Al-Safir (Lebanon), March 21, 2001.
Translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI),
an independent, non-profit organization providing translations of the
Middle East media and original analysis and research on developments in the region.
Wearing a kaffiya and speaking to a forum of Arab lawyers in Beirut, Faysal
Al-Husseini, Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, insisted
that Sharon must not get a chance to act, Sharon must not be allowed to
achieve security because that would defeat the Palestinians politically, and that the
Palestinian strategic goal is a state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
Following are excerpts from his speech:
“Blessed be Beirut who broke the enemy and proved that we can defeat the super
powers. Blessed be the resistance , which gave us the hope that
thefuture is in our hands. The Lebanese victory is the great and most important
example of the reality in which the Israeli enemy is living, whose
defeat begin a few weeks after the Arabs defeat in ’67.”
“In 1969 I was a member of the Palestinian Liberation Army in Syria from where
I went to the occupied cities of Palestine. I visited Jaffa and Haifa and a
journalist asked me about my feelings. I answered that the fate of Jerusalem
would be like the fate of Haifa which became mostly Jewish if we are not wise
enough to struggle and prepare properly.”
“The current Intifada has domestic external and inevitable causes. It is not
an act of protest, but rather a liberation movement, which must not be stopped
until it reaches full Palestinian independence.”
“In the first Intifada we succeeded in breaking many Israeli
taboos. Golda Meir said that there are no Palestinian people, but we earned
our recognition. In the past they said no to a Palestinian state, but we
broke that taboo. In the past they refused to recognize the PLO but they do
recognize it today as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian
people. In the current Intifada as well, we have broken the Israeli taboos
regarding Jerusalem and the refugees.”
“In Barak’s period, despite all the tragedies and the barbaric
behavior we have broken many taboos and now Sharon is trying to roll things
back. Barak agreed to a withdrawal from 95% of the occupied Palestinian lands
and if we now allow Sharon to succeed in his political plans whose point of
departure is security, it will mean that we will return to the
negotiating table on the basis of a right to only 42% of the territory.
On the other hand, if we pull Sharon down from the security standpoint, no other
party will be able to conduct a dialogue with us except from the
point where Barak stopped, namely, from the right to 95% of the territory.
This is why we must not let Sharon succeed. The Palestinian Authority will
not grant Sharon a safety net today he speaks moderately but does
not change his policy.”
“The Arab summit must stay away from the logic
under which Sharon must be given the chance. We expect many real clashes with
the Israelis in the upcoming months, especially in Jerusalem. All the
elements for an explosion exist. We are convinced that the confrontation in Jerusalem
will move the world from Indonesia to Morocco. It will be a sign for the
U.S., which will be forced to understand that its support of Israel will destroy
stability in the whole region. We are facing a battle and we are already
preparing ourselves for it from this moment. We must not let Sharon succeed
from the security standpoint because then he will defeat us, politically.”
“The Palestinian people face the present battle hand in hand with the open
the Palestinian Authority. There is no internal clash between
the two. The Intifada must be given priority. There may be errors and
misgivings, but priority must now be given to the battle.”
“There is a certain delicate thing that must be understood by all. I may be
obliged to have contacts with Sharon’s government in order to achieve some
vital of the needs of our people. But this is not to justify opening
relations with Israel by other . I am maintaining contact in order to put
an end to the relationship. It is not like countries seeking to establish contact.”
“There is a difference between the strategic goal of the Palestinian people,
who are not willing to give up even one grain of Palestinian soil and the
political effort that has to do with the balance of power
and with the nature of the present international system. The latter is a
different effort than the former. We may lose or win but our
eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the
river to the sea. Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth.”
