Posted on 06/05/2003 5:21:38 AM PDT by SJackson
PLO Leader: 'We Are Close to Accomplishing Our Goals... With More Resistance, We Can Force Them to Withdraw and Sign a Peace Agreement'
On May 23, 2003, PLO Political Bureau head Farouq Al-Qaddoumi was interviewed by the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al- Awsat. In May 2001 Al-Qaddoumi called for attacks against U.S. and European interests in the Middle East. [1] The following are excerpts from Al-Qaddoumi's interview with Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: [2]
Question: "Do you think that the Road Map will end up like other initiatives?"
Al-Qaddoumi:"Ultimately, the road map will fail… There have been other initiatives spearheaded by the American president George Bush based on the principle of 'land for peace' and on international legitimacy. But these initiatives were not implemented because Sharon was there to undermine everything [Bush] accomplished. He reoccupied the territories and divided the area. This is Israel's way: lying and procrastinating [in implementing political plans]… If there is no [Palestinian] resistance, and if the Israelis are not made bitter, Israel will never leave our land."
Question: "Do you think Mahmoud Abbas's flexibility will help him negotiate with Israel?"
Al-Qaddoumi:"In my opinion, this flexibility will not be helpful. On the contrary, because Sharon interprets this flexibility as weakness. [On the other hand], the position of Abu 'Ammar [Arafat] is the right position, because he says, 'We are committed to the agreements, and you [Israelis] are the ones who destroyed them].' [Arafat] also demonstrated flexibility, but within the boundaries of the interests of the people. In other words, there is a need for everyone to be committed to these texts [i.e. agreements], regardless of our position on the Oslo [accords] and other agreements, or our reservations regarding them."
"But [Sharon] disagreed with this interpretation and delayed [the implementation of the agreements]. Then Netanyahu arrived and clashed with the PA; [then] came Barak who lied to the world. [Then] came Sharon and provoked the Palestinians and reoccupied [the territories], meaning that there was a two-fold occupation – that is, the first occupation, and now another one. Therefore, flexibility is not helpful at all… they [the Israelis] want a [Palestinian] civil war … they want the Palestinian Authority, which is under siege, to adopt measures that it cannot implement…"
Question: "Do you think Israel is serious in its peace [proposals]?"
Al-Qaddoumi: Only someone with little sense would settle for mere words. What Sharon says sometimes, and what the international circles say sometimes, are just [empty] words. If America wants to serve the interests of peace in the Middle East… it should first of all force Israel to withdraw… We say that Sharon, who understands no language but [the language of] force, is now in a weak position due to pressures from Israeli society that has lost its security, and this means we are close to accomplishing our goals. What I mean is that with more resistance, we can force them [the Israelis] to withdraw and sign a peace agreement."
Question:"Israel keeps repeating the refrain of expelling Arafat from the PA territories. If Israel dares to do this, what will be the ramifications, and what should the government of Abu Mazen do to deal with such a possibility?"
Al-Qaddoumi:"If Israel dares to expel Abu 'Ammar from his homeland, it would be a grave mistake on its part, because the [Palestinian] political structure would be in danger of collapse and there would be anarchy, and popular outrage that would escalate the resistance. Abu 'Ammar is trying to prevent attacks on Palestinian and Israeli civilians. He is dedicated to this. We stopped the first Intifada for a [political] settlement, and for the [success] of Bush Sr.'s initiative. Therefore, the one who can lead this settlement, from the Palestinian side, is Abu 'Ammar…"
Question:"How do you explain the suspension of [the activities] of the Palestinian information [offices] in Damascus?"
Al-Qaddoumi:"They are information offices, and they [merely] repeat what is said by the Palestinian opposition factions [in the PA]. If these offices are silenced, there are satellite channels and newspapers to publish the news they get from the territories, since the resistance comes from [the territories], and not from the outside…"
Question: "What is the nature of your relationship – as foreign minister of the State of Palestine- with the PA Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Is there overlap or division of roles?"
Al-Qaddoumi: "No. The Cairo Agreement of 1994, and, before that, in 1993, as well as the Washington agreement in 1995, state that the PA has no authority in foreign affairs, and no right to establish embassies and consulates, nor carry out diplomatic activities abroad. [Therefore] the PLO, in its capacity as the representative [of the PA], conducts negotiations, and signs international agreements. However, if there are countries that appoint representatives [to the PA], then the PA has the right to communicate with those representatives, since this is not considered diplomatic activity. Prior to Abu 'Ammar's return [to the territories], the [PLO] Executive Committee… decided that Abu 'Ammar would head the PA. Then he was elected, and the elections were a domestic [PA matter], so we [PLO] are the [main] source of authority. The PA should not make decisions in international matters without the endorsement of the [PLO] Executive Committee, which appointed Abu Mazen, in his capacity as a committee member, as prime minister."
"I don't understand why the [office] headed by Nabil Sha'ath was called the Ministry of External Relations. I mean, God willing, in a few years we'll [have] a state with foreign relations [but for the time being we do not]. I want to point out that the National Council, in its 19th session on November 10, 1988, decided to consider the PLO Executive Committee a transitional government. Abu 'Ammar was elected to head the government, and I was elected foreign minister… It was also decided that the full makeup of the government would be completed [in the future]. [This is why] when the Oslo [accords] were signed, and [other agreements] were signed, the [PLO] Executive Committee decided it could no longer avoid having more cabinet ministers, or [establishing] another body within the PA. We called that body 'ministers.' But in principle they are not ministers; [even] in the agreements they are not called ministers, because the [PLO] is the source of political and legislative power."
[1] See MEMRI Special Dispatch Series - No. 222, "Qaddoumi Calls for Terrorist Acts Against US Interests," http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP22201.
[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 23, 2003.
The Palestinians could have had a better deal 4 years ago without thousands of dead.
But he revels in death and mayhem!
He is the vilest of evil.
Right now the greatest strength of the terrorists is their nebulosity; tomorrow, when there is an actual State of Palestine, that advantage will disappear. Using tanks to kill individual criminals acting "on their own" is one thing; using tanks to kill enemy special operations forces acting on behalf of a state actor is something entirely different.
Their goal is to drive Israel out of existence. In no way are they close.
once we have rid the world of the jews, then the christians, the shintos, the buddists... we can continue with the eradication of the sunnis... then when only shiites are left, we can kill the shiites from other tribes.
It's like saying that the police forces would be better able to handle the Crips and the Bloods if those were independent nations.
You make my point for me. Of course the LAPD would not be better able to better handle the Crips and the Bloods if those were independent nations. If the Crips and the Bloods were independent nations, the LAPD would not be involved; handling the Crips and the Bloods would become the job of the United States military.
Suppose there is an independent Palestinian state. Suppose bombs are going off all over Israel. Do you think the Palestinian government will claim the bombers as their own?
Of course not. But the evidence will be there, and the IDF will presumably be fully justified in attacking their bases of operation within Palestine using military force instead of the piecemeal police actions we see now.
They will disavow them. But Israel would be unable to cross an international boundary to pursue.
Not true. Instead of a terrorist (criminal) action, these bombings would be regarded as pre-emptive military attacks, thus justifying a military response.
If at long last Israel has no choice, it will be condemned for violating the sovereign territory of another country. That has all sorts of international ramifications.
Yes, but those ramification will work both ways. The government of Palestine could also be condemned for using special forces to attack the sovereign territory of another country.
The US may be bound by UN treaties to treat Israel as an aggressor with the ramifications that follow such declaration. The independent Palestinian state could insist her allies come to her defense.
I don't think they'll have any real allies. By then, Iraq will be bristling with U.S. bases -- it will become (as intended) the "Japan of the Middle East". No one is going to aid the Pallies with a U.S.-occupied Iraq aimed at the back of their heads.
Use your imagination to realize where it will all lead.
In the end, the only way peace will come to the Middle East is when Western, Judeo-Christian culture overcomes Islamic culture and makes the idea of one nation invading another as unthinkable as the idea of Denmark invading Holland.
On the other hand, you may believe that if the Palestinians get some land, they will be satisfied and peace will break out.
I don't. I think the Palestinians are an ungovernable, uncivilized rabble that has been thrown out of every country in the region (which is why they are in territory that ought to be controlled by Israel now.) I think that a PLO-run gangster state will be created, will end up fighting a real war with Israel, and will be destroyed. The "west bank" and Gaza will be annexed by Israel, resettled by Jews, and the surviving Palestinians will be deported to Jordan at gunpoint, with the threat of nuclear war on any state that tries to send them back. The Palestinians are an Arab problem; let the Arabs deal with them.
And Bush is cavorting with his evil partner-in-crime Mahmoud Abbas, who has been planning every terror attack with Arafat since the late 60's. It is as if Bush were meeting with Uday Hussein. I can't watch the coverage any longer, it is so disgusting.
THE TRUTH. The "closings" in Damascus were nonsense, yet Colin Powell accepted them as a huge concession on the part of Syria, and let them off the hook. Meanwhile 90% of the WMDs are in Syria, a terrorist state. But in the interest of "peace" (meaning politics) we will forgive all dictators.
You’re right, dealing with an independent state will be far more difficult.
Suppose there is an independent Palestinian state. Suppose bombs are going off all over Israel. Do you think the Palestinian government will claim the bombers as their own?…Of course not. But the evidence will be there, and the IDF will presumably be fully justified in attacking their bases of operation within Palestine using military force instead of the piecemeal police actions we see now. Instead of a terrorist (criminal) action, these bombings would be regarded as pre-emptive military attacks, thus justifying a military response.
Here you begin to address the moral conundrum underlying this theory, perhaps unintentionally. Bombs going off all over Israel, essentially you’re saying defensive action on Israel’s part, hundreds, perhaps thousands of Israeli civilians must die. I don’t accept that. We pursue Al Quaida worldwide despite the fact they aren’t a “sovereign state” based on our civilian losses 9/11, I think Israel has already met the same threshold.
Yes, but those ramification will work both ways. The government of Palestine could also be condemned for using special forces to attack the sovereign territory of another country….I don't think they'll have any real allies. By then, Iraq will be bristling with U.S. bases -- it will become (as intended) the "Japan of the Middle East". No one is going to aid the Pallies with a U.S.-occupied Iraq aimed at the back of their heads.
The world will continue to condemn Israel. I doubt the EU’s attitude will change. The UN general assembly will continue to be dominated by third world nations, heavily Arab, who are in agreement with the destruction of Israel as a legitimate objective. A constitutional requirement of this new “sovereign state” is achieving the right of return to Israel. Mazen has acknowledged that that is a fundamental requirement which can’t be negotiated away. By forcing the creation of this state unconditionally, the US is acknowledging this imperative.
As to allies, there are plenty. Egypt (who has now commenced practicing crossings of the Suez Canal into the “demilitarized” Sinai with their Abrams tanks, Syria, Syrian Lebanon, Iran, to name a few.
One of the terrorists great victories was getting the road map drawn without the requirement that their state be demilitarized.
In the end, the only way peace will come to the Middle East is when Western, Judeo-Christian culture overcomes Islamic culture and makes the idea of one nation invading another as unthinkable as the idea of Denmark invading Holland.
I’d suggest taking Sadaam’s strongest ally and presenting them a state governed by sharia law (that’s in the constitution we apparently accept too) isn’t making progress toward that goal. It’s encouraging terror.
BTW, accomplishing our goals, which they are, should be viewed in the context of the THE PLO'S PHASED PLAN, Political Programme Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council, Cairo, June 9, 1974. You’ll note the first concrete step is to establish an "independent combatant national authority" over any territory that is "liberated" from Israeli rule. (Article 2). This will soon be accomplished, on their way to the final objective, To provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely ("liberate all Palestinian territory"). (Article 8).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.