'Delaying the inevitable': PLO ambassador says U.S. works against its interests in Mideast

Afif Safieh is head of the PLO mission to the United States. The Israeli daily Haaretz once described Safieh, who speaks three languages fluently, as the "most articulate Palestinian diplomat in Europe and possibly the world." A Catholic born in Jerusalem and educated in Catholic schools, the 56-year-old Safieh earned degrees in political science at universities in Belgium and France. Prior to his posting to the United States in October 2005, he served as PLO representative to the United Nations, the Netherlands, and more recently as Palestinian general delegate to the United Kingdom and the Holy See.

Safieh works on the second floor of an innocuous brick building in downtown Washington. No flag or national emblem marks the entryway to the mission, which is not even listed on the building's directory in the lobby.

NCR interviewed Safieh in his office at the close of 2006.

NCR: You have been a part of the Palestinian national movement since its inception. What is your overview of how the quest for statehood is going?

Safieh: Today I believe there is an international consensus that requires a two-state solution as a way out of this vicious cycle of violence that has plagued the region and the world since 1948 onward. I believe today that the moral dilemma and the political challenge in the Middle East is the following: There is either one people too many--this time we, the Palestinians--or there is a missing state that needs to be created. I believe the verdict of the international community was that there is a missing state that needs to be created, yet the verdict of history is still undecided. I always invite my interlocutors to help history make the right choice.

You say there is an international consensus for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but on the ground there has been no movement toward that solution. Do you despair that Palestinians will remain caught in this contradiction?

It's true there is sort of a liturgy of diplomacy that speaks of a two-state solution yet on the ground there is what I call static diplomacy--a lot of agitation but no real movement. During the last 15 years, we have had, unfortunately, a durable peace process rather than a permanent peace, which was the symptom of its failure. I keep telling my Israeli interlocutors that a territory that was occupied in six days can also be evacuated in six days so that the Israelis can rest on the seventh and we can engage in the fascinating journey of nation-building and economic recovery. It was up to now the political willingness that has been lacking.

I for one am disturbed, and as a diplomat I am angry because recurrent conflagrations are usually a failure of diplomacy and of diplomats. The best definition I have heard for democracy in the Middle East was by an enlightened Zionist leader, Nachum Goldman, who was commenting on Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy in the mid-'70s. Goldman said something which I believe is still relevant and pertinent now in the year 2006. He said, "It seems to me that diplomacy in. the Middle East is the art of delaying the inevitable as long as possible."

It is a painfully accurate definition that remains valid today. My belief has always been that, on the contrary, diplomacy in the Middle East should be the search and the quest for historical shortcuts so we can spare populations, societies the agonies of war and torment and injustices perpetrated. Yet today, I believe there are several factors that give rise to a realistic optimism. I believe decision-makers are starting to realize that allowing the status quo to continue is a recipe for strengthening extremist movements in the region, while giving renewed believability and credibility to the diplomatic avenue is the best way to enhance and improve America's image around the world. Many believe that the unresolved Palestinian problem is what has poisoned international relations and that the perceived American alignment with Israeli preference and American complacency with Israeli territorial appetite are what have put America on a collision course with much of the Arab and Muslim world. Today we Arabs, from Morocco to Muscat, Oman, we have become unreasonably reasonable. We offered the Israelis a historical compromise through the Arab Peace Initiative that stipulates that if Israel withdraws out of its 1967 expansion, we are ready to recognize Israel in its pre-'67 existence.

Is that true for Hamas?

I'm coming to that. This [the Arab Peace Initiative] shows that peace is not only desirable but is also possible. My personal belief is that America is committed to Israel's existence but America is not necessarily committed to Israel's expansion. Today Israel's existence is no more questioned or challenged. It is its expansion that is challenged--the wisdom of keeping the hilltops of the West Bank. But what is America's interest in keeping the hilltops of the West Bank? None. So I believe today we are witnessing an attempt at reassessing American foreign policy in the Middle East. There is a saying here that is frequently invoked--that Israel is the only friend America had in the Middle East before Israel. But America had no enemies in the Middle East before Israel. I think a soul-searching exercise is long overdue. My message has been since I arrived a year ago the following: We are not inviting America to sacrifice a traditional friend Israel. We are offering America an additional one--Palestine.