[Interview with Dr. Musa Abu-Marzuq, chief of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, by Faraj Shalhub in Amman; date not given]

[Excerpts] [Shalhub] After the signing of the Gaza-Jericho accord, the opposition has launched intensive efforts to thwart it. Several formulas of joint action have been proposed by independents and by the 10 Palestinian factions. What happened to these efforts, especially in light of the recent disagreement with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [PFLP] and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine [DFLP]?

[Abu-Marzuq] We have to admit that it is difficult for the opposition in the Palestinian arena to foil the agreement singlehanded. This is because the agreement is the outcome of local, regional, and international factors. The agreement also has to do with certain gains and organizational issues. This has made it difficult to confront the agreement. In addition, certain countries could not stand against this agreement, despite the fact that it harms their private and regional interests. Despite this, these countries could not confront the agreement, let alone foil it. The agreement, however, carries the seeds of its own destruction. When we pit the agreement against the opposition, we can say that by capitalizing on the agreement's inherent weakness, the opposition can foil it if the time factor is well calculated.

As for the opposition's performance, regrettably the opposition forces got together to face the most serious agreement in the life of the Palestinian people after many opposition forces have reached old age. The forces also have in mind maintaining a balance with each other. Add to this the private calculations restricting the activity of some factions. [passage omitted]

[Shalhub] What is the future plan of action then? Do you plan to approach independent figures in a bid to unify efforts, especially since the number of Palestinian figures that criticize the agreement is on the increase?

[Abu-Marzuq] As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for the delay in finding an appropriate framework is the surprise caused by the secret Oslo agreement. Some Arab states taking part in the settlement were surprised by the agreement, so it is not strange for the opposition to be surprised. This made it difficult to crystallize a position quickly.

The second point is that the agreement is still producing rapid developments. These developments have not reached a stable point yet inside Fatah or the Palestinian People's Party. These developments are still interacting. So adopting a stand toward these developments takes a longer time.

I am not pessimistic because there has been no framework for the opposition's unified action. It does not matter if the framework is not found, since there is a unified approach. A unified framework will be found sooner or later.

[Shalhub] Can we say that the inability to crystallize a framework is due to Yasir Arafat's penetration of the opposition ranks, or, to be more accurate, some opposition factions; which has made these factions feel they will be threatened if they continue their violent oppostion of the agreement?

[Abu-Marzuq] I do not believe that there has been clear penetration of any faction. If there are some examples, then they do not affect the essence of opposition. Opposition is not one team. Some opponents proceed from the fact that they seek to improve the unjust terms of negotiations, and there is also a principled opposition which believes that all forms of negotiations with the enemy are rejected. Certainly, there is a difference between the two, but this does not mean that there is no true opposition to relinquishing rights.

[Shalhub] Can we say that the inability of the opposition to create a framework, and consequently, its weakness to foil the agreement, will become in favor of wagering on foiling it from within as a result of internal factors?

[Abu-Marzuq] In fact, we are not concerned over the inability of the opposition to do something tangible. I believe that those who signed the agreement will not be able to achieve the objectives of the agreement. So, their inability to restore Palestinian rights will be one of the most important factors for expanding popular support for the opposition. Basically, we are wagering on the people toppling the agreement. The people, who have been fighting the occupation for tens of years, will resist the imposed solution when they feel that this solution is only a means of entrenching the occupation. Opposition to the agreement will increase with the passage of time after the implementation of the agreement on the ground. Everyone will then realize the threats this agreement posed to our present and future.

[Shalhub] In light of the concept of foiling the agreement based on the expansion of popular opposition with the passage of time, how do you assess the recent escalation of Hamas' military operations? Would it not be better to postpone the escalation to another stage? Does this escalation serve the strategy of weakening or strengthening the agreement by forcing Israel to hasten implementation of the agreement?

[Abu-Marzuq] I do not believe that there is any movement that works against itself or does something which harms its strategy. We believe that escalation is based on a realistic and future view of the conflict with the Zionist enemy. We know full well that such operations will not be able to liberate Palestine, but they are part of our duty to continue resistance to prevent the enemy from enjoying stability, and from believing that it has imposed its control over the land and the people. At the same time, we carry out these operations to defend the Arab nation, because if the enemy enjoys stability in Palestine, it will seek to expand in the region.

This escalation is a simple expression of the people's rejection of the current settlement, and of their refusal to live under occupation. This also means that if some people become tired of struggle and resistance, there are others who are ready to pursue jihad for the cause of God. Jihad is a must for every Palestinian. It is not some kind of entertainment or tactic.

[Shalhub] There have been reports about Hamas' participation in the self-rule elections. This has been attributed to Shaykh Ahmad Yasin. Several opponents believe that participating in the elections would be better than boycotting them, especially since the participation of the opposition in power is better than isolating itself and leaving things to the settlement people to impose their control and determine the people's future. What is your comment?

[Abu-Marzuq] Regarding the legislative elections, I would like to clarify that the movement's stand over the past four years was clear. It is for participation in the elections. Shaykh Ahmad Yasin stressed this policy. There is nothing new in this. What is new is that this issue was mentioned within the context of self-rule elections, something which created confusion. In harmony with its stands, and proceeding from its concern about the Palestinian people's interests, the movement is not for participation in self-rule elections, for throughout the whole world, the rule is that the people should first elect those who represent them in resolving their issue. However, what is taking place is that a small weak group is negotiating with the enemy, which holds the reins of power, to reach a formula for an agreement to determine the Palestinian people's future, and then the two parties, Israel and the PLO, in accordance with this formula, will hold elections to elect persons to implement their agreement. This is against the nature of things. The people should first elect their representatives, and then those representatives will determine how they will deal with the situation, and then they either accept or reject the agreement. Israel and the PLO negotiators should not impose on those elected an agreement to which they are not a party. We are not against participating in elections to elect representatives of the Palestinian people. However, we are against the attempts of Israel and its PLO negotiators to reach an illegal agreement on which no one was consulted, including the PLO's political and organizational frameworks and institutions, and then to commit the people to implementing this agreement. This is illogical and unfair. Such action, which shows indifference to the Palestinian people and their sacred cause, must be resisted. [passage omitted]