What Abu Mazen said about Arafat and about the "Roadmap"

[Text of speech outgoing Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas delivered at a closed Palestinian Legislative Council session in Ramallah on 6 September 2003] - [FBIS Translated Text]

Ramallah Al-Ayyam Arabic 07 Sep 03 - Reasons for PA Government's Resignation as Presented By Mahmud Abbas to LC - GMP20030907000064 Jerusalem Al-Quds Arabic 07 Sep 03

God's peace and blessings be upon you. I did not ask for a secret session. I asked for a session that is closed to the media because I wanted to place before you in the Palestinian Legislative Council [PLC] issues I do not want to be open to the media although I am sure they will reach the news media in all detail. This is the case although we hear official and non-official spokesmen every hour making statements without having their names mentioned. They even demand that their names are withheld.

At the outset I would like to apologize to the PLC for the insult directed to it due to my visit. This led to the shattering of some window panes. It also led to attacks on some government members and riots by some. I apologize to the PLC because this happened because of my visit to the PLC.

It is very regrettable that those who carried out these acts were instigated and pushed to attack us in our capacity as the government of Abu-Mazin and as ordinary citizens. Regrettably, too, they raised slogans branding us with treason and claiming that we are agents and linked to the foreigner. This is in addition to other slogans expressed in posters or chants like Where are the prisoners? Why is work on the wall continuing? Why is settlement activity continuing? Why and why as if a government no more than 100 days old had brought all these disasters to the Palestinian people. They were instigated to do so. Many asked Where are the refugees? Where is the return home? All these slogans were unjust, false, and hostile.

In addition to all this, these demonstrations only condoned the shedding of blood. Luckily, we asked the police not to interfere because had they interfered, only God would have known the consequences. I wished the PLC had considered us ordinary guests and provided us with some protection.

Many talk about the loss of the Palestinian constants. Has this government wasted the Palestinian constants? Has it wasted the state, the right of return, Jerusalem, and settlements? Has it ceded all rights and principles? All these are delusions in the minds of those making such accusations.

There is also an issue we seek to get finished with. It is the claim that we came upon an American-Israeli desire and will. Some PLC members also said this. All forgot or pretended to forget that I was unanimously selected by the PLO Executive Committee, the Fatah Central Committee, and the PLO Central Council, and by 51 votes in your esteemed Council. Who is American then? And who are the Americans who brought us to this government? It was also said that this government cannot resign because it is linked to the Americans. The least that can be said about this is that it is shameful.

I presented a report on the accomplishments of this government to you and asked the brother ministers to present their accomplishments, too. There was no time to present all the government accomplishments. We accomplished something despite all obstacles, difficulties, slander, and insults. I believe they were modest accomplishments. I will not say big but modest accomplishments, and this is what we could do.

It is also reported in the media that we want everything or nothing. This is baseless. We do not want anything outside the framework of what you and the political leadership authorized us to do and nothing more.

Some see in this government a hook on which to hang whatever they want. We will not be a hook for anyone and will not allow anyone to hang on us his sins or ambitions. We will not be a hook for anyone.

My relationship with brother Abu-Ammar [Yasir Arafat] is historical. This is not the first time we differ. I hope it is the last time. But I do not hate him and he does not hate me. I do not really know if he hates me, but I do not hate him. We lived 40 years eating, drinking, struggling, enduring, and living together. We are human beings. We are not a carbon copy of each other and will not be so. He has his own opinion, positions, and decisions which I respect, but I am not a carbon copy of him. Accordingly, I perfectly know the limits of my relationship with him. But it is absolutely not a personal relationship. If we differ we do not differ over a personal matter, and if we agree we do not agree on a personal matter.

I am not an advocate of division or dissension. I am one of those who fought all manifestations of dissension and continue to do so. I am the only one who is still fighting the dissension of 1982. I am part of the legitimacy. I am one of the ones who established this legitimacy. I cannot deviate, split, or stand against the legitimacy represented by Yasir Arafat. All I do if we differ is walk out alone. Please know this if you do not know it.

As for the PLC, it is the master of itself and its decision and position. Eighteen persons called for withholding confidence in the government and this is the PLC's business. I respect and take pride in this institution.

Much has been deliberately said, and not rumored, that I have hijacked the Palestinian negotiations and dealt with them unilaterally. This is totally false. The body that has been responsible for negotiations right from the beginning is the PLO. It is the one which is negotiating, deciding, and concluding all agreements on all levels. None in the cabinet, the PA, or any other side can sign or engage in negotiations on behalf of the PLO. This is its work and affair. This is what we have been defending since the Oslo accords.

When I went to sign the agreement I did so because our foreign minister and head of the Political Department [Faruq Qaddumi] refused to go and refused to accept or recognize the Oslo accords. He was supposed to sign because he is the head of the Political Department and foreign minister. But he rejected all the accords and stayed away because they were not in harmony with his ideas. I do not want to say more than this.

When we formed the government, I entrusted the negotiations department to brother Sa'ib Urayqat. He succeeded me as head of the negotiations department, a post I held in my capacity as secretary of the PLO Executive Committee. He assumed this task and became an observer member in the PLO Executive Committee. We did so to separate between the negotiations and the PA because the PA does not negotiate. There might be PA members in the negotiations, but there is a high committee responsible for all the negotiations. There is also an Executive Committee whose members can decide things.

All that takes place in the negotiations is ordered by Yasir Arafat. No going or coming, no letters or words, and no issue can be raised or agreed upon unless he approves it. Hence, the negotiations are not our business or the business of the government. It is the business of the PLO, which charts the policy, and the negotiations committee, which implements this policy.

Some say we exclude the PLO and seek to destroy it. This is silly talk as proven by the fact that the PLO Executive Committee meets with a quorum or more in attendance here in the homeland. The Central Council also meets with a quorum here in the homeland. The National Council also met in 1996 and more than two thirds attended the session also here in the homeland. Accordingly, the PLO is here in the homeland and it does not matter if one or two persons are absent. This does not undermine the legitimacy of the PLO. The PLO is present here as proven by the fact that since entry the PA has been regularly and sometimes irregularly meeting in the homeland. The PLO is present and it is shouldering its responsibilities. When Abu-Ammar decided to form a new government and appoint a prime minister, he summoned the Central Council. The Central Council members came here and gave their opinion away from the pressure and will of the Americans.

There is a problem we have been facing since entry into the homeland. Who represents us? Is it Nabil Sha'th, minister of planning (and international planning) at that time, or brother Abu-al-Lutf (Faruq Qaddumi), the foreign minister? The issue was settled once in 1996 when it was said that the Palestinian delegation would be led by Abu-Ammar; the presidency delegation by Abu-al-Lutf, Abu-Mazin, Yasir Abd-Rabbuh, Sulayman al-Najjab, and others; and the foreign ministry delegation by Nabil Sha'th. But afterward things remained loose and embarrassing. Abu-Ammar was most embarrassed because he received complaints from all people. They told him We have at the official table of negotiations two foreign ministers. We have two badges, two seats, and two cars. Two suites are thus needed because we have more than one head of delegation. Moreover, we have two contradictory political speeches. Who represents the PLO? Who speaks in your name? Who expresses your policy? Abu-Ammar always complained and said "This is a scandal, this is a scandal. How can we deal with this matter?" Finally, we concluded that it can be dealt with in the right place. It was the Executive Committee, which made the decision and the one to do what is appropriate because this matter indicates duality in speech, position, and seat, and this should not continue.

Abu-Ammar called the Executive Committee into a session a year or more ago and briefed it on this issue. The following proposals were made Either brother Abu-al-Lutf becomes a foreign minister and Nabil Sha'th minister of state, or brother Abu-al-Lutf a foreign minister [title as received] and Nabil Sha'th a foreign minister, or powers will be distributed. After a lengthy discussion it was agreed that the distribution of powers is the best solution. Accordingly, the members began to discuss the powers. It was said Brother Nabil Sha'th will represent us in matters related to the Arab League and its institutions as well as Europe. Brother Abu-al-Lutf will represent us in the Islamic Conference, the Nonaligned Conference, the United Nations, and the African Summit. This means the tasks have been divided between the two. A letter to this effect was written in order to be communicated to brother Abu-al-Lutf so that this issue, which Abu-Ammar always described as shameful and scandalous, could be solved. All members who attended the sessions -- and they are still alive -- told brother Yasir Abd-Rabbuh Yasir, go and give this letter to Abu-al-Lutf. I do not know if brother Yasir went and delivered it.

When the government was formed, some asked What is Nabil Sha'th's job? The following post was assigned to him Minister of foreign affairs. Brother Nabil went to brother Abu-Ammar, who said "This is wrong. It should be foreign minister without affairs." Nabil returned to me and said "Abu-Ammar wants me to be a foreign minister." I told him "Why not? A foreign minister or minister of foreign affairs makes no difference." During the Central Committee, they said "No, minister of foreign affairs." Abu-Ammar then said "Minister of foreign affairs." I said "No objection." I am responsible for every word I say and you can hold me responsible for it even after 10 years. The post was listed in the cabinet list as minister of foreign affairs. I then went to see brother Abu-Ammar. I asked him "Have you told Abu-al-Lutf about this?" He said "Yes." I repeated the question "Have you told Abu-al-Lutf about the letter?" He said "Yes." I told him "I will then inform the Arab League that brother Nabil Sha'th is the one who will represent us."

I sent a message in this regard. This caused a huge clamor in Tunis and elsewhere. They asked "Why is this?" We said this is done in accordance with a decision by the PLO Executive Committee, and Abu-Ammar told me that he conveyed the message to those whom it concerned. Now it is our duty to implement it. I met with Amr Musa, who told me "I am confused about who represents you." I told him the whole story and said "This is so unless you receive something in writing from Abu-Ammar contrary to this because he is the head of the authority and his decision is what is enforced." This problem continues to exist because it is not known who runs the affairs of the Foreign Ministry. The only victims are our diplomatic missions, ambassadors, and embassies abroad because we cannot do anything. Our brother Abu-al-Lutf is doing nothing. Our brother Abu-Ammar, who is responsible for the embassies, is doing nothing. Nabil Sha'th is doing nothing. We have 89 embassies in the world while Jordan has only 45 embassies.

Brother Abu-al-Lutf has recently announced that he formed his delegation from some members. These include Nabil Sha'th, minister of state for foreign affairs. This is one of the issues that concern the entire question of Palestinian diplomacy. It has not been resolved. This is exactly what happened.

We tried to adopt some financial decisions. Some of them were implemented and others were not. Some passed somehow easily and others after much obstruction. We said the retirement law or decision should be applied. This raised a hue and cry. Questions were asked "Has the stage of national liberation ended? America wants to get rid of the PLO!" There are retirement laws in all countries. The decision might be incomplete or might needed amendment, but it did not necessitate slander. They said "The United States has dictated that we should get rid of strugglers!" All countries have retirement systems. How long will the grandfather and his son and grandson continue to be employed in the ministry at the same time while we have 18,000 graduates? Nevertheless, everything remains unchanged because we cannot be traitors and get rid of strugglers.

This issue was presented to the PLO Executive Committee and I do not know what the Executive Committee has to do with it. But it is the higher leadership. It said "This decision should be stopped." By the way, not only the Executive Committee said this. There is the so-called unified Palestinian leadership. Frankly speaking, I do not object to the formula but to implementation. This is not a unified Palestinian leadership. I do not want to mention the names of those who attend and who they represent and those who sit at the table to decide the fate of the Palestinian people.

We had earlier issued a decision on the deductions made from the civil servants' salaries, which went up to 15 percent. I personally do not know where these deductions go. This is not the important point. What is important is that these deductions harmed the 150,000 employees. We had the resources to cancel these deductions, but some protested and said "You are striking at the intifadah." I wonder what the intifadah has to do with the deductions. Why do we always look for "a national reason" to undermine any measure or decision? Nevertheless, the decision passed.

There is also the issue of monopolies -- petroleum, companies, cigarettes, and others. Why are these monopolies there and in whose interest? I think that the people were greatly pleased when these were canceled, especially in the sector of petroleum, which was cheated upon an official decision. The result, as I told you in my report, was a vast difference in revenues between May and July, that is, between the last month in which the Petroleum Commission was in charge and the first month the Finance Ministry assumed responsibility for it. The difference was $6 million per month. This means $72 million were stolen annually.

The civil servants get their salaries from the banks. The Finance Ministry suggested that all civil and military servicemen receive their salaries from the banks. They launched a fierce campaign against us "How can we reveal the names of our security men to banks?" In fact, the names of all security men were handed over to the Israeli side upon an official order. Brother Sa'ib Urayqat handed them the names. When we entered the homeland, everyone who entered, whether civilian or military, had to be identified. The rifle and the bullets that entered were registered. The Israelis and Americans have all this information. Now when we call for cashing salaries in Banks, they say "This is prohibited because it is not a national action." The Interior Ministry, including the security services and Preventive Security, in addition to the intelligence department, agreed to disburse the salaries of their employees at banks. All other security services continued to get their salaries in pouches. Why?

All we wanted was to organize this issue so that the citizen will respectfully receive his salary from the bank. He will then have a bank account and a checkbook so that when he wants to deal with the bank and get a loan or other services he will be able to do so. Why in pouches? Someone told me "The US Navy receives the salaries in pouches." Regrettably, this is a silly excuse and a cover for theft. This issue has not been resolved yet. Why? The result was that those benefiting from maintaining this system staged two demonstrations against the Finance Ministry. The Ministry was vandalized and its property in Gaza was stolen. I do not want to say where these came from and who pushed and instigated them and why this measure was taken. If they do not like a decision, armed men will then go to prevent it by force. Salam Fayyad was very sad when they attacked him because they used two words to describe him. Salam said "If they said anything other than these two words I would not mind. They should not have said I am a spy and traitor. I would have accepted anything else they said because I am not a spy, traitor, or agent."

I do not want to explain to you the basic law. You drafted this law and I fully abide by it in letter and spirit. If there are differences I want the Council to resolve them. I repeatedly told you that I want you to tell me where we stand and what is for us and what is against us. What are our powers? We want to know.

Every day I get a decision from Abu-Ammar. The embassies are not our responsibility. What is the job of the foreign minister then? We do not know. The governors' work is not our responsibility. What does the Interior Ministry then do? The airport is not our responsibility. Who is responsible for it then? It is the PLO's responsibility. The port is the PLO's responsibility. PECDAR (the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction) is the PLO's Responsibility. The Civil Servants Commission is the PLO's responsibility. This means no minister has power over any employee who comes and leaves or any employee who is appointed or promoted. He receives all this from the presidency. I am unaware of the existence of any cabinet or ministers in the world who are not responsible for their employees. I know that the powers of a minister could be lower than those of under secretary or assistant under secretary, who cannot appoint or change things except through a decision. But how and why should a director with a B or C rank be appointed in his ministry from outside?

During the recent cabinet session, a decision was made to appoint Sakhr Busaysu as head of the Civil Servants Commission to replace Abu-Shari'ah. That was a decision regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Why should the battalions of Abu-Shari'ah come to occupy, ban, and strike? Why should Abu-Shari'ah be ordered to stay in the Commission by force? How can this happen? I suppose the decision was incorrect, but that was not the way things should be dealt with. When we adopted the decision I sent a delegation to the president. It was made up of Yasir Abd-Rabbuh, Azzam al-Ahmad, and Nabil Amr. I also sent him the message "Brother President, we adopted decisions, first on the Civil Servants Commission, and second on the appointment of minister of state Abd-al-Fattah Hamayil as minister of youth and sports. We request your blessings." He wrote to us This is not your job; this is the job of the PLO and upon a decision from the president. There was incitement against Hamayil and he was prevented from doing his work. Naturally, he was not authorized to enter the ministry before getting the PLC confidence, or so I understand things.

I understand television to be for the government and state. I also understand that I am the prime minister and that our media should be the first among other media to cover our news, conferences, and meetings. When I met with Colin Powell, the Palestinian television obtained an exclusive right to relay the news conference. All world news agencies and television stations carried it except our television.

The speech I delivered at the PLC was directly aired by three or more television stations but not our television. These stations carried it live. I asked the information minister -- and I rarely follow up the news media. He said there are instructions "from me" (meaning the president) to broadcast cartoon movies during the speech.

Many say I want to place the security services at my disposal and command and want to free them from brother Abu-Ammar's grip. This is false and it has never happened. I do not want the security services to be at my disposal and this is a long story. The basic law says the internal security services are headed by the prime minister or interior minister. I think this is clear.

The road map says All security services are at the disposal of the prime minister. I did not even ask for the unification of the services. When I was asked I said all the efforts of the security services should be unified and did not say all the security services should be unified. Thus, all we called for was coordination between the security services. When the Americans spoke about the unity of the services, we told them we do not want that.

Here I would like to say that I am not the one who approved the road map. It was also not my government which approved the road map. It was approved on 20 December last year. Brother Sa'ib Urayqat was the first to speak on behalf of the PA and the former government and announce acceptance of the road map as it is. The road map calls for the unification of the security services. We surmounted this obstacle. It called for striking and uprooting the organizations. We surmounted this obstacle, too, because we do not want trouble. We do not want to start a civil war and we cannot unify the services because brother Abu-Ammar places three quarters of the security services at his disposal. He refuses any kind of coordination between them and the rest of the services.

The Palestinian leadership then met. We felt there was unprecedented incitement. The incitement then moved to the Central Committee meeting. There I heard all sorts of accusations. The simplest were "How can the government agree that brother Abu-Ammar remains besieged?" We were then only two months in the government while Abu-Ammar was besieged for two years. We have talked about this issue in all international forums at all places and with all leaders. I do not know if those who are making these demands have other methods in mind. I felt at that time that the side to which I belonged and which gave me authorization was the one inciting others against me. That side also talked about the negotiations and criticized the unilateral handling of them. It accused us of having no strategy and said there were thievish ministers.

In reply to this I wrote four messages. The first stated for the thousandth time that the negotiations are not within my jurisdiction or part of my job and responsibility, but the responsibility of the PLO. I am only a member of the negotiations committee in my capacity as secretary of the Executive Committee.

The second message demanded proof to substantiate the accusations the Central Committee or some of its members leveled at the ministers. I said once proof is presented I will immediately refer those accused to the prosecutor general. I had earlier told you to write to me about any corruption you hear about and I would immediately refer it to the prosecutor general. I will not go back on this.

The third message The Executive Committee said "We want to draw up a strategy for you and you have to implement it." I said "Draw up any political or non-political strategy you want and I will be ready. I will implement it if I can. If I cannot implement it, let another person do so." This is a decision from the leadership. Anyone who can carry out this mission should come forward and do so.

The fourth message I resign from the Central Committee because this committee, which gave me authorization, is the one which is stabbing me and inciting others against me. I do not accuse all the Committee members.

Goodhearted men who care for public welfare, unity, and amity tried to contain these differences. Four points were reviewed. The first said the negotiations committee will be made up of nine members -- and this is a decision by Abu-Ammar. I have no objection if Abu-Ammar wants to reduce or increase the number. I have never objected to or voted against the participation of anyone in committees decided by brother Abu-Ammar. Akram Haniyah wrote the list. Abu-Ammar approved it and showed it to brother Abu-Ala [PLC Speaker Ahmad Quray], brother Ghassan al-Shak'ah, and brother Sa'ib Urayqat.

The second point is that the security council or committee is made up of Abu-Ammar, Abu-Mazin, Muhammad Dahlan, Amin al-Hindi, Al-Haj Isma'il, and Al-Majayidah. I have no objection to the names or formation.

The third point When differences on the application of the basic law emerge, this committee will be in charge of resolving them.

The fourth point The story of the Fatah Central Committee and my resignation from it and my insistence on this resignation. I do not know why the problem of negotiations is always raised.

Never in my life have I objected to the negotiations committee because this is not my business. It is the business of Abu-Ammar and the PLO. Consequently, it is in my interest to have this separation between the negotiations committee and the government, whose duties are confined to administering the people's daily life without engaging in politics or negotiations. But we welcome any qualified or capable person whether in the cabinet or elsewhere to be a member of the negotiations committee because we need qualified people in this committee.

You have often objected to brother Abu-Ala's participation in the negotiations.

I believe that the negotiations require the presence of Abu-Ala. You and others object. This is your right, but this is how Abu-Ammar and I view the negotiations committee. Regarding security, I have not objected to any name regardless of who the person is. I have no objection to five or six [names]. The issue of the four-member committee poses no problem.

Regarding the Central Committee, I do not want to return to it and this is a personal decision. I do not attack anyone, look down upon anyone, or do injustice to anyone. I came to the government upon an authorization from the Central Committee. If the Central Committee decides to withdraw its authorization the government will fall. This is true and just. For example, the Committee says "As long as you are boycotting the Committee and as long as you do not want it, the Committee will cease supporting you and your government." This is their right. I heard this from brother Sakhr Habash. I respect his opinion. He disagrees with me on many issues, but I respect his opinion. He does not necessarily have to agree with me on everything.

Days passed and the negotiations committee was formed, but not in the manner it was proposed. I did not object to its formation. As for the security committee, it did not at all convene. I sent messages to the four-member committee but it has not responded thus far.

We concluded a truce to protect ourselves from a civil war because the alternative was a PA strike, and I do not want to strike. We concluded a truce with all organizations for the first time in the history of the Palestinian people. We said "This is a truce and we want to implement it." It was actually implemented. But the one who violated it was Israel as it did in Nabulus and elsewhere. I maintained ties with HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and other organizations, particularly in Gaza, because I did not consider the government relationship with the organizations a truce relationship, but a relationship with all the social, political, and other sectors of the Palestinian community. We want all within the framework of this society, be they Islamists, atheists, nationalists, or others. This is how God has created our society. Accordingly, we must search for a formula that brings these people together. Hence, when the meetings continued they were not held for the sake of the truce. We said "Let us brothers think how we can live in one society with diverse religions, ideas, and trends." We actually began to hear and be heard. HAMAS and Jihad responded and said we had to find a way. That was and still is the best method for us and for anyone who comes to rule or to be in the government. This is the safest way to protect our unity and people against internal fighting.

This resulted in the truce, which the Israelis and Americans rejected, but was imposed on them. They were told there was no other solution although the road map, which we approved, said the so-called terrorist organizations should be pounded and uprooted. Therefore, we got over or tried to get over the tragedy in which we would have put ourselves if we had listened to them.

I was meeting in Gaza with the Jihad movement. We began talk. Brother Ziyad Abu-Amr was with me. We talked about social issues. They had social issues about which we had to talk in continuation of the previous sessions. We were discussing things for over half an hour when the surprise came. It was the big operation in Jerusalem.

Things became chaotic. I invited the cabinet for a meeting in Gaza. The cabinet listened to the recent developments and we agreed on three points.

1. The government should enjoy the support of the political leadership -- and in the opinion of Mahir al-Masri it is not a puppet or a settlement outpost. Are we a government or an opposition? If it is a government stemming from these institutions, then let the leadership give it a political cover.

2. A formula of cooperation among the security services should be found so that these can take action if anything happens. It is illogical that the security services do not agree on anything. I summoned the security services and asked them to be on alert so that we can guard against developments. They said "We cannot do this."

3. The authority should take measures on the ground to assert itself.

These three points are only recommendations for the Palestinian leadership, which meets in Ramallah. Whoever goes there can inform the leadership of these recommendations or convey them to it. A meeting was held and I sat with a number of brothers. A lengthy discussion took place and we agreed that we want to give the government a political cover. The leadership issued a statement, but it was like the many other statements which sometimes meant nothing.

The issue was followed up. Usamah al-Baz came and talked to us. He said "Something must be done regarding the security services because you have many commitments to fulfill." But nothing happened. Now how can we deal with the issue of security? The Central Committee met and two proposals were presented. The first was by Nabil Sha'th. He suggested that brother Abu-Ammar appoint brother Nasr Yusuf as his deputy for national security affairs and he can then coordinate with the other services. I think the proposal was not accepted or approved. The second proposal was to appoint Nasr Yusuf as minister of interior in charge of national security. He was told "Go to Abu-Mazin and inform him." Brother Minister Nabil Sha'th came to me with these two proposals. I answered him with one sentence "Both are good, both are acceptable." He asked me "Without discussion?" I said "Without discussion. If this is what they agree on then it is good." Brother Nabil Sha'th called me 15 minutes later to say Abu-Ammar rejected the proposal and told him "I do not want preconditions from Abu-Mazin." I asked myself Am I placing conditions? I only said both are acceptable. The result was that the decision was discussed at the Executive Committee and the Central Committee. The proposal was then changed so that Nasr Yusuf would be appointed only a minister of interior without national security. I did not attend these meetings or sessions. I was told that no agreement was reached.

Things began to move. Four brothers wrote six proposals to solve the problems. They are Akram Haniyah, Nabil Amr, Ahmad Abd-al-Rahman, and Hakam Bal'awi. The six points are

1. A negotiations committee. I asked if that was a problem or a contentious issue on any day.

2. A mini security council. We also agreed that this is not my problem or issue. This matter was not my responsibility.

3. Appointing an interior minister.

4. Administrative issues, which should not be tackled except through consultations between the president and the prime minister. These are issues related to the basic law.

5. Monthly joint meetings between the Palestinian leadership and the government as necessary.

6. My attendance of the Central Committee meetings and a reconciliation between me and Hani al-Hasan because this is a problem that should be solved.

These were, of course, discussed. Each spoke about them but there were no results.

The real problem, brothers, is that we are met with an Israeli rejection of any of the demands we make. I explained these demands to you. We also managed to convince the Americans of these demands. John Wolf talked about these demands, which are simple. We wished they had released a number of convicted prisoners, stopped the construction of the wall on our land, and lifted the roadblocks. They did not offer anything. They always said "We want Abu-Mazin's government [to do this or that thing]." I am not an employee working for them or others. If you want this government, then help it. This shows that they do not want the government.

The Americans speak day and night about backing and extending support to Abu-Mazin. We do not allow or accept [this talk] if there is no help.

Apparently, brothers, my method of work is unacceptable and my style and plan are unacceptable to any perhaps because this is how I am, unacceptable. Israel says this is good and strikes at us. HAMAS says this man is honest with us and strikes at us. The Palestinian leadership sends us sticks to pound the doors of the Palestinian legitimacy. I do not ask for anything and do not want anything. The one who says either everything or nothing is lying. I have never said this. I have always ridiculed the one who said either everything or nothing. In fact, the one who says this knows nothing.

Regrettably, the Arab and Palestinian satellite channels have contributed to the misguidance. I saw several episodes [not further identified] which exploited us and were full of poison against us and against ourselves. Everyone who appears on these stations says I announce from my position. He takes positions and issues decisions. They cover hours of commercials and we spread the dirtiest of clothes through their stations. There is no doubt that these satellite channels have harmed our conscience and our cause.

Finally, I would like to tell you this story. One day the siege imposed on President Abu-Ammar intensified and the hammer began to knock on the door. Hani al-Hasan asked me to talk to someone. I spoke to Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eli'ezer. I told him What is going on? I want to go and see him (Abu-Ammar). He said "I will answer you." The brothers in the government building called me every 30 minutes inquiring about developments. I told them to wait. I then wondered how I could go out of my house. Ben-Eli'ezer was late in his response and I said the best thing to do is to go out and see my brothers, who live together, for consultation before going to Abu-Ammar. I went to the building in which the brothers were living. I found about 10 members from the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council, and other brothers. I told them Brothers, I am required to go and see Abu-Ammar. Advise me on what to say so that you would not say I went and returned alone. What do you want me to say?

I began to hear proposals. After some discussion, specific proposals were made. I was not allowed to go to Abu-Ammar. Therefore, I sent them to him by fax. I told him The brothers suggest the following, one, two, three, and we await your response. In case I am not allowed to see you we will await your answer by fax. The response from the government building came in the form of the slogan "the building of disgrace." It was made by brother Hani al-Hasan personally, who considered what happened at the building a conspiracy to topple Abu-Ammar. Armed men then came and opened fire on Nabil Amr's house, considering him the one who announced these proposals and "one of those plotting to topple the Palestinian regime!" History repeats itself.

I sent the government resignation letter to brother Abu-Ammar today. God's peace and blessing be upon you.

[Description of Source London Quds Press (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic -- Independent news agency headquartered in the UK; devotes special attention to Palestinian events and Arab-Israeli peace process; received via e-mail]