Note: this interview took place in the morning of Friday, 9 June 2006; before the Israeli massacre of 7 Palestinian family members at the Sudaniyyah beach in the northern Gaza Strip. Therefore, the following does not include Dr. Ashrawi’s views and reactions on the issue.

MIFTAH: The national dialogue seems to be the talk of the hour. In light of the recent breakdown in unity among Palestinians, how important do you think this dialogue is?

Ashrawi: I think the dialogue is another instrument of democracy and is absolutely crucial. We should be able to communicate internally to try to settle differences peacefully, to try to achieve whether agreements, accords or a national consensus through dialogue because nothing is to be gained by withholding communication. And it seems to me this is something that is always open – you may structure it in order to have an official dialogue but at other points you may just create the opportunities as well as the will to pursue discussions on a variety of issues in order to avoid resorting to violence or overt conflict.

MIFTAH: The Palestinian security situation has been spiraling downward ever since the new government was formed with the presidency and government taking individual decisions to form separate security groups. What needs to be done to curb the internal violence and bring the security situation under control?

Ashrawi: Sadly, this is an ongoing situation – the lawlessness, the lack of security, the clashes, the lack of rule of law in many instances - and it has been escalating recently. This has to be dealt with in a comprehensive plan to carry out serious reforms on the security forces according to the existing plan. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Merging different forces, ensuring that they have the proper regulations internally, changing hands of the security forces regularly, ensuring that they don’t intervene in politics, finances and so on – depoliticizing the security forces. You don’t solve one problem by committing another. There is no need to form other security forces or politicize them or to transform militias into separate independent security forces. This only aggravates the situation. But along with that, you need to activate the judiciary in order to be able to hold people accountable. You need the security forces to understand that most of them are internal security and police and therefore are a law enforcement agency and they have to respect the law themselves and protect the law and the judiciary. Of course the primary objective is to protect people’s lives and property and public order as well as national security.

I think this requires a concerted effort. Unfortunately, factionalism and other self-interests have produced a rivalry that has become violent and the national interest has gone down the drain. And of course, the person who pays the price is the ordinary citizen because right now people fear they have no personal security, no protection, no public order, no respect for their lives and rights. This is drastic – if we degenerate into a situation of lawlessness and anarchy, this will be the end of the Palestinian cause.

MIFTAH: Barring internal difficulties, the Palestinians are faced with new Israeli proclamations of unilateral steps to declare the borders of Israel. What political maneuvers should be adopted by the leadership to counter these Israeli plans?

Ashrawi: Right now the Palestinian people are under siege and under international sanctions and under boycott and of course suffering from a threat of internal breakdown. The first requirement is to be able to put our own house in order, to be able to empower ourselves internally. And this requires a real adherence to a national unity or platform. We must have a political platform or program that would not aggravate the situation, that would not increase our isolation, that would not lead to the de-legitimization of the Palestinian cause internationally, but a national program that is capable of helping us break the siege and the isolation and regain the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause. In this way, we can face Olmert’s and the Israeli occupation’s plans of unilateralism, which is a unilateral annexation of most of the West Bank and the imposition of final boundaries on the basis of power. Because unilateralism is another word for power politics and dictating the final outcome using of course, force. It seems to me that the continuation of the allegation that there is no partner among the Palestinians has in a way been served by the refusal to negotiate and by the refusal to accept international law and international agreements by the current Palestinian government. It has been exploited as a convenient excuse to press ahead with these unilateral plans. Second of all, it served the international community to avoid launching a viable peace process. We have to be able to maximize our ability to maneuver, to act politically to break the siege and the boycott.

MIFTAH: How detrimental would an Israeli unilateral withdrawal be for the Palestinians? Do you think there are ways it can be used in our favor?

Ashrawi: It is extremely detrimental and quite dangerous because it is an attempt to unilaterally solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the basis of Israeli priorities. It is attempting to consolidate the whole of Israel on the West Bank to maintain and annex large portions of the land including Jerusalem, major settlement centers and the Jordan Valley. It destroys the chances of a Palestinian state that is remotely viable by any means – economically, demographically, territorially and therefore destroying the chances for peace, because a viable Palestinian state capable of exercising sovereignty is an essential requirement of peace. You destroy that component, you destroy peace. And you only aggravate the situation and you prepare for the perpetuation of the conflict.

MIFTAH: What can the Palestinians do in terms of dealing with the international community, particularly the United States? How much more can we do vis-à-vis diplomacy and public relations?

Ashrawi: Right now, the official address of the government is boycotted by the US, by the Europeans and therefore diplomatic activity is restricted in many ways. People are addressing the Arab and Islamic community only.

MIFTAH: How about at the unofficial level?

Ashrawi: We should of course address the West, we should address public opinion, grassroots organizations, civil society, we should have access to the media, we should address different representative bodies and national and ethnic groups, church groups, and so on – all the different components of the mosaic of western society in order to able to create the public opinion, to create awareness and to create pressure from within to affect policy in the West. This is crucial. We haven’t done that at all. Most of the time, people assume that one administration talking to another is enough. We should be able to influence representatives, decision makers through the public and by presenting a convincing and coherent message not by stressing the differences and presenting ourselves as an ominous threatening force but by creating a common language based on shared values, based on principles, based on legality and justice and international law. These things are understood by the West. But if we insist on using the language, discourse and politics of exclusion, we will be excluded and we will be seen as threatening.

MIFTAH: Is the EU still a more sympathetic audience to the Palestinian cause or has it jumped on the US bandwagon of completely boycotting the Hamas government?

Ashrawi: There are differences at least in the way they express themselves but very clearly there are limits to the space for maneuvering. Historically, despite the fact that there are distinctions in terms of European policies and political positions, their actions tend to be constrained by their refusal to enter any disagreement or confrontation with the US and they tend to work within the confines of the parameters defined by the US for political action. So, regardless of the lip-service and regardless of declarations and statements, quite often when it comes down to act, it’s the US that becomes the deciding factor.

MIFTAH: Where do you see the future of negotiations with Israel in light of Hamas’ stance not to recognize Israel and Kadima’s stance of considering the PA a terrorist organization?

Ashrawi: Right now it doesn’t look very likely. But the question is not that Hamas is not recognizing Israel. The Palestinians don’t care. They are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel. We want to have a political program that is consistent with the national Palestinian legitimacy and the PLO, with the Arab legitimacy and the Arab initiative and with international law and legality. If the recognition of Israel is a byproduct of that, it doesn’t matter. The real issue is whether Hamas can transform itself to be more consistent with contemporary realities, global realities and the needs of the Palestinian people to be able to break through and gain support. This is what is needed frankly. The fact is that for a long time – since Sharon took office – the post-Camp David era, there have been no negotiations. On the one hand, there has been an adamant rejection by the Israeli government to enter into any political process or negotiations while maintaining a unilateralist approach of creating facts, building the wall, annexing the land, expanding settlements, annexing Jerusalem and so on. On the other hand, there was a total lack of political will by the international community to launch a viable negotiating process, to respect even their own initiatives, including the roadmap.

MIFTAH: So, what you are saying is that the ball is in Israel’s (and the international) court and that it is more or less irrelevant what Hamas’ stances are in light of their intransigence?

Ashrawi: It is relevant because it is used in many ways, it is exploited to undermine the Palestinian position and it provides a convenient excuse for the West to punish the Palestinians – like the way they are boycotting people and punishing them for electing Hamas. So, what Hamas does is always used to justify, as a convenient excuse for further punishment of the Palestinian people and creates the exclusion of the Palestinians from global consideration. So, it is important, but I am saying the problem is not purely Palestinian. This has been an ongoing issue. Israel is to blame, the international community is to blame – the Palestinians have always been on the receiving end of this policy and right now they have a convenient excuse. Hamas should call their bluff and show responsibility and flexibility in order to respond to a domestic Palestinian need.

MIFTAH: So, how well is Hamas doing in this regard so far?

Ashrawi: So far, unfortunately, it is taking Hamas a long time to adjust. Probably they need to extricate themselves from the mode of the opposition, to the mode of responsible governance; it is taking time but we hope they will understand the gravity of the situation. Many of them still talk about the situation as not being severe or grave. Some of them say we are not isolated, the US is isolated; they say we are not in a state of crisis, the rest of the world is in a state of crisis. They come out with all these public statements of bravado and rhetoric that have nothing really to do with the responsibilities of government. They have to understand that the real address for negotiations and political agreement is the PLO. This has always been the case no matter who is in government, whether Fateh or Hamas. They should be able to facilitate this rather than being an obstacle. In that sense, the West and Israel cannot say there is no Palestinian partner because there is a Palestinian partner, there has always been a partner, with an agenda that did not change. The problem is not the PLO agenda, the problem is that now we have two agendas – the government is different from the PLO.

MIFTAH: How much significance do you think the proposed referendum on the prisoners’ document has given that 1) it does not include all Palestinians and 2) that Israel would not agree to its terms?

Ashrawi: First of all, this is an internal issue; it doesn’t have to do with Israel right now. This is something that Palestinians resort to in order to get the Palestinian people to have their say, to make an impact on policy. There is a real need to have a national consensus. The referendum is an instrument of democracy and it is a means, not an end. Therefore, it is used in order to help Hamas, for example, to say that they will respond to people’s needs, they will accept the public voice on this plan.

Two, it should not be transformed into a bone of contention, which it has become. It is ridiculous they way it has been portrayed as coup d’etat or as undemocratic or unconstitutional. To me this is totally uncalled for. On the contrary, it is one way of avoiding violence and armed conflict and confrontations in Palestine and getting the people engaged in something positive.

And they are attacking it because it doesn’t involve all of the Palestinians everywhere? Elections were held in the West Bank and Gaza and barely in Jerusalem. They didn’t have the Palestinians everywhere voting for them. They are using this excuse now in order to undermine another democratic practice.

The Authority itself was created as a result of agreements for the West Bank and Gaza, the Prime Minister’s post was created as a result of agreements and their scope and jurisdiction are limited to the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, and even in Jerusalem you have Israeli impediments. So, they are trying to pull excuses out of the hat and these are contradictory. I suggest that people should be more serious and responsible in dealing with the requirements of the day and in realizing the gravity of the situation.

MIFTAH: Today, the Palestinians are up against a global mentality of terrorism and counterterrorism and are unfortunately on the wrong side of the fence. What can be done to change this?

Ashrawi: Unfortunately, in the post-September 11 universe, we have been branded as terrorist, and on the side of the terrorists. Ironically, Israel became an innocent victim and in a state of self-defense while the people under occupation were presented as aggressive and terrorist and were condemned and punished. The irony is that for decades, Israel has been a brutal occupier with no sanctions or any kind of punishment at any point. Then, immediately after the Palestinians elected Hamas they were made subject to an international sanction regime. It is really ironic and tragic.

I would say, despite that, we also have to able to present our case and intervene positively in a persuasive and convincing manner and not to allow Israel constantly to set the tone and the terms and the diction of dealing with the Palestinians or depicting the Palestinians or defining the nature of our cause. We have to do it ourselves, and now when we use the heightened rhetoric and start resorting to slogans and clichés of bravado and violence, this is used only to reinforce this misleading image of the Palestinians as being terrorists. So, we have to look inwards as well to form our own language and policies without being defensive. I am talking about forming proactive, inclusive policies that would intervene in global realities and alter these wrong perceptions of Palestinians. We did that for a while, we managed to change that course of preconceptions and misconceptions but unfortunately, now we are undergoing a period of regression. Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies. Sometimes our rhetoric and policies are the worst thing that can be used against us.