Lebanese Editors-in-chief, newspaper and media reporters interview with President Mahmoud Abbas
Lebanese
Editors-in-chief, newspaper and media reporters interview with President Mahmoud
Abbas.
August
17th, 2011
"My
visit to Lebanon today is very special. I've visited Lebanon more than once
since 2004, but this visit is especially important because today the embassy of
the State of Palestine is inaugurated and the Palestinian flag is flown on its
building. This laudable and generous gesture by the Lebanese government comes in
a critical time as we prepare ourselves to obtain full UN
membership.
Before
I start speaking about the United Nations bid, I would like to say that in the
past few months we have been trying to engage in talks and negotiations with the
Israelis, from the standpoint that we herald negotiations as the basis of, and
the only way to peace. In light of the current situation nowadays
internationally and regionally, we can't think of options other than
negotiations. Therefore, we have chosen to take this road, and as you know, we
have started peace talks a long time ago. Negotiations with former Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert had started in 2007 following Annapolis Conference. These
negotiations had been very useful and serious at the same time because all final
status issues outlined in the Oslo Accords were addressed and those include
borders, settlements, refugees, security, and water.
Eight-month
in-depth discussions on these issues were conducted with Israelis, and I can
honestly say that both sides were working together very closely, in the sense
that we had managed to develop a full understanding of what the Israelis want,
and they also were able to understand our demands. I'm not claiming that we
reached a full agreement over all issues, but we did in connection with
security. By security we mean post-Palestinian state security, because Israelis
have fears and concerns and they want to make sure their borders are safe from
Palestinians and others after the Palestinian state has been established.
Therefore, we had to address these security concerns, and at the time we all
agreed that a third party observer in the Palestinian Territories is required so
that full assurance is granted to Israel, and to help re-train Palestinian
security forces.
We
can say that this particular issue was fully addressed because an agreement was
reached between myself and Mr. Olmert along with President George Bush, as well
as President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah II, since it was important to take
their opinions as both of them represent countries neighboring ours. We asked
them what they thought of the presences of forces on their borders and both of
them gave clear opinions which were taken into consideration, and then
discussions over this issue were concluded by General Jim Jones who later became
United States National Security Advisor and afterwards left the White House. Now
we don't know what happened with this issue, and Olmert ended up out of office
for internal reasons then negotiations stopped. After Netanyahu assumed office
and Obama assumed the presidency negotiations were partially resumed. President
Obama at first said that settlement building should be completely halted, and
declared that in Cairo and subsequently in Turkey. On our part, we considered
that as a good start. Cessation of settlement and 1967 borders as the basis for
talks; if Israel had accepted these two conditions we would have returned to the
negotiating table. Sadly, we were unable to restart talks even for a single day
since the beginning of Netanyahu's premiership until this very
day.
On
last September 1st we were invited to Washington. President Obama,
President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah II, Tony Blair and Netanyahu were there
too. Together we clearly and transparently discussed all relevant issues; how to
jumpstart talks being the main question. Netanyahu, however, would always say
that security is the basis, security comes first. We said that we had already
finalized discussions over security, yet he argued that he does not recognize
neither accepts these discussions, and that he relies solely on the Israeli
Defense Forces to protect Israel's security.
What
is his vision of security? That the Israeli army remains deployed along the
Jordan River borders and on the hills commanding the river from the Palestinian
side for forty years. Of course we categorically rejected his proposal; we said
that even occupation is a better solution than that of his. He refused of course
to discuss the remainder of the issues. After Washington, we went to Sharm
Al-Sheikh on September 14, and later on we visited his Jerusalem house and there
were only four of us at the time: myself and him, Hillary Clinton and Senator
Mitchell. I tried so hard to tell him that I had a proposal concerning borders,
Jerusalem and refugees, yet he completely rejected and he was adamant that they
had first and foremost to agree on security from his own perspective. This
serves to show that there has been no genuine intention to resume talks. We
would create a favorable atmosphere to start talks, but he was always
disinclined to. Three or four months later, Senator Mitchell said that he failed
to convince Israelis to return to the negotiating table. The Quartet tried once,
twice and failed and on the third time a proposal made by the United States was
not accepted even by the other three members of the Quartet; Russia, UN and
European Union. They rejected the US proposal before we got the chance to hear
it. The proposal introduces four conditions: Firstly, recognition of a Jewish
State; secondly, the refugee problem to be solved within the Palestinian state;
thirdly, settlement blocs to be considered fait accompli and lastly, Hamas to be
deemed a terrorist organization not be dealt with, because we were mulling
reconciliation and Israel and USA do not want it to
happen.
As
I mentioned before, our first option is negotiations, our second option is
negotiations, and our third option is negotiations. But now that negotiations
are stalled, we want to go to the United Nations to complain. They argued that
this is unilateralism, but we say settlement building is unilateralism. They
claimed that we want to isolate Israel, but of course, we are not able to
isolate Israel or any other country for that matter. They said that we want to
delegitimize the state of Israel; of course this is not true. Those are nothing
short of excuses to dissuade us from pursuing our efforts to seek UN
recognition. We tried nevertheless to clarify our stand on all these matters,
yet they refused. They vowed to veto our statehood bid if it ever came to a vote
in the United Nations. This leaves us with no choice: no negotiations and no
going to the United Nations. We asked: Do you have any other options that we can
open-heartedly discuss together? Unfortunately they offered nothing, therefore
we have made up our minds and we are going to press ahead with our UN quest to
lodge an application with the UN Security Council for full membership of the
Palestinian State.
Few
months ago we started a diplomatic campaign that covered almost all countries of
the world, namely state members of the Security Council whether permanent or
other members. The day before yesterday I was in Bosnia, which is a member of
the Security Council, to discuss our drive for recognition. I have also visited
Japan, China, Russia, almost all European states, and Canada. I almost visited
all countries, and we have not cut off our ties with the United States. We made
the United States aware of our intention to bid for UN recognition, not because
we were seeking a confrontation, but rather to further our cooperation with
them. Of course they do not support our bid, but communications are still
ongoing and we will maintain these communications until the end of September to
see what will happen.
Meanwhile
the Arab Follow-Up Committee examined these issues as it is mandated with this
task. You may recall that whenever there were any developments with negotiations
or other matters whether positive or negative, the Arab Follow-Up Committee
would call meetings, assess the situation and make decisions. This time we told
them, and by them I mean Arab countries, that we want to decide about this
together, and an agreement was reached. Lately, a committee has been set up by
the Arab Follow-Up Committee comprising of six states: Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, and Qatar as well as the Arab League Secretary General
and of course Palestine. This committee is tasked with daily follow up from this
point until we go to the United Nations. We will see what happens. On the
23rd of this month, a meeting will be held in Doha to conclude the
discussions. We've sought advice from myriad legal advisers and specialists in
international law and United Nations in order to avoid any potential misstep. We
do not want to make any mistakes, and that's why we have been touching base with
the rest of the world and we always will.
This
is how we are going to take our case to the United Nations. We were told that
our bid could be blocked by a US veto. This is possible. However, we are left
with no choice here; no negotiations and no going to the United Nations. What
are we supposed to do? In the West Bank – and I say the West Bank because
territories are divided security and economy wise – security is improving in an
extraordinary manner and economy is increasingly growing - so let's start with
the West Bank. When I was first elected President of the Palestinian Authority I
took it upon myself to accomplish three goals, firstly security and public
safety, secondly economic growth and thirdly independence. If independence is
not achieved I will consider myself to have failed to meet the expectations for
which I was elected.
So
it is all down to independence. We either get it or revert back to the
Palestinian leadership and see what it thinks, that's if we were voted down in
the United Nations. I would like to say however that negotiations, regardless of
whether the UN bid works out or not, will remain an essential and imperative
need, because we can get a state in the United Nations but in actuality
negotiation is the only way to actualize a solution in terms of borders,
security, refugees, Jerusalem and water. All of these require bilateral talks.
The difference now is that Israel considers us as disputed
territories
But
once we gain state recognition on 1967 borders we will be considered as a state
occupied by another, and the United Nations will address the matter on that
basis. There is also the intra-Palestinian reconciliation; when the coup took
place, we reverted to the Arab League which assigned this task to Egypt. Then we
engaged in lengthy discussions and meetings but to avail, until Egypt finalized
a document in October 2009, which we signed in October 15, 2009. Hamas refused
to sign the Egyptian-brokered proposal and reconciliation remained at a
standstill until last March 16 when a deal was signed after I've taken an
initiative to go to Gaza with a view to form an interim government of
independent technocrats.
This
government will be tasked with rebuilding Gaza, and you know that after the
destruction of Gaza by the Israeli offensive, 4.6 billion dollars were pledged
by international donors in Sharm El-Sheikh Conference for rebuilding the Strip,
none of which we have received because these countries do not want the pledged
funds to be given to Hamas or what is called "Hamas government". However, the
new government that will be formed could be moderate especially that it is
comprised of technocrats who are not affiliated to any faction or party, an
interim government of technical experts, so these funds can be disbursed for the
purposes of reconstructing Gaza. The second task for this government will be
overseeing elections which are slated to be held on May the
fifth.
That
was the agreement, but the idea of the government and how it is going to be
formed was misunderstood. Will the government be jointly set up? It will not,
but it will rather be formed through public consensus, and it will be an interim
government of independent technocrats not a partisan government because the
world will refuse to deal with such government until elections take
place.
If
Hamas wins the elections - which we believe and declare to be free and
transparent elections and the best example for this is that Hamas did win in
2006 and authority was handed over to it, but its government was later isolated
and all the other problems ensued – it will take charge and lead the country,
and Fatah or other movements might also take charge after May 5. Things are
moving along, and even if the government formation is stalled, there are a lot
of other issues to address; some of which were already addressed in the latest
Cairo meeting. These issues are equally important and addressing them will
contribute to breaking the ice and easing the disputes between Gaza and the West
Bank. We can't help but pray that we manage to resolve all these disputes
including forming the government prior to September.
Regarding
Palestinians in Lebanon, I speak on behalf of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization when I say the following: Naturalization is entirely unacceptable.
We reject the naturalization of Palestinians in Lebanon, and we refuse to become
a state within a state. We also don’t want weapons or an army; I banned weapons
in the West Bank and no one except the Palestinian Authority is allowed to hold
weapons. This country wants to take charge of its own territory; therefore we
are for disarmament of Palestinians, but how to make this
happen?
This
is up to the government. We will comply with whatever decision the government
makes in this regard. However, there are some groups who may not comply with
such decision, but this can be taken care of at the right time. This is in
general the position of the vast majority of Palestinians. In return,
Palestinians should not let extremism creep in like what happened in the latest
incident which took place in Ein Al-Helwa refugee camp, and the earlier attacks
by "Fatah al- Islam" (Conquest of Islam) – which by the way has nothing to do
with Islam nor with Fatah for that matter. We have said it a million times that
we have nothing to do with those people, it was just a onetime incident for the
Lebanese people and it could happen practically anywhere. Therefore, and in
order to keep this from happening again, I hereby repeat, I'm against arms and
weapons, but it is imperative to ensure decent living conditions for
Palestinians.
All
of the foregoing issues were discussed with the President, speakers of the
Parliament and the Prime Minister, and we have agreed on mechanisms to take this
further along. Next time we meet, these mechanisms will be approved and
practically implemented, and we will hopefully be able to overcome daily
problems resulting from previous circumstances.
It's
noteworthy to highlight that Lebanon has started a new chapter in the
Palestinian-Lebanese relations whether through the opening of the Palestinian
embassy or their complete willingness to address the daily issues, and for that
we are extremely thankful.”
Interview
In
what way can Lebanon help Palestinians at the Security
Council?
Lebanon
currently holds the presidency of the Security Council, and Qatar the General
Assembly. Lebanon is also a member in the Security Council and has a vote –
after all it is a vote that we really want.Here Lebanon has a crucial role to
play in addition to advising us on United Nations procedures because we have no
previous experience in this regard, given that we only hold an observer status
and not a full member, obviously because we don't have a state yet. We have been
offered observer state status similar to the status the Vatican holds, and this
is one of the proposals in place now. However, our quest is to become a state
with a full member status at the Security Council in order to defend our cause.
We have the support of 122 states that recognize the state of Palestine, and
later on, a two-thirds vote will be required for approval and we will secure
these votes. Nonetheless, the United States might try to dissuade each one of
them down to 22 states.
In
light of the ongoing Arab Spring, aren't you worried that Israel might do
something to turn the tables?
There
is an Arab Spring, and a Jewish Spring. It seems like Israelis think this is a
joke while in fact it is absolutely not. What is happening now is serious; it is
true protests started out with demanding higher wages and social justice, but it
can end up with "The people want to bring down the regime". It is as simple as
that and it is not unlikely. Israel has threatened to revoke the Oslo Accords
and to withhold the transfer of funds, and the latter did happen before and we
were unable to pay salaries for our employees. It is also possible that it
launches an offensive or aggression.
On
the Arab situation, I don't think I should go too deep because I don't want to
be misunderstood or misinterpreted. What's happening in the Arab World is not my
business in any way. I refrain from voicing my opinions on happenings that take
place in any country; we just watch closely and we will respect whatever
decisions the peoples make. The Arab situation now is not any worse than it was
before, and if the Palestinian people take to the streets and chant "The people
want to bring down Abbas" then it's their choice and I will step down. It is
eventually up to the Palestinian people. If they demand reforms be made, I will
either make the reforms happen or step down. I'm waiting for next May when the
elections take place, and I will not run for reelection. People in some Arab
states were given what they asked for and I think that if you have something to
offer then you should go ahead and give it.
Some
Arab countries mistreated Palestinians...
Let
bygones be bygones. Our position is to respect what the people want, and
equally, we demand the Palestinian right to self-determination be respected. We
maintain that we refuse any external interference in the Palestinian people's
internal affairs, as we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other Arab
states.
Would
you say that the current Arab World happenings contribute to bolstering the
Palestinian cause?
We
hope so. If it is democracy that these peoples are seeking, then this will be to
our advantage since democracy anywhere will further our pursuit for a solution.
Nevertheless, we will not interfere, and I hope that what happened during the
last two days never happens again.
Do
you have a plan B for the post Security Council phase, given that all signs
indicate that the United States will use its veto power to block your UN
bid?
We
don't have a plan A, much less plan B. We are for negotiations all the way.
Going to the United Nations is neither a plan nor an option. Negotiations will
by all means be the one and only option. The United Nations on the other hand is
merely an attempt to change the terms of reference. In 1993, late Arafat and
late Rabin declared mutual recognition of the state of Israel and the
Palestinian Liberation Organization as the sole and legitimate representative of
the Palestinian people. At that time late President Arafat acknowledged the
right of the state of Israel to exist. Therefore, we attend any international
event in the name of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Palestinian
Authority represents Palestinians within the territories, while the PLO
represents all eight million Palestinians throughout the world. When we go to
the United Nations to seek recognition, we will go in the name of the PLO.
However, we will make every possible effort to form an interim technocratic
government before that.
Furthermore,
when Khaled Meshaal said that a chance should be given to negotiations and his
acceptance of a state on the 1967 borders served to show a fundamental change in
Hamas' strategy. Hamas who used to demand the land of all of historic Palestine
now says that we should give a try to the United Nations bid. As for the post
Security Council period, we will watch and see what happens. We have the support
of seven Arab states, so let's stick together and decide about the next step. We
have been told that it is possible to get the General Assembly to admit
Palestine as UN member and bypass the Security Council pursuant
to the terms of the
GA's "Uniting for Peace" resolution, but this won't work. It had worked during
the Korean War when Russia had used its veto to block numerous Security Council
initiatives and "Uniting for Peace" was introduced by the United States as a
means of circumventing further Russian vetoes. I don't think it happened
again.
If
Israel does not recognize the state of Palestine, then what is the basis on
which negotiations are conducted?
How
was Israel admitted as a member state in United Nations? Israel was admitted to
the United Nations under Resolution 181, and this admission is conditional upon
two obligations: First the establishment of a Palestinian state; and the return
of refugees. None of these obligations has been fulfilled yet. You just cannot
disregard a United Nations resolution forever; it has to be respected at some
point.
What
about the possibility of Hamas moving its headquarters to
Cairo?
Hamas
is in Cairo for the purpose of discussing the release of captured Israeli
soldier Gilad Shalit. It will be really good if they work out this issue and I
have no problem with it at all.
You
said you are against Palestinian weapons in Lebanon. How far are you capable of
controlling weapons inside refugee camps, considering that Lebanese authorities
do not enter these camps?
We
want to solve the matter of weapons in refugee camps, and this requires
cooperation with the government. The question now is: How to implement that in
practice? This requires cooperation between us and the Lebanese government, and
it has been agreed to set up a committee to work out a solution for all the
issues. This committee, which is a bilateral Lebanese-Palestinian committee, is
authorized to make and implement decisions.
What
is the task of Palestinian embassies? Can a Palestinian embassy issue PA
passports?
No,
because passports are linked with identities which are still under the control
of Israel. I hope that the day comes when Palestinians in Lebanon and other
countries hold passports issued by the state of Palestine. This is unrelated to
the right of return. Five million Palestinian refugees were expelled out of
Israel, and not a single one of those in Lebanon is from the West Bank and Gaza,
all of them are 1984 refugees from Galilee and Safed. Therefore, we are trying
to address the problem of these refugees through negotiations but unfortunately
the Israelis refuse to, and hence the refusal of the American proposal to the
Quartet: Solving the refugee problem within the state of
Palestine.
What
are your views regarding the European, and more particularly the French stand
conditioning recognition of the Palestinian state on recognition of Israel as a
Jewish state?
I
doubt that France would introduce such a condition. There are some European
states that echo the United States and Israeli demand for recognition of Israel
as a Jewish state. This was raised only two years ago. If they want us to
recognize a Jewish state they can go ahead to the United Nations and request the
name they want. I'm aware of the implications behind recognizing a "Jewish
State", and our recognition of it would produce dire consequences that I would
not accept; hence my refusal to recognize it. This is a final and uncompromising
stand. Israel has two peace treaties; one with Egypt and the other with Jordan,
where recognition of a Jewish state was not a condition, then why must we do
it?
On
the right of return: How far is it realistically applicable at the time when
Israel is deeply concerned about its security? On naturalization, there is a
document in Beirut concerning an agreement you signed with Yossi Beilin called
Beilin-Abbas Document. It contains a paragraph on refugees suggesting their
gradual integration into the Arab communities where they reside. What is your
take on this, taking into account that the document is signed with the initials
of both parties?
This
happened ten years ago. I did not sign such a document, neither in initials nor
in a final manner. I had not seen or read this document at all. Belen told me that he had a proposal
which had been approved by Rabin, and I told him that I would see it another
time. Later on, I read the proposal by coincidence in the house of the Egyptian
ambassador to Tel Aviv, Mohammed Bassyouni.
What
about the role of Palestinian embassies?
Palestinian
embassies represent all Palestinians of the PNA and they are subordinate to the
Palestinian Liberation Organization, to which I am as president subordinate to,
and so are the Prime Minister and ministers of the government. The first
government was formed under a PLO Executive Committee
decision.
What
about returning to resistance if negotiations fail?
We
have been over this in the Arab summit held in Sert, some Arab voices called for
resistance but as a Palestinian president I refused. However, should you decide
to go to war we will join you, but we will not fight alone and we will
definitely not let anyone use us as a tool to be fought with. This is how it
goes. Moreover, the Arab Spring is treading a peaceful approach, so why should I
take a military one? The current situation is too complicated for us to even
fire a single bullet against Israel. Let alone the fact that now I only have a
police force carrying Kalashnikov rifles and very little
ammunition.
I'm
not going to gamble away the fate of an entire people and destroy it in the same
way as previous intifadas had. I choose to be realistic; people in the West Bank
today support negotiations and they are against any military action. We have
security and stability that we don't wish to give up.
I
don't want to be misunderstood. Here in Lebanon you have resistance - you are
entitled to your own choices, politics and opinions, and your state is free,
sovereign and has the right to make decisions in which I do not
interfere."