Fatah and Hamas – What's the problem? A view from Yasser Abbas

Other excerpts from the interview with Yasser Abbas in Ramallah on 18 December 2008:
Part 4: Separation of Powers in Ramallah
Part 3: Business and Businessmen in Palestine
Part 1: Fatah and Hamas – and the Abbas family house in Gaza

Yasser Abbas (apparently named after Yasser Arafat), Palestinian businessman and older of the two surviving sons of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said in an interview in his office last December, just before the IDF military attack on Gaza:  “You have been politically confused due to the Hamas situation in Gaza – politically confused.  This country has one head, it does not has two heads.  One decides who the second one is.  It’s not two who decide how to run the country.   It’s the President [who] gives a mandate to the Prime Minister, and this President can take his mandate back any time he likes, when he doesn’t see it fit”.

Yasser Abbas continued: “The Ministry, the Cabinet, is ousted in three cases: either the President takes back the mandate from the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister resigns, or one-third of the cabinet resigns, as a total.  OK?  So these three conditions decide the political relationship, political, in the by-laws, of the relationship between the President and the Prime Minister.  The issue with Hamas becoming, yeah, we are the government – that’s what created the problem here.  Ok?  So, two presidents?  Two heads?  Two governments?  There’s only one legitimate government.  There is no two governments.  This what so-called government of Hamas is pure garbage, they are nothing.  They don’t run nothing.  They run a bunch of gangs, ok, that they are trying to run the country but they are not.  They know nothing about how to run a country.  They are not legitimate whatsoever.  And I’m sure of what I’m saying”.

Q:  What’s interesting, though, about what happened when Hamas took over security in Gaza, was that they continued to recognize the President as the President –  at least until the 9th of January (2008) – and to some, to me, it looked like an occasion that was lost because of hostility, after the government was dissolved … How do you see this crisis?

A:  Well, they cannot deny the legitimacy of the President.  The President has more legitimacy than they do.  It’s very simple.  The President has been elected by all the Palestinians with a percentage of 62.8% percent, in January of 2005.  The President will maintain a President until January 2010, even though his term is four years, but the law says both two elections should take place together, legitimate [legislative] and presidency, simultaneously.  The word “simultaneously” means, both elections will be done in one day.  That’s what simultaneously means – this is how they taught me that in school.  If anybody interprets that in his own terms, that’s his own problem, he has to go and learn Arabic, or English.

Q:  Yes, well, how was this law passed – it wasn’t passed, because the Parliament couldn’t meet.

A:  It was passed, when they took office, when they said the oath after they took office, all the parliament members.  Now, the elections that took place after the death of Arafat was emergency elections, due to the absence of the President, right? That’s why the Presidential elections took place.  Now, that year that the President was elected during that year – it was taken as an extra year. A decision was taken by the Council that this year will be added to the four years’ term.  We know that the term of the President and the Council is four years.  So one plus four is five.  Now, if we go as Hamas says, that the term of the President is the 9th of January, and we go and we hold presidential elections on the 9th of January 2009, we elect a President X, what do we do with him in January 2010.  We tell him, well, oh, your term is finished.  We need to hold another Presidential and legislative elections. Right? His argument will say, No, my term is four years, I’m here for four years.  Now we’re back in the dilemma.

Q:  Why is it so hard to negotiate with Hamas?  I mean, Hamas recognized the President as President.  Before that, they did participate as a political party in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) elections – and people doubted that they ever would.  They did, despite their not accepting the Oslo Accords, and the PLC is an institution of the Oslo Accords.  They did that, and then they won a majority of seats, many of their representatives were elected.  And they were invited in the Cairo accords to join the PLO and they said, OK, but we want to be participate in the National Council in the proportion of the seats that we won in the PLC.  That seems to be the heart of the dispute.

A:  Before I answer you about the negotiations between both parties, I would like to express two points.  First, the government of Hamas in Gaza is not a legitimate government – it’s an ousted government.  They are an ex-Cabinet.  As I said, they had the mandate, and now they don’t have it, it was pulled back.  They were thrown out by the President, that’s number one.  And number two, the people who are talking about the legitimacy of the President, they themselves are not legitimate.  The Presidency of the Council, and the Secretariat of the Legislative Council, they are not legitimate.  You know that there must be a term every year.  They have to be elected or re-elected.  There has to be an election for the president of the speaker of the house, the vice-speaker of the house, the secretary of the house.  Right?  That’s every year, that has to take place.  So, those guys, naming Dweik, naming Ahmad Bahr, and the secretary that they have in the council, they were the leaders of the Council for one year – so, 2006 to the beginning 2007.  Since 2007 they are expired.  They are not, by law, the speaker of the house, the vice-speaker of the house, and vice secretary — by law, it’s not by my terms, by who-ever terms.  It’s an election that has to take place every year.  If the council does not have the capability to meet, that’s not my problem.  Now, the President wants to hold an election, but it is not possible to hold an election.  So, eventually the president will stay — if I don’t want to take it in legal terms right?  Nevertheless, going back to the elections, the President told them, if you want us to have an election, we go by the law.  We can hold an election any time you like – for both, presidency and the council, in one day.  If you want that, let’s go.  And then it will take four years every term, rather than going through the dilemma, elect a president for one year, then a year after you have a problem, and you need to have another legislative election – the president is there, he’s not there.  No.  You want to have an election, let’s have it simultaneously now … and then we take it four years at a time.

Now, going back to the Egyptian negotiations, you know that the Egyptians came with a paper, they call it the Egyptian document.  It had points.  It was presented to all the factions.  All the factions, including Fatah, accepted it.  The President accepted this, and he presented that to the Central Council, the legislative council of Fatah.  They have accepted it 100 percent.  Hamas had 13 reservations on it.  Apparently they are in agreement with Sharon, Sharon had 13 (14) reservations on the Road Map – so the number 13, maybe it’s a lucky number these days, our lucky number, you know.  Maybe you might have 13 presidential candidates in the future.  Nobody knows.  We like the number 13.

Q:  But the Egyptian proposal, I mean, it was really…

A:  Pro-Fatah?

Q:  It was really pro-Fatah, pro-Ramallah.

A:  It wasn’t pro-Fatah, pro-Ramallah.  I’ll tell you one thing, if you want to know what we really, people of Fatah, want – we want those people who had a coup to go back on it. They have no right to take Gaza by a coup, under any circumstances.  And our President and the Egyptians did not mention anything about the coup.  Right?  So, it is not pro-Fatah.  If you want what Fatah wants, we don’t agree that Hamas takes Gaza by a coup…

Q:  OK, [but] you could also say it was a political coup to dismiss the government…

A:  No it was a military, not political.

Q:  But then there was a political coup to dismiss the National Unity government.

A:  Well.  It was a coup?

Q:  A political coup.  How did that help?  What good did that do?  What’s the advantage of dismissing the National Unity Government after the military coup in Gaza – how did it help, looking back on it?

A:  I mean, a National Unity Government that was really completely also blocked.  And, over and above, they were not cooperating at all.  They didn’t want to have any kind of cooperation of both parties, because we knew what they were after – killing the President, and a coup on both sides.  Everybody knows that fact, ok?  So they eventually they wanted to kill the President to have Ahmad Bahr as president – everybody knows that fact.  It’s not a secret.  So that’s why they know as a National Unity Government, they did not want to have any improvement in the local situation. Especially in Gaza.  In Gaza, it was a complete loss, the security, the social life, everything.

Q:  But everyone says that the security, at least the security, is generally – putting aside the repressive aspects – but, generally, it’s better than before.

A:  When?  In Gaza, now?

Q:  Yes.

A:  Oh, yeah, definitely, because the thieves are the police now, eventually.  [Those] who were causing the trouble before, who were upsetting the security before, now they are the policeman.  They have the control of the country.  They have to make it a controllable area to make it possible for them to continue.  It’s very simple.  Logical.  By power, they used it. You go and interview people in Gaza – you’ll see how they did it, how they were killing people, how they were massacring people, they are torturing people to do that.

Q:  They’ve shown victims of torture – or, victims of torture have shown themselves.  I was there after the coup in June (2007), and I was back once since then.  They showed people who were tortured by Fatah security forces…

A: Who?  Where?  Did you see them?

Q:  Yes, I did.

A:  You did.  What — their beards were shaved?

Q:  I don’t remember that they had beards.

A:  Or, their necks were cut? Did you see their necks?  Or were they shot in the back of their heads?  This kind of education we’ve never been – we’ve never seen before.

Q:  No, I remember the scars on his legs, which he showed us, from being burned after being captured by, I think, Preventive Security Forces.  Um, uh, and you hear many, many stories like that from many different people.  Did you read the Vanity Fair article, the famous one that came out [in March, but the publication date was April 2008]?  Which described how the U.S.— General Dayton in fact – was following a strategy of trying to arm the Preventive Security Forces to take over from Hamas.

A:  That’s pure rubbish.  Pure rubbish.  I hope you understand the word, letter by letter.  Pure rubbish.  If this has to be taken over, it has to be planned with the President.  And since it was not planned with the President, it’s pure rubbish.  And I am dead sure it was not planned with the President, ok?  We don’t have to go reading reports that everybody writing a report it’s true.   It’s not true at all.  We know we didn’t have the power to take over Hamas in Gaza.  Everybody know that.  It’s pure rubbish.  Ok?  They planned a coup, when both sides were having an agreement in Mecca.  So, forget about that.  Read history correctly.  This coup was not planned in two weeks.  This coup took more than six months to be planned.

*****************************

Q:  Coming back to the negotiations about Hamas joining the PLO, why has it been so difficult?

A:  Yeah, because Khaled Meshaal wants to be the chairman of the PLO.  Well, we don’t accept.  If that’s his aim, that’s in his dreams.

Q:  They just asked for a certain number of seats, and they’re being offered fewer seats.

A:  Let me tell you one thing, my position, personal opinion:  We don’t want them in the PLO, ok?  Very simple.  We don’t like to play with amateurs in politics.  People who play with words, we don’t like that.  Either you are clear, frank, and honest with your people, politically – or,  just don’t play politics.  Let me give you an example – how did they come to power?   According to the Oslo Accord, right?  [n.b. – meaning, because Hamas stood for January 2006 elections to the Palestine Legislative Council, an institution authorized by the Oslo Accords…] Now, you mention that to them, and they say:  “No, no, no, no, we don’t agree with that, we don’t agree – because we don’t recognize the Oslo Accords”.  Then, how the hell did you take power, huh?  How the hell did you become Prime Minister and ministers and parliament members, and you are dressed in nice suits and nice ties, and you present yourself to the world as being respected politicians?  What kind of passport do you carry?  Where did you get that passport from?  All of this you got from the Oslo Accords!  But, it’s like a disease, nobody touches the Oslo Accords.  It’s a disease, I don’t want it to come into my body.  I want to deal with the benefits of Oslo, but I don’t want to recognize Oslo.  This is an amateur – I have another term, but I don’t want to use it – amateur type of politics.  Now, reversing [referring] that to the PLO:  they want to come into the PLO.  This baby that has been protecting us, this baby that we’ve been protecting since 1964 until now – we’re not going to give it to them on a golden plate.  Forget it.  And, at the end, they want to come in, and they don’t want to recognize the agreements that have been signed by the PLO, they don’t want to recognize the system that’s run in the PLO.  They don’t want to recognize anything in the PLO – they just want to have a new system in the PLO.  They want to take rule [control] in it, as normal as any normal brotherhood thinking:  I want to take over this, regardless what I do with it, but I just want to take it over first.  When I take it over, then I will decide what I do with it.  Well, we’re not going to be, all ten million Palestinians, hostage to this, to these maniacs, you know.  Forget it.  We’re not going to give them our necks.  We’re not going to hand it to them.  Let me tell you one thing, clear and frank.  They want to come in to the PLO – [then] they want to come in under the conditions of the PLO, whether they like it or they don’t like it.  They don’t like it – [then] we want them out!  The hell with them, ok?  We are not really honored when they join the PLO.  It’s not an honor?

Q:  What are the conditions – that they accept the previous agreements?  What are the conditions?

A:  They don’t want to accept it!  Yes, that’s one of the main conditions.

Q:  What are the others?

A.  That’s the only one, and they don’t like it, and when they come to the conditions, they say:  “Ah, well, our number in the PLO is [should be] pro rata with our number in the PLC”.  Well, excuse me.  Oh, how nice.  So, you want the Oslo Accords, to dominate the whole Palestinians now, all over the world.  I never knew that they want to have the Oslo Accords as the main umbrella of all the Palestinians.  The Oslo Accords is the umbrella of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  I hope everybody understands this.  If they want what they came in under, the Oslo Accords, to dominate the Palestinians all over the world, they’re dreaming.

Q:  Can I ask you, if you had to do a personal sheet – balance statement, the red and the black, what’s good and what’s bad, what still exists and what’s beneficial and what’s not, in what’s left of the Oslo Accords, now – what would you put in both columns?

A:  Well, our presence here is most important.  Our identity is most important – more than anything else.  The Oslo Accords is the Accord that brought the Palestinian people their identity.  Before 1993, in the terms of the world, there was no Palestinians.  There was no Palestinian question.  Before we actually got our ID cards, and our passports, we never existed in the eyes of the world.  Am I correct?

Q:  No, no, no, no – the PLO was recognized…

A:  Yeah, yeah, the PLO was recognized, the PLO was recognized by many countries, the Palestinian state was recognized by 130 countries in 1988.  I believe you, I believe you.  But the minute we came back here, our identity started to be really efficient.  You have an identity?  What’s any country?  How do we identify a country?  A country is identified out of three factors: human being, identity, and the land.  Right?  If you are missing one of these three, you’re basically nothing.

Q:  There’s also a newer factor [in international law], and that is, the right to self-determination.

A:  Well, yeah, eventually – when I say a land, that means a land to be in self-determination, to be.  We were in a land to be self-determination.  We were a project of a state, a few years back.  Now, we are back again with a good state project – project, that means: yet to come, yet to see the light.  This is what I exactly mean.  So, if we did something on our hand that was wrong, if Israel played dirty games sometimes, that they don’t want to see that dream to come true – well, we never lost hope.  We never lost hope.  We know that our strategy with Israel is peace – regardless of what they do, we will never go back to war with them.  And whoever is thinking our strategy will be resistance, and war – well, this is dreaming, dreaming.  It will never happen.  The Palestinians, by majority, by a vast majority, they believe in peace.  Which way, how, or what – nobody knows.  But, in the end, in their minds, they are set for peace.  They want to have peace.  They don’t want to have any more shooting, any more bombing.  We are sick of it.  Our people really are sick of that.

Q:  But, do you think that no matter what happens, that The Wall is going to be torn down, that the checkpoints are going to be dismantled?

A:  Definitely.  Definitely.  The Wall will come down, whether they like it, or they don’t like it.  They want to build another wall?  Build it on the June borders, the 1967 borders!

Q: So, of the Oslo Accords, what do you think is no longer in effect, or not useful, or not in the Palestinian interest?

A:  Ah, well, the Oslo Accords was not a peace treaty.  Many people think that the Oslo Accord was a peace treaty.  No.  It’s a MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding.  It’s a DOP, a Declaration of Principles.  I declare that my principles are such-and-such.  Or, it’s midway between an MOU and an agreement … parameters, guidelines.  Call it whatever, but it’s not a peace treaty, so that whether you violated it, or you did not violate it, this is not the issue.  Whatever is left of it, whatever is left of it, it’s not gone astray, as far as I am concerned.

Q:  No, there are a large parts of it – the joint mechanisms that existed before 2000, before 2002, between the Israelis and the Palestinians – have not been restored, especially in the security field.

A:  Why, why don’t we restore them back again?  Well, I don’t say back again, because maybe the people who have been really hurt in the past few years from seeing them together [the Israeli military and Palestinian security] I don’t think they will accept it to see them together.  But they are in contact.  They do coordinate on so many issues, unless you advise otherwise.  But they are, we are in coordination with the Israelis on so many levels.

Q:  And, the Oslo Accords set up a financial structure, the taxes that were supposed to supposed to support the Palestinian Authority, but somehow it doesn’t work.

A:  No, it’s coming back – why do you say it doesn’t work?  Why?  Why it’s not working?  That’s in the Paris Agreement, it’s an economical agreement.  Israel is collecting, and they are taking their portion, which is three percent, and they are giving us back our portion.  And, I don’t think, as far as I know, that they are holding anything back, as they did before.  They are transferring the money.

Q:  But, they did hold back.  This was a problem for more than a year.

A:  When?

Q:  For more than a year after the 2006 election [which brought Hamas to power]

A:  Yeah, eventually, because they don’t recognize the government of Hamas, it’s very simple.  Let me be the devil’s advocate here.  I’m not in agreement with what Israel does.  What Israel simply tells you is, “I don’t want to deal with this government”.  If they don’t want to deal with this government, and our government – which was the Hamas government at that time – said, “We will solve our problems, by all our own ways”, well, show me how you’re going to do it.  That’s why they failed.

*****************************