Ashrawi: New, Credible Leaders Will Come
'Real obstacle to peace with Israel was never the Palestinian leadership' Interview Daily Star: How do you see the linkages between the several elections coming up in Palestine and the possible resumption of negotiations with Israel? Hanan Ashrawi: We have to adopt the integrated approach, because you cannot isolate priorities or fragment realities that have to deal primarily with the nation-building process in terms of reform and institution-building and delivering a decent system of government. And we must do this regardless of the fact that we are under occupation and we do have serious impediments, primarily caused by Israeli incursions, assassinations, the state of siege, and so on. The Palestinian people want to see a leadership that is honest, responsible, and that would empower the people and provide services and protection for the Palestinians. This has to proceed rapidly. But simultaneously people have to own the political agenda, and therefore they need to have a leadership that would be open, that would give information and also create a participatory system of decision-making. People do not want a leadership that is secretive and works under the table; they want to be part of the decision-making process, and this requires access to information and total disclosure. People want policy-making that is responsible and reliable. Q: Are you saying most of these things have been absent from the Palestinian scene in recent years? A: Either absent, or weak, or existing partially or sporadically. That's why in terms of individuals now we are likely to see a period of transition, from the older generation and the PLO leadership and returnees who joined forces and worked together - and people generally worked with them to avoid any disorder or breakdown. But the role of this old leadership that has been in place for decades is to be transitional, to render themselves obsolete, so to speak. We need room for the younger generation and for leaderships that have been excluded in some ways. Q: What is the role of the elections coming up now? A: We have local government elections beginning Dec. 23, then rolling elections for six months, presidential elections Jan. 9, the legislative elections in May and in August the Fatah elections. These are absolutely crucial elections, not only for democratization in Palestine. They are crucial for producing a leadership that has the credibility, the standing, the legitimacy and the power to take decisions. And the source of legitimacy and power will continue to be the people, using the instrument of free and fair elections. Simultaneously this introduces a very important new dynamic on the ground throughout Palestine. It gives people something constructive and positive to be engaged in, and it gives them a handle on a reality in which they have constantly been on the receiving end, of the Israeli occupation primarily, but also of the ineptitude of the public sector and the executive authority. It introduces a whole new mood, that we are engaging, we are doing something about our reality, we are exercising our power and our rights as individuals. The change in mood is perceptible and tangible. Q: How will a newly elected leadership relate to negotiations with Israel? A: Negotiations have to take place with a new leadership that is empowered, and has a solid constituency, and therefore is capable of leading and taking decisions. Elections would provide that kind of legitimacy, but would not provide that legitimacy the kind of space that Arafat had. Arafat had space, a sort of a priori forgiveness and even a suspension of accountability, because of his special standing with his people. The new leadership will be scrutinized very closely and held accountable for every word and move. And they will not be a single individual or historical figure, but rather a collection of officials holding different positions and functions that had been performed by Arafat himself. The new leadership will be more collective, more accountable, and more transparent by necessity, not by choice. The new leaders will be closely assessed and examined, and they will have to be inclusive. As for the negotiations, the policy has to be formulated in a way that accommodates a democratic system. You will not be able to have 100 percent consensus, or an agreed-upon agenda that incorporates everybody, from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front to Fatah and Al-Aqsa Brigades and others. You need a democratic system in which dissent and disagreement can be expressed peacefully and politically, and where the formulation of policy can be done on the basis of majority will. Some people are talking about a unified national leadership as a means of bringing Palestinians together now, but this does not happen easily. Elections right now are the only means of inclusion and active popular participation that determine your weight in the process and your mandate to participate in decision-making. If you have these democratic institutions, then you can have everybody involved. But people have to run, people have to be elected, people have to address the public. Q: Do you see scope for a credible peace agreement with Israel in the months or years ahead? A: The real obstacle to a peace agreement has never been the Palestinian leadership or its position, despite some incompetence here or there. The real obstacle has been the Israeli government and its hard-line position, the lack of will on the part of Israel - particularly its extreme right-wing government of Sharon - to engage in negotiations. He suspended negotiations from day one. He never wanted a political process. And the second obstacle to peace has been the emergence of this ideological administration in the United States that has adopted the position of Israel and Sharon. The Palestinians have never withdrawn from or rejected the negotiating process. These two obstacles are still in place. The only change we might see now is a willingness to begin talks again. Sharon wants coordination on security issues; he doesn't want political negotiations and he doesn't want to enter into agreements, as he has said openly. He wants a long-term interim arrangement. He wants to adapt U.S. policy and the peace process to his concept of unilateral disengagement. Q: What should be the Palestinian response to that? A: We are keen on seeing withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank and dismantlement of settlements and so on, but if it is part of the "road map" it has to be done as part of a process in which you do not negate the other, and with clear terms of reference, criteria and objectives. But you cannot go on a fishing expedition. You cannot allow Sharon to isolate Gaza, turn it into a prison, demand payback from the West Bank, continue with settlements expansion and the wall, and get the Americans on board to reward Sharon for getting rid of Gaza and allowing him to annex the settlement clusters in the West Bank and negate the Palestinian refugee right of return. This Israeli unilateralism was based on negating the Palestinian partner, negating our rights, deconstructing the possibility of a state, even. The Americans have been selling this to the Arabs, the Europeans, and even to the Palestinians as an opportunity, as part of the road map. But they have not demonstrated or proven to anybody how the unilateral disengagement is part of the road map, what are the subsequent steps and objectives, or how do you propose to get to the two-state solution, because Sharon destroyed that possibility on the ground. So that's the real challenge. I think the Palestinian leadership is ready to negotiate; the problem is that there is no negotiating partner on the Israeli side, where there is still an occupier and the mentality of occupation. Q: Should the newly elected and empowered Palestinian leadership be more aggressive or passive in the face of this reality? A: It should be more pro-active. So far the characteristics of Palestinian political stances and decision-making have been based on a reactive defensive mode, rather than on a pro-active inclusive mode. I think we should formulate our own policies and initiatives, and challenge the Israelis and the Americans. There is nothing to be gained from boycotting anybody or withholding communication. One has to engage always - but on what terms? With what agenda? These are the real questions. It seems to me the Palestinian leadership can engage the Arabs and right now there is an attempt to engage and mobilize the Arab world, re-engage the Quartet, the Europeans, and so on, and ultimately start a strategic dialogue with the U.S., and address Israeli public opinion directly - because Sharon and his ilk have been inciting, creating and provoking fear in order to maintain themselves in power and to carry out their own hard-line policy. So perhaps it is time the Israeli public speaks out on their own fate, to understand that now that their convenient scapegoat no longer exists, and the real problem lies in the Israeli policy and the Israeli occupation. http://www.miftah.org |