Mohamed K. Mohamed:
Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you all for joining us today. My name is Mohamed Mohamed, I am the executive director here at the Jerusalem Fund and Palestine Center. On behalf of our board of directors and staff, it’s a pleasure to welcome you all here today, including everyone watching online on our livestream. It’s also an honor to introduce and welcome our distinguished speaker, Ambassador Husam Zomlot, who will be speaking about the latest developments and next steps for Palestinians on the political and diplomatic fronts. As we all know, President Trump recently announced his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, along with plans to move the U.S. Embassy into Jerusalem. This is a major change in official U.S. policy, and with Jerusalem being such a core issue for Palestinians, this move has severe implications for future peace negotiations and for any U.S. role in such talks. The Trump administration also recently made the unprecedented step of withholding millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to UNRWA for political reasons, which will of course impact critical service needed for Palestinian refugees. In light of these decisions, Ambassador Zomlot will speak about the latest developments taking place, and a new Palestinian strategy for the future, including working within the framework of international law and through other diplomatic efforts.
A little bit about the Ambassador: He currently serves as the head of the General Delegation of the PLO to the United States, and strategic advisor to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Ambassador Zomlot’s previous roles include Ambassador At-large for the Palestinian presidency, and charge d’affaires of the Palestinian Mission to the United Kingdom. He was elected to the Fateh Council and serves as director of its Foreign Relations Commission. Ambassador Zomlot holds a PhD in economics from the University of London. He served as professor of public policy at Birzeit University, where he co-founded and shared the Birzeit School of Government. He also held teaching and research positions at Harvard University and the University of London. His professional experiences include working as an economist for the United Nations, and economic researcher with the London School of Economics and the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute. Ambassador Zumlot is also married and has two children.
The Ambassador will speak for 30 to 40 minutes, after which we will have a Q and A session. We ask that you please wait for the mic to come by so that everyone online can hear you. For the online audience, you can ask questions through twitter. You can tweet them to @PalestineCenter. Without further ado, please join me in giving a warm welcome to Ambassador Husam Zomlot.
Ambassador Husam S. Zomlot:
Thank you very much Mohamed, and thank you all for coming today and attending this event. It’s a testament to how much you care about the issue of Palestine and the issue of justice, and I see many friends in this room. It is an utmost honor for me personally, to be at the Jerusalem Fund, and a privilege to speak at an institution founded by the honorable Palestinian scholars, the likes of the late Dr. Hisham Shirabi and the late Dr. Samih Farsoun – both highly respected academics, pioneers that their work paved the way for the Palestinian-American experience by providing a framework for advancing the Palestinian human rights in the U.S. and within the U.S. civil society. For us—and this is important to say—taking this opportunity, the Jerusalem Fund is a Palestinian icon of perseverance. We are a people that know too well the price of being forcibly expelled from our homeland, yet it is institutions like this institution that have kept us strong and together all these years. For the director, for the board of this very important place, I take this opportunity on behalf of the people and leadership of Palestine to thank you for the many years of service and for standing firm for the rights of the Palestinian people in the United States of America. Mohamed, thank you, and give a hand please for the Jerusalem Fund.
And I know you are much more also interested in following President Trump’s remarks recently and announcement of [the] decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and the decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. There have been, ever since then, several critical developments in the political sphere concerning the political process and the Palestinian-U.S. relationship. And a lot of commotion, I have to say, on what will happen next. I, therefore, wanted to clarify some key points where we stand at this point in time and describe what we think are the options in front of us. Because this is not just about what has happened, it is also about what should happen and what might happen in the future, and our collective thinking in this arena. I am certain that most of you who came today would want to know more about where we are going, where we stand today, where we are going, and how do we intend to reach that destination.
What is crucial for us at this point in time is that we, no matter what is our strategy, what is our next step, we must base it, base these steps, on very rooted, clear foundations, principles, pillars, so we are not lost in our journey. It is crucial that from the very beginning we outline our commitments that should shape and inspire our strategy. And here, as we all care about Palestine and the region and want a bright future for all the people of the region, we may differ, and particularly Palestinians, among ourselves—which is legitimate—we may differ on the routes, the roads, the means, the tools, to how to get to our destination. But we definitely do not differ on our objectives. We are united on where we have to go and where we need to reach. But it is important, at this point in time, to call a spade a spade and diagnose the situation the way it is. Not the way we wish it to be. For a doctor doesn’t treat cancer by diagnosing it or pretending to be a flu, and I happen to have a flu so bear with my voice. It’s not a cancer.
Of course, it is human nature to be afraid of the unknown, all of us get to be concerned about the lack of clarity. Especially at these times of uncertainty. We don’t like not knowing and we don’t like not having control, and we don’t like to feel inadequate, all of us. But as we […] beings, human beings, as responsible citizens, and as a people with a cause and a calling, we conjure hope and must. We garner our strength, especially now at this point in time. And we embark on facing, head on, all these hurdles by conquering our fears first and foremost. We, as a nation, are solid in our belief that, ultimately, we will reach and achieve our internationally-endorsed rights. We must be cautious but fearless about the future.
And before I delve into those, I want to reiterate our positions, the Palestinian position, the position of the people and the leadership of Palestine. To make sure that what I say is taken with that backdrop or frame of reference, if you will. Number one: We are committed to international law. We are committed to international legitimacy. We don’t do this out of a need to curry favor with anyone, but of a solid conviction in the importance of respecting and maintaining an international order, no matter how difficult and delicate that order may seem at times. And it is definitely not in its best shape as we speak now. In a world that is being and becoming ever more interconnected and interdependent, isolationism becomes a recipe for anarchy. We are the people of Palestine, and the leadership of Palestine. We are for internationalism, we are for multilateralism. For us, international law, international consensus, and international resolutions means the following three key principles, as far as Palestine is concerned.
The first principle is that Israel’s occupation that began in 1967 of Palestinian territory must end. That is included, clearly, in the U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242, [and] 338, all the way to one year ago, U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. Emphasizing all of these resolutions, emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, international law is clear-cut. Clear. Second principle that we adhere on, as far as the international side of the story is, establishing a sovereign, independent state of Palestine on this liberated territory, including East Jerusalem-all of it, complete-as the capital of the state of Palestine. This is not what we say, this is what the successive international resolutions [say], including the U.S. co-sponsoring and voting for them. The third principle, resolving the issue of Palestinian refugees, more than six million of them today, myself included. I was born in a refugee camp, and our president, President Abbas, [is] included. The issue of refugees is the origin of the Palestinian cause. It’s the heart of the matter. And guess what, there is also clarity in international law, international resolutions about the issue of refugees, international responsibility, and the way to resolve it. There are all standards, and we are no exception. There are so many other issues, other countries that have faced issues of refugeeship, including Kosovo recently. So, we also want to consider international standards when it comes to the issue of refugees. And not only [do] we accept and recognize and adhere to international legitimacy, not only by words, but by deeds.
We have done our part by A), in 1988, declaring an independent state of Palestine on the 1967 borders. That was following international legitimacy, that was implementing international legitimacy. By recognizing, in 1993, formally, the state of Israel on the 1967 borders. However, we did not recognize an unidentified Israel which since 1967 did not stop, for a day, expanding its illegal colonial expansion deep into the occupied territory. The question is not when will there be peace in the Middle East, but rather when international resolutions, more than 83 U.N. Security Council resolutions for Palestine, on Palestine, on the conflict, 83 U.N. Security Council resolutions, unimplemented. [There are] more than 700 U.N. General Assembly resolutions unimplemented. The question is, when [there is] international will, international resolutions will be implemented. Then, peace will prevail in the Middle East.
And let us be absolutely crystal clear here, the two-state solution was never for negotiation. We did not accept international resolutions to negotiate the principles of these resolutions, we accepted international resolutions for implementation of international law. It was never up for further compromise. We would never negotiate the principle of ending occupation, or the principle of establishing a sovereign state of Palestine, or the principle of the right of return for refugees. We’re looking for mechanisms and timetables for implementation. And our acceptance of international resolutions, i.e. the two-state solution on 1967 was never, ever, a Palestinian demand. It was a Palestinian concession. If the international community says that conceding 78 percent of your land will deliver peace, we want to consider it.
The second commitment of us, the Palestinians, after international law and international systems, is our commitment to nonviolence. We believe our cause is just, our demands are reasonable, and our time has come. Popular resistance, mass movement, is what we are adopting. And it is not a coincidence that Ahed Tamimi is now a Palestinian icon. It is not a coincidence that many of the leaders of the popular resistance, peaceful popular resistance, have been rounded in Israeli jails over the last few years. You have seen that dignified mass protest, mass prayer in Jerusalem only a few months ago, in July. Our mindset, our culture, our decision-making process, is all in this arena. It is crucial that we engage in where we are best, we retain the moral high ground, and we engage the entire nation of Palestine, and mass peaceful protest does. And it is also in the nonviolence [that we have] our right and obligation to revert to international political and legal systems. It is our obligation: we have to revert to the U.N. Security Council, to the General Assembly, to all the international organs, to all of them, political and legal. It’s not a revenge, we’re not joining the mafia, we’re joining the U.N. For our ability to resist, using international mechanisms is a right and an obligation, and we will not let go of this process.
Our third commitment, with all the difficulties, is to a democratic process in Palestine, to build our state institutions as well. We will not let go of us being on the ground, we won’t. Our skin has been there. And we will not let go of our most important weapon, if you may, that is democracy. Legitimacy over representation. People’s sacred right to vote in their governments and representatives. I know, given what has happened over the last years, that this sounds difficult. But, difficult it is, it is not a choice for us Palestinians. It is a destiny. Difficult it is, we cannot but revert back to the people of Palestine. And I know that the reconciliation process has been slower than expected, since the agreement, the recent agreement in Cairo. Sometimes national processes need time, especially when the issues discussed are big, crucial, deep. Sometimes taking time is not a bad indicator, might be actually a good indicator. We are delving deep and we are not rushing only for the sake of striking a deal. But for every Palestinian, we know without our unity in the political sense, we can disagree. [But] without our unity in the political sense, our situation will be much more difficult. There was one agreement in Cairo a couple of months ago, between all of the Palestinian factions. That agreement was to convene national elections by the end of 2018, this year. Hopefully this will happen, and hopefully we will all converge toward that direction. But believe you me, with all the difficulties we face, our commitment to a democratic political system must be unwavering. We cannot face up [to] all the challenges if we don’t have the power of the people and representing them.
But then let me move very quickly to the 6th of December, 2017, and the announcement of President Trump, that sudden and unilateral announcement, which in our opinion has violated three major commitments. The first is the U.S. long-held policy, since President Truman, until the 6th of December, 2017. The U.S. policy has been very clear: it’s with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242, 338. It’s with the ending of occupation, it’s with always considering the occupation to be illegal and the settlement building to be illegal. That was a U-turn on the long-held U.S. policy, a sudden U-turn.
The second violation is of President Trump himself, his promise, because since we started the discussion with this administration, and we were saying that it’s important that you return to the long-held U.S. policy about the two-state solution, about the international contours. They would tell us that they don’t want to impose anything on any party. They would tell us that they don’t want to dictate the two sides to decide. So, you promise that, and then you start taking one issue after another. The core of the issues, the mother of all issues: Jerusalem, and later on refugees, because the attack on UNRWA has to do with the issue of refugees rather than – it’s not a financial transaction.
And the third is not to preempt and predetermine a predetermined outcome of negotiations. And if you remember what President Trump said in Davos only last week, that Jerusalem was the most difficult issue, he said [that]. He’s right, Jerusalem was the most difficult issue because for us it’s the sticking point. That’s why it’s the most difficult. For us, no state of Palestine without East Jerusalem [as] its capital. For us, Jerusalem is not just a city, it’s our identity. It’s our compass. It’s our national hub in every sense, in the historic sense, in the religious sense, in the cultural sense. It’s even our hub for services, for medical services, for education. And Jerusalem is not a city we claim, Jerusalem is a city we own. It’s not a claim from above, it’s a claim from below, from the ground, from the root, from the hundreds of thousands, of thousands of Palestinians in Jerusalem, who own every home, every shop, every church, every mosque.
Well, there are four things that President Trump mentioned in Davos. The first is taking off Jerusalem, or taking Jerusalem off the table. Well, we have said this and we say this again today: President Trump has taken the table off of the ground. No Palestinian will sit on that table. No Palestinian will sit on that table. And I want to see any other leader who can look us in the eye and say that they represent the people of Palestine. I want to see any Arab leader who says that they can sit on such a table. We, the Palestinian people, might not be the strongest of nations. But we know our rights and we know the limits of the promise and we know exactly when to say no. And we are the only agents that represent the cause of Palestine. You want to go and search somewhere, somewhere else? Good luck. The key to peace is with the people of Palestine. And with the leadership of Palestine, no matter where else you are going to look, no matter how many plots and conspiracies you are going to employ.
And the second thing that was mentioned by President Trump is that we walked away from negotiations. What negotiations? What negotiations [that] we have walked from? Since we engaged President Trump, we have been saying [that] we’re ready, this is an opportunity. There was never an offer of negotiations, there was never an offer of a timeline of engagement, there was no plan to start with. What negotiations are we walking away from? But this is a movie we have seen many times. It’s boring. The Palestinians walked away from negotiations – We have been on the table for twenty-six years. I don’t think there has been any issue that has been negotiated more than our issue. It even suffers from a symptom of over negotiation. Too much negotiation. We did not, Mr. President, walk away from negotiations. It is the administration that has walked away from the table, because there will not be any […] without the key principles. It’s the administration that took the chair and left the room altogether as a mediator. We are here, we’ve gone nowhere, we did leave nothing.
The third thing that he mentioned is that the Palestinians have been disrespectful. [On the contrary] we have been respectful of four things. The first is our honor – and self-respect, for us, comes first. The Palestinian people first. And we have a vivid nation, very active nation, rooted, diverse, and it is the people of Palestine that we are answerable for, nobody else. The second, we have respected the international consensus by refusing these terms. The third respect we have done is to the U.S. itself, to the U.S. long-held policy, and to the majority of the American people, who, according to all polls, have been against the Jerusalem decision and the Jerusalem announcement. And lastly, that funding will be cut from the, you know, the U.S. funding to the Palestinian authority, the U.S. funding to Palestine. Let me say this: U.S. funding that has been there for so many years, we appreciate everything, every dollar. But that funding was not really a gift, that funding was part of a U.S. vision. That funding was part of a U.S. commitment, that funding was part of a U.S. interest, that funding was part of an international and U.S. obligation. It makes sense, that the U.S. funds its own vision of building two states on the 1967 borders. The U.S. has invested in the infrastructure of peace for all these years. And we appreciate it. But financial pressure doesn’t work, especially when it comes to people like ours. It doesn’t work, it’s been tried before. It didn’t work, and it will not work this time. If it does anything, it adds to our sense of pride and sense of resilience, if you may, against this way. Coercive political agendas cannot be implemented by means of political pressure or weaponizing aid, if you may. Is that a term I can use? It doesn’t work. Weaponizing financial assistance does not work.
And then, after Jerusalem, the U.S. freezes funding from UNRWA. I mean, denying people’s education and healthcare. I was educated at an UNRWA school. And UNRWA has really been able to turn a catastrophic situation into a less catastrophic, only a little less catastrophic situation. Giving people and children like me, at the time, the opportunity, the platform, to be educated and to lead a different future. But, please go back to Netanyahu’s remarks, including very recently, and you’ll find the actual purpose of this vicious attack on UNRWA. Netanyahu said that UNRWA perpetuates the issue of refugees. So, he thinks, i.e. Netanyahu, that by dismantling UNRWA, the issue of refugees will vanish. It’s a fallacy, but it does exist in Netanyahu’s head, that fallacy. I have news to Netanyahu and to the Israeli government: Whether UNRWA exists or not, the rights of millions of Palestinian refugees are not linked to UNRWA. It’s UNRWA that is linked to them achieving their internationally endorsed rights. That’s the first thing. So UNRWA is there to sustain their living until their rights are achieved. And the second, our commitment to UNRWA is firm and the international community’s commitment to UNRWA is firm. And under no circumstances, UNRWA will fail to uphold its own responsibility. I received representatives, senior representatives of UNRWA, in our office only a couple of days ago. And the main statement I received is that their commitment and their mandate will be fulfilled.
Okay, we are here today. So, let’s go back to the original statement by President Trump in his first meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, in February. President Trump said, and I quote, “One state, two states, I am happy with whatever the two sides are happy with.” He said that. And we agree with him, we agree with him, we agree with President Trump. There are only two possible solutions, he’s right. Either partition two states on the 1967 borders – not even based on the 1967 borders – that’s the first option which has been endorsed by the international community and the U.S. successive administrations. Or, a one-state that is egalitarian, democratic, and that gives full, equal rights for all of its citizens, regardless of their color or creed or religion or language. Full, equal rights in the historic land of Palestine. That’s the second option, President Trump is right.
We, now, the people and the leadership, are with the two-state solution on the 1967 borders. We are with it for implementation, not for negotiations. We are with it because we believe it’s possible, knowing that in Israel, it’s a non-starter, the idea of a one state solution. We are still with it. However, we realize that Netanyahu’s government actively seeks to destroy not only the present possibility of a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, but actually, the future discussion of this solution. The Netanyahu government is involved in removing the tracks of the two-state solution. How else would you interpret the ruling party’s, the Likud decision only a few weeks ago to annex the West Bank? How else do we translate the Knesset passing a law not to negotiate Jerusalem unless 80 members vote, which is practically an impossibility. Oslo was passed by only 61 votes, the threshold. How else do we explain that Netanyahu has taken pride only a few months ago, publicly, that he’s the first prime minister in Israel in twenty years to build a new settlement deep in the West bank, so proud of it. How else do you explain what he said only two days ago, two or three days ago, when he went to open a new road deep in the Occupied Territories, deep in the West Bank. What did he say? Netanyahu said: “This settler-only bypass road is part of the system of settler bypass roads that are building throughout Judea and Samaria,” which is the Occupied West Bank. That serves the residents, settlers, of Judea and Samaria and the residents of the state of Israel, i.e. linking the West Bank to Israel via a system of infrastructure and a system of roads.
This is not a government that is rejecting the two-state solution by words, this is a government that is rejecting the two-state solution by deeds, by action, everyday murdering the possibility, burying it deep in the ground. And it is not circumstantial evidence we are talking about. It’s clear, it’s unambiguous. And people forget not just to focus only on the Netanyahu government. People forget that the Israeli prime minister back then, Yitzhak Shamir, came kicking and screaming to the Madrid Peace Conference. They didn’t like it. It was only after President Bush Sr., father, threatened to withhold ten million dollars, that he came, i.e. Shamir, kicking and screaming. And he famously, Shamir famously said back then – by the way, Shamir is Netanyahu’s mentor, this is something that Netanyahu says. “I would have,” Shamir was saying, “I would have conducted negotiations on autonomy for ten years, and in the meantime, would have reached half a million settlers.”
That was [in] 1991. In the West Bank, he was right on the number of settlers. They even exceeded the half a million, much more exceeded half a million. They did better. They stole more land than Shamir expected, they colonized more towns than Shamir expected twenty-six years ago. But he was wrong on the number of years. It wasn’t ten years; they left us and kept us in this process for twenty-six years. But with this same logic, Palestinians walk out of negotiations while they were doing the real job. The real intention. They wanted to establish a process that was lasting process, not lasting peace. They established, created a process that was actually designed to prevent the outcome, designed to prevent the outcome.
As far as we are concerned, the two-state solution and the terms of the two-state solution are clear. And I’d like to repeat this: They are not up for negotiations, they are only up for implementations. And we are ready to sit on an international table, multilateral table, where the world sits there, and this is not the exception, this is the rule. For all other conflicts, it was an international table to implement international resolutions. We were made the exception for twenty-six years. We were told, Kosovo requires multilateralism. East Timor requires multilateralism, internationalism. South Africa requires internationalism. Iran and the Iranian deal requires multilateralism. Except you, only the two sides can resolve the issue. Here you go, here is one side that is clear about their intentions. When President Trump said that we are fine with the two-state solution if the two sides want it, effectively, we want it. We demand it, we endorse it. Effectively, it gives the veto power to the party that is unwilling.
No one can love peace more than the two sides, said who? [I] Think the audience in this room would love peace as much as we do. The whole idea is just to leave the two sides with this asymmetry of power in one room. So, it’s not a process of rights, but a process of […]. It’s not a process of right, but a process of might. We’re done with that. Twenty-six years is a generation, my generation, actually. Enough. Enough, and I say it here in the heart of Washington and in the Palestine center, enough. Our rights are not up for sale. Our principles are set, enshrined in international legitimacy. And in the hearts of the millions of our people, and who are not any other people. I mean, let’s remember, this is a very proud nation, very rooted. Everything started there. Don’t blame us for that. We exported to you almost all profits, the oldest human community is in Jericho.
Okay, so if this is the situation for the two-state solution, the first is that the current Israeli government, all the way back to Shamir – by the way, not to just blame the right wing in Israel because the right wing in Israel is very clear. The Likud, and now all the parties to the right of the Likud like Yisrael Beiteinu and all these parties, they are very clear. They say, “What is yours, [is] what is mine”, they say. What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine. They say [it] clearly, by the way. The center-left in Israel since we started the Madrid peace process all the way [back] to Oslo, to the road map started from, “What is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable. We will sit and negotiate what is yours.” So, this, all of Israel, never talked [about] the 1967 formula as a formula for implementation but as a starting point for grabbing more. Unacceptable. Unacceptable for a nation that has been able to concede 78 percent of what is its own land for the sake of peace. It’s unacceptable to consider further compromises. And it will not happen. The 1967 formula is not just a Palestinian peace agenda, it has now a national equilibrium. No one can touch it. But, given that, and given the clarity of the current administration that they are not going to endorse the two-state solution clearly, and in our opinion, this dangerously plays in the hand of the Netanyahu government. Given the situation, President Trump mentioned the one-state.
This is interesting, really interesting, and important. I wish the U.S. had mentioned this before our 1988 declaration, because that was our position by the way, before 1988 – before we accepted international legitimacy, our platform was one democratic state. Remember the PLO. Fine, they mention it now, one state for all of its citizens with full equal rights. Palestinians accepted the two-state solution as a concession, as we said, because the international community was oriented around that idea. So, if this administration has ideas for a one-state solution, we are interested [in] hearing what they have. We are. In the end, we want full rights like anyone else. And we are impartial about how we get there. It’s not just about the journey, it’s about the destination. However, if one-state solution […] is a disguised apartheid, or an apartheid in disguise, in one form or another, it will be rejected. And we must save our efforts and not repeat history again. This has been tried elsewhere, it has been tried before and it came to a crashing defeat.
Needless I say, Mandela in South Africa, needless I say, Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. It’s very simple, very simple language. Either we have equal rights, or none of us have. Rights are not subdivided. You cannot subdivide rights, or [make them] selective. That’s called apartheid. And we are fully human, fully human. Right? Not three-fifth human, we are fully human. And today, by the way, marks the first day of the Black History Month in the U.S., let us remember. So please, when you hear someone arguing like Netanyahu, “We will give the Palestinians a state minus,” nothing will be minus about us. Either full sovereignty on the entire land that Israel occupied in 1967 or full, equal rights in the historic land of Palestine for every citizen. We will not accept a system that is there to privilege one group over another. We’ve lived that and experienced that long enough.
You know, I know there will be [an] interesting discussion and I’m not going to go on, but let me try to conclude by saying this: The Israeli government is absolutely delusional if it thinks that the transactional approach to the international community, to the issue of negotiations, to the situation in the Arab world, is going to take it anywhere – delusional. And they are also delusional about where the moral arc of history is bending. Either they don’t want to see, or they are just blocking what is happening, actually. Prime Minister Netanyahu can speak at the Congress, but do you think he can go speak at a university in California, or Wisconsin? No. Because the arc of history always bends toward justice.
Let me be clear, by way of ending here. Let me be clear, that we don’t want to end an injustice by creating another injustice. We don’t. We have tasted the bitter taste of injustice. We don’t wish to inflict injustice on anyone. We want a bright future for the Israeli kids as much as we want it for our own kids. For better or worse, our fates are intertwined and interconnected. Our futures are, we know that. As is the fate of all our world that is smaller and more interdependent every day, and getting smaller, Israel isn’t safer or more prosperous when it is inflicting indescribable pain and horror on millions of people under its control. It isn’t safe. That is a recipe for continued pain and suffering for both of our peoples, that has gone on for a long time. This irresponsible ‘living by the sword’ mentality, mindset, strategy will get us nowhere. It will not secure our future and will only destroy the basis of coexistence. We hope that the Israeli, the Israelis will listen to their better angels, rather than the current politicians. And I know they will ultimately, we definitely know they will ultimately.
We are all the sons and daughters of Abraham, we are. And the battle is not between those siblings but between those who want to split this family, and those who want to bring it together in peace and harmony. And I believe now, by numbers, and by the solidarity of the international community, and by the structure of change that is happening in America. More American people are to the side of the truth. We see it in the campuses. We see it in the polls. We see it in the Jewish community and in the youth of the Jewish community. We see it everywhere we go, that the tide is going toward supporting the just cause of Palestine. Therefore, I believe that the ultimate goal of reaching peace and harmony in the land of Palestine will be achieved. Thank you very much.
.
