Hamas Representative in Syria Interviewed on US, Damascus Conferences

Al-Aqsa Satellite Television carries its weekly interview programme “Without Introductions” on 1 November with Usama Hamdan, representative of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, in Lebanon, live via satellite from Beirut. The programme interviewer says the topics to be discussed are the autumn conference, the Damascus conference and the renewed Israeli threats to invade the Gaza Strip.

The interviewer begins by asking whether events in the Palestinian territories can be separated from events in Iraq, Iran, and the US project in the region. Hamdan answers: “There can be no separation between whatever is happening in all parts of the Arab and Islamic region and the US project. It is clear now that the US project, which has received a number of blows in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, is trying to gather its forces to carry out a large-scale attack on the region.” He adds that the onslaught will be in various forms, including military and economic. The interviewer asks whether the only form of response to the fall conference the Palestinian factions have up their sleeve is to convene the Damascus conference. Hamdan responds that Palestinian presence in Damascus is very strong, particularly that of Hamas. “With regard to the Damascus conference, it is one of the tools of response to the fall conference.” Other tools include resistance in Palestine, steadfastness in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and a general political rejection of the fall conference. He reiterates the freedom of the Palestinian people to choose their leadership, adding that “the Palestinian stance will not accept any outcome that casts away Palestinian rights in Annapolis.” On whether these steps the factions are taking are enough to thwart the fall conference, Hamdan says “we should not downplay the effect of our steps and diminish what we can achieve.” He says that the reaction to the Damascus conference shows the fragility of Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas’s stance and his realization that he no longer represents the Palestinian people. It also reveals the fragility of the Annapolis conference. The objective of the fall conference, he adds, is to normalize Arab-Israeli relations, give the impression that Bush is a man of peace, and prepare for a new aggression on the region.

Challenging Hamdan’s statements, the interviewer says that some people state that Palestinian resistance attempts have not succeeded for 60 years and that Abbas has no option but to attend the fall conference to achieve something. Hamdan criticizes Abbas for stating that he is willing to accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and is ready to exchange land and negotiate over the right of return and for undermining the efforts of the resistance and the accomplishments of its people. He states: “Whoever wants to negotiate must be in a strong position in order to impose his conditions.” He describes the Annapolis conference as a delusion and trickery, adding that there is no chance for peace, but only for trickery on a grand scale and a great crisis, in which Abbas is willingly and with prior knowledge getting involved. He lists the achievements of the Palestinian resistance and their heroic acts, such as evicting the Israelis from the Gaza Strip. He concludes that “what is required today is to unite Palestinian ranks and grant the resistance the same chances that the settlement got.”

The interviewer asks the resistance factions to give the Annapolis conference a chance to convene and let the Palestinians see for themselves what will happen after it. Responding, Hamdan gives the example of a student who has been failing all exams for a period of 10 years. If he sits for a new exam, expectations are that he will fail. He lists all the failures of the PNA and its members, including the corruption scandals and others. Moving on to reports that the Israeli side is preparing for “a large-scale military campaign” against the Gaza Strip, the interviewer wonders whether Hamas can manage to resist this military campaign with weapons on the one hand and continue to run the affairs of the Gaza Strip at the same time.

Hamdan replies that if a military campaign is waged against the Gaza Strip, then the Strip will be in a state of war against the occupation and the management of affairs under war conditions is very different to normal conditions. The second point, he says, is that everyone must understand that Israel is constantly and repeatedly attacking the Gaza Strip. He explains: “In view of such a confrontation, no one can expect Hamas to manage affairs as if they were normal or natural.” He adds that if Israeli Defence Minister Baraq decides to wage a large-scale aggression against the Palestinian territories, what would be the stance of the various Palestinian forces, including those in Ramallah? They must clarify their stance on such an aggression and should condemn it, because then the aggression would withdraw and decrease.

On the allegation that the question of Palestine is no longer a cause but consists of separate files and diverse issues and that the priorities of the resistance factions are to unify and gather over the question of Palestine, Hamdan says: “To begin with, I would like to distinguish between the Authority and the cause. The Authority is just one of the terms that can be used regarding the cause, its course, and its history.” He states: “We believe that retrieving Palestinian unity is the main headline of this stage.” This can only happen through understanding among the various Palestinian forces, with clear bases for this unity. He lists the three main bases as: Rebuilding the Palestinian political system; agreeing on the fact that there is a struggle with the enemy and that there can be no peace; and setting the methods for managing Palestinian decision- making. He says that Hamas has not spared any effort to realize this, but the president of the Palestinian [National] Authority has rejected dialogue and Palestinian national unity. He believes that the Annapolis conference can realize political accomplishments that will besiege Hamas and the Palestinian resistance forces, thus imposing a fait accompli on them: “Either you accept this agreement or you will be considered outlaws.” He also notes that Abbas is coming under great US and Israeli pressures not to hold dialogue with Hamas. He provides evidence for this in Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Livni’s statements that Abbas must choose between negotiations with Israel or dialogue with Hamas.

On his opinion regarding the reasons prompting Abbas to talk about direct contacts between Hamas and Israel in the media, Hamdan says there are three reasons for this: First, he wants to prepare the Arab and Islamic mindset for his meeting with the Israelis in Annapolis by claiming that Hamas also negotiates with Israel. Second, he is trying to place the Palestinian crisis, which is caught between the options of settlement and resistance, in the realm of negotiation with Israel. The third reason is to try to point the finger at the fact that when Hamas joined the elections, it began to repeat the bad experiment of Oslo and the secret talks of 1991 and 1992 in Oslo. He states: “I say this clearly now: Abu- Mazin knows better than anyone else that when Hamas decides to negotiate with Israel, the latter will not look at Abu-Mazin or deal with him at all. It knows who the real forces on the ground are, who is able to impose facts on the ground, and who is capable of protecting the Palestinian people.” Abbas must stop making these allegations because he is in a weak position and has no power- making capabilities himself, Hamdan elaborates.

On the initiative proposed by Nayif Hawatimah, secretary general of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Hamdan says Hamas has clearly announced that it is ready to unconditionally and directly negotiate over any initiative. When Hamas took action in the Gaza Strip, it did so to control the security situation and to put an end to the state of rebellion that the agents of the security agencies were carrying out against the Palestinian people. He says: “The side that has been rejecting all initiatives so far, and continues to do so, is the PNA president.” He says Hamas has so far not received anything official regarding the Hawatimah initiative. On statements by Olmert that the fall conference is not meant to be an event in its own right or to realize agreement or a historic breakthrough, Hamdan says that so far, no Arab sides or others have received an invitation to attend this conference. He criticizes the conference as lacking clear objectives and a clear cause, while the agenda is being left up to Abbas and Olmert. He appeals to Arab leaders not to go to this conference. Criticizing the conference further, he says everyone warns about impending dangers should the conference fails, but no one mentions the success of the conference, rights, or the Palestinian people. Everyone talks about the possibilities of failure and mainly what Israel wants. With respect to the Arab sides that are worrying about this conference, he says he would not like to name these sides, but confirms that Hamas is meeting with all Arab sides and there is nothing preventing it from meeting any Arab side. Asked whether he believes the Annapolis conference will be cancelled or postponed, Hamdan says: “So far, no one has been able to confirm that the conference will take place,” adding that if it is cancelled, this will be in the interest of those who are planning to attend it.

On what the US administration expects from the Arabs as a result of the conference, he says Bush wants three things: “To help polish up Bush’s image”; “to open the door for normalization between the Arabs and the Israelis”; and “to realize a united Arab stance that supports a new adventure in the region.” He claims that Bush is setting the ground for the failure of the conference and a new military operation of aggression in the region “to compensate for what he has lost during the past seven years.” He says Abbas’s agreement to attend this conference means that he has overstepped the Arab peace initiative and that it no longer has a place in his political dictionary. The only reference points of the conference are the US Administration and the Palestinian-Israeli agreement, or an agreement between Olmert and Abu-Mazin. The conference has no legal or political reference points, he says.

The interviewer asks whether the strangling economic situation in the Gaza Strip has not moved the Arab and Muslim nations to take action and rescue the people of the Gaza Strip. Hamdan regrets that part of the problem stems from the fact that some Palestinian sides “are wagering on toppling the Hamas government through this siege.” He announces that slow action is beginning in Beirut today to defend the Gaza Strip and remove the siege. He says he hopes this action will extend to include Arab countries. He calls for opening the Rafah crossing point as an example. He states: “We must not surrender to the US-Israeli will and the siege the enemy is imposing on us.” On the Arab countries that may participate in the Annapolis conference and their objectives behind doing so, the interviewer asks whether the Arabs have “three times proclaimed their divorce from the question of Palestine, therefore begging for a solution from the United States.” Hamdan says: “We really must not give in to the statement that there is a vacuum between the Arabs and the question of Palestine. The opposite is true.” The Arabs continue to support the question of Palestine. However, “we are going through a real stage of transformation.” He predicts that what is happening in the Gaza Strip will be a factor to activate this nation and not a factor to create a vacuum between the nation and Palestine.

He says the objective of the fall conference is to impose normalization, “and this nation has no interest in normalizing relations with the Zionist entity.” He says that the Annapolis conference wants to tell the Arabs that Israel is the master of the situation in the region, but in actual fact, Israel is at its weakest point as a result of its war in Lebanon in 2006 and other failures. On Olmert’s medical condition and the fact that he now has prostate cancer, Hamdan says the declaration about Olmert’s condition at this point in time is an attempt to divert attention from the question of Palestine and the Palestinian people’s rights to Olmert’s health. On the future prospect for the Palestinian people, he says Hamas believes there will be “an open confrontation between us and the enemy soon.” The Palestinian leadership is going to have to decide, he says, either to wage this confrontation competently alongside the Palestinian people or to step aside. He portends a stage of confrontation with the Israelis, promising a step towards victory after that, as has been evident from past cases when the Palestinians revolted. He says the next confrontation will be “a step towards realizing Palestinian national rights.” However, he is pessimistic about the possibility of a peace with the Israelis in the coming stage.

Originally published by Al-Aqsa Satellite TV, Gaza, in Arabic 1930 1 Nov 07.

(c) 2007 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.