[Ppnews] May 6th another court date for Palestinian National Leader Ahmad Sa'adat
Political Prisoner News
ppnews at freedomarchives.org
Wed May 2 10:39:10 EDT 2007
Ahmad Sa’adat (Abu Ghassan): Secretary General of
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
(PFLP), the second largest faction in the PLO and
the leading Palestinian party of the
left. Sa’adat has been held without trial in
Jericho jail under U.S./U.K. monitoring since May
2002, accused by Israel of ordering the
assassination of former Israeli Minister of
Tourism Rehavam Zeevi. He was nominated by the
PFLP to run as a Parliamentary candidate in the
PLC elections scheduled for January 2006, as a
means of publicizing his continued detention and
bringing pressure to bear for his release.
Sa’adat is a veteran of the first Palestinian
intifada, and has spent a total of 10 years in
Israeli jails for PFLP activism. He rose to
prominence within the PFLP for his activities as
an organizer and leader of Palestinian prisoners.
Although not well-known internationally or in the
media, Sa’adat - a PFLP “insider” who has always
stayed in the West Bank and Gaza rather than
going into exile - >is highly regarded in the
Occupied Territories as a charismatic leader who
remains in touch with the grassroots.
A math teacher by training, Sa’adat is married
(to Abla) and has four children. He lives in al-Bira, near Ramallah.
THE PFLP
The PFLP is the largest party on the Palestinian
left, with an ideology that combines Arab
nationalism with Marxist-Leninism. It was
founded in 1967 by George Habash, a Palestinian
Christian (and Palestinian Orthodox Christians
have historically been prominently represented in
the movement). The PFLP does not recognise the
existence of Israel as a Jewish state, and
rejects the Oslo process. It reserves the right
to use all means, including armed intifada, in
pursuit of a single, secular democratic state of
Arabs and Jews on all of Mandate Palestine. It
sees the Palestinians’ struggle as an integral
part of the wider struggle against U.S.
imperialism and its client regimes in the Middle
East. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the
rise of political Islam, the PFLP has been
eclipsed as Palestine’s second political party by
Hamas. (It polled about 7% in the Palestinian
local elections in the fall/winter of 2005). One
of Ahmad’s Sa’adat’s declared aims as party
leader is to re-establish the popular base of the
PFLP and establish it as
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12004.htm>a
third pole in Palestinian politics, alongside Fatah and Hamas.
Some historical background on the PFLP from
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,543212,00.html>Lawrence
Joffe: Said to be the second largest faction
within the PLO apparatus after Yasser Arafat's
own Fatah, the Popular Front was officially
created in the wake of the Six Day war, in
December 1967. Since 1948, Palestinians had felt
grievously let down by other Arab leaders. Fatah
chose the path of galvanising the West Bank and
Gaza masses to throw off the yoke of their new
Israeli rulers. When this proved a failure, Fatah
effectively took over the discredited PLO, and
over time sought friends and money in the Arab world.
The PFLP, by contrast, interpreted the Palestine
problem as merely the worst symptom of a general
Middle Eastern malaise. They eschewed support
from Gulf potentates, turning instead to the
patronage of Russia and China. The PFLP saw the
elimination of Israel as a means towards the
ultimate goal, of ridding the Middle East of
dictators who kow-towed to Western capitalism.
Under the rule of Habash, they fused together a
heady brew of Maoism and Arab nationalism. Soon
the group gained international notoriety for
hijackings and terrorist attacks. In Amman,
Jordan, the belligerency of their cadres was
blamed for the onset of the Black September
crackdown of 1970, which crushed the PLO and
forced its flight to safer climes in southern Lebanon.
But with the decline of the Soviet economy, the
onset of detente and eventual collapse of the
USSR, the PFLP lost ground to the distinctly
unsecular radicals of Hamas. [Habash’s successor,
Abu Ali] Mustafa was prominent in promulgating
the 1987 intifada through radio broadcasts, but
in time the group showed signs of schism, as
"insiders" on the West Bank, like Riad al-Malki,
forged links with Fatah and even Israeli left-wingers.
Attempting to regain the initiative after the
supposed PLO-Israeli breakthrough of Oslo in
1993, the PFLP joined forces with a 10-member
rejection front, based in Damascus. It forbade
members to participate in the Palestinian
elections in 1996, but three years later,
Mustafa, accepting the Palestine Authority as a
fait accompli, rushed to Cairo to negotiate better terms with Yasser Arafat.
The PFLP’s election of Ahmad Sa’adat in October
2001 to replace its assassinated
Secretary-General, was generally regarded as a
sign that the movement was shifting moving away
from the more pragmatic positions of Abu Ali
Mustafa, and reverting to the more hardline
rejectionism of its original founder.
More background on the PFLP from:
o
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/profiles/1604540.stm>BBC
News
o <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFLP>Wikipedia
o
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,576140,00.html>The
Guardian
AHMAD SA’ADAT BIOGRAPHICAL TIMELINE:
1953 – Born in al-Bira, to 1948 refugees from the
destroyed village of Dayr Tarif (nr al-Ramleh).
1967 – Became a student activist following the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, in the PFLP-led Palestine Student Union.
1969 – Formally joined the PFLP, attracted by its
combination of Marxism-Leninism (which he felt
most suitable for the son of a refugee peasant
family) with traditional pan-Arab nationalism.
Feb 1969 – First arrested by Israel for PFLP
activities; 3 months detention. Arrested again
in 1970 (28 months), 1973 (10 months), 1975 (45
days). Credits his early years in prison with
giving him the opportunity to advance his
understanding of Marxist theory and consolidating his commitment to the PFLP.
1975 – Graduated from the UNRWA Teachers Training
College in Ramallah, specializing in Mathematics.
1976 – Rearrested by the Israelis (detained for four years).
Apr 1981 - Elected to the Central Committee of the PFLP.
1989 – Arrested and held in administrative detention for 9 months.
1992 - Arrested and held in administrative detention for 13 months.
Mar 1993 - Elected to the Politburo of the PFLP
while still in administrative detention,
reportedly in recogition of his education and
organizing activities with other detainees.
1993 – Released from administrative detention,
but declared a “wanted person” liable to re-arrest, shortly after release.
1994 – Elected leader of the PFLP in the West Bank.
1995 – Arrested by the PA and briefly detained in
a sweep of PFLP members, under Israeli pressure.
Mar 1996 – Briefly detained without charge again
by the PA in a sweep of known activists.
Dec 1996 –
<http://phrmg.org/monitor1997/may97-9.htm>Arrested
by the PA in a roundup of PFLP members on the
West Bank, following a PFLP attack on Israeli
settlers in Beit-El/Surda on 11
December. Released without charge on 27 February
1997 after conducting a
<http://phrmg.org/monitor1997/may97-9.htm>hunger
strike, the PA fearing the consequences if he
should die in jail. (Collapsed hours after
release, and spent several days comatose and on a
respirator in Ramallah Hospital).
2000 – George Habash steps down as General
Secretary of the PFLP, at the party’s Sixth
National Conference. Replaced by Mustafa Zibri
(Abu Ali Mustafa), a member of the 'old guard' of
exiled leaders based in Damascus, and regarded as
a pragmatist in relations with Arafat and with Israel.
27 Aug 2001 -
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,543212,00.html>Abu
Ali Mustafa assassinated when an Israeli
helicopter fired rockets at his office in the West Bank town of Ramallah.
3 Oct 2001 – Ahmad Sa’adat elected
Secretary-General of the PFLP, regarded as a
shift away from the pragmatism of Abu Ali Mustafa
and in line with the more hardline principles of
George Habash. Sa’adat declares at his inaugural
press conference that the goals of the
Palestinian people are "our right of return, and
our independence, with Jerusalem as the capital”
He also vows to avenge the assassination of Abu Ali Mustafa.
17 Oct 2001 – Four members of the PFLP
assassinate the far-right Israeli Tourism
Minister
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,576077,00.html>Rehavam
Zeevi. (Zeevi is known as a supporter of the
forced expulsion of the Palestinians from the
Occupied Territories, and as a proponent of
“<http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,576142,00.html>targetted
assassinations”. His assassination is a popular
move among militants, and reinvigorates support
for the PFLP in the Occupied Territories). Israel
accuses Sa’adat of having ordered the assassination.
22 Oct 2001 – The PA
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/557/re2.htm>condemns
the killing of Zeevi as contrary to wider
Palestinian interests as it gives Israel an
excuse to take military action in the Occupied
Territories.
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa06000.html>Jibril
Rajoub, head of the West Bank Preventative
Security Service, outlaws the military wing of
the PFLP - the Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades -
and issues an ultimatum to Ahmad Sa’adat to turn himself in or face arrest.
24 Oct 2001 – IDF attacks the West Bank village
of
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/559/15op1.htm>Beit
Rima, apparently in an unsuccessful attempt to
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/558/re1.htm>capture
Sa’adat, shooting dead nine Palestinians
including 5 local
<http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20011106.asp>policemen
sleeping in an olive grove.
15 Jan 2002 – Sa’adat is arrested by Palestinian
special forces after being lured to a meeting in
a Ramallah hotel with PA Intelligence chief
<http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/01/17/story21304.asp>Tawfiq
Tirawi. The PFLP
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1763467.stm>condemns
the PA for caving to U.S. and Israeli pressure,
and putting its own
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,635389,00.html>survival
ahead of the national consensus by arresting the
head of a PLO faction. Its military wing warns
that it will
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1766273.stm>kill
Arafat aides if Sa’adat is not released. PFLP
supporters protest the arrest in the streets of
Ramallah, Gaza City and Bethlehem.
2 Feb 2002 – The PFLP's politburo announces that
the movement will suspend its participation in
the PLO
<http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Feb/26413.htm>Executive
Committee until Sa’adat is released.
21 Feb 2002 – The PA’s General Intelligence
Services
<http://www.amin.org/eng/elias_zananiri/2002/feb/feb21.html>capture
in Nablus the cell of the Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa
Brigades believed responsible for the
assassination of Zeevi. They are held with
Sa’adat at Arafat’s Ramallah compound.
Mar-Apr 2002 – Sa’adat besieged with Arafat in
the Muqata by the IDF, beginning 29 Mar.
29 Apr 2002 - Under heavy U.S. pressure, Arafat
<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0430-02.htm>accepts
a deal to end the siege of his compound. The
terms of the deal are not made public but it is
apparent that Israel has agreed to lift the siege
on Arafat in return for the PA agreeing to
imprison under international supervision Ahmad
Sa’adat, the four PFLP members accused of killing
Zeevi (Basel al-Asmar, 'Ahed Abu Ghalma, Majdi
al-Rimawi and Hamdi Qar'an), and Fuad Shubaki -
the PA official accused of organising the Karine
A weapons shipment. The four PFLP members are
cursorily tried by a military tribunal inside the
Muqata, and sentenced to terms up to 18 years’
imprisonment for killing Zeevi. Arafat rules
that Sa’adat is a political leader, not a
military leader, and so his case must be decided
by the Palestinian
<http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2002/05/02/28167_.html>judiciary.
1 May 2002 – All six are transferred to Jericho
Prison on the evening of 1 May, where they are
nominally under the control of the P.A. but
actually guarded by U.S. and British
monitors. Arafat is widely criticised in the
Occupied Territories for winning his own freedom at the expense of Sa’adat’s.
2 May 2002 – IDF withdraws from the Muqata.
3 Jun 2002 – The Palestinian High Court of
Justice in Gaza rules that there is no evidence
linking Sa’adat to the assassination of Zeevi,
and no legal grounds for his continuing
detention. It orders his immediate
<http://198.65.147.194/English/News/2002-06/03/article78.shtml>release
from
jail.
<http://www.centerpeace.org/MEWIR/Volume%202%5CMEWIR%20Vol%202%20Issue%208.htm>Ra'anan
Gissin, an Israeli government spokesperson,
implies that if the PA releases Sa’adat, he will
be assassinated (“if he is not brought to
justice, we will bring justice to him”
)
4 Jun 2002 - The Palestinian Cabinet
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,727254,00.html>declines
to implement the High Court ruling,
<http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-06/04/article16.shtml>ostensibly
because it fears that Sa’adat will be
assassinated if released. (More realistically, it
is probably because releasing Sa’adat will
contravene the terms of the 29 Apr agreement that
removed the Isrelis from the Muqata).
13 Jun 2002 –
<http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=501>Amnesty
International calls for the PA to respet the
finding of the High Court and release Sa’adat
immediately, and for Israel to guarantee it will
not take extrajudicial measures against
him. Palestinian
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/591/re3.htm>NGO’s
call upon Arafat to uphold the rule of law. Sa’adat remains in jail.
20 Aug 2002 – Israeli Special Forces troops
assassinate Sa’adat’s younger
<http://english.people.com.cn/200208/21/eng20020821_101833.shtml>brother,
Mohammed, a low-ranking
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/601/re2.htm>member
of the PFLP, at his home near Ramallah.
Muhammed Sa'adat (22) was assassinated in his house
in Al-Bireh by an Israeli special unit yesterday
.
(al-Quds al-Arabi, 21 August 2002).
26 Aug 2002 – Sa’adat begins a 72-hour
<http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=201659&contrassID=1&sub>hunger
strike to protest his continued detention.
14 Jan 2003 – In a
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-News/message/8332>letter
from prison, Sa’adat expresses his opposition to
the Road Map, on the grounds that it is designed
solely to provide security for Israel’s
occupation and criminalize opposition to it as terrorism.
23 Jan 2003 – Sa’adat’s wife, Abla, is
<http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:4fSvZhCKMhIJ:www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/5012660.htm%3Ftemplate%3DcontentModules/printstory.jsp+%22ahmed+sa%27adat%22&hl=en>arrested
by Israeli troops at the Allenby Bridge border
crossing, and prevented from addressing the
<http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/activist_detained_by_israelis.htm>World
Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where she was a scheduled speaker.
15 Mar 2005 – PA President Mahmoud Abbas suggests
that Sa’adat will be
<http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3058596,00.html>released
when the PA resumes security control of Jericho
later that month. Other PA officials deny they
have any such intention, and Sa’adat himself
<http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-3-15/27084.html>doubts
whether the PA even has the power to release him.
23 Nov 2005 – The PFLP announces that Sa’adat
will run in the
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=648755>PLC
elections of Jan 2006, in the hope that this will
raise awareness of his imprisonment and bring pressure to bear for his release.
Other Biographical Information Online
o Profile of Ahmad Sa’adat
from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1763912.stm>BBC NEWS
o Biographical notes from Glen
Rangwala’s
<http://middleeastreference.org.uk/palbiograph.html#AhmadSa’adat>Middle
East Reference
o And from the Palestinian
Academic Society for the Study of International
Affairs
(<http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/personalities/alpha_s.htm>PASSIA)
POLITICAL VIEWS
Sa’adat is regarded as a "hardliner" within the
PFLP, strongly opposing compromise with Israel
and less inclined to recognise the authority of
the PA than Abu Ali Mustafa. He regards the
right of return for Palestinian refugees as the
central issue in the Palestinian/Israeli
conflict, which can be ultimately resolved only
through a non-sectarian single state solution.
Sa’adat regards international law and U.N.
resolutions as the basis for realising
Palestinian aspirations, and rejects the idea
that U.S. mediation can ever take the place of
international law or lead to a just solution, as
it is U.S. imperialism in the Middle East (and
Israel’s role in it as a U.S. proxy) that lies at
the heart of the conflict. He does not believe
that the PA can do anything to bring the
occupation to as end, as it depends for its
survival on providing security for the Israeli
occupier. Inasmuch as the PA opposes the armed
struggle and seeks to end it in favour of a
negotiated solution, Sa’adat regards it as a
vehicle of the capitalist ruling classes and an
obstacle to Palestinian freedom rather than a means of achieving it.
Sa’adat advocates intifada by all means
available, including education and mobilisation
of the masses alongside continuation of the armed
struggle, and regards the Palestinian intifada as
an integral part of the wider international
struggle of the left against U.S. imperialism in
its militaristic (e.g. the invasion of Iraq) and
economic (e.g. “globalization”) forms.
Comments by Sa’adat
On the right of return: The Right of Return is
neither a knee-jerk emotional reaction, nor an
abstract legal right, nor right-wing chauvinism.
On the contrary, it is realistic, and constitutes
the only basis for a permanent and everlasting
peace
Any solution that ignores the Right of
Return as a basis for a permanent peace between
the Palestinians and the Jewish settlers who
forcibly expelled the indigenous people of
Palestine and colonized the land may produce
short periods of quiet and calm, but will not
eliminate the objective conditions that produce
the conflict between our people and the Zionist movement.
Therefore, the implementation of international
resolutions and international law pertaining to
the Right of Return, as a first step, may prepare
the foundation for a permanent peace and end the
struggle in Palestine and around Palestine. This
right, as the essence of the Palestine question,
represents the bridge for a democratic and
comprehensive solution of the conflict between
the Jewish settlers and the Palestinian people.
(<http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=111>Source)
On the two state solution:
1. Some have argued that the current reality is
pushing towards a two-state solution - an Israeli
state next to a Palestinian state based on the
pre-1967 borders. Of course, this solution
involves ignoring the Right of Return, or
replacing it with reparations. We in the PFLP
argue that forcing such a solution on the
Palestinian people will not end the struggle,
because the facts and reality contradict such a
solution. The two-state solution that is based on
the racist notion of 'a national, homogeneous
Jewish state' totally disregards the fact that
over 1.3 million Palestinians - 20% of the entire
population - live inside 'Israel.' This will
continue to permit the causes of conflict to
remain inside Israel. Therefore, the solution
based on two states is a myth
(<http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=111>Source).
2. The two state solution is a starting point
which will create the necessary climate for a
peaceful solution. Of course, the fight for a
single democratic state, without any kind of
ethnic or religious discrimination, should never
end, because it is the only possible solution
that can solve the problem of the Palestinians of
1948 and of the right to return. In this fight
we need international solidarity and unity from
those who struggle along with us. As
Palestinians and also as PFLP, we are proud of
all these actions of solidarity with the
Palestinian
people.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12005.html>Source)
3. In the PFLP, we don’t think that “two states
for two peoples” is a viable solution. Even if
we reach this goal, the problem will be far from
resolved, primarily because the state of Israel
will continue to exist exactly as it is. Above
all, two major questions would remain: What
about the refugees? For us, the question of the
right of return for refugees, who represent more
than half of all Palestinians, is a fundamental
question inasmuch as the right of return is an
inalienable right. Now, the two state solution
leaves out the refugees. It is out of the
question that they can live in the West Bank or
in Gaza
you see, the main problem remains. And
what happens to the Palestinians of 1948? This
problem is equally important. There are more
than a million of them, and they are first and
foremost Palestinians, and they too live under
the oppression of the state of Israel. I won’t
spell it out but you can see, the two state
solution can only be at best a temporary solution.
A real solution to the conflict would have to
meet three fundamental needs: the end of the
occupation, the return of the refugees, and the
creation of a truly democratic government on all
of historic Palestine. When you look at history,
this is the only legitimate
solution.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12002.html>Source)
On the Oslo agreement – These agreements were a
project – almost entirely economic in nature –
drawn up between the Palestinian bourgeoisie and
the Israeli occupier. Through these accords,
Israel succeeded in making the PLO give up its
platform and strategy, to the detriment of the
Palestinian population’s living
conditions. Remember that at that time, after
the Gulf War, the PLO had enormous financial
difficulties. The Oslo Accords offered the
possiblity of financial recovery thanks to
important commercial agreements. Oslo is not a
political agreement that might have led to a
solution for the Palestinian people. Instead it
was a plan that involved only security
and commercial issues, with Israeli security as one of its goals.
There was with Oslo a passing of the baton
between the Israelis and the Authority in a
number of regions, including in those areas that
the Authority did not completely control. The
years passed, with the results that you already
know, and there was one fundamental rule
contained in the Oslo Accords: namely, it was
forbidden to seek any “solution” except through negotiation with the Israelis.
Then there was the Camp David episode, and the
scandalous proposals of Barak and Clinton. The
PFLP was (and still is) in favour of stopping all
negotiations with the occupier, which would have
meant that the Palestinian Authority would have
had to become a real resistance movement, in
touch with the people. But it didn’t choose that
route. And so today we have reached this
situation in which the only opposition that
remains between occupier and occupied is the
opposition of the Palestinian people against the
state of Israel. Meanwhile the Authority looks
in from the outside, a spectator that wants only
one thing, which is to recover its power at any
price.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12002.html>Source)
On the road map:
1. The Road Map seems like a reward for the
Palestinian people or, if you will, the carrot
that has to be given to the Arabs of Palestine in
place of the stick that’s been used against the
Iraqis. In reality, it must be said that the
Road Map is above all an attempt to contain the
Palestinians and to stop the intifada: so
completing what the Israelis have done with the
“stick” with America’s international
backing. The Road Map tries to skirt round UN
resolutions, which recognise the right of our
people to have their own independent state. This
plan has the aim of reshaping Palestinian
aspirations, so that their state will be designed
according to the needs and limits laid down by
Israel. I too wonder how the PNA can be so
attached to it, and I can’t give any logical
explanation. Because the Road Map doesn’t offer
anything new, but leads to a return to
negotiations under the terms of the Oslo Accords,
which led ultimately to the dead end called Camp
David.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12006.html>Source)
2. The illusions of the Palestinian Authority
were offset by the reality contained in the Road
Map. The PA thought, or perhaps wished, that the
Road Map would provide the pathway and mechanisms
towards an independent state on the Palestinian
lands occupied in 1967, based on the address by
George Bush in which he called for the formation
of a Palestinian leadership that would seriously
fight terrorism (in other words, the Palestinian Resistance).
It was clear that the primary aim of this new-old
security project was to contain the Palestinian
issue, to provide security for the Zionist
occupier and its settlers, and to transfer the
entire crisis onto Palestinian society.
Too
much has been said about the Road Map. Suffice to
say that the Road Map is a political initiative
that is based on the criminalization of the
Palestinian people and condemnation of the
Palestinian resistance as terrorism. It is also a
blatant intervention in the Palestinian internal
affairs. The Road Map can only serve as an
American political umbrella to manage and contain
the crisis in Palestine, providing more space for
“Israel” to impose its logic on both our people
and on the Palestinian Authority.
We are asked to exchange the Intifada for the
Road Map. Such exchange will not be beneficial
for our people and will only re-create the wheels
of Oslo but in a much worse version! It might
have benefits, but only for specific layers in
the ruling class within the Palestinian
Authority, which took advantage of Oslo and the
political negotiation to build its own private
projects and to partnerships with Zionist
investors. (<http://www.alhadafmagazine.com/dpPLO/dp.asp>Source)
On the role of the Palestinian Authority:
1. The Palestinian bourgeoisie has chosen the
path of negotiations and conciliation with the
Zionist entity keeping the struggle as a tactical
option that it uses to improve its position every
time its negotiations with Israel reach an
impasse that aggravates its internal
contradictions. Regardless of their intentions,
the strategic path that they have chosen for
settling the struggle of the Palestinian people
with the Zionist enemy and for attempting to
attain the components of the national
establishment - this chosen path, in light of the
real balance of forces on the ground locally,
regionally, and internationally, leads
objectively to frittering away the national
rights of our people. If, as a supposition, this
choice in the beginning was by way of an
erroneous analysis, today after the emergence of
the Authority and the concentration of ruling
class coalition interests it represents, the
chosen path has come to express a vital and
strategic interest in remaining in power.
Abandoning the path of conciliation would
threaten to destroy the agreements that brought
the bourgeoisie outside and inside the homeland
to the pinnacle of the self-rule government.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12001.html>Source)
2. As for the silence surrounding us, primary
responsibility for that rests I think with the PA
itself and with the NGO’s associated with
it. They have chosen to put the emphasis on
those held in Israel because for them our case is
really embarrassing. As I said, they put us here
because the Americans insisted, and the fact that
Palestinian leaders agreed to arrest members of
the Palestinian resistance looks very
contradictory. This is why the PA and its NGO’s
have chosen to keep quiet about our case. It is
an enormous admission of weakness.
We are here because we did away with Zeevi, a
racist minister of the extreme right, who
advocated the “transfer” of all Palestinians to
Jordan, who was a member of the Israeli cabinet
and consistently supported every proposal to
assassinate leaders of the Palestinian
resistance. He was one of the people who asked
for the assassination of Abu Ali Mustafa [former
secretary of the PFLP, killed in August
2001]. We have the right to respond in kind,
i.e. by killing one of their leaders. What the
Authority should have done and should do now,
rather than submitting to Israeli demands, is to
do exactly what the Israelis do: demand that all
the Israelis who order or carry out the murder of
Palestinians be handed over to them. Instead of
that, it says nothing and just avoids talking
about us. All that it has succeeded in doing is
to help the Israelis, who have been demanding for
some time that the PFLP be included on the
European Union’s list of terrorist organisations.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12005.html>Source)
3. The Authority would like the resistance to
end completely in order to negotiate with the
Israelis, but this is not how the general
population or the political parties feel. We
want much more: after the failure of Oslo, we
want a real strategy of struggle that will make
it possible for Palestinian claims to be
realised, and for us to build a truly democratic
Palestinian society at the same time. Fatah
agrees with this. I would go so far as to say
that our political parties are collectively of
one mind today that we need a temporary
leadership to direct the Palestinian
resistance. Obviously the PA doesn’t want to
discuss a temporary leadership that would take away some of its own power.
It is clear that today the Authority is an
obstacle to the resistance, inasmuch as it
represents the interests of only the Palestinian
bourgeoisie, interests which they share with the
Israelis but not with the Palestinian
population. They have no interest in what the
intifada is trying to bring about. On the
contrary, what they want is to stop the
resistance; in other words, you could say that
their interests go against the interests of the
people. You see, even if we manage to create
unity between the Palestinian political parties,
an obstacle will remain, and it is called the
Palestinian
Authority.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12005.html>Source)
4. [I]n response to the whispers of those who
call for the end of the Intifada under the claim
of protecting the national interest of our
people, I would like to state clearly that the
continuation of the Intifada might harm the
interest of the Palestinian Authority. That is
logical and possible. However, the existence of
the Authority, any authority, is not a goal in
itself, except for those who see it as a mean to
self-interested gain. The Palestinian Authority
in our situation was supposed to be, according to
the defenders of Oslo, a mechanism for transition
from the occupation to a real Palestinian
sovereignty in order to end the occupation. Such
a view could be understood. However, if the PA
was no longer capable of such a task, and
responded to international pressure to justify
its existence, then the PA would be a tool of
oppression against the Palestinian people, the
Intifada and the resistance.& nbsp; Therefore, in
this case, what would justify the PA existence
and would it represent the highest national
interest of the Palestinian
people
? (<http://www.alhadafmagazine.com/dpPLO/dp.asp>Source)
On the intifada: The uprising is a popular
initiative. It is a state of rebellion which is a
response to the failure of the political
negotiations which reached a dead end in Camp
David 2000, and a rejection of the attempts by
Barak’s Zionist government to impose its
conditions on our people and marginalize the
Palestinian national rights. In other words, the
uprising was a natural response to the Zionist
political escalation against our people. And the
methods and weapons used by the resistance were
also a natural result to the Zionist military
escalation against our people. The weaknesses
which accompanied the uprising stemmed from the
absence of a unified political decision and the
absence of a unified leadership, as well as from
the state of political division that our people
have lived through since the birth of Madrid-Oslo
path. In addition the lack of harmony and balance
between the armed struggle and the popular mass
initiatives also weakened the uprising. There are
attempts to hold the uprising responsible for the
pain and the suffering of our people rather than
holding the occupier responsible. This is an
unjust judgment which holds no objective
understanding. It is only natural that the losses
of the occupied are larger than those of the
occupier, especially when the occupying power
posses a superior military machine.
(<http://www.alhadafmagazine.com/dpPLO/dp.asp>Source)
On the international context of the I/P conflict –
1. [W]e should never forget that our struggle
must be seen in an international context, i.e.
within the imperialist world order. Israel is a
state whose fundamental role is to protect the
interests of imperialism in our region. That has
strong resonances with the situation of South
Africa in the time of Apartheid. Our fight is
basically anti-imperialist. The Palestinian
question is today at the heart of world problems,
which is why we must build a resistance that is
linked to the anti-imperialist movements of the
whole world. The solidarity that we need is an
anti-imperialist solidarity. I’m thinking here
particularly of the anti-globalisation movement
which has developed over the last few years. If
we want to succeed, we must certainly build a
popular resistance, but we must also never
separate the local from the global and take care
to ensure that our struggle is integrated more
fully into the struggles against imperialism and
capitalist globalisation, both of which we must
address.
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12005.html>Source)
2. This leads us to stake out a position that
condemns the form of terrorism exported by
Americans as globalism, the latest form of their
imperialism ; to use this position to forge
alliances between the Arab regimes and the Arab
popular forces that are opposed to the latest war
of aggression against the peoples ; and to strive
to form the broadest possible world front to
stand in the face of the new imperialism. Of
overarching importance is that this three-fold
tactic be applied in tandem with an escalation of
the intifada and the resistance. Otherewise, if
the intifada and the resistance decline while
more moderate parallel activities are being
pursued, the self-interest of our Palestinian people will be forfeited.
One may choose to avoid confronting a bull while
it is stampeding around him, but avoiding
confrontation at such a moment does not
allevieate the eventual or present danger of
falling under its hooves. Avoiding confrontation
might appear "wise" and "logical" to one who
draws up his policies in the coffee houses,
offices, and parlors of diplomatic activity. But
this approach appears impotent to one who builds
his political position on the results of battles
in the field. The contrast likens that between a
slave who sees his master angry and breaks his
strike out of fear of punishment and the free man
who works as a slave, confronts his master, and
starts a slave revolt that sweeps away his
master’s authority, liberating all slaves and
returning bread, humanity, and dignity to each
one of them. The point of departure in this
situation is in defining the goals of the mad
bull. We all agree that these goals are evident
in America’s efforts to achieve total world
hegemony. This hegemony means that even if the
bull does not trample us today, it will trample
us under its hooves and finish us off tomorrow.
So which is the more useful policy, then, to
resist this bull, or to throw ourselves under its
hooves?
(<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12001.html>Source)
INTERVIEWS AND WRITINGS ONLINE
o Interview with Ahmed Sa’adat, on his
election as Secretary General of the PFLP –
published by
<http://apa.online.free.fr/imprimersans.php3?id_article=103&nom_site=Agence%20Presse%20Associative&url_site=http://apa.online.free.fr>al
Hadaf magazine,
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12001.html>reproduced
here with easier formatting.
o An interview with Ahmed Saadat - by
Julien Salingue for
<http://apa.online.free.fr/article.php3?id_article=99>Agence
Presse Association, 9 Sept 2002. Translations
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12002.html>in
English, and
<http://www.arcipelago.org/palestina/News/saadat_intervista.htm>in Italian.
o A
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-News/message/8332>letter
from Ahmad Sa'adat, rejecting the road map - 14 Jan 2003.
o An interview with imprisoned PFLP
General Secretary Ahmad Saadat – published by
<http://www.fightbacknews.org/2003-3-summer/pflp.htm>Fight
Back News, 20 May 2003.
o Saadat: The Road Map, an attempt to
reshape Palestinian aspirations - an interview
with
<http://www.arcipelago.org/palestina/road_map.htm>Arcipelago
online magazine, 25 May 2003; and in
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12006.html>English
translation.
o The Popular Palestinian Intifada
Where
is it heading? - Reflections on the third
anniversary of the Intifada;
<http://www.alhadafmagazine.com/dpPLO/dp.asp>al
Hadaf magazine, 28 September 2003.
o Arafat and Abu Ala have abandoned not
only me, but all Palestinians - interview with
<http://www.fdlpalestina.org/entrevistas/ahmed_saadat_secretario_general.htm>Diario
Español ABC, 4 February 2004, and in
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12003.html>English
translation.
o On The Strategic Level, We Want To
Create A Pole Of The Democratic Left - interview
by
<http://www.arcipelago.org/palestina/News%202005/SAADAT_11_05.htm>Mireille
Court and Chris Den Hond, August 2004; and in
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12004.html>English
translation.
o The struggle for a single, democratic
state, without any kind of ethnic or religious
discrimination, should never end – Interview by
Mireille Terrin & Chris den Hond for the
<http://www.france-palestine.org/article926.html>France
Palestine Solidarity Association, 5 Jan 2005;
also
<http://www.stopusa.be/scripts/texte.php?section=BR&langue=5&id=23429>in
Italian and
<http://www.geocities.com/lawrenceofcyberia/palbios/pa12005.html>in English.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20070502/06ec9057/attachment.htm>
More information about the PPnews
mailing list