The Israel-Arab Reader

by Walter Laqueur

  We must not lose hope. The vision of peace is not dead, but it suffered a heavy blow because of the Palestinian stubbornness. The Palestinians must deal with their extremist elements, and both sides must work together to prevent a deterioration into violence. . . .

  We have done our best, out of a moral and personal and government responsibility, to do whatever we can to put an end to a conflict of 100 years, not at any cost, and in a way, of course, that will strengthen Israel. But unfortunately, in spite of being ready to touch the most sensitive nerves, we have ended with no results.

  We will emphasize, under whatever circumstances, the security of Israel, the sacred values and interests of Israel, and the unity of our people. And if we have to face the challenge and fight for one of those, we will be ready to fight to the end. We were ready to end the conflict; we looked for an equilibrium point that will provide a peace for generations. But unfortunately, Arafat somehow hesitated to take the historic decisions that were needed in order to put an end of it. . . .

  We have considered, and some ideas were raised, that in order to make Jerusalem wider and stronger than at any time, in any previous time in the history of the city, we should consider annexing to Jerusalem cities within the West Bank beyond the 1967 border, like Maale Adumin and Givat Ze’ev and Gush Etzion, and in exchange for this to give to the Palestinians the sovereignty over certain villages or small cities that had been annexed to Jerusalem just after 1967. These ideas were raised, they were contemplated. But as the whole summit was run under the rules of “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” even those ideas are now null and void. . . .

  It’s painful to realize that the other side is not ripe for peace, but it’s always better to know the realities than to delude ourselves. And I still hope that when they will consider what are the real alternatives what await all of us down the stream, they will have an opportunity to make up their minds once again.

  The major, toughest kind of debate, or inability to bridge the gaps were about issues that have to do with Jerusalem. We believe that the ideas raised by the president was far-reaching and justified a kind of positive response from Arafat. They didn’t. And I should admit that even on other issues—especially the refugees—there are still wide gaps of a kind of conceptual nature, not just technical nature.

  So I believe that we made a long way, and the public debate within the Israeli public and within the Palestinian delegation is very important for the future contact. But unfortunately, we have to admit reality: we were unable as of now, basically as a result of unripeness on the Palestinian side, to achieve a deal, or strike a deal. . . .

  A year ago, I stood here—in Washington, in fact—and told that we— our government, my government—will do whatever it takes, and we’ll leave no stone unturned on the way to check whether it’s possible to make a peace with our neighbors without violating our vital interest. But I emphasized that it takes two to tango. We cannot impose it upon them. We are ready, and if a partner will be there, there will be peace.

  Now we did exactly this. We checked it. It’s very important for us, first of all, out of our responsibility, to make peace if it’s possible, but on the other end, at the same time, in order to be able to face the challenges of no peace with a united Israeli people that knows that its government made whatever it could to put an end to the conflict—and if there is no end to the conflict, somehow the responsibility is upon the other side. This is our basic position—and of course, the fact that such an attempt to touch for the first time in the whole history of the conflict the very core issues— refugees, Jerusalem—tried to solve that.

  When we find that it’s still unripe—of course I say with a certain kind of sorrow that it will influence, of course, the third further redeployment or the comprehensive agreement negotiations, since we cannot delude ourselves that we have not seen what we have seen in the last 12 days. And there is a need to continue from this point forward, not from a different kind of approach or track.

  PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat: Speech at the Arab Summit (October 21, 2000)

  . . . . The direct reason for holding this extraordinary summit is the wave of savage violence that our Palestinian people have been subjected to. This wave started when [Israeli opposition leader Ariel] Sharon desecrated the Al-Aqsa mosque and its compound [by visiting it on September 28, 2000]. With this premeditated step, that was conducted in concert with the Israeli government, Sharon set off a spark that spread from Jerusalem to every Arab, Muslim, and Christian city and village, including the cities and villages of Galilee and the Triangle.

  This visit was not simply a passing act like those committed by the settlers against our holy shrines; instead, it created a new dimension in the Arab-Israeli struggle. I remind you that when he was defense minister, and a minister in past governments before that, as well as an army commander, he was barred from visiting such holy shrines. Therefore, what took place was planned in collusion with the Israeli Government.

  A new, religious, dimension was added to the Arab-Israeli struggle. Everyone is well aware of the critical nature of this dimension, and knows how difficult it is to contain it and control its repercussions. The Israeli delegation detonated this dimension at the end of our talks in the second Camp David summit. When I say this step was premeditated, I say it because as soon as Sharon’s intention to conduct this visit was announced, we warned the Israeli Government of the dangers of what Sharon intended to do. We also warned the United States of this and informed our brothers, friends, and international forces of this.

  Instead of taking our warning seriously, the Israeli Government granted Sharon special permission to conduct the visit and even provided him with full military and security protection. He did not pay such a visit when he was defense minister and army commander in past governments. This reveals what was being planned against us.

  Our people, who were worshipping in Al-Aqsa, countered Sharon with their chests and naked fists, and prevented him from conducting this dangerous visit, forcing him to leave the holy place. The Israeli Government, however, did not forgive the Palestinian worshippers for their steadfastness, and committed a new massacre during Friday prayers in the Al-Aqsa mosque compound on the very next day. We all saw the bloody chapters of this massacre in the media.

  Your Majesties, Excellencies, and Highnesses, innocent blood was shed abundantly on the pure Al-Aqsa land. A new procession of honorable people of this nation was added to the martyrs who defend the holy places and who stand fast on this blessed land and defend its purity with faith and pride. There is no inch of Palestinian territory that has not been saturated with Arab blood that is dear to all of us. The blood that was shed in Al-Aqsa definitely unleashed the wrath in the hearts of our Palestinian masses everywhere in the homeland. The unarmed citizens rose to express their feelings in a legitimate spontaneous intifada to uphold Arab, Islamic, and Christian values in accordance with the Umarite Covenant. The Israelis cancelled this covenant, by claiming sovereignty over Al-Haram al-Sharif and forging its history and reality and saying it is the place where the temple was built, by licentiously attacking the worshippers in its mosques and those defending its honor and sanctity, or by attempting to Judaize holy Jerusalem and its Christian and Islamic holy places and imposing a siege on Bethlehem. We have repeatedly warned the United States, the European countries, and the friendly countries against the serious consequences of this rejected hypothesis. We also contacted all the peace-loving forces about this and told them that this would lead the region to religious wars with untold consequences. Since the eruption of Al-Aqsa intifada, our unarmed people have been facing the broadest collective extermination campaign and barbaric bombardment, coupled with an iron-clad and stifling siege by the Israeli war machine against more than 3 million Palestinians.

  The Israeli Government, supported by some international quarters, tried to portray the mass extermination campaign against our people as a military engagement between two military sides, and the expression
of the need to reach a framework for cease-fire between the two sides unjustly surfaced. However, this attempt failed as proved by the issuance of the recent UN Security Council Resolution 1322 condemning the Israeli aggression and calling for the formation of an international investigation committee whose task is to find mechanisms to prevent the recurrence of this unjust aggression. . . .

  Most of the Israeli political and military leaders admitted that they have been planning for more than one year to ignite this fire, that has not stopped until now and which inflicted more than 7,000 wounded and [193] martyrs . . . in addition to a large number of prisoners and missing, not to mention the economic and financial losses and the banning of our workers from working, thus placing more than 150,000 workers among the ranks of the unemployed. Large quantities of agricultural produce were destroyed, houses and establishments were demolished with missiles, and many colleges and even command and presidential centers and many other sites were set on fire and attacked. And do thou be patient, for thy patience is but from God. . . .

  We should . . . put a final end to all causes of aggression, killing, and suffering. This will happen only when Israel is forced to submit to international legitimacy, implement the signed agreements, stop aggression, open the international border posts, lift the siege on our cities and people, and withdraw from all the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories, including the Syrian territories and the last Lebanese territory in Shab’a.

  Israel should lift the siege on our cities and people and withdraw from all the Palestinian and Arab territories, including holy Jerusalem, the capital of our independent Palestinian state. It should also solve the issue of refugees justly on the basis of Resolution 194 and the other international resolutions.

  Brothers, I recall at this important meeting the fact that the Arab summits have always been the first to raise the banner of a just, permanent, and comprehensive peace. The Arab summits are the advocate of the loftiest and most important plan for peace in the Middle East, particularly after the Madrid peace conference.

  It is true that part of the just and comprehensive peace has been achieved on parts of our beloved Arab land, but the territory still under occupation in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon made the issue of peace in the Middle East a constantly explosive issue putting the region on the verge of danger. All that has been achieved will collapse if not complemented by what has not been achieved.

  This requires us all to examine with a great degree of seriousness and responsibility the means to provide real support for our Arab view of peace and our legitimate rights, while reminding the world, of which we are a vital part, that regional and international stability depends on fulfilling all Arab rights stipulated by international legitimacy resolutions. The international community, especially the peace process sponsors, the EU, China, Japan, Norway, the nonaligned countries, and all those who support the peace process, must shoulder their responsibilities toward the peace process.

  The bloody events that resulted from the Israeli aggression against our Palestinian people have shown that the dangers of the absence of a just and lasting peace are not limited to a specific geographical area; instead these dangers spread and threaten international security and stability.

  Allow me, dear brothers, to say more than this, and address the United States, not just because it is a peace process sponsor, but also because it is the world power with distinguished responsibilities on the universal level and because it is directly interested in all areas of conflict in our world. The Middle East peace process has suffered from the absence of the balance needed to offer real chances for the progress of this process and the reaching of effective results in it.

  The world undoubtedly clearly sees that the Middle East peace sponsor must not give any leeway in adopting international legitimacy as the legal bases of rights and obligations. Moreover, the sponsor must not stop the contributions of states interested in peace in our region.

  I would like to draw attention to an issue where political dimensions mix with morals, where the concept of impartial sponsorship of the peace process does not go in line with the excessively harsh stands against the Palestinian people. These stands are embodied in many of the U.S. Congress’s decisions, which adopt a stand hostile to the Palestinian people and their rights. Despite our extreme bitterness toward these stands, I objectively note U.S. President Bill Clinton’s positive stands, for whom we have respect and whose continuous work and initiatives to protect the peace process and push it forward we appreciate.

  Your majesties, your excellencies, your highnesses: Speaking from the highest Arab forum, I reiterate that despite all the scars and disappointments of the difficult trek of peace on the Palestinian track, we choose a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace. I reiterate that our goals are the liberation of our land, the establishment of our independent state on the blessed land of Palestine with holy Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of refugees based on international legitimacy resolutions, especially Resolutions 181 and 194.

  These goals, which our Palestinian People and Arab and Muslim nations agree on, and which the entire world and the UN support, must be realized this year. We have a natural right to self-determination. It is also the responsibility of our Arab nation and its struggling peoples, who support us and all Arab causes with strength, to offer all means of support to achieve these goals. Our people of revolutionary struggle, the people of the glorious intifada, whose waves will only stop with victory, pledge to every Arab, Muslim, Christian, and friend to continue their struggle using all legitimate means to reach victory.

  We call on you to take a true Arab stand of pride that is in line with the history of this glorious Arab nation, its capabilities, and the sacrifices of its steadfast peoples in protection of their holy shrines, land, and future. I would like to thank all our brothers and friends in the world who support our just struggle and cause. I would also like to thank them for their help at all levels.

  I conclude my speech by conveying the message of my people to you, the Arab leaders, calling on you to disregard all differences and reach inter-Arab reconciliation which will put the corner stone for a new Arab era that is in line with the status of our nation and the greatness of our pan-Arab goals. This also requires us all to end the siege imposed on the Iraqi people and make way for real and comprehensive Arab reconciliation and openness within our single Arab nation. For the sake of the children of Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and the rest of the Arab nation, we call on you to entrench unity and integration. . . .

  Marwan Barghuti: “The Israelis Must Leave the Territories” (October 26, 2000)39

  The intifada is a decision of the Palestinian people—not Fatah. Everything happens first on the ground. [We do not] determine what people do. . . . If tens of thousands of people have mobilized, it is on nobody’s orders. The Israelis have made me the intifada’s leader because I am seen in the media. President Yasir Arafat remains the nation’s leader; he takes the political decisions. And he support us. Without his support, the intifada could not continue. But he does not deal with the day-to-day details. People follow me only because I express what they expect. We have set up local coordinating committees of the movement. Some 30 parties are represented on them, from the Communists to the Islamists. Those committees determine the intifada’s progress from day to day. . . . The decisions are collective, but Fatah holds the majority on them. . . .

  Perhaps some people believed at the outset that this movement would stop quickly, but nobody can stop it. Perhaps some people among us still believe that the message sent by the intifada to Israel and the international community is now sufficient. But that is not my opinion. The movement will continue and must continue. . . .

  What would be the point of a return to calm? We were calm for seven years in order to give a chance to the negotiations, of which I have been a keen supporter.

  But the Israelis used that time in order to negotiate interim agreements which were never implemented and to continue their
policy of a fait accompli on the ground: The new settlements, the expropriations, the confiscation of land, the keeping of prisoners in the jails. Why should calm now be restored? So that they can resume the same policy? We have the right to self-determination, like all the peoples of the world.

  Some people believe: If Marwan al-Barghuthi gives the order to stop everything, everything will stop. That is wrong. People do not support me because I give orders but because I support them. They will stay with me as long as I express their opinion. If I no longer do so, they will be against me. . . .

  A withdrawal from the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 is our demand. And ending the occupation is the real reason for the current intifada. The intifada will last as long as the occupation lasts. After seven years, we have experience of the Israelis; we have had hundreds of meetings with them: They never let go of anything without being obliged to do so by force. I have nothing against the negotiations—on the contrary. But the rules of the game must now be changed. In the first place, they should agree to negotiate during the confrontations. Second, the monopoly exercised by the Americans must be broken, because the United States is not an honest mediator. The United Nations, the Europeans, and Russia should also be directly involved. . . .

  The Islamists—Hamas and Jihad—are in the local committees’ coordinating body called the “Committee of National and Islamic Political Forces.” Sometimes they have their own activities, as we do, but, on the whole, we cooperate well; we are very united. Fatah is leading the movement not because it is afraid of being outflanked by the Islamists but because it is its duty. . . .

  The Islamists sometimes shout slogans taken from the Koran referring to the Jews, but not “death to the Jews.” That is absolutely not in the tradition of Islam. Listen: I was first imprisoned at the age of 17. Between 1978 and 1988 I served six and a half years in prison for political activities, plus six months’ house arrest. I was expelled in 1987 by an order signed by Mr. Barak. I stayed in exile for seven years, until my return in 1994. What kind of life have I had? I was a keen supporter of Oslo. I want reconciliation with the Israelis. We are not extremists. The vast majority of the Palestinians still want peace and coexistence with Israel, which is and will remain our neighbor forever. But I do not want my children to experience what I have experienced.