Interview: Palestinian MK Dr. Ahmad Tibi

Download Video (mp4) [right click the link and select 'save link as']

Download Audio (mp3) [right click the link and select 'save link as']


Palestine Center Brief No. 196 (20 April 2010)

Palestine Center Executive Director Yousef Munayyer recently sat down and spoke with Palestinian MK Dr. Ahmad Tibi in Washington, DC. The following is a transcript of their conversation.

YM: Some commentators and analysts here in the United States believe that the Obama administration wants to bring down [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu’s right-wing government and force the inclusion of Kadima into a new government which would make for a more compliant partner. Having a front row seat to Knesset politics, do you believe such analysis is accurate and would a government with Kadima in it be likely to halt and dismantle the illegal settlements?

AT: I am not sure that this analysis is correct. I think it is a wrong reading of the political map in Israel and about the remarks sent by the White House and the American administration to Netanyahu’s government. There are substantial remarks about settlement activity mainly in East Jerusalem. Yet, it is only remarks. The American administration did nothing in order to impose its opinion on Netanyahu’s government and they should. They should impose their position against settlements in this [Netanyahu] government because the whole international community is saying no to settlements. The American administration is saying no to settlements but only to say no and remarks will only be verbal without any tangible pressure.

YM: For example…

AT: Diplomatic for example; not to automatically use the veto in the Security Council mainly about settlement resolutions, or economical. If the American administration is saying they are totally opposing settlement activity why not prevent merchandise from the settlements here in the American markets? Why not do what is being done in England about putting labels on this merchandise? It is symbolic but it is important.

Let’s talk about coalition issues. Netanyahu has chosen the most radical parties in order to compose this coalition. He was able to do something else but he preferred to declare the most radical and right-wing coalition ever in Israel which is a settlement government. Supporting in all means--financially, politically, publicly--the settlements both in the West Bank and mainly in the occupied areas in East Jerusalem; totally violating written agreements and understandings with the White House and the State Department. Supposedly, [Leader of the Kadima party] Tzipi Livni will get in. It is not to say, at any case, that we are going to quickly finalize the negotiations. Tzipi Livni is the largest faction in the Knesset and she is in the opposition. But both Tzipi Livni and Netanyahu support settlements in East Jerusalem.

YM: And we have seen a history of that with the Kadima government, the establishment of Maskiot, the expansion of Efrat and a number of settlements that they decided to expand even at the last moments of their leadership in government.

AT: The Kadima government was very much active in enlarging settlements in the West Bank, mainly in East Jerusalem. They are talking about it proudly. Look, the way the American administration dealt with the negotiation process with not influential and was not successful. In every delicate station they told the Palestinian leadership or the Arab leaders, ‘we cannot put real pressure on the Israeli prime minister because we knew and we should understand his delicate coalition problems.’ As to say that Palestinians should be responsible for the Israeli internal political problems and to keep and sustain every Israeli coalition. Look, this coalition is radical, is rightist, is fascist. I am, as a member of the opposition, I am acting every day to bring down this coalition. Why should the American administration accommodate itself to the internal problems of every Israeli prime minister who is creating the most radical coalition?

YM: I want to focus a little but on some of the fascist elements of this coalition that you mentioned. How has life changed for the Palestinian citizens of Israel since the rise of the Israeli right? [Israeli Foreign Minister] Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu have been very aggressive toward this population. What new challenges are they facing?

AT: Racism became mainstream in Israeli society. Once, racists were only in the streets. Now, they are in the government; deputy prime minister, foreign minister, home minister. Avigdor Lieberman is targeting and concentrating all his efforts against the Arab minority and Arab citizens mainly against the Arab MKs, ourselves, in order to delegitimize our presence, our very presence in our homeland. He is proposing revoking our citizenship as a community. It is very strange that an immigrant who came just 30 years ago to the country by airplane is willing to deport or revoke the citizenship of the indigenous people. He is creating a hostile atmosphere towards us. Once, when Jörg Haider was elected in Austria as a leader of a party, the Austrian government was isolated. Here, he is being accepted in some capitals as a foreign minister. It’s a double standard. This man should be boycotted. He is a fascist by all means.

YM: We often hear about destructive Israeli policies in Jerusalem and the West Bank, like the demolition of Palestinians home. What we don’t often hear about is the demolition of Palestinian homes inside Israel. I recently read about thirteen Palestinian homes in Al-Lyd which are threatened with demolition. Can you tell us more about these types of challenges?

AT: The most and very sensitive obstacle between Israel as a state and its Arab citizens is the land issue. Our land has been confiscated from the very beginning, [since] 1948. At that time we were owning more than 80 percent of the land. Now we are owning only 3 percent of the private lands in Israel. All our lands were confiscated. Not confiscated for our sake but confiscated for the Jewish majority. This is discrimination. And when we are building inside our towns, they are demolition of houses. Tens of thousands of Arab houses in Arab towns and villages are threatened to destroyed and demolished by the home ministry. We are demanding to enlarge our areas; allow to build there. We are prevented. But we have needs, natural growth, as citizens. Israel is recognizing the need for natural growth of the settlers but does not recognize our need for natural growth as citizens. That’s why I am saying that Israel is a state of its own settlers and not its own citizens. It prefers settlers over its Arabs citizens. Not one Arab town was created from 1948. Hundreds of settlements were created from 1948 and from 1967, also in the West Bank and Gaza strip--in the occupied territories. It is built in discrimination against us. This is a policy and official policy. I have a motion, a law in the Knesset, to enforce the authorities to create a new Arab town. It has been brought down by the government.

YM: After the Goldstone debacle in the fall, there was a conference held by Palestinians in Israel calling for the dissolution of the [Palestinian Authority] PA. This was probably the most significant involvement of the Palestinian community in Israel with the politics of the Palestinian Authority. What are the political relations between both groups like now and how would you characterize the views of the Palestinian community in Israel toward the inter-Palestinian divide?

AT: This move that you are talking about did not represent and was not initiated by the Arab community. It was represented by only one party. We are trying to bridge the gap between Fateh and Hamas, to reunify factions and not to call for dissolving this faction or another, this authority or another. We have remarks, some critical remarks, about the behavior of both Fateh and Hamas. But the split which took place in Gaza was disastrous. When I was going to the Knesset in the day when Hamas took over in Gaza, shooting each other in the streets, one Israeli rightist member of the Knesset came to me and said, “I want to tell you something Ahmad Tibi.” I said, “Yes?” He said, “This is the first time I hope both parties will succeed.” It was very painful, very insulting. That’s why I feel shame of this dispute and this rift between Gaza and the West Bank, between Fateh and Hamas. We are calling to reunify the Palestinian people and to have democratic elections in order to give the people the right to decide who should rule. It is the only civilized way to decide.

YM: Many are opposed to any relations with Israel, normalization or any other form of communication with the Israelis. Some would argue that Palestinians should not bother being involved in Israeli politics as this is in effect a form of normalization. How would you respond to these critics?

AT: We are living there. We are responsible for the good living of our community. We should be responsible for improving the status and situation of the Arab community. We should be responsible for politically representing the Arab minority in the Knesset in order not to be allowing revoking the citizenship of the Arab minority. You know, Lieberman is willing to have the Knesset cleaned of Arab MKs in order to have all of our country cleaned of Arabs. That’s what they are saying. We should be there. We should not give any gift for the right, fascist parties by leaving the parliament. I think that those who are not participating in the elections are making a mistake. We should be there in order to say to the whole world and to the Israeli public and to ourselves that we have rights and that we are defending our rights all over the place; in the streets, in the public and in the Knesset itself as a parliament.

YM: Speaking at the Palestine Center, you mentioned Israel’s pre-occupation with the Iranian nuclear issue. This continues today. Palestinians in Israel, when polled, believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and have a right to it, in stark contrast Jewish Israelis. Is Israel’s reaction to the Iranian program a sincere expression of security concerns or a necessary distraction from the realities of occupation?

AT: I am calling for dismantling the whole Middle East from weapons of mass destruction. The only country which has this kind of weapon is Israel. I do not want neither Israel nor Iran or any other country in the Middle East to have a nuclear weapon. Israel should respect all the international covenants about nuclear weapons and it is not. They are violating international law. I think President Barack Obama talked about that last week; that they should abide by these treaties. There is a hypocrisy on this issue. I do not want any nuclear weapons to be in the Middle East. But it seems like Israel is using this issue as an excuse to have all the time, external intimidation, to recruit and mobilize its public that, ‘we are in danger from an external, huge enemy,’ like in Iraq; Saddam Hussein. They were the first to say Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he did not. From the other side, I feel that the remarks of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad are mistaken when he is talking about the destruction of Israel. This is a weapon in the hands of Binyamin Netanyahu. They are using these kinds of statements to recruit and mobilize their public opinion and here in the United States of America and in the Congress. Because this ammunition is given to them by these kinds of statements by Ahmadinejad and this is a mistake.

YM: Finally, many years of a failed peace process, ineffective Palestinian leadership and accelerated Israeli colonization in the occupied territory has lead to a growing chorus of advocates, Palestinian and Israeli alike, of a bi-national state. A colleague of yours, MK Said Naffa, spoke at the Palestine Center last summer and said that a one-state solution was Israel’s nightmare, yet, it was marching toward it anyway. What are your views on this issue?

AT: I wrote an article before six years saying that we should talk about choices. I do believe that the optimal solution, supposed and supported by the international community, is the two-state solution. But every day that passes puts an obstacle placed by Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government for creating this kind of solution. Netanyahu talked about a two-state solution at Bar Ilan University. I do not believe him. If you are supporting a two-state solution, you should acknowledge that you should put an end to the occupation of 1967 as a whole. Instead, he is supporting settlements, continuing settlement activity. Last week the Israeli military issued the military order 1650 enabling them from deporting any Palestinian from any place in the West Bank, just like that. They are not sincere. That is to say that we should appeal to the Israeli government and to Binyamin Netanyahu saying if you are willing to have a two-state solution, ahlan wa sahlan, but you should recognize the need to put an end to occupation first, and you are not. That’s why we should say to the Israelis, if there is no hope for a two-state solution; one democratic state is the other option and you should choose. And the international community should choose. Definitely, they are feeling that this kind of solution is a nightmare. They do not accept it in any case. The third option, which is being chosen by Binyamin Netanyahu and every Israeli government, is the status quo which is leading to the deepening of the apartheid system in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Then, this should be the challenge to the international community: to accept the reality of deepening the apartheid or to impose the solution of Israel putting an end to the occupation.

This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

Share |