Israeli Arab Leaders: 'No' to Negotiations with Israel

'Awad 'Abd Al-Fatah, secretary-general of the National Democratic Assembly party, known as Balad, claimed that Israel had sabotaged all chances of establishing a Palestinian state and that there is no longer any hope for a two-state solution. He called for the Israeli Arabs to be recognized as part of the Palestinian struggle, explaining that as members of the Palestinian people they had the right to participate in deliberations over the Palestinian cause as well as to criticize the Palestinian leadership.[1] In an article posted on his party's website several days after the opening of direct negotiations in Washington, 'Abd Al-Fatah called on the Palestinian leadership to reconsider its policy in the peace process: "The paradox is that deep in its heart the Palestinian side knows these negotiations can lead to nothing but an unjust settlement, which is unacceptable. The Israeli side, too, knows full well that it will not get a settlement out of these negotiations. But Israel and Obama are the ones who have [something] to gain. Obama needs the negotiations for internal reasons concerning his party's midterm elections (for Congress), and Netanyahu needs to show, both at home and abroad, that he has entered the peace process. The Palestinian side is the loser, since it is weak and incapable of opposing or stopping the Zionist settlement plan in Jerusalem and the West Bank territories.

"It's the same [old story], the same excuses and claims. The Palestinian people will get nothing from these negotiations but loss and misfortune, since [the negotiations] are geared toward deepening the [inter-Palestinian] schism; providing ongoing cover for Israel's occupation, crimes, and sins; and suppressing the broad official and popular Palestinian campaign [that aims to] impose an embargo on Israel and to complement international civilian campaigns [run by] foreign civil organizations and by Palestinians in the diaspora.

"The national Palestinian movement must return to its roots. It has no alternative. [We] must begin by reassessing the [peace] settlement based on the assumption that its [realization] is not on the horizon. That way, the Palestinian leadership will refrain from clinging to delusions, and will avoid the resulting disasters. The shackles that are keeping [us] from rebuilding of the national movement must be shaken off, as must [the dependency] on the contributing countries and their policies. [We must] once more set the active (popular) Arab dimension in motion and engage in the struggle against occupation, instead of cooperating with it. These are the values of the liberation movement, without which the Palestinian cause loses its nature as an issue of occupation and colonization, and turns into a different issue, namely a border dispute between two entities – one of them real and the other imaginary."[2]

In an interview for the online daily Elaph, Balad party leader and MK Jamal Zahalka claimed that Israel was not ready for negotiations which would result in a sustainable agreement: "It is clear that Netanyahu does not truly want to achieve a permanent solution. The main purpose of these negotiations is to serve as a cover for the Israeli maneuvers... Therefore, these negotiations will not lead to an agreement, but will rather have [negative] results on the ground, since the Israeli strategy relies on building good relations with those it calls the moderate Palestinians and Arabs, while cracking down on the extremists. When Tzipi Livni was Israel's foreign minister, she adopted this strategy and said: 'We are negotiating, [and] these negotiations give us the legitimacy to fight extremism. We are not opposed to the Palestinians.' Hence, I think that the Annapolis talks [between Olmert and Abbas in 2008] were a prelude to the war on Gaza, and that Annapolis made it easier for Israel to strike Gaza. The [current] negotiations are a reproduction of the Annapolis [negotiations]..."[3]

Raja Aghbariya, head of the Abna Al-Balad ("Sons of the Village") group, said: "If the negotiations are futile, why can't we be honest with ourselves and call on Palestinian President [Abbas] to withdraw [from them], instead of merely calling them futile or warning against [recognizing] the [Israel] as a Jewish state?..." Aghbariya added that he was not in principle opposed to negotiations with the enemy, pointing out that the North Vietnamese engaged simultaneously in armed resistance and negotiations. However, he said, "the current balance of power and the American dictates will render the negotiations a disaster, as far as the Palestinian people are concerned."[4]

MK Muhammad Baraka, chairman of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality, known as the Hadash party, took a different stance. He advocated reaching a solution through peaceful means and negotiations, on the condition that they be based on clear principles and timetables and not invalidate the right to resistance. Nonetheless, Baraka voiced concerns that the current negotiations are of no avail and would lead "to a framework agreement that would serve regional Arab and international considerations and regimes," and would sanction the current aggression against Iraq and future aggressions against Iran.[5]

MK Zo'abi: The Negotiations Are an Obstacle to Promoting Boycotts against Israel

In an interview for the Qatari daily Al-Raya, MK Haneen Zo'abi, of the Balad party, said that negotiations with Israel undermined the inquiry committees and the boycotts against Israel: "One picture of Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen shaking hands with Netanyahu wipes away all the achievements of the political inquiry committees and all the calls for boycotting [Israel]. [One such picture] invalidates the moral force of these boycotts. The popular boycotts and the international investigations require a moral [basis] as well as a [firm political] stance... while the path of negotiations is an act of self-sabotage on our part."[6]

Hadash Secretary Iman 'Odeh said, in a similar vein, that the negotiations released Israel from international isolation and were futile since they lacked clear principles or timetables.[7]

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish State Would Invalidate the Right of Return

MK Taleb Al-Sana, of the United Arab List-Arab Movement for Renewal (Ra'am-Ta'al), called on the Israeli Arabs to unite in refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, since, he said, this is tantamount to recognizing what the Jews view as their historical right to the land. He warned that such recognition would clear the path for Israel to carry out population exchanges, finishing what it had started in 1948.[8] A fellow party member, MK Ahmad Tibi, said that "the Palestinian leadership rejects the contemptible and unacceptable Israeli demand that the PLO recognize Israel as a Jewish state. After all, 20 percent of [the population in] Israel is non-Jews, who have always been there. So what right do [the Jews] have to demand recognition [of Israel] as a Jewish state?" Tibi warned that such recognition would weaken the status of Israel's Arab population and invalidate the right of return for refugees.[9]

SUPPORT OUR WORK

$500 $250 $100 OTHER CryptoCurrency Apple Pay Paypal Credit Card

In a similar vein, MK Baraka stated that "recognizing [Israel] as a Jewish state constitutes a second nakba for the Palestinian rights," since Israel's aim in seeking such recognition is to gather all the diaspora Jewry in Israel while denying Palestinian refugees the right of return; to legitimize the expulsion of those Palestinians living in Israel; and to annex the settlements and "united Jerusalem" to the state.[10]

Addressing the same issue, MK Zahalka said: "The demand regarding Israel's Jewishness is new. It was not raised during the 2000 Camp David negotiations between late president Arafat and [Ehud] Barak, and up until 2005 it was not mentioned. Only after 2005 did this issue come up. Tzipi Livni was the main [figure] who spearheaded this [initiative]... We [i.e. the Balad party] proposed a plan rejecting Israel as a Jewish state... But one of the developments that increased Israel's appetite in terms of this demand was what appeared in the Geneva [Accord] – namely [the clause stating] that Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people, which the Palestinian [signatories] accepted. In my opinion, this is the most dangerous clause in these accords, since important Palestinian figures outside Israel, as well as PLO representatives like Yasser 'Abd Rabbo, recognized it. They recognized Israel as a Jewish state, and, what is more, they recognized Israel as the national home of the Jewish people... The Arab members of Knesset have refused to recognize this...

"The Israeli demand was raised in order to nullify Resolution 194, which stipulates the refugees' [right] to return or to receive reparations... [Moreover,] such international, Palestinian, and Arab recognition, if it were to occur, would fully legitimize [Israel's] policy of oppression and persecution against the Palestinians inside [Israel, i.e. the Israeli Arabs]."

Regarding the proposal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state that guarantees the rights of its Arab citizens, Zahalka said: "This is a formula that the Obama administration proposed several months ago, according to which Israel would be a Jewish state with full equality among all [its citizens]. Clearly, this is the kind of idle chatter we hear in Israel every day. But the crucial factor is the nature of the state as a Jewish state, because it [would affect] all areas of our lives... as it would be reflected in policies of land expropriation, planning, construction, education, and job opportunities... Therefore, this recognition represents a strategic threat to us...[11]

Opposition to the Settlement Blocs and the Construction in Jerusalem

MK Ahmad Tibi called on the Palestinian Authority to refuse to compromise over the settlements, claiming that any consent in this matter would constitute a de facto Palestinian recognition of the settlement blocs as part of Israel.[12]

According to MK Zahalka, the settlement construction freeze is "a tactical move, involving a temporary freeze to be followed by continuous and intensive construction. That the Palestinians entered into negotiations under such conditions, prior to any commitment from Israel to freeze construction [in the settlements], is the product of the current power balance, in which Israel has the upper hand and can dictate its conditions...

"The absence of a Palestinian and Arab rejection of Israel's stance on the settlement blocs – [like the rejection] that existed in the past – constitutes a very dangerous development, since Israel uses any concession made by any Palestinian as a starting point for its negotiations... The Palestinian position which claims that the settlements are illegitimate, and demands a return to the June 4, 1967 borders in their entirety, must be revived. This includes the Israeli settlements built in and around Jerusalem, because ever since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian position on this matter has eroded, [to the extent of] recognizing the Israeli settlements in Jerusalem as part of Israel. This development has emerged over the last two decades and it is extremely perilous... [At this point,] not even a single Palestinian voice can be heard demanding a return to the '67 borders, specifically [when it comes to] Jerusalem and its environs."[13]

MK Zahalka: A Central Palestinian Movement Must Be Formed to Replace the PLO

Jamal Zahalka called the PLO's participation in the negotiations on Israel's terms an utter disgrace.[14] In an interview for the website Elaph.com, he said that the PLO had entered the negotiations without the authority of the Palestinian people, and called for the formation of a new central Palestinian movement to replace the PLO: "The truth is that the Palestinian side entered the negotiations without the [approval] of any official, national, or even party authority. [The Palestinians] entered the negotiations because the PLO tied its life and existence to the negotiations. To be honest, the PLO is left with only two options – to conduct negotiations or to disband...

"I believe that the Palestinian scene today is in need of a committed, central national movement to break out of the mutual [conflict] between Fatah and Hamas, especially since the Palestinian people feels that it has no true representative. The vast majority of Palestinians do not support the PLO because of its links with the American, European, and Israeli plan, nor [do they support] Hamas. The vast majority of the Palestinian people support the historical Fatah rather than the Palestinian Authority. That being the case, [we] need a new movement, to unify all existing elements and to benefit from the legacy of Palestinian struggle... [We] need a [national] movement after the model of the National African Congress in South Africa, a national movement that will incorporate all the left-wing [elements] and all the forces opposed to the occupation, one that will be able to address the world in a language it understands and which will lead the Palestinian cause to a new horizon. In my opinion, [though] Hamas is capable of fighting, it is highly unlikely to emerge victorious if it operates on its own. [In order to win,] it must form a broad Palestinian movement, but I do not think that this will happen anytime soon..."[15]

Similarly, MK Tibi stated that if the negotiations did not produce a resolution involving the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within a year, it might be necessary to dismantle the Palestinian Authority, and to expand the PLO so that it would include all Palestinian factions.[16]