Meshaal, transcript

Interview conducted with Hamas head Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, Jan. 16, 2008

by Helena Cobban©

Reproduction rights fully restricted. Please contact Helena for any rights requests.

The questions were posed in English. Generally, Meshaal replied in Arabic and one of his own assistants provided immediate interpretation. I prepared the following English-language version myself, using the interpreter's words as a base but improving the interpretation on many occasions, especially with a view to trying to reproduce in the English version the fluency with which Meshaal had spoken in Arabic. ~HC

Q. 1: I'd like to ask your opinion of the Annapolis peace process, and what you think the prospects are now for Palestinian independence.

A. 1: We were hoping that there would be American seriousness in achieving peace in the region. But I regret to say that the behavior of the American administration does not reflect that there is seriousness. And there is an absolute absence of any international will to do so.

The Palestinian and Arab masses don't have any trust in the American administration. For example, all the agreements that the American administration had mediated, the American administration did nothing to protect their integrity but they simply allowed the Israelis to violate them and in the end they bowed to the will of the Israelis. Even at Annapolis last month-- right afterwards, Olmert expanded the settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. And the American reaction to that was very weak. So in truth Israel does not feel there is any pressure on it to create any change. Therefore it is not expected that Annapolis will lead to peace in the region or to a Palestinian state. Olmert also clearly said he does not see any necessity to finish the negotiations during 2008. That contradicts what george Bush said.

Then, there is a false calculation in the focusing on security matters only, and the pressure placed on the Palestinian negotiator to enter into a catastrophic internal breakdown of relations with the other Palestinian force. The true way to peace is not through the gate of "security". The way to peace is political. In short, Israel should leave the occupied Palestinian land.. And as you see, there is no seriousness from Olmert or the Israeli side to recognize Palestinian rights.

I judge that Olmert is taking the same path that Sharon took previously, which was defined by the "Four No's": No to Jeruslaem, No to the right of return, No to the borders of 1967, and No for dismantling the settlements. So then, where is the Palestinian state?

This path will not lead either to peace nor to security in the region, nor to a Palestinian state.

And the stress they placed on the financial aspect at the Paris donor's conference also will not solve the problem. You know that our people can see that those billions that were promised in Paris are not to build a prosperous Palestinian state, but for security.

Q. 2: I gather that you've invited Fateh and even Abu Mazen himself to the conference that you'll be holding of Palestinian movements and parties here in Damascus next week. Do you have any confidence that he'll come or that his people will come and that you actually can make a reconciliation among the Palestinian parties?

A. 2: Unfortunately they have announced that they won't be coming. Rather, they've been inciting people against this conference. My evaluation is that their position is mistaken. As you may know, the conference will focus on two goals. The first one is to emphasize Palestinian rights. And the intention there is that this subject is not divisive among Palestinians. And the second goal is to focus on Palestinian national unity and dealing with the internal divisions among the Palestinians. So where is the problem with this conference? Why is Fateh not attending it? Why not the President of the Authority [Abu Mazen] himself?

Q. 2-a: Did they tell you why they won't attend?

A. 2-a: [In English.] You can ask them.

[Arabic resumes:] Some people are trying to monopolize [political] legitimacy within the Palestinian field. They believe that one person alone has the right to convene a conference of theCentral Council of the PLO, and that he is the only one who can convene any national conference. But the Palestinian people themselves realize that no-one can monopolize legitimacy.

I hope that through you and through this interview you can persuade the elites among the American people to recognize this fact, too. Nobody can monpolize legitimace among the Palestinian people. The American administration makes a mistake when, if it deals with Mahmoud Abbas, it thinks it has dealt with the whole Palestinian address. Mahmoud Abbas is part of the Palestinian legitimacy, he is part of the Palestinian address. Also, the American administration and the American elites need to understand that they cannot overlook the fact of more than six million Palestinians living in the diaspora. The Palestinian people are not only those who live in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. But there are the people inside Palestinian and the people outside Palestine. And our upcoming conference in Damascus is an expression of these millions who are living on the outside. It is not a conference just for the political factions, but it is also a means of expression for the many Palestinian nationalist personalities who live in the Arab world, who live in America, or Europe, or the east, or the west.

The message that I want to center on is that if any party does not understand the Palestinian issue well, then he will make a mistake in dealing with it.

Q. 3: Let's talk about Gaza. How do you see the situation in Gaza now. Is there a possibility of a ceasefire?

A. 3: The problem is, you need to address that question to the Israelis. Who is it who is undertaking aggression and war against the Palestinian people? Just yesterday, there was a massacre in the Zeitoun district of Gaza, and there are victims every day. And it's not just in Gaza, it's also in the West Bank, as happened just today. So therefore, whom should you ask to cease their fire? It should be Israel. You know, in the past, we held our fire for quite some time-- in 2003, 2005, and 2006. But the Israelis did not reciprocate. Israel wants us to stop while they retain the freedom to do what they want. And it is impossible that that should come about.

Q. 4: Is there a possibility, though, that in connection with the release of the Israeli prisoner [Gilad Shalit], along with some of your prisoners, that that could lead to a ceasefire?

A. 4: Who is it that blocks that happening? It's Israel! We proposed a formula for exchange of prisoners through the Egyptian mediators, and we made quite a lot of progress in the negotiations, but Israel froze the steps forward. It did not accept our demands, and it placed a veto beside certain of the names. So how can we release Gilad Shalit if Israel doesn't release our prisoners? We have just one Israeli prisoner, and he's a prisoner of war, because he's a soldier. But we have around 12,000 men and women imprisoned by Israel. Most of them are civilians. Among them are members of political leaderships; among them are ministers; members of the parliament-- including the president of the legislative council, Dr. Abdul-Aziz Dweik!

Q. 4-a: Who were elected?

A. 4-a: Who were elected. So the problem is with the way Israel behaves. Because Israel wants to take everything and pay no price. They say they want peace. But peace has its price. They say they want peace, but this is an illusion. What they want is security, they want the land-- they want everything. They want the continuation of the occupation. How can this formula be achieved if they want to have peace as well? In the same way, they say want Gilad Shalit released, but they want him released without paying the real price for that.

Q. 4-b: Is the negotation just about the prisoners or is it also about a ceasefire?

A. 4-b: At the present point, the contacts through the Egyptians are only about the exchange of prisoners. There is no defined proposal about a ceasefire. Some European parties have discussed this topic with us, but we tell them we have no trust in Israel. Because we have the experience in the past, when we did cease the fire from our side they did not reciprocate. So we told them [the Europeans], that if there is a serious proposal that you can obtain from the Israeli side, then we are ready to study it very seriously.

Q. 4-c: Can you tell me which Europeans?

A. 4-c: No.

Q. 5: If we move to the idea of a broader ceasefire, to the hudna that you talked about, if there is a complete withdrawal of the Israelis to 1967, and fulfillment of all the demands about the right of return, and Jerusalem, and everything else, that you would be prepared to have a hudna of 50 or 100 years? Is that still a realistic project?

A. 5: [In English] Why not?

[Arabic] We do not talk about the number of years. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin spoke about ten years. We now say that Hamas is prepared to offer a hudna to Israel if they withdraw from the lands occupied in 1967 and respect all the Palestinian rights. And I say there is no way except this.

Q. 6: There are some people who say it's so impossible to get Israel to withdraw that it would be more straightforward now to have an integrated solution of one state, like they had in South Africa where the "White" settlers stayed and were citizens of the new state. What do you think about this proposal?

A. 6: One state?

Q. 6-a: One state, two nationalities...

A. 6-a: Any way, Israel rejects everything. Israel rejects a true state for the Palestinians. And there were in the past Palestinian parties who proposed a single democratic state-- a secular demlocratic state-- and Israel refused that. Therfore, the problem is still remaining in the Israeli side. The real question is, Is Israeli going to be able to hang onto the land, to hang onto its occupation, and ignore the Palestinian people? Forever, as one package? And to keep its own security, and to remain in a situation of calmness?

The law of humanity is that the one who makes a mistake should take responsibility for that. The one who maintains an occupations should pay the price of it. There will be no stability in the region or any peace without the rights of the Palestinian people.

It is true that today, the balance of power is in Israel's interests. Israel has military superiority. But that doesn't mean the Palestinian people will surrender. It doesn't mean that the Israelis can ignore the Palestinian people completely without paying any price. Things will not continue in that way. The world changes. The powerful does not remain powerful. And the weak one does not stay weak. And raw power alone cannot bring everything to people. There are values. There are morals, ethics, justice. There are free people who have their own will. That is the law of human existence. History has its own course. Israel cannot change everything about the way the world works. And I tell you, the more Israel continues with its inflexibility, the more it will lose.

Q. 7: How do you see a way out, though, seriously, for the people in Gaza who are so hard-pressed? When I talked with Dr. Mahmoud Zahhar in 2006, there seemed to be a possibility that they could make some form of a local administration, at least, in Gaza, to get some rest from the battle, and to make some relations with Egypt, and with the world through Egypt. But that hasn't happened. So the people in Gaza are in a very tight and dangerous situation.

A. 7: I realize that things in Gaza are hard., and the situation in the West Bank is also hard. When Israel left Gaza in 2005 they did not end their occupation there completely. They came out of the body of Gaza but they remained in control of the borders of Gaza and the airspace of Gaza and the sea alongside Gaza and they didn't allow the people of Gaza to live a free life. And at the same time they continued their aggressions against the West Bank. Gaza is not something that is separated from the rest of the Palestinian land. And even after we practiced our democracy in the year 2006, Israel did not allow us to exercise our democracy freely. They besieged Gaza. They besieged Hamas. And they supported the other Palestinian side against Hamas. That is, they interfered in the Palestinian political game. They wanted to reverse the results of the Palestinian elections, and unfortunately the American administration agreed with them. For this reason, the suffering continues.

And the suffering is not just in Gaza. It's also in the West Bank. This situation will lead to reaction from the Palestinian people, that is, to the continuation of the conflict and that we won't get any closer to peace. Therefore, what the American administration and Israel are doing does not lead to peace. Peace requires a different approach, but unfortunately Israel and America don't want to take it.

We in Hamas, and Palestinians in general, we say frankly, resistance is not end in itself for us but it's a reaction to the occupation. It is a tool to get rid of the occupation. We are ready to give up our resistance the moment the occupation ends. We don't like the continuing shedding of blood in the region. But there is no alternative except the realization of the rights of the Palestinians. And the Palestinian people, like all the other free peoples of the world, has the right to live on its own land, in freedom, in security, and with its own state, a true state with true soverignty. Any other solution will not solve the problem.

Q. 8: How can you reassure American people who are so afraid of terrorism and who remember what Hamas did in the 1990s with suicide bombers, and who get big reports from Israel about the Qassam rockets; and they are scared of Hamas?

A. 8: I want to explain this from three points of view. The first one is that Hamas does not undertake resistance outside Palestine, so they confined their battle inside Palestine.

Q. 8-a: So you're not going to come and kill me in Virgina?

A. 8-a: [In English] Of course. You are my sister in humanity.

[Arabic resumes:] Hamas does not go to a different country or a different people to kill them. The battle occurs against the occupation and inside Palestine. So what is the similarity between Hamas's situation and what America says about it concerning terrorism?

The second point is the issue of making a connection between terrorism and Islam, and claiming that because Hamas is a movement that is born of Islam therefore it is a terrorist or extremist movement. Hamas is not extremist. It is not hard-line. Hamas is a moderate movement. It is not religiously dogmatic. We are Muslims because we are from a Muslim environment just as you and others are from a Christian environment. Our commitment to Islam is not dogmatic, and we respect the others. We accept religious pluralism, and likewise political pluralism. And we have open relations with the Christians. I'll give you an example of this. A few days ago I was traveling to another country, and I had stopped in one of the Arab airports. Someone there came up and shook my hand after he recognized who I was. And he said, "My name is such-and-such, and I am from Beit Jala, and I am Christian, and I voted for you." We have no problems with the Christians. So just because Hamas is Islamic, that doesn't mean it is for violence or terrorism.

And from the third viewpoint: the question of the rockets and the martyrdom operations [i.e. what westerners call suicide operations.] Firstly, the martyrdom operations are part of the response to the Israeli massacres. You know that those martyrdom operations that Hamas undertook came after the massacre in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron in 1994. And in 1996, twelve years ago, we proposed through more than one European party that we are ready to consider the civilians of both sides to be neutral, but Israel also has to stop targeting our civilians and our people. But Israel did not respond. So why do the people in America, or the west, or the world in general, criticize what is being done by Hamas or the Palestinian people but they do not criticize Israel's behavior? Though every day it kills civilians; they kill children and women.

So you remember that story of that Israeli military leader, when they used a bomb of half a ton against the house of the leader Salah Shehadeh [a Hamas leader in Gaza] -- and 17 people died in that building including small children. And every day, Israel destroys houses. The number of houses they have destroyed is somewhere greater than 30,000 or 40,000 houses. Hundreds of thousands of olive trees they uprooted. Israel kills the people and the animals and the plants in Palestine. And they commit group kilings, as happened in Zeitoun district yesterday. So why is it allowed to Israel that it does all that and it's forbidden to us that defend ourselves? Another difference is that in taking those actions Israel is taking the initiative to commit aggression, while we are reacting, to defend ourselves.

And the second difference is that Israel is extremely heavily armed and the strongest state in the region, while we are isolated, we have nothing but very primitive arms. So this leads us to the talk of the rockets. Our rockets are extremely primitive while Israel has American rockets, and the Apache [helicopter gunships], and laser-guided missiles.

So in short, the common man in America can be satisfied in two regards. Hamas will not resist except against the occupation, and will never go outside to kill anyone outside Palestine; and secondly, Hamas is ready to end the resistance fight if the occupation ends. Hence, we are a legitimate resistance and not terrorism. Another matter to satisfy the people in America: Who was it that freed Alan Johnson, the journalist? If Hamas was of a mind to kill any westerner, for example, it would not have freed Alan Johnson. Hamas has its morals. And it knows its path very well.

So I address the public opinion in America. And I realize that the American people does not bear responsibility for the mistakes committed its own administration. I call on the American people to look very deeply at the tragedy of the Palestinians. We are a people like any free people in the world. We are tolerant, looking for freedom, looking for independence, and we want to get rid of the occupation. The Ameriocan people, who waged a war of independence, should understand the right of the Palestinian people to search for their freedom and independence.

Q. 9: But there have been some problems, for example, with followers of Fateh in Gaza. So it's nice to hear you say that you support political pluralism, but it seems that there have been some opression and problems against the Fateh people.

A. 9: The truth is not like that. Before the events of last June in Gaza, we submitted ourselves to the democratic game. But there was a clique inside Fateh and inside the Authority itself that refused to work with the results of the democratic system, and they used the support of the Americans and the Israelis, in money, and arms, and training-- For what? In order to topple the results of the democratic process, and they made a coup against Palestinian legitimacy. They made a coup against the first Hamas government, and then they made a coup against the government of national unity, which they themselves were a part of.

What did Hamas do? It defended its own legitimacy. Just as any government in the world would do. When any party tries to make a coup against it, it defends itself.

But after the events of June, we said to the brothers from Fateh in Gaza, "You are our brothers. You are part of our people. You can practise your freedom-- but without violence, without creating chaos for Hamas in Gaza." You know that we released tens of the high officials of Fateh during the June events. But unfortunately, some of those, after taking instructions from Muhammad Dahlan and others in Ramallah, chose to create chaos and undermine the rule of law.

But look at the other side, which is not being examined by the western media. The American administration does not want to look at the other side, which is what is being done by the government of Fayyad, which is not legitimate, not elected, against Hamas in the West Bank. They have imprisoned the leaders and cadres of Hamas. They have given them bad tortures. They have closed the civil society institutions. Even the zakat [Islamic alms] committees! Even the municipal councils that were elected recently. They canceled those elected bodies, and in place of them they appointed bodies loyal to Fateh.

Q. 9-a: Can you name some of these municipalities?

A. 9-a: I can give you reports about that.... Tomorrow we will arrange that.

Q. 10: It seems to me that you don't have much support in the Arab world, because everybody is receiving President Bush?

A. 10: Firstly, the power of Hamas is in the rallying of the Palestinian people around it. You saw the festival for the anniversary of the founding of Hamas in Gaza [in December 2007], how large it was, and the festival we held in Damascus. And then, Hamas's power is in the support of the peoples of the Arab and Muslim worlds. This is our true power, and this is the true power of any movement. As for the Arab governments, you know that they are subject to American pressures. But even with that, we are in constant contact with the Arab governments.

[The telephone rings. There is then a pause in the recording while Meshaal speaks on the phone for five minutes. He tells me it is Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, calling to express concern about the situation in Gaza...]

Today, because of the massacre [in Zeitoun], I have been in touch with many of the Arab leaders. I tell you, we have relations with the Arab states and leaders, and we are in continuous contact with them, whether through phone communications-- as you saw-- or through visits. But, on account of the American pressures, the Arab officials may not feel free to express their actual beliefs. And I can tell you that many leaders and officials in the region are not happy with the American policy in the region. They are for the rights of the Palestinians. They respect Hamas. They recognize the power of Hamas, and the legitimacy it gained from the elections.

Q. 11: So we have a president in the United States. Seven years of his policies we all know. So do you have hopes, that the person who is the next president, he or she can--

A.11: [In English:] Good, "she"!

Q. 11, contd: --can make a better relationship, can have a better attitude toward the Palestinian issue?

A. 11: [In Arabic:] I hope that, but I don't expect it. Because the previous record of the American administration over the past years is not a good omen. The presidents and the officiails in America-- some of them, when they are out of office, they talk something good. But so long as they are still in office, they are biased. And I tell you that this bias does not affect us alone. It also affects American interests.

Q. 11-a: Have you watched the election campaign? Do you see any reason to hope for this one or that one, or to fear this one or that one?

A. 11-a: Of course, there are some differences between the parties and the candidates. But unfortunately, regarding the Arab-Israeli issue, the differences are small and only cosmetic. Because everybody is biased toward Israel. There are differences regarding internal issues, and regarding other international issues. But regarding the Palestinian issue, the differences are very small.

Q. 12: Do you have any hopes to be able to reach out to the American people through their grassrooits institutions or their non-governmental institutions?

A. 12: I am very happy to reach out to every person in the world, to everyone in America, and Europe. And I'm ready to do that, because I have trust in what I believe in and in my vision. And I have enough self-confidence to talk to others with logic and objectivity. We want people to hear from us, and not just about us. Because we are victims of Israel's confusing propaganda. And I have received many American personalities. I believe they were surprised when they listened the truth, because before they had heard only a very distorted picture.

Q. 13: Do you see powers other than the United States getting more power, and that can help change the balance in the region?

A. 13: [In English:] Of course. [Resumes Arabic:] I believe we are at the beginning of a change in the international balance. Yes, it's slow, but it is a change that is now happening. And this is part of the law of humanity and of God. Throughout history, there were only short times in which there would be one power supreme over the whole world. There is no alternative but finding a balance, because if there's no balance you'll find injustice, oppression, and chaos. And it is seen by everyone that there is a change in the situation of Russia; China is witnessing great progress. Of course, China has been focusing on its economy., and on technology and space technology, but this can contribute to progress in political and military fields, too.

But what I am saying is, What is the question that the American citizen should be asking? Why is American policy focusing today on fighting Israel's battles, battles that are not in the American national interest? And meanwhile, the other things that are happening in the world, which pose a real threat to American supremacy, America is ignoring! What is the reason for this? It's not in America's interest! The reason is because America is so aligned to pursuing the Israeli policy. Nowadays, the Bush administration is serving the interests of Israel more than it is serving the interests of the United States of America.

Q. 14: How can you hope to get off the terrorism list, for example? Because the terrorism list is a big block to you being able to come and discuss with American people, or come and visit the United States, or have Americans come and do business with you. How can you get off the list?

A. 14: Without a doubt, it's a big obstacle. Because the American administration's imposing of mistaken standards, and classification of those lists and slates as they have done, and sanctifying this mistaken and stereotyping picture will lead to confusion.

We are affected by it, of course. But you should know that American policy is also affected, because they find themselves in front of wrong wars and wrong paths. Now, what is the solution? I don't have a magic solution! There are two options. Either the Americans will start to open the mind of their policy and start to deal with the ground realities as they are, without looking at the world through Israeli eye-glasses. Or, America will continue walking along the same path, till the end, until they hit a wall. And only then will it discover the errors in its policy. Therefore, I hope that American policy will get changed sooner rather than later.

In any case, this change will not occur now. But they will discover that whatever they do against Hamas or against the Palestinian people will not finish the Palestinian people and will not finish Hamas, and will not finish the Palestinian resistance. Hence, I hope that the decisionmakers in American will wake up. Because they have to ask themselves this question: Why have all those efforts they have made to impose defeat on Hamas and the Palestinian people not succeeded? Why do Hamas and such movements still have the popularity among the Palestinian masses?

Q. 15: If the present policy of Abu Mazen fails, and it doesn't look good, what will happen? What kind of a breakdown or explosion or crisis? I think he's going to hit the wall before American policy hits the wall?

A. 15: [In English;] Yes, that right.

Q. 15-a: But then what happens?

A. 15-a: [Resumes in Arabic:] When Mahmoud Abbas's policy fails, and the policy of liquidating [the Palestinian problem] fails, and the negotiations fail because of the Israelis' rigidity and America's one-sidedness, and the absence of any international desire to press Israel to end its occupation-- the strong message of the Palestinian people will be that they have no alternative but to resist. Hence, when those other policies fail we will see an increase in Palestinian resistance.

And here is an important point: The American administration has no right to impose a leadership on any other people, but instead it should deal with the true leadership chosen by that people. America can form its own American leadership, but it cannot form the leadership for others. It is the peoples of the world who form their own leaders. Those leaderships that are parachuted in from outside will not last. The true leadership is the one that comes from the ground itself.

Q. 16: Do you see that happening in other Arab countries at the same time you see it happening in Palestine, or are you talking mainly about Palestine?

A. 16: I'm talking about the Palestinian situation, but at the regional level in general, tell me what caused President Bush to halt his campaign for the democratization of the region? It was because the results of the democracy were not satisfactory to the Israelis.

Q. 17: I think maybe the results of your election made him stop. And maybe also the result of the election in Egypt in 2005.

So, I think that's all the formal interview--

A. 17: Firstly, I want to thank you. And I'd like for the American people to know through you that Hamas, and the Palestinian people in general, and the peoples of the Arab and Islamic region have no problem with the American people. They have a problem with the American administration. And also, they do not have problems with American interests. It is the right of any state to have its own interests-- but on the condition that this is not at the expense of the interests of others. And these interests should not be pursued only in service to the Israeli interests and biased in favor of the aggression and atrocities.

I hope that the awareness of Americans about these facts about our region will grow. I say it's in the interest of the USA that it should be just with the Palestinian people and with the peoples of the Arab and Islamic regions. Because we, the Palestinian people, will be victorious, whether the US is just with us or not. We will certainly win, by the grace of God (inshallah). Therefore it is in the interest of the United States that it have a positive history with the region.