Husam Zomlot
Husam Zomlot is currently the head of the Palestinian Mission to the United Kingdom. He previously served as a strategic affairs adviser to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and as a Palestinian envoy to the United States. He has also worked as an economist at the United Nations and as an economic researcher at the London School of Economics.
The following interview was conducted on Nov. 10, 2023, by FRONTLINE journalist James Jacoby. It has been edited for clarity and length.
Read more interviews from Netanyahu, America & the Road to War in Gaza.
In terms of the Trump administration coming in, how was that seen? Was there some hope or promise of a change of tune from the Americans, of the Israelis at that point in time, from your perspective?
The Trump administration has completely capitulated to the Netanyahu narrative, and I mean [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, not Israel, given an anti-Oslo track, whereby recognizing Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel, whereby shuttering down our diplomatic representation when I was the ambassador actually to Washington, kicking me and my family out, and the rest of what you and the world heard from [former President Donald] Trump, which was in complete alignment with the anti-Oslo behavior of the Greater Israel Project, of the colonial settlement project, and that was needed to be covered by a so-called ultimate deal, but the ultimate deal was a confirmation of Netanyahu’s rejection of the two-state solution.
I want to go through that in some detail, which is when the administration came in at first, Ambassador, what were your communications like at first with either the president, [Jared] Kushner, the team? Are you able to bring me into the room a little bit in the early days of the Trump administration? You’re in Washington.
Yes. In fact, only four weeks after my arrival to Washington, that was early April 2017, I was tasked to arrange for a visit by my president, President Mahmoud Abbas. And it did happen early May, the first week of May, and the meeting went rather well. What we heard from President Trump and his advisers was in line with the longstanding U.S. policy, that they are pro-two-state solution, that they know Netanyahu is the main obstacle for the two-state solution, and only it will take a Trump to deliver Netanyahu. We heard such words.
And the engagement continued all the way to a meeting also we arranged at the U.N. General Assembly in 2017 in September. And there was another meeting between President Trump and President Abbas. In that meeting, in fact, I was there, and I was listening, and I was surprised to hear President Trump actually outlining some sort of the requirements for a two-state solution, which is in line of our expectation of the international community. But a few weeks later, we started hearing that they are cooking something else: An announcement of Jerusalem being the unified capital of Israel is imminent. And they took such a detour, an immediate sort of 180 degrees in no time, which tells you that administration, the Trump administration, was not really based on strategic interests of the U.S. or based on international resolutions or based on any policy. They were just put under pressure, and apparently they completely adopted one agenda all the way until the end of that administration.
What you’re saying is that there was some acknowledgment from the Trump administration that Netanyahu would be the obstacle to a two-state solution?
Yes, absolutely, yes. There was an acknowledgment by the Trump administration that Netanyahu is the obstacle to a two-state solution, that they understand that his agenda, they understand that his rejection of any serious engagement and the lack of pressure on him is what led to the stalemate in the previous years, and therefore they are willing to put pressure on him and on the Israeli government then. Not regrettably, the only pressure they had was on us, and the only exercise of pressure was on us, in a way that has derailed even further the peace process.
You know, there has been always two agendas. The Netanyahu agenda, the Israeli government’s agenda of bypassing the Palestinian issue by building more settlements, eroding the two-state solution by deeds, not by words, by many policy implementation or by many acts on the ground, including pocketing Jerusalem, including all that you know, including shuttering down our diplomatic missions, because remember, a diplomatic mission, and not only in Washington but in Jerusalem, for the American-Palestinian people relations is a symbol of the two-state solution. It’s a symbol of the Palestinian state to emerge. There has always been that agenda.
And there is the international plus Palestinian agenda, which is ending Israeli occupation and establishing a state of Palestine on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as capital, resolving the issue of refugees in accordance with international law. President Trump and his administration allied, he completely allied with the second agenda and in the process undermined the absolute foundation of the so-called two-state solution and international consensus in that direction.
But as I understand it, the relations between President Abbas and President Trump were actually quite good at the beginning. I mean, President Trump walked away, as I understand, with a very positive impression of Abbas.
Oh, yeah, that’s right.
What happened?
That’s true. The first encounters I think there was good chemistry. What we heard from President Trump was, in a way, promising. We heard a president who was just elected, literally a few weeks before inaugurated as a president, who told us he is willing to use his political capital, his beliefs towards peace in the Middle East, and he believes this is the time, and he believes it’s him who can do it. So of course, we were rather interested. We were engaged. And we were, in a way, hopeful that that could be the case, because some were saying it might actually take a Trump. It might actually take a Trump to actually break all these stereotypes, shake the foundation of the stalemates, enforce with the international community a solution based on the international consensus.
But I think there was the businessman mentality rather than the statesman mentality of Trump. And the businessman mentality would want to first excite you in a sales sort of deal, raise your expectation, reassure you to really do his other business of pushing you and pushing you later down the line. And I think his real estate business experience played a major part. Not only him, but Kushner, Jared Kushner, and all the entourage played a part that should they do that with the Palestinian leadership, maybe down the line they will be able to gaslight us, you know, whitewash some of what they are going to do.
However, I don’t think they expected the reaction by President Abbas and the Palestinian leadership, our reaction. They did not expect it. They thought having a good chemistry, saying the right words but then doing the wrong deeds, doing the wrong acts, might actually help them manage the relationship and keep it because it started well. But President Abbas and the Palestinian leadership were absolutely bluntly, from minute one, clear of their no and of cutting ties, as you remember. So the trick, the businessman-like trick, did not work.
I want to get to the decision to cut ties, but I’m curious, just briefly, what was the perspective on the people that were advising the president? You’ve mentioned Kushner, but there was also [Jason] Greenblatt; there was also [David] Friedman as the ambassador to Israel. These were the top advisers to the president. How was this viewed by you guys?
People like Friedman and Kushner and Greenblatt did not really come as U.S. officials in our encounters with them. They were more of a group [with] very deep-held ideologies, a certain ideology about Israel, about Zionism, about Palestine. And we have seen that in action by Friedman going and digging a tunnel with a hammer underneath Al-Aqsa Mosque, almost wanting to ignite religious war when he was the U.S. ambassador to Israel.
That was reflected in many of our encounters with the team. … The key background in every act, in every word they say was ideological rather than policy or strategy or interest of their country and of the rest of the world, rather than the U.S. being the grownup in the room and being the mediator that all parties accept to have. And the net result of all that was the U.S. was soon to be disqualified being a mediator, and that disqualification lasted until the end of the Trump administration.
So Trump’s first trip abroad is to the region, right? I’m curious if you could briefly describe what it was like, that visit he visited. I don’t know whether you were there with President Abbas when President Trump visited on his first trip abroad. And then of course he goes to Israel, and he meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu. So are you able to describe that trip at all from your perspective?
President Trump’s trip to the region, that was also short after President Abbas’s meeting and visit to Washington. He visited Bethlehem, and there was a meeting, and I attended that meeting. And again, the early hours and days and weeks of engagement was all promising. But in his visit, he came from Israel, and he came rather charged, because the Israelis have faked a video on President Abbas.
Netanyahu was showing President Trump a fake video on President Abbas that he was saying something like, “Kill everybody.” And President Abbas, his life was on and about peace and negotiations. Unfortunately, President Trump had to be exposed early on to the tricks and the agendas. The attempts are trying to deviate him from what he had promised us in the first engagements, and it seems these tricks have worked down the line, and soon after, these acts of painting the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people in a way that Israeli politicians like Netanyahu want us to be painted in, so they can implement their agenda, which is a non-two-state-solution agenda.
I’d like to fast-forward now to the announcement of the embassy move. How did you receive that? What went through your mind? What were the conversations like when this was announced among the Palestinian leadership?
I received a phone call from the State Department, a very senior official of the State Department, on the 16th of November, 2017. The caller, who is a friend of mine, and I will not mention his name, said, “I have some serious news to share with you. Where are you?” I said, “I’m in the office.” He said, “OK. I want to inform you that the Secretary of State [Rex] Tillerson did not sign the waiver that allows your mission to stay in Washington.” And I said, “Elaborate, please.” He said, “That means that the waiver has elapsed, and therefore the mission will be shuttered.” Remember, 16th of November, that was before the announcement on Jerusalem, before the announcement on anything, and that was just weeks and days after our very good engagement.
And of course our response was, “That’s a sovereign decision of the U.S., but you need to know that such a decision will have severe, severe consequences. You will not be taken as an interlocutor anymore. We will have a serious freeze of the relationship.” And if you think about it, if you really, really think, why would they start? Why [would] the Trump administration, who at the beginning of our engagement, in all the first sort of meetings, confirmed that they want to go for a two-state solution? Two states mean two states, two governments. Why would they start by shuttering down the Palestinian diplomatic mission, the Palestinian representation in Washington? Why would they start with that? Because that’s an agenda that was handed to them. The agenda is to derail the whole talk of two states, and that requires the ending of the Palestinian representative nature, legitimate nature, peopleshood, nationshood, statehood, which could be symbolized by a building in Washington that has the name the Palestine Mission to the U.S. or the PLO Mission to the U.S., and symbolized by a flag flying in the heart of Washington. Netanyahu wanted to bring that symbol down, because bringing that symbol down means that the two-state solution is severely undermined. That’s another step in bulldozing the horizon for a two-state solution, and then shuttering down the U.S. consulate general in Washington.
It’s the very same logic, because a U.S. consulate general that has been there since 1844, long before Israel was established, was there to represent the Palestinian-American relationship over the years and decades. It has to be shuttered in a way to say there is only one state that America recognizes in the entire historic land of Palestine, from the river to the sea. There is one capital for that state. That is Jerusalem; we will recognize it. And there is only one diplomatic mission for the U.S. in that whole region; that is for Israel, and that is Friedman, who will be the ambassador. Remember Friedman in our conversation. And then the Palestinians, to close off that circle, the Palestinians shall not have representation in Washington. This was not a reaction. This was not just a revenge because we said yes or no for anything. In fact, the call I received on the 16th of November came out of nowhere. It was at the height of our positive engagement with the president, with President Trump and his administration. So this was preset; this was preplanned; this was premeditated; and this was aimed at undermining, in fact, finishing off the two-state solution.
And then, of course, the move of the embassy, the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. I know you said you’d heard rumors of this or there was whispers about this, but what did that symbolize when that was announced? What was the reception on the Palestinian, the PLO side? What was the reception like when the U.S. decides to announce the move of the embassy?
That the U.S. administration has become part of the Cabinet of Netanyahu. That’s the feeling: that there is complete alignment between the U.S. as the superpower—as the mediator of the peace process for the last 30 years, and the U.S. knows, nobody else more than the U.S., what is the framework, what are the principles of the peace process, and they know the first and the foremost principle is Jerusalem. The U.S. knows that Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue. The U.S. knows because it was their negotiators over the years and decades that know that Jerusalem brought down every attempt at reaching a final agreement because the Palestinian side will not accept less than East Jerusalem as the capital. … Go back to U.S. mediators and U.S. negotiators and their articles and books, and you will find that President Mahmoud Abbas rejected deals that did not include, fully, East Jerusalem. Knowing how sensitive East Jerusalem is, as a pillar of the whole peace process, as the heart of the peace talks, and then in a way, wanting and deciding to have Israel pocket this before starting negotiations, then you definitely do not want to have negotiations in the first place. You do not want to see a peace process ignited in the first place, and you ain’t interested in a two-state solution altogether.
It’s been described as a “shot in the heart.” It’s been described as a “slap in the face.” How would you describe this? By this—I’m sorry—the move of the embassy, right, the announcement that the Americans would move their embassy.
That was a move by the U.S. in a way to do two things: Tell Israel that it has Jerusalem, that Jerusalem can be pocketed by Israel in any future talks, and tell the Palestinian people, inform the Palestinian people that they should lower their bar and not include Jerusalem in any future negotiations. Now, either they don’t know the Palestinian people, either they don’t know the Middle East, either they don’t know anything about international law, international politics, they don’t know anything about the politics of identity, they don’t know history—and I think they don’t. I think part of it is also sheer arrogance. Or, I said “either.” Or they know all the above and they just want to destroy any prospects. Well, in both cases they have failed. In both cases they have failed.
They have failed to lower our—they really, really failed. Really, in my opinion, because I was there. I was in the crossfire, if you may, in these very, very hot, heated, difficult moments, very tense moments. I was there. And I think they really, really expected us to cave in. In their minds, you know, the real estate business in New York, where all of them come from, all of them—not only Trump. Trump, Kushner, Friedman, Greenblatt, all of them—you know how it goes.
They go, and they want to buy this building. The building is worth $50 million, just an example. But they start really harassing the owner and pushing the owner and pressuring the owner materially, psychologically. So they would go to the council and they would say there were rats in that building. The council comes and investigates. Then they will go to the court about the parking of the next building. They make the life of the landlord hellish, miserable. And then they offer him $5 million instead of $50 million.
That’s a business that they have grown accustomed to. They have tried it with us, and they thought that could work. It didn’t work. It will never work. And such people should never sit in the White House representing the United States of America.
The Trump administration also eliminated aid to the Palestinians, especially, you know, I think that they even eliminated aid for the first time to some of the U.N. agencies helping in Gaza, for instance. Can you tell me a little bit about that?
Yes, eliminating aid is part and parcel of that strategy, that strategy of scaring off the Palestinians, of pressuring the Palestinians into submission. It was not a peace plan. It was a submission plan. It was a surrender plan. And part of the surrender plan, we will starve you. We will starve you. We pay $360 million every year to UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East]. We will stop it. You know what is in UNRWA? UNRWA is not a Palestinian thing. UNRWA is an international—UNRWA is a U.N. responsibility towards the Palestinian refugees. UNRWA service more than half a million students, primary students in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan, everywhere. UNRWA is a lifeline. So Trump cutting funding from UNRWA, let alone humanitarian funding to other UNRWA, … it’s a very severe way of collectively punishing a population into surrender, into submission.
So all the tools that were used were absolutely in line with the real estate businessman mentality of pushing these people and their leadership into surrender, into accepting whatever crumbs they will throw our way. Take this little piece—you know, real estate again—this piece of land, take that piece of land, and we will go with you to some Gulf countries and we will raise this amount of billions of dollars, not from our pockets, not from the Israeli pocket who have been occupying you all these years and it’s their responsibility, but from our Arab countries to actually give you some economic prospects.
The whole thing was a Netanyahu economic peace logic. The whole thing, and I mean by the whole thing, the Trump thing was complete adaptation of the Netanyahu “peace for peace” logic, not peace for land. And Trump through his four years had completely aided Netanyahu to actually doing that. And Kushner was busy proving that peace for peace and economic peace can be achieved through his shuttle diplomacy in the Arab world, trying to bypass the Palestinian issue, pressuring Arab governments, especially in the Gulf, to achieve peace with Israel, to declare that peace have been achieved.
The whole Trump legacy is that the Palestinians do not exist. The whole Trump legacy is that we can bypass the Palestinians. The whole Trump legacy is that peace can be achieved without the Palestinians. The whole Trump legacy is the Netanyahu legacy, that actually occupation can stay permanent, that oppression can remain as long as Israel wishes, that the two-state solution will be implemented between Israel and Emirates rather than between Israel and the Palestinian people.
How does this look in retrospect, given where we are today? … In terms of the significance of this policy and what you were experiencing in Washington, was this paving the way for conflict?
Well, the Trump era was a very difficult moment for the Palestinian people, very difficult. … We stood tall. This is not rhetoric. We stood tall. We told him no, and we told him from the day he started doing all that, from the first day, there will be no contact policy with you. You are completely and utterly boycotted. You shall not be a trusted mediator in this. You are disqualified. Goodbye. He used to tell his famous show in the U.S.—what was it, The Apprentice? And what was the famous phrase he used to tell all these young, terrified people? “You’re fired”? We did tell him you’re fired. We did. And I was in Washington when we told Trump and his administration, “You’re fired,” because they underestimated the Palestinian people. They underestimated our people’s struggle over the years and the decades. They underestimated the depth of feeling in the region. They underestimated the depth of feeling and support worldwide, as you see nowadays all over. They underestimate. They thought Palestinians is a group of people who are after money. They thought, well, you know, if we can give them the Kushner twisted mentality that we are after money. In many of the meetings I had, you know, it’s money, this project, that project. And I would tell him, leave it to us. We are a vivid nation. We are one of the most ancient, if not the most ancient. We are at the crossroad of civilizations. We have been the hub between East and West.
Our youth now are the professors of America, of Harvard and everywhere, our doctors, our lawyers. We will build our country. What we need is a country first. So don’t mix the cards. Do not mix the cards, Jared.
And therefore this whole logic is a logic that has contributed to a state of hopelessness. Hopelessness. Hopelessness. And you know what? Hopelessness is a very dangerous feeling, a very dangerous feeling. And when hopelessness accumulates over decades, it’s no longer just dangerous; it’s catastrophic. And I think the Trump administration period has really put the feeling of hopelessness on steroids as far as the Palestinian people are concerned because seeing the sole arbitrator, the sole arbiter, if you may, in this process, the U.S., behaving in such a manner, seeing that the U.S. ambassador is more of a spokesperson for the settler movement, the settler militias in the occupied West Bank—that is, David Friedman—he appointed himself, self-appointed himself the spokesperson for the Israeli colonial settlements in the West Bank. He visited them many times. He spoke on their behalf. Seeing the U.S. performing, behaving, acting this way to the majority of the Palestinian people was definitely a source of hopelessness.
The deal that they announce when you are not there, they announced this Peace [to] Prosperity plan. Some have called it the “deal of the century.” … What was the reaction when on the White House lawn, Bibi Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump stand there on the South Lawn and say, “We have a plan for peace”? … And it’s where Netanyahu also announces that he’s going to be starting to annex the land in the West Bank.
Well, that scene was the most vulgar expression of what the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government were all about. They were about liquidating the two-state solution. They were about liquidating the Palestinian issue and cause. And they were about to present something instead that will maintain Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied territories, including the settlements. And it’s all about buying off, by money, buying off Palestinian rights.
That scene has hit the heart of every Palestinian, the heart of Palestinians who have been struggling for 100 years, who have gone through the Nakba of 1948, the catastrophe of Israel, ethnic cleansing, ethnically cleansing two-thirds of the nation, of the military occupation of 1967, of the intifadas and the revolutions.
And then an American president stands next to an Israeli prime minister and tells them, “We will buy you off with some money.” That is exactly why you had many people taking off to the streets all over Gaza, all over Palestine, all over the Palestinian cities, Gaza, Ramallah, Hebron, Nablus, everywhere, and in refugee camps outside, protesting. And people lost their lives. Israel killed Palestinian protesters during that very vulgar expression of America’s capitulation to the Israeli expansionist plan, to the Israeli Greater Israel plan, to the Israeli complete negation of our existence and of our political rights. So it was a very, very difficult moment.
… They call it sort of a state. They mention it as a state. You weren’t part of the negotiations. So in terms of their presenting what they think to be a sort of two-state –
Yeah, they were presenting the status quo minus, in fact. Status quo as in “We will continue the same situation. Israel will be in control of your land, of your resources, and of your people. Same, same, but hey, guys, let’s call it something else. Let’s call it something else. And by the way, because it might hurt, we will pay you a little bit of money in your pockets.” That’s the whole thing. That’s the whole thing.
So it was not a plan. It was not a policy. It has nothing to do with peace. It has deviated from the long-held U.S. policy, and it has deviated from international consensus. It was a way to tell the Palestinians—you know, there is a … sort of doctrine here by some U.S. administration officials at the time that the Palestinians have boxed themselves in this box of wanting rights and wanting two states in line with international consensus. Let’s unbox them. You see, let’s unbox them. Let’s remove all these ideas from their heads, and let us tell them to accept something else. That’s what they tried to do. And they failed, and they will fail, and whoever comes later will fail, because this is not just about this time or this moment.
This is not just about a certain sort of engagement. This is about a history that has been written by people’s blood and sweat and passion and emotions and rights that are enshrined in international law. And Trump and his group, his team, must one day come out clean and recognize and apologize to the Palestinian people that what they have done was cruel, has cost lives, has made this state of hopelessness or contributed to the hopelessness and to the darkness we have arrived to today.
This of course then becomes the Abraham Accords. And as I understand it, there was a—and you tell me the story, but did you hear the Abraham Accords announced by a tweet? Is that a true story?
Yes, it is. Yes.
Can you tell me about that and tell me about your reaction to it?
I was shocked. I was really shocked. And I must admit, I did not expect it. We knew that Kushner was on a tour, on a shuttle. We knew that he’s visiting Arab countries, Gulf countries, especially Emirates and Bahrain several times. We knew that he was planning for that, pushing for that. But we did not expect it to happen that quickly, that soon. We did not expect it to happen, let alone that quickly and that soon. So yes, it took us by surprise.
And it was a very difficult moment. For me, I can remember where I was sitting when I read that tweet. It was a very difficult moment. Why difficult moment? Not because we don’t want to see peace between Emirates or Bahrain and Israel. In fact, it was we who coordinated with the Saudis to offer the Arab peace plan. We wanted to see peace between Israel and the entire Arab world—not only that, the entire Muslim world. We wanted to see Israel making peace and be normalized in the entire Islamic world, including 57 countries, and that’s why we got the Arab Peace Initiative.
It was the Saudi prince then — Prince Abdullah, Crown Prince Abdullah, [later] king — who offered that Arab Peace Initiative. We always wanted to use that as an incentive for Israel to give up its control, its occupation. We needed that incentive because given the imbalance of power, the asymmetry of power, we need more incentives, not less incentives. And what got us shocked is that we knew that Israel will not take that as an incentive to actually make peace. It will take that as an incentive to double down on its colonization, on its occupation, on its oppression.
And look, since the signing of these so-called Abrahamic Accords, look at the record. Look very closely at the records. You will see that Israel has actually doubled down on the provocations in Jerusalem and in Al-Aqsa Mosque, on the building of the illegal settlements, on the creeping annexation of occupied territory, on the heightening of the siege on Gaza. So these accords did not help, did not help in any way or shape bring peace, neither to the Israelis and Palestinians nor to the region.
Number two, which is not less important, the whole logic of Kushner and the whole pressure on some Arab countries is premised on one idea: that the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue can be easily bypassed. That’s the crux of it: that the Palestinians can no longer hold the Arab world, that the issue is no longer number one priority, that the Palestinians can remain under occupation, under colonization, under apartheid. And you know all the reports, including the Human Rights Watch in the U.S. and Amnesty International here and the numerous Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations about the system of racial domination that has been operated by Israel for years and decades. The Palestinians can live under all that until they come to terms with the idea that they will accept whatever we throw their way.
So the whole Abraham Accords was in line with what I described to you earlier. Remember the businessman mentality? Remember the agenda? Remember the pressure of the Palestinian people? Remember the unboxing of the Palestinian people of their beliefs and rights towards just accepting the crumbs? The real estate business, the Abraham Accords, was part of that real estate business by Kushner. And regrettably, some Arab countries have deviated from the Arab consensus about the sequence of normalization, that Israel must quit its occupation of Arab land in exchange for full and genuine normalization with the entire Arab and Muslim region.
Was there a diplomatic mistake on your part, though, that once you’ve caught wind —and obviously this has been a strategy that Netanyahu had wanted to do for a long time, was to make the end run around the Palestinian cause — normalize relations with the Arab countries, especially the Gulf States. Was there a mistake made on your part, on the the PLO’s part, in not preemptively going to the Gulf States and saying, “If you guys are actually talking to the Americans about something and the Israelis, we need to be here; we need to be a part of this”?
Well, there were channels of communication. They were talking, and I think that was our opinion. And we delivered our opinion very clearly that, please, these are the two agendas. Don’t play in the second agenda. The first agenda is the long-held international consensus. The second agenda is trying to poke the Palestinian people into submission and into surrender. Don’t play part in that. Do not play part in that. We were not heeded.
Maybe we needed more engagement. I agree. We needed more engagement. We learned the lesson, and we hope that what has happened since the signing of these accords has served as a lesson to everybody that Netanyahu wants the cake and wants to eat it, too; that Netanyahu will not take this as a reason and an incentive to act responsibly and to start the process of rolling back the occupation and the annexation and to stop this mushrooming expansion, exponential expansion of illegal colonial settlements, stop the arming of the settlers and these militias now spreading terrorism all over the West Bank, killing Palestinian innocent civilians. But he didn’t take it that way. He took it the way we thought and we knew he would take it, which is, now that I have peace with these couple of countries, it’s a license for me to actually double down, and he doubled down.
Again, you can’t ascribe causes to what’s happening now, but this seems to be, again, paving the road for more conflict, that you cannot ignore the Palestinian problem.
Of course. That’s the loud message for 75 years now. You cannot ignore the Palestinian people. You cannot ignore a nation as vivid, as strong, as cultured as we are. Remember, we are the birthplace of Christianity. Remember that Bethlehem is where Jesus was born. Remember that this nation has been there for millennia. And then, since Israel was established and all the stuff that you know of their founding leaders, that Palestinian people do not exist, the negation of our very existence, which is, by the way, genocidal rhetoric that was implemented in the Nakba and now is being implemented in Gaza and all over the occupied territories. And remember that that negation was not just during the founding fathers of Israel, so to speak. It was all the way to now.
Only recently, the finance minister of Israel goes to Paris—that’s Smotrich, Bezalel Smotrich. He gives a speech, and in the speech in Paris, he says, “There is no such a thing as Palestinian people. They don’t exist.” And in front of him on the podium was the map of Israel. Do you know what did that include in the map in front of the finance minister, which is the second most powerful post? It was the map of the entire historic Palestine, plus Jordan, the whole of Jordan, for a sitting current minister.
So this, since the establishment of Israel 75 years ago all the way to today, there is this very strong stream of negating us. And yes, answering the question again, no one can negate such a nation, and no one can bypass our rights. And no matter how much you try, by the power of the missiles and the tanks, as we have seen throughout the years and now, or by the power of the complete capitulation of a U.S. administration like Trump, or by the power of getting some Arab countries to normalize without a real solution, all that does not work and shall never, ever work.
Now, I just want to understand the distinction here, because obviously, as you’re describing it, Netanyahu was almost supercharged in terms of his ability to carry out what he wants to do, and certainly what the right wing in his country wants to do. Was the Trump administration different than previous administrations in essentially giving him carte blanche? And essentially, would previous administrations have potentially pushed back on the agenda that he was implementing?
There was no one U.S. administration that has really lived up to the role of a neutral, honest mediator. That’s a fact. Every administration was trying the logic of a carrot and more carrot with successive Israeli governments. Not one of these administrations—maybe only for a short time, it was the Bush, George [H.] W. Bush, and Baker, James Baker. …
That was just before the Madrid peace process. [Yitzhak] Shamir, the Israeli prime minister, had refused the call of the U.S. for a peace conference. And then James Baker came out, the U.S. secretary of state at the time, in a very historic moment, and said, “OK, if you don’t heed our call you have a $10 billion guarantee, loan guarantee in the Congress. We will think about that.” And Shamir went immediately to Madrid, kicking and screaming. And he said while he was flying to Madrid, “OK, I’m going to go, but I will negotiate for 20 years without giving anything. And once that 20 years finish, we will negotiate for another 20 years.” That’s exactly what happened. But I mentioned the Baker, the Baker moment and the George [H.] W. Bush.
… It’s the brief moment, but the rest of the administrations were unable to bring about the power, the leverage of the U.S. on Israel. The leverage that the U.S. has had has always been exercised against us, always, with successive administrations. Why don’t you give in more here? Why don’t you compromise more there, when in fact, we accepted the U.S. mediation after accepting a very serious compromise? So let me say this. Up until the late ’80s, both sides—I shouldn’t say both sides because there are no both sides here—but there were two agendas, one for the Palestinians to liberate our land, the whole of our land, and to establish a democratic, egalitarian state for all of its people—Muslims, Christians, Jewish, non-religious, whoever—a model that is democratic. Israel, on the other hand, wanted to establish an exclusive supremacist, based on Zionism, model of a Jewish state only for the Jewish people in the entire land.
Now, by the late ’80s, there was discussions from the West, led by the U.S., engaging Yasser Arafat, the late Yasser Arafat, and the leadership of the PLO at the time. And the logic was this: OK, listen, guys. If you accept the international consensus—that was the logic—if you accept the international consensus, which is a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, that Israel must end its occupation that began in 1967—those are U.N. Security Council resolutions that the U.S. voted for throughout the years—we will deliver Israel. We will deliver. That’s the U.S. That’s the compromise, or that was the bargain. That’s why in 1988, we declared—Yasser Arafat and the PLO declared an independent state of Palestine on the 1967 borders. That moment, we ipso facto adopted the two-state solution, 15th of November, 1988.
Now, people think that the two-state solution is a Palestinian demand. Wrong. The two-state solution is a Palestinian concession, because the two-state solution has given us 22% of our historic land. Twenty-two percent. That is the West Bank and Gaza. Now, that compromise, that concession, was to who? Who did we concede to? To the U.S. What was the other part of the bargain? What was the other side of the bargain? That the U.S. will deliver Israel, will deliver the rest of the deal, the two-state solution.
Now, since then, Oslo happened. We recognized Israel as a state. We committed to nonviolence and negotiations, and we committed to all international resolutions. Israel was expected to do one thing in these 30 years, one thing: to roll back its occupation and to stop its colonial settlement expansion. The U.S., on the other hand, was expected to do one thing: enforce these agreements. I tell you, we did our three commitments in a very iron way until now, until this moment. We still recognize Israel. We still believe and adopt and practice nonviolence and negotiations, and we still commit to international legitimacy, law, and resolutions.
Not one day in these 30 years, not one Israeli government stopped building settlements. Go back to the record. Not one stopped building settlements. We started the peace process with 125,000 illegal settlers. Today there are more than 750,000. They have increased by 500% when we were talking about rolling back Israeli occupation. This is what we got.
What did successive U.S. administrations do when Israel continued doing settlements, building settlements during these 30 years? They did not lift a pen. There was no sanctions imposed on Israel when sanctions were merited. We did not see a moment of James Baker to say to Israel, “We are the guarantors. We, the U.S., are the guarantors of these commitments by you and the Palestinians.”
Instead, what the U.S. successive administrations used to do, OK, let’s give Israel more—more military aid; more free trade agreements; more shielding in the U.N. system; more blocking the Palestinians from accessing the ICC [International Criminal Court] and the ICJ [International Court of Justice]; more hugging of the Israeli illegalities, hoping that Israel will really come to terms, to its senses at one point, because we cannot use the stick with Israel. It can only be the carrot.
Now, Trump was the most vulgar expression of that. The Trump administration, it was the anomaly, the anomaly. It was not only giving carrots and more carrots to Israel. Trump has waged the biggest stick against the Palestinian people ever. Trump has given not carrots but given away the entire two-state solution to Israel. It was no longer just about more arms and more trade deals and more shielding. It was about pre-deciding, pre-deciding. A U.S. president pre-decided on the fate of Palestinian territory, on the fate of Palestinian state, on the fate of Palestinian future in a way that has made him part of the problem rather than part of the solution. But yet we look forward to a U.S. administration that will take its role seriously. And if they want to achieve peace, peace cannot be achieved through just hugging one side and kicking the other side. It doesn’t work this way.
So you mentioned in that that this changes now, right? You said that that will change, and you think that will change in terms of this pattern of the U.S. and its carrots, as opposed to using any sticks. What are you actually saying about why this changes now? And I take it you mean in the post-Oct. 7 world.
Yeah, change is now because in the post-October world—and I mean world, because what happened has repercussions worldwide. Come and see the streets of London and Manchester here, or the streets of Washington and New York. This is a global issue. So we have got to learn the lessons, and we have got to turn this tragedy—it’s very, very tragic, tragic on everybody. What is happening in Gaza is a dent on our humanity for generations to come.
And by the way, equally so in the West Bank. You have settler militias who have been armed by [Itamar] Ben-Gvir, another minister in the Netanyahu Cabinet, in the Netanyahu government. Ben-Gvir has been handing machine guns in the last few weeks to settlers, and the settlers are using it all over the West Bank. Now we have more than 170 people killed in the West Bank. So Gaza and the West Bank and this moment and the tragedy and what happened in all sides, we could turn this into momentum, a very genuine momentum to craft a different path to the last few years. And by the way, we have the path. The path is two states for two people. The path is international consensus. The path is the historic compromise we made 30 years ago. The path is mutual recognition. We recognized Israel. Israel has got to recognize us now, to recognize our right to self-determination as we did to theirs. The time is right now for the U.S. administration to recognize the state of Palestine. This will be the momentum.
Once we level the field and we recognize the state of Palestine, then we have genuinely recognized the two states. Any state, any country that does not recognize the state of Palestine should be disqualified from mediating. How is that? And the U.S. should stop preventing our attempts at becoming a member, a full member in the U.N.
How can that hurt the peace process? How can us being part of the U.N. family hurt the prospects of peace? It advances it. It actually enforces it. And the U.S. should stop vetoing and blocking our efforts at accountability, because what is happening, these atrocities, the carnage in Gaza, the one lesson is never again. We shall never, we must never allow this to happen again, not to our children, not to our families, not to our hospitals and schools and U.N. shelters, not to our churches and mosques, not to the civil structure of an entire people. And for that to happen, we need to hold people who committed these war crimes accountable, and we have the institutions to hold them accountable. That’s the ICC. That’s the ICJ. And the U.S. has got to end its veto over these institutions. It has got to end its blocking us of reverting to international institutions. Once you have that, once the U.S. proves to be that visionary and statesman and deals with everybody equally, once we do the right thing in the political and legal sense, I’ll tell you, the two-state solution will be very easy to achieve.
It’s not complicated. It’s straightforward. Israel occupied the Palestinian territories in six days. It can just leave them in six days, and all of us can rest and start building a very prosperous nation. And by the way, our history will support our hopes for a future that is prosperous and that is a source of peace and stability, not only in the region but worldwide.
Was Hamas being empowered during the Trump administration? You’ve talked about obviously there being an increased sense of hopelessness. And obviously the Palestinian Authority and the PLO has tried to its best, in your telling, to be nonviolent and to obey the rules and play the game as it’s been set out. Hamas has obviously been an alternative to that in terms of an armed group that sees violence as an answer to this issue. Was Hamas gaining popularity as a result of what was happening during the Trump years?
I don’t think we should reduce this only to Hamas. Hamas, other groups, you have many other groups, and you will have even much more in the future should we fail to put things on track and put things into perspective and walk together in a certain path that everybody accepts and that provides hope.
So yes, answering your question, in the lack of any horizon, in the complete darkness around people, in the blockage of any future prospects, you will have groups who would flourish, who will have different agendas, of course, of course. And you will have groups who will wave the flag of defending our nation and defending our rights, and you will have groups who will break out of prison and take hostages. They are hostages, and they will take hostages. And, you know, this isn’t about Hamas. By the way, let me remind everybody, it’s the Fatah, the national movement that started armed resistance, not Hamas, long ago.
And we have come to the PLO and the national movement to the conclusion many years later that perhaps this is a time when we talk. And, you know, Israel didn’t learn the lesson. They simply did not learn the lesson. They thought, OK, maybe because the PLO and the national movement now are talking, we’re going to talk to them. Remember Shamir? We will keep talking to them forever while eating up their land. And they think there will not be other groups coming out. And I think this is a defining moment. This is a defining moment.
What has happened in Gaza, the unprecedented human suffering, the deliberate starving of 2.3 million people, the transfer and the mass expulsion of more than 1 million people, that people are being shelled in their homes and shelters, U.N. shelters, is almost—we are at a fork here. Either we turn this moment into hope, we turn this moment into momentum, or we allow this moment to simply be a launching pad for something that is much worse for all of us.
People are people, wherever they are. Either you have people to be filled with reassurance, filled with inspiration, filled with hope, filled with possibilities and opportunities, or you have them filled with despair, anger, feeling of humiliation, being targeted, being killed, mass killing, feeling that they are alone, feeling that they have got to protect themselves if nobody is, and feeling—this is the worst feeling. And I think every Palestinian on this earth, be it in Palestine or in the diaspora and exile, has that feeling now that Palestinian lives do not matter to the international community as other lives; that Palestinian lives are not of the same quality; that Palestinian children are not exactly like all other children. The thousands of Palestinian children are being slaughtered live on camera, and we still don’t hear a U.S. spokesperson coming out and saying, “This is unacceptable,” not only as per international law, but as per American values. The Palestinian people are hurt. And out of this hurt, it will be the world who will have to decide what direction it goes. But this is a very grave moment.
I’m reluctant to bring the conversation here, but I’d just have to say in response to that, I think that for a lot of people it’s difficult to hear that message unless there is this—we hear this word over and over—but a direct condemnation of what Hamas did on Oct. 7. … You hear it every day, that if only the Palestinian leadership would come out and unequivocally condemn what Hamas did on Oct. 7, but then of course put it in a larger context of what this has wrought. Has it come to the place where that’s what’s necessary in order for us to actually talk about this issue again?
You know, this whole issue of condemnation is not really meant to get a condemnation. It’s not really meant to get the truth, because the truth is, I just said to you that we have been committed to nonviolence and negotiations for 30 years, not by words but by deeds. The truth is that 22 Arab states, hours after the 7th of October, convened in Cairo, including my president and my government, and condemned targeting civilians from all sides. And I represent that government. But when you and many of your colleagues in the West insist on that question, it has become part of the problem.
Number one, we haven’t heard any Israeli condemnation of the atrocities, and you never in the West, in America, expect them to condemn themselves. Why is that? That links to what I just said about the hurt of the Palestinian people, that they feel they are less worthy, that they are not equal of human beings, that they are the children of a lesser God. The problem with this question is not our position. Our position is clear. The problem is not the answer. Our answer is crystal clear. We want to see a peaceful, nonviolent future for our children, and we have been doing this, at it for 30 years. The problem is with the question, not the answer. The question insinuates that we are the aggressors, we are the occupiers, we are the colonizers of our own land. The question instigates that we start all violence.
The question, in the absence of asking the same question to Israeli spokespeople, given the horrendous account of their atrocities against our people, is that they want us to accept that actually Israeli lives matter more. You know how many times I’m brought to your studios and to the studios of British, American media, whenever Israelis are hurt. Fine, we have to discuss that, but not once we are invited when Palestinians before that are harmed all the time.
So yes, there is a problem with that term. There is a problem with that logic. There is a problem with that mentality. And I am afraid to say, and I do not accuse you or any in the international media, there is a degree of racism here. If I see a mainstream media asking the question to Israeli spokespeople, “Do you condemn the killing of thousands of Palestinian children?,” I will engage in that question. If I see international media and journalists like yours, like you, asking the Israeli officials, “Is what Israel is doing now in Gaza and before that, before Gaza, is that terrorism?,” because when you target civilians in this mass scale, all the way to starving, the definition, the U.N. definition of terrorism is very well defined. It’s the unlawful use of violence, the unlawful use of violence against civilians to achieve, to terrorize the civilian population to achieve political gains and political agendas. Israel has been exercising, implementing this by the dot, the definition of terrorism since its establishment. Have I seen a U.S. journalist asking an Israeli official, “Is your state exercis[ing] terrorism? Is Israel a terrorist state?”
Why I’m saying this, and please indulge me here, please, why I’m saying this? Because it’s about symmetry, symmetry, balance. The moment I believe that you apply things equally on them and on us, I am willing to engage with you. Is this terrorist or that terrorist? Do we condemn this or that? International rules are very well, clearly defined. And the basic thing about law is its equal application.
Now, this business of only blaming us, putting us in a box, making us lose before we start, giving the impression to millions of people all over the world that we are the condemned, we are the ones who commit acts of violence, does not begin to describe the truth that we have been subjected to the most horrific, deliberate acts of oppression against a nation for a continued 75 years’ period and ongoing.
Sir, I understand what you’re saying. I take it to heart, and if I had the opportunity to interview Israeli officials, I would ask them very similar questions that you’re raising. I think that I’d rather move on from that, because honestly, we’re talking about substance and not just semantics today.
No, but this is not semantics, James. This is not semantics. And I urge you—I urge you to include this.
I understand, but what is interesting to me is about the fact that you and your organization, your president has been trying to negotiate for 30 years to create peace. Hamas has come around at various points over that process, at points when the two sides or the three sides, however you want to call it, have come quite close, and Hamas has bombed and provoked at those moments because it has been determined itself to have intervened in trying to create havoc about the two-state solution. So it’s interesting to me at this point in time that there isn’t—that you seem to be saying that this is an organization that has been doing that over time—
Doing what, James?
—and that despite best efforts by your side to try to broker, to come to a peace agreement.
Yeah, but we were made to fail. We were made to fail by Israel. That’s number one. Number two, please go back to a press statement by Netanyahu a few months ago, earlier this year. Go back and put it in your program when he said why he pays Hamas cash and allows for this to be transferred by Israeli soldiers and officers all the way to Gaza over the years. And he explained himself. Remember the agenda? I told you the agenda of a non-solution, no two-state solution of Netanyahu.
It’s part of it. Why? Because Netanyahu wants to keep us divided. He wants to keep Hamas in Gaza and literally and physically giving cash. And he wants to keep a very, very weak, completely undermined Palestinian leadership, PLO, PA, and the West Bank, continue cutting our own money, our own funding, continue invading our cities, undermining our popularity, our ability to provide for our people in the West Bank. So it’s part of the agenda.
And therefore, to come and blame Hamas for that only or to come and blame the Palestinian official side only is really reducing or simplifying the scene. Netanyahu thought he could play all these cards and he could play it towards one direction, the non-Palestinian state, that he will never, ever allow for that to happen. And therefore, to think that—you know, let us not discuss only groups here. We have got to discuss agendas. And short of defeating Netanyahu’s agenda, you will invite me again in many years to come and we’ll discuss the same thing. We have got to defeat the Netanyahu agenda. And once we defeat Netanyahu’s agenda, in the end, Hamas is not just a militant group. It’s a political movement. And I’ll tell you, you cannot defeat ideologies with bullets. Only ballots will defeat ideologies. And leave that to us. Don’t intervene. Leave that to us.
But the moment [we] are recognized by the U.S., have a full membership in the U.N., are able to provide protection to our people via accountability in the ICC, so the U.S. removes its veto, are able to really, really provide our people with a political horizon and future, is a moment when we can convene national elections and let it be the Palestinian people to decide.
And I think the Palestinian people are capable to decide on who should they be led by. And I think it’s rather, we have to revisit history than the international community have to decide what comes out of the ballot box. Leave it to us. But the idea that you’re going to bombard ideologies, it didn’t work before; it will not work now. You need to enable an alternative agenda to Netanyahu that the Palestinian people will buy into, will believe into, and you will see changes.
I want to ask you about that, but let’s just— [U.S. President Joe] Biden, when he came to office, and I understand you’re now the ambassador to the U.K., so it’s a little bit of a different perspective, but you’re a student of American politics, and this obviously is an important relationship that you know about. What was the hope of the Biden administration when there was the change after the Trump years?
Well, the first hope was that the Biden administration would bring back the long-held historic U.S. position to where it was; it will reverse all the Trump anomalies, starting with the U.S. consulate general, the PLO office in Washington, the recognition of Jerusalem. Nothing of that, nothing, not even the consulate general, which was there for a long time. It’s very unfortunate.
The Biden administration has really come to us with some bandages. They were more of firefighters trying to manage the situation rather than resolve it. I confirm to you that the Biden administration until this moment did not have a process or a peace process or a solution in their mind. All that they have done with us was trying to put off this fire here, this fire there, put a bandage on that wound here. And you see now the results in front of your eyes.
So can you tell me a little bit about what those communications were? What kind of bandages put out the fires? Is there any sort of anecdote you can tell me?
Yeah, there were many flare-ups in the last few years, in the last two, three years. There was a situation in Sheikh Jarrah, if you remember, in Jerusalem. It was a very heated moment and heated moment all over, all over. And then war started in Gaza as a result of Jerusalem and Sheikh Jarrah and confrontations inside the Green Line, inside Israel’s cities, between Palestinian citizens of Israel and confront[ing], you know, oppressing them.
And in the West Bank, of course, and worldwide. And there were many events where the U.S. came just to put off the fire. And in between, there was no plan, no vision, no strategy. There was withdrawal, withdrawal from the Middle East. There was doubling down on normalization with the Arab world, bypassing the Palestinians. They were busy, very busy over the last few months to see if they bring Saudi Arabia on board, as you know very well. And therefore, I think the Biden administration failed to reverse, which they should have, the Trump [administration’s] very negative steps, and failed to bring back the U.S. to its long-held position, and then also, in fact, adopted some of the Trump logic of bypassing the Palestinians.
And when after the attacks on Oct. 7, you saw Biden visit Netanyahu, and there’s that famous moment of their embrace on the tarmac at Ben Gurion Airport, what was your response to that scene? What did you see there?
You know, I saw the U.S. coming in aid of its ally, its historic ally, and I saw in that moment a moment that we would want to see the U.S. being the grownup in the room, calming down the hysteric Netanyahu. Not only Netanyahu, all Israeli political class were absolutely in a state of hysteria, adopting genocidal rhetoric, very dangerous. And sometimes, you know, a true friend of any state, a true friend is not just a friend who tells them, “You’re right”; a true friend is a friend who tells them, “You’re wrong.” And so far, I don’t believe the U.S. was able to curb the Netanyahu quest for revenge, for blood, for implementing an old and new plan of mass expulsion.
I think if you follow what the bombardment in Gaza over the last few weeks, you realize this is not just killing civilians only. This is also pushing half of them from the north to the south, so all of them congregate in one small area in the south to be able at one point to push them towards the Sinai Desert. Here we needed America. Here we needed America to really stop that genocidal attempts, to stop the ethnic cleansing attempts, to cool things down and calm things down, and at the very same time provide some real different directions to everybody.
We’re waiting for that. We’re waiting for that.
Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken, he met with President Abbas. You’ve had other efforts to kind of, behind the scenes, we’ve been hearing that the Biden administration has really been trying to get the Netanyahu administration to calm down and to exercise restraint. This is going to be airing in December. Obviously there will be lots more talks about humanitarian pauses and things like this, cease-fires. But what would you have liked to have seen? What did you see the Biden administration doing, and what would you have liked to have seen them doing instead?
Well, the latest experience shows me and everybody else in this world that it’s America that has the biggest leverage over Israel, and when Israel was attacked on the 7th of October, America was there not only by words but by fleets. And America is almost physically there to protect—not almost, it is physically there to protect Israel.
Some observers would go as far as saying it’s the U.S. administration that is running the show in Tel Aviv now, in Israel, because of the breakdown of these politicians, the genocidal rhetoric, the hysteria. OK, so America has such leverage and such power, and America is literally existentially saving Israel, right? Let’s assume that. One would assume that America has a certain serious leverage over Israel.
We have been hearing from the U.S. secretary of state that America wants to see at least humanitarian pauses for some days, at least. And that was many, many days ago, a couple of weeks ago. And the Israeli prime minister and the Israeli government is not listening. What does that tell you? What does it tell you? It tells you there is a very, very corrupted relationship between the superpower and the whatever you call it.
You know, help me out here, James, with the terminology. There is a very wrong relationship. Israel takes everything from America, everything, especially nowadays, everything you can imagine. And without the U.S. support, Israel will not be able to withstand all this politically, legally, morally, popular-wise, military-wise. Israel takes everything from the U.S. It doesn’t give the U.S. anything: not a call for a humanitarian pause to allow people to be removed and rescued from the rubble; not a call by the U.S., who are very worried. Every minute the bombardment continues, there is a risk of spreading in the West Bank, inside Israel, Lebanon, the region, and what have you. And the Israeli decision-makers, the Israeli government, are not even heeding that call. That is the relationship that needs to be corrected.
Anybody in the U.S. one day will have to say, “Our money comes with an advice. You want our money, you want our weapons, you want our technology, you want our political support in the U.N., even though it’s not fair to the Palestinians. You want our legal support for you in the courts and the ICC, you have to take our advice with it. This does not come without that.” This has never happened.
And I’ll tell you something, because I served in Washington as an ambassador. I believe the U.S. minus Trump, the U.S. wanted to achieve a two-state solution. I believe it is in the best interest of the U.S. strategically to achieve a two-state solution. I think all attempts from Clinton all the way to Obama and Biden now were genuine to achieve a two-state solution. But the problem is in that dynamics I’ve just described. The U.S. provides everything to Israel but has no leverage over Israel. That’s the bottom line. It has no leverage, has no influence, cannot really tell them, “Here is the path; you go.” Never happened. I hope it will happen one day soon.
But short of that, the U.S. cannot be the sole mediator, because then Israel and the U.S. is a domestic issue, not a foreign policy issue, and this has been the case all along. And don’t get me started here about some groups and components in the U.S. that really, really serves in the agenda we described of a non-solution, of a non-two-state solution, including the Christian Zionist movement and some of the evangelical movement and that base that is very polarized right now in the U.S.
So I think it is not the American-Palestinian relationship that needs to be corrected, that needs to be put on the right path. I think our relationship with the U.S. is very clear, very clear, and I think we are in perfect alignment with the U.S. policy. Two states, ’67, resolving the issue of refugees in accordance with international law and standards—we are in perfect alignment.
The relationship that needs to be fixed is the U.S.-Israel relationship. That relationship is not where it should be, and it doesn’t make sense.
Is that possible? I mean, you’re talking about a change in this dynamic between Israel and the United States.
Yes.
But is that possible as long as Netanyahu is in power? And as you well know, you’re a savvy diplomat, that the right in Israel, the right wing, is having a very powerful moment and probably an even more powerful moment as a result of this war and Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7. Doesn’t this get more difficult for the United States to rectify and improve this relationship and have leverage over Israel, given that Netanyahu is still there and that whoever comes after him is probably from the right?
I don’t think this is an issue for fixing the American-Israel, the U.S.-Israel relationship. It’s not a matter of Netanyahu only. It has been like that. It has been problematic since Israel was established, and it was never resolved. So this is not just Netanyahu. Of course Netanyahu makes things worse, much worse, but it’s not just Netanyahu. Yes, maybe some U.S. administrations in the absence of Netanyahu would have a little bit more leverage, a little bit, but not sufficient enough to implement the U.S. policy and strategy.
Even if the prime minister was from the far left in Israel, it didn’t happen. We had prime ministers in Israel who were, in a way, centrist or center-left. The U.S. could not exercise that leverage. The answer is, if you really want to fix the U.S.-Israel relationship, you have got to end Israel being a domestic issue in [the U.S.] and have Israel as it is owed to be a foreign policy issue, and there, apply your foreign policy standards. And there, really remove all these tensions and polarization in the U.S. and just deal with it equally like any other issue. Remove this exceptionalism. There’s a term: “We are liberals except for Palestinians.” Remove and apply your values on us like you apply the U.S. values and American values on anybody else. Hide behind and equip yourself, and I mean the U.S. administrations, with international legality. I don’t say this lightly.
We did not build the post-World War II international rules-based order, the global order, for nothing. It was after the horrors of the Second World War. We learned the lessons. And these rules are very important. And the U.S. does apply these rules on Ukraine, as you follow very, very, very well. The problem is when it comes to us, to Israel—not Palestine, to Israel—Israel becomes the exception to every rule. Above all rules, the international law becomes irrelevant.
We use international law to actually oppress the Palestinians and deprive them of the access to international legality and judicial system. I just want to end this part of the conversation to say that in the last few years, particularly since Ukraine, the double standards, the duplicity, the selectivity, the hypocrisy of the U.S. and the West vis-à-vis international conflicts have come to the fore in light of Ukraine.
Russia has invaded Ukraine. It’s a military occupation. Israel has invaded and occupied Palestine. The U.S. State Department calls us the occupied Palestinian territory. That’s our designation: “occupied.” Hang on. Everybody all over the world, especially in, if I may use the term, Global South, are saying “Hang on. Why are they doing this in Ukraine and doing that in Palestine?” In Ukraine, they’ve sent their warships to support resistance of Ukrainians. In Palestine, they’re sending their warships to support occupiers and colonizers and invaders in Palestine. People are really being struck by this very, very clear, unequal application of rules. The solution is there.
The solution is not in the Congress. The solution is not in the Congress. The Congress would always make America as it used to for the last 75 years part of the conflict, part of the problem. The solution is not in Washington. The solution is in New York. The solution is in the United Nations premises. The solution is in the international system. The solution is in the equal application of international law. Let America go to New York and then come back to us with a peace process. Do not come from Washington, please.
You know, there’s this saying, and it probably is a disparaging saying, that “the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity” over the past 30 years, to really ink a deal and come to a peace agreement with the Israelis that has been brokered by the United States. What do you think of that statement, that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity? And what responsibility is there on the Palestinian part for the fact that we are still at this, that this is still ongoing? And I’m talking about higher-level negotiations; I’m not talking about the Palestinian people as a whole, but the inability to come to any agreement over the past 30 years.
I think all that is part of the agenda we described very clearly, the agenda of non-solution by successive Israeli governments, especially Netanyahu, to argue such a propaganda and such a spin. We were never offered any deal that would be acceptable to the Palestinian people, not once. Go back to the record, including in Camp David. The contours of an agreement were set before we started negotiation. We have letters of guarantee from the U.S. in 1991, before we got to the Madrid peace process. These letters of guarantees included the framework of the peace process. That included the territory, ’67, Jerusalem, east and west, based on the ’67, issues of refugees, everything will be discussed for a final status issue. In every round, we were offered much less than this, particularly, particularly the most significant, important issue to the Palestinian people, which is Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is not just our religious hub. Yes, it has the most sacred Christian sites for us, Palestinian Christians, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but it has Al-Aqsa, which is third holiest site in Islam and for Muslims. But not just Jerusalem for religious significance—and it is—but for cultural. Jerusalem is our cultural hub, our national hub. Please go back to the record of U.S. mediators, U.S. negotiators. Go back and read what some of your advisers have written publicly.
… The question here is this: Any future Israeli government, any future American administration, thinking that the Palestinians will compromise further after the 1988 declaration, after the 1993 agreements, must think again. Our concession that we made to the world in the late ’80s to establish a state on the 1967 borders is the absolute maximum we could offer the world and Israel, and the absolute minimum we could accept, any Palestinian leader could accept. Now Israel must quit its idea that the compromise begins on the 1967 borders, not ends with the 1967 borders. All their successive administrations, all their successive governments, Israeli governments … want to meet us somewhere between Jerusalem and Jericho in the east. They want to take as much land from the 22% of what we accepted to be our state.
This will not happen. They’ve tried it many times. This is about time that greed must be put aside. Pushing against people’s legitimate rights must be aside. And I don’t think a few meters here and a few meters there would make a hell of a difference for a state that was recognized on 78% of our land.
I think what we have done in the last 30 years was really wasting a generation of people because Israel insisted they want a bit more here, a bit more there. They insisted to stay between us and Jordan. They want to control the entire Jordan Valley in any final agreement, and they wanted some sort of a less than sovereignty in Jerusalem. This is not going to work. I hope this message will be understood. This is the maximum. The ’67 borders is the maximum we could offer and the minimum we can accept.
And to someone who might say that you need to live in the real world and that that is a delusional goal and a delusional place to start the negotiations, what would you say?
I would say they are delusional, because the delusional people who think they can push aside and push away and keep pushing around the Palestinian people, those are not our demands. I started this conversation by telling you those were our concessions. Those are international consensus. Those are U.N. Security Council resolutions that the U.S. sponsored, drafted and voted, and to think we are delusional to call for what the U.S. has called for is the delusional side itself.
Of course, once you demark borders, states can sit, neighboring states can sit and decide on minor issues here and there. Perhaps we will not build walls and borders. We want open borders. We will sit and talk. Maybe there will be some exchange of small incremental equal in value of this and that. But the base, the recognition we seek by Israel, the acceptance by Israel and the rest of the world, is the ’67. Then we talk.
And will Hamas be a part of any talks in the future in terms of the governance of the Palestinian state, or where does Hamas fit into the future scenario?
The role of Hamas is a matter for the Palestinian people to decide, not for international actors, not for any international pressure. It will be the Palestinian people who will decide in a free election who lead the Palestinian people. But the Palestinian people have legitimate sole representation. That’s the PLO. The PLO is the umbrella, is the political address of the Palestinian people, is the national address, the international address of the Palestinian people. That’s why I head here in London the PLO office, the PLO diplomatic mission.
I used to head the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington. Only the PLO represents all Palestinians. And by the way, the PLO has almost all Palestinian political factions minus Hamas. And therefore the PLO is there to engage the U.S. administration on behalf of all Palestinians. And no Palestinian, no Palestinian challenges the legitimacy of the PLO. So the PLO is there to engage the world towards ending the occupation, towards a real genuine two-state solution, towards resolving very important issues, significant issues like the issue of refugees. And then that state of Palestine that is recognized by the U.N., by the way, with its government, the PLO, will convene elections, democratic elections, and let the people judge. But give the people the opportunity to judge based on achievements rather than based on hopelessness and despair.
But as you said, sir, the Hamas is not a part of the PLO.
No, sir.
How are you able to speak on behalf of all Palestinians if Hamas is indeed not under your umbrella?
Because the Palestinian people and the region, the Arab world, and the rest of the international community recognize that the Palestinians have one voice. That is the PLO. And it is. This is the voice. This is the address. We have one flag. And by the way, we might have disagreements here and there. We have divisions. We do. And we have big, big disagreements. But we have unity of the nation. Our people are united. And look at them everywhere. Whenever there is any situation, the Palestinian people are one, united by the fact of our oppression, because we are all oppressed by the same oppressor and by the same techniques and the same policies. So that unites us as well. And we are united by our goal, the majority of the Palestinian people. So there is no solution except going back to the people of Palestine. And I hope we will go back to the people of Palestine when we have got something genuine for them, for their rights, for their future. And then leave it to them, my friend. Nobody else can decide that.
But is the PLO considered the legitimate voice of the Palestinians by Hamas?
Well, I have not heard any Hamas official saying that the PLO does not represent the Palestinian people. To the contrary, they always say it does represent the Palestinian people. Also, I have not heard any Hamas official saying that they represent the Palestinian people. So you have a representation for the Palestinian people, clear.
And guess what? Netanyahu, for years, has had one major task, weakening, undermining the PLO, undermining the Palestinian national legitimate representation and institutions. Numerous policies to undermine that one voice. Because guess what? Netanyahu wants exactly the status quo ante of 7th of October. He wanted Gaza separated geographically and politically. He wanted the West Bank fragmented. He wanted to keep undermining and undermining the Palestinian central institutions and representation. He wanted to undermine President Mahmoud Abbas and the entire Palestinian leadership. And this is a moment when we learned the lesson.
Palestinians are united. We do have a legitimate political system. That political system must deliver through a genuine process a Palestinian state. That state has got to be recognized now before we achieve it by the world. That state has one responsibility: to protect its people and to provide for its people. I hear a lot of talk about who’s going to control this and that. We don’t control. Our task is to provide protection, especially in light of what happened. And there will not be legitimacy to any entity if we don’t go to our people now and tell them, “Hang on. We are here to protect you.”
So we are in a new world. You think that this is a paradigm shift, what’s happened in the past month has been a paradigm shift. And that’s the last question.
I think we are in a new world, not vis-à-vis governments. The governments have lagged behind so far and will continue to lag. But I do believe that this is a paradigm shift vis-à-vis the people of the world. What happened over the last weeks have shocked the core of every human being on the face of Earth and have created a momentum that I have not seen in years. And I have been in international work for decades.
I have not seen the intensity, the momentum, the energy. I have not seen this cross-community in the U.K., in the U.S., everywhere. I think this is our South Africa moment. This is a moment when I see the beginning, the rebirth, like South Africa and like the anti-apartheid movement of South Africa that, by the way, was emanated from London for history. It started here, and then it became a global anti-apartheid movement.
I see a Free Palestine global movement emanating from London. And I see the power of people. Look what happened to South Africa. People’s power have managed to end apartheid in South Africa. I believe in our case people’s power will bring an end to Israel’s occupation. There will be a Free Palestine movement, and it will be massive, relentless until it ends, illegalities end. Governments will continue lagging, but hopefully the gap between the U.S. administration and its people, the U.K. government and its people, will start being bridged.
