Conor — Interview with Imprisoned PFLP General Secretary Ahmad Saadat
Topic(s): Palestine / Israel | Comments Off on Conor — Interview with Imprisoned PFLP General Secretary Ahmad Saadat—————————-
Fight Back News Service
http://www.fightbacknews.org
—————————-
>From the Summer 2003 Edition of Fight Back! Newspaper
————————————————————-
INTERVIEW WITH IMPRISONED PFLP GENERAL SECRETARY AHMAD SAADAT
————————————————————-
Fight Back! interviewed the imprisoned General Secretary of the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Ahmad Saadat,
on May 20. At a time when the eyes of the world are focused on the
Middle East, we are grateful for the opportunity to bring you, our
readers, the thoughts of one of the key leaders of the Palestinian
resistance in his own words.
The PFLP is the second largest political group within the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO). It is a revolutionary, Marxist-
Leninist organization that advocates the creation of a democratic,
secular Palestine. Formed in 1968 by Dr. George Habash and other
leading members of the Arab Nationalist Movement (ANM), the PFLP has
been at the forefront of the Palestinians’ political and armed
struggle for national liberation, the right of return and an end to
the illegal Israeli military occupation of Palestine.
Following the Israeli assassination of PFLP leader Abu Ali Mustafa
in August 2001, the Central Committee of the PFLP elected Saadat as
his successor. In retaliation for the murder of Mustafa, a special
unit of the PFLP shot the racist Rehevam Ze’evi, the Israeli
Minister of Tourism who openly promoted the killing and exile of
Palestinians.
Acting under pressure from the United States and Israel, Saadat and
four other members of the PFLP were arrested by the Palestinian
Authority for the killing of Ze’evi in January 2002. In exchange for
lifting the military siege on Palestinian president Yasser Arafat’s
compound, the Palestinian Authority gave in to Israel’s demand that
the five be transferred to a prison in Jericho under the supervision
of the Palestinian Authority – with the oversight of U.S. and
British military personnel.
——————————————
Fight Back!: Could you tell us a bit about your history with the
PFLP? How and when did you join, and why did you feel the need to
join a revolutionary organization at that time in your life?
Saadat: I began my life in the national resistance in 1967, the year
of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In that
year, I joined the PFLP-led Palestine Student Union, and then
officially became a member of the PFLP in 1969. The motive to join
the national struggle was to fight against the Zionist occupation.
At that time, the general Palestinian milieu was strongly influenced
by Nasser’s nationalist thoughts, which helped me choose the PFLP
over other organizations.
Although nationalist sentiments and hatred towards the occupation
were the overriding motives to join any nationalist organization, my
social class as a refugee who suffered the consequences of the
Palestinian Catastrophe, Al Nakba [the founding of the state of
Israel and the exile of 750,000 Palestinians], and being the son of
a poor worker led me to the socialist, Marxist thoughts that were
spreading throughout the PFLP’s mass organizations. This spread of
Marxist thought was a step forward, a progressive development of ANM
[Arab Nationalist Movement] theories, and a consequence of the
Israeli defeat of Arab nationalist, bourgeois forces in the 1967
war.
I should also say that the time spent in prison in my early years of
activism [Saadat was jailed by the Israelis many times, spending a
total of over 10 years in prison] also introduced me to Marxism and
helped consolidate my commitment to the PFLP and the national
movement.
Fight Back!: You have been imprisoned in Jericho for over a year
now. The Palestinian High Court has deemed the arrest illegal under
Palestinian law. Why do you feel that the Palestinian Authority –
the PA – refuses to release you and your comrades?
Saadat: Since the so-called `Jericho Agreement’ placed us – the five
prisoners – under the supervision of Israel, the U.S., the PA and
England, the only way that we could be released would be to
terminate the agreement. The PA cannot take this position,
especially after the Israeli invasion of the West Bank in April of
last year and the siege of Al Moqata’a – the PA and Arafat’s
headquarters. Now the PA accedes to all Israeli and American demands.
The `Jericho Agreement’ is one of the demands that the PA sees as
commitments, which might be more important to Israel and the U.S.
than the appointment of a prime minister or a new minister of
finance or interior.
Therefore, my release and the release of my four comrades require a
solid Palestinian position that refuses to continually submit to
American-supported Israeli demands. The issue of our release,
therefore, is very difficult and is not solely in the hands of the
PA.
In conclusion, I want to speak to the PA’s claim that we are being
detained for our safety: this is utter nonsense used to justify the
PA’s compliance and submissiveness to Israeli security demands.
Fight Back!: The war and occupation in Iraq seems to be an effort by
the U.S. government to institute an imperialist plan to consolidate
its hegemony over the entire Arab world. What are the specific plans
of the U.S. for the Arab world, and how do the conditions in Iraq
affect Palestinian aspirations for national liberation and
independence? Is there a real danger that Israel may implement a
policy of forced removal, or `transfer,’ of Palestinians from their
homes and land?
Saadat: The U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, declared that the
American scheme for the Arab region will be nothing less than the re-
drawing of the political map of the region to best serve American
interests. Additionally, controlling the oil reserves in the region
is the central link that will enable the U.S. to control the world,
and therefore enforce the American view of the international order
in this stage of imperialism. This scheme was made possible by post-
September 11th conditions – because prior to 911, it was resisted in
UN Security Council negotiations.
Although the first step in the scheme was to provide political cover
and international support for Sharon and Israel’s criminal war
against the Palestinian people, the central target was always Iraq.
Powell’s declaration provided the political framework for the
scheme, uncovering the American program to `democratize’ the Arab
region and `protect human rights’ in the Middle East in general, and
the Arab region in particular. The American imperialist scheme is
not simply based on politics, economy, or military strength. Even
culturally and ideologically, the U.S. intends to control and re-
shape the region, with Israeli partnership, to acquire long-term
security for its imperialist interests.
Fight Back!: The PFLP has its two top leaders in prison. Many others
from its Central Committee and the Political Office, as well as mid-
level leaders, have also either been arrested or killed. Why does
Israel see the PFLP as such a major threat to its control over the
Palestinians, and why hasn’t the public been made aware of these
devastating attacks in the same way that we hear about the attacks
on Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or Fatah?
Saadat: Objectively, and without any narcissistic assessment of my
experience, there is published testimony from the leaders of
Israel’s security apparatus, the Shabak, and from journalists close
to and affiliated with the Shabak, like Ze’evi Sche’ve, that
describe the reasons for Israel’s concentrated repression of the
PFLP.
The Israelis discovered in the 1980’s and during the first Intifada
of 1987-1993, that the PFLP has a solid, ideological and unyielding
organizational structure. It was impossible for them to detect the
secret activities of the PFLP, or defeat the will of the PFLP’s
cadre and members, even with their brutal and illegal interrogation
methods. The PFLP also has a very dynamic organizational structure
that can transform and modify itself quickly, especially in
emergency situations.
The continuous attacks by the Israelis against the PFLP, especially
between 1991 and 1995, together with the severe financial crisis it
faced beginning in 1994, led the Shabak to assume that the PFLP had
gone from the proverbial intensive care unit to the grave. So, the
speed in which the PFLP reconstructed its resistance apparatus after
the 6th Congress and the beginning of the September 2000 Intifada
surprised Israel and the Shabak.
This surprise explains why the first Israeli assassination attempt
against the PFLP targeted Abu Ali Mustafa. The assumption was that
murdering Abu Ali would drive the PFLP back to the intensive care
unit. But, instead, the PFLP responded with similar force by killing
the racist Rehevam Ze’evi, one of the members of Sharon’s cabinet.
Although most of the PFLP’s activities are absent from mainstream
media outlets, the Israeli Shabak knows these activities well, and
has greatly stepped up its attacks on us. The media, concentrating
on the competition between the PA and the Islamic forces, may ignore
us, but the enemy does not. And even though the PFLP lacks the
backing of a regional, political power, and relies mainly on the
local support of working and poor people, its actions and political
significance are recognized throughout the region.
Fight Back!: Does the PFLP have a specific political program
developed in response to the current objective conditions of the
Intifada, or Uprising? If so, how is the PFLP implementing that plan
on the ground?
Saadat: The PFLP sees the current Intifada as a popular initiative
and an expected response to the crisis created by the Oslo Accords
and other negotiations based on Oslo. The final collapse of the
accords occurred after the Camp David summit, and allowed for the
restoration of the alternative of popular resistance.
The Intifada not only reflected the internal contradictions of the
Oslo agreement and its inability to resolve the conflict, but also
showed the importance of reordering Palestinian internal structures
and reconsidering the Palestinian leadership – based on the function
of political resistance. This resistance itself is based on
restoring the role of international legitimacy and the UN as a frame
of reference, instead of accepting the U.S. stronghold on `brokering
peace.’
The Intifada aims at restoring the role of international
institutions to the political process, as the bodies responsible for
implementing resolutions and international law regarding the Arab-
Israeli conflict. The PFLP supports the role of the Intifada in
seeking to reinforce the Palestinian leadership structure with
popular structures – from popular committees responsible for
activating local institutions in the cities, villages, refugee camps
and neighborhoods; to a media mechanism that stresses a political
discourse that supports the legitimacy and legality of resistance
and the criminality of Israeli practices and violations of human
rights and international law. Additionally, the Intifada promotes
Arab and global popular support networks in its quest to achieve the
just national rights of the Palestinian people.
The Intifada, together with Arab and international popular support,
could place the enemy under siege and pave the way for achieving our
national goals, which the PFLP has suggested on more than one
occasion of national dialogue. However, this has not been the agenda
of the bourgeois Palestinian Authority, which distributed its
efforts between resistance (to immaturely exploit it) and
negotiations based on the same old frame of reference (Oslo). This
situation produced a state of political schizophrenia. This dual
political discourse by the PA – with the Intifada/resistance at one
end, and with Israel at the other – led to the weakening of the
Intifada, especially when the PA would classify aspects of the
resistance as `terrorist activities’ that must be condemned and
fought.
Fight Back!: The popular support for the Palestinian struggle is
always high among the masses of the Arab world, but the majority of
their governments have not taken a strong political stance against
Israel or U.S. support of Israel. The PFLP continues to express that
Palestinian freedom is inextricably linked to Arab freedom. In this
climate of Arab government repression against the Arab masses, what
can the Palestinians expect from these masses in terms of real
support for ending the Israeli occupation?
Saadat: The unity between the Arab nation and the Palestinian nation
exists due to the connection of the interests of the Arab people,
and their collective need for security, social progress,
development, social justice and unity. However, these interests and
goals, which represent the underlying basis for Arab unity and
interconnection, cannot be translated into deeds without the
political tools that can stimulate popular action and unify it in an
Arab center.
The slogans for the different Arab national currents and parties are
not commensurate with programs that will make the Arab national
struggle the basis for struggle in each specific Arab country. On
the contrary, the struggle of the nationalist parties within each
country remain focused on local issues and isolated from the general
Arab question. This is why the popular Arab support of the Intifada
and the popular protest against the war on Iraq remained limited.
The nationalist instruments – the Arab National Conference,
different Arab nationalist parties, and the Arab-Islamic Conference –
lack the agenda that links the local issues in each country to the
general Arab issues.
Since the American military occupation of Iraq represents the
central point of attack on the Arab and the Palestinian liberation
scheme, it becomes crucial to reconsider the mechanisms, agendas and
methods of the popular, Arab national movements in order to defend
national interests, independence, self-determination, culture and
resources; and recognize the dialectical connection between the
popular national struggle and the international struggle.
The American globalization of war established the conditions for its
antithesis – globalizing the popular struggle – at two levels.
First, the tactical and immediate level: the U.S. challenge to
international will and international institutions, and its violation
of international law through its war on Iraq, created a sort
of `rejectionist’ front consisting of the countries that opposed the
war and united to defend the UN. This provided an `official’ setting
to face the illegal war and occupation of Iraq. Second, the
strategic and long-term level: prior to the war on Iraq, the popular
resistance (anti-globalization forces) to imperialism and its
policies toward the poor nations increased significantly. The
popular movement, in Arab countries and throughout the world,
provides the strategic foundation for fighting imperialism, and
needs to address these new conditions and re-conceptualize its
agenda to fight imperialist policies locally and globally. This
movement from Arab and world masses is what will help the
Palestinian cause the most.
Fight Back!: The PFLP’s vision for all of Palestine includes living
in a society free of the control of the capitalist ruling classes of
Israel and the Palestinian Authority. You also stress that a
comprehensive peace cannot be achieved without the implementation of
the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. Once the refugees
return and the Israeli occupation has ended, what political system
must be in place to uphold your vision for a Palestinian state? And
what specific role must the PFLP and the oppressed classes of
Palestinian society play in this state?
Saadat: The Right of Return for the Palestinian refugees is a
legitimate and central Palestinian right, and the most important
part of the Palestinian liberation scheme. When the PFLP insists on
its commitment to the Right of Return, it simply insists on its
commitment to the Palestinian national agenda that was approved in
numerous meetings of the Palestine National Council.
The Right of Return is neither a knee-jerk emotional reaction, nor
an abstract legal right, nor right-wing chauvinism. On the contrary,
it is realistic, and constitutes the only basis for a permanent and
everlasting peace.
Furthermore, the upholding of the Right of Return is not, as some
intellectuals and academics have argued, an impractical position,
representing an inability to understand political realities and the
composition of local, regional and international forces. On the
contrary, this commitment to the Right of Return is the by-product
of a scientific and objective assessment and reading of the
historical struggle between the Palestinian national liberation
movement and the Zionist colonial movement. Any solution that
ignores the Right of Return as a basis for a permanent peace between
the Palestinians and the Jewish settlers who forcibly expelled the
indigenous people of Palestine and colonized the land may produce
short periods of quiet and calm, but will not eliminate the
objective conditions that produce the conflict between our people
and the Zionist movement.
Therefore, the implementation of international resolutions and
international law pertaining to the Right of Return, as a first
step, may prepare the foundation for a permanent peace and end the
struggle in Palestine and around Palestine. This right, as the
essence of the Palestine question, represents the bridge for a
democratic and comprehensive solution of the conflict between the
Jewish settlers and the Palestinian people.
Some have argued that the current reality is pushing towards a two-
state solution – an Israeli state next to a Palestinian state based
on the pre-1967 borders. Of course, this solution involves ignoring
the Right of Return, or replacing it with reparations. We in the
PFLP argue that forcing such a solution on the Palestinian people
will not end the struggle, because the facts and reality contradict
such a solution. The two-state solution that is based on the racist
notion of `a national, homogeneous Jewish state’ totally disregards
the fact that over 1.3 million Palestinians – 20% of the entire
population – live inside `Israel.’ This will continue to permit the
causes of conflict to remain inside Israel. Therefore, the solution
based on two states is a myth.
Our people’s quest, like any other people, is a democratic and free
society. This democratic state – the only state form that can
produce social and economic development – cannot be led or dominated
by the parasitic and comprador bourgeoisie, but by a unity of the
popular forces that share structural interests in national
independence, return to the homeland, popular democracy and economic
development. This is, simply, our view in the PFLP, and the view of
the national, democratic liberation movement.