do much better at his economic objective. If he does that, the standard of living and the hopes and aspirations of people in the West Bank will support a more modulated and a more moderate response. So I think it’s incredibly smart. I have a high regard for Mr. Salam Fayyad. I think he understands the truth and that’s what he’s doing and I think it’s very smart. The Media Line: Can Palestinian statehood be sustainable if its financial paradigm remains a donor mentality rather than investment? Wolfensohn: I don’t think the state of Palestine, if you have peace, will have anything other than an investment mentality. There are many Palestinian entrepreneurs right through the Arab world. I meet them everywhere, in banking, in finance, in industry. They’re not a people that need to be pitied. These are people that need opportunity. The Media Line: You’ve spoken eloquently about the need for a clean and effective government as an indispensible element necessary to sustain a state’s economy. How far away is the Palestinian Authority from that description and does the bifurcation between Fatah and Hamas allow room for that? Wolfensohn: I think there are, sadly, many countries in the world that are affected by corruption. Probably every country has some in fact, even Israel. The question is to what extent is there corruption and to what extent can you operate even if there is an aspect of corruption? At the World Bank, I launched a major campaign against corruption. In Palestinian territories and in many countries, it is thought that there is a high level of corruption. I believe in some aspects it is. I believe you have even corrupt ministers in Israel. It’s a terrible word, but to try and label the Palestinians or Arabs as corrupt without thinking that oneself has the same problem, is a trap that we shouldn’t fall into. The Media Line: Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks frequently of the need for Israel to help shore up the Palestinian economy. Some argue he does so in order to deflect the political endgame. But does it matter -- if the result is Israeli cooperation on the economic front? Wolfensohn: I think it’s important to have economic cooperation as an element of peace. I have no personal knowledge of what would be the reason for Prime Minister Netanyahu to say what he says. I hope that what he says is consistent with a two-state solution, with some pride and with some courage, he announced I think three months ago that he was prepared to do so. For a sitting prime minister here that’s a pretty gutsy thing to do. But it set the basis for the discussion. What I think the Americans and others would like to see is a framework to get on with it quickly. But again I repeat, as a non-Israeli and a non-Palestinian, I am always very reluctant to give advice to the two people. What you can say as a matter of generality is that you’re much more likely to have less conflict and a more creative society, if you don’t have war. It’s not a genius comment. If you don’t have war and you don’t have terror, then you don’t have bombs going off and people are happier and they can actually do something. The Media Line: Part of the Middle East mantra has always been that the parties themselves need to make the decisions. But many are now arguing that there needs to be more aggressive brokering, particularly by the United States. Is ‘tough love’ productive or counter-productive? Wolfensohn: I know the players and I would hope that to an extent the United States has an influence. It can wield it to at least confront the players with the reality of what they’re doing, by either negotiating or not negotiating…and there is a desire on the part of the American administration to have negotiations without pre-conditions. As I understand it, they are discussing at the moment how long they won’t build houses, or how long there will be a balance in terms of the building in various areas including Jerusalem. They are the same issues we discussed when I was there and regrettably, they are same issues that have been discussed for decades probably… You have to look forward and say, what chance is there for having a greater opportunity for peace 10 years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now, than you have today. I think the American position is, looking at it as a friend, get on with it today, don’t wait. The Media Line: The fact that you happen to be Jewish, does it help or does it hurt your intervention in the Middle East? Wolfensohn: My personal experience is that it had absolutely no impact whatsoever. It had no impact whatsoever in the Arab world. They called me a cousin. I never had 30 seconds of embarrassment about being Jewish. I’m a conservative Jew. I am very open about being Jewish. I’ve had many Arabs to my home on Friday nights and I lead an absolutely normal life and never regard being Jewish as a problem. And it was never a problem for me in the Arab world. The Media Line: Many don’t think they can solve the Middle East political process. Looking ahead 10 years, where do you want to see the Israelis and Palestinians? Wolfensohn: I would like to see them living in peace side by with secure boundaries, with interdependence, and with the young people playing soccer together and playing games together and attempting to build a society that will probably never be fully integrated, but that is more like the Palestine-Israel situation 10 years ago. We had Palestinians working in Israel. We had Israelis setting up plants in the Palestinian territories where together they could use their collective skills and experience to compete in the region and around the world. For this tiny group of Israelis and Palestinians, I think the one thing they do have is intellect and entrepreneurial spirit, and if you can get shooting each other out of the way, it seems to me that together they can build a much brighter future for their kids. The Media Line: James Wolfensohn, thank you so much for your time and inspiration.
Date: 20/06/2009
×
Congressman Ellison: ‘We Need to Support Peace, Not Partisan Politics’
United States Congressman Keith Ellison was recently referred to by President Obama in his Cairo speech as the nation’s first Muslim representative to swear the oath of office on Thomas Jefferson’s Quran. Representing Minnesota’s 5th District, Mr. Ellison has made the Middle East a priority, traveling to the region on a number of occasions since entering Congress in 2007. Below is a complete transcript of The Media Line’s June 7th interview with the congressman. Ellison: I was as surprised as anyone when I heard the President refer to my swearing in. The Media Line: I don’t think I’ve heard an Episcopalian congressman introduced as “the Episcopalian congressman or a Jewish congressman introduced as “the Jewish Congressman.” Do you tire of being introduced as “the Muslim congressman?” Ellison: I just take it in stride, Felice. I think the first Jewish member of Congress probably got referred to as the “first Jewish member of Congress.” And certainly when Joe Lieberman was on the ticket for the vice presidency, people often made reference to his religion because he would have been the first…you just got to take the good with the bad… The Media Line: Congressman, in the area of foreign relations, you’ve really shown a strong interest in the Middle East, almost from the first day you entered Congress. I’m sure it would be simplistic to attribute all of it to your religious beliefs, so tell us what’s behind it. Ellison: Well, it’s a part of the world where we’ve had historic conflict that if we could resolve it, we could open a tremendous opportunity for the 300 million people who live in the Middle East. As well as for the world. And look at Iraq. Here’s a society that has ancient roots, has major purpose for the three Abrahamic religions, and yet, it’s in chaos. The same thing can be said for Afghanistan…it doesn’t have the religious attachment, but it is part of the broader Middle East that’s been war-torn for many years. The fact that the Americans and Europeans and other countries are there now, and before that the Brits….they’ve had conflict for quite a long time. So I think that the Middle East is a fascinating part of the world and it’s a part of the world where if we could really work on ironing out these age-old conflicts I think we could make some significant progress and bring about a higher standard of living for everybody and even reduce some of the flash points that tend to draw the United States in to conflict in that part of the world. The Media Line: You’ve made a number of trips to Israel as well as to the Palestinian territories, how black and white is that conflict? Ellison: The fact is it’s too simplistic to speak in terms of who’s right and who’s wrong. The reality is that the story of the Jewish people in Israel is the story of overcoming major obstacles, particularly around World War II and the Holocaust, and then coming to a homeland and having trouble there. At the same time, the Palestinians were in the area and they regard that as their homeland, too, and so it would be easy if you could say one side is wrong or one side is right. The point is that both sides have some legitimate and meritorious points to make about the land and the area that is so hotly contested; and of course, over time there are certain elements within both groups that have made errors that have set back the cause of peace, collaboration and cooperation. And so I don’t think it’s very useful to speak in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian situation in moralistic terms. I think it’s much more important and much more effective to talk about the future, dealing with how to get along now, how to improve the quality of life for everybody concerned, how to resolve conflict over a table rather than over a battlefield. I’m more focused on the more practical aspects of resolution of the conflict because I think that once you start delving into history and who’s right, who’s wrong, who did what first, you just end up with a never ending cycle and you don’t really move the cause of peace down the street. And again, what’s most important to people? The people who are living in Tel Aviv want to be able to get on a bus safely, and get to where they’re going without worrying about any sort of bomb blast. And what are the people worrying about in the Palestinian areas? They want to be able to make sure their children have a bright future, a good education, and can actually realize their dreams. So we focus on the things that we all need to have as opposed to other considerations I think it’s much easier to understand what we need to do. The Media Line: When you’re in the Middle East, you spend a lot of tie with Israelis, you spend a lot of time with Palestinians; you go to Sderot, you go to Gaza. You speak to both sides, occasionally in terms they don’t want to hear. Yet, you go back to Washington to the land of “yea” and “nay” and it seems that as a representative, you’re required to be either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Is there room to embrace both people back in Washington? Ellison: I think the only sane solution is to embrace both people in Washington. Washington does have this very strong mannequin element to it; you’re either for or against: yes or no. That does not lend itself to American national security nor does it lend itself to the benefit of people who are in the Holy Land – whether they be Israeli or Palestinian. We’ve got to break this framing of “you’re either on this side or on that side”; we’ve got to be on both sides. We’ve got to say that we are for a two-state solution in which Israel can live in peace and security and Palestinians can have a state of their own where they can grow and prosper. And then over time, we can really drill-down over issues that everybody really needs to be focused on, like water, energy and how to really make some economic prosperity. The Media Line: Congressman, let me ask you about two non-binding resolutions offered back-to-back in the House. Nancy Pelosi offered one right after Israel’s Gaza operation that was unequivocally supportive of Israel. It received a lopsided approval on the floor of the House. Then Cong. Kucinich then offered a resolution that was unequivocally critical of Israel on the issue of the humanitarian crisis. It didn’t fare as well, but my point is why couldn’t the two resolutions have been combined so that Congressmen and women could have supported the good points of both? Ellison: It’s a great question. You know, ideally, we could have had these resolutions pooled together because then it wouldn’t force people to make difficult choices. If you have a resolution that supports Israel’s right to stand up for itself because of the Qassam rocketing -- obviously I condemn that rocket and I support Israel’s right to defend itself. But in the context of the Gaza war, the resolution in my opinion did not reflect the suffering that the ordinary people who didn’t really cause the conflict were going through. And at the same time, when you talk to everybody – and I’ve talked to people who are unquestionably pro-Israel and always have been – all of them said “we really are sad that people in Gaza are suffering that way, especially the people who are captive of the people who are shooting those crazy and immoral Qassams off and don’t have anything to do with it at all. So it goes back to the earlier question that you asked. Why do we find ourselves always squeezed into the position – rather than coming together as a Congress, asking “What makes sense?” This is the sense I’m trying to speak up for more and more, and say, “Look, let’s be on the side of peace. Because in the Congress, if you say, “I’m pro-Israel,” then there are a number of people who will support you for that. And if you say I’m pro-Palestinian, there’s a smaller group, but there still are those people who say “I want to support you being that way.” But if you say, “I’m for peace and resolution of the conflict, and for the United States to be engaged for the benefit of the both people including the United States,” then that constituency is almost non-existent. There is this sort of mannequin need to say you’re for this or you’re for that; I think we’ve got to evolve out of this and I think President Obama is going to help us do that. The Media Line: Congressman, what should be the American position on Hamas? Is it sound policy to boycott a Palestinian government that includes Hamas if it refuses to recognize Israel and renounce violence? Ellison: That’s a very interesting question that you ask, because no American politician, no member of Congress today can stand up and say “Let’s have unrestrained dialog with Hamas and not have to defend that position to the degree that that politician would not scarcely be able to talk about anything else at all. So I’m not going to get up here and tell you yes, let’s have unrestricted dialog with Hamas. But I will point out a few things. One, is that it’s fairly well-known that Israel talks with Hamas through Egypt and maybe directly. That’s suspected but it’s not known. But it’s known that they talk through Egypt as a conduit. We also know that Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and to act like they’re not there all might not help us get to the goal we all want which is to have a fair, final resolution of the conflict. So, again, I’m not going to stand up and call for a direct dialog with Hamas, but I do recognize that if you talk to all of the players in the game then it does make it easier to bring the game to a reasonable resolution. I will say, however, that terrorism is objectionable, immoral and un-Islamic, and I think that any group that partakes of it is in the wrong and need to abandon that behavior. The Media Line: Gilad Shalit is still being held captive. As a Congressman, what measures could be taken by the American government? Ellison: I think that all governments should work hard to get all people who are unjustly held in captivity, including Gilad Shalit. I’ve met with Gilad’s parents and I have a replica dog tag of his. I also met with the parents of Goldwasser and Regev who were captive in Lebanon; but the fact is that if you talk to people who are coming from a Palestinian standpoint, they will point out that there are a lot of people who are Palestinian being held in Israeli jails. I guess we should have some real dialog on how to move forward on that. I do think that it’s very important that Gilad be released – there is no justification for holding him. But I would just urge all parties to release all people who are unjustifiably detained, including Gilad Shalit, but perhaps including others. The Media Line: Congressman, the President articulated a vision for the region, but a lot of people in the region who are saying that we don’t know whether he’s just another guy with good rhetoric but couldn’t deliver. What must President Obama do regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to succeed where others have failed? Ellison: What I think he needs to do is settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to demonstrate some persistence. Let’s bear in mind that the conflict in Northern Ireland seemed like it would never end. It also had religious dimensions to it. And yet, there is peace in Northern Ireland today. And so I think that we shouldn’t be cynical and believe that it can’t be solved; it can be. I think he’s making the right moves. You know, we’ve got George Mitchell there; we’ve made a number of important policy statements there. I think that Israeli leaders are looking at the progress the Palestinian security forces have made in the West Bank and are gaining greater comfort there due to the Palestinian security forces success. They have indicated in meetings that I’ve been in that they are ready to move away from occupation. And those Palestinian security forces continue to build their capacity to maintain law and order. So I think that we need to continue to train Palestinian forces. We need to train them in human rights and professionalism and in terms of counterterrorism. And we need to keep on being patient and moving forward. Once you can get the Israeli public confident that Qassams will not begin to come flying out of the West Bank, you will find a public willing to make concessions on the other side. I think that’s very important. Most people want peace. I think that’s what we have to continue to do and I encourage Obama to continue to work with General Keith Dayton and to continue to press for final status negotiations so that we can get a Palestinian state established and then we can help it to strengthen itself; to build its economic and cultural, social viability; and make sure there’s peace there. I think it’s important to show the Palestinian people that peace pays; that working with the international community is the right way to go; and that peace has its benefits. But we can’t ask the Palestinian people to wait forever. They can’t be expected to live under expanding settlements, illegal outposts and over 600 checkpoints and be told, “You’re going to get yours one of these days, but not now.” People can’t tolerate that; they can’t live under those conditions. All it does is seed people who turn to desperate measures; extremist measures, and it’s important to bear that in mind. When you do not leave room for Palestinian moderate impulses to be expressed, it essentially empowers people who will turn to extremism. The Media Line: Congressman, is there room for negotiation in the contentious area of Israeli building in post-1967 land? Ellison: Absolutely. There’s plenty of room for negotiation, but we have to negotiate. So often, we’re not negotiating. When I was in Israel, a number of leaders said they had taken acts to get rid of illegal outposts, that they had stopped construction of new settlements; and all that’s positive. But the fact is it seems to be perceived as progress by people who are living in the West Bank and Gaza. They need to be able to say, “Things are getting better, our quality of life is better.” I could switch back to Gaza for example. What if we just opened up the crossing points? The crossings being closed requires that any goods, fuel, construction material – anything – be forced to go through those tunnels that are connected to Egypt. That means that Hamas makes money by charging people for the use of the tunnels. If you open the crossings, then people can get reconstruction materials – not just limited humanitarian goods, but any kind of food they want through the crossings – what happens then is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are in position to make sure that illegal weaponry does not go through the scanning devices. And then you take away a stream of income that Hamas gains from the tunnels. And then, most importantly, you improve the quality of life for the Arabic people living in Gaza. What we’re doing now is just not working: it’s making people upset and I think is not resulting in a productive outcome. The Media Line: Finally, Congressman: a sense of optimism or a sense of pessimism? Ellison: Always optimism. I’m optimistic that the Israeli public will continue to say, Look, we want security and we’re ready for peace as long as we feel we’re not giving up our security. I’m optimistic that the Palestinian people want to resolve this conflict; are looking forward for better days for their kids. I’m optimistic that people like Salam Faya’d are bringing greater credibility and confidence to the P.A. because of excellent management skills. And I’m confident that the people who lead Hamas are going to see that the best way to go is the peace route. The Media Line: Congressman Ellison, this is much appreciated. Thank you.
Date: 24/02/2009
×
The Palestinian Perspective: Prime Minister Faya'd in Conversation with TML's Felice Friedson
The Media Line’s Felice Friedson conducted an exclusive interview with Prime Minister Faya’d in his Ramallah office on February 19, 2009. Among the issues they discussed were the current state of the Palestinian Authority, the crisis in Gaza, Fatah vs. Hamas, and the future of relations with Israel. TML: Mr. Prime Minister, what is the most serious problem caused by the division of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank: in effect the creation of two Palestinian states? Faya’d: You just mentioned one key dimension to the problem. It’s a political dimension, associated with continued separation or apartness, which was set in June 2007 and since then unfortunately, became deeper. The political dimension, simply put, is as follows: with the separation in place, it is very difficult for me to see how our dreams can be realized in terms of getting to the point where we can enjoy that which is an absolute right for people all over the world: to live as free people in a country of our own, that’s Palestine. In fact, with Gaza continuing to be the way it is, and viewed as a different Palestinian entity, I think the biggest risk that entails in my view politically, and given our national aspirations, is that the entire Palestinian cause, after decades of struggle to get to the point of freedom, would be put unfortunately on the path of liquidation. What has happened over the past year and a half, and more so now, there is extreme suffering to which our people in Gaza have been exposed. But in addition, while that was going on, the situation in the West Bank – in terms of settlement activity, expansion, confiscation of land and what have you – activity totally inconsistent with the prospect of an emergence of an independent, viable Palestinian state of which the West Bank including East Jerusalem would form an integral component, that prospect diminished even more. That situation is clearly not sustainable from our point of view. That’s one dimension to it. The other dimension, of course, relates to the practicality associated with managing. We at the Palestinian Authority are in charge of the welfare of the Palestinian people residing both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and with the division in place, and with it having become deeper, our task of providing for the welfare of our people in Gaza has become very, very difficult. You can easily include there the issue of crossings and management. You can include, of course, the task of reconstruction, which has to take place in the immediate aftermath of the Israeli offensive there. But even before reconstruction, [there is] the act of having to deal with the urgent need for humanitarian relief and intervention. None of these practical issues can be handled with efficacy and the efficiency that is required given the apartness, given the separation. TML: What is your assessment of the recent Israeli operation in Gaza? Was the failure to topple Hamas an opportunity that was missed? Faya’d: I think if we look at what has happened, all that it has been accomplished, actually reinforces that which we want to avoid and want to end: that state of apartness and separation. Clearly, this is a situation that has brought nothing but disaster to us Palestinians; first and foremost in terms of the human suffering it entailed, the unprecedented massive loss of life, but also the massive damage to infrastructure and the possibility for livelihood in Gaza. So, insofar as Hamas is concerned, Hamas is a faction with a program with which I do not agree, and people, particularly in the international community, are focused on the political platform of Hamas. But Hamas is not only about that political platform, but its other components of the platform with which I disagree. This is not unusual. Parties all over the world have their platforms that not everybody agrees with. But that is something that I view as a political phenomenon. It has to be dealt with politically. In the course of a political process that is allowed to run its course, people choose this party, that party, a combination of parties to govern, and that’s up to the people. To think that one is going to deal with a party with whose platform one does not agree by just doing away with that party is not thinking about things right. We are in the realm of politics. Parties with different and competing ideologies coexist and form coalition governments – that is what happens in many parliamentary democracies in the world, including by the way, in Israel. But the fact that you disagree with a certain platform does not mean you can’t think beyond that which is normally thought of and pursued all over, which is to pursue a political process leading to changing facts on the ground. But the problem actually has a hugely significant domestic component for us, even setting aside what you said about Israel and the interest that the strong international community has in all of this. We ourselves, first and foremost, in dealing with the challenge that is before us, have not handled our differences right. And the mere fact that there is discord amongst factions and parties does not mean that those disagreements can and should be settled by recourse to weapons and arms, and fighting it out. That is something that was damaging to us. TML: Prime Minister, you’ve been saddled with this internal political problem between Fatah and Hamas for several years now. Your goal is a Palestinian state; you cannot have two contiguous states, so how, with these great challenges, do you move forward? Faya’d: I think there are ways in which those differences can, if not reconciled, be dealt with in a manner that would make it possible for us to govern ourselves while keeping to our obligations insofar as the peace process is concerned, and all the [other] obligations we have entered into and the commitments we have made. We remain firmly committed to all the obligations we have entered into. Our vision is one of peaceful coexistence and pursuing that as a path to the ultimate goal of freedom and statehood. We are saddled with these difficulties of having these vast and sharp differences in political views, but I do not know if there are two Palestinians who disagree on the need to end the occupation to have statehood. And beginning with that, I believe the issue then should not be of how to exclude a certain faction from being a political player, but how to manage in a manner that would make it possible for us to deal with all these obligations, to deal with the international community, to interact with it, while at the same time being able to manage our own internal differences. There are many different approaches to this. There are several ways in which this can be done. It is conceivable for example, for the factions to agree to a non-factional government, what I would call a national consensus government. A government like that would not have the problem of a platform that is problematic given the international obligations we have entered into, for instance, a government that is not objected to by anybody. This is a way in which this can be handled. But to lump everything together and call it one big problem is definitely a recipe for inaction, for gridlock and worse, in our case, a recipe for sliding into chaos and for settling things in a violent way, which is something we should move away from completely. TML: Are you talking internally about Fatah and Hamas, or about Fatah and Hamas as an entity together in terms of the greater picture with Israel? Faya’d: I am talking about old factions, independence, all elements of the Palestinian political system. I do not happen to have party affiliation [and] I have been in government on and off since 2002, first as finance minister. This is not unusual. If you look, for example, at our next-door neighbors – the Israeli political system. Do all parties in Israel have the same platform? I mean, they themselves will tell you that they each have differences between them. Now they are in the process of forming a government, but no doubt it is going to be a coalition government. TML: You share something in common. Faya’d: In parliamentary democracies, it is not an unusual outcome. Often, particularly where you have a multiplicity of parties, you have to govern through a coalition government. This happens. This is normal. TML: You’ve referred to different ideologies among factions and Hamas is viewed as a terrorist organization by many countries. They also will not recognize the state of Israel, as Fatah will, so how can you move forward with two factions that are dealing with very different ideologies? Faya’d: You have a faction simply described as one that does not subscribe to the commitments and obligations the PLO has entered into on behalf of the Palestinian people everywhere. And [these are] agreements and obligations and commitments which actually created or led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority, so that does represent a challenge. You have a faction with popular support – because Hamas did win the elections, there is no question about that, in January 2006 – that did not agree with those commitments, obligations and agreements that produced the Palestinian Authority to begin with. This is a major contradiction. Nevertheless, as I said, [a way] has to be found and can be found to reconcile these two issues. I gave you an example of how that can be done, of an agreement amongst the factions on a government that is non-factional, a government whose platform is shielded from the platforms of the individual parties that make it up, or that back it. Anyway, at the end of the day, you really have to deal with issues like this in a political way. You cannot just wish away a faction that disagrees with you. You have to allow the political process to run its course. And you cannot debate these issues endlessly when you have issues of the here and now that have to be dealt with. Life is extremely difficult for our people, not only in Gaza, but in the West Bank as well. And the situation simply cannot take endless debate about how to go from A to B without doing something about it. So I think, with a bit of pragmatism, in a way that can be found, those political differences can ultimately be resolved. TML: Do you think Hamas could ultimately recognize Israel? Faya’d: You know, I think, what is the ultimate deliverable goal of the peace process? Emergence of an independent, viable Palestinian state on the territories occupied by the 1967 war, clearly, living side by side in a state of security and harmony with its neighbors, including Israel. That’s the goal of the peace process to which we have committed ourselves. There is not really going to be a question of recognition. If this is going to be accepted as the outcome of the peace process to which we have committed ourselves and which we have been pursuing, then there should not be a question of recognition. Now, between now and then, you have a faction like Hamas that says, “No, I do not recognize that it is.” That represents the problems and complications to which I have referred. Now, to say that because of this, you have to stop everything and say, you cannot move, because the Palestinians on one hand, in January 2006, decided they wanted to give the majority to Hamas and therefore nothing can go [forward]; think about the consequences of that. I am not really disputing the logic, or how one could think. I am not really saying that this in an irrational reaction. All I am saying is that, unfortunately, given the situation we are in, the choices we have to make are choices between bad and worse, and not between good and bad. The case between doing it this way or that way, or that we cannot move and stop everything until we can stop all of these conflicts. The problem with that, is, think about the alternative. If we stay there – and that’s not the alternative – that’s basically the path we have been on. If we continue to act this way and the world continues for us to act this way, then what that does over time is to erode the political weight and significance of those factions of the political body in Palestine that subscribes to the process in which it was originally conceived. That was the outcome that everybody should frankly be looking for, for all the right reasons. Therefore, rather than saying, stop everything, which basically makes the process itself hostage to an outcome that was produced democratically, I think what is best is to resort to a political process that leaves out resolving these differences over time and in the interim finds solutions to these problems. But it would be a huge mistake to just basically stop everything until there is a different outcome. Because stopping everything until there is a different outcome may even lead to reinforcing the status quo, which is not something anybody wants. TML: Efforts are underway to raise billions of dollars to rebuild Gaza. Because most countries will not give money to a Hamas government, your government is making arrangements to help channel these funds. Is this feasible given the Fatah-Hamas split? Faya’d: It is feasible, but it would more efficient under the conditions of reconciliation. There is no question about that. The reality on the ground is the following: on the one hand, we have the separation or apartness that gets in the way of doing things right and fast and efficiently. On the other hand, there are the needs, the desperate needs of our people there. Imagine a situation with somebody sitting on probably what used to be their home now. They are not going to be amused by debates as to who is going to be able to do what and whose responsibility it is. They want to have a roof over the heads of their children. That’s what they are looking for…Take housing, as an example. Four thousand houses were destroyed in Gaza, rendering homeless 23,500 people. Eleven thousand housing units were at least partially damaged, affecting very adversely 78,000 of our people there. That’s a key priority of the reconstruction program. How are we going to do this under the conditions of apartness? We have to think fast. We have this conference coming up on the 2nd of March in Egypt to raise the funds necessary to rebuild. What we thought we should do is find a way to get the assistance directly to the beneficiaries. The minute you start to think this way, you think in terms of banks. There are banks that are operational in Gaza. The Palestinian banking system is still fully integrated and consolidated. So we start a bit of discussion, small circles to reconsult on a scheme to do this and to have the right parameters attached to it and then we brought in this other group of consultants about 10 days ago. Finally, we got to the point of being able to put before all of the banks actual schemes fully prioritized in terms of how to do this. Similar thinking goes into what does a country do for example with what happened with the financial crisis around the world, the housing problem in the United States, except we had to do it fast, you know, given the miserable situation on the ground. And we found a way. This morning, today, after two weeks of extensive and intensive discussions on this, we signed an MoU, a memorandum, an understanding of all the banks in Palestine here, for a mechanism for which donor funding would be made available to individual beneficiaries on an individual basis. We have actually used the services of an international NGO, an operation in Gaza to do a survey on the damage alone, and within the next two to three days, we are going to announce the scheme to the public and invite them to go to the bank nearest to them to apply, and banks have committed to respond in a short time. By the time we go to Egypt the mechanism will be firmly in place and as soon as the funding becomes available, donor countries will have the option of either transferring the money to us and then we transfer the money to the banks -- the mechanism is extremely transparent and will be highly efficient -- or they can choose to send the money directly through their representational offices here. You see, this is an example; it illustrates my thinking on the other issues you were talking to me about. One way of dealing with this is to say: “How were we going to be able to do anything under conditions of apartness; how are we going to do anything with passages and crossings closed, with the siege on Gaza being what it is? All of this is true. But here we are, we are ready. By the time we will go to Egypt, all that is required is for the donors to actually allocate their funds and to disperse it, leaving only one big problem, crossings. But then it will be one problem to solve and not all of these other problems of cooperation to resolve. So yes, this is the kind of thinking we have actually engaged in and this is what we have come up with for housing. We are working on similar schemes extremely hard to cover the needs in the agriculture, farming sector, industry, the private sector. TML: What was Hamas’s reaction to this? Faya’d: You know, at first there was a lot of debate early on, political debate of who’s in charge, and how is this going to happen. Do they do it, do we do it, etc.? But again, the concept I was thinking in terms of [was] what would a citizen be thinking about. Again, amidst this misery in Gaza, they are not going to be amused by this debate. And that’s not going to resolve anything. We need to move to answer, to respond to people’s needs. As we started to do that, I think, the intensity of debate started to weaken. And I hardly hear much of the debate on this anymore, and actually I think there is a lesson in this for all of us. That is, it is one thing to make an assertion of position and I think clarity is required and leadership does require that one be clear as to where they stand on issues. But dealing with the needs of people when you’re in the position to govern and to lead, you’ve got to come up with practical solutions to people’s problems. TML: What is your take on the negotiations between Israel and Hamas? And what do you think is the obstacle to the agreement that opens the Gaza crossing points and repatriates Gilad Shalit? Faya’d: You know, I think it is extremely important and it should be a matter of the highest sense of urgency that we make the cease-fire a lasting one. We are working right now on the basis for a temporary cessation of hostilities, a temporary cease-fire. That should be made a long-term one, a lasting one preferably. I hope discussions of that will get back on track, to produce a long-term truce if not a long-term period of calm; that’s very important, that’s critical there. We are talking here about reconstruction, about relief and we still do not have in place a long-term truce. And that is a problem. I see no reason why these issues are not dealt with quickly because they have been discussed extensively. Whether it’s the prisoner’s release, Gilad Shalit, and the Palestinian prisoners, or whether it is the passages or the truce, each one of these items, each one of these issues has been discussed and negotiated extensively and I think it’s time to get on with this, because the whole situation will continue to be extremely vulnerable and there is a great deal of risk in things sliding back in a direction that would be extremely devastating for all of us. TML: Can you tell us of any talks regarding the release of Barghouthi? Faya’d: We have always pushed for the need to release our prisoners, Marwan Barghouthi included. That’s a known fact. I believe to keep thinking of our prisoners’ file as something that can be dealt with later is a mistake. You know, so-called permanent status issues – this is a phrase used to describe issues that were agreed to be set aside for negotiations later – do not include prisoners. It was never the case that the issue was going to be deferred until permanent status. This is a transitional issue and one that has been dealt with and dealt with in a hurry. Whether it’s Marwan Barghouthi or other Palestinian prisoners, they should be released, that’s [been] our position all along. TML: If he is released, will he make waves? Faya’d: He definitely is in a position of leadership and influence, and you know, first things first. Let’s first get him out and all our prisoners out and let the political process take its course. TML: This week, Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad is having a lot of company from the American Congress. It’s an example of a stark turnaround when comparing Obama to Bush policies. What’s your read on the Obama efforts, and are you optimistic? Faya’d: I am aware of several congressional delegations that had visited the city before and I am aware actually that there have been visitors from Congress to Syria recently, and I will be meeting with some of them and I met some of them already, as a matter of fact. So this has been going on in terms of Congressional delegations or members of Congress visiting Syria. On this, let me tell you that I am someone who believes in talking and dialogue rather than keeping the channels shut, because it is the only way through which concerns of all sides can be raised and talked about and discussed. Now, it is conceivable that after you discuss certain issues, you can point out disagreements, but that’s a much better way of dealing with international relations than to say, “I do not want to talk to this person,” to that country, to this country. Countries are who they are with all their problems and concerns, ambitions and agendas. International diplomacy is about engagement and not disengagement. You know, this is not to say that principles are not important, or that objectives have to be sacrificed or for the sake of dialogue, per se. But unless you are engaged in dialogue, you are not going to be able to manage the political process. How can you really manage a political process if the stopping point of that discussion is disengagement? That is a contradiction in terms. So if anything, I want there to be more of this, because that cannot but be constructive if decisions and positions are reached on the basis of thorough discussion of possibilities. Chances are we will be much more considerate than otherwise. TML: On the Israeli side does it matter who will form the government and who will sit in the cabinet? Faya’d: What is really important for us, indeed, for Israel and the international community, is for there to be an Israeli government to take seriously the commitments it [has] entered into; I referred to the obligations, commitments, agreements we have entered into, and the cause of pursuing this peace process. That’s really what matters. That’s the measurement. That’s the parameter. That’s the yardstick by which we should measure governments, in terms of who actually forms them. Last year or in the period after Annapolis, as everybody knows, commitments that had been entered into or accepted by Israel going back to spring of 2003 were not only not implemented, but insofar as settlement activity which is supposed to be frozen completely – and it’s a clearly stated obligation – and roadmap and settlement outposts that are supposed to be removed under the roadmap, if anything that situation [has] deteriorated. Not only did settlement activity not stop, it actually accelerated over the period since Annapolis. What is really important for us is a government in Israel that would begin to act in a manner consistent with those obligations. That’s what really matters. Whether it’s this coalition, that coalition or another coalition, we know it’s going to be a coalition. But we are looking for a government that is beginning to fulfil the obligations and to begin to do so, beginning to do so, related to settlement freeze as well as the commitment to redeploy to September ‘07 positions, meaning to stop the incursions into the area. These are very serious indicators to us of the seriousness with which the peace process is going to be pursued in the period ahead. This is what we are going to be looking at very closely. TML: There are those who opine that only a right-wing Israeli government can bring peace. Do you agree with this? Faya’d: I’ve heard that said before and I know that this is more of an academic, think tank kind of discussion. It’s not bad to engage in this sort of thinking, but I myself do not look at things this way. I do not know who actually will be in power when a deal is going to be made. What is really important is focusing on the requirements, objectively defined. The next question is whether there is a government out there that is actually going to live up to the commitments, obligations of the process that should lead to that. That’s what really matters. TML: If Netanyahu forms a government, is the Obama administration up to the task of keeping negotiations on track? Faya’d: You know, I really do not like to personalize things in terms of names. It’s not an aversion to discussing personalities. I would much rather focus on requirements and I think this issue has to be looked at objectively. There is a political process and success has certain prerequisites that have been identified and on which there is consensus. I am talking about, for example, road map obligations. The road map is an international document. Actually it has become itself a matter of international law because there is a U.N. Security Council resolution 1515 that actually deals with that. I think the issue should be, “Isn’t it time already for there to be insistence on applying international law as it is and stop what has become a common practice of negotiating it?” A commitment is a commitment and obligations are obligations. Negotiations should not be about renegotiating commitments already made. What is a really important commitment in the period ahead, if I should be able to summarize it in one word, actually is accountability. Much greater accountability has to be demanded and expected of the parties. We Palestinians are open to it. The issue is will it be demanded equally on both sides? It is essential and it is logical for that to be the case if this process is going to be productive. Otherwise, we will continue to be engaged in a process that is not only not productive but, unfortunately, while it is going on, that is, activity on the ground that is adverse and inconsistent with what has become accepted universally as the most important deliverable of the peace process will continue to take place. That’s what we are looking for. It’s not a question of who is going to be there in power as much as it is the need for a shift and an adjustment, if you will, of how this whole issue is approached regardless of which government is in office. TML: When you first came into power, one of your first orders of business was security; where do you think it stands now? Faya’d: Well, as far as the West Bank is concerned there has been a major turnaround, as everybody knows and will tell you. This is something that was first and foremost felt by our own people. If you travel around the country and talk to people, it’s not too difficult for them to compare as to where it is right now in terms of the turnaround that has been accomplished there. We are very pleased with that. The country was the victim of so much lawlessness, exactly around the period you referred to. We took office in the immediate aftermath of the violent takeover of Hamas in Gaza. That had consequences in the West Bank. In addition to the state of extreme lawlessness that was pervading then, that bad situation was made much worse by acts of revenge, vandalism. That was the situation we inherited and turning that around was a key objective policy. It was essential that we succeed in doing that and fortunately we have, so much so have we that it is a matter that is not only acknowledged, but felt by our people; that’s how it is viewed by the international community, including, especially Israel…We have achieved this turnaround, but to this day, Israel still continues to send its troops to areas where we have already deployed our security services. It’s got to stop. That, incidentally, is what I referred to in my earlier comments about obligations that have been entered into and taken previously, what I said about redeployment to September 28th positions. What is required is for those incursions to stop. We have come a long way. We are building toward statehood. Security is key to statehood. Security is the most important service any responsible government should provide to its citizens, first and foremost. We have come a long way. If we are rebuilding toward statehood, as I believe we are, we definitely should be allowed to perform the security tasks and chores in our areas. That’s what would define a state and so it is essential for that to happen and to happen now. TML: How would you define peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel? Faya’d: It is a state of tranquillity, peace between people, perfectly normal relations in all facets of bilateral relations, not only political, certainly economic, cultural. Perfectly normal relations between countries living side-by-side in peace and harmony. That’s what we’re looking for. TML: Are you going to see it in your lifetime? Faya’d: I do not know when it will happen. I know it will happen and I believe that when it happens it will be because a model of governance like the one we have been promoting and adopting since mid 2007 will have succeeded. Prime Minister Salam Faya’d, thank you very much for your time and this interview. Transcribed by Liana Balinsky-Baker.
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street, Al Massayef, Ramallah Postalcode P6058131
Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647 Jerusalem
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1 972-2-298 9492 info@miftah.org
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
|