صائب
عريقات סאיב
עריקאת
أبو علي Саиб
Эрекат
Саиб Арикат
Saeb Erekat
Saeb Erekat (Sa’ib
Muhammad Salih ‘Urayqat, Abu Ali). Academic & politician. PLC member
(representing Jericho), member of the PLO Executive Committee and
Fatah-Revolutionary Council; commonly referred to as Palestinian Chief
Negotiator, though technically Head of PLO's Negotiations Affairs
Department. Formerly Professor of Political Science at An-Najah National
University, Nablus.
Sixth of seven
children, born 28 April 1955 in Jericho (still lives in the same house); member
of a prestigious East Jerusalem/Abu Dis family (centred on Erikat House,
till commandeered by Israel in 1967). An uncle, Rashid
Erekat, was Minister of Transport
(1970), then Minister of Labour
(till 1988),
during Jordan’s administration of the West Bank. Father, Muhammad, was a
long-time resident of the U.S., who founded a bus company on
return to Palestine, but lost everything in the 1967 war. Read Erekat’s memories of
1967, and here
in English).
Educated from age
three through twelve at Terra Sancta Roman Catholic School, Jericho. Israeli occupation began when he was twelve;
first jailed at thirteen. Sent overseas to the U.S. to study at
seventeen (to family in San Francisco). Graduated from San Francisco State
University with BA in Political Science (1977), and MA in International
Relations (1979). Elected President of the Arab Students Association while at
SFSU.
Upon return to the West Bank in 1979, lectured in Political Science at An-Najah
National University (photo). Won a scholarship to the doctoral program at
the University of Bradford in the U.K. Studied conflict resolution at the
Quaker-endowed Dept of Peace Studies, graduating D.Phil in 1983, with doctoral
thesis on The Role of OPEC in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Has said that
it was at Bradford that he became convinced that there was no military solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it would end only through negotiation.
The uniqueness of my conflict with the
Israelis is that it cannot be played as a zero sum game. It’s two winners or
two losers, and two losers we have been -- dictation, walls, settlements,
occupation, bigotry, racism. And winning is only through the path of peace and
negotiation. That’s what I’m offering them.
- Interview with Kate Seelye; PBS Frontline, March 2006.
Began peace activism by writing op-ed pieces and news articles for the leading
Palestinian daily newspaper, al-Quds. One of his 1982 articles, calling
for a dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli academics, provoked an explosion
of anger on the An-Najah campus, and a boycott of his classes by students
protesting his "betrayal" of the Palestinian cause. He went on to
open an exchange program in 1983, bringing to An-Najah
Israeli students from the University of Tel Aviv; for which he was accused of
treason by Palestinian students and arrested by the
Israeli military authorities on the grounds that he was “sowing division among Israelis”.
Published eight
books and numerous research papers on international relations, conflict
resolution, the geopolitics of oil, the democratization
of the Middle East and redistribution of the region’s wealth. Also served as
An-Najah's Public Relations Director (1982-86).
Rose to
"inside" Palestinian leadership position when he was one of the young
academics (also Hanan Ashrawi & Sari
Nusseibeh) groomed by PLO representative in Jerusalem, Faisal Husseini.
Served as Sec-Gen of Husseini's Arab Studies Society. Joined
the editorial board of al-Quds newspaper in 1982 (till 1994).
First came to
prominence outside the Occupied Territories following the break in relations
between King Hussein of Jordan and Yasir Arafat’s PLO in Feb 1986, which led to
a rapprochement between Israel and Jordan who hoped to bypass the aspirations
of Palestinian nationalists by dominating the West Bank between them. Erekat
was an outspoken and repeated critic of this so-called “Jordanian option”. The result, as the New York Times noted
at the time, was that while Erekat’s support for a two-state solution on the
basis of the 1967 borders was regarded as the epitome of Palestinian moderation
elsewhere in the world, at home in the Israeli-occupied West Bank it was
regarded as dangerous extremism.
During a search of his
office for incriminating materials in June 1986, the IDF confiscated an
English-language newsletter Erekat had written for overseas friends of
an-Najah, in which he said that Palestinians should “endure and reject and
resist” military rule, withdrawing their cooperation from all the
trappings of the Occupation. This led to his arrest in Aug 86, on charges of
“inciting sedition” and “printing illegal literature”. While accepting that he was not a violent
man, the military prosecutor argued at trial that Erekat was “a respected
opinion leader and should be made an object lesson”. He was convicted on 7 Apr
1987, and his appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court against his conviction and
resultant jail sentence and fine was rejected the following June on the grounds
that "there is no freedom of speech in the
territories”. Was under intermittent
house arrest during early years of first intifada.
''When I listened to that sentence I thought to myself, the Israeli
occupation must really be in trouble,'' said Mr. Erakat. ''If they have reached
the point of fining someone like me $6,250 for three words written in English
and sent abroad, then the occupation is not working and they are really getting
nervous. They have become politically blind.''
In May 1988, Erekat
was one of three Palestinians (Haidar
Abdel Shafi and Hanan Ashrawi were the others) to participate in ABC Nightline's Town
Hall meeting
from Jerusalem (photo, below). First time that Palestinians had directly
addressed an Israeli (and Western audience).
Following the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Erekat was outspoken in his criticism of the
U.S. resort to military intervention to deal with Saddam Hussein. Noting the speed with which the Americans
acted to end the occupation of oil-rich Kuwait, even as Palestinians entered
their 23rd year under occupation, he warned that the Middle East did
not need to be destabilized further by wars fought for control of what lay
under its sand, but needed to be stabilized instead through wide-ranging reforms
that met the aspirations of the people who lived there. Firstly, it needed democracy, so that
political dissent had outlets other than sectarianism and religious extremism;
secondly, it needed more equitable distribution of wealth, with oil-rich
regimes diverting more of their petroleum profits into regional development and
esp into achieving food self-sufficiency; and thirdly, it needed a negotiated
end to the “bleeding wound” of the I/P conflict which, as a grievance of
visceral import on the Arab street, would continue to provide recruits for
extremism throughout the region as long as it remained unaddressed.
Absent these three
reforms, the U.S. might easily overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1990, but would find
itself repeatedly facing new Saddam Husseins as the underlying causes of
regional instability remained unaddressed.
He warned furthermore that toppling Saddam by force would not only fail
to produce the quiescent Iraq the U.S. hoped for, but would produce instead
profound unanticipated consequences, by greatly increasing anti-Americanism,
religious militancy, and the influence of Iran
throughout the region. The U.S. was therefore making an error of strategic
importance if it chose to unseat Saddam by force, instead of offering him a
face-saving formula for getting out of Kuwait.
Erekat at first
turned down an invitation from Arafat to serve on the Palestinian delegation to
the Madrid Conference on Middle East Peace that was organized in the aftermath
of Gulf War I, but subsequently
accepted and served as deputy leader (under Dr Haidar Abdel Shafi) of the
Palestinian/Jordanian delegation to Madrid, and subsequently to the Washington
talks (1992-3). Got a reputation as
a born politician and thorough and competent negotiator, though with an acerbic
tongue, sometimes unpredictable and emotional, and tending to impulsiveness.
Almost excluded from Madrid five days before the conference began, for stating
publicly what most commentators knew but were not supposed to say: i.e. that
the Palestinian delegates – limited at Israel’s insistence to “inside” Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, so
as to preserve the façade that Israel was not dealing with the “terrorists” of
the PLO - recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of all
Palestinians, and would effectively be a PLO delegation to the talks.
Also created a stir
at the opening session by wearing the black-and-white hatta (kaffiyah),
the visible symbol of Palestinian national identity: a show of defiance that
did not endear him to U.S. delegates Dennis Ross and James Baker III (who
accused him of showboating), nor to hard-line Israeli P.M. Yitzhak Shamir
who, thanks to the seating plan around the main conference table, found himself
sitting face to face with the universally-recognized symbol of PLO Chairman
Yasir Arafat.
Erekat’s action resonated, however, with his constituents who, after decades of being told that Palestinians didn’t exist as a people, and that their fate would be decided by others, gave him a hero’s welcome on his return to Jericho.
Saeb Erakat, a
Palestinian professor and newspaper editor, sat among the rows of delegates at
last week's Middle East peace conference, a black-and-white checked scarf
folded carefully around his shoulders… The 36-year-old resident of the West
Bank community of Jericho gazed steadily at Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Shamir.
"I was looking Shamir in the eye, saying, `You can't deny my
existence anymore,' " Erakat recalls. " ‘I am here.’ "
-- For
the Palestinians, New Faces and a Measure of Legitimacy; Los
Angeles Times, 3 Nov, 1991.
Joined Faisal
Husseini and Hanan Ashrawi in resigning (8 August
1993) as delegates to the (largely unproductive) Washington talks,
complaining that the “inside” PLO was being excluded from decision-making by
Arafat and the Tunis PLO. (It was worse
that they knew: while the Washington talks were ongoing, Arafat was
simultaneously conducting the secret back-channel talks with the Israelis that
would result in the Oslo Accords. When Oslo was made public, the
"inside" PLO regarded the accords as disastrous, as they put the
Palestinians’ leading concession i.e. the recognition of Israel on 78% of
mandate Palestine, at the opening of the peace process, with no guarantees of
statehood, end of occupation or dismantling of settlements in return). Hanan
Ashrawi's account of the early years of the Peace Process, "This Side of
Peace", includes her impressions
of Erekat.
Was reconciled with
Arafat and became the only member of the inside leadership to make the leap to
Arafat's inner circle after the return of the PLO-in-exile from Tunisia. Was
responsible for the creation of Jericho's city council under the Gaza-Jericho
agreement in 1994, and managed to put together a national unity
government including even the rejectionist parties Hamas and the DFLP.
Their inclusion in government helped to
prevent the emergence of a
competing militant infrastructure in Jericho, which was the only West Bank city
to escape major military
intervention in the second intifada.
Appointed lead
negotiator for the interim phase of peace talks in 1995. Became the public face
of the Palestinians to the English-speaking world during the peace process;
appeared on CNN more than any other foreign dignatory in the 90's, usually with
an appropriate anecdote or image to explain the inexplicable to a Western
audience. Also in Israel, where he and Jibril
Rajoub became viewed as the acceptable face of the PLO.
Erekat warned early in the process that Oslo was fragile, and would retain public confidence only as long as it produced results on the ground. He noted as early as January 1994 that Rabin’s failure the previous month to carry out the scheduled withdrawal of Israeli troops and transfer of civil authority to the Palestinians in Jericho and the Gaza Strip – a delay Rabin had defended on the grounds that in the peace process there were “no sacred dates” - had led to a precipitous drop in support for the peace process among Palestinians, who suddenly wondered if, having received in advance the PLO’s recognition of Israel on 78% of historic Palestine, the govt of Israel was really serious about implementing its own obligations for withdrawal and self-rule in the Occupied Territories. (When asked during a June 2003 interview with the BBC, and also here, to identify both sides’ principal errors during the peace process, Erekat described “no sacred dates” – i.e. the belief that commitments to the Palestinians could be sacrificed for domestic political considerations – as Israel’s biggest mistake. On the Palestinian side, the biggest mistake was “we did not prepare our public for what it takes to make a comprehensive peace on all issues of negotiations”, but instead courted popularity by telling people what they wanted to hear).
He saw the real
crisis in the peace process arrriving under the premiership of Netanyahu, who
had warned in 1994 - soon after succeeding Yitzhak Shamir as Likud party leader
– that should he become Prime Minister of Israel, he would feel no obligation
to honor the Labor Government's Oslo agreement with the PLO. Erekat warned that the peace process had
been transformed by Netanyahu’s election to the premiership in 1996:
- In the shadow of
Arafat's failing health: The Man With The Keffiyeh; Ha’aretz
(archived, subscription req’d), 26 Jun 1998.
Erekat maintained
that the key to the survival of the peace process was whether the U.S., the
only party with significant leverage over Israel, would insist upon continuing
adherence to Oslo, or turn a blind eye to the actions of an Israeli govt that
did not feel bound by it. When Netanyahu initiated a new program of Israeli
settlement in occupied East Jerusalem, and the Clinton Administration proved
unwilling or unable to restrain him, Erekat concluded that the U.S.
administration had calculated it was politically easier to blame the Palestinians
for the faltering peace process, than to face the domestic political
ramifications of holding Israel accountable. By early 1997 he was deeply
pessimistic about survival of the Oslo process…
We had an agreement
that was witnessed and signed by President Clinton. The question is: 'Did you,
Mr. Clinton, sign this agreement as a photo op? Or was your signature there to
guarantee the precise and accurate implementation of this agreement?' "
Palestinians say they
do not believe that Americans realize the depth of the crisis. The implication
is that the peace process could disintegrate into combat between the Israeli
army and an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 armed Palestinians -- a conflict the
Israelis no doubt would win, but with tremendous casualties and political
costs.
"I think we're
in deep, deep trouble. I think we have a major and serious crisis as far as the
peace process is concerned," Erekat said. "To be honest with you, I
think the worst is coming.
-
Palestinians
Lose Faith in U.S. as a Force for Peace; LA Times
(subscription), 28 Apr 1997.
… and aware that he
was part of a peace process that was increasingly detached from, and irrelevant
to, the realities on the ground in the Occupied Territories:
In a conversation held in his
office in Jericho, he said that we should keep things in proportion: if setting
dates for convening the various Israeli-Palestinian committees is considered
progress, then fine, call it progress. And if the search for a mechanism to
implement a memorandum which he says was itself a mechanism to implement a
previous agreement is also progress, then he does not want to associate himself
with this laundering of words.
He says he is aware of the absurdity of the situation, but
there is no choice.
- Interview with Amira Hass, Ha’aretz (archived, subscription req’d), 23 Aug 1999.
Erekat was the
Palestinians’ lead
negotiator at Wye River, Hebron,
and Camp David (July 2000; photo, below left). Was a major source of info on
Camp David for Enderlin's Le
Rêve brisé / Shattered
Dreams, and leading contributor to the award-winning documentary
of the same name. Has not publicly stated whether he personally would have
accepted the Camp David offer, but has said that when settlement is reached it
will be along the lines of the Clinton Parameters that arose from Camp David
and were discussed at Taba. Since 2004,
he has participated in the There
Is A Partner campaign, in support of the Geneva
Initiative. He has strongly urged
Israel to accept the Arab League peace
initiative of 2002 as a basis for final-status negotiations - describing it
as the most significant Arab initiative since 1948 – and maintains that
good-faith negotiations for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967
borders would need only three
months to produce an agreement.
Served as Arafat's
personal translator to English-speaking audiences, e.g. photo below right, at
Downing St, May 1998. Among bilinguals, gained a reputation (which he is aware
of, and parodies)
for creative translation, ignoring Arafat's answers and giving his own opinion
instead.
Headed election commission to prepare for first Palestinian elections in 1996;
praised as generally free and fair. Resigned early in order to stand on the
Fatah slate for Jericho's PLC seat, which he won with 62% of the vote. (Highest
winning percentage for any candidate, with exception of Abdel Shafi in Gaza).
Appointed by Arafat
to Cabinet as PA Minister for Local Government in 1994. Criticised at
grassroots for failure to bring about local elections (possibly out of fear of
a good showing by Hamas, which initially boycotted national elections, but was
willing to contest local ones). Has a long history with militants on his own
side, ever since his first advocating a negotiated solution: e.g. family
threatened by Hamas gunmen in Feb 93 home
invasion while he was absent in Syria, and numerous death
threats.
Retained the Local
Government portfolio until April 2003, when appointed Minister for Negotiations
Affairs in the first cabinet of PM Abbas (Abu Mazen). Resigned 16 May 2003 from
government (Quicktime
video, first report after news in brief) possibly after falling out with
Abu Mazen over his exclusion (rumored to be at the request of Israel, via the
US) from the Palestinian delegation to first Road Map talks with Sharon. Was reportedly unwilling to be caught in a
power struggle between Arafat and Abbas, and simultaneously offered his
resignation to Arafat from his position as head of interim negotiations in the
PLO Negotiations Affairs Dept; but this was rejected and Arafat instead
promoted him to head the department, at the expense of previous incumbent…Abu
Mazen. Reinstated as Negotiations Minister by Abu Mazen, 4 September 03 (in a
move probably signifying that the differences between Arafat and Abbas lay not
in Erekat’s field – i.e. negotiations with Israel – but in Dahlan’s, i.e.
security). Lost his Cabinet post again
in the purge of Arafat loyalists that followed the election of Mahmoud Abbas to
the PA Presidency in January 2005.
Apparently retained
intense personal loyalty to Arafat,
though relationship was reportedly stormy. In early 90's, Erekat (as one of the
youngest members of the Madrid delegation) was usually the target of Arafat's wrath when Arafat wished to
challenge the Madrid delegation but did not dare take on its more senior
members. Additionally, Erekat resigned in protest at Arafat’s handling of the
Washington talks on 8 August 1993; resigned as lead
negotiator 22 September 1998 [but subsequently reinstated] in row over
negotiating strategy regarding prisoner releases; fired
and later reinstated 3 September 1999 in a dispute over implementation of the
Wye Accords; publicly defied Arafat [Summer 1995] in refusing to return to her
family a Palestinian Christian, Vivianne Dellou, who had taken refuge in the
Erekat house after an affair with a Muslim and subsequent threat of "honor
killing".
Journalist Charles
Enderlin commented following 16 May 2003 resignation that privately Erekat had
for much of the previous two years been as sick of the Palestinian leadership
as he was of Sharon. At that time Erekat called for the holding of overdue
elections, and hinted that he might be considering a run
for President. Was apparently a favored
candidate of Bush/Blair for the PA Presidency; may have been approached in this
regard by CIA
in early 2002, but rejected Bush’s call for Arafat's ouster in June 2002,
publicly declaring that “the days of palace coups are over”.
Erekat was a close
ally of Rajoub till Rajoub's fall in 2002. Subsequently he was one of the
"Gang
of Five" that effectively ran the PA while Arafat was besieged between
March and May 2002. Named by Arafat as one of five "future leaders of the
Palestinian people" who should assume power in the event of Arafat's death
during the siege. (Abu Mazen, Abu Ala, Mohammed Dahlan and Yasser Abed Rabbo
were the others). Despite his lack of a military background, he was approached
by Ramallah Tanzim to represent them in ceasefire talks in the absence of
Barghouti (2002). Always stayed publicly very loyal to Arafat, incl the power
struggle with Abu Mazen; though he played a leading role (with Ahmed Qureia) in
mediation
efforts between the two, and was used by Abu Mazen as a conduit to the
Americans. His priority seemed to be to keep the PA intact and functioning
constitutionally, with Arafat as the key to preserving Palestinian unity.
After the
resignation of Abu Mazen, he was appointed Minister of Negotiations in the
emergency cabinet of Ahmed Qureia, and was suggested as a possible Deputy PM.
He kept the Negotiations portfolio in Qureia's full government (10 Nov 2003). A
November 2003 opinion
poll by the Development Studies Programme at Bir Zeit University found
Erekat the most popular appointment in the Qureia government, with an approval
rating of 64% (compared with 44% for Qureia himself).
Served as Arafat's representative abroad while Arafat was confined to Ramallah, esp for liason w/Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Has connections in his own right to progressive groups worldwide, e.g. South African ANC, German Greens, British Labour Party and liberal Jewish organizations in the U.S. In June 2003 appeared as representative of the Arab countries in BBC's "What the World thinks of America" survey.
Erekat has been one
of very few senior PA figures to escape charges
of corruption;
in Spring 2002, the Israeli govt published a captured memo he had authored,
outlining alternative channels for foreign investment that would send cash
direct to project managers, thus avoiding the risk of skimming by the
PA. Tends
to make enemies inside Fatah by speaking bluntly, especially against the
older generation PLO who returned from Tunis, whom he has accused of reducing
the people of the Occupied Territories to economic ruin. He was a supporter in the PLC of the
anti-corruption "Where did you get that?" legislation, and accused
Parliamentary colleagues of taking kickbacks
from Arafat in a public outburst at the PLC.
Retained his PLC
seat in the Parliamentary election of 26 January 2006 which otherwise saw Fatah
routed and brought Hamas to government, taking two-thirds
of the vote in his hometown constituency:
Hamas was expected to do well in the
Gaza Strip. It duly won 15 of 24 constituency seats there. What was astounding
was its success in the West Bank. Of the 37 unreserved constituency seats in
the West Bank, it won 30. Fatah’s residual victories came mainly in backwaters,
less affected by the tidal wave of change, such as sleepy little Jericho where
the victor was the Palestinian National Authority’s chief negotiator, Saeb
Erekat, who, unusually in the Fatah leadership, has a reputation for
incorruptibility.
- A ballot too far? by Bernard Wasserstein; The Tablet, 4 Feb 2006.
Erekat’s poor relationship with Hamas (and the
antagonism is mutual) stems partly from his being a strong advocate of a secular Palestinian state, in which religion is properly the business of
the individual, not the govt or constitution. He is also a member of the
“Statist” stream within Fatah, which maintains that the institutions of the PA
are the embryo of the future Palestinian state, and that Palestinian efforts
should therefore focus on building up a strong central Authority, to whom all
Palestinian armed forces are answerable (rather than to political factions),
and which functions in accordance with its own laws and international
obligations. From this perspective, the activities of armed factions operating
outside of the aegis of the PA – in addition to being immoral in
themselves when they target civilians –
are counter-productive in that they sow chaos and lawlessness on the street,
and actually make Palestinian independence more distant by empowering the
Israeli rejectionist Right. (Though he has also pointed out that renunciation
of political violence is a difficult case to sell to Palestinians who see that
those who insist on diplomacy and legality are often the same parties who ignore and frustrate the implementation of U.N.
resolutions, court rulings and international conventions which – if implemented
– would give the Palestinians legal avenues to realize their aspirations).
Erekat was
publicly criticized as naïve by Marwan
Barghouti (Nov 2001, French & Israeli TV), for his continuing rejection
of the use of force in dealings with Israel.
He is disliked also by Likud for his abrasiveness - has a history in
particular with Netanyahu
- though made close friends on the Israeli
Left during
the 90's. Read Yossi Beilin’s description
of Erekat, from The
Path To Geneva. Has also been
criticized in Iranian media for maintaining his good relations with Shimon
Peres, esp. when the latter was Sharon's Foreign Secretary in the 2001-2 unity
government. The LA Times summed up his public persona as “apt to see a gray lining in a silver cloud”, though off-duty he is reportedly quite engaging.
Gilad Sher, his opposite number in the Barak administration, describes him:
Unlike other Palestinian leaders, Erekat is not characterized by
any of the common symbols of status. He
did not belong to the old guard of the PLO, for example, nor did he participate
in armed struggle, a clear disadvantage when vying for a position of leadership
among the Palestinians. But his eloquence, fluent English, and love affair with the world’s media, have put him on the international center stage, where Erekat is identified as much if not more than others with the Palestinian national struggle. In 1986, what Israel considered inflammatory material was discovered in Erekat’s office at A-Najah University. He was subsequently arrested a number of times for his activities in Fatah.
Erekat is a man of peace, a democrat and a liberal who believes
peace has to be made between people, rather than between governments. He is an experienced, tough and shrewd
negotiator, with a phenomenal memory.
He does not hesitate to raise his voice and stomp his feet when
necessary. In an effort to stall, he
can be the most meticulous, petty and even irritating person; while, in an
effort to advance, he will bypass all the mines he himself had laid. Of all the members of the Palestinian
leadership, Erekat experienced the most
substantial transformation of thought – from defiantly donning the famous
kaffiah during the 1991 Madrid Conference; through promoting the democratic
process in Palestinian elections and fighting corruption; to investing all his
time and effort in the peace process. His dedication and commitment to the
peace process throughout the years translated in hours of tedious negotiations
and drafting sessions.
- Within Reach: The
Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations, 1999-2001 bRead a longer extract, here.
Erekat has continued to emphasize the importance to I/P peacemaking of person-to-person dialogue - like the programs he once instigated at an-Najah – maintaining that the real faultline in the conflict is not between Palestinians and Israelis, but between those on both sides who will accept a negotiated peace, and those who won’t. He led the PA’s outreach program to find common ground with Israel’s large Russian immigrant population, and is a supporter of the One Voice initiative to mobilize grassroots support for a two-state solution among young Palestinians and Israelis. Sits on the board of directors of Seeds of Peace, a U.S.-based non-profit program that promotes tolerance by teaching teenagers from regions of conflict the skills of making peace. He is a regular speaker at Seeds events in the U.S. and Occupied Territories, and two of his children are graduates of the program. His underlying logic is that more than any other conflict, the I/P conflict can be resolved only by making peace between people, rather than between their governments:
This is a unique
conflict. This is not the borders of Ecuador and Peru, of Canada and the United
States, the merger of banks. These are the issues that make Palestinians and
Israelis breathe. These are the issues of gods and prophets. There is the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Wailing Wall, where
people of three faiths go with their hearts and souls. Nothing in life is more
important to these people than these things…
Making peace here is not about signing an agreement -- it’s about
agreeing to change, to change their minds, the way they think. Peace-making
between Palestinians and Israelis is going to take a new way of life, a new way
of thinking, a new way of educating, a new way of planting, a new way of
cooperating.
So to those who say, “What did 10 years [of negotiating] bring
us?”…… What can 10 years do with a system of belief that for some people is
5,700 years, for others 2,000 years, for Muslims some 1,600 years? In 10 years,
we have come a long way.
- Interview with Kate Seelye; PBS Frontline, March 2006. [edited for clarity]
Erekat is confident the two-state solution will be achieved,
because – despite the rhetoric from all sides about why peace is impossible -
the absence of an Arab-Israeli settlement is too destructive to the vital
national interests of all the major players for them to continue evading
it. (This includes the Palestinians,
whose primary interests for Erekat would be normality and modernity in an
independent sovereign state). He is
convinced there will be no solution without active and committed US
intervention; though this will require an administration that understands
the U.S. has wider interests in the region than those acceptable to internal
lobbyists, and acts accordingly:
You know, I don't think politics and interests are about love and
hate relations… and so on. Nations, like individuals, follow their interests,
and today the US borders are no longer with Mexico and Canada. They today have
borders with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and
go down to Pakistan, and China… I
really hope that the U.S. will stop seeing the Middle East and the Palestinian
situation and question in the eyes of who is the PM of Israel.
- Press Conference; Palestine Center, 24 Jun 2004.
Similarly, Israel’s fundamental national interests – a secure, Jewish-majority state within recognised borders, and an end to territorial claims and conflict with its regional neighbors – are achievable only through a two-state solution that is freely agreed to by the Palestinians. But since 2001, successive Israeli governments have refused meaningful (i.e. final status) negotiations because they mistakenly believe that military superiority will allow them to hold on to more (specifically, the Jordan Valley and all of Jerusalem) than they could keep in a compromise solution:
Is Israel seeking a Palestinian partner? Or are they
seeking a nonpartner to accept their policies as faits accomplis? C’mon
… These people aren’t serious about permanent status negotiations or end game.
They want to dictate my future on me. They want to dictate their borders on me.
They want to dictate the fate of Jerusalem on me. “C’mere, boy, this is what we
dictated to you and this is what you must accept. If you don’t accept, you can
join bin Laden and the rest of the terrorists in the world. If you accept, then
you become a partner.”
Well, it’s not going to work this way. I don’t have
a neon sign saying “stupid” over my head.
- Interview with Kate Seelye; PBS Frontline, March 2006.
Erekat maintains that
this reliance on unilateralism might be a useful short-term tactic to achieve
narrow territorial aims, but actually acts against Israel’s strategic
interests. It undermines the very people that Israel needs if it is ever to
have the negotiated peace that is its only bridge to security and acceptance in
the region, and replaces them with a fragmented and lawless society, which will
be a breeding ground for radicalism and extremism, right on Israel’s doorstep. And it empowers those who will never give
Israel what it needs, by sending
Palestinians the message that Israel does not respond to negotiation, only to
violence:
I went to see members of the Israeli government asking them to make
the PLO a partner to the disengagement plan as part of negotiations, as part of
a peace process between the PLO and the Israeli government, because if you
don’t do this Hamas and Islamic Jihad will claim they got you out like
Hezbollah got you out from South Lebanon – [by] kicking you in the ass. Israel
has failed to weigh the consequences of its actions in not negotiating with us…
…I want to be in a position to say, ‘Don’t use violence. We will
get you to an independent Palestinian state through a negotiated settlement.
And it will be delivered. If you use violence - it will harm your
interest’. When we reach that position
it is okay. So far, I can’t say this, but this is the actual battle the
Palestinian peace camp is facing”.
- Shalom
On Pullout; totallyjewish.com, Aug 2005.
Erekat notes that, ironically, an Israeli govt led by unilateralists and a PA govt led by Hamas serve each other very well. They provide each other with the “non-partner for peace” they both need to disguise the fact that they themselves are not ready for final status talks, but believe instead they can eventually prevail by force. Erekat rejects the idea that time is working in favor of either party; maintaining that leaving the Middle East’s most emotive conflict unresolved is simply fueling a regional descent into chaos and extremism that will leave everyone – Israelis and Palestinians alike – in “a new dark age”.
Argues strongly, e.g.
at the WEF
Forum of May 2007, that with rising religious extremism and an apparent
nuclear arms race facing the Middle East, it is time to stop stalling on
resolving the region’s primary source of instability:
When Arafat was alive, the Israelis said he was "not a
partner." When Abbas became leader with Arafat's death, he was considered
"irrelevant." Now the Israelis can't negotiate because Hamas is
there. They are seeking a pretext to blame it on us. Address the real issue,
which is the occupation which has lasted 40 years…
As there is widespread
consensus on the centrality of the I/P conflict, and on what the contours of a
peace settlement will look like, it is no longer the time for (President Bush’s)
“visions” of how a two state solution on the 1967 borders will look, but for
implementing instead the mechanisms
that will actually bring it about. In
response to the objection that current leaders are too politically “weak” to
tackle such controversial issues, Erekat maintains that this gets the
underlying logic of the situation backwards: it is futile to wait for strong
leaders to emerge before tackling final status, as it is the precisely the
repeated postponement of talks on the core issues, and settling instead for
damage control and crisis management, that has produced on both sides weak
government leaders and progressively stronger rejectionist movements. Nothing
will strengthen a “weak” Olmert and a “weak” Abbas more than good-faith,
productive peace talks. The only
question is whether there exists the political will to make the difficult compromises
upon which a two state solution to the I/P conflict will be based:
"It's not negotiating time, it's decision time. Israel is
Israel on the 1967 borders, Palestine is Palestine, minus and plus agreed-upon
swaps, minus and plus security arrangements, with a third party role [to
stabilize any deal]”. – NY
Times, 4 May 2007.
Family
Married with 4 children. Wife: Na’imah; children: Salam and Dalal
(21 year old twin daughters); Salam is a surgeon and Dalal a political science
post-grad; sons Ali
(16), and Mohammed,
(12)**. Dalal and Ali are Seeds
of Peace graduates; Dalal is an activist in the “One Voice” initiative. A
cousin, Maen
Rashid
Areikat,
is Director-General at the PLO Negotiations
Affairs Dept (which provides policy and legal advice to Palestinian negotiators)
and a
close advisor of Mahmoud Abbas. Another cousin, Daoud Ali Mahmoud Areiqat, is a
regional
organiser of the Palestinian National Front, who was forcibly exiled
to Jordan by the Israelis from 1974 until 1993, and was a candidate on the
Alternative (Leftist) list in the 2006 PLC
elections. A nephew, Nasr Ereiqat, was killed
in the "Prisoners' Intifada" of 1997-98. A niece, Noura Erakat,
was national grassroots organizer for the U.S. Campaign to End the
Israeli Occupation.
**Ages are correct as at Jan 2004
2.
The time has come for
the Israelis to build strong ladders to come down from the trees they have
climbed with their political blindness and arrogance of power. The main ladder
is the establishment of a Palestinian state on every inch of land that was
occupied in June 1967, and that will happen. (Aug
1999).
3.
I respected Rabin so much. He was a Prime
Minister who was thinking of Israel's interests 200 years from today. Later
Israeli Prime Ministers only care about the … nine o'clock news. (Jan 2002).
4.
So far, I'm still a Palestinian, so I don't
know why Israelis react one way or another. Sometimes, the Israelis sound to me
like a group of cats outside my window. When they scream, I don't know whether
they're making love or fighting. Many times it confuses me. Sometimes I expect
something logically to happen and it doesn't happen. So sometimes you stop
expecting anymore. (Jan 2002).
5.
Some people in Israel believe it's a historic
opportunity for them, that they will lower Palestinian people's expectations
and the Palestinians will accept a long-term interim solution in a Gaza prison
and 40% of the West Bank, without Jerusalem, settlements, borders being
discussed. This will not happen. They may have the power to storm my hometown
Jericho 20 times; I cannot stop them. They may have the power to hit missiles
in Rafah; they may have the power and the support to demolish hundreds of homes
and make thousands of people homeless, but they will never have the power to
force a pen in any Palestinian hand to sign something that is not consistent
with the interests and aspirations of the Palestinian people. (Jun 2004).
6.
Palestinians recognise the right of the state
of Israel to exist and I reject [Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s] comments.
What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map
and not wiping Israel from the map. (Oct 2005).
7.
If Israel does nothing, if Israel avoids
negotiations using the fake excuse that they have no negotiating partner, we
Palestinians are fine. We will just wait. Our population is growing faster than
theirs, and when we are the majority, we will simply vote our will in a
democratic state. (Dec 2005).
8.
They were negotiating water, for instance, and
we were talking about how the settlers take 120 million cubic meters annually
compared to 30 million cubic meters [for the Palestinians]... One Israeli
negotiator spontaneously said, ‘But we take showers every day’. We saw the embarrassment on the faces of his
colleagues. (Jan 2006).
9.
They really feel that [due to] religion and
history … the River Jordan to the Mediterranean should be the land of Israel --
fine! But I want to be an equal citizen, with an equal vote. And they say, “Oh,
look at these evil Palestinians. They want to undermine the Jewish nature of
Israel!” Well, make up your mind. I’m offering you a two-state solution and
you’re saying no. (Mar
2006)
10. I was 12-years old when the occupation came
about. I'm a father of four children now. My twin daughters will be married
next month. I would hate to be a grandfather under occupation. (Jun
2007).
Op-eds:
o
Camp
David: A Story of Success; Washington Post, 5 August 2000.
o
What
We Want; Washington Post, 8 November 2000.
o
Saving the Two-State
Solution; New York Times, 20 December 2002.
o
Keep Talking;
The Guardian, 19 January 2002. (Co-authored with Yossi Beilin).
o
The Saudi
Initiative: A Very Courageous Step; Bitterlemons.org; 4 March 2002.
o
Israel
is Blocking the Road to Peace;The Financial Times, 12 January 2003.
o
Road
Map must show the way to Real Peace; The Financial Times, 16 March 2003.
o
US Policy is
Alienating Arabs; BBC Online, 13 June 2003.
o
The Quartet Is
Disappearing; Bitterlemons.org, 17 July 2003.
o
A Wall That
Cages Justice; International Herald Tribune, 23 February 2004. (And in French).
o
Why
Did Bush Take My Job?; Washington Post, 25 April 2004. (And in French).
o
When Will Britain
And Europe Act?; The Guardian, 15 September 2004. (And in French)
o
Gaza Remains
Occupied; Bitterlemons.org, 22 August 2005.
o
Israel’s
‘Bypass Diplomacy’ Cannot Bring Peace; The Financial Times, 10 November
2005.
o
Third
Parties, Don’t Leave Us Now; International Herald Tribune, 25 November
2005.
o
What
the P.L.O. Has to Offer ; New York Times, 1 March 2006.
o
An
Offer That Cannot Be Refused; Ha’aretz, 5 June 2007.
o
Thinking
Outside The Box: Address to the Seeds of Peace
negotiation summit; 20 Oct 2007.
Interviews
/Transcripts:
o
A Dim Light at the End of the
Tunnel? What to Expect as Permanent Status Nears; briefing
at the Palestine Center in Washington DC on 19 Jan 2000.
o
(Video) Interview with Charlie Rose,
on whether negotiations over the Golan will impede the I/P track; 19 Jan 2000.
o
Shattered
Dreams of Peace: Series of interviews for PBS
Frontline; concluding Nov 2006.
o
A transcript of a frank and informal
briefing, delivered to the Israeli & Palestinian Business Leaders Forum at
the Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development on 30 January 2002, is
available here.
o
A ‘Lose-Lose’ Situation: Crisis
Management without Progress Towards a Solution; a briefing
delivered at the Palestine Center in Washington D.C., 7 August 2002.
o
(Video) Panel Discussion with Charlie
Rose, on the Bush administration's Middle East policy;
7 Aug 2002.
o
A 16 March 2003 interview with the
Palestine-Israel Journal, on prospects for the Road Map, the role of the U.S.
in the region, and the Sharon government’s hijacking of 9/11: The Road Map will Stand.
o
Video and transcript of a 30-minute
interview with the BBC's Paul Reynolds (in June 2003), on the subject of the
Road Map, is available at BBC News Online. Additionally, a speech he gave on the
subject of the Road Map to the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of
International Affairs (PASSIA) is available online here.
o
Video Interview
with Netherlands TV on the failure of the peace process, 17 December 2003. (In English with Dutch intro).
o
An interview on the current state of the
peace process, conducted at the conclusion of Italy's EU presidency (i.e. 31 Dec
2003) is online here,
with English translation here.
o
A transcript of a press
briefing at the Palestine Center in Washington DC,
following talks with Secretary of State Colin Powell on 24 June 2004.
o
Negotiating
Peace; video of a BBC HARDtalk interview with James Rubin, 21 December
2004.
o
Finish with Armed Factions: An interview with Le Nouvel Observateur on the
prospects for the resumption of negotiations following the election of Abu
Mazen to the PA Presidency; 14 Jan 2005.
o
Q & A WITH SAEB
EREKAT: Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat
answers Jerusalem Post readers' questions; 30 May 2005.
o
Q & A WITH SAEB
EREKAT: Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat
answers Jerusalem Post readers' questions; 1 Feb 2006.
o
Inside
Hamas: Interview with Kate Seelye for PBS
Frontline; March 2006.
o
(Video) Peace In Pieces: Debate at the World Economic Forum in Jordan; 20 May 2007.
o
Is
there anything left to negotiate about?; video of a BBC HARDtalk
interview with Stephen Sackur, 19 July 2006.
o
Interview with America Abroad Media, on the centrality of the Palestinian question in current
Middle East instability, 14 Jan 2007 (MS Word file).
o
Gaza:
Reversing the descent into anarchy; video of a BBC HARDtalk
interview with Stephen Sackur, 29 May 2007.
o
The Role
of the International Community; panel discussion
with Daniel Kurtzer and Shlomo Ben-Ami at the Notre Dame Ctr, Jerusalem, 28 Jun
2007.
o
(Video) Interview with David Frost, for al-Jazeera English, 27 Sept 2007.
o
Palestinian
Negotiator Details 'Critical' Moment for Mideast:
Interview with Gwen Ifill for PBS Newshour; 28 Nov 2007.
o
(Video) After
Annapolis: Prospects for Peacemaking: Panel
discussion at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC; 28 Nov 2007.
o
Israel-Jordan
Alliance Quietly Taking Root on the West Bank; by Thomas L. Friedman. NY
Times, 9 August 1987. Lead: Few
Israelis have ever heard of Saeb Erakat, a West Bank Palestinian who has never
been considered dangerous enough to grab many headlines here. But his story
speaks volumes about the state of Israeli-Palestinian relations and the
uncertain prospects for eventual negotiations.
o
Paradise
Ahead?; by Ben Lynfield. Jerusalem
Post, 24 October 1990.
o
War
Will Unleash The Iranian Genie; by Saeb Erekat. JPost, 25 November 1990.
o
For
the Palestinians, New Faces and a Measure of Legitimacy; by Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, 3
November 1991.
o
A
Setback To MidEast Talks; Request For Delay Came Amid Death Threats; by
Carol Morello. Philadelphia Inquirer, 19 April 1993.
o
A
Bumpy Return Trip Home May Await Palestinian Negotiators; by Lamia Lahoud. JPost, 23 April
1993.
o
Eight
Held For Threatening Peace Talks Delegate; by Michael Rotem. JPost, 2 May
1993. EIGHT Hamas activists suspected of breaking into the house of
Palestinian peace talks delegate Dr. Saeb Erekat and threatening his life were
arrested over the weekend in Jericho, army sources said.
o
Palestinian
Women Aim To Get Their Due; by Andrea Barron. JPost, 28 Jan 1994.
o
Paying
A High Price For Honor; by Mary Curtius.
LA Times, 12 Mar 1995.
o
Palestinians
Lose Faith In U.S. As A Force For Peace; by Marjorie Miller. LA Times, 28
Apr 1997.
o
Getting
To Know You; by Lili Galili. Ha’aretz, 29 Aug 1999. The Palestinian Authority has launched a campaign aimed at winning
the hearts and minds of the Russian immigrants.
o
From
The Streets To Knesset Seats; We are All Prisoners Of History; by Yoram
Bronowski. Ha’aretz, 14 Jul 2000. [W]e have forgotten that on the other side of this country's future
border there are human beings just like us, who suffer, as we do, from the
ravages of time and place. That is the reason for the importance, and also the
effectiveness, I think, of the moving remarks of Dr. Saeb Erekat, a senior
official of the Palestinian Authority, who spoke to Motti Kirschenbaum – a TV
reporter par excellence - about the mood among the Palestinians on the eve of
the Camp David summit. For the bulk of the interview, Kirschenbaum simply let
Erekat talk. He was looking straight at Kirschenbaum, but the passionate,
human, plain-spoken words were directed at Israelis wherever they may be - those
who are forever contemplating their own navel ("You are always quarreling
among yourselves") and endlessly going on about their own suffering,
greatness and achievements. With great rhetorical skill, in clear English that
even high school students could understand (we hope), Erekat spoke about how
sick he was of negotiating over matters that were self-evident, and how tired
he was of border checks and having to pull out his papers for every soldier
("Some officers are nice, others less so, but they all have to show that
they are the bosses"). Erekat has had his fill of the eternal mistrust,
the utter lack of compassion, the constant denial of the humanity of those whom
Israelis have never stopped seeing as their enemies. "When you hear the
word 'Palestinians,' something happens to you. You find it impossible to grasp
that we are human beings like you." Erekat scoffs at the idea of Jewish
enclaves in Judea and Samaria, and explains something that should be
self-understood: We are being sold ridiculous slogans that have no substance
and never should have. Jewish enclaves are a recipe for trouble, for a
nightmare that will never end…
o
Roots
Of Israel’s Malaise Deeper Than Recent War; by Roger Cohen. NY Times, 4 May 2007.
o
The Wall Street Journal profiled Erekat as
a potential future Palestinian President in Bringing
New Style to Palestinian Politics, 22 Jan 1998.
o
AFP prepared an online
biography on his resignation from the PA Cabinet in May 2003, as did BBC News Online
on the occasion of his reinstatement the following September.
o
SFSU Magazine online profiled
its alumnus in its Fall/Winter 2003 edition.
o
Saeb Erekat: Daylife News Aggregator
Return
to Palestinian
Biographies Home Page.
صⴷئب
عريقات סאיב
עריקאת Sa'ib `Urayqat Erakat Erikat Arikat
Ariqat Arakat Araqat Eriqat ‘Urayqat Oreikat Orikat Oraikat Ureikat Ereikat
Eraikat Areikat Irikat Irakat Iriqat
סאאב עריקאת