Posted on 05/24/2006 10:14:18 AM PDT by Alouette
In interview to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, jailed Fatah leader explains how he managed to get top Hamas, Islamic Jihad leaders to sign principles accepting establishment of Palestine on 1967 borders; next step is to draft peace plan and bring it to people’s approval in national referendum, Barghouti says
Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, who is imprisoned in Israel, said Wednesday that Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are negotiating with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas about a plan to bring a peace agreement to a national referendum.
Speaking to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Barghouti shed light on a document that made waves in the region when it was published – but received only marginal attention in Israel. “I presented a draft which we made together,” Barghouti, 46, said. “I was suggested ideas which I included in the draft, and in the end it was unanimously approved.”
The text includes 18 points whose aim is to prevent a Palestinian civil war and pave the way towards negotiations with Israel. “This is the first document approved by both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which recognizes the birth of a Palestinian country on the borders of 1967. It is pivotal because it unites the factions for a purpose that has international legitimacy.”
The interview, conducted by Davide Frattini with mediation of Barghouti’s lawyer Elias Sabag, suggests that Barghouti may have succeeded where Abbas has thus far failed – to convince Hamas to accept the idea of establishing a Palestinian nation on the 1967 territories, and a final agreement recognizing Israel’s secure borders. To do so, Barghouti recruited other leaders jailed with him at the Hadarim prison, which he was able to meet with for two hours daily when prisoners were given free time out of their cells. For weeks he held discussions with them in attempt to garner their support and signatures for his plan.
Barghouti’s statements come ahead of the launching of internal Palestinian dialogues Thursday between Fatah, Hamas and the other Palestinian factions, headed by Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. The sides will attempt to ground talks on the understandings reached with Barghouti, Abed al-Halak Natashe (top Hamas member jailed in Israel) and their associates. The understandings require the PA to recognize directly Israel’s existence and should reverse the international boycott on the Hamas government.
Your document calls for national unity. But until now the Hamas government has claimed that this is an “interesting project” without endorsing it.
We declare in the test that the PLO is the only body with the legitimacy to represent the Palestinian people in negotiations. Hamas and Islamic Jihad must join the organization, which will lead negotiations along with Abbas. A final agreement will be brought to the people to vote on in a referendum.
The Islamic Jihad doesn’t accept the ceasefire of February 2005 and continued to carry out suicide bomb attacks in Israeli cities.
Islamic Jihad leaders in prison would like the attacks against the occupation to be limited to the West Bank.
What about Hamas and Fatah, who are fighting with Kalashnikovs on the streets of Gaza?
The security forces should be barred from involvement in the inter-factional power struggles. The government and chairman must work together. My document establishes very important promises for a future Palestinian nation: Political pluralism, respect for women’s rights, freedom of the press.
How did you manage to convince Abed al-Halak Natashe to accept the idea of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders?
He is one of the founders of the organization, and is held in high esteem by the other leaders. He believes in national unity.
Khaled Mashaal in Damascus rejected the possibility that Hamas would recognize Israel. He invited Fatah to “unite under the flag of the Jihad to liberate all of Palestine.”
Hamas heads the government and has a parliamentary majority, but it must understand that no one right now can lead the Palestinian people by themselves. They must make a wider coalition, based on my plan to get Arab and international support for a just cause. Our people has the right to oppose the occupation.
What is your evaluation of Olmert’s new government? Amir Peretz as Defense Minister is interested in renewing dialogue with Abbas.
The Israelis are unwilling to have real negotiations, that would set a time schedule for their retreat from the territories conquered in 1967 and east Jerusalem. They speak of negotiations to throw dust in everyone’s eyes and to force a unilateral decision which ignores the Palestinian side. They speak of talks and force four million Palestinians to live in a cage.
With the withdrawal from Gaza, (former Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon showed bravery and the ability to change his mind. Do you recognize that?
From the moment the disengagement was announced, I was sure he would succeed in completing the operation. It was the right choice, a small step towards the end of the occupation. Sharon understood that controlling Gaza became too costly and Israel did not manage to break the spirits of the Palestinians.
Ali Waked contributed to the report
My "peace plan" for him is a bullet in the head so that he can "rest in pieces."
Why is this animal allowed to give interviews to the press? He is in prison, not a vacation resort (although sometimes it is hard to tell the difference).
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Unfortunately this guys plan sounds a lot like Olmert's
Olmerde should be in a cell next to him.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're going to go back to 1967 borders, then all of that land was part of a Palestinian country called "Jordan", wasn't it? So, clearly looking towards the prewar 1967 status quo is just a pretext for a land grab designed to establish a second Palestinian country in the area, but this one under the control of Fatah or Hamas thugs instead of under the control of the Jordanian king.
That is the fundamental flaw in all the talks. If the two sides really want to make peace and divide the land (excluding Jordan and Egypt), they need to think differently. It is no longer 1967 and the issues facing both sides are different.
To me, it makes no sense to attempt to go backwards to what was the armistice line 40 years ago. It doesn't even make sense for the Palestinians, because the Palestinians would want a sliver of sovereign land that connected Gaza to the West Bank areas for commcercial purposes. 1967 borders doesn't accomplish that.
So there has to be give and take. I suppose they can look at the land and resource distribution of the 1967 armistice line and then decide how to make changes so that Israeli settlements are traded for other lands. New technologies in desalination and farming can be put on offer. And I'm fairly certain that, if there is a convincing plan put forth, that the US, EU and Asia would contribute vast sums of money towards the development of the Palestinian economy and Israeli resource security.
Jerusalem will remain a stumbling block.
But so long as the Palestinians keep thinking about 40 years ago, their past is dictating their future. They are stuck in 1967 and that is why there is no peace, that is why they have not progressed socially or economically. They are being stupid because they are not thinking of the present or the future, only the past.
One more point which nobody every considers is the resettlment of so-called "refugees" in Lebanon. These are incredibly poor, undereducated people and they have their own factions that are out of the loop of the Palestinians Israel occupies today. How will they be integrated? The Arabs of the West Bank are more "middle class", they will most definitely not want these people resettled near them. Gaza is too small to fit them. An absorption plan for these people is nowhere in sight - more indication that the Palestinians are not ready for a state. They cannot plan for the future, they just don't know how. They are stuck in the past, thinking in terms of the past, and of course continually blaming Israel. But they give the upper hand to Israel because they do not have a viable plan for their own future, let alone offering any realistic promise of security for Israel.
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.