16 - 22 August 2001
Issue No.547
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 16 - 22 August 2001 Issue No.547 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Death of peace
Leading Fatah activist, Marwan Barghouti, believes that Israel's occupation of Orient House in Arab Jerusalem marks the end of the peace process. The man at the head of Israel's assassination list spoke to Sherine Bahaa
Israel's constant threats against leading Fatah activist, Marwan Barghouti, who they hold personally responsible for several attacks, has not changed his daily schedule. Barghouti, who narrowly escaped assassination last week, is still seen on the streets, joining the Intifada's daily protests. In a telephone interview, he spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly from Ramallah, in the West Bank, and renewed his appeal to Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to form a national unity government to confront Israel's aggression.
Marwan Barghouti
What is your interpretation of Israel's seizure of Orient House in Arab Jerusalem last week?
The Israeli decision to attack our organisations in Jerusalem has long been planned. Two weeks ago, Israel attacked Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. After that, it was only a matter of time before an overall Israeli attack on the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is at the head of Israeli priorities; Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon himself clearly stated this immediately after his election. [The seizure] is a declaration of war against the Palestinians. The closure of Orient House, the building where the peace process began, means ending the process for good. The closure of the house was significant. It is the political symbol of the Palestinian presence in Jerusalem, while Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Christian churches stand as their religious symbols in the occupied city.
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres announced his government's readiness to resume cease-fire talks. What is your reaction?
This declaration is a clear indication that he has reached a dead-end. It is an admission of having failed to thwart the Intifada. Beyond this, I believe it is a new maneuver by Sharon's public relations man (Peres). But Sharon is no man to negotiate with. He is, rather, a man of war.
You called for the formation of a Palestinian national unity government. How do you see this option becoming reality?
The main objective of this Intifada is the strengthening of our national unity, to include all Palestinian factions with no exception. Palestinians are companions in land, destiny and struggle; we have to translate this into something more powerful. An agreement of unity among the Palestinian fighters in the battlefield has to be forged. We must extend this unity to our political leadership, too. This step could be achieved by expanding the framework of political leadership to include members of Hamas, Jihad and other fighters. Another option is the formation of a confined national unity government. We do not need 33 ministers at this stage: we are waging a war of independence. All we need is an Intifada cabinet to run our political battles. This cabinet has to agree on a political agenda that brings Palestinians together. We also have to decide on the most appropriate tools for the Intifada to achieve its aims. In short, we must put our house in order.
Do you think that the international community, particularly the United States, would accept a national unity government with the Intifada as an avowed strategic tool?
We do not need approval from the US or the West. Our national interest at this historic moment is what matters most. Isn't this the same international community which sits and negotiates with the same Israeli Nobel laureate Shimon Peres who was responsible for the Qana massacre (in Lebanon in 1996)? Doesn't the Israeli government have members like Za'evi who calls for the transfer of the Palestinians, Liberman who wants the extradition of the Palestinians and Ovadia Yosef, the Shas leader, who compared the Palestinians to scorpions spreading poison in the world? Together they constitute a coalition government accepted by the whole world, so why should we be forbidden to work with our compatriots from Hamas and Jihad? What we are engaging in is legal resistance.
How do you see the Intifada now after nearly a year? What are its gains and losses?
The main criterion for judgment must be the strength and endurance of our struggle and not what we gained or lost in this or that separate instance. Our people were condemned to exile from the politics and geography of the world. The Zionists dream of an utter genocide of our people. Their aim is to extradite the owners from their lands. They have been refusing to admit our national rights for many many years. Our assessment has to be how much struggle we can sustain, not merely figures of gains and losses. I believe the Palestinians have striven boldly and shown great steadfastness at a historic time. The greatest achievement of this Intifada is the exposure of the Israeli-American stance which claims to observe international legality. But at Camp David and Taba [peace talks], we discovered that what was offered was a mere rearrangement of the occupation of Palestine. The Intifada is a rebellion against the American-Israeli proposals for a final-status settlement. We are sending a message to the whole world that these proposals are unacceptable and can never be even the first step towards a just settlement. The Intifada has also placed a big question mark over illegal Jewish settlements. The Intifada has threatened the Zionist policy of occupation via settlements. The exodus of around one million settlers is clear proof. Our Intifada has caused unprecedented losses in the Israeli lines, despite the inequality of the struggle.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page