“IT IS AN ERROR TO BELIEVE THAT CHANGING THE US PRESIDENT AUTOMATICALLY MEANS A CHANGE IN THE US STAND ON THE MIDDLE EAST”: INTERVIEW WITH YASSER ABED RABBO

By Miren Gutierrez Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

JERUSALEM, Jul 30 2004 (IPS) - He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and co-author of the Geneva Accord, a negotiated but unofficial plan for a permanent peace between Israelis and Palestinians. According to the plan, in exchange for peace with Israel, the Palestinians would gain a non-militarised state and sovereignty over the Temple Mount (with Jewish access to the holy spot), while Israel would keep certain West Bank settlements, including many of the new Jewish communities erected on the Arab side of Jerusalem. Yasser Abed Rabbo talks with IPS about Gaza, the crisis in the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and terrorism.

Any withdrawal from the occupied territories is in itself positive. However, Sharon’s plan for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is designed with a number of destructive elements. In the absence of a proper negotiation process between Israel and the elected Palestinian leadership, unilateral withdrawal remains a tool for Sharon and his government to perpetuate the Israeli occupation on the West Bank because Sharon made it quite clear in the past that his plan does not involve anyPalestinian leadership, … because, as he claims, there is no one to talk to on the Palestinian side.

Needless to say, such an approach is a recipe for further fighting. By unilaterally withdrawing, Sharon is sending a dangerous message to thePalestinian street. He is saying that violence pays.

About two years ago, there was a hope that a renovation process within the PLO would have given more say to younger politicians. Not only has the process been frozen; now it seems there is a power struggle within the PNA between Arafat and Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, more serious because there have been armed protests against the former (masked guerrillas briefly took over a PNA building in Gaza after Arafat nominated a close relative as head of the Palestinian security service).

Notwithstanding their serious ramifications for the Palestinian people, I do not agree that events in Gaza were part of a power struggle. Reform of the PNA has always been a demand of various factions of the Palestinian people since the PNA was established in 1994. The last attempt to start a genuine reform processwithin the PNA was during the Mahmoud Abbas government, [which] collapsed because the Israeli government gave in to pressure from Palestinian militant groups and suspended all talks after attacks by those groups.

We have always argued that the suspension of talks as a result of attacks only gives those militant groups veto power to disrupt any peace efforts in the region. The Israeli government obviously did not agree with this.

In spite of opposition from both sides, the Geneva Accord signed in December 2003 had a positive impact on the negotiating environment. Today, those hopes seem to be misplaced.

The Geneva Accord was born out of the mutual need of both of us, Palestinians and Israelis, to stop the cycle of violence and to return to the negotiations table. The fact that the Accord, or at least the main parameters of the accord, have not been adopted or accepted by the Israeli government gave way to more confrontation and further casualties on both sides. After winning international support for the accord, we are nowin the midst of local campaigns to get the maximum support for the Geneva Accord from our constituencies on both sides of the divide.

It is a very tough job. We have found that people on both sides, while they support the parameters and the principles outlined in the accord… , are still very hesitant to support [it] openly because they cannot see beyond the daily suffering andinto a future where a peace agreement signed by an Israeli government is possible. The worst enemy we face nowadays is people losing hope in a negotiated settlement. Palestinians terrorised by endless incursions and attacks of the Israeli army cannot play the role of peace prophets whentheir lives are in constant danger. The same applies to the Israeli public.

The Sharon government’s tougher approach with air strikes and incursions followed by waves of suicide attacks has not done much to pacify the land,but what about the unwillingness or failure of the PNA to stop terrorism?

There is a mistaken understanding among many countries that the PNA has done nothing to stop attacks on Israel. This is totally unfair… When peace prevails between the two sides and they seem to be making any kind of progress, the PNA’s role in mobilising its people against the militant groups becomes easier. Theopposite is true too. When people do not see any hope on the horizon and are subjected almost on a daily basis to attacks, incursions, assassinations, house demolitions, confiscation of lands, and the building of the Separation Wall, they … return to that vicious cycle of violence andvengeance. In the past four years, the PNA security apparatuses and itsinfrastructure have been systematically targeted by the Israeli army.

Today Israel is behaving like one who killed the messenger only to claim that there is no message. Despite this, we still believe that law and order are first and foremost a Palestinian interest and we are trying with our limited resources to bring back quiet and stability.

What is your opinion about the presidential elections in the US?

There has been a wide misconception among many people that changing the US president automatically means a change in the US standon the Middle East. We think that the flow of events dictates the kind of day-to-day policies the US adopts on the Middle East while maintaining its strategic stand as a whole. Regardless of who wins the elections, President Bush has set the foundations for any future US administration byemphasizing his vision for a two-state solution achieved through the implementation of the Road Map for Peace. We hope that whoever wins the upcoming elections will embark on this vision as a strategic goal of the US administration. Such a vision is much more important than siding with or against the government of Sharon. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)