“On The Strategic Level, We Want To Create A Pole Of The Democratic
Left”
An interview with Ahmad Sa’adat by Mireille
Court and Chris Den
Hond (August 2004)
Last
August, we talked to Ahmad Sa’adat in Jericho prison; a Palestinian prison,
where he is monitored by the British and the Americans. Ahmad Sa’adat became the Secretary-General
of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) after the previous
leader, Abu Ali Mustafa, was assassinated by an Israeli missile in his Ramallah
office in August 2001.
The
Ahmad Sa’adat commando was convicted by the Palestinian Authority in a show
trial that was part of an agreement between the PA, Israel and the U.S.,
designed to bring an end to the crisis at the Church of the Nativity in
Bethlehem.
Q: How would you assess
the withdrawal from Gaza?
A: The
withdrawal of Gaza is above all the fruit of our people’s resistance. The cost
of the occupation became too high for the Israelis, and they found themselves
in an impasse. But the withdrawal does not yet mean the end of the occupation,
because our sovereignty over the airspace, the sea and the land is not
complete.
Other
victories are possible, because there are not only two ways: i.e. the way
proposed by Israel or the way proposed in international plans (like the Road
Map). There is also the way of
struggle. This is the way that will
allow us to put an end to the occupation and to give our people the right of
self-determination and their national rights.
Both their national right to build a Palestinian state in the West Bank
and Gaza, and to establish a national and democratic state on all Palestinian
land, a state that will unite Arabs and Jews.
This state will not be established on the basis of race, religion, colour
or gender. But reaching it requires a
clear Palestinian vision in the form of a hard-hitting plan that will sweep
aside political initiatives that treat the Palestinian people’s struggle as a
security problem, or regard their struggle as terrorism, or make the security
of Israel the basis of the peace talks.
For
example, the Road Map is a negotiating project, and not a solution. It makes security the central issue
again. It isn’t a solution to the
Palestinian problem, and that’s why we need to find an alternative.
Our
alternative is based on the diplomatic and political struggle, on what the
Intifada has achieved, and on international resolutions, above all on the
recommendations of the Hague [i.e. the International Court of Justice].
On this basis, we are calling for an international peace conference, under the
patronage of the U.N. and based on U.N. resolutions. These guarantee our people
their right of self-determination, and of
independence, and the right of the refugees to return.
If
Sharon’s proposals or conditions are accepted, Sharon would impose his
political conditions which are based on the theft of a large part of our land
(especially in the West Bank, because Sharon hopes that his withdrawal from
Gaza will leave him a free hand in the West Bank) through the construction of
the Separation Wall, creating a fait accompli for any future
negotiations. The same thing would
happen whether or not the resistance continues. There is no other choice.
The wall
closes off 58% of the land on the West Bank.
It separates East Jerusalem from the West Bank and assists the process
of making that city Jewish.
Unfortunately, Sharon’s policy of colonization has the support of Bush,
who has gave him new guarantees in 2004.
In these guarantees, the return of the refugees is regarded as an obstacle
to peace. He thinks that the West Bank
settlements are a reality that can’t be undone through peace negotiations. Bush clearly supports the policies of
Sharon. Every day we read in the papers
how Israel is building this colony or expanding another, and the building of
the wall never stops.
Sharon’s
policy is clear. By withdrawing the
Israeli Army from Gaza, he wanted to put off any crisis in order to strengthen
his strategic presence in the West Bank.
Since this allows him to reinforce his strategic presence there, you can
see that this move gives him control of half the territory of the West Bank.
This is
the end of the possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state. In this way the West Bank will be divided
into bantustans. According to Sharon,
the bantustans can be linked to each other by roads through tunnels… A state
that is divided into distinct bantustans and separated by a wall is not a
state, because it has neither sovereignty nor independence and is incapable of
surviving. This is the Bush plan.
Q: Will there be a third Intifada over this?
A: In
order to be able to speak of a third Intifada, first the second has to end. But
we don’t believe that it has finished yet.
It might be weakened somewhat, but the conflict isn’t over. I would say
instead that we have a new stage of the Intifada. As to how it should be fought, the democratic struggle of the
masses can take the form of a popular struggle, or armed resistance. It depends on the context. We don’t believe in elevating any one form
of resistance over another. We believe
in all forms of the struggle. As long
as Israeli occupation and colonisation continue, we have every reason to
continue the Intifada. Every form of
resistance is necessary and important. So the armed struggle is important
too. There is no need to give it up.
Q:
The PFLP mayor of Bethlehem was elected with the support of Hamas. Was this a tactical electoral pact, solely
for Bethlehem, or could it foreshadow other tactical or strategic agreements
wbetween the PFLP and Hamas?
A: We favour a common strategy of resistance
against the Israeli occupation and building up the PLO, so we are not looking
for an agreement with just Hamas but with all the political currents in the
Palestinian population. In the case of
the municipal elections in Bethlehem in particular, the balance of power there
forced Hamas to support both the Fatah candidate, and the PFLP candidate. This is normal in the current political
situation. If the Popular Front has the
opportunity to take the lead in Bethlehem, with the support of Hamas or Islamic
Jihad or some other political group, like Fatah, this isn’t a problem for us.
But in order to speak about a strategic alliance between
the Popular Front and Hamas, there would have to be an agreement on a political
programme. There are already some
common points and a common vision on a political programme. There are certainly common points, like the
same view on how to manage the struggle against the Zionist occupation. Elsewhere in the Arab world, there are
Islamic political movements that struggle against imperialism, against the plan
for the Greater Middle East, against globalization and its consequences for the
Arab world, just as nationalist movements or movements of the left do. But on the strategic level, we want to
create a pole of the democratic left [really leftist and really democratic, not
like the “democratic left” in Italy].
There is an Islamic pole with its programme, and another pole of the bourgeoisie,
namely the PA and Fatah. For our part,
we are trying with all our strength the create a third pole, a pole of the
democratic left.
Translation and all errors therein, by Lawrence of Cyberia.
Translated from the web site of the Arcipelago
Online Magazine.
Return to Ahmad
Saadat biography.