August/September 1992, Page 31, 32, 33

What They Said: Palestinian Spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi Says U.S. Loan Guarantees in Absence of Israeli Settlement Freeze Would Abort Peace Process

Following are selected questions and answers from an interview with Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Mikhail Ashrawi, on television host John McLaughlin's "One on One" program, televised July 12 on NBC and PBS stations. Some of Mr. McLaughlin's questions have been abridged. Dr. Ashrawi's answers are as delivered.

McLaughlin: Dr. Ashrawi, the Israeli government has a new prime minister and a new government. . . Are you hopeful because of this new government of a peace in the Middle East?

Ashrawi: I think the equation has changed, certainly, with the new government. We are not excessively optimistic, I am not euphoric, but at the same time, I think that a new phase has started where we finally will begin negotiations.

McLaughlin: In Gaza, there is now conflict between two factions of Palestinians. One is called Hamas and the other is called the Fatah. . .

Ashrawi: Well, there are very serious efforts underway right now to try to contain the clashes or the confrontations. But we have always had a pluralistic society, we have always had an opposition, and this is not anything new. The peace process has had its opposition among the Palestinians; however, our opposition was in the minority, and it was the mainstream and the majority that supported the peace process.

McLaughlin: The Fatah is mainstream.

Ashrawi: Yes, the Fatah has the majority of the mainstream.

McLaughlin: The Hamas doesn't like the peace process, correct?

Ashrawi: That's true.

McLaughlin: But yet they enjoy, according to the Financial Times of London, 40 percent of the sympathy and the allegiance of the people who live-the Palestinians who live in Gaza. How do you explain the popularity?

Ashrawi:

I think that's an exaggeration, that really is an exaggeration. I think they are quite vocal, they are quite outspoken, they are well organized, and they are active. And therefore, the impression is always that they are more than they are in numbers. At the same time, I think the popularity is a direct result of lack of achievements in the peace process. You must remember, for the last eight months, the Likud government-Shamir-has subjected the peace process to all sorts of constraints, has done his best to prevent any kind of progress, and has willfully and deliberately inflicted pain on the captive Palestinian population in a way in which they are undermining the peace process and sabotaging it by directing all these attacks, victimizing the Palestinians. And so they created a reaction which supported the opposition in many ways.

McLaughlin: You visited Amman, Jordan, about three weeks ago, on the eve, practically, of the elections in Israel. You went to Amman, Jordan, because you wanted to visit Arafat. Arafat had been in an airplane accident, and he had surgery performed on him in Amman. He's doing all right now. He's back in Tunis.

Ashrawi: He's fine, yes.

McLaughlin: So you went over to see Arafat. You embraced Arafat, you were accompanied by members of your peace delegation, and the television in Amman, Jordan broadcast this all through Israel. . . You live in Israel and you're not supposed to deal with the PLO.

Ashrawi: We don't live in Israel. Not at all. We live in Palestinian territory. It's Israeli occupied.

McLaughlin: Okay. I'm sorry. You live in the occupied territory of Israel. But you violated the law of Israel. What happened-

Ashrawi: No, we didn't.

McLaughlin: You did not?

Ashrawi: We did not, because Israeli law, regardless of how just or unjust it is-and this law is unjust and undemocratic-does not apply to Palestinians. Israel manufactures a legal system for-

McLaughlin: And you don't think you're going to experience and kind of-

Ashrawi: Oh, I'm sure I will experience some harassment.

McLaughlin: Because of the meeting with Arafat.

Ashrawi: Yes, but it doesn't take a meeting with Arafat to subject you to harassment in Israel. We've been harassed nonstop. The whole Palestinian people is living within a very dangerous situation where you don't need a pretext or an excuse to be questioned, to be harassed, to be imprisoned, or even to be killed. So I think the important fact is that we had to affirm a right, the right of Palestinians to choose their own leadership without coercion. And the right also to maintain our separate identity. The fact is that we are covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention as people under occupation, protected people, and not by willful Israeli manufacturing of legal systems. They formulate and they manufacture what they call military orders. They pick up from the British mandate emergency laws. They even go back to the Ottoman rule and they pick up laws.

McLaughlin: Bill Clinton has said some things recently about the peace process. He has said, for example, that he opposes the creation of an independent Palestinian Arab state, he wants to seek closer cooperation with Israel to help Israel with the cost of resettling emigres from the former Soviet Union. He said this: "I am deeply concerned by the damage done by the Bush administration to U.S.-Israeli relations. Bush has pressured Israel"-I'm quoting-" to make one-sided concessions in the peace process and has held hostage thousands of Jewish emigres from the former Soviet Union by refusing to grant loan guarantees Israel has sought to help pay for resettling them." He wants the administration, his administration, to improve relations with Israel, and he's going to spend the next four months trying to do that.

Now, Al Gore-you know that in 1988 he had Ed Koch walking all around New York with him.

Ashrawi: Yes.

McLaughlin: And his record is flawless in his support of Israel.

Ashrawi: That's right.

McLaughlin: Are you at all concerned that we may have President Clinton and Vice President Gore heading up the government of the United States?

Ashrawi: Of course I am. I mean, from a purely selfish point of view. Let me tell you, frankly, the American people choose their own government and their own presidents on the basis of their own priorities. We, as Palestinians, look at it from the outside, and we determine our own priorities in relation to the policies to our region-toward our region.

I am concerned because I think Clinton has made statements that violate longstanding American policy, that violate international law and the will of the international community, and that, in a way, sound like catering or appealing to a special interest group or to a foreign power, rather than addressing real issues that are of vital interest to the U.S., and I'm quoting here from a letter from Secretary Baker. The peace process is so multi-faceted, so multidimensional, with so many repercussions and possible consequences, globally, not just in the region, that anybody who is so blatantly taking a biased position like that is liable to commit a historical mistake whose repercussions and consequences will be felt-

McLaughlin: Do you think the Arab world has a case of the jitters at the prospect of a Clinton-Gore ticket winning the presidency?

Ashrawi: I wouldn't go as far as that. I don't think people have the jitters. After all, we are willing to respect whichever government the American people elect, and we are willing to work with whichever government you choose. For heaven's sake, we have entered a peace process with the most hard-line, racist government in Israel, knowing that they refuse to relinquish one inch or acknowledge any law. So, we are not here to dictate or to give our opinion, but I think that it is very important, this position is of such tremendous power in the world, not just in the U.S., that any wrong move or such clear violations of law or any bias like that is bound to backfire. And it certainly will discredit the U.S. internationally.

McLaughlin: Dr. Ashrawi, this is the platform of the Democratic Party, and this is what it says: "Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel."

Ashrawi: That's illegal. That's against American policy. You do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Nobody in the world does that. According to [U.N. Resolution] 181, and by international law, Jerusalem is a corpus separatum, and East Jerusalem is occupied territory.

McLaughlin: This is also in the platform. Let me read this sentence. "The United States must not, as has been the case with this administration, encourage one side to believe that it will deliver. . . unilateral concessions from the other." Now, this means, in context, that our government has forced Israel to deliver unilateral concessions to you and other Arab states.

Ashrawi: Name one. It shows you how much he knows. I'm not attacking the-

McLaughlin: No, it's not Clinton. This is the platform of the party.

Ashrawi: This platform, I think, really disregards the facts. It's extremely dangerous because it's a manipulation of facts. The only side making concessions and compromises has been the Palestinian side. We really have paid a heavy price in human lives and in rights, and we stayed in the peace process despite the unfair conditions imposed, despite the fact that all Israeli preconditions were met. Israel was given advance payments and rewards, recognition, even funds, and it got all its conditions, including even shaping the Palestinian delegation. So you can't tell me that-

McLaughlin: You think it's misguided. You think it's an unbalanced state?

Ashrawi: Of course. I think it's electioneering. I don't think it is a serious position on the Middle East.

McLaughlin: Why would the Democratic Party want to take-in your eyes-such a pro-Israeli stance?

Ashrawi: Well, I think this is an election stance. I think they are catering or appealing to a certain constituency that they want to get. Of course, we understand the power-

McLaughlin: Well, there are two and a half million Arab Americans in the United States and about six million Jews. Are you saying that they're doing it because of the superior voting power of the Jewish population?

Ashrawi: I would say the power of the pro-Israeli PACs and lobbies. They have tremendous power.

McLaughlin: Financial power?

Ashrawi: Financial power, political power. And I think this is something that is recognized throughout the U.S. Israel has become a domestic issue of the U.S.

McLaughlin: Are you saying that Bill Clinton and Al Gore are taking their strong pro-Israel positions for the reasons that you have, that we have just said? What could be the reasons for the Democratic Party taking this position?

Ashrawi: Well, I don't want to oversimplify it. I don't want to be simplistic, but I would consider that as one of the factors, yes. I think that all sorts of statements made before elections have to be taken with a grain of salt. We have heard many statements before American and other elections that somehow did not translate themselves into fact, especially when they are statements that violate international law and American policy.

So I wouldn't take this very seriously, but at the same time I think that what is happening here is really a reversal, a regression. Even the Likud government in Israel did not have such rhetoric, and they were defeated. This rhetoric is even more extremist than the Likud rhetoric. And they were defeated by the Israelis. So to me, it's very ironic that you have a platform by one major party in the U.S. that is more extremist that the extremist Israeli platform which has been rejected by the Israeli people. And I think the American Jewish community as well is not monolithic. It is much more serious than that.

McLaughlin: Do you think that the-American Jewry likes the performance of George Bush and his Secretary of State Jim Baker, vis-a-vis the Middle East?

Ashrawi: I wouldn't presume to judge, but I will tell you that the American Jewish community thinks that there has to be a serious handling of Israel-Israel has to be dealt with in a way that does not allow it to upset its own balance, or to present such an unattractive image to the world, or such an intense position. I think they thought that Likud was bad for Israel, bad for the peace process, and so it's not a question of Bush and Baker or Clinton and Gore, it's a question of doing what is right for the region, and doing what is consistent with American policy.

McLaughlin: Dr. Ashrawi, which administration do you think would be the better for Middle East peace- a Bush-Quayle administration or a Clinton-Gore administration?

Ashrawi: Very simply put, I think Bush and Baker-note I'm saying Bush and Baker, not Quayle-have started a very serious, a very courageous, and a very historical process in the region.

And I think they should have the opportunity to complete it. A Clinton-Gore administration, if it follows this policy, is certainly going to lead not just the region, but the U.S., to very drastic mistakes when it comes to the Middle East. Now I'm not judging their domestic politics, I'm just saying from a Middle Eastern perspective we have a very serious task at hand, we have all taken risks-personal and collective. Bush and Baker have tried to implement, for the first time, a less biased, a more even-handed policy.

McLaughlin: Dr. Ashrawi, $10 billion in loan guarantees has been suspended. The new prime minister of Israel-designate, Yitzhak Rabin, has said that there's a difference between political settlements and security settlements. No more political settlements, but security settlements he feels free to build. You reject the distinction.

Ashrawi: Of course. That's semantics. First of all, realistically, what he calls security settlements actually span from the Jordan Valley to Jerusalem. So, in many ways, they are the majority. Number two, you cannot distinguish between two types of an illegal act. This is illegal. You cannot steal other peoples' lands. You cannot create facts. You cannot pre-empt the outcome of negotiations. You cannot violate international law and Palestinian rights and then say that some types of illegal acts or some type of theft is legal and other types of theft are not.

McLaughlin: Yes, but he has to build a coalition government, and therefore he needs the right wing. And to get the right wing in, he has to give them something. So, he gives them-it is said, he gives them this idea of security settlements. Can you abide that?

Ashrawi: No. He should give them something that is his to give. Palestinian land does not belong to the Israelis. It belongs to the Palestinians, and international law should not be made subject to Israeli power politics and domination.

McLaughlin: Now, let me tell you what I believe is in the cards, from what I hear. The $10 billion in loan guarantees will be given to the Rabin government as soon as he takes over, even if he continues to build the so-called security settlements. How will you react?

Ashrawi: I would say very cleary the U.S. is delegitimizing and disqualifying itself from the role of co-sponsor or sponsor, to put it frankly, for the peace process that seeks to maintain international legitimacy and seeks to maintain a minimal level of even-handedness in the region. If you become party to an illegal act, if you allow American funds to be used for something which violates American law and international law, then you have lost your credibility as an impartial peace broker.

McLaughlin: Okay. Now, that's us. But you have a decision to make. You are an adviser to a delegation of 14 members of the Palestinian peace group that meets with your opposite number.

You're supposed to have a meeting. Will you go forward with the meeting if the United States gives the $10 billion even though Rabin says he's going to continue to build the security settlements?

Ashrawi: We cannot do that because then we will be party to a whole situation that is asking the Palestinians to self-negate and self-destruct. Then the peace process is entirely meaningless.

McLaughlin: You would walk out?

Ashrawi: We will have to.

McLaughlin: You are a Christian Arab.

Ashrawi: Yes.

McLaughlin: You are also a total new image as far as being an Arab diplomat is concerned. You are a woman. Most of your colleagues are male. Do you experience any bias from your colleagues?

Ashrawi: Well, not much anymore. Of course, it wasn't easy and it's not overnight, and I did not emerge from a vacuum. But I've been working for a long time, and I have a relationship of mutual respect with my colleagues. Sometimes, you know, longstanding patterns and habits that are sexist by nature, or discriminatory, are very hard to fight consciously, and you have to make them aware of it. But, at the same time, as a people who have had to make use of our capabilities, many times, as is the case with all Third World countries, you don't have time, you cannot afford to discriminate. You cannot afford to make distinctions on the basis of gender. You need the best person for the job. But, of course, traditional patterns and habits are hard to overcome overnight.

McLaughlin: Do you think that once you get your independence, women's roles will transform backwards?

Ashrawi: Not at all-

McLaughlin: It happened in Algiers.

Ashrawi: It had better not. We are aware of this, and we are trying very hard to prevent it by translating our laws into a civil code that would guarantee women's rights. We take our declaration of independence very seriously, and it says pluralism, equality between the genders, and, at the same time, religious tolerance.

< Prev		Next >