Considering tat Bush’s speech was translated from Hebrew

 Fudlullah: The speech made the situation more complicated and the solution is the continuity of the Intifada

Asked in his weakly seminar about his reading of the American President’s speech, and its implications on the region, the Religious Authority Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah said:

The first impression , that one comes up with, is that we thought that we were listening to Sharon, for he has adopted all of Sharon’s stances. This was also underlined by the Israelis who commented on the speech, and regarded it as a “historic speech that was made in Israel”.

The American president proposed an agenda for the Palestinians, and demanded that they should realize it before resuming the settlement negotiations. One of the top priorities of this agenda was to elect a new Palestinian leadership that has nothing to do with “terrorism”, which means a new leadership that has nothing to do with the Intifada and one that is composed of those who live the spirit of defeat and surrender.

He also demanded putting an end to the Intifada and initializing security and political reforms. But when he talked about Israeli withdrawal and the freezing of settlements, he used a vague language that looks like as if he were expressing his wishes. He talked warmly about what he called the Israeli pains as a result of the martyr operations, but he did not say, not even, a word about the Palestinian sufferings as a result of the brutal and continuous invasions of Palestinian cities and camps.

We do not want to talk about the Palestinian president in person, for we have a lot of reservations on how he runs the political process,  But according to the American logic, he is a constitutionally elected president, and this is what the American used to recognize. Now if Arafat is accused of terrorism, this means that the whole Palestinian people are accused too, for they are the ones who elected him.

In addition, the Intifada as a means of liberation was also chosen by all the Palestinian people.

Moreover, if they were implying that the election process was not democratic, the same thing could be said about most of America’s Arab allies in the region. In this respect, Bush himself has won the elections through a judicial game and not as a result of the election process itself.

It is ironic that the Palestinian Authority and certain Arab states praised the speech, for if talked about occupation and the “provisional” Palestinian state. But they forgot that he gave Israel all what it wanted, and made the fate of the Palestinians in the hands of the Zionists. He also did not forget to repeat the rule he had laid “Those who are not with us are with terrorism”. He even asked the Arab states to refrain from inciting people by means of the media to support the Intifada. That is why we say that the American president was reciting an English translation of a Hebrew speech.

We say to the Palestinians that the US will not give you except what Israel agrees on. But Israel will never agree on giving the Palestinians the right of self-determination or a meaningful and viable state even on the 1967 borders, especially if Sharon remains, as seems to be the case, in power. That is why the only alternative is to continue the Intifada, no matter how much it costs, for we believe that Israel is in the midst of a political and security impasse that will grow bigger if its aggression widens.

The American president’s speech has made the situation more complicated; especially that he was able to contain the EU, the UN and Russia. Thus, we are facing one of the most difficult stages, especially with this president who is more faithful to Israel than the Israelis themselves.