Hurtling toward the abyss: Hanan Ashrawi interviewHANAN ASHRAWI and JON ELMERFromOccupiedPalestine.org, 21 November 2002Jon Elmer, FromOccupiedPalestine.org: The pro-Israel lobby went on a rabid campaign of defamation and intimidation when you were announced as the winner of the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. To certain symbolic lengths, they succeeded: Sydney University withdrew the use of the Great Hall for the ceremony, the Lord Mayor of Sydney disassociated the city with the award. The former chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation was quoted as having said to Stuart Rees, the current director: "I have to speak logically. It is either Hanan Ashrawi or the Peace Foundation. That's our choice, Stuart. My distinct impression is that if you persist in having her here, they'll destroy you" [Robert Fisk, "When did Arab become a dirty word?" Independent, 6 November 2003]. Were you at all surprised by the reaction to your selection?Hanan Ashrawi: I was surprised by the intensity of the reaction, and what I call the hate-campaign. I have received many awards and have spoken all over the world, and this is the first time that such a small minority managed to spew forth so much poison, lies, disinformation, slander, defamation... I couldn't understand the drive, the motivation of the few hundred people who managed to create clouds of disinformation in Australia.I knew that it was not the whole Jewish community - the Jewish community is not monolithic, and I got lots of support from the majority of them. It was a very small minority of extreme right-wing, hard-line enthusiasts, zealots, who decided that no Palestinian could get any recognition. It was a process of dehumanization and exclusion. But it backfired. It mobilized people who were either intimidated or who were not active. It also brought out people from the Jewish community who felt that this was way beyond repair. It did them a disfavour. It brought out the Palestinian and Arab-Australian community, as well as the peace-camp in Australia. I was amazed - thousands came out. Two halls were filled, as well as people outside. The negative protests were a handful, but the positive protests were in the thousands. So, as usual, they shot themselves in the foot, and many of them admitted that they chose the wrong battle and that they should not have done it.Elmer: Is there a level of desperation involved in these hate-campaigns? Ashrawi: Yes, and I think that there is a level of escalation that comes with having such an extreme government - this is the most extreme, right-wing, hard-line government, and the most militaristic and ideological government in the history of Israel. Sharon notwithstanding: it is the military, the ideologues and the fundamentalists all together in one government. It is amazing. So in a sense they have legitimized a language of hate and exclusion that was never acceptable among other governments. The language of this government, its tactics, and what it has done, has empowered the hate language abroad. I think there is a degree of desperation in that the Israeli occupation is being exposed for what it is. They can not longer carry things out in secret, in the dark, whether it is the assassinations, the home demolitions, the siege, the horrible apartheid wall, the daily and deliberate cruelty to the Palestinians. Public opinion in the West is shifting, no matter how much they try and mobilize their own allies and hire expensive Public Relations firms and so on. The truth is coming out.Elmer: One example of that is the recent European Commission poll of 7,500 citizens from all 15 European member states, 59% of whom said that Israel is the "biggest threat to world peace". Under the charge of anti-Semitism, the President of the European Commission actually apologized to Israel for the opinion of its citizens [Sydney Morning Herald, 5 November 2003]. How significant is this type of capitulation in terms of the EU as a player, a broker in the peace process - especially given their important role at a time when American-Israeli rejectionism is at and all-time high.Ashrawi: The EU has been excluded and shoved aside by the Americans and by Israel. Even the Quartet as a whole, as a mechanism, has been sidelined. The US thinks it has a monopoly on the peace process. And of course, this is part of the 14 reservations that Israel had on the Roadmap: they didn't want to deal with anybody but the American administration. The EU and the Quartet have been excluded even from monitoring and verification, let alone policy-making and oversight. So, I am not talking about the official level of the EU, because quite often they weigh their relations with the US on the basis of self-interest. They will not enter into a confrontation with the US on the basis of Palestine, for example. They will when it comes to issues like Iraq - they have the question of funding, the question of their own interests, and so on. But when it comes to the peace process they have allowed the US to call the shots, and they were willing to play the game according to American rules. And they say so: 'We are not competing with the US, we are not an alternative to the US, we are not working at cross-purposes with the US, we will not undermine them.' This is constantly repeated. But the US has undermined and excluded them. So even though many people say the official European position is better than the American position in terms of its recognition of Palestinian self-determination and so on, it is still not translated into policy, and they still play second-fiddle to the US. Public opinion in Europe is much more knowledgeable and active. It is closer, it is more informed, it is more involved, it's an activist public opinion. So you will see huge demonstrations, not just anti-war but pro-peace, pro-Palestinian/Israeli peace, pro-human rights, and so on. And that was reflected in the poll that said that 59% saw Israel as a threat to world peace, because they know Israel has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, that it is totally non-transparent and totally unaccountable, and acting with full impunity. And they know what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and they know it is a major destabilizing factor throughout the region, and it is a source of extremism. Nobody apologizes for the public opinion poll, nobody castigates a whole population - it is their opinion. It's ridiculous. Elmer: In an interview in Ha'aretz entitled "Maximum Jews, Minimum Palestinians," Israeli Cabinet Minister, Ehud Olmert, said that because of demographics the Palestinians are quickly losing interest in the two-state solution. He called for a unilateral Israeli drawing of the borders of a Palestinian state, for in not too long the Jews will be a minority on this land. "That would mean the end of the Jewish State" [Ha'aretz, 14 November 2003]. Can you comment on this?Ashrawi: It's not a question of demography, you see, that is playing by racist rules. Palestine has historically been pluralistic. It has never been exclusive to either ethnic or religious groups. It has always been open and diverse, historically. So to reduce the issue to one of demography is not only racist, it misses the point. I don't believe that there should be any exclusivist approach, whether Palestinian or Israeli. However, the essence of Zionism as the building of a state that is exclusively or predominantly Jewish, in a sense is being negated by Sharon's extremist policies - any ideology taken to an extreme will self-negate. Zionism has been self-negated, as it continues to steal land thinking that it can have the land without the people. They will not be able to carry out massive ethnic cleansing, or repeat the tragedy of 1948. The Palestinians are not going to disappear, or expel themselves, or become another wave of refugees. And in that sense, yes, the Palestinians in historical Palestine will ultimately become a majority. But there are Palestinian Muslims, there are Palestinians Christians and there are Palestinian Jews – that is the issue. That is what scares people like Olmert and others who want to preserve the purity of the Jewish state by separation. Olmert's statements are extremely racist because he wants to have the land without the people. He is redrawing borders unilaterally from a position of power and occupation, to annex over 50% of the West Bank in places where there is more land and fewer people. They will end up implementing the Sharon policy of the Bantustans, the isolated ghettos, the 'population centres' - you can call them whatever you want - provided Israel can annex 58% of the West Bank. They are willing to leave us with about 42% of the West Bank in these ghettos, and they are willing to surround us with settlements and security fences... We will be like animals in the zoo. And that certainly would destroy the chance of a two-state solution. I have no problem with a two-state solution, but I want Palestine to be pluralistic, even if it is only 22% [West Bank and Gaza Strip] of historical Palestine. But we are not going to call these Bantustans a state. They are not going to get away with it. And there is no unilateral solution based on force or violence.Elmer: What role does the Wall play in all of this?Ashrawi: The Wall creates unilateral boundaries. The Wall is a political wall. It is a wall of annexation, a wall of apartheid, and a wall of imprisonment. It is imprisoning Palestinians, and it is creating facts on the ground that are ending the possibility of a Palestinian state with any territorial contiguity or viability. It is stealing water sources, it is stealing fertile land, it is isolating entire Palestinian communities and villages. And it is creating eight separate ghettos, reserved for Palestinians, in the belly of Israel, surrounded by this horrible wall. They think that the Palestinians will accept their captivity, and accept the transformation of the West Bank from a massive prison to a series of isolation cells. Elmer: In a recent poll 85% of Palestinians said that the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and 90% called for reform. Can elections or reform take place under the climate of Israeli siege? Is the stalemate scenario of corrupt and incompetent leadership doomed to continue as long as the siege continues?Ashrawi: We should have systems of accountability within Palestine. There is no excuse for corruption, abuse of power, and misuse of public funds. I am not an apologist for this type of abuse. I will not accept it. There are areas that are under our control, issues that are under our control, that we should discharge with honesty, with integrity, and with responsibility. The Palestinian people deserve a system of governance that is honest, that is transparent, and that looks after them and their interests rather than individual self-interest in a power struggle. So it think that reform is not only possible, it is imperative, even under occupation. We lived under occupation for decades and we had elections, even underground. We taught underground when schools and universities were closed, we built our own reality and we showed the true meaning of civil resistance - not to accept the distorted reality imposed by force of arms, by the occupation, but to create our own reality, a human, democratic, active and vibrant reality, and to survive and to thrive. Now we find ourselves facing two problems. On the one hand, among the Authority, and I am not generalizing, you have people who abuse their power and their public trust. Within the opposition you have people who have usurped the decision - without being elected - that they have the right to carry out suicide bombings in the name of all Palestinians. So we ended up being reduced to this dual label of corruption and terrorism. Internationally, globally, in terms of peoples' perception, we have lost the humanity, the integrity and the justice of the cause. People deal with us through these reduced stereotypes and labels. This is unfair. Both the Authority and the opposition have to stop, and it is our turn, as the people, the civil society, to hold them accountable and make them stop. They are doing the Palestinian people a disservice; they are undermining the justice and integrity of our cause.Elmer: From the Israeli point of view, the 'peace-process' has always been a security arrangement rather than a political solution to the conflict.Ashrawi: Well, that is the issue. And they define security only as military. We define security as human security - not just personal, but territorial, economic, geographic, historical, identity, existential, there are all sorts of different aspects to human security. The Israelis have defined their own security as military security, as personal security based on military force. This is not only regressive, it is counter-productive. They have placed their version of security as an exclusive right, regardless of the occupation and the total destruction of the security of the Palestinians in every way shape or form. This is a non-starter. This is no way to bring about security to either people. Security is not a pre-requisite to peace. If we were all secure and happy we wouldn't need a peace process, we wouldn't need a solution. You sign agreements in order to bring security to both people. An occupier cannot expect a pleasant and safe and moral and happy occupation, and cannot expect to tame a people under occupation or expect them to accept their captivity, and lie down and die quietly. There is no such thing as a moral occupation or a safe occupation. All of these negative waves and aspects of behaviour are a result of the occupation itself. It is post-neo-colonial colonialism, and that has to be addressed as the cause. And of course the historical rectification of the Palestinian tragedy has to take place. That is how you resolve the issue of security for everybody.Elmer: On that note, let me ask you about the Geneva Initiative. I have just spent three months in Palestine and many people have said to me that the Geneva Initiative does not adequately deal with the Palestinian refugees, does not deal acceptably with the diaspora Palestinians who comprise, what, 60% of the Palestinian population. Can you comment on this? Can there be a peace settlement that does not justly deal with the Palestinian refugee question?Ashrawi: No, there is no way in which you can have genuine peace if you do not solve and address in a just and comprehensive way the Palestinian refugee question. This is an essential human aspect, not just a demographic question. You cannot tell five and a half million Palestinians 'We have a solution that excludes you or perpetuates the injustice to you.' There has to be a just solution to the refugee question if there is to be a legitimate and lasting solution to the conflict.The Geneva Initiative, like many others of its kind, is useful in a way because it breaks the monopoly on political discourse that the extremists have. It tells people on both sides that they can talk peace, that there is an impetus for peace, that there are partners on either side. Maybe it is a starting point, I don't really think it's a final point. I don't think one should look at it as a finished deal. It probably is just a statement in the making in order to generate negotiations. I don't know how far they will go with it, but certainly when there are serious official negotiations all of these issues have to be put on the table and addressed legally and with justice. Elmer: After three months of hearing that the Roadmap is dead, the UN Security Council unanimously passed it yesterday.Ashrawi: Israel has been busy systematically massacring the Roadmap. The incorporation of the 14 reservations in the implementation, if not in the text, have undermined the essence of the Roadmap. The Americans said that they would not change the text, but that they would take the Israeli reservations into consideration when it came to implementation. So they have begun adopting the Israeli approach – a sequential approach, conditionality, exclusion of the Europeans, the UN and the Quartet. And now the Palestinians are supposed to turn the other cheek, to uniformly become perfect Christians while Israel can kill and destroy and steal land and build walls and so on without accountability. The Roadmap is being distorted and hijacked by Israel.Both Israel and the US fought against having the Roadmap go to the Security Council - despite the fact that the US became one of the, if not the, major drafter of the Roadmap. The US has repeatedly refused to allow any issue to go to the Security Council and to be passed without an American veto, or without this new stipulation that the resolution has to condemn Palestinian terrorism, including Hamas and Jihad by name. So, I wonder whether the Roadmap will suffer the same fate as other resolutions, starting from 181 through 242, 338, 339, up to 1397, 1402, 1403...Israel immediately said that it is not going to comply, that it doesn't care, and that it will go on building the wall, that it will not withdraw, that it will not remove the settlements or outposts. So what do you do? You have a rogue country, clearly, that has historically refused to implement every single UN Resolution. And now there is another resolution. Is this just another part of a sinister pattern or will there be political will to make Israel comply? I doubt it. In his speech yesterday in London, Bush said that Israel should stop building the wall. So, the Israelis thumbed their nose at him again, yet Bush will go on saying, Sharon is a "man of peace."Elmer: You closed your acceptance speech in Sydney by saying, "we are hurtling toward the abyss" –does the future hold hope for a sea change in the longest military occupation in modern history?Ashrawi: Well, when I talk about hurtling toward the abyss it doesn't mean that I am very hopeful. But I am confident that no matter how bad things get, there is a determination, a will, a spirit on the part of the Palestinian people, and counterparts throughout the world, who believe in justice, who believe in a just peace, who haven't given up, who haven't surrendered to despair and destruction, who haven't abandoned their will. That's my confidence. It comes from a real belief in the justice of the cause and in the inevitability of a just solution. There can be no stability, no security, no peace for anyone in the region if there is no genuine and just resolution to the Palestinian question. It is a matter of time and determination. We were slated for obliteration in 1948, we were told that we didn't exist. People thought we would disappear, people thought we would be dissolved, people thought we would accept the fact of our negation. But we didn't. We persisted, we endured, we stayed on our own land, with our own culture and history and rights. And we will continue. All colonial experiences have failed, and all colonizers have learned that you cannot subjugate a nation, a people, forever. Armies can defeat other armies, but they cannot defeat the will of a people. This is a lesson that Israel has to understand. And I am confident there will be a new leadership in Israel. The failed and tragic policies of Sharon, Mofaz and their ilk will be proven to the Israeli people – and everyone else - as lethal. I am sure that there will be an awakening, as we are witnessing, among Israeli public opinion. There will be a change and there will be genuine solidarity and support globally for the Palestinian people. And ultimately Israel will be treated like any other state: not above the law, and not with preferential treatment. Hanan Ashrawi is an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a former spokeswoman for the PLO. She is the founder and Secretary General of MIFTAH - The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy - and the author of several books, including This Side of Peace: a personal, insider account of the negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords. She has been a member of the Palestinian delegation in peace negotiations in various capacities since the 1991 Madrid Conference. Jon Elmer is the editor of the online journal FromOccupiedPalestine.org. He has been reporting from Palestine since September and is currently in Rafah, Gaza Strip. * Interview conducted in Ramallah, 21 November 2003