All eyes are on the new Kadima head Tzipi Livni. Do you think she will be able to form a coalition government or do you think Israel will go to early elections?

I think both Kadima and Labor and even Shas would like to avoid early elections despite their protestations because it is clear that there is a distinct shift to the right in the Israeli public and Likud has positioned itself to make maximum use of this shift and therefore is pushing for early elections. However Kadima and Labor understand that they are losing some of their seats currently and their support from the public and therefore need time to reorganize. So they might opt for maintaining a coalition government and avoiding early elections and try to create some system that will not rock the boat but will function for a while. So depending on what each constituent of the coalition wants for its own self interest there might be an agreement. That is, if Shas gets the money or the seat that it wants; if Labor gets again the agenda issues on the negotiations table or its own role in government. Shas of course wants guarantees on Jerusalem and negotiations. So it’s like serving the cake in ways that would serve the interest of each party and ultimately make it self negate and incapable of taking any decisions seriously or taking any decisive step.

After his resignation, Ehud Olmert recently said that Israel should return the West Bank and east Jerusalem to the Palestinians, something he did not offer during his time in office. Why do you think Olmert chose to make such a statement now knowing he could not make any deals?

As in the nature of all epiphanies in political power, people usually declare them when they have nothing to lose, so as usual, it is too little too late. He knows he’s no longer in office. He knows he cannot actively influence decision making but in a sense he can influence public opinion. It seems to me the value of such statements is in making them current, legitimate, and acceptable, and launching a public discourse or debate on issues where some taboos are broken. So despite the fact that it is too little too late, despite the fact that while he was in power he was pandering to the settlers and avoided any kind of confrontation, putting this on the record, at least in the public domain, may have some significance.

Do you think he was hoping Livni, assuming she becomes prime minister, would adopt these statements?

If he didn’t do it, and couldn’t, I don’t know whether he’s hoping that Livni will do it. But in some ways he’s hoping that his legacy would, in a sense, be vindicated. I don’t think he has much love lost for Livni, and he knows that she is going to face a tremendous challenge, even more than he did because added to all the backstabbing within Kadima and the coalition, you also have the added gender factor. So, she has quite a few battles on her hands and I doubt whether she will use this in order to move ahead and take daring, decisive decisions or whether this will serve only to curtail her freedom and to weaken her so that she won’t be able to make any decisions.

In general, how do the Palestinians view Livni, especially given that she has been heading the Israeli negotiations team since Annapolis? How much trust or distrust do the Palestinians have in her?

First of all, she hasn’t been negotiating with all the Palestinians. The only people who know her are probably two or three people in the [Palestinian] negotiating team. So it’s not a question of personal trust at all. It is a question of assessing her political position, her political record, and her public statements. And that’s how the Palestinian public as a whole judges a politician. I don’t believe you negotiate on the basis of trust. You negotiate on the basis of honesty and candor, representing your people and their best interests. So our negotiating team should have focused on that rather than on whether they like or dislike or trust their counterparts; it is irrelevant. For example, sometimes the best agreements are signed between those who do not trust each other because then you leave nothing to chance. Sometimes people who like each other or trust each other avoid certain issues or try to appease each other and so on. So they don’t sign airtight agreements. I think what we need now is not trust. What we need is a candid and courageous assessment of requirements for ending the occupation, of disengaging in a real sense after the ending of the occupation as a result of agreements that are based on international law and justice. That’s what we need. Whoever is capable of delivering that on the Israeli side – fine. But it is not a personal call or judgment.

If Livni does become Israel’s next prime minister, what kind of impact will this have on her negotiations with the Palestinians, if any?

Her public statements, and right now we judge only by her public statements, state that she’s going to proceed with negotiations, according to her declarations of intent, let’s put it that way. She wants to move, and she wants to move rapidly. But also within the public discourse are positions pertaining to the refugees and Jerusalem that are difficult and would formulate obstacles to negotiations. So if not for negotiations for their own sake, I’m sure she would proceed with them. The question is what is her substantive position on negotiations? If you exclude Jerusalem and you negate the refugees, you are not going to get anywhere. Within her coalition she might have to make some sort of compromise with Shas over Jerusalem. She might promise Labor that she will proceed with negotiations and on the other hand she might look the other way like every Israeli leader has before her on settlement activities and their expansion.

Do you connect with Livni because she is, as you are, a female politician working in a male dominated world?

I understand that she has an added burden; I understand that she has more challenges. I may disagree with her politically but as a woman, I know what it means to be a female in an exclusively male club where the attacks can be very vicious, where attempts happen at de-legitimization or exclusion or undermining the standing of a woman… It’s very easy to judge women by more stringent standards. It’s very easy to try to bring women down through cruel means and so on. So that is one area in the political domain that I do understand, and I know what she is facing. But I also know that to succeed you must not adopt the current or prevailing male ethos, or attitude, or politics of power and intimidation. If a woman is to succeed in politics she has to bring her gender with her. Attempting to be a watered down version of the male politician won’t get you anywhere because there are always male politicians who will be even more vicious, more cruel, more power driven, rather than [focusing on] consensus, good governance, justice issues etc. If she is going to make a difference as a woman she is going to have to understand that she cannot fight discrimination against women but allow for discrimination against Palestinians. She cannot fight injustice at home but allow for the occupation to continue. She cannot fight for self-determination for women but negate self-determination for a whole Palestinian nation. She cannot fight for her own terrain as a woman and then rob a whole nation of its territory. So these things have to be part of her. She must be true to her gender.

bitterlemons: President Mahmoud Abbas has called for early elections. Do you support the idea of early elections?

Ashrawi: I support the idea of elections. I think elections are an absolutely necessary instrument of democracy and therefore the only way to settle disputes and allow the public to elect representatives and hold their representatives accountable. Elections are an essential tool for the creation of a responsible system of good governance.

On the issue of early elections, clearly the situation in Palestine is one of tremendous crisis in which we have reached an impasse. Elections are a positive way out rather than resorting to violence. Going back to the public is much more constructive than attempting to resolve things by a show of force and confrontation.

The timing is essential of course, because if you do have elections at a time in which the conditions are extremely volatile or in which you have a lack of consensus, or you have one party, regardless of how big or small, refusing to participate, then that can easily destroy the process itself and its credibility.

So we need a new national consensus or agreement and we need to recognize the necessity to hold elections, but at the same time we must understand that tempers are running high. The atmosphere, not just the objective conditions but the prevailing atmosphere, will also impact the outcome.

bitterlemons: You mention the atmosphere. Is it at all possible to hold early elections with Hamas adamantly opposed?

Ashrawi: It seems to me sooner or later Hamas has to understand that this is one way out. There is no win-win solution here, there is a lose-lose situation. Hamas has to understand that one way to resolve the impasse is by resorting to elections and if it is confident of its public support then it has nothing to fear. But this is one way of resolving the situation.

Of course you cannot have elections with part of the people or on part of the land and you cannot have elections in installments.

bitterlemons: So elections would have to include Gaza and Hamas would have to be on board for that?

Ashrawi: I think you need to have comprehensive elections both in terms of geography and in terms of demography and all the different political components of the Palestinian political reality. The Palestinian political system is pluralistic and we must respect pluralism and allow for genuine engagement.

bitterlemons: But Hamas might argue that elections were recently held, it was legitimately elected and there should be no need for new elections at the moment?

Ashrawi: You cannot have elections once and for all and say, "that's it". Elections do not give you a permanent mandate or an absolute mandate. It is common practice in all democracies that when you reach a situation of deadlock or breakdown then you go back to the electorate and say "I've tried and failed, either give me a new mandate or elect somebody else." This is common sense.

bitterlemons: Do you worry that if Hamas again wins elections we will be returned to square one, or would this resolve issues?

Ashrawi: If Hamas does win elections, both parliamentary and presidential, then that would be a very decisive victory. It would clinch the matter once and for all. Fateh and everybody else would have to recognize that this is the will of the overwhelming majority of Palestinians without any of the previous excuses that Fateh shot itself in the foot, that the numerical vote is in favor of Fateh or they cancelled each other out. All these issues will be resolved and we need clarity.

bitterlemons: There is also a suggestion that there may be early elections in Israel. Could early elections there bring about a positive dynamic in terms of peace efforts, or is there already a positive dynamic and Israeli elections would disrupt this?

Ashrawi: It depends on who gets elected. If you have the more extreme components, if you jump from the Kadima frying pan into the Likud fire, then that would certainly not be conducive to any kind of confidence in a peace initiative or a commitment to a viable negotiations process.

Now there are moves--whether the Arab initiative, American, however flawed, or international--to create a momentum for negotiations. There is a call for an "international meeting". Let's see what can be done to expand this to make it into a conference and get the international community to adopt the Arab initiative, to hold Israel to the requirements of peace in terms of having viable, substantive negotiations that would include permanent status issues. This is what we need to do now. The issue of elections in Israel is domestic, granted, but at the same time it will have an impact on the peace agenda. Not that we think Kadima has a peace agenda, but there is in the international community right now some attempt to create a momentum or a drive for peace.

bitterlemons: So Israeli elections could disrupt this momentum?

Ashrawi: They would have a delaying impact. Whenever you have elections, whether in Israel or in the US, the Palestinians end up paying the price by being put on hold waiting for the result.- Published 6/8/2007 © bitterlemons.org

Hanan Ashrawi is a Palestinian legislator and a member of the Third Way party.

Two days ago the news of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian prisoners to end the hunger-strike broke. The prisoners, most of whom have been without food for a month, won the right to have Gazan family visit them in prison (such visits have been denied for the past seven years) and the release of roughly 20 prisoners from solitary confinement into the general prison population (one prisoner has been in solitary confinement for almost a decade).

The agreement brokered by Egypt, however, does not end the policy of administrative detention. It simply constrains this power by requiring Israel to present concrete evidence to a military court before such a detention can be renewed. That such a basic requirement of procedural due process was achieved only after prisoners decided they would rather die of starvation than submit to Israeli authorities highlights yet again the incredible challenges that Palestinians face in dealing with Israel’s military justice system.

Palestinian prisoner Hanaa Shalabi (R), who spent 43 days on hunger strike, speaks with a visitor in Al-Shefa hospital in Gaza City (Mohammed Abed / AFP / Getty Images)

More than 300 Palestinian prisoners are held under administrative detention, which allows Israeli authorities to detain individuals indefinitely on secret evidence without charge or trial. Two such prisoners, Thaer Halahla (33) and Bilal Diab (27), went without food for 77 days to protest this policy. The agreement reached yesterday committed Israel to not renewing the administrative detention orders for Halahla and Diab when they come to an end in June and August, respectively. Diab will be able to tear up the will that he prepared, anticipating that he would die as a result of his hunger strike, and Halahla will finally be able to hold his daughter Lamar, who was born during his over two-year detention without charge.

By Israel’s own account, administrative detention is a preventative rather than punitive form of detention. In other words, Halahla and Diab, like all administrative detainees in Israeli custody, were not detained for something they allegedly did. Rather, they were denied their freedom and liberty for something that Israel believed they might do in the future. This is the astonishing power of administrative detention.

Administrative detention is not a new practice in Palestine. It was one of many colonial measures used by the British Mandatory Authorities under the 1945 Defence (Emergency) Regulations, which Israel then adopted and maintained shortly after its creation in 1948. Israel claims that it has been in a state of emergency ever since, with the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) annually re-extending the validity of the state of emergency.

There are few issues that command consensus and support within Palestinian society like the issue of prisoners. Every Palestinian has been affected by this issue because nearly every Palestinian has either been in jail or knows someone who has (since Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians have been detained under Israeli military orders, constituting roughly 20 percent of the total Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza).

Diab, Halahla, and the other nearly 1,600 hunger-strikers starved themselves for the sake of freedom and dignity. Using nonviolent resistance, they made the international community, the media and most critically, their Israeli captors, heed their call. They are not the first Palestinians to use such tactics, and, so long as Israel continues to employ draconian policies against Palestinians, they will not be the last.

May is the cruelest month despite the promise of spring. It carries the bitter memories of ongoing loss and injustice for a nation, my nation. Every year, Palestinians mark Al-Nakba, or the Catastrophe, of 1948, to remember how our vibrant society was physically and politically crushed by violence and forced expulsion.

It was not a natural disaster. Indeed, we have no doubt that itwasa detailed plan of systematic destruction carried out with chilling efficiency. It was the biggest assault and threat Palestinian heritage has ever endured and the beginning of a deliberate effort to suppress the Palestinian narrative.

For many Israelis, recognizing what happened back in 1948 is a painful process. The slogan “Your independence is our Nakba”, which is on display in many Palestinian cities is indeed correct. Many Israeli historians have researched and written about this dark era, demonstrating that Palestine was a land with a vibrant society and rich culture. These brave historians ended decades of denial about Palestinian society and suffering.

By 1948, Palestine was one of the most developed Arab societies, boasting one of the healthiest economies under the British mandate and a high school enrolment rate, second only to Lebanon. Commerce, the arts, literature, music, and other cultural aspects of life were thriving in Palestine.

We remember that between 1911 and 1948, Palestine had no less than 161 newspapers, magazines and other regular publications, including the pioneer “Falastin” newspaper, published in Jaffa by Issa al-Issa.

Dozens of bookstores across the country selling hundreds of Palestinian and internationally-authored books could hardly keep up with the demand. Books like “The Arab Woman and the Palestine Problem” by Matiel Moghannam, a feminist leader, and George Antonious’ “The Arab Awakening”, were highly popular in Palestine, England, the US, and beyond.

Palestine had a strong women’s movement as early as the 1920’s. Women excelled in many fields, including education, journalism, and political activism. Women activists were among the first to lobby for Palestinian self-determination at the beginning of the British Mandate.

Palestinian dedication to education is deeply rooted in our culture. By 1914, there were 379 private schools in Palestine, including the country’s first girls’ school, Al Moscobiye, in Beit Jala, founded in 1858 as the first school for girls in Palestine, and the Friends School, founded by the Quakers in 1869, which continues to be among the most advanced education institutions in Palestine.

In the area of arts, music, and drama, Palestinian creativity was boundless, inspiring artists around the region. Composers like Yehya Al-Lababidi collaborated with famous Arab singers of the time, like Farid Al-Atrach. Other singers like the legendary Um Kalthoum and Mohamad Abdel Wahab regularly performed to Palestinian audiences in Haifa, Jaffa, and Jerusalem. Our cinemas, from Gaza to Akka, were showing the latest films of the time.

Al-Nakba represents the abrupt and unnatural disruption of these accomplishments and signaled the beginning of a culture of exile and dispossession. In being forcibly expelled from their homes, Palestinians lost their properties, personal history, and cultural assets.

This included thousands of books. In West Jerusalem alone, 30,000 books were “collected” from Palestinian houses, as well as around 50,000 other books from homes in Jaffa, Haifa, Tiberias and Nazareth. Khalil Sakakini was one of those people who lost his entire library. A number of his books can be found today in the National Library of Israel, marked ‘AP’, meaning “Abandoned Property.”

Al-Nakba is therefore not merely a historical date to be commemorated. It is the collective memory of Palestinians, which shapes their identity as a people. Al-Nakba is not a distant memory but a painful reality that continues to fester, as the rights of refugees continue to be denied and the inalienable rights of our nation remain unfulfilled.

It is time to recognize that Al-Nakba is as real for Palestinians as it should be for Israelis. It is an inescapable story of loss, dispossession and a great historic injustice that targeted the most precious characteristic of any people: its identity.

But Al-Nakba to Palestinians is not about defeat. Stripping the Palestinian people of their national and cultural symbols, as well as stunting the growth of Palestinian cultural life was a merciless crime, no doubt. But our people have persevered, rebuilding, time and again, their heritage of cultural and educational excellence.

There have been many new challenges and setbacks since Al-Nakba, especially the military occupation that began in 1967 and its oppressive policies targeting culture and education. But Palestinians kept marching forward, holding on to the proud memories of excellence and building new ones.

For peace to prevail, for two states to live side by side, for a future of security and prosperity to begin in the region, Israel should not be afraid to recognize Al-Nakba and learn the lessons of its history. Israel must come to recognize its historic accountability in creating Al-Nakba for neither denial nor distortion can serve the cause of peace.

Genuine recognition is a sine qua non for the process of historical redemption. Peace is a phase of healing that must be established on truth, justice, transparency, and equality. There is no other formula. By recognizing our historical narrative and suffering, Israel will be embarking on a true journey for a just and comprehensive peace.

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi is a member of the PLO Executive Committee and head of the PLO’s Department of Culture and Information

It is Easter in Jerusalem. Newspaper pictures show scenes of Christians from all over the world celebrating and commemorating this holy occasion, with processions, special services and prayers. While most come freely with passports and tourist visas, the indigenous Christian population, many of them coming from towns and villages within few kilometers of the Old City, require special permits to visit their holy sites. The majority of these Christians do not receive the necessary permits and so are prevented from participating in the Easter celebrations of Jerusalem.

This year witnessed a particularly heated debate over the question of permits for Palestinian Christians wanting to worship in Jerusalem during Easter. Just days ago, Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., made the grand claim that 20,000 permits had been issued this year and stated, “The army and security services have created a situation where virtually any Christian in the West Bank can visit the Holy Places in Jerusalem on Good Friday and Easter.” The situation as described by Palestinian Christians is quite different.

Israel will continue to vary the numbers of permits issued at every holy occasion at whim, and Palestinians will continue to say what they see: that the vast majority of our people have not been able to reach their holy places in Occupied East Jerusalem. The disagreement over numbers will undoubtedly continue. But with its continuation, what is often overlooked is that this debate fundamentally misses the point. We should not be questioning how many permits Israel, the occupying power, does or does not issue to Christians or Muslims for their religious holidays: we should be questioning the very existence of such permits at all.

Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied what is internationally known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Occupied East Jerusalem. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact according to international law. Repeated UN Security Council Resolutions (including 242, 252 and 476) have called on Israel to withdraw its forces from territories occupied in 1967, and regard any actions taken to change the character and status of Jerusalem as invalid.

These actions include both the physical, and illegal, annexation of the city to the State of Israel and the maintenance of a significant Jewish majority, through such measures as the construction of the illegal Wall, the revocation of residency rights, demolition of houses and denial of building permits for Palestinians Jerusalemites, in flagrant disregard of international law.

The fact of the matter is that Occupied East Jerusalem remains the socio-economic, cultural and spiritual heart of Palestine: there can be no viable, independent State of Palestine without it. It is an illegally occupied area and the capital of the Palestinian State. Therefore, the very idea that any Palestinian should need a permit to visit the city at any time of year, for any reason, is simply absurd.

If we entertain this absurdity, we might as well ask the State of Israel how many permits it issues to its Jewish citizens during the celebration of Passover. The answer? Not a single one. Jews from all over the world do not require permits to visit Jerusalem. And neither should Palestinians, regardless of their religious affiliation.

Nevertheless, the focus of the argument continues to be about numbers of permits. The reason is that as long as Israel persists in its illegal occupation of East Jerusalem and the rest of the Palestinian Territory occupied in 1967, the Palestinians have little choice but to accept the permit system. In the meantime, the international community firmly maintains that Israel must end its occupation and accept that it has no right to obstruct Palestinian access to any part of their occupied homeland.

Unfortunately, to date, no real international action has been taken to prevent this flagrant Israeli violation of Palestinian freedom of worship as well as the deliberate distortion of the cultural and demographic character of this Palestinian city. Israeli policies relating to Occupied East Jerusalem and the imposition of the permit regime are destroying the social fabric of Palestinian life in addition to its historical integrity and economic viability.

Israel attempts to defend its claims of granting freedom of worship in Jerusalem through pictures of foreign Christians, who are incidentally also significant contributors to the Israeli economy, touring the Old City, while Palestinian Christians are slowly being evicted from the core of their spiritual identity.

This weekend, for example, while Israeli security will be setting up barriers to prevent Palestinian Christians from Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine from reaching their prayers in the occupied Old City of Jerusalem, they will be providing facilities for all Jews to reach the Wailing Wall for Pesach prayers. This reflects Israel’s policy of exclusion and control, a policy of turning Occupied East Jerusalem into part of the “eternal and undivided capital of the Jewish people.” In other words, the permit regime is just one aspect of Israel’s strategy to erase the Palestinian Christian and Muslim identity of Occupied East Jerusalem. And the international community, as called on by the 2012 EU Heads of Missions Report on Occupied East Jerusalem, should act, and act soon.

Until this happens, ordinary Christian and Muslim Palestinians who want to worship at their holy sites in Jerusalem will continue to apply for permits. They will continue to endure this denial of their basic human rights to worship freely, and more essentially, to move freely, within their own land. Crossing from Bethlehem or Ramallah to Occupied East Jerusalem is not crossing an international border but a humiliating checkpoint dividing Palestinians from Palestinians within the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

What Palestinians need is not a selective permits regime from the occupying power, that illegally besieges Jerusalem, but the freedom and independence to exercise their right to access East Jerusalem, their capital, throughout the year. In short, we need independence.

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, member of the PLO Executive Committee, head of the PLO Information and Culture Department.

The Feb. 20 editorial "Mr. Abbas's revealing resolution" repeated the same one-sidedness that informed the U.S. administration's recent U.N. Security Council veto of a resolution that called on Israel to cease settlement construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem. To single out Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas merely serves to avoid dealing with the obvious. Sponsored by 130 states and supported by all members of the U.N. Security Council except the United States, the resolution in question gave voice to today's overwhelming international consensus regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements while highlighting the isolation of U.S. policy in support of Israeli intransigence.

It is disingenuous for The Post's editorial board to suggest that Mr. Abbas embarrassed the Obama administration. Rather, U.S. embarrassment stems from a veto that was inconsistent with international law and out of step with the rest of the international community and that contradicted official U.S. policy. The United States has proved itself incapable of being an even-handed broker. The rest of the U.N. Security Council should be commended for taking a principled stand in support of international law and in support of peace.