Negotiations were going nowhere – video

Full Text of President Mahmoud Abbas’ Speech at the UNGA

Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:37AM GMT
Interview with Vice Chair Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Kamel Hawwash.
Taking the cause of Palestinian to the UN was an important move to make, because the so called peace negotiation was going absolutely nowhere the Vice Chair of Palestine Solidarity Campaign said.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Vice Chair Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Kamel Hawwash to further talk over the issue.

The following is a rush transcription of the interview:

Press TV: Mr. Hawwash, despite the issues mentioned by Mr. Nashabi. Is it indeed serving the Palestinian cause? Critics say in fact it will provide Israel with the perfect pretext to deny the Palestinian refugees their right of return and will also provide Israel with the justification to reject the one-state solution, which many Palestinians say is the only just solution. Mr. Hawwash what do you think about that?

Hawwash: I think first of all it was an important move for the Palestinian to make, because the so called peace negotiation was going absolutely nowhere. And it was important to something happened to change the dynamics of what is happening in occupied Palestine. There is, quite concern about what would happened after this.

I think, if you like the US will coming with its veto, and therefore, spare, the consequences that would have happened if Palestine have been accepted as state, although all Palestinian are supportive of becoming member nation of the UN.

The PLO, which is body that is taking this resolution to the UN, have made it clear that in the legal discussion they have had, the status of PLO, and the responsibility of Palestinians the outside of the territory, are indeed within 1948 area would still remain part of the PLO agreement, and the negotiation will have to find a solution for them as well.

Press TV: Mr. Neshabi made it clear that Abbas did say, negotiation could only continue if Israel agrees to stop those illegal activities. At the same time he also made interesting remark when he said that, “we accept relative justice,” when absolute justice was not possible. Do you think this kind of strategy, this kind of “relative justice” and I am quoting him, is something that the Palestinian would want?

Hawwash: I think this is part of his strategy, he is going to the UN for state with 1967 border. They did not go to the UN asking for state over the whole historic Palestine.

You may agree with him or you may disagree with him, but what you just describe the statement that he made were in line him, with his strategy, and actually, he made it clear that the side that made the sacrifices is the Palestinian side. What sacrifices Israeli side have made? Absolutely none.

But when you listen to Netanyahu speech, what you take from that is, this is our biblical homeland, and if we give any land away to Palestinians, that is absolutely out of goodness of our heart. But we must remain in control of every aspect of their life.

I think the contrast between the two speeches, were you have the first one from Abbas, which was very factual; it was impassioned from the man who is not known to be such impassioned speaker, where as Netanyahu have came across from neutral with someone devoid of absolutely any ideas for resolving the situation.

Because he does not see leaving Jerusalem, he does not see leaving the settlements, he has to have army present all over the West Bank and, so he has no ideas, therefore what is point of going back to peace negotiation.

Even though in the long run, there would have to be some treaty signed, but of course not with this government. I do not see Avigdor Lieberman sitting in that audience that is the man that has called for drawing for the Palestinian Prisoners, and he is welcomed to the UN. He is should be banned from travelling to outside Israel.


Share this article:
Send to friendPrint this article
Related Stories:



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: