|
 |
|
|
|
Weekly Interview
A PALESTINIAN VIEW
Multiple sieges | | an interview with Hanan Ashrawi |
bitterlemons: On a practical level, how difficult is it to campaign in Jerusalem? Ashrawi: I am running as part of the Third Way`s national list and not in the Jerusalem district alone. But we do have three people on the list in Jerusalem, and it is extremely difficult to campaign there. We decided, as an act of defiance and determination, to kick off our campaign in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital and it has to be at the heart of any kind of democratic or political process. This was a political act of affirmation. But we were met by the Israeli police and border police, and they physically intervened to prevent us from campaigning. We nevertheless continued campaigning and meeting with organizations and institutions in Jerusalem, and we will continue to do so. I feel, however, Israel is showing real ill will toward Jerusalem, to our political participation in Jerusalem, and that there is an Israeli agenda to undermine Palestinian elections in Jerusalem. bitterlemons: This, despite the statement last week that Israel will allow elections in the city to proceed? Ashrawi: First of all, I didn`t like that the police should be able to summon a candidate and tell him how and when. This is not a police issue or a public order issue, this is first and foremost a political issue, and it cannot be addressed only in terms of organizational issues or security issues. We are not willing to fragment the issue of Jerusalem to deal with each component alone, i.e., first campaigning and then we`ll see about voting, freedom of movement and the general siege on the city. All these things have to be dealt with comprehensively. This is not something that should be dealt with by the police, but between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, in an officially binding way, so as to allow Palestinians to participate comprehensively in free and fair elections in the Old City, in the city itself, around the city, in the suburbs and in the villages, in a way that will not undermine the integrity of elections. bitterlemons: On a practical level, do you feel that Jerusalemites are keen to participate and do they feel that by doing so they are affecting practical issues? Ashrawi: Unfortunately, I think there is a sense of resignation and probably anger, even despair, among Palestinians in Jerusalem. Sometimes I have the sense that they feel that this is an exercise in futility rather than an exercise in democracy. But there is also another dimension, which is the rumor campaign, a campaign of intimidation and fear whereby people are told that [if they vote] they will lose their residency rights, their IDs and their social rights and hence we will lose Jerusalem. We have to break multiple sieges. There is a territorial siege with the settlements, a security siege at the checkpoints, a physical siege with the wall, a political siege with elections now, and a psychological siege, i.e., this fear and intimidation. We have to break through all of these in order to energize and re-invigorate the Palestinians of Jerusalem. I`m not talking about all of them, of course, but a sizeable minority that feels either afraid and intimidated or that the situation is hopeless. So we have to inject hope and vigor. At the same time, many people have assessed the record of the Palestinian Authority and feel that the PA has done nothing or very little for Jerusalem. And there is confusion over what the duties of the legislative and the executive branches are; some feel the legislative should have done more executive things. We are trying to explain during the campaign what the powers and responsibilities of each are and how we will deal with Jerusalem. bitterlemons: The issue of Jerusalem threatened and might still threaten the entire elections process. How important is it that elections in Jerusalem are part of the process? Or are the elections as a whole too important and should go ahead anyway? Ashrawi: Jerusalem is a non-negotiable issue when it comes to elections. There is no such thing as partial or selective elections. Jerusalem is more than just an obstacle or an issue for elections, or a technical, security or police issue. Jerusalem is a political, legal and rights issue of the first degree. Therefore no elections would have any legitimacy or credibility or even be genuinely democratic and representative if Jerusalem were excluded in any way or undermined. Jerusalem is not an issue to be circumvented and I was quite amazed to hear from Hamas and others that said they would find ways around any ban on elections there. One must not bow to Israeli dictates. This is not acceptable. bitterlemons: But for a while it seemed that there were certain interested parties who wanted these elections to be postponed and were using Jerusalem as the excuse? Ashrawi: Some people did, yes, and looked at Jerusalem as a pretext to postpone elections. And there were others who said we should have elections regardless. Our position is that Jerusalem is neither a pretext nor an obstacle. It`s a core issue. We have to intervene effectively to ensure that Jerusalem is part of the elections? bitterlemons: Are you confident that elections will go ahead in Jerusalem? Ashrawi: From experience I know there will be obstacles. The rumor campaign will continue working overtime. The presence of police and border police will intimidate activists. This happened last time, when they arrested people near the polling stations in the post offices. Also there will be a siege around Jerusalem that will make movement very difficult. We saw this last time. We need a lifting of restrictions on the freedom of movement, we need non-intervention by the Israeli police, we need to increase the number of places where Jerusalemites can vote, we need more polling stations, not less, and we need to have a campaign to encourage Palestinians to participate. bitterlemons: With all these restrictions in Jerusalem, to what extent can we talk about free and fair elections? Ashrawi: We can`t talk about free and fair elections anywhere because we are holding elections under occupation and really as an act of defiance. We know the elections and the outcome will be far from perfect. But flawed elections, I guess, are better than no elections at all. And this election needs to re-energize Palestinians, the people and the candidates, and all the factions must act in a positive and decisive manner to ensure that the elections are as representative and free and fair as possible We have to stand up to all sorts of restrictions, defy obstacles and persist in order that they have as much integrity as possible. But we don`t claim to have perfect elections, and I don`t think they will be. Already they are prejudiced. The siege against Jerusalem is prejudicial, the restrictions on movement are prejudicial and a people voting in a state of fear of intervention and violence and under occupation will act differently from a free people. The results will be tainted but hopefully not enough to undermine the legitimacy of the elections.- Published 16/1/2006 © bitterlemons.org Hanan Ashrawi is a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council for Jerusalem and is running for re-election with the Third Way list.
|
A PALESTINIAN VIEW
Mission not vision | | an interview with Mahdi Abdul Hadi |
bitterlemons: We have recently seen the creation of two new parties, one in Palestine and one in Israel. Beyond their names and the fact that they split from existing ruling parties, do they have anything in common? Abdul Hadi: No. There are big differences between the two in terms of their backgrounds, agendas, personnel and what they promise for the future. Ariel Sharon is now a one-man party and his Kadima party will live as long as he lives. Hence the crisis regarding Sharon`s health. No one knows what will happen after Sharon. This should be a warning to Israelis as well as those concerned about a two-state solution. Sharon has a very clear position. He wants a new line of partition with Palestine. This he is creating, one, with the wall, taking more land and more water; and two, by dividing what remains of Palestine into four cantons: Nablus, Tulkarm and Jenin in one, Ramallah another, Hebron a third and Gaza a fourth. Jerusalem is completely out of the equation. These districts will be connected by tunnels and bridges to maintain law and order and provide security for Israeli settlers. The Judaization of Jerusalem is at the top of his agenda, however, and he aims to empower settlers and the settlement project in the West Bank. Meanwhile, he is looking for an Arab solution to what is left of Palestine, i.e., Egypt through the security file in Gaza, and Jordan through the economic and social ties in the West Bank. bitterlemons: So Sharon is now making his last play? Abdul Hadi: In a way, but it`s worth comparing it to Rabin`s last days. It was unexpected when Rabin left the stage and it will be unexpected when Sharon goes. The problem when this happens, as when it happened before, is that the Israeli public will be left to choose between a divided Likud, a weak Labor, fragmented leftists and the rise of religious Zionism. This will take us through another transition period, and another painful process until a new leader arises. The absence of a system that can protect the agenda of a leader is the basic problem in Israel. We saw it after Rabin. Peres was a political hypocrite who could not deliver Hebron or anything else. The same thing may apply to Sharon`s deputy Ehud Olmert. bitterlemons: And on the Palestinian side? Abdul Hadi: On the Palestinian side we are witnessing the election of the prisoners, appropriate to our culture of the prison. It`s the insiders in a real sense, but not against the outsiders. These insiders are those who led the first and second intifadas, and who were too loyal too long to the historic leadership of the PLO. These prisoners have risen because of the exposure of the weak and fragmented old cardinals of Fateh after the death of Arafat, of whom these cardinals were the pupils and without whom they have no legitimacy. Legitimacy now can only come through elections, and these people behind Israeli bars, who have been resisting and continue to resist Israeli policies and practices in their own way, are more popular. They are not corrupt, but they are also pragmatic. Marwan Barghouti, for instance, signed the Copenhagen document for a two-state solution. They are looking to create a better future but with limited experience of governing. bitterlemons: Would you characterize this as a split in Fateh, and do you see it as a maturing of the Palestinian political scene? Abdul Hadi: This all goes back to the last days of Arafat when he refused to call for elections in Fateh, complaining that the young guard, i.e., the Aqsa Brigades, had been infiltrated by the Qassam Brigades of Hamas and other third parties, and that as such they were not disciplined. In addition, Arafat`s office used to say that it was too early for them to take leadership positions because they lacked experience and didn`t have the trust of the president. In the post-Arafat era, Mahmoud Abbas has realized that he needs new faces. His agenda is three-pronged: reform, democracy and security, and he cannot deliver without change in the parliament and on the ground. Thus he accepted primaries in Fateh, which everybody knew would favor the new generation. The primaries showed there was no confidence or trust in the cardinals of Fateh who have been meeting and talking but not delivering. The cardinals have lost their constituency, and they know it, as could be seen by the fact that most of the members of Fateh`s Central Council did not seek legitimacy through the primaries, but were content with their historical legitimacy which is based on their role in the revolutionary movement from the 1970s. The young guard demanded legitimacy from today`s society. bitterlemons: So would you characterize this as a power struggle? Abdul Hadi: It`s a struggle for legitimacy. Where do we go from here? There is no revolution, there is no coalition with Arab states, there is no international pressure on Israel to help us. So how do we survive in the prison we are in? This parliamentary election is not for leadership, it is for representation; it is for mission not vision. As Marwan Barghouti has been saying, the vision will come after the election. After the legitimization of new representatives we will see new coalitions in the elected council. bitterlemons: You are putting emphasis on the elections, but there seems to be some conjecture that elections may not take place at all... Abdul Hadi: It is not in the interest of the Israelis to have Palestinian elections because they have concluded that Hamas will come to power. bitterlemons: Without elections what are the consequences? Abdul Hadi: This would totally cripple the PA. There is a crisis of funds in the PA to pay the salaries of 140,000 civil servants. If half a million Palestinians tomorrow have no income, there will be chaos. Elections will bring legitimacy to a new coalition government to implement Abu Mazen`s strategy for reform, democracy and security and work with international donors and thus keep this body alive. bitterlemons: Are you encouraged by what`s happened in Fateh? Abdul Hadi: I look forward with great hope and optimism to see how this election will legitimize a political agenda for political transformation in Palestine.- Published 19/12/2005 © bitterlemons.org Mahdi Abdul Hadi is the head of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) in Jerusalem.
|
America`s man in the Middle East
16/12/2005
By Akiva Eldar
"I think I ought to announce that I am joining Kadima," Thomas Pickering said at the outset of his talk in a Herzliya hall, a few hours after Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared he was bolting the Likud to join Ariel Sharon`s new party. Few Americans are as well informed as Pickering about Israeli politics, about its tangled connections with American politics, and about the influence that interaction exerts on political and diplomatic processes. He has been closely following the developments in Israel for more than 30 years, since he accompanied Henry Kissinger on the shuttle missions which led to the separation-of-forces agreements with Egypt and Syria after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, until he retired as undersecretary of state for political affairs in the administration of president Bill Clinton. At various times in his career he was U.S. ambassador to Jordan and Israel and to India and the Russian Federation.
During the Gulf War of 1991 Pickering observed the events in the Middle East from his office as his country`s ambassador to the United Nations.
This week he was in Israel to do business in the air. For the past few years he has been senior vice president for international relations at Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, and responsible for the concern`s ties with foreign governments. On Sunday he found time to deliver a talk on the situation of the United States in Iraq and on the Iranian problem. A professional diplomat does not wash his country`s dirty linen in public. His criticism of the Bush government`s policy has to be sought between the lines. He said it is very possible that the decision makers in Washington do not need his advice - for example, his advice to have the international community share in consolidating Iraq, or to get Iran and Syria to take part in that endeavor. If Washington is already doing that, he said sarcastically, then something is apparently amiss with the performance.
In an interview to Haaretz the next day, Pickering spoke of the need "to corral and cajole Syria" and noted, "I don`t think you can have a satisfactory solution in Iraq without at least making sure that Syria and Iran are not playing on the other side of the ball field." It is precisely now, when Syria is under pressure, that he identifies an opportunity to wield what he calls "positive pressure - toward a helpful solution." He would also bring Iran into a "contact group," or as an "adjunct" to such a group, which would be formed to bring in the entire international community on the Iraq issue. He notes that it is impossible to expect that Syria and Iran will line up on the side of the United States before regional countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps Jordan do.
The plight of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Pickering says, is Israel`s opportunity to put an end to the conflict with Syria. "Back in the old days I used to watch this very carefully, originally from Jordan," the lanky diplomat recalls, "and I always thought Hafez Assad never wanted to be the first in the peace process, but I also believe he never wanted to be the last. And now Bashar, in a sense, has put himself in the position of realizing his father`s nightmare on this issue." According to Pickering, "the longer Syria believes it will be last and the longer Syria feels the pressure of isolation, the more constructive that pressure might become on bringing about a kind of settlement that both Israel and Syria could live with."
No reason for fright
In the meantime, Pickering says there is no reason to take fright at what appears to be the victory of the extremists over the peacemakers and the derailing of the peace process under the constraints of violence. No, he would not have been dumbfounded had he been told in the mid-eighties, during the period of the London agreement (between Shimon Peres, then foreign minister, and Jordan`s King Hussein), when Pickering was ensconced in the embassy on Hayarkon Street, on the Tel Aviv beachfront, that 20 years later he would be sitting high up in the nearby Hilton as Israelis and Palestinians continued to bash and kill each other. He is not surprised the conflict has not ended, "because when the whole process began I worked for Dr. Kissinger both directly during the Yom Kippur War -he had just come over to the State Department - and then from Jordan, many of us believed the closer we got, the more violent the process would become, and the more dug-in the opponents would be because of their deep concerns and uncertainties about the consequences of peace ... I also later came to believe that underlying both Palestinian and Israeli popular interest is a firm core of people committed in a conceptual way, not to details, to a peace process, that the longer the violent opposition went on, the more significant would become - what I would call - the 65 percent of the popular vote both among Palestinians and Israelis for a successful peace process."
In the second half of the 1980s, ambassador Pickering was present at the birth of the London agreement of 1987 and there is no better witness than him to its crib death: "The principal problem there was how to work out an alignment of forces where the United States was not willing to deal with or recognize the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] as a negotiating authority, and where Hussein would come in as the bridge." Pickering hints that perhaps Peres` confidence about Hussein`s readiness to sign the agreement and become the representative of the Palestinians was exaggerated. "Hussein himself ... recognized that this was a fearfully dangerous course for him to take, particularly if he didn`t have the rest of the Arab world."
Yitzhak Shamir, the prime minister at the time under the rotation agreement between Likud and Labor, did not want Hussein and ended up with the PLO. A year and a half after burying the London agreement, Pickering was instructed by Washington to inform Shamir that the United States was about to launch an open dialogue with the PLO. It happened so urgently that he had no chance to see the PM and he told him the news over the telephone. "Of course you can imagine what his reaction was," Pickering says with a smile.
Peres once asked him why he did not persuade George Shultz, the secretary of state at the time, to visit Jerusalem and present the agreement to Shamir as a fait accompli. Pickering retorted with a question of his own: Why had Peres not stopped Moshe Arens, then a cabinet minister, who had gone to Washington to persuade Shultz to stay home. Since then Pickering has not been an advocate of unity governments. In the case of the London agreement, he says, and in general, "my view is that combinations of governments, with different approaches, different ideological mindsets, different visions, particularly in domestic policy ... makes it very hard to govern. In a sense, we`ve seen the Germans try this now with Angela Merkel, and they`re having their troubles. It took them a very long while to try to work it out, and with typical German thoroughness they had an 80-page document that covered every conceivable issue to try to predefine it. And if there was a problem in the Israeli national unity government, there was no 80-page document."
Kissinger`s famous quip
Pickering has no problem in attributing to the Americans, too, Kissinger`s famous quip that the Israelis have no foreign policy, only domestic policy. "I think that it was, in a sense, an unwillingness on the part of the United States to try to force on the national unity government, which had a divided view on what Peres was trying to achieve in London in his meeting with King Hussein, that, in effect, put the United States in a position of not wanting to choose," he observes. In his view, Shultz was apprehensive that intervention on an issue that was so deeply controversial domestically in Israel was liable to have an adverse effect on the status of the Republican Party in the American political arena.
"Indeed," Pickering goes on, "you could say that was almost prescient in a way, because after all, George Bush the first, in his very, very tough treatment of Shamir over the loan guarantees [for absorbing new immigrants, which Bush made conditional on an Israeli freeze in construction] in the West Bank settlements, had some of the same problems. And while I`m not the definitive analyst of his loss in the elections to Clinton, it`s clear to all of us that that particular issue played some role in the shift - although traditionally, the American Jewish community tended to vote much more largely Democratic in those days than they did Republican."
He is convinced that the lessons of that affair continue to hover in the skies of Washington and can explain how dozens of settlements were built and tens of thousands of Israelis settled in the occupied territories under the nose of the United States despite its official policy. "I think you put your finger on one of the long-term, most difficult sets of issues," he says. "Most Americans believe that in the relationship with Israel, the issue of `enforcement` is not a central tenet of American policy." Moreover, on the issue of the settlements "there is a tendency on this issue to appeal much more to emotion than reality." Even though the settlement movement "cannot be in keeping with what we know to be a principle whose currency is growing, that Israel also needs to deal with the problem of being both a Jewish and democratic state - and that is incompatible with occupation" - the fact is that "many who are very strong supporters of the settlement movement here in Israel have also had a strong influence in their discussions in the United States, not just in the American Jewish community but beyond" (a clear reference to the Christian right, the allies of MK Benny Elon and his backers).
The `Evangelical constituency`
The "Evangelical constituency," Pickering says, is "a growing factor in American domestic politics. This is a well-organized community. It has very specific views on things like abortion and has built itself close links in the Holy Land, which it sees in biblical terms. It has a tendency to see the Holy Land much more clearly through its New Testament activities than its Old Testament affinity. And as a result, obviously, while it clearly sees the State of Israel as an embodiment of some of the direction for the future, I suspect that a careful reading of its New Testament theology would not overall, necessarily ratify the sense of deep comfort, perhaps, that Israelis might otherwise draw from that relationship.
"I`m the last person in the world to introduce religion into politics, but it`s there. And one has to analyze very carefully these kinds of approaches and these sorts of activities ... What I think in the United States would be most difficult - just speaking as an American in domestic terms - is if this group intended to legislate its religious views or religiously-based views for the rest of the American public. And I think to some extent, obviously, one wants to know how it sees itself in the long run in connection with a strong affinity for Israel. Is this a stepping-stone or is this, indeed, a commitment that has an enduring quality to it? I don`t know the answer to that. It`s important, obviously, as you here in this country analyze that part of the relationship, to keep that in mind. My own view is, quite frankly, that in the long-term settlements in the region, the various religious communities have an overwhelming interest. The really difficult and tricky part would be working out settlements for all of these difficulties in which you try to avoid religious imperatives while respecting historical religious positions. I can remember Henry Kissinger on a number of occasions saying that the Middle East was already terribly difficult, but negotiating with people who felt they got their instructions from God made it even harder."
* * *
|
A PALESTINIAN VIEW
Let`s not get delusional | | an interview with Eyad Sarraj |
bitterlemons: What do you think of the Gaza crossings agreement? Sarraj: In principle it`s a good beginning. As a Gazan, I am happy to be able to travel freely through Rafah, though I haven`t tried it yet. For the first time in 38 years I will be able to move freely without an Israeli soldier humiliating me by ordering me to sit down, or shut up, or go and see an intelligence officer or go back home. bitterlemons: A lot was made of the symbolism that this is the first Palestinian-controlled border. Sarraj: I don`t take that too seriously. We know, and we should not delude ourselves, that we are still under effective Israeli control. Israel will maintain a special unit in Kesufim where they will monitor the movement of all Palestinians. Israel has the right to stop anyone for six hours at Rafah, and can put its case to the Europeans and the Palestinians, and the Europeans may decide to turn people back. And let`s not forget that our IDs and our passports are still issued by the Israelis. Our names, dates of birth, families and addresses are all registered in Israel. Effectively, Israel is in control. Also, Israel continues to exercise exclusive control over our airspace and territorial waters. All this tells you that we are still under Israeli occupation rule. However, there is room for some kind of symbolic authority, and some Palestinians, particularly some ministers, are excited about this, a bit too excited, perhaps for personal or political reasons. But we don`t take them too seriously. bitterlemons: But you don`t denounce the agreement, as some of the opposition factions have done? Sarraj: No, I won`t denounce the agreement. As a Palestinian living in Gaza, it is very good to be able to move from Gaza through Rafah to Egypt without any Israeli soldier there to humiliate me. This is a real achievement, and maybe this could be--we have to be a little optimistic--the beginning of something even better. bitterlemons: Does this have a significant psychological impact? Sarraj: I believe so. I think that Palestinians in general feel that this is a good moment, because we are able to move freely, although we all understand that we are not in total control of our lives. We do not have a sovereign state and we should not delude ourselves. We shouldn`t go to the other extreme and say, "close the border, we want to live under direct occupation again". There are now no Israeli settlements; that is very good. We got some of our land back; that is excellent. We can now move freely to Egypt; that is fantastic. And we must also take into account that the Israelis will not interfere directly. Now, if they interfere, they will do so through a third party that we have accepted, namely the Europeans, who are not part of the occupying forces. bitterlemons: The agreement also stipulates a convoy system between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as well as clauses on facilitating the movement of goods at the Karni crossing. How important are these? Sarraj: They are vital, and I believe the Israelis will do everything possible to prevent them from being implemented. This Israeli government is not at all interested in a peaceful solution in which there is a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. They are interested in forcing the Palestinians to ask for a state in Gaza alone. This is why they will do everything to hinder parliamentary elections, because they are an expression of national sovereignty, using Hamas and terrorism as justification; and they will complicate the issue of the convoys, again under the excuse of security. bitterlemons: There is another aspect to this agreement, which is the third party role. Sarraj: I very much welcome the European involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and I even welcome European involvement in Palestinian life. I hope Europeans will be more involved at all levels, by sending more consultants, in addition to money, to help us restructure our authority, plan strategically and in general help us found a state based on the rule of law and scientific advancement and development. I don`t believe this Palestinian Authority is able to do so alone, and I welcome the Europeans, who are not an occupying force and with whom we should strengthen our strategic alliance. bitterlemons: What about the role of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice? Sarraj: I welcome her role. I think there was pressure by Rice and her camp on the Israeli government that resulted in this agreement. I think Washington is very interested in making the Gaza experience succeed. At the same time, we have a long history of not trusting the Americans, and even if they do good, we suspect there is something bad behind it. The question we`ll always ask is: how far will the US pressure Israel, when it hasn`t pressured Israel to uphold UN Security Council resolutions, respect Palestinian human rights or follow the path of negotiations and the peace process? How far will Washington go to face the Zionist lobby? But for this agreement, I am grateful to Rice.- Published 28/11/2005 © bitterlemons.org Dr. Eyad Sarraj is the head of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program.
|
| 
| All he is saying is - give peace a chance
|
| By Akiva Eldar
|
| On Tuesday evening, the sound of powerful explosions shook the window panes of James Wolfensohn`s office in the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem. "Don`t worry, it`s only fireworks," said an aide. "The Palestinians are celebrating their independence day."
It was 17 years since the Algiers declaration of the Palestinian National Council, which recognized Israel and paved the way for a dialogue between the U.S. and the PLO. Wolfensohn drew a bottle of whiskey from the small bar. Coincidentally, that same morning, the special emissary of the Quartet had been the chief intermediary in an agreement that, for the first time, grants Palestinians a certain authority that bears a similarity to independence. Six months after complying with President George W. Bush`s request to rescue the Gaza Strip from the siege imposed on it by his friend Ariel Sharon, the Australian Jew with the gray shock of hair was raising a glass and toasting "Lechaim."
Only two days previously, at the Karni cargo terminal, he was telling the manager of the facility how depressed and upset he was by the acute situation in besieged Gaza. "Yes," confirmed the man who spent 10 years at the helm of the World Bank, in an interview with Haaretz. "I was serious when I told them that if the border-crossing crisis was not ended in two or three days, I would seriously consider going home."
| | | | |
Wolfensohn has a pacemaker in his chest and is under medical supervision. The recurrent crises in the negotiations have not been beneficial to his state of health. The victory of Amir Peretz in the primaries and the impending elections only heightened the need for a quick solution.
"My experience in watching each side during an electoral period, is that you don`t get a lot of balance and a lot of rationality, because it`s a crazy season," explains Wolfensohn.
He confirms that he is mainly referring to the horror scenario of Israeli politics: The government makes a "gesture" to the Palestinians, and the next day, a bus blows up in Afula. Benjamin Netanyahu did not wait for a terrorist attack - news reports about the signing of the border-crossing agreement were coupled with Netanyahu`s warning about the bringing of missiles into Israel.
Wolfensohn was concerned that the political aftershocks of Amir Peretz`s election would lead to shutting Israel`s small window of goodwill. He has also had ample opportunity to learn that whenever the Israeli media gets a whiff of succulent prey in the political jungle, it loses interest in what is happening in the Palestinian jungle. The old fox knew that when politicians are fighting over their fate in the primaries, it`s party time for the generals. In the past few months he has seen reserve major general Amos Gilad and his people in action. They did not seem noticeably concerned that the Palestinian strawberries were rotting in the fields and that Abu Mazen would pay the price in the elections.
The timing of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice`s visit was peerless. She came to pay her respects to the memory of Yitzhak Rabin, determined the urgency of the m atter, and was dragged against her will into intensive care of the crisis. The talks were on the verge of blowing up after the Palestinians learned that the American team, headed by Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams, had succumbed to Israeli pressure and at the last minute inserted changes in the wording of the agreement. They were especially incensed by the "Black List" clause - an Israeli veto on Palestinians whose entry into the Gaza Strip was opposed by Israel. The clause was spirited into the document behind the backs of Wolfensohn and his people. Rice realized that if she returned home empty-handed, she would have to take Bush`s appointee Wolfensohn with her. The old friend, Dov Weissglas, was rushed in to save the day, the result being a half-baked agreement, with critical sections left open (including measures for imposing closures in the West Bank and operational
procedures of the airport in Gaza).
Micromanagement
Wolfensohn is devoid of political ambition. Supreme Court President Aharon Barak would say about him that he has no agenda. Which may explain why he has no problem giving complete credit for the achievement to President Bush and Secretary Rice. Still, there was a note of disappointment and affront from his staff, mainly in regard to the Israelis, who had allowed him to sweat buckets for months on end, and ultimately handed the trophy to Rice. He could find comfort in editorials appearing in The Washington Post and The New York Times, which welcomed the agreement.
The Post compared Bush and Rice to Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger. It was the first time this administration had dared to push its two hands into the mud and deal with details, what they call "micromanagement" − a policy that conjures up the memory of the much-reviled Bill Clinton, and the stinging failure of the Camp David summit of 2000. Perhaps this singular moment of pleasure, which came in a week in which the Senate tied the president`s hands due to the investment in Iraq, will encourage him to invest in the disengagement stock, which has yielded an occasional profit.
"The secretary of state really gave of herself during the last few days," relates Wolfensohn. "Having the most powerful nation on earth taking this interest is a hell of a big thing. President Bush is deeply committed. I have seen him several times, and it`s not a superficial interest. When I see him, he is not the big player of publicity. We sit and talk for an hour, without any photographers." Wolfensohn believes that Bush`s commitment derives from his being a religious man, and therefore the Israeli issue speaks to him personally.
Wolfensohn`s attraction to the Israeli quagmire also has religious and personal roots. At the start of the interview, he relates that his father was an officer in the Jewish Battalion, and that he himself is a "relatively observant Jew" who cares deeply about the well-being of the State of Israel. He paid several visits here during the years in which he worked at the World Bank, and is quite familiar with the Israeli economy and social gaps in Israel.
It is important for him to talk about his Arab friends, including many Palestinians, acquired through no small effort during his years at the bank, and about the feelings of trust they have for him despite his being a proud Jew. He did not seek any financial remuneration for his work, and even contributed generously out of his own pocket to restore the hothouses in the Gaza Strip. At his age - next month he will be 72 - time is the most precious asset, but he is prepared to invest it so that his children and the people he loves will know he tried to do something for the sake of peace in this region.
Wolfensohn is pleased with the agreement reached this week. He feels his team succeeded in striking the right balance, albeit imperfect, between the needs of the Palestinian population and the security concerns of the Israelis. "You can say that these are not dramatic steps, but, having now been involved in these negotiations for six months, to get both sides actually to take a decision of almost any sort, is a victory," he says.
Nevertheless, the accomplishment that he considers most consequential is not the border-crossing agreement, but his contribution to the decision reached by the G8 last year in Scotland, to contribute $3 billion a year for three years to rehabilitation of the economy in the territories. This is an immense sum even by the parameters of the developed Israeli economy. Wolfensohn believes that if the field calms down, it would be possible to raise equally large amounts from Arab states and from Europe.
For many years, you have been busy with matters of supreme importance, such as poverty and epidemics and putting out fires, and now you are dealing with numbers of trucks and security arrangements at a little border crossing.
"When I come here and get engaged in discussions with Palestinians and Israelis, they almost assume that this is the center of the world and the issues here are the most important issues. The issue of two bombs going off and six people being killed or 20 people getting killed and then a reprisal and then another reprisal are the most important things going on.
"The solution lies in building trust between neighbors, not in building concrete walls," he says on the day after Senator Hillary Clinton justified the existence of the separation barrier.
"It is just so preposterous. Not the wall maybe as a technical matter, but the costs that are involved in the wall and all those bypass roads as defense expenditure, the amount of money that is spent every time there is a bomb threat. Closure of the territories after every alert also has far-reaching economic repercussions. I am not suggesting madness, I am not suggesting that Israel has to give up its fundamental right to security and safety. But there is a need to recognize the equivalent desire of the Palestinians to have hope and to have a life for themselves and for their kids.
"I have been consistently worried that the issue of Israel, while emotionally it is great, in terms of scale it`s quite small. Altogether 10 or 12 million Jews and Arabs are fighting with each other in an area of 320 million people and in a world of six billion. The issue of Palestine and Israel has, compared with any other conflict, received a hugely disproportionate share of journalists` attention.
"In my 10 years in the bank, I saw an increasing shift to the larger issues, to the issue of poverty, which is the number one issue in the world. If you want to talk about the poverty issue among Israelis and Palestinians - you do have serious problems with poverty in Israel. I have forgotten the exact percentage, but you are well over 15 percent living under the poverty line. But if you take the same statistics for the Palestinians, you are talking about a community of four or five million, in which more than 50 percent of the people are living in absolute poverty. Whatever you say about Palestinians, there is a strong commitment to education. This is not a 90 percent illiterate group, this is a 90 percent literate group, and whatever you say about Palestinian life, the commitment of Palestinian parents to their children is matched by Israeli parents` commitment to their children. They are not so different.
"Aside from dealing with the issue of poverty, I also dealt with the implications of people moving from the Third World to the developed countries, the issue of population growth, the issue of immigration, the issue of Africa and Central Asia and also problems such as the one France is facing now.
"I feel somehow at this moment that the world is changing. I may be totally wrong, but my belief is that it will be hard for Palestinians and Israelis to maintain the centrality they have in years past. When I come here and get engaged in discussions with Palestinians and Israelis, they almost assume that this is the center of the world and the issues here are the most important issues. This is a very dangerous assumption. We now have a chance, while the scale is as it is between Israelis and Palestinians, to put this conflict behind us and take some risks for peace."
Many Israelis are skeptical about coexistence between such geographically close neighbors that, in terms of economic development, are light years distant.
"I happen to know residents of the territories who are equally talented in modern technology. At the leadership level, there are also many similarities. But I don`t think it matters what judgment you make, because concerning demographics, the birthrate in Palestinian communities is somewhere between 4 or 5 percent, and it is somewhere between 1 and 2 percent in Israel. And you can say let`s wait another 25 years until we address this question, and then the demographics will be significantly against you. And you have just missed an opportunity for better understanding.
"The point I want to make here is that everything I am saying might be debatable, and in any event I am not the king and not the prime minister. A decision has to be an Israeli or Palestinian decision. I think what I and my colleagues might be able to do is to give you choices. You can say, to hell with the Palestinians, we can`t trust them, and we are just going it alone and build one wall or two walls, and we`re going to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves and kill them. And the Palestinians can say: I`m not going to let my kids grow up undernourished with 60 percent in poverty and so if I can get back at them, I`m going to kill them. If you want that environment, there`s nothing I can do to stop it. I am not saying I am morally right, or economically right or anything right; what I am saying is it seems to me as an individual, who has traveled 130 capitals in 10 years, who knows the world, that there is something crazy about these two peoples beating each other up, showing total distrust, and not giving some new approach to peace a chance."
And after months of negotiating on technical details, do you believe there is a chance?
All that someone like me can do is to try and contribute, first, to understanding some of the problems, and secondly, to lay out some practical ways in which the tensions can be reduced and in which understanding can be increased. When the majority wants to give peace a chance, you`ll have a huge commitment from the global community. All that I can do and my colleagues can do is to lay down options. You will have to decide - not me - whether it`s worth picking them up. If you ask me if it is fragile or if I am certain of it, I will say that it is fragile and that I am not certain of it. But I will do everything I can to make it stronger. It`s your decision to give it a chance."
* * *
|
| |
|
Buying fish in the sea
an interview with Ghassan Khatib This week Palestine Report Online interviews Minister of Planning, Ghassan Khatib, on the Palestinian Authority`s plans for lands following the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
PR: What kind of plans does the PA have for properties in former Jewish settlements after the withdrawal?
Khatib: According to the information we have so far, the Israelis are going to destroy the houses and keep the agricultural assets only in addition to some aspects of the infrastructure, such as the sewage and water networks and probably electricity. Concerning the agricultural assets, which is the main thing they are going to leave, the plan is to try to maintain the continuity of productivity of these assets in order to maintain the revenues and make use of them to the benefit of the Palestinian side and to maintain the assets that have been employing something like 4,000 Palestinian workers.
The Palestinian Authority has decided to keep the land under the PA on the basis that most of these lands 97 percent are state lands and try to arrange for private sectors to take the management of these assets. This is going to be done in two phases. The first phase starts the day after the withdrawal and will last for six months. The PA will ask the Palestinian Investment Fund, which is the tool of the PA to deal with investment issues and to be responsible for the management of running these assets. The Palestinian Investment Fund has established a company for investments in Gaza and that company will be responsible for running these assets. This company will contract specific private sector agencies to handle the issue for six months. The reason for this phase is that it is difficult to find anyone in the private sector willing to take the risk and sign a contract on assets that nobody knows the details of. It is like buying fish in the sea.
So the risk has to be taken by the Investment Fund, which is owned by the PA, for six months. During these six months, there will be public bids to invite the private sector to compete in taking the responsibility of managing the bits and pieces of these agricultural assets.
PR: Some Gaza municipalities have claimed they have not been informed of any of the PA`s plans. Is there no coordination with them?
Khatib: There is coordination but these new assets happen to be outside the borders of the different municipalities. When the municipal zoning took place, these areas were under Israeli control in the settlements, so there is no municipal jurisdiction over these areas. The PA, particularly the planning ministry, has finished a land-use plan, which specifies which land should be used for what and that land-use plan was approved by the relevant authority, the higher organization council, which is the highest level body responsible for zoning and land-use planning. That plan included the areas that will be used for agriculture, those allocated for tourism, areas for natural reserves and industrial development or for transportation, etc.
This plan was thoroughly discussed over the course of a year with mayors, municipal councils, local authorities, with different ministries and with private sectors. It took a whole year to arrive at this plan, which was accepted completely by everybody. It was voted for in the Cabinet and it was accepted with no reservations by anybody.
PR: You said 97 percent of the land is state land. What about the remaining three percent? Will it be returned to its original owners?
Khatib: We don`t know yet. For that purpose, we established a fast-track court, which will look into the private claims of property and we will of course hand the pieces of land back to whoever proves their ownership in this court. We assumed and are now discussing a new legislation in the Legislative Council that would give the PA the legal jurisdiction and custodianship over these lands. In three months, these fast-track courts will look into any claim of ownership and when this claim is proven to the court, then the person will be given the right to take his land back.
PR: Does the PA have a contingency plan should Israel not cooperate vis-à-vis the implementation of plans after the withdrawal?
Khatib: Yes, there has been preparation for this because Israel has already told us that during this period [of withdrawal] there will be a closure. We also anticipated possible future punishment of this sort. So, we included in our plans the storing of a certain amount of basic commodities and needs to be able to live with such possible restrictions.
PR: How much are donor countries involved in the post-disengagement period? Is the PA heavily relying on money from outside?
Khatib: Yes, to a large extent. Relatively speaking, there have been solid commitments by donors to immediately start financing tens of projects. The Americans have already passed to the PA $60 million for specific infrastructure projects that have been agreed on. The work will begin immediately the day after withdrawal.
Many other countries have also already made commitments to implement infrastructure projects. There will be several major infrastructure projects like water distribution, carriers and storage, waste water projects, solid waste projects and road construction. For example, the main highway, which connects the north to the south or the Saleh Eddin Street is going to be rehabilitated by the Japanese and they are planning to offer $22 million for that road. There is also the coastal road, which is a new highway along the coast. There have been American and Japanese commitments to this. There are commitments by many other countries including Arab countries for housing projects in different locations. So if things go as planned, there will be a large number of major infrastructure projects financed by the donor community.
PR: Are you optimistic about the future of Gaza?
Khatib: I expect that there is going to be a relatively good economic situation in the immediate period after the withdrawal because of donor commitments. But in the mid-term, if Israel continues its restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, there is little chance of economic recovery. -Published August 17, 2005©Palestine Report
|
* * *
Peres: No chance of clinching peace without dividing J`lem
Vice Premier Shimon Peres said on Sunday that there was no chance of reaching a "conclusive agreement" with the Palestinians unless Israel partitioned Jerusalem and ceded the West Bank city of Hebron.
Peres, speaking to Israel Radio, also said the Gush Etzion settlement area would not be returned to the Palestinians under any future peace accord.
The Labor Party chairman said he believes "there is no chance of reaching a conclusive agreement with the Palestinian Authority without giving back Hebron and dividing Jerusalem."
But he added that "no one believes Israel will give back Gush Etzion [under any future agreement with the Palestinians]."
Labor has been Prime Minister Ariel Sharon`s key political ally in his bid to implement the disengagement plan.
During the Labor premiership of Ehud Barak in the late 1990s, it was reported that Barak had put out feelers to the Palestinians over possible ways to divide Jerusalem, the estern half of which Palestinians envisage as the capital of a future independent Palestine.
|
A PALESTINIAN VIEW
There cannot be two rulers
an interview with Camille Mansour
bitterlemons: The issue of law and order is particularly urgent at the moment. What are the main concerns?
Mansour: In the present situation, law and order is something that it is vitally important to maintain and establish in the Palestinian Authority areas, and the issue has become particularly urgent now that we wish to go back to the negotiating table with the Israelis and put behind us the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation that started in September 2000.
The problem is the Palestinian Authority and its security apparatuses have lost control on the ground. It is extremely important for the PA to re-establish both its prestige and respect for the law among the Palestinian people. It`s important not only for the continuation of the peace process but for the benefit of the people.
However, I do not believe it`s possible to maintain law and order in the long run if there is no peace process. If there is no progress toward the end of the occupation and the ending of Israeli control over Palestinian movement within the West Bank, within Gaza, between the West Bank and Gaza and between the West Bank and Gaza and the outside world, it is impossible to maintain law and order in the long run. If there is no hope for a solution and, indeed, no final agreement, the PA can only establish law and order for a short while before there is a new breakdown. There is no other situation anywhere in the world where an occupied people succeeds in maintaining law and order among themselves when every day they are controlled and their land is expropriated by outside forces.
Having said this, it doesn`t mean the PA or the people have no obligation to work toward establishing law and order. In fact, I would say that in order to better resist the occupation, law and order are necessary. The existence of law and order means there is a unified people. It means there can be no civil war. If someone violates the law he is punished. If the violator is not punished because the PA is not capable of doing so, then we are heading for social unrest and a weakening of the social fabric. If this happens, the political resistance is weakened.
bitterlemons: With this anomalous situation--that under occupation there is this demand that the occupied people should keep itself in line--what can the PA do to maintain order?
Mansour: It can impose law and order in the short term if there is hope that the occupation will end.
bitterlemons: How can the PA do so in the short term?
Mansour: It is possible if there is hope, if people feel the international community is ready to take steps to end the occupation, to remove the Israeli forces and ensure the dismantlement of the settlements. But if people don`t have hope then it`s impossible. If a person`s land is expropriated, if he is the victim of a settler`s aggression and he has no recourse to the law, how can you persuade people to respect any law? You cannot have two laws and two rulers, the law of the occupier and the law of the occupied authority.
Hope, in the short term, is mostly connected to the behavior of the Israeli military. In the present situation, when we hear that there is a withdrawal from Gaza but an intensification of settlement activity in the West Bank and a speeding up of the construction of the wall in and around Jerusalem, people will be skeptical, and that is a major obstacle to establish law and order.
But steps can be taken in the meanwhile, and we are witnessing this in the reforms in the security forces as well as steps to reform the judiciary. The rule of law is also necessary for the socio-economic situation to improve.
bitterlemons: What in the judiciary needs to be reformed?
Mansour: A lot needs to be done in the judiciary. We need to have a truly independent, impartial, accountable and efficient judiciary. We have to work at different levels, whether in the judiciary itself, the executive and even the legislative branches, insofar as the latter has to set the needed legal framework, one which is modern and in conformity with international standards. Concerning the judiciary, we need to look at how appointments are made, we need to ensure transparency of appointments and promotions, and set up a system of inspections and discipline.
As for the executive, the task is to facilitate access of people and lawyers to the court, and having courts that can receive cases and are equipped to receive the public. With respect to criminal cases, the public prosecution must be capable of collecting evidence against a suspect and for this it needs the assistance of the police. For example, there is the issue of summons: the police must be able to go to outlying villages to serve summons. Finally, we need to defend the courts, legal professionals, defendants and accusers against people entering courtrooms with weapons.
The police and security services have to be under the judiciary, insofar as they perform judicial functions, and must be ready, willing and trained to not only protect the courtrooms, but to execute sentences.
bitterlemons: What about the issue of corruption. How does that affect due process?
Mansour: One has to divide the issue of corruption into different components. One is about Israel. As Israel controls access to and from Palestinian areas, there have undoubtedly been connections between privileged Palestinians and Israelis to allow the movement of these people`s goods and their persons. That is one component and it is prevalent in any situation that requires importation.
Then we need to distinguish between corruption and the ability of some people due to family connections to get good jobs in the Authority. Is it corruption? Well, it is not the rule of law, it is not the modern way of appointing people to the civil service. But should we call it corruption? I am not sure. It is about perception. The PA comes from a traditional society where families are important in getting access to jobs and privileges. Maybe, in an ideal situation in ten years, this phenomenon no longer exists. To me, the more important corruption is when there is a bid for a contract and someone gets the contract because they pay under the table. This must be absolutely condemned. But getting a job through personal connections, well, it`s not acceptable, but it is a social phenomenon that will not disappear overnight.
bitterlemons: So in the short term...
Mansour: In the short term, the PA must work to restore the people`s faith in the authority and its institutions by working to reform the judiciary and the security services. But ultimately, success in establishing and durably maintaining law and order and due process depends on the end of the occupation.- Published 11/7/2005 (c) bitterlemons.org
|
10/07/2005
Olmert to `Post`: Pullout should only take two weeks
By DAVID HOROVITZ
Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: The world will not tolerate a government which depends on terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the Hizb
Though disengagement is "a major undertaking for Israel" and a "very painful" one, it will likely take no longer than two weeks to carry out from start to finish, Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said over the weekend.
"I think it will take no more than two weeks. I think that it shouldn`t take more than two weeks," he said.
Israel was not sealing off the Gaza Strip prematurely, he said, precisely so that it would not involve itself in "confrontations and battle" with opponents of disengagement that would last two months. The intention, rather, was to "focus on the short period starting on the 17th [of August] and carry out [disengagement] as fast as possible."
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Olmert also reiterated Israel`s demand to the Palestinian Authority to stamp out Hamas and other terrorist groups, and noted that, although there could be no direct comparisons, Israel`s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, had acted speedily to dismantle the "many different military organizations that were not part of the national discipline."
Asked if he was referring to the Altalena affair, when the nascent Israeli army was ordered to open fire on a ship carrying arms for Menachem Begin`s Irgun Zvai Leumi in June 1948, with the killing of 14 IZL members, some of whom were Holocaust survivors, Olmert said he was "talking about everything" Ben-Gurion was doing at the time.
He said some of this was violent, sad, painful, "can`t be forgotten and in some ways can`t even be forgiven."
Olmert said he did not require that Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas "follow the patterns of the State of Israel. He should do it in his own way."
But the terror groups were not only enemies of Israel, Olmert said. They were "enemies of the chance for the Palestinians to establish a credible, acceptable and respected democratic government. The world will not tolerate a government which depends on terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the Hizbullah."
Commenting on the repercussions of Thursday`s terror attacks in London, Olmert said they would require the British to "rapidly change their attitude to the requirements of dealing with the day-to-day threat" of terrorism.
Plainly, he said, there was insufficient awareness in the UK of the necessary security measures and intelligence to thwart terror. The blasts, he said, also highlighted the imperative for tighter international cooperation.
Speaking more generally of Europe, Olmert added that the fact that the Europeans had "tacitly" conducted "some kind of preliminary talks with Hamas" was evidence that they didn`t
|
4/07/2005
`The Israelis have won`
By Akiva Eldar
It was almost 27 years ago that the United States ambassador to Tunisia, Robert Pelletreau, initiated official contacts between the United States and the Palestine Liberation Organization. President Ronald Reagan`s decision to open a dialogue with the PLO was a crucial move in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Last week, Bob and Dr. Pamela Pelletreau, directors of the Middle East office of the Search for Common Ground peace organization, closed up their home in Jerusalem. They bid farewell to their many Palestinian and Israeli friends sadly - sadly because of the peace process that has collapsed, sadly because of the common ground that has faded.
Bob Pelletreau`s first contact with the PLO took place in Amman in September, 1970, the notorious "Black September." In the midst of the bloody battles between King Hussein`s army and Yasser Arafat`s fighters, George Habash`s people attacked the Intercontinental Hotel and took about 30 hostages, among them American citizens. Pelletreau, then a diplomat of 35 at the U.S. Embassy, went to negotiate with the abductors and was himself taken to join them. At the end of a press conference at which he was proudly displayed with the rest of the hostages, Pelletreau asked an American journalist who was sitting near him to hand him his notebook, and slipped out with the rest of the journalists.
His short stint in Palestinian captivity afforded a glimpse at the Palestinian experience and a look at his country`s complex place in their world. The guard who was designated to watch him spent most of his time asking him about the shortest way to get a visa to the United States - the big patron of the Zionist enemy.
On November 15, 1988, when the Palestinian National Council in Algiers took the historic decision to recognize United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and adopt the two-state approach, Arafat was looking toward America. Four weeks later the Palestinian leader committed himself, at a press conference he held in Geneva, to putting an end to the armed struggle against Israel.
Pelletreau is convinced that it was the desire to get into America`s good books that motivated Arafat. The formulation that the chairman held in his hand on December 14, 1988, he says, had been written in Washington and entrusted into the hands of an Arab messenger. The messenger never left Arafat`s side during the course of that press conference.
Several hours later, in Tunis, Pelletreau began the dialogue with the PLO leadership. Arafat was not partner to these talks. The American ambassador was not a high enough official for him, and he expected (in vain) an invitation to meet with the secretary of state. Arafat`s veteran deputy, Abu Jihad, did not participate in the meetings either. Eight months earlier Israel had assassinated him in his home, a few hundred yards from the U.S. ambassador`s residence. Pelletreau says that Abu Jihad was the brains behind the PLO leadership, which was at that time looking for a way out of the dead end in which it found itself. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) was among the aides Arafat had sent to persuade the ambassador that peace was his aim. Pelletreau reported to Washington that there was someone to talk to.
Opening doors
Bob Pelletreau, a slender man who looks far younger than his age (he will be 70 this month), grins from ear to ear when he speaks about the odd couple, Ariel Sharon and Hafez Assad, who pushed Arafat out of Beirut and into that dead end from which were born the dialogue between the United States and the PLO, the Madrid summit and the Oslo agreement - stepping-stones for U.S. President George W. Bush`s two-state vision.
"[The Palestinians] realized that the military option had only set them back, pretty fast," recalls Pelletreau. "So why not try another option? Another option was to go for a two-state solution and to do what they eventually did with some reluctance, which was to renounce all forms of terrorism and accept the existence of the State of Israel. And open the door to the dialogue."
Remarking on prime minister Yitzhak Shamir`s decision (in the unity government with Shimon Peres) to assassinate Abu Jihad, Pelletreau says: "He was the new real brain-power of the inner, core leadership. So if you were in a mode that you are never going to deal with the PLO on a two-state solution, who are the people that you really need to get rid of?"
Several years earlier, during a familiarization tour of the Middle East with John Whitehead, the new deputy secretary of state at the time, Pelletreau heard what Shamir, then foreign minister, thought about the PLO. Whitehead said that he came from the world of finance, where it was customary to take decisions in accordance with the amount of down-side risk that is involved in an investment, and noted that he did not see much risk in Israel talking to the PLO. "Shamir was astounded," recalls Pelletreau.
The following day Shamir sent the director general of the Foreign Ministry, David Kimche, to breakfast with the deputy secretary at the residence of American Ambassador Samuel Lewis, to set the visitor straight about the disastrous dimensions if the PLO were to win any sort of recognition.
"David did his usual competent job," says Pelletreau, "but the feeling was growing in Washington that something had to be done to overcome the Kissinger Sinai II assurances," not to have anything to do with the PLO. In recent years, Kimche has been active in numerous peace organizations striving to maintain and nurture relations with PLO officials and the Palestinian Authority.
According to Pelletreau, when Shamir set out for the Madrid summit in October, 1991, Washington did not conceal from him who was giving the orders to the delegation from the territories. Pelletreau is convinced that Israeli intelligence also knew that Hanan Ashrawi`s texts were being proofread in Tunis.
Few if any Western diplomats have been able to get to know so many Arab leaders so closely. Pelletreau spent his entire diplomatic career in the Middle East. His first posting, in 1962, in John F. Kennedy`s administration, was as third secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Morocco. In 1997 he completed his service as director of the Middle East department at the State Department with the status of assistant secretary of state. In between he served as ambassador in Bahrain, Tunisia and Egypt, and deputy ambassador in Syria. Before that, he filled more junior diplomatic posts in Mauritania, Jordan, Algeria and Beirut, where he also learned Arabic.
`Lawrence of Arabia` syndrome
Pelletreau objects to the title "Arabist," a label that has been applied to him and a large group of American diplomats who have spent many years in Arab countries, a label that hints at the "Lawrence of Arabia" syndrome. The only syndrome from which he suffers, say his acquaintances, is an addiction to the peace process in the Middle East. He has had a bellyful of those who stand in the way of this sacred aim. He is angry at Arafat, who did not keep his word to disassociate himself entirely from any Palestinian who is linked to terror. This was the reason that at the end of the 1980s, when the chairman asked to meet with the American ambassador in Tunis, Washington ordered Pelletreau to lock the door.
In the mid-1990s, following the Oslo agreement, President Bill Clinton sent Pelletreau on a mission to raise donations for the Palestinians in the Gulf states. He relates that the Kuwaiti emir conditioned his country`s aid on an apology from Arafat for his support of Saddam Hussein`s invasion of his country. When Pelletreau reported this to Arafat, "he reddened and sputtered, `Kuwait? Kuwait? I built Kuwait.` Needless to say, there was no apology and no assistance." Pelletreau notes that the reconciliation only took place during PA Chairman Abu Mazen`s visit to Kuwait at the beginning of this year.
Pelletreau also has had a bellyful of President George W. Bush (the diplomat was one of the heads of the forum of retired ambassadors working for John Kerry). He cannot recall a president who was less involved in the peace process than Bush. He says that Bush has in fact taken America out of the game and has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If it were up to him, Pelletreau says, he would open channels to elected and pragmatic officials in Hamas and Hezbollah. This was the approach of the Clinton administration, which sent him to probe the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He says that the absence of a back channel between the United States and Syria has made it difficult for them to understand each other.
Pelletreau suggests that President Bush`s decision to keep his distance from the peace process has its source in domestic politics, especially on Capitol Hill. He has not forgotten the affair of the legislation to transfer the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem - an initiative that was born in right-wing Jewish and Israeli circles that were seeking any way possible to interfere with the peace process. Pelletreau, who at that time was assistant secretary of state of Middle East affairs, was sent to present Congress with the Clinton administration`s reservations about the timing of the legislation. He says that Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California) invited him to his office to hint to him that for the sake of his career, he should not show too much enthusiasm.
From the perspective of 43 years of Middle East experience, he says that an imperfect peace, like that with Egypt, is preferable to a concrete wall and unilateral withdrawals. The Israelis, he says, "don`t realize that they have won, that Israeli society has successfully established a state here, a vibrant society, a mosaic society that has come together, that is part of this region and part of the world, that`s not going to be overturned easily. And most of the Arab world, virtually all, is willing to live with an Israel that is willing to live with them."
Quite apart from that, he has a bit of advice for Israeli politicians: that the saying that discretion is the better part of valor is true in any language. Pelletreau was around when then vice president Al Gore`s assistant Leon Fuerth gave his boss a full report of things he heard Benjamin Netanyahu, at that time the leader of the opposition, say at a dinner in honor of Gore during his visit to Jerusalem - which were "candid and apparently unflattering impressions of the Veep" - not taking into account that there are Americans who know Hebrew, and unaware that Fuerth had understood every word.
|
Departing Israeli Army Chief Is Gloomy on Peace Prospects
By STEVEN ERLANGER NYT
Published: June 2, 2005
JERUSALEM, June 1 - Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon ended his term as Israel`s military chief of staff on Wednesday, praised for modernizing and revamping the armed forces and putting down the second Palestinian uprising. But as he leaves office, General Yaalon, 54, is gloomy about chances for peace, despite the election of Mahmoud Abbas, who opposes violence against the Israelis, as the Palestinian leader.
After the last four years of bloodshed, the general said, "I can`t offer now a simple, achievable solution."
"So we have to manage a conflict," he continued, "And we`re strong enough to do it." After Israel pulls out of the Gaza Strip, as it has said it intends to do this summer, he expects another outbreak of violence in the West Bank, he said.
With the Oslo accords of 1993, through the Camp David negotiations, until the current uprising, or intifada, which began in 2000, Israel tried to move toward a two-state solution with the Palestinians by dividing the land, the general said in a 90minute interview on Friday in his Tel Aviv office.
"It was achievable," he said. "But the Palestinian leadership and Yasir Arafat refused to recognize our right to exist as an Israeli state. The Palestinian answer was to initiate a war to avoid a political process and the end of conflict and the recognition of Israel alongside a Palestinian state, unfortunately."
Those basic issues remain unresolved among the Palestinians and will remain so until Mr. Abbas confronts the power of the militant Islamic movement Hamas, General Yaalon said.
The Palestinians, of course, have their own interpretation of why peace talks failed at the end of President Clinton`s term, and why the intifada began: out of popular frustration with the continuing Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
General Yaalon`s views are widely shared in Israel and in the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Despite the general`s gentle demeanor, he is a tough man who once said the lesson that terrorism will not pay "must be seared onto the Palestinians` minds."
But he annoyed Mr. Sharon by saying the government had not been generous enough with security concessions to help Mr. Abbas during his short-lived term in 2003 as Mr. Arafat`s prime minister. Despite General Yaalon`s desire to serve another year, to see through the Israeli pullout from Gaza this summer, his predecessor, Shaul Mofaz, now defense minister, said his services would no longer be required.
General Yaalon was a paratrooper who had a steady rise over 37 years to become chief of intelligence, chief of central command and chief of staff. He believed in Oslo, he said.
"But looking back, I have every reason to suspect the Palestinians and not to trust them on security arrangements and keeping their side of a deal," he said. "It remains a problem for us, the principle of accountability. We want to make a deal in the evening and have it true in the morning."
As Israel prepares to leave Gaza, "I worry about the situation of the Palestinian Authority," he said. "I hope we`ll face one Palestinian Authority with one law and one weapon," which Mr. Abbas cites as his goal.
"But I`m not sure it will happen," he added. "What we see now is armed gangs. The reality is that there are two organizations still there, equipped and capable," with Hamas seeing itself as equal to the Palestinian Authority, not subordinate. "And Hamas has been allowed by the new Palestinian chairman to participate in the political process, and even elections, without giving up its weapons."
In General Yaalon`s view, Mr. Abbas has moved too slowly to assert the power he won in his landslide election, when he could have moved more quickly to take away Hamas`s guns. "He dithers too much," he said of Mr. Abbas. "He`s not firm. There`s a gap between his decisions and the reality on the ground. Terrorist groups like Hamas are taking advantage of the situation to regroup."
Mr. Abbas and Mr. Sharon will meet on June 21, officials from both sides said Wednesday. Their first summit meeting was on Feb. 8, where they declared a cease-fire that has largely held.
General Yaalon was reported to be against the Gaza disengagement plan when it was first discussed, but he quickly fell into line and, by all accounts, has planned the army`s role with his customary attention to detail - with an emphasis on treating the settlers "as brothers," not as enemies. "There is no doubt that we will implement it," he said. "The price of not implementing a government decision in a democracy would be disastrous."
But he is reluctant to praise the plan or to predict that Israel will be safer the next day. "I`m not sure what will be the impact of the disengagement plan," he said warily. "There are too many questions about the day after," including how the Palestinians "write their narrative" and the lessons they draw - either Israel is seen by Palestinians to be leaving Gaza because of its own interests, or as having been driven out "because of terrorism," he said.
After disengagement, he expects that Hamas will "keep peace and quiet in Gaza" as it concentrates on politics "and prefer to renew terror attacks in the West Bank," which Israel will continue to occupy. "But when we react to the attacks in the West Bank, they might use the weapons from the Gaza Strip as well," General Yaalon said. "Maybe that`s the reason Mahmoud Abbas lets them keep them."
Peace will only come through a change of values in the Middle East, he said, a process encouraged by President Bush and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
"This trend is positive," the general said. "The impact of democracy is more important than the other issues in the region. It`s the only answer to stability here, or we`ll face more groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda growing up in the madrasas," the Muslim religious schools.
He is particularly impressed with recent developments in Lebanon. "For the first time, the Arab street dared to express itself and threw the Syrians out of Lebanon," he said. "They did it with the support of the United Nations, but they did it. And for the first time, Israel is not involved in the internal debate and we`re not blamed."
Democracy is also coming to Egypt and the Palestinians, he said, "but to change values and attitudes will take time." It may also require a new leadership in Iran, which he said now has "the most radical regime in the region," committed to the export of its Islamic revolution, the undermining of moderate Arab governments, the destruction of Israel and the attainment of nuclear weapons.
The main threat is not that Iran will use a nuclear weapon, he said, but the power it would gain from having one. "The threat is hegemony," as much a threat to Egypt as to Israel, he said. He believes that Iran can still be dissuaded by Western political and economic pressure.
But as he moves aside for Dan Halutz, promoted on Wednesday to lieutenant general and chief of staff, his advice is simple and Roman: "If you want peace, prepare for war."
|
Egyptian Ambassador: Egypt will not police Gaza
By ORLY HALPERN
Israel should not expect Egypt to prevent any terrorist attacks that may emanate from the Gaza Strip after Israel`s withdrawal, Egyptian Ambassador to Israel Assef Ibrahim said Monday.
"Don`t expect Egypt to be your policeman in Gaza," he told The Jerusalem Post in an exclusive interview in his Tel Aviv office. "Egypt will not play this role. This is basically an Israeli problem and an Israeli question [which] you have to solve yourselves."
Israel, however, could expect better control of smuggling across the border were Egypt allowed to station more troops, Ibrahim said.
He added that those troops would not be intended for use against Israel.
Israel is planning to unilaterally withdraw its settlements from the Gaza Strip in August, but questions remain over who will prevent Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages.
The supply of weapons to Palestinian terrorists inside Gaza comes from underground tunnels dug between the two sides of the 10-kilometer-long Egyptian-Palestinian border.
Ibrahim said controlling and eventually ending the smuggling depends upon the number of Egyptian troops allowed to patrol the border.
"Due to the peace treaty we don`t have enough troops on the ground to take responsibility for [the smugglers]," he said. "If we have extra troops we can have extra responsibility."
The 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty allows Egypt to deploy a small number of lightly armed civilian police along its border with Israel. In late 2004 the two countries agreed that Egypt would deploy some 750 soldiers on the Gaza border, and recently they began discussing putting about three times as many forces along the 250-km. Egyptian-Israeli border.
"Negotiations are taking place as we speak between the experts," Ibrahim said, adding that the contact is by phone and through meetings between military officials over legal and political issues.
Some Israeli politicians and military officials fear that a large number of armed Egyptian troops on the border with Israel and the Gaza Strip would be a preamble to a future attack. Ibrahim bristled at the suggestion.
"I don`t have to prove anything to anyone," he said. "I have been at peace with you for the last 25 years and I have never violated it. You went to war with Lebanon and I did not break the peace treaty with you."
Ibrahim stressed that Israel`s security is of interest to Egypt, as evidenced by the fact that Egypt`s Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Abdul-Gheit, will reportedly be making his first visit to Israel in about three weeks.
"Of course I have a problem when the security of my neighbor by the name of Israel is threatened or violated, and through my territories," he said. "It is something which bothers me. It is not good news for me. But what can I do? If you have some ideas, come and discuss it with me."
Looking visibly disturbed, Ibrahim said, "If some of you are still worried that Egypt is preparing to go to war with you then maybe the time is not right to discuss it. But, (a) I have no intention whatsoever of going to war with you; (b) I have no intention of ever threatening your national security; (c) I am seeking a reasonable neighborhood relation with my neighbor by the name of Israel; and (d) If you want to cooperate with me, please some kavod," he said using the Hebrew word for respect.
Even with the additional troops Egypt would not assume "absolute responsibility" for handling the smugglers, Ibrahim said. He compared the situation to a traffic cop who may not be able to prevent an accident but is responsible for "minimizing the possibility of an accident" and "investigating it, and maybe [developing] new rules and regulations to lessen these incidents."
The Egyptian-Israeli border is rife with smuggling. Drugs and prostitutes are commonly infiltrated under cover of night across the Sinai-Negev border. Israel has received negative attention from human rights groups for the large number of prostitutes entering the country, for which it has been accused of human trafficking akin to slavery an accusation it is keen to dispel.
Ibrahim, 59, who took his position in March, is not new to Egyptian-Israeli relations. He was involved in making both war on and peace with his Jewish neighbor.
"I have vivid memories of visiting the late prime minister Menachem Begin at his apartment, going to the house of Ezer Weizman and having coffee and lunch there, and staying overnight at the Sharon ranch [when Ariel Sharon was minister of defense]," Ibrahim said.
His career began with an appointment by former Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser to be a presidential aide just after graduating from the prestigious economics department of Cairo University. There he was exposed first to making war with Israel.
"I spent all my time in `the kitchen` with the small forum," Ibrahim said, using the term used by late prime minister Golda Meir for the high-level meetings she held in her kitchen to refer to the meetings of Egyptian leaders involved in running the state and planning the 1973 war against Israel.
In 1975 the 29-year-old bachelor left the presidential office for the Foreign Ministry. "I was tired," he said, adding that he was too busy then to get married. It was later that he met his wife, who is also a diplomat and now serves as Egypt`s ambassador to Switzerland.
Ibrahim was put in charge of the office of Kamal Hassan Ali, who was then the deputy prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs, and negotiating the normalization and final withdrawal from Sinai and the arbitration of Taba.
"With him I received in Cairo all the Israeli delegations," he said, adding that technically speaking "I was in charge of Israeli-Egyptian relations."
Ibrahim later served in Canada, Australia and in Egypt`s mission to the UN. Over the last 10 years he was in charge of the "Nile File." He established the first mission to Eritrea and was later ambassador to Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan.
Ibrahim`s appointment to Israel was unusual. Most Egyptian ambassadors get their last four-year posting at age 56 so they can retire at age 60. Ibrahim was also considering his retirement when he was called up to take the post that had been empty for four years.
"As someone approaching 60 I thought that it`s time for retirement, it is enough," he said.
|
Interview with Shimon Peres
Herb Keinan and Gil Hofffman JPOST
In another life, Shimon Peres could have been a brilliant copywriter. He loves the clever turn of a phrase, the summing up of an idea in a few brief words, alliteration.
"It is either terrorism, or tourism," he says in an interview.
"In politics you have to jump, but the long jump, not the high jump," goes another.
"If you`re a rain maker, you`re a drought maker as well." Peres talks about "privatizing peace" and needing to provide bread for the hungry even before the bakery is up and running.
Peres would have made a terrific advertisement executive, thinking up the campaign slogan for soaps, or soft-drinks, or potato chips.
One leaves a meeting with the Labor party head impressed by the aphorisms, but often scratching the head a little while later wondering exactly what they mean. Sometimes something sounds good at first blush, but when you stop and think about it doesn`t necessarily make sense.
Never mind. Peres knows what he means, and he knows what he wants. The perpetual politician, who will turn 83 in August, is showing no sign of slowing down, or yielding to others.
Peres, who brought Labor into Prime Minister Ariel Sharon`s government last year, is in an awkward position. One gets the sense he likes Sharon and his policies, but can`t really says so, because if that`s the case, why vote for his party in 2006.
He is in the thick of the disengagement process, trying to facilitate coordination and create an economic viable situation for the Palestinians after disengagement. He is also in the thick of the Labor party primaries, readying for another run.
Peres tries to project the image of somehow being above the Labor political fray, saying he doesn`t really have to campaign for the upcoming primaries, but when prompted he lets loose barbs against his opponents, especially Ehud Barak.
Peres, less combative in this interview than in recent ones with The Jerusalem Post, doesn`t feel the need to apologize for anything: not his age, not his policies, not his support of the settlement enterprise in the 1970s. His faith in the transforming nature of a decent standard of living for the Palestinians remains unchanged, as does his focus not only on Palestinian obligations, but on Israeli ones as well.
The Jerusalem Post: The Labor primaries are scheduled next month, and the other candidates are busy running. They are saying that an 82-year-old candidate shouldn`t run. What`s your response?
Shimon Peres: The question in not biological. I know young people whose youth doesn`t help, and older people whose age doesn`t hurt. I see no reason to justify myself. Age is not a sin.
How long can you go on if elected?
What are you worried about? Until 120 I have permission from the Lord himself. The problem is not my age, the problem is my fitness, and I feel quite well.
If you win the elections, what happens to the Sharon government? Do you remain or pull out?
For me [what is important] is not the government, it is the peace process. As long as Sharon`s government deals with peace, I will be there. When he retreats from the peace process, I will leave the government. The government is a means, not an end.
The first priority is to complete the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip it is not a done deal. Together with that, I see two other parallel process the first is to save the Negev and the Galilee, which are both in very difficult economic and social straits, and the second is to continue the peace process after Gaza.
What does that mean?
That means entering negotiations over the road map.
Sharon constantly says we are not yet on the road map, but in a pre-road map stage. Do you agree?
Why are definitions important? If we leave Gaza it is an achievement. If we don`t, it`s a catastrophe. The withdrawal from Gaza in my eyes is a condition for the continuation of the process.
Do you envision something blocking the disengagement? Are you not sure at this point that it will happen?
I can see a couple of things that can spoil it.
Like what?
The destruction of the homes [in the settlements]. If we destroy the homes, it will lengthen the process by three months, since according to international law we will need to clean up the debris. We are talking about 1.2 million tons. It will take three months to remove, and cost NIS 150 million. Then we have to find a place in Israel to dump it. This alone can spoil it.
I can imagine this may postpone disengagement, but could it stop it?
In the meantime, what do you think will happen? We will destroy [the homes] and they [the Palestinians] will stand by and applaud? It will create a negative process. We will lose their faith that we stand by dates. And for what, so we are seen on television as destroyers of homes. It doesn`t make any sense.
But I understand the Palestinians also don`t want the homes to remain?
The Palestinians are not thrilled with unilateral disengagement, they don`t want to take responsibility for it.
But what do they want us to do with the homes?
They say to do with them what we want. Saeb Erekat said they don`t want the houses, others are saying something different. There is no set position.
And Quartet envoy James Wolfensohn and the World Bank, what do they say?
Wolfensohn is against destroying them. He says, wh |
| | | |
