|
Edward Walker
This election week's guest is Ambassador Edward Walker, President of the Middle-East Institute in Washington. He was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs 19991-2001 and Ambassador to Israel '97-'99 (Read his bio here). We will discuss the Israeli election and it?s long term implications on the Israeli-Palestinian arena, the broader Mid-East, and the relationships between Israel and the U.S.
Those of you who would like to ask questions can send them to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.
Another one from a reader:
Dear Mr. Ambassador
Would you not say that the Islamic concepts of jihad, Islam's attitudes towards the infidel, and Islam's attitudes towards its own apostates (a case in point is Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan) have a lot to do with the way Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaida relate to Israel? Why were these questions not discussed during the Israeli election campaign and how can the new Israeli government effectively counter the threats from organizations that follow these Islamic tenets when their prime motivation has never been taken into account?
Sincerely,
Mladen Andrijasevic
Be'er Sheva
Israel
Dear Mladen Andrijasevic,
Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a big tent that incorporates many different versions, some formally such as the Shiia, Sunnis, Ibadis, Suffis, Salafis, and others and various versions within each of these sects depending on the interpretation of the individual and of diverse religious scholars. So when you speak of Jihad or attitudes toward non-believers and apostates, you have to define which version you are talking about. Not many in the Muslim world accept the definitions laid down by al-Qaida, for example. As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they come from different roots and while they have broader appeal in the Islamic world than al-Qaida, they are still minorities. You don?t mention the Muslim Brotherhood, which has strength in Egypt, Syria and Jordan and is a parent of Hamas.
Certainly, it is in our interest to examine the basis for the extreme views of some organizations and the motivation that leads people to embrace these views with the hope that we can find antidotes and prevent new adherents. But this is not a task that is unique to Israel. It is just as important for any government or people who are targeted by terrorism, including the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Algeria and virtually every civilized country in the world, to understand the enemy. Having said that, I am not convinced an election campaign is the best place for a serious investigation of these issues. I am sure such a serious question would not profit from being reviewed during a U.S. political campaign.
another question from a reader:
Dear Mr. Ambassador,
First, is there some reason you appear willing to "second-guess" the Palestinian leadership, and the American leadership, but not the Israeli leadership?
Second, (and I apologize if this sounds like a set-up, that isn't my intent) who are the major funders of the Middle East Institute? Is the Institute an objective party, or is there an alignment of interests with one side in this conflict?
Thank you,
Aaron Levitt
Dear Mr. Levitt,
Your questions are good ones. I feel free as one of the rights of an American to question my own government. The Institute is a non-partisan organization and while I have my personal political preferences, the Institute does not receive its funding or count among its members either funds or adherents from only one party or the other. As for Israel, I am quite prepared to question Israel's approach to a negotiated settlement and its longstanding settlements policy and have done so many times in the past. What I am not prepared to do, and don't have the expertise to do, is comment on their security policies when it is Israeli lives at stake -that is the job of the prime minister.
The question of the Palestinians is a bit more complicated. Part of the reason I comment on the Palestinian situation is, I admit, personal frustration of having worked with various Palestinians over 35 years in the pursuit of peace and having watched opportunities slip by in the Autonomy process, the Oslo process and Clinton's Camp David summit. There is no question but that Israel and the United States both share the blame for these failures, but the Palestinians have never adopted a clear vision of what they strive for. And the picture is even less clear today with the rise of Hamas.
However, I have tried to steer clear of second-guessing the Palestinians' elected president, Mahmoud Abbas, when it comes to the security of the Palestinian people.
As for the Institute's funding, we are a membership organization and the bulk of our funding comes from individual and corporate memberships. Our corporate members tend to be the larger American corporations with interests in the Middle East and Middle Eastern corporations with interests in the United States. We have tried to attract Israeli corporations with little success. We also have a revenue stream from our accredited language program that offers Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi and Turkish. We have received foundation money in the past from the Ford Foundation, the Hariri Foundation, the Stanley Foundation and others. Finally, we have received significant grants at irregular intervals from a few Middle East donors of various nationalities. Unfortunately, Israelis have not been among them. We gratefully accept money from all quarters provided there are no strings attached. And we would welcome your membership as well. Just go to our website to sign up. It's not expensive and it more than pays for itself.
Dear Ambassador,
Here's one we got from from a reader: How shall, in your opinion, the question of Jerusalem be solved? Shall the
city be divided between different groups, shall it belong only to one side, shall it perhaps be under international control?
Marianne Rönnberg Galmor
Sweden
If I could answer Marianne Ronnberg Galmor's question, I would be a good candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. The closest we came in the Clinton administration to answering the question of Jerusalem was a general division of sovereignty in the Jerusalem area on the basis of population with the Palestinian capital in a Palestinian neighborhood associated with Jerusalem.
This did not answer the question of the Holy places or the walled city, which kept coming apart on the issue of sovereignty. Such a division may also be a bit naive given the integration of city services that exist and the basic premise, with which I agree, that the city should not be divided.
An arrangement for the Holy places is going to have to take into account the needs and guarantees that each major religion needs in order to assure their co-religionists around the world. That would tend to indicate some kind of veto system that religious authorities would have over changes to the existing or negotiated religious status quo.
As for sovereignty, both Israelis and Palestinians will need to know that their basic rights, as agreed, cannot be infringed by the other party. Thus, if a change in the status quo infringes on the interests of one of the parties, it probably should not take place unless there is agreement by the parties. This is a system of my freedom ends at your nose.
Finally, both parties and religious authorities will have to guarantee the freedom of worship and access of all parties. Obviously, such a structure cannot exist under conditions of terrorism, non-acceptance of the other party's existence, or lack of faith between the parties. For this reason, Jerusalem has to come last if it is to be resolved on a mutually acceptable basis.
Dear Ambassador
So we're done with the analytic side - but what about your opinion: Do you think this plan is a good one?
Rosner
As a general rule, I don't try to second-guess the Prime Minister of Israel (I have no such compunctions about second-guessing my own government.) However, I do have an opinion on Ehud Olmert's plan to set Israel's borders unilaterally over the next four years. Frankly, I do not see any realistic alternative options in the short run. The status quo that the Likud seems to want will likely lead to resumption of the Intifadah and negotiations with the Palestinians that arguably Meretz might favor, seem to fail on the question of which Palestinians?
I would like to hope that the Prime Minister of Israel would keep in mind the ultimate possibility of a negotiated final agreement on borders with the Palestinians and not box himself or Israel into a position that would preclude such an agreement. But the Palestinians should know from their history of dealing with Israel and the United States, that while time may work against Israel demographically, it works against the Palestinians territorially.
They should also recognize that history and international recognition tend to favor the facts on the ground, not the principles of international law and diplomacy. I suspect that over the next four years, the world will come to accept Israeli ownership and intensive development of the over 10% of the land Olmert will have enclosed within Israel and the Palestinians will look back at the compromise tradeoff of land that President Clinton proposed with longing.
Dear Ambassador
Ehud Olmert is the likely Prime Minister to emerge from Tuesday's election in Israel. He promised the voters to set Israel's borders - unilaterally if necessary - by 2010. Do you believe such an outcome is one that can be achieved?
Best
Rosner
Ehud Olmert has promised fixed Israeli borders by the year 2010. Note that, to my knowledge, he has not promised agreed or recognized borders. Depending on the coalition he puts together, it is not impossible for him to impose unilaterally, in four years, fixed, Israeli defined borders on the West Bank through completion of the wall, some withdrawal of exposed settlements and through force of arms. However, in that time frame, it is unlikely that he can reach agreed borders through negotiation with the Palestinians given the political power of Hamas and its position on borders. Even if Hamas fails in this period and is replaced as the governing authority of the Palestinians, agreed borders will have to involve Jerusalem and resolve the question of the Jordan Valley. No current Palestinian party could accept the minimum that Olmert would be able to accept in that time frame, on either of these issues. If the borders are not agreed, then it is virtually impossible for Olmert to attain recognized borders. The international community will not accord final and legal recognition of a unilateral Israeli fait accompli which is opposed by the Palestinians.
Dear Ambassador
When Olmert comes to the U.S. (probably in the near future - after he is elected) to discuss his second disengagement plan - what kind of approach do you expect the administration to take: Support it, oppose it - or tell him that it's not the time yet to make a decision?
Best
Rosner
Assuming Ehud Olmert succeeds in putting together a coalition government and is able to come to the United States as Israel?s new Prime Minister, he can expect a warm welcome. With regard to his disengagement plans for the West Bank, he can assume a positive response from the President provided he can couch it in the terms of the President?s policy statements on a two state solution and squeeze it into the garb of the Quartet?s roadmap. In effect, Olmert will have to convince the President to drop the first phase of the roadmap and go directly to the second phase of creating a Palestinian state with transitional borders. He will have to convince the President that Israel will still have to maintain a security presence in the West Bank since the Palestinians did not comply with the first phase requirements on terrorism. Finally, he will also have to convince the President that Israeli definition of those borders is the only practical means of making progress since the Palestinians, by electing Hamas, have taken themselves out of the game. In all probability, given the President?s own proclivities and preconceptions, Olmert will succeed.
|
