A Message from the PLO: Give Peace a Visa (Abridged)

By Bassam Abu Sharif

Some five months ago, I wrote a position paper that attracted some attention in the US and elsewhere.

The paper said, in essence, that the Palestine Liberation Organization wants peace and security for the Palestinians and the Israelis alike "because no one can build his own future on the ruins of another's."

It proposed immediate talks between the PLO and Israel, in the context of an international conference on the Middle East, toward a two-state solution of the Palestinian-Israeli problem that would finally bring peace to all the states of the region, including Palestine and Israel.

The paper was complimented as an apparently sincere expression of one Palestinian's acceptance of Israel and his desire to coexist with it, and it was dismissed as unimportant for the same reason: that it was the "unauthoritative" position of one man who had neither the mandate to represent the PLO nor the power to sway it.

On November 15, what I said in the article was stated in greater detail by the Palestine National Council (PNC), the PLO's highest authority.

But the declarations of the PNC, authoritative as they are, and applauded though they were by most countries, including the 12 members of the European Community, were rejected as an act of war by Israel and shrugged off as inadequate by the US administration....

I still cling to one shred of hope: that Mr. Shultz and the Reagan administration are speaking for themselves and not for the American people or Mr. Baker and the Bush administration.

It is on that assumption, and in response to the various doubts that have been voiced about the PLO's new policy, that I offer the following clarifications to anyone who cares to listen:

It has been said that the Palestinian Declaration of Independence is unacceptable because it is a unilateral act that was not arrived at through negotiations.

We believe the act was multilateral. The entire world gave the Palestinian people the right to independence and sovereignty on three separate occasions: in 1919, when the League of Nations passed Article 22 of its charter; in 1923, when the great powers signed the Treaty of Lausanne; and in 1947, when the UN adopted Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine into a Palestinian state and a Jewish state.

Those who disagree with us argue that those three documents, all signed by the US, have been overtaken by events. Our view is that such arguments undermine the credibility of the great powers and promote the cynical notion that justice is a perishable product—and that view seems to be shared by the 60-odd states that have recognized the Palestinian state so far.

But that is our view, and we are not demanding that it be accepted as a precondition to our participation in the peace talks, nor are we prepared to accept a demand that we relinquish it as a precondition to such participation.

It has been said that acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 was "cancelled out" by our simultaneous invocation of other UN resolutions, which, our critics say, cast doubt on the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

Our critics have probably not read the pertinent PNC decision carefully. It states that the international peace conference should "be held on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the safeguarding of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, foremost among which is the right to self-determination ... in accordance with the UN resolutions relating to the Palestinian issue."

We have always had reservations about Resolution 242 because it makes no provisions for the Palestinians' national rights, referring to the Palestinian issue only as a refugee problem. We accepted the resolution nevertheless, but only as one of two cornerstones for the international conference, the other cornerstone being the national rights of the Palestinians. As clearly indicated in the text, the UN resolutions referred to are the resolutions that pertain to those rights and not the resolutions that "cast doubt on the legitimacy of Israel."

The Israelis have somehow convinced many that when an Israeli soldier kills a Palestinian, he is engaging in legitimate self-defense, but when a Palestinian boy throws a stone at that soldier, he is engaging in terrorism.

Those who ask us to accept Resolution 242 as it stands, with no ifs, ands, or buts, are asking us to relinquish our rights as a precondition to the initiation of negotiations aimed at the recovery of our rights. That is patently illogical and unacceptable. If the proposed negotiations are intended to legitimize our present disfranchisement, we agree with our critics that we do not qualify as reliable participants.

It has been said that the PNC did not renounce terrorism.

The fact is that the PNC renounced terrorism twice. It renounced it once in the Declaration of Independence, when it said that "the state of Palestine declares its belief in the settlement of international and regional disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the charter and resolutions of the United Nations; and its rejection of threats of force or violence or terrorism and the use of these against its territorial integrity and political independence or the territorial integrity of any other state."

It renounced it again in the political statement that accompanied the Declaration of Independence....

Resisting Foreign Occupation

Normally that would be clear enough. Normally, the PNC would not need to add that the Palestinians, while renouncing terrorism, reserve the right to protect themselves from terrorism. But these are not normal circumstances. The Israelis have somehow convinced many in the US and elsewhere that when an Israeli soldier kills a Palestinian, expropriates Palestinian land and water, burns Palestinian crops, demolishes Palestinian houses, breaks into Palestinian homes, and generally makes a Palestinian's life intolerable, he is engaging in legitimate self-defense, but that when a Palestinian boy throws a stone at that soldier, he is engaging in terrorism.

The PNC thus felt compelled to add that, while renouncing all forms of violence and terrorism, the Palestinian people reserved the right, as granted by UN resolutions, to "resist foreign occupation" and "defend its territory and independence."

If resistance of foreign occupation and defense of territory and independence are now defined as terrorism in the US and Israel, the American and Jewish dictionaries must have been revised since World War II, when they defined such activities as a basic right and the people who engaged in them as heroes.

Having said this, let me add that the Palestinians are prepared to stop all forms of resistance to Israeli occupation in advance of any negotiations if Israel is prepared to end all forms of occupation in advance of any negotiations.

Recognizing Israel's Right to Exist

It has been said that the PNC did not explicitly recognize Israel.

The PNC did not explicitly recognize Israel only if UN Resolution 181 of 1947 and Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 did not explicitly recognize Israel.

Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into one Arab state and one Jewish state, is the legal foundation of Israel. By explicitly recognizing it and adopting it as the legal formation of the state of Palestine, the PNC has explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.

Resolution 242 affirmed, among other things, the right of all states in the Middle East, including Israel, to live in peace within secure borders. By explicitly accepting it and endorsing it as one of the bases on which an international Middle East peace conference should be convened, the PNC has explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.

Why, some have asked, did the PNC take this circuitous route to the recognition of Israel? Why didn't the PNC simply state "We recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist in peace within secure borders?"

The question is legitimate, and the answer is that neither I, nor the PNC—nor, for that matter, the United States—recognize Israel as it stands today, in control of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and determined, according to the repeated pledges of Yitzhak Shamir, his Likud Bloc and their various allies, to hold onto them.

By accepting Resolution 181, the PNC recognized Israel as one of the two states that share the historical land of Palestine, the other being the independent state of Palestine that was just proclaimed on November 15. Mutual juridical recognition between Palestine and Israel as two independent states will be exchanged at the international peace conference.

By accepting Resolution 242, the PNC recognized Israel's right to exist within secure borders following its withdrawal from the territories it acquired by military conquest in 1967, as required in that resolution.

It has been said that all the decisions of the PNC mean nothing because the PNC did not specifically state that the charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which calls for the "destruction of Israel," was hereby annulled.

Envisioning a Democratic State

The charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization—which, incidentally, does not call for the destruction of Israel or endorse the throwing of the Jews into the sea, but envisions a democratic state in which both claimants to historical Palestine can live in peace and equality—has been superseded by the decisions of the PNC, the author of the charter.

By endorsing a two-state solution, the PNC has abandoned the one-state solution mentioned in the charter.

In essence, the charter was a rejection of the UN partition resolution of 1947. The PNC has now withdrawn that rejection and by so doing annulled the sections of the charter that have caused so much consternation in Israel, the US, and elsewhere.

It has been said that statements made by certain members of the PLO before and after the announcement of the PNC decisions contradict the letter and spirit of those decisions, confirming suspicions that the PNC statements constitute a tactical retreat from the maximalist demands of the PLO and not a final abandonment of them.

Let me set the record straight on this point: The decisions of the PNC were approved by majority vote, with 253 voting in favor, 46 voting against, and 10 abstaining. This means that at least 46 and possibly 56 members of the PNC do not approve of its new policies.

In essence, the charter was a rejection of the UN partition plan of 1947. The PNC has now withdrawn that rejection.

Their disapproval, however, casts no shadow on the PNC decisions, any more than the disapproval of over 49 percent of the American people casts a shadow on the presidency of Mr. George Bush.

It boils down to this: The Palestine Liberation Organization has officially changed its position from one of total rejection of Israel's right to exist as an exclusive zionist state to one of full acceptance of Israel under the terms of Security Council Resolution 242, which requires Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967.

The PLO, which once refused on principle to hold talks with Israel, has now officially expressed its desire for negotiations with Israel in the context of an international peace conference aimed at the achievement of a two-state solution of the Palestinian-Israeli problem.

The PLO's past program, which sought the liberation of Palestine by armed struggle, has now officially been replaced by a policy that seeks "the settlement of international and regional disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the charter and the resolutions of the United Nations" and rejects the threat or use "of force or violence or terrorism" by the Palestinians or the Israelis—as clearly stated in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence.

These major policy changes are not a "PR gimmick" or "dust in the world's eyes” or the opening move of a diabolical scheme for the phased annihilation of Israel. They are an honest expression of the Palestinian majority's belief that the state of Palestine can coexist alongside the state of Israel.

This peace offer does not come from circus performers willing to jump through endless hoops for a cube of sugar ... It comes from a people who have rights, who have been stripped of those rights, who are determined to regain them, and who have now decided to believe the Israelis, Americans, Soviets, Europeans, and others who have been assuring them that those rights can be regained by peaceful means.

In offering our hand, we were gambling that it would not be lopped off. In extending the olive branch, we were hoping that it would not be used to flog us....

My hope now is that Washington 1989 will differ from Washington 1988 and give peace a visa.

If I am once more risking a charge of gullibility, that is a small price to pay compared with the disaster I fear will strike us, the Israelis, the Mideast, and everyone with interests in that region when hope runs out.

Bassam Abu Sharif is an adviser to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The article from which these excerpts were drawn was published in December 1988 in the London periodical Mideast Mirror.