 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 27 Jan. - 2 Feb. 2000 Issue No. 466 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 27 Jan. - 2 Feb. 2000 Issue No. 466
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters No departure from 194
By Hala Saqr and Rasha Saad
The issue of the Palestinian refugees' right of return has been critical right from the start of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. What is your strategy on the refugee question during the final-status negotiations?
Well, the general strategy of the Palestinian leadership vis-à-vis all final-status negotiation issues has two central guiding lines. First, we are very much committed to international legitimacy. If we are talking about the refugees, then we stick to 194 (the 1948 UN Resolution). Second, there are the precedents made in other Arab-Israeli peace tracks. [We are sticking to] 194 because [Palestinians and Arabs have already] made a compromise in accepting it.
We have moved from the total rejection of the presence of Israel to an acceptance of it; [recognition] is already a concession. The fact that these Palestinians, these returnees when the moment comes, would live under Israeli sovereignty is another compromise.
So 194 is not our maximalist goal, nor is it a goal based on a maximalist political approach, from which after negotiation we will adopt fall-back positions.
But at this point, the Israeli side totally rejects 194?
We envisage negotiations as a continuation of our struggle and resistance. We have never accepted the Israeli position as a fait accompli or a dictate to us. There was a time when Israel did not accept the mere existence of the Palestinian people. There was another time when Israel looked at the PLO as a terrorist organisation that needed to be liquidated, rather than talked to. What happened is that finally [the Israelis] had to yield, thanks to the resistance of our people and leadership. They recognised the PLO, and together we started the peace process. They used to say "we will never withdraw" [from the West Bank], now they have withdrawn. We have already paid for those achievements by recognising Israel. Israel does not dictate our fate. Our fate is made through our struggle, and negotiation is one shape of the many struggles we are engaged in. Any lack of recognition of the rights of the Palestinians will blow any peace process, because in the end we are talking about 70 per cent of the Palestinian people -- about 5,000,000 refugees. We are talking about the majority, and if the majority is not happy, I wonder how one could make peace with a minority. We have to remember that the right of return of all Jews to Palestine was a unilateral decision taken by Israel, is not recognised by the international community, and is not based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However the right of return of the Palestinians is in accordance with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration, with international law and legitimacy, and with the wishes of the international community, which has adopted this resolution more than 120 times in the last 50 years through the UN.
In May 1996 in Taba the head of the Israeli delegation at the time threatened to withdraw from the negotiations if 194 was brought in in any way. [Palestinian negotiator] Abu Mazen was put in a position where he had no other option but to give in and postpone once again.
Ass'ad Abdel-Rahman
That is absolutely contrary to my information. I have asked Abu Mazen about it several times, and I have asked those who joined the negotiations. This is what the Israelis or some Palestinian rejectionists would like to say to tarnish the reputation of Abu Mazen and of other Palestinian negotiators. When the final-status negotiations were inaugurated, Abu Mazen publicly reiterated that the Palestinian position was based on 194. In every single encounter with the Israelis, we have talked about nothing but 194. All these rumours about Abu Mazen are nothing but that, if not sheer lies.
Does this mean that if the Israeli stance remains as it is, with 13 February less than a month away, you are not prepared to compromise further, let us say by tactically accepting less satisfactory options?
I do not really think or recommend that we should do so. We have already made our compromises, and if anybody has to change their position to make final-status negotiations succeed, it is Israel. Israel has been denying all our basic rights. You cannot antagonise 70 per cent of any people and expect to make peace with [that same people]. If 1 per cent of them decide to resist through armed resistance, we would be talking about thousands, which would outnumber the original Palestinian movement in 1965.
We are not looking for continued conflict, but for peace. And even before peace we are looking for historic reconciliation and maybe even then we need 20 years, 30 years, 50 years to reach real peace. [Anything else would amount to] unilaterally asking the Palestinians to surrender, and surrender breeds hatred, antagonism and more war.
How would you deal with the possibility of the Israelis refusing to change their stance?
Why should I worry about what Israel would or would not accept, and not worry about what the Palestinians or the Arabs would or would not accept? The whole idea of compromise is based on finding the two sides reasonable partners who are ready to make historic compromises. We have already made ours, and it is time for Israel [to make its]. Moreover, I cannot imagine myself to be less [pro-Palestinian] than the Italians, the French and the British, who still adopt 194.
What about Israeli public opinion?
The new phenomenon of the Israeli 'revisionist historians,' as they are called, has been a tremendous shock to the Israeli conscience. The problem with the Israeli leadership till now is that they have been hiding facts from their populace.
A poll done two months ago, a joint international, Palestinian, and Israeli effort, showed some relatively positive developments -- up to 50 per cent of those interviewed are willing to deal with the idea of the return of the Palestinians. This was totally unexpected and not foreseen three or four years ago. So I sincerely believe that ultimately Israeli public opinion encompasses the political sanity it needs to call for the implementation of 194.
In other conflict situations, such as in Kosovo, the Americans and Europeans were fully supportive of the repatriation of refugees. How can you make use of this?
We definitely [believe] that what happened in Kosovo or elsewhere should constitute a model. Sharon went mad when President Clinton said what he said during the crisis of Kosovo. Why do you think the Likudists supported Milosovic, the Serb leader? Sharon said "this is what could be happening to us", because he saw the force of the precedent that could be applied to his own stance.
There are reports that you have presented a document suggesting Palestinian refugees be placed in evacuated settlements. Does this contain any truth?
There was a report in the Israeli press that talked about some scenarios concerning the usage of evacuated settlements as a proper place for the refugees, who would be allowed to return to the West Bank and Gaza. I feel this scenario is not related at all to the refugees of 1948 but to the 'displaced' of 1967. The 1948 refugees have another stipulation and another mechanism for the proper solution of their problem, namely 194. They should be allowed to return to their homes, and these are going to be beyond the Green Line and not on the West Bank and in Gaza.
Now you are meeting at the Arab League to coordinate with other Arab countries who host Palestinian refugees. Isn't this a bit late, with the 13 February deadline so close?
We do not have a solution, and I do not see a solution on the horizon, and nor do the other Arab governments. We have to carry on with our job assuming that there is no solution until we reach one.
Does this disregard the time limit?
There is no time limit to our work, and we will continue discussing, coordinating, and finding a solution to the suffering caused by the refugee problem until a solution is enacted. Between this moment and the moment we reach that we do reach a solution, there remains a wide time gap. We have to carry on as if nothing has happened, since nothing has happened.
What about 13 February?
Obviously thanks to Israeli procrastination and delays I cannot really envisage our reaching a solution by that deadline.
