INTERVIEW: HANAN ASHRAWI – “UNILATERAL DISENGAGEMENT PLAN IS A DIVERSION TACTIC”

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, Oct 10 2004 (IPS) - As Israel\’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza approaches its fifth decade, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is proposing a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The issue has created a contentious debate. In the meantime, people keep dying: since the beginning of the second Intifada in September 2000, around 3,500 Palestinians –including suicide attackers– and 960 Israelis have died as a direct result of the conflict, according to Agence France Presse. Hanan Ashrawi, an outspoken Palestinian scholar from Ramallah, educated in Lebanon and the U.S., speaks with IPS about Sharon\’s move and Palestine\’s perspectives.

The ”road map” was subjected to Israeli time-frames and dictates from the very beginning. Sharon has delayed the process twice for domestic reasons, has subverted the process with fourteen reservations, and at every step the Palestinian side has been excluded with the acquiescence of the Americans. Now, Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza is an attempt to distort things once again, to stop the peace process, to avoid both relinquishing land and stopping the settlements, negating the Palestinians any part. Sharon thinks: ”I can act on my own, dictate the rules.” His plan is a way to isolate Gaza from the West Bank, annex the major settlements, prevent a discussion on the Palestinian refugees, stop negotiations on Jerusalem, and continue building settlements. In other words, transform Gaza into a big prison, a time bomb, with no access to the outside world, without a sea port or an airport. He thinks he can attain all this simultaneously, and as Weissglas has said, prevent a Palestinian state from existing.

Many Israelis are convinced that the Palestinian leadership is sabotaging this latest opportunity by failing to prevent terror attacks on Israeli civilians, proving once again that there is no Palestinian interlocutor for peace. Do you think that Sharon’s move represents a genuine opportunity? Do you think that the Palestinian authorities could do more to improve the chances for peace?

This represents no opportunity whatsoever. The Palestinians would be happy to see any Israeli dismantlement of the occupied territories. But that is not the issue here. The ”road map” sought to negate the Palestinian side, the side of the weak. Now [Sharon’s move] represents no opportunity to re-launch the peace process, it has no link to the ”road map”, to the ”two states solution”; it is an attempt to destroy the requirements for a Palestinian state, a licence to go on with this cruel, daily assault on the Palestinian people.

On the other hand, Palestinians continue to believe that even if they dismantled the terrorist infrastructure, no government headed by Sharon orany other rightist Israeli leader would enterinto peace negotiations with them. Do you think there is a way out of these assumptions and prejudices?

This is not a position; it is an assessment of the situation based on Israeli declarations and actions. Sharon is not interested in the peace process or in negotiation. Weissglas has said that he won’t talk to us until we ”turn into Finns”. Well, we would like to see the Israelis turn into Finns first, with their corruption and serious problems of discrimination. Sharon is trying to impose impossible preconditions to dialogue; therefore all negotiations stop, and there is no political action. And his unilateral disengagement plan is a diversion tactic.

The Intifada seems to reinforce Sharon’s electoral ambitions, or in any case does not damage his stand, with Washington on his side, Europe divided, no unity among Arab countries, and a cornered Arafat. Is this picture accurate? Is there any reason for optimism?

The situation is grim, very bad. There is dysfunction everywhere. We see political dysfunction in Israel; we have dysfunction in the international arena, with the U.S’s biased position, now all wrapped up in the elections; the Europeans have been excluded from the ”road map”; and the Arabs are on the defensive and fragmented, still in shock, with new types of violence and terrorism emerging in the region, and a new occupation. In Palestine there are different types of dysfunction: we have a president besieged by bombs, the breakdown of law and order and the dismantlement of institutions, paralysis of the national decision-making process, and authority taken over by local military factions, security groups, and even dictated by tribal loyalties.

With regard to reasons for optimism, we keep trying to get the Europeans to act together with the UN and the Arab countries in order to shift this course and adopt a whole new approach, to attain a ceasefire by both sides, re-launch the peace process, release the president, and get back to reform and political decision making.

In 1996, you were appointed minister, but you resigned in 1998 in protestagainst political corruption within the cabinet. A few years ago, there was hope of a reform process in the government and the PLO. This process seems to be frozen. Why?

This is part of the internal dysfunction. The old guard is still holding on to power; we still need a system of accountability. But we need elections if we want new leadership. And to hold fair elections it is very important to provide the right atmosphere. With the president under siege and the continuous assaults, it is difficult.

Some observers say that the differences on the Middle East between Bush and Kerry, apart from their tactical differences on Iraq, do not run deep. What is your opinion?

Both candidates are competing to show greater loyalty to Israel. We have no illusions. We think that this is a long-term process which will take a lot of lobbying and influence, recruiting the Europeans and the U.N. to persuade whoever wins that to solve the Palestinian question is in the U.S interest, and that the U.S. must play a role of even-handedly leading the peace process without being complacent with Israel. And that not doing this is a major liability for American security. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)