FADY ABUSIDU OF FATAH’S FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMISSION AT THE SINN FÉIN ARD FHEIS

Palestinian leader speaks to An Phoblacht

Fady Abusidu

ON the historic occasion of the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis held in Belfast in September for the first in its history, An Phoblacht’s PEADAR WHELAN spoke to FADY ABUSIDU of Fatah’s Foreign Relations Commission.
Peadar began by welcoming the London-based representative to the Ard Fheis and expressed how honoured we as republicans were to have a spokesperson of the Palestinian people with us at this crucial time in the Palestinian struggle.

What is your experience of the solidarity shown by the Irish people for the Palestinian struggle?

The relationship between Sinn Féin and Fatah and the Irish people and the Palestinian people goes back many decades. We have similarities in history and in struggle. The fate of our two parties is linked in terms of developing a peace process and fighting for the rights of our people.
Personally, I was in Ireland about 10 years ago, during the second intifada, and witnessed the support and solidarity of the Irish people.
Some months ago I was part of a delegation that was here to explain and promote our campaign for recognition and admission of a Palestinian state to the United Nations.
We received a warm welcome from Sinn Féin and the Irish people and were given support for our call for the recognition of a Palestinian state.

Can you outline the situation in Palestine now, especially in light of recent attacks by the Israelis on Gaza?

The Palestinian territories are all under occupation. Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem all suffer various degrees of occupation. Gaza has the media focus because of the severity and the inhumane conditions the Palestinian people are suffering.
The West Bank, or areas of the West Bank, have become centres for civil resistance against Israeli occupation.
East Jerusalem is undergoing a rigorous campaign of de-Arabisation by the Israelis who are trying to change the demographic make-up of the city.
Gazans have been the victims of Israeli military might for a long time.
We have been trying to reach some sort of understanding, a stable ceasefire to end the siege of Gaza, trying to promote a non-violent solution through international means with international support. It has been a very difficult task over the last two years to change the mind of the current Israeli government to get them to engage in meaningful, productive negotiations that would lead to a lasting peace.
What we are seeing in Gaza and the West Bank is a result of this very strict Israeli position.

Is it easier to deal with one Israeli party than the other?

Negotiations with the Israelis are always very difficult. There were times when Israeli leaders meant what they said, times when they didn’t mean what they said, and times when they didn’t say anything at all.
The difficulty with different administrations, and this one in particular, is they are composed of fundamentalists, hardliners and ones who want to take the conflict back to disengagement from the Palestinian issue and promote the land of Israel.
This has been very costly to the peace process.

You mentioned earlier that the Palestinian people are engaged in a campaign to end the occupation through non-violent methods. How is that being received internationally and would it be looked on more favourably in Europe than in the United States, regardless of what administration is in power?

It has always been the understanding that the end result of peace agreements, of negotiations of the process, would be a two-state solution: a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. The international community has been patient waiting for the two parties, us and the Israelis, to reach that stage through negotiations.
During the past few years we have proved the Palestinian capability, ability and readiness for statehood through developing security forces, implementation of development projects and building institutions on the ground.
There have been various international reports published proving our readiness for statehood.
Parallel to that there is a lack of willingness on the Israeli side to engage in a process that will lead to the two-state solution.
The international community recognises the situation, understands the difficulties and wants to see an end that will lead to the two-state solution.
Therefore our bid to go to the United Nations to get recognition is in line with all these processes, in line with the two-state solution and has gained a lot of momentum.
European countries and Latin American countries are taking very clear positions for the first time in support of the two-state solution, so we have decided to take matters forward, take a positive step, go to the UN make clear the two-state solution is our strategic choice and it will eventually be a way back to negotiations. This means that even if we are successful at the UN we would still have to negotiate a lot of matters with the Israelis.
We will not reach a magic solution and impose a solution on the Israelis. On the contrary, we will go back to the negotiating table as two states. We will talk about borders, about security arrangements, about refugees, about water resources because these are matters that will not change with a UN resolution.

The issues of water, settlements and refugees are important as it’s about the rights of the Palestinians to go back to their land. It seems the Israelis are adamant the refugees will not return and they seem to be showing no willingness to stop building settlements. What is your response?

The issues of refugees and settlements have been discussed thoroughly throughout the course of the peace process. The solution is ready. The problem is a lack of political willingness on the Israeli side to accept responsibility for certain actions that have happened and the injustices that have happened to the Palestinian people.
The right of return can be resolved in many ways.
The settlement issue has been discussed; land swap is a method to overcome the settlement issue. However, it should all be done through a process of negotiation.
We cannot accept the continued grabbing of our land while we negotiate — it’s just politically not viable.
We cannot go to the negotiating table while our water resources, our land is being taken from our hands — it doesn’t work.