The Unreasonably Reasonable Ambassador (part 2)

The Palestine Chronicle interviews His Excellency, Afif Safieh,Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Ambassador to the US

If one has grievances concerning Hamas, it is never of a Christian
nature because there was no Hamas misbehavior against Christians.

Sherri Muzher: On April 11, the Reuters wire service quoted former MidEast envoy for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Canon Andrew White, and he was quoted as saying: “(Christians) are suffering from both Islamic extremists and Israeli security concerns.” Now, with the recent victory of Hamas, which has long stated that its goal is to establish an Islamic state in Palestine, what do you say to anxious Palestinian Christians?

Afif Safieh: First of all, I have known Canon Andrew White and I never agreed with him. I think he is profoundly pro-Israeli and was a poor choice for an envoy by the former Archbishop of Canterbury. I totally disagree with his vision that we Christians in the Middle East are cornered between Islamic fundamentalism and the Israeli Occupation. Palestinian Christians have suffered mainly from ethnic cleansing by the Zionist movement in ’48 with Christians abundantly present in those cities conquered in ’48, such as Jaffa, Haifa, Lyd, Ramleh, and West Jerusalem.

I have no ideological affinities to Hamas since I belong to the secular wing of Palestinian nationalism; however, Hamas is known to have been impeccable and extremely careful in its dealings with Christians. So, if one has grievances concerning Hamas, it is never of a Christian nature because there was no Hamas misbehavior against Christians. I can set everyone’s hearts at ease.

Hamas might not always make the wisest, strategic choices and one can have a dispute with Hamas on pragmatic and secular levels, but they have always been respectful of the Christian component of society. There is harmony between the Christian and Muslim components in Palestine. We are a diverse and pluralistic society, like any other society I know. And if one has reservations about some of Hamas’ ideology, it stems from one’s secular and dogmatic beliefs rather than because of their hostile attitude vis-a-vis a community or a minority in Palestine. No, luckily, we don’t have that type of problem in Palestine; we are burdened with many other problems. The dwindling number of Christians in Palestine is the result of that endless Occupation that has been as harsh against Christians as it is against Muslims.

And today, the Bethlehem area (comprised of Bethlehem, Beit Jala, and Beit Sahour) – the last area of Palestine where there is a significant Christian presence – lives in a horrible, horrendous, and demented situation where it is besieged by the Wall of Shame (the Apartheid Wall) that has totally strangled the city, suffocated its economy, and impeded the free movement of the society.

Today, all of Palestine is being deliberately plunged into what is called ‘de-development’ a concept that was created by Jewish Harvard scholar Sarah Roy, the daughter of Holocaust survivors. She has qualified Israeli policy in Palestinian society and on the Palestinian economy in the Palestinian territories as the deliberate process of de-development.

The Bethlehem area, for example, is a prime target for that policy, and today, Bethlehem is caged in within those walls that have been erected in defiance of the international will and international law.

Sherri Muzher: An article in the Jewish Forward called you one of the sharpest and most eloquent spokespersons on the Palestinian cause in the world, saying the job of pro-Israeli activists got tougher. What is it that you do that causes you to be viewed you as such a threat?

Afif Safieh: [Laughs] I found the article of Ori Nir to be a flattering article, and I hope that I can live up to the expectations that it might have given rise to. Only the future can decide if I’ve had a significant, noticeable impact or an insignificant passage in town. History has not yet given its verdict, but I hope that I will live up to the expectation that this segment of the article has given rise to ..

Sherri Muzher: Israeli unilateralism. Helpful or hurtful to peace?

Afif Safieh: Very hurtful to peace because Israeli unilateralism is the Israeli dictation of their conditions on everybody else. I believe that since the peace process in 1991 in Madrid and in 1993 in Oslo, the Israelis (including the Israeli Labor party, which has enjoyed an undeserved reputation around the world) wanted: a diplomatic outcome that would: deflect Israeli power and intransigence; the constant American alignment of the Israeli preference; Russian decline; European abdication; Arab impotence; and finally, what they hoped would be Palestinian resignation.

The name of the game constantly for successive Israeli governments has been how to acquire as much Palestinian geography as possible with as little Palestinian demography as possible. That’s the idea of the next unilateral move that Mr. Olmert is already planning. It’s a negative evolution; it would hurt Palestinian interests; and it would hurt the peace process and its credibility. Apparently, because of what I call the self-inflicted impotence of the international community, Olmert might again get away with it.

The self-inflicted impotence of the international community, in my opinion, is what has made the peace process for the last 12-13 years a farce. Too much was left to the negotiating partners to sort it out between themselves, but since we are speaking of two asymmetrical players – Israel the Occupier and the Palestinians the Occupied – the stronger partner was constantly tempted to dictate conditions, and the weaker party was left by itself to sort it out at the mercy of a very unfavorable military balance of power.

I have always been revolted at this self-inflicted impotence of the key players in the international system, and by that I mainly think of the American Administration – the Superpower of the world, yet it abdicates its responsibility and role in Israel/Palestine. And often, the American foreign policy is seen as a subcontract of Israeli strategy.

Sherri Muzher: By far the majority of the 78% of Palestinians who showed up on Election Day on January 25 voted for Hamas. If Hamas is forced to collapse, how will this affect the credibility of the US and its push for democracy in the Arab World?

Afif Safieh: First, Hamas received 44% of the votes and were the obvious winners. I believe Fatah succeeded in defeating itself in the elections because of multiple blunders they have committed. Yet I believe, as a democrat, that winners and losers have to behave gracefully . . . but it was no landslide.

Concerning American foreign policy, it has discredited itself, in my opinion. I have said so to my many interlocutors at the State Department. One cannot speak of democracy and democratization, yet then behave childishly when the results do not correspond to one’s preference. Sovereignty resides with the people.

We do not interfere in Israeli elections . . . and we do not change our expectations depending on who is elected in Israeli society. We consistently maintain the same demands independent of who the Israelis elect.

I think we Palestinians have become unreasonably reasonable and today, we geographically accept a two-state solution along the ’67 border, and if ever some territorial modifications are contemplated, they should be reciprocal on both sides of the border of equal quality and equal quantity. These principles have been accepted by the international community

The only capricious party has been the Israeli player. I would like for us to move from the dialogue by arms to the arms of dialogue. But what made the previous peace processes unconvincing was not terrorism, which I condemned, but territory. The territorial appetite of the Israelis has been a major factor of the collapse and failure of the previous peace processes. What we have witnessed since ’91 is the expansion of occupation, and not its withdrawal. During those years of theoretical peacemaking, the world has been the witness and the Israeli institutions have monitored that the volume of illegal settlements and settlers have doubled in number.

Sherri Muzher: There are some who say that democracy is not compatible with the culture of the Arab World. Thoughts?

Afif Safieh: I think it is a very racist theory. Democracy is not a western invention, but a universal achievement, and I am a fully-convinced democrat. I believe democracy has four components:

1. Constitutional pluralism;
2. Rule of the majority;
3. Respect for the minority; and
4. The last election should not be the last election

I am proud that since the mid-1960s, the Palestinian national movement has constantly been a diverse movement, and we have respected, cultivated, and protected the pluralism within the national movement. We have already had a Presidential election in 1996, a Presidential election in 2005, and a second legislative election in 2006 – so democracy is very much embedded in Palestinian society. It is part of our political culture. It was not an American export . . . we did not wait for neo-conservatives to be part of an intellectual framework of an American Administration to export it to us in the Middle East.

I personally believe that we can be proud of our society because under duress and occupation, we conducted those elections. Insufficient tribute was paid to Fatah, the leading party for the last 30-35 years, for having organized an election, lost that election, and allowed the peaceful passage of power from the losers to the winners.

But I am worried about American foreign policy today because I believe what should have been done is to entice, persuade, and bring in Hamas into a credible peace process. Now, attempts to rob Hamas of their electoral victory by pushing them toward failure and financial collapse will push the majority of Hamas to more militant approaches. I think the approach of the American Administration, maybe instigated by the Israelis, is extremely unwise.

I believe that Hamas, within its own ranks, is a pluralistic movement. The last years saw the rise of a pragmatic, democratic, modernistic wing. If Hamas is robbed of their electoral victory, the militant wing might again ascend.

For the last 14 months, there has been a Palestinian policy of pacification, which means a Palestinian unilateral ceasefire. And Hamas has been the most disciplined Palestinian faction in respecting this unilateral ceasefire even though it was never reciprocated by the Israelis. Hamas is ready to prolong the policy of pacification if it is reciprocated by Israel – a fact that should have been seen as encouraging.

But there is a theory in international relations, which I do not fully agree with, and that is that only hawks can be peacemakers. Only a Nixon could make diplomatic overtures to China; only a Begin could sign a peace with a Sadat; only a Sharon could withdraw from Gaza. I wonder why this theory is not also applied to Hamas by saying that maybe only Hamas can be engaged in a useful, fruitful, and binding future agreement.