Angry reactions continue following the article "What now".. which was published in both Al-Quds and Haaertz papers and my statements to the press and to a group of Israelis at the Hebrew University regarding the same issue. I infer from these various reactions that the responsibility for the painful reality is held on the one who expresses it accurately and honestly, as if who the person who describes reality as he sees it is himself guilty for this reality. I believe that few others have abided by the words of God: "Read ..." before taking out their weapons against what I said. In fact, the majority unleashed their weapons on their own illusions and did not really read.

The issue under discussion is in the heart of Palestinian emotion and our struggling people, mainly the refugees in camps, deserve honesty, courage, and faithfulness. They are fed up with lies by those who live in luxury and do not care if Palestinian refugees live an additional period of 50 years of pain. I believe that solving the problem could be done after realizing its nature, as a crucial condition and democratic obligation. Thus, I found myself obliged to clarify some issues while adhering to truth and describing it as it is, away from the well-known Arab rhetoric that does not respect the Arab brain. It is the rhetoric, which has participated and continues to do so in the tragedies of refugees.

1- I never called for giving up the right of return for refugees, but I pointed out that it is impossible to implement this right literally, particularly in light of the current peace process. I said that Israel's position over a settlement based on UN Security Council 242 and which may lead to establishing the Palestinian state, is conditional on the absolute rejection to the return of Palestinian refugees, their children and grandchildren to their original homes inside Israel. This means that if we intend to get ourselves out of the current state of conflict and to achieve progress in the current peace process in order to achieve such a settlement, we should face facts and know the price that we are going to pay and to declare that openly to ourselves and others. Any vagueness or hesitation in this regard will lower the ceiling of what we can obtain from the other party in the negotiation table.

2- My statements do reflect a position that expresses reality itself. If others see the opposite or envision a better reality and their views are realized, I will be the happiest man on earth. Anyways, the future will decide on the issue.

Pointing to reality, expressing it, and getting it out of illusion into reality constitute the responsibility of the reasonable person. Therefore, what could be the position of the leader who is entitled to official responsibility. He is the first person entitled with the responsibility to say the truth to the masses. The strange logic is when they say that the leader who speaks the truth should abandon his post or be dismissed or that those who have opinions can mislead or restrain. As if there is a need to keep issuing more lies and sweet words. Is this the fate of poor refugee in camps and the fate of masses whose blood is being shed while confronting occupation.

3- In fact, I do not have to concede any right in any issue. But I went so far to say at the beginning of the launching of the peace process in Madrid and recently that any achieved settlement by both parties should abide by popular consensus inside and outside the occupied homeland. However, among the requirements of a consensus is to put facts and information before the public and to deal with the facts in the manner needed. It is not logical to see the masses pay the price of tragedies and struggle and then be denied information and be excluded from the decision-making process. The courage of our people in confronting the occupation should be equaled by the courage needed to face facts and options.

4- The Palestinian people, including the child born today in camps, have the right to breathe freedom and live in dignity on their land in their real independent and democratic state; this is as important as the right of return in its literal sense. It is clear that the first could be implemented at the current stage while the other depends on an intangible reality. If Israel has to assume its historical responsibility, and compensating refugees and returning the possible number to their original homes, the Palestinian leadership should bear the responsibility of providing an honorable life and a promising future for the coming generation of refugees in homeland and Diaspora. This promising life does not come through speeches, articles and statements of condemnations. It comes through an immediate and just tackling of the suffering of the refugees. Establishing the free democratic state is a historical responsibility for the Palestinian leadership in order to solve the tragic situation of refugees. It is not logical to see those who fear God to abandon the refugees 50 more years in exchange for a well-articulated speech that does not address the political reality that we live.

If the strategic opinion is different, we should discuss and face it in a courageous and transparent way in order to set another struggle path, for example to demand, as I have said once, the right of existence, return and equality. Whatever the option is, we should face it courageously and let our strategy be clear without any misleading approaches. Discussing the issue should begin in our legislatures, mainly the Palestinian National Council.

5- Finally, I would to talk about al-Quds al-Sharif, Islamic and Christian holy sites. Jerusalem does not belong to its owners only. It is not for some Palestinians. It is for the refugee, expatriate, and the resident. It is not the heart of the Palestinian people and their responsibility only, but it is for the Arab and Islamic nation. Consequently, returning Jerusalem to Arabs and Moslems, liberating it from occupation and making it the capital of the Palestinian state is an important issue. Every Palestinian has the duty to defend these holy sites. Therefore, the firm and clear position regarding Jerusalem in the negotiation table also forms a historical responsibility for the Palestinian leadership. It also forms a negotiation goal for every Palestinian in every place.

6- I mention in my article "what now…" in referring to the nonsense of returning to transitional and partial agreements and to agreements that do not solve core issues. I also called for exercising courage in facing and solving what is termed as the final phase of negotiations. I say once again that Israeli suggested projects like those of Sharon or Peres and others, are in fact projects aiming at postponing these issues so that Israeli will be able to strengthen its position in these issues. Therefore, I say that instead of waiting for political initiatives from Israel or other parties, the Palestinian leadership should formulate its initiative and it should be courageous on the political arena in the same way that its people proved they are in the struggle. Let us propose a comprehensive form of the final solution and let us say to the entire world this is the format. This is not an issue of negotiation, either Israel will accept it or it will adopt the other option: existence, return, and equality.

Published: al-Quds newspaper on November 23, 2001.