Tweet
Asian Tribune, Thailand
Feb 17 2007
We Palestinians Will Honor Our Word
Sun, 2007-02-18 01:44
By Afif Safieh*
I know of no way to measure suffering, no mechanism to quantify pain.
All I know is that we Palestinians are not children of a lesser God.
Had I been a Jew or a Gypsy, I would consider the Holocaust to be the
most atrocious event in history. Had I been a Native American, it
would be the arrival of the European settlers and the subsequent
near-total extermination of the indigenous population. Had I been an
African American, it would be slavery in previous centuries and
apartheid in the last. Had I been an Armenian, it would be the
Turkish massacre.
I happen to be a Palestinian, and for Palestinians the most atrocious
event in history is what we call the Nakba, the catastrophe. Humanity
should consider all the above as morally unacceptable, all as
politically inadmissible. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not comparing
the Nakba to the Holocaust. Each catastrophe stands on its own, and I
do not like to indulge in comparative martyrology or a hierarchy of
tragedies. I only mention our respective traumas in order to
illustrate that we each bring to the table our own particular
history.
The fact that the accords reached last week in Mecca between Hamas
and Fatah were met with a variety of reactions, ranging from warm to
cautious to skeptical, makes it imperative to revisit and learn the
lessons of the diplomatic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Time
and again the three `no's' of the Khartoum summit in 1967 - no peace
with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel
- are invoked as proof conclusive of Arab intransigence toward
Israel. Such a claim, however, conveniently forgets that Gamal Abdel
Nasser's Egypt and Jordan accepted United Nations Security Council
resolution 242 just months after the Khartoum meeting.
Also forgotten is that Syria, after the October War in 1973 - the
purpose of which, it should be remembered, was to reactivate a
dormant diplomatic process and to capture the attention of American
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger - accepted U.N. resolution 338,
which incorporated resolution 242. Ignored, too, is that the entire
Arab world endorsed a peace plan put forth by the then-Saudi crown
prince Fahd at a 1982 summit in Fez, Morocco, as well as unanimously
backed the initiative put forth by then-Saudi crown prince Abdallah
in Beirut in 2002.
For the Palestinian national movement, the October War in 1973 was a
demarcation line in strategic thinking. It is then that we concluded
that there was no military solution to the conflict. ntil then we had
advocated a unitary, democratic, bicultural, multiethnic and
pluri-confessional state in Mandatory Palestine.
After 1973, a pragmatic coalition within the Palestine Liberation
Organization emerged. Composed of Yasser Arafat's Fatah, Nayef
Hawatmeh's Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and As
Sa'iqa, the Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party, the
coalition demanded not absolute justice but rather possible justice
within the framework of a two-state solution. The fact that As Sa'iqa
belonged to that school of thought, it is worth noting, is proof that
Damascus can be a constructive player in the region if properly
engaged and its concerns addressed. Syria is not necessarily the
eternal spoiler that needs to use the Lebanese theater or the
Palestinian scene in order to remind everyone of its presence.
Led by this pragmatic coalition, the PLO was ready for a historical
compromise as far back as 1974. It was not the rejectionist player,
as many have labeled it, but rather the rejected party until the Oslo
peace talks in 1993. Throughout its presence in Lebanon, the PLO
aimed to remain a military factor so as to be accepted as a
diplomatic actor.
I have told my many Israeli interlocutors that I believe that the
Israeli posture in peace negotiations was to expect a diplomatic
outcome that would reflect Israeli power and intransigence, American
alignment toward Israeli preferences, declining Russian influence,
European abdication, Arab impotence and what they hoped to be
Palestinian resignation.
It is this attitude that has resulted in having a durable peace
process instead of a lasting and permanent peace. Peace and security
will stem not from territorial aggrandizement but from regional
acceptance - and make no mistake about it, we Palestinians are the
key to regional acceptance of Israel. For years now, the Arab world
from Morocco to Muscat has been ready to recognize the existence of
Israel if it withdraws back from its expanded 1967 borders. The
perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is due not to the Arab
rejection of Israeli existence, but to the Israeli rejection of Arab
acceptance.
The absence of a credible diplomatic avenue has allowed for the
emergence and the strengthening of radical movements. The electoral
defeat of Fatah in January 2006 was caused by a plurality of factors,
not least of them the fact that Fatah became identified with
negotiations and a peace process that was non-existent for the last
six years and totally unconvincing during the years preceding. To the
Palestinians, the last 15 years of `peacemaking' were years during
which we witnessed the expansion of the occupation - with the number
of settlers doubling - not a withdrawal from the occupation.
Now, however, there is a chance to move beyond this history. As a
result of the agreement reached last week in Mecca, the Palestinian
government will be more representative than at any period before. The
new foreign minister, Ziad Abu Amr, both enjoys the confidence of
Hamas and is a political friend of Mahmoud Abbas - who as PLO
chairman is charged with negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian
people and as P.A. president has prerogative over the conduct of
foreign affairs.
Both Fatah and Hamas are in favor of a cease-fire, for which they can
now ensure disciplined Palestinian adherence - especially if it is
reciprocated by the Israeli side and extended to the West Bank, where
alas we have recently witnessed an escalation in assassinations and
arrests. And in Mecca, Hamas and Fatah agreed that the Palestinian
government will honor all agreements signed by the PLO, will abide by
all the resolutions of previous Arab summits and will base its
activity on international law.
The term `honor,' rest assured, has as much a ring of nobility to it
in Arabic - if not more - as it does in any other language.
A territory that was occupied in 1967 in less than six days can also
be evacuated in six days - so that Israelis can rest on the seventh,
and we can all finally engage in the fascinating journey of
nation-building and economic recovery.
Afif Safieh is head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission
to the United States.
"The Forward"
Feb 17 2007
We Palestinians Will Honor Our Word
Sun, 2007-02-18 01:44
By Afif Safieh*
I know of no way to measure suffering, no mechanism to quantify pain.
All I know is that we Palestinians are not children of a lesser God.
Had I been a Jew or a Gypsy, I would consider the Holocaust to be the
most atrocious event in history. Had I been a Native American, it
would be the arrival of the European settlers and the subsequent
near-total extermination of the indigenous population. Had I been an
African American, it would be slavery in previous centuries and
apartheid in the last. Had I been an Armenian, it would be the
Turkish massacre.
I happen to be a Palestinian, and for Palestinians the most atrocious
event in history is what we call the Nakba, the catastrophe. Humanity
should consider all the above as morally unacceptable, all as
politically inadmissible. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not comparing
the Nakba to the Holocaust. Each catastrophe stands on its own, and I
do not like to indulge in comparative martyrology or a hierarchy of
tragedies. I only mention our respective traumas in order to
illustrate that we each bring to the table our own particular
history.
The fact that the accords reached last week in Mecca between Hamas
and Fatah were met with a variety of reactions, ranging from warm to
cautious to skeptical, makes it imperative to revisit and learn the
lessons of the diplomatic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Time
and again the three `no's' of the Khartoum summit in 1967 - no peace
with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel
- are invoked as proof conclusive of Arab intransigence toward
Israel. Such a claim, however, conveniently forgets that Gamal Abdel
Nasser's Egypt and Jordan accepted United Nations Security Council
resolution 242 just months after the Khartoum meeting.
Also forgotten is that Syria, after the October War in 1973 - the
purpose of which, it should be remembered, was to reactivate a
dormant diplomatic process and to capture the attention of American
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger - accepted U.N. resolution 338,
which incorporated resolution 242. Ignored, too, is that the entire
Arab world endorsed a peace plan put forth by the then-Saudi crown
prince Fahd at a 1982 summit in Fez, Morocco, as well as unanimously
backed the initiative put forth by then-Saudi crown prince Abdallah
in Beirut in 2002.
For the Palestinian national movement, the October War in 1973 was a
demarcation line in strategic thinking. It is then that we concluded
that there was no military solution to the conflict. ntil then we had
advocated a unitary, democratic, bicultural, multiethnic and
pluri-confessional state in Mandatory Palestine.
After 1973, a pragmatic coalition within the Palestine Liberation
Organization emerged. Composed of Yasser Arafat's Fatah, Nayef
Hawatmeh's Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and As
Sa'iqa, the Palestinian branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party, the
coalition demanded not absolute justice but rather possible justice
within the framework of a two-state solution. The fact that As Sa'iqa
belonged to that school of thought, it is worth noting, is proof that
Damascus can be a constructive player in the region if properly
engaged and its concerns addressed. Syria is not necessarily the
eternal spoiler that needs to use the Lebanese theater or the
Palestinian scene in order to remind everyone of its presence.
Led by this pragmatic coalition, the PLO was ready for a historical
compromise as far back as 1974. It was not the rejectionist player,
as many have labeled it, but rather the rejected party until the Oslo
peace talks in 1993. Throughout its presence in Lebanon, the PLO
aimed to remain a military factor so as to be accepted as a
diplomatic actor.
I have told my many Israeli interlocutors that I believe that the
Israeli posture in peace negotiations was to expect a diplomatic
outcome that would reflect Israeli power and intransigence, American
alignment toward Israeli preferences, declining Russian influence,
European abdication, Arab impotence and what they hoped to be
Palestinian resignation.
It is this attitude that has resulted in having a durable peace
process instead of a lasting and permanent peace. Peace and security
will stem not from territorial aggrandizement but from regional
acceptance - and make no mistake about it, we Palestinians are the
key to regional acceptance of Israel. For years now, the Arab world
from Morocco to Muscat has been ready to recognize the existence of
Israel if it withdraws back from its expanded 1967 borders. The
perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is due not to the Arab
rejection of Israeli existence, but to the Israeli rejection of Arab
acceptance.
The absence of a credible diplomatic avenue has allowed for the
emergence and the strengthening of radical movements. The electoral
defeat of Fatah in January 2006 was caused by a plurality of factors,
not least of them the fact that Fatah became identified with
negotiations and a peace process that was non-existent for the last
six years and totally unconvincing during the years preceding. To the
Palestinians, the last 15 years of `peacemaking' were years during
which we witnessed the expansion of the occupation - with the number
of settlers doubling - not a withdrawal from the occupation.
Now, however, there is a chance to move beyond this history. As a
result of the agreement reached last week in Mecca, the Palestinian
government will be more representative than at any period before. The
new foreign minister, Ziad Abu Amr, both enjoys the confidence of
Hamas and is a political friend of Mahmoud Abbas - who as PLO
chairman is charged with negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian
people and as P.A. president has prerogative over the conduct of
foreign affairs.
Both Fatah and Hamas are in favor of a cease-fire, for which they can
now ensure disciplined Palestinian adherence - especially if it is
reciprocated by the Israeli side and extended to the West Bank, where
alas we have recently witnessed an escalation in assassinations and
arrests. And in Mecca, Hamas and Fatah agreed that the Palestinian
government will honor all agreements signed by the PLO, will abide by
all the resolutions of previous Arab summits and will base its
activity on international law.
The term `honor,' rest assured, has as much a ring of nobility to it
in Arabic - if not more - as it does in any other language.
A territory that was occupied in 1967 in less than six days can also
be evacuated in six days - so that Israelis can rest on the seventh,
and we can all finally engage in the fascinating journey of
nation-building and economic recovery.
Afif Safieh is head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission
to the United States.
"The Forward"