Speaking to Dina Ezzat in Ramallah and Gaza respectively, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah appear far too much at odds to be able to join hands in leading one of the toughest struggles ever -- the Palestinian struggle for freedom and statehood Abbas: Better something than nothing In his search for what he calls "partial justice", Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says all Palestinians, including Hamas, need to commit to international legitimacy -- no matter how unfair it may be In his unassuming presidential office in Al-Moqattah in Ramallah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, called President Abu Mazen by Americans, Israelis and Arabs alike, looks tired, burdened and bored stiff. In his blue-grey suit that accentuates his ultra-grey hair and naturally grim looks, Abu Mazen claims neither the flamboyance of Hamas leaders -- now his political adversaries -- nor the charisma of the historic and controversial Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose grave in Al-Moqattah is only metres away. Typical of many other current Arab heads of state, especially those well-liked in the West and Israel, Abu Mazen seems to be his own self, with no pretense about him. He talks with ultra "realism", arguing that it was only when Palestinians pursued "realism" that they managed to extract some of their long-ignored rights. Even if for some it is too compromising, Abu Mazen's position could not be more down-to-earth. Palestinians must stick to international legitimacy, no matter how fallible it might get, so they can get something out of Israel and the world; the Roadmap offers all the answers for the transitional and final status Palestinian-Israeli talks and so must be pursued; back channel talks should be pursued with Israel on final status issues parallel to talks on transitional issues; and Hamas needs to either adapt to international legitimacy or step aside -- not down. During a 30-minute interview, the words "Palestinian struggle" did not come up once. Instead, Abu Mazen claimed the Oslo Accords, rejected by some Palestinian figures, was one of the best things that Palestinians had ever done for themselves. On the other hand, one of their most glaring mistakes was rejecting the call extended to them close to four decades ago by former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to participate in the Mena House talks. According to Abu Mazen , Palestinians need not suffer from the hardships imposed on them by the world, in the wake of the election of the Hamas government, in order to reach their elusive dream of an independent Palestinian state. Nor do they have to give up their dream of independence to lead a decent life. Abu Mazen is well aware that given its internal concerns, the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert is unlikely to be able to take any strategic or even practical decisions in the span of a few months. He simply seeks to use this time to put the Palestinian house in order, from his point of view, to be ready for negotiations once the Israelis put their own act together. This interview was conducted in Arabic in Mahmoud Abbas' presidential office in Ramallah. Below are excerpts: Is the Palestinian question being weakened under the current international and regional political imbalance or is it being resurrected under the firm positions taken by the Hamas government which are creating new facts on the ground? From international, regional and Arab perspectives the presence of Hamas now does not help at all for progress to be achieved. The problem is not with Hamas itself but rather with the ideas that Hamas is still engaging -- ideas that run counter to international legitimacy. This is why we thought of establishing a national unity government or a technocrat government whose work will be supervised for a while by Hamas through the National Council until we can get out of the current crisis. The US and the West are keen to implement the Roadmap. They just want the situation to be adequate for this. We are trying to create the right circumstances so that we can put the world before its responsibilities in relation to the implementation of the Roadmap. As far as we are concerned, the Roadmap has everything -- it has all the answers; it has the transitional and final status answers; it includes the vision of President Bush, the Arab initiative and all the relevant international resolutions including 242, 338, 1397 and 194. Things could move on parallel tracks... While working on the transitional talks we can also discuss the final status issues through what we have always called the back channel. But why insist on international legitimacy? Haven't Palestinian rights been long ignored by international legitimacy? No. International legitimacy has not been ignoring Palestinians. International legitimacy might have been slow, it might have been delayed or hampered, but this is no reason for us to say we do not want to implement international legitimacy. It is the duty of Palestinians to tell the world that we are committed -- if you start implementation. If we say we are not committed, then we would have relieved them [of everything]. Egyptians have a proverb: if you walk straight, you exasperate your enemy. Let us walk straight and we will see what others do. We tried this approach when we acknowledged resolutions 242 and 338 in 1988. When we later went to Madrid the world was obliged to deal with us. So you are willing to abide by international legitimacy even at the expense of your legitimate rights? If it is absolute justice we are judging by, then we would find ourselves in absolute grief. In 1947 Palestine was all ours; today we are only asking for 22 per cent. But this does not even amount to partial justice? International legitimacy offers partial justice. It is better we stick to that than to get nothing at all. The Israelis used to refuse to recognise the Palestinian people and their rights on their land. Today they acknowledge our right to statehood. This is progress. On the ground there is a Palestinian Authority. But do you not at all think, even for a moment, that it is useful to have Hamas in the government and that you should be using Hamas's firm stand to irritate the Israelis and the Americans? It is us who are being irritated. It is the Palestinians who have been living under siege for months. Anyway, in politics you cannot count on irritating someone. But in politics you can use some bargaining chips. You can say that it is not only Israeli society that is moving towards the right but also Palestinian society. Palestinian society is not moving towards the right. Palestinian society wants to lead a decent daily life and to see horizons of liberation. But which is more important: daily life or the state? If the Palestinians must sacrifice one, which one should it be? Why should he sacrifice either one? He can work for both and get both. But don't you think that if the Palestinians had some sort of deterrence they could move faster towards freedom? After all, Israel is a state that acts upon the principles of deterrence. And how could we have that deterrence? Don't you think Hamas could have provided that? Hamas has been around for [about] a year and it has delivered nothing. B ut Hamas offers the ghost of Islamisation, not just in Palestine but across the Arab world, and this is Israel's worst nightmare. I do not know about the entire Arab world. I only talk for the case of Palestine. The people of Palestine selected Hamas and now they are complaining about them. It is Fatah that is behind these complaints. No. The strikes are there. These strikes are motivated by daily suffering. If someone goes unpaid for six months, he does not need to be incited to strike. Aren't you concerned that the Palestinian question, which has been acknowledged for generations as a struggle of rights, is currently being reduced to issues of salaries, operations, crossing points...? No. No. This is entirely not true. The Palestinian question has not at all been reduced to a matter of salaries and crossing points. The Palestinian question is about the settlements, liberation, independence and Jerusalem. But this should not mean we overlook the daily concerns of the people. Don't you feel you are being dragged into an unnecessary confrontation with Hamas, under pressure from some Arab capitals who are prejudiced against Hamas for being a symbol of the Islamisation they dread? So in fact when Egypt is trying to marginalise Hamas, it is doing so... Egypt is not at all trying to marginalise Hamas; nor are we. It is just that we as a Palestinian Authority are working to be compatible with international legitimacy and we would welcome Hamas if it wishes to do so, but the fact of the matter is that it does not. And behind closed doors, some from within Hamas, be they in the West Bank, Gaza or overseas, say we need to adapt to international legitimacy. The fact of the matter is that Arab countries have a specific point of view. They have always asked us to acknowledge 242 and when we did, things moved forward. So in fact you regret that you have not followed the path of Sadat? But we did take the path of Sadat -- and even more. I meant do you regret having not been at the Mena House? I think that was a mistake... We should have been present and this would not have constituted any compromise on our part. Was that your worst mistake? It was one of them. Was it also a mistake to abandon the Washington talks in favour of Oslo? Oslo was not a mistake. In Oslo we agreed with the Israelis on transitional solutions and then final status issues. But then [Benjamin] Netanyahu was elected and then it was [Ehud] Barak. They hampered progress. Then it was the Intifada and everything was stalled. So the problem is not with Oslo. Then why are you now trying to pursue the international umbrella of the UN Security Council? Our objective of going to the UN Security Council is to find a way, any way, to implement the Roadmap. And do you think that [on the basis of the Roadmap] it is realistic to expect the establishment of a viable Palestinian state within five or even 10 years? Why five or 10 years? One or two years is enough if we have the right intentions. But if ou have been unable to put together a meeting with [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert for weeks over an exchange of prisoners, how can you realistically think that in one or two years you can have a state? The meeting with Olmert is not just about the prisoners' exchange. There is a long agenda... The trouble is that the Israeli prime minister does not have an answer to any of the questions on the agenda. If this is the case, how can you argue that you can have your independent and viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital in one or two years and not 20 years? The alternative for us is to accept the status quo. The Israelis would then say "let the Palestinians be as they are" and meanwhile the settlements would be further expanded and the whole question will be liquidated. We should not give up... We can get the whole world to take our side against Israel if we pursue a path acceptable to the world. But why didn't any of this happen before the election of Hamas. It has been years of endless negotiations led by Yasser Arafat who.... We have to accept reality as it is and deal with it... And if there is a window we have to stick to it. It is in our interest. Don't you feel at times tired or even desperate? I have so many concerns, and this comes with the responsibilities I am entrusted with, but I have not reached a stage of desperation. So you are not considering resigning? Not at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Haniyah: We will stick to political resolve In his defense of legitimate Palestinian rights and the decades-long struggle to attain them, the democratically-elected Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah rejects anything -- from the walls of a premier's residence to the rules of international political games -- that might segregate him from his people The house of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah is in the heart of Gaza's slums and refugee camps. The abode might not be the poorest in the explosive Strip but is certainly humble for a man who has put Americans, Israelis and for that matter some Arabs on alert over the consequences of the success of the increasingly appealing option of "political Islam". It comes as no surprise to the average Palestinian that unlike his Palestinian political adversaries, this unmistakably popular prime minister is not basking in the comforts of wealth. Consider six-year-old Latifa Ismail Haniyah, who, judging by the simple, somewhat over- worn play suit she wears, could pass for just another little girl in Al-Shatei Camp. But Latifa, who enjoys her father's genuine smile and glow of serenity, is the daughter of the Palestinian prime minister. As far as the average Gaza resident is concerned, even if Haniyah stays in office for several years, it is unlikely Latifa will grow to be like the daughters of some Palestinian Authority officials who, these residents bitterly observe, drive fancy cars in the morning along atypical smooth routes through Israeli checkpoints which keep other Palestinians stranded for hours. Haniyah's Palestinian political adversaries beg to differ. They argue that Haniyah and other Hamas figures are so enamoured with their newly-obtained power that they are willing to keep Palestinians in the occupied territories starving under the international siege just to remain in control. This is an argument Haniyah strongly rejects. The man who is so uncomfortable with being addressed "Mr Prime Minister" or "Excellency" that he blushes, insists that Hamas is on a mission to deliver to its people two objectives: good governance and political resolve. This, he says, is the project of all Palestinians, not just that of Hamas. Haniyah has no illusions about the difficulties his Hamas government is faced with, be it from within Palestine or outside. But observers say it is the faith that Hamas and the Palestinian people share that allows both to confront the difficulties ahead. The struggle for justice is a crucial concept for Haniyah who is willing to carefully approach the notion of international legitimacy but solely on the basis of Palestinian political resolve that would keep the Palestinian people, and Palestinian question, away from the "grip of the US". This said, Haniyah is also keen on avoiding having his government in what he qualifies as an artificial confrontation either with other Palestinian factions or with any Arab capital. The Palestinian struggle is only against Israeli occupation, he says. Haniyah seems interested in playing the game of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders but he dares the advocates of this project to deliver. This might be the reason why some Arab, Israeli and American officials qualify him as the "moderate face" of Hamas in comparison to Khaled Meshaal -- the Damascus-based Hamas leader -- the alleged extremist representative. For Haniyah, Hamas is one movement with one chain of command that allows for alternative views but follows one decision. This interview was conducted in Arabic in Ismail Haniyah's house in Gaza. Below are excerpts: You seem to be trapped in a serious crisis that could undermine your government, challenge the Hamas project and [everything] that Hamas stands for. What matters most to me is the Palestinian project. We work to protect this national project. Anyway, I am not concerned... Our project is an on-going political project that has its legacy, roots, its present and its future. It is a project of resistance, martyrs, resolve and sacrifices. The future is on the side of the Palestinian national project. But don't you think you are confronted with too tough a test? Aren't you concerned that among those challenging your project are fellow Palestinian brethren who, like you, are living under Israeli occupation? We are not underestimating the test. The world has failed to respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people. It must be clear that we will not allow the current situation to be portrayed as an inter-Palestinian fight. The powers of injustice in the US administration and the Israeli government are imposing a state of siege on our people to deny them the right to have a government capable of exercising political resolve to preserve Palestinian rights. But you cannot ignore the Palestinian [component] in the current suffering of the Palestinians? This is about vested interests... It seems some thought they will never leave the seat of power... It seems that in their resistance of [this new reality] some are willing to resort to methods not at all compatible with our national norms. But if Hamas [wishes to] play the game of pragmatism, why don't you try to satisfy those by giving them something -- just to spare the overall [national Palestinian] project? What were we supposed to do? Perhaps demonstrate some flexibility towards them... and towards their [direct interests]. We have made it clear that we are interested in a national unity government ... and that we are keen on political partnership ... We never closed [that] door... But those who wish to join our government must have two obvious qualities: efficiency and honesty... We cannot tolerate a repetition of previous experiences of corruption... This would be terribly frustrating for the Palestinian people.. It seems that this national unity government is a hard objective to deliver. We believe that not enough sincere efforts have been exerted in this respect... I am convinced that we can deliver a national unity government... But why do you sound so confident? After all, it seems clear that nobody wants to deal with you. This applies to the Palestinian Authority, major Arab capitals, Washington and the Israeli government. They may not mind your presence but do mind your intervention. This is partially true... It seems there is a [consistent effort] to keep Hamas away from the government... But Hamas was democratically elected. It did not rise to power through a military coup... But there are threats made by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the government of Hamas. This would be a jump into the air. If he dissolves the government, it would still remain an acting government until the Legislative Council approves a new cabinet. Without the support of Hamas in the council, no new government will win a vote of confidence. This much is clear... Alternatively, President Abbas could decide to resign. Such a move could create a serious political vacuum for which Hamas could be blamed. We are not at all expecting him to take such a step. We could still find some common denominators. You have a serious conflict of principles. You cannot reach common denominators. Which principles? The recognition of Israel, the Arab peace initiative, the borders of the Palestinian state and... We have the National Accord Document... This document [answers] issues of negotiations, Arab legitimacy, international legitimacy, the approach towards [signed] agreements, the [role of the] PLO and resistance. This it does within the constitution framework. So if the right intentions were there we could have worked on those bases towards a national unity government -- provided we do so away from the grip of the US administration. Moreover, the president is in control of the political file. Nobody will tell him "you are conducting negotiations" or "you are working on the basis of the Arab Initiative". He would pursue whatever political or negotiation basis he finds opportune to pursue legitimate national objectives. So what is the fuss all about if this is your stance? Ask the president. I do not wish to say that the ball is in his court now. But let me say that there is nothing that merits the current state of political deadlock. But if you have a situation in which the US, Israel, some Arab countries and some Palestinian factions decide to challenge Hamas and to starve the Palestinian people to punish them for electing Hamas, then would it not make sense, in the interest both of Hamas and the Palestinian people, for you to bow out and return to the [status] of resistance, even for a while? First, we have not abandoned resistance, so we do not need to go back to it. Second, our presence in the government under the current political circumstances and our determination to exercise political resolve is an act of steadfastness and resistance. Third, our decision to pursue [active] political participation was not at all haphazard. It was a strategic decision adopted in the historic context of the evolution of Hamas as a movement. It was a decision based on very careful thinking at the highest levels of the movement. We do not at all feel we made a mistake that we should rectify. The mistake is made on the side of those who oppose the free will of the Palestinian people who voted those who could preserve their rights and dignity. But maybe you should have paved the way for the day you ascend to power. Obvious homework would have been to assure key Arab capitals that the success of Hamas is not the first step towards the Islamisation of Arab regimes or an [immediate alliance] with Iran. You know this is a source of concern. Egypt for instance is... First, we have very solid relations with Egypt. Our relations with Egypt go back to 1996 when Hamas started to expand its political presence. And in the framework of our relations with Egypt, Jordan or any other Arab sate, we are always very straightforward. Second, we do not act upon any axis. We are not part of an Iranian- Syrian axis against an Egyptian-Jordanian axis [as has been proposed by some]. We are part of the entire Arab and Muslim worlds. Third, we do not at all interfere in the internal affairs of other states. We have the Palestinian question to be [fully] occupied with. So why are these Arab governments opposed to you? We are hoping for a better Arab stance... and [better help] to the Palestinian people. But when you decline to accept the Arab peace initiative, for example, you are not enabling Arab countries to help you. We said we accept Palestinian legitimacy and we can go as far as acknowledging the resolutions of Arab summits. Moreover, they said they want us to accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967. We say give us this state. Give it to us if you can within a reasonable timeframe. The fact of the matter is that the Israeli occupation will not give us this or anything else. And this is why we are [telling our Arab brethren] we would [all] be wrong to allow the problem to be one between Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world. It is equally wrong, in our view, to allow the problem to be portrayed as an inter-Palestinian one. Hamas has no problem with any of its Arab brethren or with any Palestinian. Hamas has a problem with the Israeli occupation. We should never lose sight of this. Our struggle is against the occupation. So you are willing to pursue national dialogue and contacts with all Arab countries? Of course. And is this something that has the approval of both Haniyah and [Khaled] Meshaal because it is no secret that there are different views within Hamas? Hamas is a big movement that allows for alternative views to be discussed but Hamas has a chain of command by which we all abide. And it is the decision of Hamas to stick to political resolve and to protect Palestinian rights. It is the decision of Hamas to keep on making all necessary sacrifices in pursuit of our legitimate rights. We are only pursuing justice for the Palestinian people. This is the choice of those who voted for Hamas. And it must be clear that this is about Palestinians in general, not just a particular group. I just received a call from a group of our Christian brethren in Bethlehem saying they support our steadfastness. But you must be concerned that if your adversaries give up on dissuading you from this resolve, they will launch more assassinations like those which eliminated top Hamas officials, including Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz Al-Rantissi? We are expecting the worst. But we are not going to give up. No, we will not.
