Volume 67, Issue 4

Transcript: Keynote Address by Dr. Hanan Ashrawi

Hanan Ashrawi is the founder and secretary general of the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy.  “September 11 -- One Year Later: Responding to Global Challenges” took place from Thursday, September 12, to Saturday, September 14.

Hanan Ashrawi: There is a certain tenacity involved of course in one's refusal to be silenced or intimidated or to succumb to censorship or to accept myths. One is always called upon to debunk myths, to challenge them, to challenge facile generalizations, pre-conceptions, distortions, stereotypes, and because of this sort of orchestrated effort attempting to distort my, not just presentation, but my person, allow me to do something I've never done before, to begin with a personal statement.
I've lived under military occupation most of my adult life. I have been repeatedly beaten up, shot at, interrogated, even imprisoned. I have seen some of my best friends killed. My next-door neighbor's kid shot in the back. I've seen my daughter's childhood totally destroyed, living in fear, being tear-gassed, and living under curfew. I've seen houses demolished, crops destroyed, our infrastructure destroyed. And recently I've lived for weeks under curfew, a prisoner in my own home, without water, without electricity and often without a phone. I've lived under constant shelling -- I've seen the windows and doors of my home (my ancestral home) being blown away. But I'm not saying this to tell you that I'm a victim -- no -- I'm saying this to tell you that despite all these things, despite my living under captivity and seeing the worst horrors of violence, being on the receiving end of the last remaining colonial situation in the world, an occupation, I have never succumbed to hate. I have never allowed hate to take over, and I have never accepted any kind of revenge as a motivation…
I have never suspended dialog, since the 1970s, I have had an on-going dialog with Israelis within the peace camp. Even when it was not only not popular but when it was illegal, when we were threatened with imprisonment. There were like-minded Palestinians and Israelis who maintained this dialog. People of principle and courage and those who paid a heavy price for exercising that democratic right to speak out and to engage in this exchange of ideas. And this is what I will defend and protect regardless. [clapping]
And I do not believe that violence will solve anything…I don't believe that being a victim gives you license to do onto others what was done onto you. And I don't believe that there's an exclusivity of pain or suffering, and I don't believe that there are different values to human lives. There is equal values to all lives. [clapping]
…
I believe that the trauma and the horrific events of September 11th have certainly created a new paradigm shift in the world. And I believe that there are global ramifications with a ripple effect that would impact the whole planet. This type of horrific violence could go either way -- could either re-legitimize a pursuit of peace and a genuine address of the causes of grievances and conflict and hatred and extremism and fundamentalism, or it could unleash a new wave of forces of unbridled violence to engulf, to engage all of us in a new era of instability as a license to engage in global wars and military conflicts, rather than to seek just, equitable, and peaceful solutions to outstanding conflicts. This could be, it could be an opportunity for historical redemption. And I believe it should be an opportunity for historical redemption of the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian-Israeli and hence the Arab-Israeli conflict. It could be an opportunity for the rectification of past inequities and injustices, or it could become a rationalization for the revival of the zero sum game. It could enhance the use of power politics, the settling of scores rather than addressing the causes of grievances. This serious global paradigm shift certainly could go either way, and we all have a responsibility to engage and to make sure that it goes in the constructive, peaceful way.
…
In our region the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is certainly the most compelling, the most emotive and the major source of instability. And because it is so complex and multi-faceted, I've always described it as a conflict that has historical dimensions, religious, spiritual dimensions, territorial, geographical dimensions; even existential emotional dimensions; but if we could solve this conflict based on international law and a commitment to justice within an inclusive framework, then no conflict on earth is intractable, [clapping] everything can be solved. And therein lies the test of will -- not just political will but moral will -- and legitimacy and in a new global universe, whether one can take the risks for peace that so many people are willing to take blindly in the cause of war. It seems to me it's much more worth it. Many people told me, "Why do you take so many risks, why are you advocating something which was?" -- I know years ago, decades ago, when we started talking about peace and a two-state solution people thought that we were suicidal -- "You're saying things that are unpopular on both sides," and I said rather than dying as a victim, a passive victim, of a war not of my choosing, I would much rather take risks to live for peace and a cause of my choosing. And I believe this is the real test now globally.
…
The Palestinians have always yearned for self-determination, independence, freedom, a life of dignity and recognition. And this is a right that is universally recognized with a few exceptions here. [clapping] This right must be also recognized as the key, the key to the solution providing the whole region with stability, with peace, with security, because there is an absent state -- there is a long festering wound -- once that is solved, once that is healed, it seems to me that a comprehensive and lasting peace is achievable. And this has become recognized, of course I can enumerate numerous UN resolutions, the last being 1397 about the two-state solution and the Palestinian state, 1402, 1403 from the Security Counsel asking on Israel to withdraw. But still some countries are treated as countries above the law.

…
You think if you hire a great PR company, if you have the funds, the money, than you can taint people's perceptions. No, it seems to me people will have access the way I've had access to speak out, regardless of all the attempts at demonization, dehumanization and of course maligning the Palestinians and the individuals. So there is no way you can hide nowadays -- the crimes of the past, ethnic cleansing. In '48 there was ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians [booing and clapping], so all those crimes cannot take place in the dark anymore. You cannot destroy over 500 villages, raze them to the ground, and say it didn't happen, because the cameras will be there. Maybe they will give you a different spin the way you hear it these days. This is all self-defense, and the Palestinians are the culprits. But even the most sophisticated, manufactured, fabricated spin and distortion cannot withstand the truth for long if you have the instruments of knowledge and of information, and you have to use them -- and you mustn't ever be silenced or intimidated because the lie will prevail then -- the truth has to come out and has to come out through people who will not be silenced. [clapping]

…
That's why when repeatedly we asked for protection for the Palestinians and we didn't get it from any government, people who are courageous and brave from the rest of the world, including the U.S. -- the grassroots international protection for the Palestinian people, the International Solidarity Movement -- these are people who put their money where their mouth is so to speak. Individuals who took risks and who came to a situation of war or conflict and of danger and who are there by the thousands, and they made a difference. They saved and they are saving many lives, so the level of activity and action differs from governments to people in general. Those people are free to act, and you need a constituency for peace. The public has not only the right to know from our experience -- part of the one aspect of the weakness of the peace process was that it was conducted in an abstract isolated manner, that the people did not own the agenda so to speak. So the public has the right to know and to participate, and they must have the conviction and the persuasion that this is their endeavor. And since they are the ones who pay the price of the absence of peace, unlike those of you here who are trying to prevent peace from happening [booing], they are the ones who pay the price of peace, and they are the ones who have to sustain peace once we arrive at it.
So it must be a conscious choice. It must be freely adopted and deliberately pursued. And it is again a democratic enterprise, not personalized, not to serve the careers of a few. Yes, I must conclude -- that requires also a redefinition of security. What is security, and is it defined only by military means? I know that there is an ongoing discussion. That's why I'm talking and speaking headlines, on human security and a more expansive and inclusive form -- a redefinition of security that would involve personal, historical, legal, territorial, economic security and not just security based on military definitions and military means -- and this is the type of security that will be part of the prevention of the eruption of conflicts.
I will have to condense here and just say that there are certain things that have to be avoided -- the immediate resort to violence and military action must be avoided. Of course I firmly believe that there is no absolutist or ideological solution. And in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict I do not believe that God takes sides or that God should be brought into the conflict to take sides [clapping]. Because we all know that fundamentalism and absolutism would lead to this claim that you have divine right, and therefore it would lead to the total obliteration of the other. There are no partial or temporary or selective solutions -- one must work for a comprehensive, inclusive and permanent solution. And in the end, we must all engage in this redefinition of enemies and allies, of friends and foes. I believe globally that there are enemies that we can identify and work to defeat, including poverty, including illiteracy, degradation of the environment, diseases that are prevalent and re-emerging. These are global enemies we can identify and deal with [clapping]. And of course in that pursuit there are allies that again cross borders and ethnicities and religions and nationalities -- and as I said earlier, terrorism is not exclusive -- it is not a national, or cultural, or religious, or ethnic phenomenon.
And I believe we can face these global enemies, not with weapons of mass destruction, but perhaps we should start utilizing tools of mass constructions, because these tools are capable of preventing conflicts and bringing about a more comprehensive peace. But no matter what the nature of the conflict is, be it ethnic -- and there are many different types of conflicts -- the essential ingredient remains: the good old-fashioned ingredient of justice. There must be an end to the victor/vanquished formula, and peace is not just a gift bestowed by the strong on the weak. It is an empowerment of both. Ultimately I believe that peace is the most basic and the most pervasive and the most compelling human right. Thank you very much.

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.