A Conversation with Sari Nusseibeh
May 14, 2007Sari Nusseibeh, talking at a Foundation for Middle East Peace event in Washington, April 26, 2007
(Sari Nusseibeh, Palestinian author, philosopher, political activist and university rector, spoke at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington on April 26, 2007, on the occasion of the publication of his new book Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life. The program was sponsored by The Foundation for Middle East Peace, the American Task Force for Palestine, and the Middle East Institute. An edited transcript follows.)
Phil Wilcox, President, Foundation for Middle East Peace: The Foundation, along with the Middle East Institute and the American Task Force on Palestine are delighted to have Sari Nusseibeh with us today to talk about the Israeli-Palestine conflict, his life, and about his wonderful new book, Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life. It is a terrific book. Do not miss it.
Sari Nusseibeh and his wife, Lucy, are a unique couple. I can think of no two people who have done more to help shape the evolution of the Palestinian National movement and to focus attention on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Sari is a rather diffident fellow who claims that he is not a politician. In fact, he has been deeply involved in politics in a very constructive way. One of his great achievements in recent years has been to team up with Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Israeli Internal Security Service, in a brilliant initiative, which in English is called, The People's Voice. This is an outline of a two-state peace. People tended to scoff when it was launched, but together, Sari and Ami and their supporters gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures on both sides. That is a very reassuring evidence that these two struggling cousins in the Holy Land are not crazy people and that the majority want a two-state peace and are willing to do the right thing if they had the proper leadership and, I might add, the support they need from other countries, including ours.
Dr. Ziad Asali, President, American Task Force for Palestine: I want to welcome Lucy and Sari and express our great admiration for the work they do. If you have but one book to read about the Palestinian story, Sari’s is the book to read, with no reservations. Most of the reviews I have read were excellent, though there were some which suggested that Sari is the lone Palestinian who wants peace. Sari is distinguished, but there are many others in that society who also want peace and coexistence with Israel.
Sari Nusseibeh: Thank you, Phil. I would like to also recognize Lucy leads an organization called MEND (Middle East for Non-Violence and Democracy). I remember many years ago when she and I were teaching at the Bir Zeit University in the West Bank, and there was the idea of possibly inviting Mubarak Awad, We had a major debate in the University. Mubarak is a non-violent peace activist and there was controversy.
Luch was the one person who really stood out in defense of inviting Mubarak to the University. Thereafter, they worked together and later, Lucy set up MEND. As you may be able to tell from the way I have evolved in my thinking and practice, you might suspect that she has had influenced me and on the evolution of my thinking.
I would also like also to recognize the Foundation for Middle East Peace for supporting the publication of a book I co-wrote in the 1990’s with an Israeli academic, Professor Mark Heller, about a two state peace. (Gail Pressberg, formerly with the Foundation, was very influential in bringing us together.
After Mark and I prepared a draft of the book, the Israelis put me in jail. One day, Lucy brought the galleys of the book when she came to visit me in jail. I shared my cell with a Hamas supporter from the Jerusalem neighborhood in Tubas, which is now almost overshadowed by the new Israeli settlements of Gilo and Har Homa.
This guy, who had spent many, many years in jail could not understand what I was doing, writing about a two state solution to the conflict.. By the way, he was recently released and he was one of the people elected for the Jerusalem area in the legislative council. He was also one of the people who got back into jail after having been elected. I told him that, “Okay, we have been involved in the Intifada, the uprising, not for the love of fighting, but for the cause of achieving our freedom and independence.
At that time, the two main slogans of the uprising were freedom and independence. They constituted two sides of the same coin because by freedom meant disengagement step-by-step by the Palestinians from the Israeli administration’s occupying tentacles, economic, administrative, and otherwise. Civil disobedience was what the first Intifada was primarily about: To disengage step-by-step and area after area from Israel’s occupation.
The other side of the coin, independence, was the effort by the Palestinians, again, step-by-step, to build up a self-governing authority independent of Israel. Those two slogans, freedom and independence, governed the vision and philosophy of the first Intifada. The idea was that sooner or later, after the dust settled, the effort would lead to negotiations between us and Israel.
So, as I told my friend in jail, our fight against Israel was to achieve our freedom and independence by establishing and living in a state that upheld and respected the values we believe in and deserve as human beings, not just as Palestinians or Muslims or whatever, but as human beings. That was why I was happy to be writing, together with Israeli writer Mark Heller, a book about the framework of a two-state solution.
At that time, the idea of a two-state solution on the Palestinian side was not taken very seriously. On the Israeli side, it was different. Mark Heller had already written his own book on a future Palestinian state. He and other Israelis knew that a Palestinian state would serve Israel's interest.
Mark Heller did not write this book with me because he thought himself a left-wing, peace-loving Israeli. On the contrary, he presented himself as a person who was more interested in Israel and the Jewish people than he was in the Palestinians. He told me he felt compelled, driven by his own reason, to try and arrive at a two state solution with the Palestinians and to convince his government that this was necessary to protect Israel’s interests. I enjoyed working with Mark Heller, because that way I knew exactly where we both stood. We told a successful story and we still maintain contact, respectfully.
Now, when I wrote that book with Mark, I must tell you that I was also sending chapters one by one to the PLO in Tunis to make sure that I was not working totally alone, I want to say something else about my good friend Dr. Asali. We have been related, of course, as are all the families in Jerusalem. But we have more recently been closely related since my youngest son recently asked me and Lucy to go to the family of the Asalis in Jerusalem and ask on behalf of our son for the hand of their daughter in marriage.
Dr. Asali said that one of the reviews that he did not like in the book or about the book was the review that mentions me in a positive light but in the context of a dark background of the Palestinians, as though I somehow shine out in an otherwise horrible, fundamentalist, radical community.
In truth, if you read the polls about what Palestinians think, you will find that the majority of the Palestinians are in favor of the kind of two state solution that I and others are espousing. Palestinians are not constitutionally violent. We do not love violence for its own sake. And even those who act violently do not do it because they love violence.
I believe that, on the whole, people yearn to achieve that kind of life that every human wants, a life of freedom. People seek freedom in various ways. Lucy and I, Mubarak Awad, and many others have believed in non-violence as the only way toward freedom. The other day, somebody stood up in a meeting to chastise me for saying in the book that Israel was born by force and said, “How can you say this about Israel?” And I asked, “Well, do you think Israel came into being as a paragon through some immaculate conception without blood spilled?” Israel was created by force and, in fact, if you look around you, most countries’ boundaries have been drawn by force. But then, I added that I hope the Palestinian state will emerge non violently through mutual understanding and acceptance, building bridges and through negotiations.
Often, Israel is described as a “dagger” implanted in the heart of the Arab world, with the intent to bleed the Arabs and Muslims to death. In a similar vein, some people often imagine Israel as the tip of an iceberg of total confrontation between two cultures, between east and west, between backward Islam, on one hand, and the Judeo-Christian world on the other, and that the struggle in the Middle East reflects this.
This view argues that even if we managed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we will still be confronted with the rest of the iceberg and that we can never solve the underlying conflict between cultures and religions or build bridges between two totally separate worlds. This unfortunate way of describing the situation has had its influence on policymakers, decision-makers, and thinkers.
It is high time that we take this image of the iceberg and turn it upside-down and look at the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the resolution of it as the foundation of a pyramid in we can build, layer after layer of bridges between the two sides. So that Israel is seen as a bridge, not a wall.
Unfortunately, it is easy to think of Israel, at the moment, as a wall. In fact, there is an Israeli wall that runs next to my campus at Al Quds University in Jerusalem. But instead of thinking of Israel as a wall, we should try to think of it as a bridge that links Islam and the Arab world to the West and to Judaism and Christianity.
I believe that making peace between Israel and the Palestinians can have a fundamental impact, not just on the lives of my own children who live in Jerusalem or their children, but on the entire region, even the world, if we know how to do this properly. I think that we can build bridges between the Israelis and the Palestinians, by beginning to work together. But, make no mistake, when I say together, I mean as equal partners. Many Palestinians and Arabs view Israel as the stronger party. But I believe that we, the Palestinians, are in fact in a stronger position, historically speaking. But being in a stronger position does not entitle me to overstretch the limits of my humanity. I must remain committed to my human principles. And I must find a way to work hand-in-hand with Israelis, with Jews, to build a better future. I really believe we can do it.
In a panel in which I took part earlier this morning, it was said that there could be such cooperation, but only in the distant future. This is a common view. I don’t believe that peace must be somewhere far down the road in the future, years from now. I think peace can transform our small world in the Middle East. And I think it exists, just on the other side of a glass pane.
We, the present, are on this side. The future is not somewhere down the road. It is right there on the other side of a glass pane. We need to look through this glass pane and see the future. When we do this we will see what is possible and then we will have faith that we ourselves can break the pane and can step over and create our future now. The future is now.
Questions and Answers
Question: Your statement about the Palestinians being in a stronger position than Israel is intriguing. Please tell us more?
Nusseibeh: Well, there is a six-point document that we signed for a two-state solution. And one of the six points was that the Palestinian state should be demilitarized. I took this document to gather signatures in villages, refugee camps, campuses, and homes. Nobody agreed with me until I sat down with them and talked. Imagine the number of hours I spent talking to people, but we got more than 200,000 signatures on the Palestinian side.
In those meetings, people would ask, “Is the principle of demilitarization a condition that was demanded by your Israeli counterpart, Ami Ayalon?” I said no, this is a condition that I insisted on; I want a totally demilitarized state. People ask how Palestinians could have a state without weapons and soldiers? I answered that we are stronger without arms. I would say, “What do you need arms for? What would a Palestinian state do with arms? Presumably they could be used for attacking a neighboring country, or defending Palestine against attack by a neighboring country.
First, The Palestinians could never find the resources for a strong army. Second, rather than spending money on arms, we should invest in things that would really make us stronger such as education, health services, and a better life for us and our children. I still say that we are far more powerful unarmed in the face of a nuclear-armed Israel than we would be with a few weapons. Indeed, if you look at the mismanagement of the arms that the Palestinians have collected in the last few years and the total collapse of Palestinians institutions caused by the resort to arms, you will see my point. Our use of arms is counter-productive. We are far stronger without them.
Question: What would you advise the powers-that-be to achieve peace; and specifically, in terms of the role of the West and the unity government, what should be the position of the West?
Nusseibeh: First of all, the international community should undertake an effort that goes beyond what we have traditionally been accustomed to. Another step-by-step approach will not lead very far. What is required is a dramatic effort led by the international community led by the United States. The content of this effort should be new and outside the box. Once such a dramatic effort is made, it will be well-received in the Arab world and especially in Israel and Palestine.
In other words, regardless of how bad the current situation looks, in Israel and Palestine, and regardless of the hatred, the fundamentalism, the radicalism, and the lack of faith in peace, regardless, in spite of these, most polls tell us consistently that there is a majority on both sides, Israel and Palestine, for a two-state solution whose general parameters we all known. Therefore, I believe, that a dramatic new peace initiative would succeed.
Now, as to Hamas and how to deal with it, this is an American problem. I can’t instruct the U.S. But if there are elections, one has to live with those results for some time. If one does not like the results, one can change the conditions that produced those results. I think the condition that led to the Hamas victory was the lack of progress toward peace. If the Palestinians and the Israelis see a chance for peace, real peace, majorities on both sides will be receptive and will grab the chance and go for peace. Hamas will no longer command an electoral majority and its ideology will be part of history.
Question: We have been talking about peace process now since 1990. When will there be hope? When is peace going to come, realistically speaking?
Nusseibeh: The fact that things have not worked well in the past is no reason why they should not work in the future. Peace cannot be made by one party alone. You can wage war unilaterally, but if you want to make peace, this requires cooperation between the two sides. Now, things have taken a long time, but I assure you that things have also been moving in a positive direction.
If you visited the Middle East 30 years ago and asked about the chances for reconciliation between an Israeli state and the Palestinian entity, you will find very few people agreeing with you. Today a majority supports this in the Middle East and in the United States as well. The current president of the United States and the previous president have been very clear about what the possible solution looks like. The only problem we have today is we can work together in order to bring it about. I think that means that we are closer. If you stick around, I think you will see a Palestinian state emerge.
Question: Ami Ayalon is contending for power within the Labor Party in Israel. He is someone who has not hesitated to use force in the past. What are his political prospects and how are your personal relations now?
Nusseibeh: I greatly admire and respect Ami Ayalon. I know that he has used force in the past. He represents force and I do not. I’m a non-violent human being, but I tolerate other points of view. A position of power does not mean that you are better than others. Real power means you are self confident enough to make compromises with the other, and to reach peace. That’s what being powerful means.
I respected Ami right from the start. When I saw him on television, he was being interviewed after he retired from the Shin Beth. I was shocked and impressed because he was honest, direct, and fearless in expressing his beliefs. That is what attracted me. Later Lucy and I met him in London and he suggested that he might well come up with a peace plan. Several months later, he came, knocked on my door and said to me, “I have a plan and this is it.” ”I want you to read it” I said no, and asked him to explain it to me. It was unusual, since usually, in politics, people bring lawyers and analysts and political scientists when they offer major initiatives. So he described his plan, and I told him “I’m prepared to sign this and to work with you.” He was a little bit shocked, but I told him, “I will read it afterwards; I am happy with this.” In fact, later in the day, I phoned him and asked for one minor change that Lucy suggested that addressed the pain and suffering of the refugees. He readily agreed.
One day, he was introducing me to a group of his supporters and I was shaking their hands. I pulled my hand away when he said the next person was from a certain settlement in the Jordan Valley. And I pulled my hand away because, the settlement happens to be on a plot of land that belongs to my family that was expropriated in 1967. But she held on to my hand, saying she was there because she supported me and that she was prepared to leave her settlement and move to Israel in the event of peace, as long as I did not follow her there and say her house in Israel was also mine.
The point is that people we think are extremists or fundamentalists are usually human beings who are prepared to reach peace. And it is a question only of the magic that is required in order to break through this glass panel and make the jump or the leap from the now to the future, which I think can be done.
Now, I think if Ami Ayalon won in the Israeli elections - he has a chance - if he announced that Israel was prepared to would sign a peace treaty along the lines of the Nusseibeh-Ayalon Plan if the democratically-elected Palestinian government would sign it, we would do so. There would be Palestinian elections to decide this and I think we would a majority that would agree that Palestine should sign the agreement.
Question: It is in vogue in some quarters to talk about a one-state solution: a bi-national, one-state solution. I assume you think this is a non-starter but I would like to hear your views. Also, I would like to hear you talk a bit about the impact discussion of that approach is having on the drive toward the two-state solution.
Nusseibeh: I'll be quite frank and honest and direct about this. I believe a one-state solution, in which all are equal with one another, in which there are no distinctions, no barriers from a human point of view, is far better. Now, however, when you consider the actual conditions of and attitudes of both peoples the majority of the Israelis want a Jewish state and the majority of the Palestinians want a Palestinian peace.
So it makes no sense to push for one state that nobody wants. Now, there is a caveat -- and I hear that Meron Benvinisti was in Washington recently. It is that by default, and in spite of the fact that either side wants it, we might find ourselves further down the road having no option but to coexist within one state, although neither side wants this. But that would create even more pain and suffering than people have gone through, so far. So, it makes no sense at this moment in time to push for one state.
Question: I want to ask you about the external influences on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I mean, Saudi Arabia and Iran, whether it is the Mecca agreement for unifying the Palestinian factions or Iran’s influence on Hamas, whether exaggerated or not. Do you think your conflict can be solved primarily by the Israelis and the Palestinians? Will the Arab League peace initiative come handy here?
Nusseibeh: Well, some external influences are good and some are bad. The attempt to create reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas and the re-launching the Arab initiative were constructive. I hope the latter will gather momentum. If left to our own devices, we Israelis and the Palestinians, we will not be able to move very far in any positive direction at the moment.
A few years ago, I might have told you that the Israelis and the Palestinians could create change, but not today. We need outside intervention and one that, unlike past efforts, is active. For example, a major initiative could build upon the Saudi initiative. Dramatic intervention is now needed from the outside to make the Palestinians and the Israelis overcome the last barriers to peace. The people are ready, but the governments need but persistent purposeful nudging.
Question: My question is about the refugees, one of the most sensitive, difficult, and emotional issues and what has your experience been in terms of the conversations you have had in the refugee camps on this issue?
Nusseibeh: It is one of the hottest issues, if not the hottest. As far as I’m concerned, a two-state solution would require that Palestinians exercise their right to return only to within the borders of the Palestinian state. The refugees would not, in a peaceful solution, be allowed to return to their ancestral homes in Israel.
I have come up against a lot of criticism over it. While I was going around getting people to sign the Nusseibeh-Ayalon petition, I went to a group of refugee camps in the Bethlehem area. This was the time when people were still running around with guns, so I knew the people in the camps were still armed. Anyway, I went, not knowing whether I’d come back or not. I met a group of about 20-30 people from three refugee camps, all militant activists, all from Fatah. We had a very heated discussion for about three hours. At the end something happened which gave me strength. They came up to me and said, “Sari, we do not agree with what you say. Indeed, we hate it when we hear you. But, we want to tell you that we hold the greatest respect for you because you are telling us openly and honestly what we know our leaders also say to Israelis and to themselves and to Americans behind close doors and which they not dare to tell us in our face. We know they say this.” So I came out feeling I earned the respect of people.
One last thing perhaps: I have been criticized partly for saying on the basis that I have said or say that I’m against the right of return. I never said this, to be clear. I believe we have the right of return. But I have also said that in addition to the right of return, we have other rights, for example to be free and independent and to build a future. We have a right to be free of occupation. And very often in life - and not just with us but across the world - rights can conflict with one another, and the implementation of one means having to forego the other.
We have to make a choice. And in this case, my choice is for the rights of freedom and independence. And I believe that the refugees must think seriously about whether they wish to continue holding the Palestinians hostage to the refugee issue, or choosing a future of freedom.
So let us build a state. Let all the Palestinians who are refugees and non-refugees come and live as equals on Palestinian soil; not in the houses of their ancestors, but in the Palestinian state. Let them be free. Let them live dignified lives. Let them build their vision for the future. That this is a challenge. Morally, it is preferable to choose this course than to continue complaining about the past. I share the pain of the past, but I think by continuing to complain we fail to build for the future.