Fateh website - goal is state in all of palestine

The following are excerpts from the current official Website of Fatah - (www.fateh.org). (via IMRA)

Sakher Abu Nizar is a member of the Fatah Central Committee. The article was written AFTER the signing of the Oslo Agreements.

The Historical Risk And National Safety Devices By Sakher Abu Nizar - April 1994

CHAPTER THREE

The Role of Fateh Movement In Shaping the Palestinian Future

...All these measures were taken within the framework of the general strategic plan, the strategy for the liberation of Palestine, and the creation of a Democratic Palestinian State on all Palestinian lands with Jerusalem as its capital.

...It is logical that the future role of Fateh should be a natural continuation of its previous role of resistance, armed struggle and safeguarding the Intifada. Fateh is aware that it is always necessary to evolve and create new means and approaches for the struggle.

Fateh's basic activities, principles, strategies and objectives still constitute an indivisible part of its solid convictions and beliefs. It aims to achieve a just and durable peace by seeking to create a democratic Palestinian State on all Palestinian land, where Moslems, Christians and Jews live side by side without racial or religious discrimination.

... In addition to these factors the strategic option , namely, armed struggle and the Intifada should be upheld until the objectives which aim at directing the future struggle towards a democratic unity of the whole of Palestine becomes a feasible aim.

...To ensure total and comprehensive withdrawal of the occupying forces from all Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 including Jerusalem. This constitutes a first step in the struggle that should be resumed by different methods in order to achieve all strategic goals.

CHAPTER FOUR ...The right of return for all refugees in 1948 and their offspring to their land and property, and the future struggle by all means for the achievement of democratic unification of all Palestinian land within the framework of a democratic Palestinian State.

Fatah's Sakher Abu Nizar Habash explains articles

By: Aaron Lerner Date: 17 August, 1998

IMRA interviewed Sakher Abu Nizar Habash, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, in English, on August 16.

IMRA: I saw an article which you wrote on the official Fatah Website (www.fateh.org). titled "The Historical Risk And National Safety Devices", dated April 1994, in which you call for "The right of return for all refugees in 1948 and their offspring to their land and property, and the future struggle by all means for the achievement of democratic unification of all Palestinian land within the framework of a democratic Palestinian State. "

What does this mean "unification of all Palestinian lands"?

Habash: This was written at the beginning of Oslo. And what we are targeting for - having a democratic state in all of Palestine for all the people of Palestine - doesn't mean that we have to do it by force. With Israel we will find a way.

They are now talking about a "Benelux" between Jordan, Palestine and Israel. Or something like that. For this, those people living in Palestine, whether they are Jews or Arabs or something, if they can get together by democratic ways - no armed struggle - after ten years, twenty years or thirty years - this will create one country, one state.

Now, for the beginning we need to have in this country two states, with Jerusalem as two capitals. This is the thing which was supposed to come out of the Oslo Agreement. The things in the future will depend on those people living in the future. We are looking forward if they can get it by democratic means.

IMRA; And if they can't?

Habash: Then that's all. They aren't going to fight. There will be coexistence.

IMRA: So when you write about the "future struggle by all means" that doesn't mean a struggle?

Habash: By struggle I said "democratic means".

IMRA: You wrote "struggle by all means".

Habash: I think that this will be put to an end by creating a Palestinian State neighboring to the State of Israel. They can live together without fighting one another. They will find in the future that they can get together as one state better than two states.

IMRA: There is something else you wrote. In an undated presentation titled "The Palestinian Refugee Issue From A FATEH Perspective" you wrote that "To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state." What do you mean?

Habash: According to UN Resolution 181 there should be two states - a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. If we intend to have one state then this will mean that there is not going to be a Palestinian state and there is not going to be an Israeli state - there will be a Palestinian state for all the people of Palestine. Arabs, Jews, Christians and Moslems. Whatever.

IMRA: And what does this have to do with the refugee issue?

Habash: Because when the refugees go back to their country there will be a majority of Palestinian Arabs in the area which is now the State of Israel. Now there are one million Arabs. If there are two million they will have more in the Knesset.

IMRA: So that for all practical purposes there would no longer be Israel.

Habash: No longer Dimona. No longer weapons. No longer atomic bombs. No longer fighting. No longer settlements. No longer fighting. No longer killing. No longer occupation. That's right.

But Israel as a normal state will find itself to be set on the whole land of Palestine for all of the Israelis and all of the Moslems, Christians and Arabs. It will be better for the future. I can see it.

IMRA: When you talk about the Jews inside of Israel what Jews are you talking about? We have people coming from Ethiopia who just came and from Russia who just came. People who just immigrated last week. Are you including all of these groups?

Habash: I will say it openly. The Law of Return which makes it legal for the Jews all over to world to come to Palestine is supposed to be a Law of Return which makes it legal for all the Palestinians all over the world to come to Palestine. This land is supposed to be the land for peace for all the people. Anybody who wants to come here - welcome.

IMRA: So as far as you are concerned a Palestinian state would include them regardless of when they came in

Habash: Many of those who came into Israel now are not real Jews. I am not going to investigate their blood. They are not the blood of Abraham anyway. Just as a Christian can be an American or an Indonesian and just as a Moslem can be anything, a Jew can be anybody because it is a religion. It is not a race.

I am not dealing with Judaism as those people who are the descendants of Abraham. They bare our cousins. But those people who are descendants of the Khazar tribe are people who believe. We respect their belief. And we are going to deal with them as Jews.

IMRA: So you see them as staying within the boundaries of some future Palestinian state.

Habash: If they want to stay. I am not going to say if they will want to stay or not. You have to take into account the circumstances of the land. How much it is capable to take people. Because when Ben Gurion was thinking of Israel as a pure Jewish state or when Herzl talked about a Jewish state he was thinking about this land without people. And they discovered that there are lots of people here.

IMRA: So there will be a consideration of the absorptive capacity of the country.

Habash: Yes, a lot of considerations.

IMRA; So I it turns out that you can only have a certain number of people then some people may have to go.

Habash: It depends on the sort of economic structure which we are going to have in this land. Whether it is going to be a manufacturing area or a rural area. For instance, in Lebanon you find most of the people have the right to live in Lebanon but most of them are living abroad. But they are Lebanese.

If we can get the right of return to all of the Palestinians like they have for all the Israelis - all the Jews, But there are more Jews in New York than in Israel because while they have the right to come they don't come because they are living well there.

All the Palestinians who are living in Chile, for instance. They are even the governors of Chile. They can have their passports as Palestinians but they won't want to come and live in Palestine. They will live over there. They can be spread, as the Jews are spread, all over the world.

IMRA: You mentioned Lebanon and I understand that, particularly in Lebanon, the Palestinians suffered very harsh discrimination. In many cases they aren't even allowed to legally work in Lebanon because of their refugee status. Do you see that changing in the future?

Habash: I don't think that anything will change for the refugees in the future. Except their coming back to Palestine. As long as they are living outside of Palestine they will be discriminated against. Everybody who is by force away from his country will be discriminated against.

But if he is outside of his country because of his wealth - the Palestinians are used to working in all of the Arab countries as masters. They work. But as refugees they are going to be discriminated against.

IMRA: So you think that many of the millions of people who came here won't be able to stay simply because the economy won't be able to support them.

Habash: It depends on how the Israelis are going to treat one another. The standard of living of the Israelis is many fold better than that of the Palestinians. How they are going to treat those elegant people who came from Russia. How will they look to the future?

Are they going to do the dirty work in Israel or go back to Russia if its going to be better in Russia? If it is going to be worse in Russia then many Russians are going to come to Israel as immigrants even though many of them aren't really Jews.

IMRA: So its more a practical question.

Habash: It is the democratic question of Israel. They will answer who is a Jew? They can't answer this. We can say who is a Palestinian. I consider Rabin as a Palestinian.

IMRA: In a Palestinian state would it be up to any of the sub groups to make that kind of decision any more? If you have a secular democratic state across all of Palestine?

Habash: Then nobody will ask this question.

IMRA: And what will be the situation?

Habash: We are in a new era of time. Globalization. You have something on a Website and it is read all over the world. No one is asking what anyone's nationality is anymore. We will get back together. The new questions which will be asked are how we will live tomorrow.

How we will live in peace?> How is the future for humanity? This is the main thing. Many questions will have answers. But as long as people are suffering from poverty, from settlements, from bulldozers, from killing in the streets, then the other questions won't be answered.

IMRA: With your focus on the future do you take the present as the point of departure. For example the settlements which exist on the ground.

Habash: That's why when we went to Oslo not all of us didn't accept Oslo. The point of Oslo was to help bring us to a new Middle East.

IMRA: When I look at someone like Ehud Barak who talks about major settlement blocs remaining in place....

Habash: there is no different between Ehud Barak and Netanyahu. Netanyahu is better in fact by a little bit.

IMRA: You are saying that Peres and Rabin would have given up on the settlement blocs?

Habash: Not by saying it. By reaching it. He was trying to do something and he was killed. What he was believing was to create peace in the Middle East so that Israel would have a place in the Middle East and exist and give all the people the right to live. This is a new vision to the area. I believe that Rabin before he was killed almost accepted this.

When Netanyahu came he has acted exactly against this idea. He is against the new Middle East. He is for a greater Israel.

IMRA: So Peres and Rabin would have given up on all the settlements but just didn't say anything because of political considerations?

Habash: According to the agreement that they made, by the 7th of September last year the Palestinian should have been given 90% of the land, with the remaining 10% covering Jerusalem and all the settlements. And the negotiations for the final settlement would be over all these things.

IMRA: And you thought that they would drop those areas as well in the final negotiations.

Habash: This would get to negotiations.

The problem of Jerusalem has a solution. There is an east Jerusalem and a west Jerusalem.

As for the settlements, during the time of Rabin there were studies and we have them, which proposed annexing 11% of the area of the West Bank which contains about 70% of the population of the settlements in a resolution with the exchange of lands.

I think that they had in mind that a state would be created which would have the same area as was occupied in 1967 which will create a settlement in the area. A real move for reaching a peace. Peace and stability even for the Israelis.

The difference between Rabin and Peres and the stubborn Netanyahu is that he is thinking only of "no Palestinian state". He is under the pressure of the Gush Emunim idea and program of settlements which are placed on the top of the mountains for only one reason: to prevent the existence of a Palestinian state.

Without a Palestinian state there will be a struggle for years and years.

IMRA: So when Fatah leaders like Marwan Barghouti say that there can be no compromise on the settlements and that a land swap is out of the question it is just rhetoric?

Habash: Now?

IMRA: Yes.

Habash: Now they are right. With Netanyahu they will not give any inch of the land.

IMRA: But they would have with Peres?

Habash: That was something else. Now we must start asking for all of Palestine since Netanyahu says that all of Palestine is part of Greater Israel.

We believe that if Netanyahu decides to act in the interest of his people that he can be better than Peres. He is the one who is capable. If he accepted the ideas he would be better than Peres. Because he is stronger than Peres for making peace.

The Labor Party is stronger than Netanyahu for making war. They can take whatever action they want to in Lebanon etc. because if they want to be aggressive they have the Likud with them. If Netanyahu wants to be peaceful he will have the Labor Party with him.

IMRA: So you think that Barak would be a mistake for the peace process?

Habash: I do not think that anything can come out from Barak. At the time of Rabin he was the one who destroyed the good steps of Rabin and Peres by insisting on entering the negotiations and let Rabin say "no sacred dates". He played a very bad role in the negotiations. I don't think that anything good can come out of him.

I think that Beilin knows what was meant by the ideas of Rabin. Though when they talk they are always afraid of saying the truths of the reality which they are accepting. Everyone is selling his own goods in his own way.