Dr. James Zogby

Viewpoint Episode and Transcript: 05/31/07

Posted on Thursday June 21, 2007

Maya Berry: HI. I’M MAYA BERRY. WELCOME TO “VIEWPOINT.”
JIM IS OFF THIS WEEK. TONIGHT WE’LL DISCUSS THE SITUATION IN LEBANON WITH MARK PERRY, DIRECTOR OF THE CONFLICTS FORUM. THEN JONATHON BRODER OF “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY” WILL BE HERE WITH US TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS OF THE ISRAELI PEACE MOVEMENT. BUT OUR FIRST GUEST TONIGHT IS DR. PHILIP GORDON. HE’S A SENIOR FELLOW FOR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION. PRIOR TO HIS POSITION AT BROOKINGS, HE WAS DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. HE’S JUST FINISHED A BOOK DUE OUT THIS SUMMER IN AUGUST ENTITLED
“WINNING THE RIGHT WAR: THE PATH TO SECURITY FOR AMERICA AND
THE WORLD,” WHICH OFFERS A NEW STRATEGY FOR WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR—QUOTE, UNQUOTE, I WILL SAY IT THAT WAY.
I WANT TO START BY SAYING THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.
AND FOR OUR VIEWERS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ON THIS NEW TIME
SCHEDULE. FOR THOSE OF YOU RETURNING, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
THOSE OF YOU FINDING US FOR THE FIRST TIME, THANKS FOR BEING WITH US
AS WELL. LET’S START BY TALKING ABOUT EUROPE, PERHAPS. I KNOW I WANT TO KIND OF FOCUS OUR CONVERSATIONS ON TURKEY, BUT I WANT TO START WITH THE FRENCH ELECTIONS. AND MY FIRST QUESTION HAS TO BE THE FACT THAT I HAVEN’T WORKED ON CAMPAIGNS. ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND MOST INTERESTING ABOUT THIS IS NOT JUST THE RESULT, WHICH SOME FOUND SURPRISING, BUT THE 85% VOTER TURNOUT.
IF I CAN ASK YOU BOTH TO COMMENT ON THOSE TWO, AND WE’LL KIND OF START OUR DISCUSSION THAT WAY.

Dr. Philip Gordon, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution: WELL, THE TURNOUT WAS IMPORTANT. YOU’RE RIGHT TO STRESS THAT. IT WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN IN PREVIOUS ELECTIONS, AND I THINK THE REASON IS THE FRENCH DECIDED IT MATTERED.
UNLIKE IN THE PREVIOUS TWO ELECTIONS WHERE YOU HAD JACQUES CHIRAC AGAINST LIONEL JOSPIN, AND PEOPLE SORT OF LOOKED AT THEM BOTH AND SAID, “YOU KNOW WHAT? IT DOESN’T MUCH MATTER.” THEY HAVE SIMILAR POLICY, PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS, SAME OLD THING. THEY LOOKED AT THESE CANDIDATES AND SAID, “YOU KNOW, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A REAL CHOICE.” AND I ACTUALLY THINK THIS WAS THE BIGGEST CHOICE THE FRENCH HAD TO MAKE SINCE 1981 WHEN YOU HAD FRANCOIS MITTERRAND ON THE HARD LEFT WITH THE COMMUNISTS AS A REAL ALTERNATIVE TO CAPITALISM, WITH VALERY GISCARD D’STAING AND A VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH. AND THIS TIME IT WASN’T THAT GREAT OF GAP, BUT THERE WAS A REAL CHOICE TO BE MADE MAINLY BECAUSE NICHOLAS SARKOZY, WHO ENDED UP WINNING, WAS SUCH A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE—PRO-AMERICAN, PRO FREE MARKET. SO I THINK ONE REASON THEY TURNED—WELL, THERE WERE TWO REASONS THEY TURNED OUT.
ONE IS BECAUSE IT MATTERED, AND THE OTHER WAS BECAUSE THE CANDIDATES WERE INTERESTING. I MEAN, BOTH OF THESE WERE UNIQUE PEOPLE. SARKOZY FOR SOME OF THE REASONS I SAID AND SEGOLENE ROYAL, THE FIRST WOMAN WITH A REAL SHOT AT THE ELYSEES.

SO BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, I THINK, CREATED A REAL BUZZ IN FRANCE, AND DEMOCRACY WORKED.

Berry: THEY TALK ABOUT HIM AS A MAJOR MOLD-BREAKER IN SOME WAYS.
HE CAN’T BE SO MUCH PIGEONHOLED IN A PARTICULAR WAY.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS ABOUT HIM THAT HAVE BEEN SO
DIFFERENT AND WHAT CAN THE WORLD SORT OF EXPECT FROM THAT?

Gordon: YEAH, HE REALLY IS DIFFERENT. HE’S DIFFERENT BECAUSE HE COMES FROM A DIFFERENT PATH TO POWER. ALL OF THE OTHER PRESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, WENT TO THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION SCHOOL, SORT OF ELITE FRENCH SOCIETY, TRADITIONAL. NICHOLAS SARKOZY IS THE SON OF AN IMMIGRANT, AN OUTSIDER REALLY, AND IN A WAY, MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT SORT OF EXPLAINS HIS DRIVE AND AMBITION. HE WAS JUST SO DETERMINED NOT TO BE THE IMMIGRANT, NOT TO BE THE POOR GUY, BUT HE WAS GOING TO SUCCEED JUST BASED ON SHEER WILL AND PERSONALITY AND ENERGY. AND HE CERTAINLY HAS A LOT OF ENERGY. SO PART OF IT IS JUST THE PERSONALITY THING—HE’S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERSON. BUT HE ALSO HAS DIFFERENT POLICIES. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN START DOMESTICALLY. HE ACTUALLY RAN CRITICIZING THE FRENCH MODEL. HE SAID, “THIS ISN’T WORKING, GUYS.”
YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE OTHER FRENCH LEADERS WOULD EMPHASIZE “WE HAVE TO PRESERVE
THIS, WE HAVE TO PRESERVE THAT, WE CAN’T CHANGE TOO MUCH.” HE SAID HE WAS THE CANDIDATE OF CHANGE. AND HE SAID SPECIFICALLY, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO TELL VOTERS
YOU’RE GOING TO CHANGE THINGS BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WON’T HAVE A MANDATE FOR CHANGE IF AND WHEN YOU’RE ELECTED. AND HE TOOK A RISK BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE FELT, AND I HAVE TO ADMIT I WAS ONE OF THEM, THAT THE FRENCH DIDN’T REALLY WANT CHANGE AND THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT HIM, AND HE WOULD BE THREATENING TO CHANGE THINGS, AND THEN THEY WOULD LOOK AT AN ALTERNATIVE, A SOCIALIST CANDIDATE, AND SHE WAS TELLING THEM, “NO, NO. WE WILL HAVE THE SOCIAL PROTECTIONS, AND WE WON’T RADICALLY—“

Berry: THE STATUS QUO WOULD—
Gordon: YEAH. IN HER CASE, SHE COULD INCARNATE CHANGE JUST BECAUSE SHE LOOKED
DIFFERENT. SHE DIDN’T LOOK LIKE JACQUES CHIRAC. “BUT DON’T WORRY, I’M NOT GONNA
CHANGE THE POLICIES THAT YOU’RE SO COMFORTABLE WITH.” AND HE SORT OF LOOKED AT THE FRENCH VOTERS AND SAID, “NO, I’M REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THINGS.”
AND THEY WENT FOR HIM ANYWAY, WHICH, I THINK, SURPRISED A LOT OF PEOPLE.
AND SO THAT’S TRUE DOMESTICALLY. HE SAYS, “WE NEED TO CUT TAXES AND STIMULATE GROWTH.” IT’S A BIT MUCH TO COMPARE HIM TO THATCHER OR REAGAN IN THAT SENSE, BUT ON THE FRENCH SPECTRUM, IT’S QUITE SERIOUS, YEAH, TO SAY “WE WANT TO BRING THE TAX BURDEN DOWN. HE KEPT STRESSING MERIT AND WORK AND REWARDING FOR WORK, WHEREAS THE SOCIALISTS PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, 35-HOUR WORK WEEK, SOCIAL PROTECTION.
HE SAID, “NO. YOU WANT TO MAKE MORE MONEY? WORK HARDER.” AFTER HE WAS ELECTED HE WENT OFF ON THIS YACHT FOR A FEW DAYS, AND OSTENTATIOUSLY SAID THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. FOR THE FRENCH, YOU KNOW, YOU DON’T DO THAT, AND YOU SHOULDN’T FLAUNT WEALTH. AND A LOT OF FRENCH PEOPLE STILL ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS WHOLE VERY AMERICAN NOTION OF EARN MORE AND DO BETTER AND PAY FOR MERIT.
SO HE’S VERY DIFFERENT IN ALL OF THOSE SENSES, AND ON FOREIGN POLICY, HE’S ALSO DIFFERENT.

Berry: NOW, THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE ELECTIONS THAT WAS WATCHED VERY CLOSELY HERE IN AMERICA, PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE SENSE THAT WE’D STRAINED OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH FRANCE RECENTLY. WHAT HAS BEEN TAKE HERE SINCE THEN?

Gordon: WELL, YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS WHICH—WHOSE TAKE YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
WHICH PARTY, WHICH PART OF THE—WE HAVE OUR OWN DIVISIONS IN AMERICA,
I THINK IT’S FAIR TO SAY THAT MOST AMERICANS WERE QUITE PLEASED.
THEY WERE INTRIGUED. THEY WERE INTRIGUED BY BOTH CANDIDATES, BUT THE NOTION THAT SOMEONE COULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF FRANCE BY SAYING, “I DON’T APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A FRIEND OF AMERICA.” AND EVEN, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER YOU ARE ON THE PRO-BUSH OR ANTI-BUSH, THE AMERICAN PART OF IT, I THINK MOST AMERICANS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA THAT RATHER THAN WHAT—MOST PEOPLE ASSUME IS TRADITIONAL FRENCH ANTI-AMERICANISM, SARKOZY WROTE A BOOK THAT HE PUBLISHED HERE IN WHICH HE BEGINS BY SAYING, “I’M NOT GOING TO APOLOGIZE. I ADMIRE AMERICA.”
HE WAS ALSO CLEAR THERE ARE THINGS HE DOESN’T LIKE ABOUT AMERICA, BUT THAT WAS SUCH A REFRESHING CHANGE AFTER YEARS OF WHAT MANY PERCEIVED TO BE ANTI-AMERICANISM THAT I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF APPLAUSE IN THE U.S. WHEN HE WAS ELECTED.

Berry: EUROPEAN UNION HAS ALSO SORT OF LOOKED AT HIM IN TERMS OF WHAT’S COMING NEXT. BUT I WANT YOU TO KIND OF BOTH ADDRESS THAT AND MAYBE SEGUE INTO OUR DISCUSSION OF TURKEY BECAUSE ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE HE REALLY HAS VERY STRONG VIEWPOINTS THAT HAVE CONCERN TO TURKEY IS IN REGARDS TO THEIR ASCENSION
INTO THE E.U.

Gordon: EXACTLY. I WAS JUST IN TURKEY, AND THEY ARE PAYING A LOT OF ATTENTION TO
NICHOLAS SARKOZY. HE’S ALL THROUGH THE PAPERS BECAUSE HE DID—YOU KNOW, WHEN HE WON ON THE ELECTION NIGHT, HE GAVE A SPEECH. HE MENTIONED A LOT OF FOREIGN POLICY THINGS, WHICH WAS INTERESTING IN ITSELF BECAUSE IT WAS SORT OF A STATEMENT THAT HE’S GONNA BE A FOREIGN POLICY PRESIDENT. HE MENTIONED THE U.S., HE MENTIONED EUROPE, AND HE SAID, “FRANCE IS BACK IN EUROPE.” THAT SEEMED TO IMPLY THAT CHIRAC WASN’T AS VIGOROUS AS HE COULD HAVE BEEN IN PROMOTING THE EUROPEAN UNION. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE WRONG TO ASSUME THAT THAT MEANS HE’S A REAL INTEGRATIONIST AND HE’S GOING TO PUSH FORWARD A SORT OF FEDERAL MODEL WITH THE E.U. CONSTITUTION. I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD ALMOST CALL HIM EURO-SKEPTICAL.
HE IS A FRENCH NATIONALIST. HE WANTS TO DEFEND FRENCH COMPANIES
AND FRENCH NATIONAL INTERESTS. AND HE’S GOING TO DRIVE A HARD BARGAIN,
AND THAT’S WHAT WE SEE GOING ON NOW. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO PARTS OF THE EUROPEAN AGENDA. THE FIRST IS JUST FIXING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL MESS, PROPOSED CONSTITUTION THE FRENCH VOTERS AND THE DUTCH VOTERS REJECTED IN THEIR REFERENDUM TWO SUMMERS AGO, AND IT’S BEEN STALLED EVER SINCE. AND THAT’S BEEN THE STUMBLING BLOCK FOR E.U. PROGRESS LATELY. AND SARKOZY HAS A PLAN THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO WORK FOR LACK OF ALTERNATIVES. HE’S BASICALLY SAYING, “WE’RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANOTHER REFERENDUM. LET’S JUST TAKE THE BITS OF THE TREATY THAT AREN’T CONTROVERSIAL, ASK THE PARLIAMENT TO PASS THEM AND IMPLEMENT THEM, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.” AND THAT’S WHAT HE’S TRYING TO SORT OUT WITH THE GERMANS NOW, THE GERMAN PRESIDENCY OF THE E.U. AND SO THAT’S THE FIRST STEP, IS TO GET THIS INSTITUTIONAL BLOCK OUT OF THE WAY SO THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD. AND TO DO THAT, HE’S PROMISED NOT TO RAISE THE ISSUE THAT YOU MENTIONED, WHICH IS HIS OPPOSITION
TO TURKISH MEMBERSHIP.
IT’S BEEN CONTROVERSIAL THROUGHOUT THE E.U. FOR A LONG TIME. THERE’S NOTHING NEW ABOUT THAT. AND ONE HAS SUSPECTED THAT A LOT OF EUROPEAN LEADERS AREN’T TOO ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT IT, BUT SARKOZY IS QUITE CLEAR. HE DOESN’T THINK TURKEY IS A EUROPEAN COUNTRY AND HE DOESN’T THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN THE E.U.

Berry: WE’RE GONNA COME BACK TO TURKEY, A FOCUS OF OUR CONVERSATION. FIRST WE’RE GONNA ALLOW OUR VIEWERS TO JOIN US IN OUR CONVERSATION. AND INTERNATIONAL CALLERS SHOULD CALL 001-202-842-5056. HERE IN THE U.S. THE NUMBER IS 1-800-528-2090. WE WERE SORT OF TALKING BEFORE THE SHOW STARTED ABOUT THE UNCERTAINTY IN A LOT OF PLACES IN THE WORLD TODAY. BUT THERE ARE TURKISH TROOPS AMASSED ON THE BORDER WITH IRAQ NOW. SOME ARE CLAIMING THIS IS A REGULAR BUILDUP LEADING INTO THE SUMMER MONTHS, AND SOME ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A LOT OF OTHER STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FAIRLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL IS HERE. WHAT DO YOU SEE HAPPENING? YOU’VE JUST RETURNED FROM TURKEY. WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS?

Gordon: WELL, THERE IS FOREIGN POLICY UNCERTAINTY THAT YOU
MENTIONED. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO IN IRAQ—INVADE OR NOT?
AND THEN THERE’S HUGE DOMESTIC UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCESS
WAS HALTED BASICALLY WHEN THE MILITARY SAID THEY DIDN’T WANT AN ISLAMIST TO TAKE OVER THE PRESIDENCY OF TURKEY. AND THAT FORCED A RESCHEDULING OF ELECTIONS FOR JULY 22. AND THE FOREIGN POLICY THING IS LINKED TO THE DOMESTIC THING BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE VERY CAREFUL—THE GOVERNMENT, THE ISLAMIST-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT—IF YOU WILL, THE A.K.P. PARTY. THEY HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO SEEM NOT STRONG ENOUGH OR NOT NATIONALISTIC ENOUGH. SO IF THE MILITARY IS SAYING, YOU KNOW, “THERE ARE KURDISH TERRORISTS AND WE HAVE TO GO DEAL WITH THEM IN IRAQ,” THE A.K.P. HAS TO BE CAREFUL THAT IF THEY SAY, “NO, NO, NO. LET’S NOT DO THAT.” THEY SEEM WEAK; THE MILITARY SEEMS STRONG. AND MAYBE THAT’S A PRETEXT FOR MOVING THE PARTY ASIDE OR ENSURING THAT THEY’LL LOSE THE ELECTION. SO YOU SEE PRIME MINISTER ERDOGAN COME OUT AND SAY, “WELL, IF THE MILITARY SAYS WE NEED TO ACT IN IRAQ, YOU KNOW, WE’RE NOT GOING TO TELL THEM NO. THAT’S THEIR CALL, ESSENTIALLY, ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.”
SO THE TWO THINGS ARE QUITE CLOSELY LINKED, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY DO IN IRAQ AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THEIR ELECTION.

Berry: AND IN POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS WAYS YOU TALK ABOUT IT—BECAUSE THE POLITICAL SENSE OF, “I CAN’T APPEAR TO MOVE THIS ANY WAY.” AS A RESULT, WHO’S GONNA ASK THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RAMIFICATION OF MOVING INTO IRAQ?

Gordon: IT IS DANGEROUS. IT’S DANGEROUS IN BOTH SENSES.
THE FOREIGN POLICY ASPECT IS DANGEROUS. LOOK, WE’VE SEEN THAT HERE IN THIS COUNTRY. THERE WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS, AS THERE HAVE BEEN IN TURKEY, AND PEOPLE GET ANGRY AND THEY WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING. AND THE GOVERNMENT IN OUR CASE INVADED IRAQ. AND THAT’S WHAT THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT MIGHT DO, TOO. THERE’S NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT IT, BUT IRAQ COULD TURN INTO THEIR IRAQ AS IT TURNED INTO OUR IRAQ. THEY CAN GO INTO NORTHERN IRAQ, AND THEY CAN NO DOUBT APPREHEND A LOT OF PEOPLE INCLUDING P.K.K. TERRORISTS. BUT, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU HAVE 10,000 OR 20,000 OR 30,000 TROOPS IN IRAQ. WHAT HAPPENS THEN?
THE KURDS HAVE SHOWN THEY’RE WILLING TO FIGHT, SO THIS COULD BE VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS ON THE INTERNATIONAL SIDE. AND THE DOMESTIC SIDE IS ALSO SERIOUS
BECAUSE, NOT ONLY BECAUSE WE SAW A SORT OF INTERRUPTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. I MEAN, ONE OF THE UNFORTUNATE THINGS ABOUT THIS WHOLE CRISIS, POLITICAL CRISIS IN TURKEY, IS TURKEY WAS DOING PRETTY WELL. IT WAS ON THE ROAD TO THE E.U. THEY HAD BEEN MADE A FORMAL CANDIDATE. THEY WERE NEGOTIATING.
THE GOVERNMENT, EVERYONE WONDERED ABOUT THIS ISLAMIST-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT WHEN IT WAS ELECTED, BUT THE ECONOMY WAS DOING WELL. THEY SEEMED TO BE PERFORMING VERY WELL.

Berry: AND DOING WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO FOR EUROPE, ESSENTIALLY.

Gordon: AND DOING WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO. AND THAT WAS A GOOD-NEWS STORY. AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN EVEN THAT IS UP IN THE AIR. THE DIVISIONS IN TURKISH SOCIETY—YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SEE A MILLION PEOPLE COME OUT IN THE STREETS TO PROTEST AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. FORTUNATELY I THINK THE A.K.P. HASN’T RESPONDED WITH COUNTER PROTESTS BECAUSE THEN, YOU KNOW—YOU’RE GONNA TALK ABOUT LEBANON LATER—YOU START TO HAVE IN YOUR MIND PROTESTS, COUNTER-PROTESTS, THAT’S A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION.

Berry: LET’S TAKE OUR FIRST CALLER FROM NEW JERSEY.
GOOD EVENING, CALLER.

Caller: HI. HOW ARE YOU DOING?

Berry: GOOD.

Caller: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR MR. GORDON, PLEASE.
FIRST ONE, DO YOU THINK THAT SARKOZY WON THE ELECTION BECAUSE
HE’S PRO-AMERICAN OR BECAUSE HE’S ANTI-IMMIGRANT, ESPECIALLY
MOSLEM IMMIGRANTS IN FRANCE? MY SECOND QUESTION IS, DO YOU SEE
ANY CHANGE IN THE FRENCH ATTITUDE TOWARD AMERICANS? THANK YOU.

Berry: THANK YOU, CALLER.

Gordon: YEAH. THOSE ARE BOTH GOOD QUESTIONS.
ON THE FIRST, I DON’T THINK THAT HE WON BECAUSE HE WAS PRO-AMERICAN,
BUT I ALSO DON’T THINK THAT BEING PRO-AMERICAN HURT HIM. PEOPLE ASSUMED THAT A PRO-AMERICAN CANDIDATE IN FRANCE COULDN’T WIN BECAUSE THE FRENCH ARE ANTI-AMERICAN. IN THE END, TO BE HONEST, THEY DON’T CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT THAT ISSUE.
THEY CARE, LIKE MOST VOTERS AROUND THE WORLD, THEY CARE ABOUT HEALTH CARE AND TAXES AND ALL OF THAT. SO I DON’T THINK THAT HURT HIM AS MUCH AS PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WOULD HURT HIM. ON THE ANTI-IMMIGRANT, ANTI-MUSLIM THING, I THINK IT’S COMPLICATED BECAUSE IT IS TRUE HE HAS A HARD SIDE ON IMMIGRATION. HE WANTS PEOPLE—HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, “IF YOU DON’T LOVE FRANCE, YOU’RE WELCOME TO LEAVE IT, AND YOU SHOULD LEARN THE LANGUAGE AND WE SHOULD BE TOUGH ON CRIME.” THAT GIVES HIM A SORT OF HARD EDGE ON THAT SET OF ISSUES. BUT HE ALSO HAS A SIDE THAT PEOPLE DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO, WHICH IS REACHING OUT AND CREATING A NEW STRUCTURE FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WITH MUSLIMS IN FRANCE, PROMOTING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WHICH IS REALLY UNIQUE IN THE FRENCH SYSTEM. SO THAT’S A BIT MORE COMPLICATED.
I DO THINK IT’S TRUE, AND THIS MAY BE WHAT YOU IMPLIED, THAT HE CERTAINLY TOOK VOTES AWAY FROM THE NATIONAL FRONT AND THE EXTREME RIGHT BY BEING THE CANDIDATE WHO IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW IMMIGRATION TO RUN RAMPANT IN THE COUNTRY.

Berry: LET’S TAKE ANOTHER QUICK CALL FROM CALIFORNIA. GOOD EVENING, CALLER.

Caller: YEAH. HELLO. I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE I WAS WATCHING SOME ARAB NEWS CHANNEL, AND THEY WERE SAYING THAT SARKOZY IS THE FIRST JEWISH PRESIDENT OF FRANCE. IS THAT TRUE OR NOT?

Berry: THANK YOU, CALLER.

Caller: THANK YOU.

Gordon: HIS MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS JEWISH. LIVED IN SALONICA AND THEN EMIGRATED TO FRANCE. SO ONE OF HIS FOUR GRANDPARENTS WAS JEWISH.

Berry: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION YOU ASKED A YEAR AGO. YOU WROTE A PIECE IN “WASHINGTON QUARTERLY” LAST SUMMER WHERE YOU OPENED UP WITH THE QUESTION OF WHO LOST TURKEY. AND A YEAR FROM THAT PIECE, WE REALLY ARE IN A PRETTY BAD SITUATION IN TURKEY. HOW WOULD YOU SORT OF CONTEMPLATE THAT QUESTION TODAY? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE U.S. AND TURKEY RIGHT NOW, IT’S IN A VERY PROBLEMATIC
PLACE.

Gordon: IT IS. I WOULDN’T WANT TO SAY THAT TURKEY IS LOST. YOU KNOW, IT’S A PROVOCATIVE WAY TO FRAME THE ISSUE TO GET ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE RUN THE RISK OF LOSING TURKEY.

Berry: THERE’S A DANGER.

Gordon: FOR 50 YEARS A STRATEGIC ALLY, AND BOTH SIDES ASSUMED THAT IT
COULD NEVER GET TOO BAD BECAUSE WE JUST NEEDED EACH OTHER TOO MUCH.
BUT WE’RE GETTING AWFULLY CLOSE TO THAT. YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT PUBLIC OPINION POLLS IN TURKEY, 13% SAY THEY HAVE A FAVORABLE VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES.
THAT’S NOT GOOD.

Berry: IS THIS THE NATIONAL SECURITY PIECE OF IT, LIKE, THAT WE JUST SIMPLY DON’T UNDERSTAND THE THREAT?

Gordon: MORE THAN THAT, BUT IT’S VERY CLEAR, I THINK, FROM A TURKISH PERSPECTIVE. BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR, AND IT REALLY IS IRAQ. IT’S OTHER, YOU KNOW—IT’S CYPRUS AND IT’S OTHER GENERAL THINGS, BUT IT REALLY IS IRAQ MORE THAN ANYTHING. THEY SAID, “WE HAVE THIS KURDISH PROBLEM. KURDISH TERRORISTS HAVE KILLED 30,000 TURKS OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES. IF YOU GO INTO IRAQ, YOU’RE GONNA CREATE A MESS AND A CIVIL WAR AND AN INDEPENDENT KURDISTAN THAT’S GONNA SPILL OVER INTO OUR COUNTRY AND REVIVE A WAR THAT WE HAD MORE OR LESS GOTTEN UNDER CONTROL.” AND THAT HAS PRETTY MUCH HAPPENED.
YOU CAN DEBATE, AND WE’VE ALL DEBATED THE IRAQ WAR ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER, AND THERE ARE LOTS OF CONSIDERATIONS. TURKEY WASN’T THE ONLY ISSUE.
BUT FROM A TURKISH PERSPECTIVE, THEY TOLD US THAT OUR ACTIONS THERE WOULD LEAD TO MORE VIOLENCE AND POSSIBLY DISINTEGRATION OF THEIR COUNTRY. AND TO THE DEGREE THAT THAT’S HAPPENED BECAUSE THE P.K.K. TERRORISM HAS REVIVED, THEY BLAME US.
AND THAT’S WHY ONLY 13% OF TURKS HAVE A FAVORABLE VIEW OF AMERICA BECAUSE THEY THINK WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IGNITING TERRORISM IN THAT COUNTRY.

Berry: I WANT TO SAVE TIME FOR OUR CONVERSATION TO TALK ABOUT YOUR IMPORTANT BOOK, AND I WANT TO SQUEEZE IN A CALL FROM IRAQ. IS THIS ADMINISTRATION LISTENING? IS THERE SOMEONE LISTENING TO HOW BAD THE SITUATION IS RIGHT NOW?

Gordon: I THINK THEY HAVE NOT BEEN—THEY’VE WANTED TO TELL THEMSELVES IT’S NOT AS BAD AS IT REALLY IS, AND THEY DON’T GET IT OUT ENOUGH TO HEAR HOW BAD IT REALLY IS.

Berry: WE JUST LOST IRAQ, SO I APOLOGIZE—IF YOU WANT TO CALL BACK.
LET ME GO BACK BEFORE WE CLOSE TO THIS BOOK THAT IS COMING OUT IN AUGUST.
DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, A QUESTION WAS POSED. “SIMPLY RAISE YOUR HAND. HOW MANY BELIEVE WE’RE ENGAGED IN A WAR ON TERROR?”
AND SOME OF THE CANDIDATES DIDN’T RAISE THEIR HAND. THE ONE THAT
GOT THE MOST ATTENTION WAS JOHN EDWARDS BECAUSE HE WAS THE MOST SORT OF
MAINSTREAM CANDIDATE THAT DIDN’T RAISE HIS HAND. SINCE THAT DEBATE, HE HASN’T BACKED AWAY FROM THAT STATEMENT. IN FACT, TO THE CONTRARY. HE’S RELEASED SOME
FAIRLY SUBSTANTIVE POLICY POSITIONS EXPLAINING WHY HE DOESN’T BELIEVE WHAT
WE’RE ENGAGED IN IS A WAR ON TERROR. WHAT I READ VERY BRIEFLY FROM YOUR PUBLISHER ABOUT YOUR BOOK IS THE IDEA OF A COMPLETE PARADIGM SHIFT IN THAT WE NEED TO RE-EVALUATE WHICH WAR WE’VE ACTUALLY ENGAGED AND LOOK AT WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE DONE HERE. TALK A BIT ABOUT THAT.

Gordon: I’LL TALK ABOUT THE PARADIGM SHIFT THAT I THINK WE NEED. FIRST A WORD JUST ON THE PHRASE, “THE WAR ON TERROR.” I’VE STOPPED FIGHTING THAT FIGHT. REALLY. I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN MAKE A VERY STRONG CASE THAT IT’S THE WRONG
NAME, THAT IT SHOULDN’T BE A WAR BECAUSE THAT IMPLIES IT’S TOO MILITARISTIC, AND THAT GIVES A STATUS TO THOSE YOU’RE FIGHTING THAT YOU DON’T WANT TO GIVE. AND IT SHOULDN’T BE “TERROR” BECAUSE IT’S NOT REALLY AGAINST ALL TERRORISM. YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT AGAINST THE I.R.A. OR THE BASQUES, OR WHATEVER. THERE’S A SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT WE’RE DEALING WITH, AND THEREFORE, IT’S A TERRIBLE NAME AND LOTS OF PEOPLE INCLUDING ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI AND OTHERS HAVE ELOQUENTLY ARGUED WHY, BUT, YOU KNOW, I’VE GIVEN UP. I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE ISSUE ANYMORE. I WOULD RATHER FOCUS OUR ATTENTION ON WHAT WE’RE DOING. THAT’S SHORTHAND NOW. IT HAS BECOME ACCEPTED SHORTHAND, AND I MEAN, I USE IT IN THE BOOK, AND I EXPLAIN WHY. IT’S SHORTHAND FOR A SERIOUS POLICY ISSUE. AND JUST AS WE SAY WAR ON DRUGS, WAR ON CRIME, THOSE AREN’T PERFECT EITHER, BUT WE USE THEM. I WOULD RATHER FOCUS ATTENTION ON WHAT WE’RE DOING, AND THAT’S WHERE I THINK WE DO NEED A PARADIGM SHIFT—THAT THE PROBLEM—WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS WAR IN THE WRONG
WAY AND NOT ONLY BECAUSE WE GAVE IT THE WRONG NAME. BUT WE REALLY HAVE—YOU KNOW, THE PENTAGON CAME UP WITH “THE LONG WAR.” I THINK IT SHOULD BE CALLED “THE WRONG WAR.” BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD IN OUR MINDS A MUCH TOO TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF WHAT THE WAR IS AND HOW TO WIN IT. AND SO LONG AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT LIKE A TRADITIONAL WAR, ESPECIALLY WORLD WAR II, THAT SOMEHOW THE WAY TO WIN THIS WAR
IS TO DEFEAT YOUR ENEMY ON THE BA-THERE’S A FIXED GIVEN ENEMY
OUT THERE. IT’S REALLY BAD. AND YOU HAVE TO DEFEAT IT ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND THEN MAKES THINGS BETTER. THAT MINDSET, IT SEEMS TO ME, JUST LEADS US DOWN A ROAD THAT—TOWARD A WAR WE CAN NEVER WIN. AND SO I THINK WE HAVE TO START THINKING ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY. IF YOU WANT ANY ANALOGY, THE COLD WAR IS A MUCH BETTER ONE TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE WE DIDN’T WIN THE COLD WAR BY INVADING AND OCCUPYING THE KREMLIN AND PUTTING MORE FRIENDLY PEOPLE THERE. WE WON IT, AND IT TOOK SOME TIME, BUT WE WERE PATIENT. WE WERE RESOLUTE. AND WE WON IT BY, IN THE LONG RUN, PRESERVING WHAT WAS GOOD ABOUT OUR OWN SOCIETY AND SHOWING PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD THAT ACTUALLY OUR IDEOLOGY WAS BETTER THAN THE EXTREMIST ONE THAT THEY WERE BUYING INTO. IN THAT CASE IT WAS COMMUNISM.

Berry: AS OPPOSED TO ADOPTING SOME OF THOSE THINGS. IN SOME WAYS WE DID.

Gordon: THAT’S RIGHT. AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN THEY DECIDED TO GIVE UP ON THAT EXTREMIST VERSION OF THAT IDEOLOGY THAT WE WERE SAFE, AND THAT’S WHAT WE NEED TO
DO AGAIN TODAY.

Berry: THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY. IT WAS A BRIEF CONVERSATION. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE YOU BACK. THE BOOK IS OUT IN AUGUST, AND I’M PREEMPTIVELY HERE INVITING YOU BACK TO JOIN US THEN.

Gordon: I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO COME BACK HERE. THANK YOU.

Berry: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. WHEN WE COME BACK, A DISCUSSION ON THE SITUATION IN LEBANON WITH MARK PERRY AND YOUR CALLS. STAY TUNED.

Berry: WELCOME BACK TO “VIEWPOINT.” I’M MAYA BERRY.
JIM IS AWAY THIS WEEK. OUR NEXT GUEST IS MARK PERRY, PRESIDENT OF CONFLICTS FORUM, AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION WORKING FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST. MARK IS A MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST AND
HAS A NEW BOOK OUT ENTITLED “PARTNERS IN COMMAND: GEORGE
MARSHALL AND DWIGHT EISENHOWER IN WAR AND PEACE.” WE’LL TAKE YOUR CALLS AND QUESTIONS INTERNATIONALLY AT 001-202-842-5056. DOMESTICALLY, AT 1-800-528-2090.
MARK, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR JOINING US.

Mark Perry, Director, Conflicts Forum: MY PLEASURE.

Berry: EACH TIME WE HAVE YOU ON, SOMETHING REALLY BAD IS HAPPENING IN
LEBANON, SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU’RE ON FREQUENTLY.

Perry: THE BAD THINGS PRECEDE MY BEING ON, NOT AFTER.

Berry: THAT’S TRUE. I WANT TO START BY ASKING FIRST ABOUT THE DECISION, THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL VOTE ON THE TRIBUNAL, AND HOW YOU THINK THAT WILL AFFECT THE SPECIFIC DIVISIONS CURRENTLY, POLITICALLY, WITHIN LEBANON ITSELF.

Perry: I THINK IT DEEPENS THE DIVISIONS. I THINK THAT THIS IS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PUSH THIS TRIBUNAL. IT WAS A TERRIBLE THING THAT HAPPENED TO RAFIK HARIRI. THERE’S NO QUESTION THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED, THAT IT WAS A GREAT TRAGEDY, AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT. BUT THIS IS AN INTERNAL LEBANESE POLITICAL MATTER.
AND PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST RIGHTLY AND JUSTLY WONDER WHEN THE TRIBUNAL IS GOING TO BE HELD ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS THAT WERE SPREAD BY ISRAEL IN SOUTHERN LEBANON, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL’S GOING TO BE HELD FOR WHO’S REALLY BEHIND THE FATAH/HAMAS WARS IN GAZA. WHY IS IT THAT ARABS AND PEOPLE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS AND NOT PEOPLE WHO PLANNED THE WAR IN IRAQ THAT IS GOING TO END UP TAKING A MILLION CIVILIAN LIVES IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS? THE HYPOCRISY IS ON DISPLAY. AND THE ARAB WORLD IS VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT THIS HYPOCRISY. I WISH THAT WE HAD NOT DONE THIS.

Berry: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION NOW IN TERMS OF SPECIFICALLY THIS ISSUE. LEBANON SAW A PERIOD BEFORE ITS OUTBREAK IN CIVIL WAR OF ASSASSINATIONS THAT WERE QUITE SERIOUS. WE SAW A NUMBER OF THESE BUILD UP, INCLUDING RAFIK HARIRI’S ASSASSINATION, SO THERE IS A GENUINE CONCERN AMONG THE LEBANESE THAT THEY TRIED TO TAKE A DOMESTIC ROUTE OF ESTABLISHING THIS AS A PROBLEM. AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT RAN INTO THE POLITICAL BATTLES THAT TYPICALLY HAPPEN IN LEBANON. SO
FOR SOME OF THEM—AND YOU SAW THIS IN LEBANON—THERE WERE PEOPLE
CELEBRATING IN THE STREETS THAT THIS WAS THE VEHICLE TO GET
AROUND THE POLITICAL IMPASSE THAT HAD BEEN CREATED. OTHERS, OF COURSE, ARE SAYING, “NO. THIS IS”—WHAT YOU JUST CONVEYED. “THIS IS THE U.S. INTERFERING ONCE AGAIN IN OUR POLITICS.” HOW DOES ONE GET AROUND—HOW DOES ONE COME TO SOME MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THOSE TWO POSITIONS BECAUSE HONESTLY, I CAN SEE THE VALIDITY OF BOTH.

Perry: I THINK IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STREETS
OF LEBANON IN THE DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT. AND THERE WERE—I CAN’T THINK OF ANY AMERICANS WHO DIDN’T SUPPORT IT. I CERTAINLY SUPPORTED IT. AND I WAS PROUD OF IT
AND PROUD FOR THE LEBANESE PEOPLE. BUT THIS IS—THIS IS A LEBANESE POLITICAL MATTER. I WOULD NOTE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE STREETS PROTESTING FOR
DEMOCRACY AND GETTING SYRIAN INFLUENCE OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY, THOSE SAME PEOPLE
DURING THE LAST WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH ENDED UP IN SYRIA AS REFUGEES.
AND THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT HELPED THEM. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE NO GOOD SOLUTIONS HERE, BUT I THINK AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL IS NOT THE SOLUTION.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A LEBANESE INTERNAL MATTER, AND I THINK THAT HEZBOLLAH, THE MARCH 14 MOVEMENT, THE DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES ARE FULLY CAPABLE OF BEING SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO SIT DOWN AND TALK THROUGH THEIR PROBLEMS, ASSESS BLAME, AND TRY AND FIND JUSTICE. AND THEY DON’T NEED THE HELP OF THE UNITED STATES TO DO IT, AND THEY DON’T NEED THE HELP OF SYRIA TO DO IT, EITHER. WE OUGHT TO LEAVE IT TO THEM.
Berry: LET’S GO BACK TO SORT OF THE NEWEST FLASHPOINT, AND THAT IS THE
PROBLEMS IN THE NORTH. WITH THE NUMBER OF PALESTINIAN REFUGEES IN LEBANON, THE GRAVE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY LIVE, FRANKLY THIS WAS ONE I WAS A
BIT SURPRISED BY AS A NEW DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THINGS ARE DEVELOPING IN LEBANON, AND IT’S SORT OF A DISTRACTION. ONE TAKES A DIFFERENT COURSE AND YOU BEGIN TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING NEW. HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT OF THE LEBANESE MILITARY TALKING ABOUT GOING INTO A PALESTINIAN REFUGEE CAMP?

Perry: IT IS VERY DISTURBING, AND I THINK IT POINTS TO A LARGER TREND THROUGHOUT THE REGION OF RADICALIZATION OF SOME GROUPS AS A RESULT OF AMERICAN INVASION IN IRAQ, WHICH HAS RADICALIZED SOME GROUPS—NOT ALL. AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THESE CAMPS DO NOT SUPPORT A GROUP LIKE FATAH AL-ISLAM OR JIHADISTS AND ARE OPPOSED TO THEM. BUT I THINK IN A VERY VOLATILE AND UNSTABLE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE IN THE REGION, THESE GROUPS COME FORWARD. NOW THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT? I WAS READING ONE OF HASSAN NASRALLAH’S SPEECHES THE OTHER DAY, AND HE SAID THAT THE LAST THING THAT SHOULD HAPPEN IS THE LEBANESE ARMY SHOULD GO INTO THE CAMPS TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. LET’S ALLOW FOR A POLITICAL SOLUTION. LET’S GET THESE PEOPLE OUT
OF THE CAMPS OR DISARM THEM, BUT LET’S LEAVE IT TO THE PALESTINIANS TO DEAL WITH IT. I THINK IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE THING FOR A LEBANESE ARMY TO
CONTINUE TO SHELL THE CAMPS OR TO GO IN THE CAMPS AND ROOT OUT THESE PEOPLE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR A POLITICAL SOLUTION IN A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATION WHERE A GROUP LIKE THIS CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED TO SPREAD TROUBLE. BUT THIS HAS TO BE DEALT WITH. AND INTERNAL PALESTINIAN
POLITICS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT.

Berry: DO THE PALESTINIANS IN THE CAMP—THERE’S TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE WAS IN THE BEGINNING, A LOT OF SPECULATION ABOUT DO THEY HAVE THE
ABILITY, THE PALESTINIANS, TO SELF-CHECK THIS GROUP? AND HOW WAS IT ALLOWED, FRANKLY, TO GROW TO THE NUMBERS THAT IT IS? NUMBER TWO, I BELIEVE SOME LEBANESE NETWORKS ARE ACTUALLY REPORTING THAT THE PFLP, AND I DON’T KNOW WHETHER THIS IS TRUE OR NOT, BUT THEY WERE REPORTING THAT THERE ARE SOME FACTIONS THAT HAVE JOINED THEM BECAUSE OF THE MILITARY RESPONSE—BECOMING SORT OF A UNIFYING FACTOR THERE. WHAT IS THE WAY OUT OF THIS?

Perry: WELL, I’VE HEARD THAT, TOO, THAT THE LEBANESE ARMY INTERFERENCE HAS ACTUALLY RADICALIZED EVEN MORE GROUPS. AND THAT’S ONE OF THE DANGERS WE’RE FACING. THE WAY OUT OF THIS IS A POLITICAL WAY OUT. WE SHOULD REALIZE, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL THAT IT’S NOT JUST PALESTINIANS IN THIS GROUP, AND IT’S NOT JUST IN THE PALESTINIAN CAMP. THESE CAMPS, MANY OF THESE CAMPS, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS LIKE AIN AL-HILWEH IN THE SOUTH, HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE INSIDE THE CAMPS, 20% TO 30% THAT ARE NOT PALESTINIAN.
AND IT’S EASY TO GET IN AND OUT OF THESE CAMPS.
PEOPLE ASK ME IN THE UNITED STATES, “WELL, HOW DID THESE JIHADISTS GET THERE?” WELL, THEY CAME THROUGH THE AIRPORT, OR THEY CAME ACROSS THE BORDER. IT’S NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO DO, AND IT’S NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO FIND A FERTILE GROUND FOR JIHADISTS TO OPERATE IN.
BUT TO THE DEGREE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE PALESTINIAN CAMP, IT’S A PALESTINIAN PROBLEM. THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN LEBANON, THERE WILL NOT BE
INTERFERENCE IN THE CAMPS. TO BREAK THAT AGREEMENT WHICH HAS HELD SINCE 1969 WOULD BE A TERRIBLE PROBLEM. I THINK THAT HAMAS AND FATAH ARE WORKING VERY HARD.
THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE TO THEM. THEY’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS GROUP FOR A LONG TIME, AND THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY’RE FACING WITH THEM, AND
THEY’RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION THAT WILL
SERVE THEIR NEEDS AND CALM THE SITUATION.

Berry: SINCE THE ASSASSINATION OF MR. HARIRI AND SINCE THE HEZBOLLAH-ISRAELI WAR LAST SUMMER, LEBANON’S—THE LANDSCAPE, THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF LEBANON IS NOW BACK TO WHERE WE WERE IN SOME WAYS DURING THE CIVIL WAR TIME, AND THAT IS THE IRANIAN PEACE, THE SYRIAN PEACE, THE SAUDI ARABIAN PEACE THAT’S NEW. SAUDI
ARABIA IS A SURROGATE FOR THE U.S. THERE’S A VARIETY OF COUNTRIES AGAIN
IN TERMS OF HOW THEY’RE PLAYING OUT IN LEBANON’S INTERNAL POLITICS.
SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS AS BEING AN INTERNAL LEBANESE MATTER,
IS THERE ANYTHING ANYMORE THAT’S AN INTERNAL LEBANESE MATTER?

Perry: NO. THERE ISN’T.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE I’M CONTRADICTING MYSELF, BUT I HOPE THAT—THE ONE THING THAT I FIND INTERESTING ABOUT LEBANON IS DESPITE ALL OF THESE INTERESTS, AND DESPITE ALL OF THE OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, I DO SEE PEOPLE ON ALL SIDES OF THE POLITICAL
SPECTRUM WHO ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THERE’S NOT A CIVIL CONFLICT.
THAT’S THE LAST THING ANYBODY IN LEBANON WANTS.
IT’S TRUE FOR HEZBOLLAH. IT’S TRUE FOR THE MARCH 14 MOVEMENT. IT TRUE FOR THE
CHRISTIANS. NO ONE WANTS TO GO TO THAT DEGREE, TO THAT END. AND PEOPLE WANT TO PREVENT IT. AND I THINK THE GOOD-FAITH EFFORTS OF BOTH SIDES TO TRY TO DO THAT—AND I’VE BEEN FAIRLY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT HEZBOLLAH HAS DONE IN MAKING SURE THAT THE VERY VOLATILE SITUATION IS DAMPENED, THAT TALKS CONTINUE, THAT IT NEVER REACHES THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE WILL PICK UP GUNS AND START SHOOTING EACH OTHER.
THAT THAT HAS BEEN THEIR FOCUS AND THEIR EMPHASIS, AND I FIND THAT VERY POSITIVE. I UNDERSTAND IT’S STALEMATED. IT PROBABLY WILL BE FOR SOME TIME.
BUT I DON’T THINK IT’S ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE STALEMATE WILL LEAD TO CONFRONTATIONS. I JUST DON’T BELIEVE IT.

Berry: LET’S TAKE A CALL FROM OSLO, NORWAY. GOOD EVENING, CALLER.

Caller: YEAH, HI. CAN I ASK MY QUESTION?

Berry: YES. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

Caller: I’M THE MANAGER OF THE CENTER FOR MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES IN
OSLO, NORWAY, AND I WANT TO ASK MR. PERRY WHAT DOES HE MEAN ABOUT FATAH
ISLAM? OUR STUDIES SAY THAT THEY ARE BACKED AND FINANCED BY SYRIA.
AND WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY COULDN’T COME FROM
ISRAEL OR THEY COULDN’T COME BY SEA OR BY AIR. THEY CAME FROM SYRIA.
AND WE KNOW THAT THE SHAKA RAPSY, AS THEY SAID IN AN INTERVIEW BY NBC, HE SAID
THAT THOSE PEOPLE, THE SHAKA RAPSY, WAS IN JAIL IN SYRIA. AND SHAKA RAPSY, THEY GET HIM OUT OF THE JAIL WHILE OPPOSITION IN SYRIA GOT 15 YEARS, 15 YEARS JUST BECAUSE SAYING SOMETHING AGAINST THE REGIME IN SYRIA. SO WHAT DOES HE MEAN? DO HE THINK THAT THIS FATAH ISLAM IS A PART OF AL QAEDA OR THEY ARE, AS OUR STUDY SAYS, THEY ARE PART OF THE SYRIAN—OR ARE THEY BACKED AND FINANCED BY THE SYRIAN
REGIME, ESPECIALLY—

Berry: THANK YOU, CALLER. ONE OF THE MOST DIRECT POINTS HE MAKES, WHICH IS A LEGITIMATE ONE, IS THE FACT THAT HE WAS SITTING IN A SYRIAN JAIL UNTIL HIS RELEASE RECENTLY.

Perry: HE WAS IN A SYRIAN JAIL FOR THREE YEARS. IT DOESN’T SEEM TO ME THAT YOU PUT YOUR ALLIES IN JAIL FOR THREE YEARS. AND YOU’RE EITHER IN THE AL QAEDA TENDENCY OR YOU’RE SYRIAN. YOU’RE NOT BOTH. AL QAEDA IS NO FRIEND OF THE SYRIAN REGIME AND THE SYRIAN REGIME HATES AL QAEDA. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT’S ONE OR THE OTHER.
NOW, IF YOU ASK THE WHITE HOUSE WHETHER THE SYRIANS ARE BEHIND FATAH AL-ISLAM, THEY DON’T ANSWER THE QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY’RE NOT.
THEY SAY, “WELL, SYRIA WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS. TONY SNOW: “SYRIA WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.” WELL, THAT’S NOT THE QUESTION. IS SYRIA BEHIND IT? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. SYRIA IS NOT BEHIND THIS GROUP. THEY DON’T WANT TO HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS GROUP. PEOPLE WHO SAY, “WELL, MAYBE WE GET THEM OUT OF THE CAMPS AND SEND THEM TO SYRIA.” IF THEY SEND THEM TO SYRIA, THESE PEOPLE ARE BACK IN JAIL. THESE ARE NOT—THIS IS NOT A GROUP THAT IS FUNDED BY OR SUPPORTED BY SYRIA. AND SYRIA HAS STAYED AWAY FROM THIS, AS FAR AS AWAY FROM THIS
AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN. SO I JUST DON’T BELIEVE THE REPORTS THAT THERE ARE SYRIAN FINANCED, THAT THEY’RE SYRIAN LED, THAT SOMEHOW SYRIA IS BEHIND THIS GROUP.
IT’S NOT IN THEIR INTEREST.

Berry: LET’S TAKE ANOTHER CALL FROM TEXAS. GOOD EVENING, CALLER.

Caller: HI. HOW ARE YOU?

Berry: FINE, THANKS.

Caller: MR. PERRY, I GOT TWO QUESTIONS. A REAL SHORT ONE IS WHAT MADE YOU SAY THE LEBANESE ARMY IS NOW RADICALIZING THE REST OF THE PALESTINIANS?
AND MY MAIN QUESTION WAS, IS THE UNITED STATES MAKING A MOCKERY OF
THE LEBANESE ARMY BY SENDING THEM SUCH SMALL AMOUNT OF WEAPONS
WHEN THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING OVER A CAMP THAT’S PRETTY WELL DEFENDED?
I MEAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ARMY IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO HAVE
AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILES ON THEIR HELICOPTERS. I’LL HANG UP AND LISTEN.

Berry: THANK YOU, CALLER.

Perry: I THINK THAT WHEN THERE’S INTERFERENCE IN THE PALESTINIAN CAMPS AND IN PALESTINIAN LIFE IN LEBANON FROM OUTSIDE FORCES, FROM LEBANESE FORCES, THESE ARE
TREATED AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS IN LEBANON. THERE IS A TENDENCY OF RADICALIZATION. WE’VE SEEN IT ACROSS THE ARAB WORLD AND NOT JUST IN THESE
CAMPS. AND THE PALESTINIANS, I MEAN, THE CAMPS AREN’T GREAT BUT IT’S THE ONLY
THING THEY HAVE, AND THEY DO NOT WANT INTERFERENCE IN THEIR POLITICAL LIVES,
ESPECIALLY BY THE LEBANESE ARMY.
THERE’S BEEN A HISTORY OF THIS IN THE CIVIL WAR AND NOT A PLEASANT ONE.
SO I THINK THAT THERE’S A TENDENCY OF RADICALIZATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE AMERICAN AID IS THAT THIS WAS PART OF A
PACKAGE OF FOREIGN AID TO LEBANON WHICH, THE MILITARY COMPONENT
OF WHICH WAS $280 MILLION. AND THIS IS AN ACCELERATED SHIPMENT OF THIS AID TO THE LEBANESE ARMY. I THINK THAT IT’S A LITTLE BIT TOO PUBLIC.

Berry: I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU—

Perry: YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE JORDANIAN FLIGHTS COMING INTO BEIRUT AIRPORT 24
HOURS AFTER A PLEA FROM THE LEBANESE ARMY AND OFFLOADING OF AMERICAN SUPPLIES TO HELP THE LEBANESE ARMY. I JUST WISH MY COUNTRY WOULDN’T DO THAT KIND OF THING.

Berry: AND HOW MUCH—IF OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO HELP THE GOVERNMENT
OF PRIME MINISTER SINIORA, HOW MUCH DOES IT HELP WHEN THESE IMAGES ARE APPEARING THE WAY THAT THEY ARE?

Perry: IT DOESN’T HELP AT ALL. THIS IS WHAT I CALL THE REVERSE MIDAS TOUCH OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. AND YOU FIND IT ESPECIALLY IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA WHERE WE SUPPORT SOME FATAH MILITIAS. AND WE THINK THAT HELPING THEM STRENGTHENS THEM
WHEN HELPING THEM ACTUALLY WEAKENS THEM. WHEN YOU TALK TO THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE ABOUT FATAH LEADERS WHO ARE SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY’VE LOST THEIR CREDIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES.
PEOPLE ACROSS THE REGION HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT’S HAPPENING, AND THAT IS THAT THE CURRENT AND THE TREND IS CUTTING AGAINST THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN
FOREIGN POLICY.
AND I SAY THIS IN WASHINGTON, TO OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON, ALL THE TIME. IF WE REALLY WANT TO HELP PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THE BEST
THING WE CAN DO IS STAY OUT OF THEIR LIVES. LET THEM SORT THIS THROUGH.
WE CAN’T EXPORT DEMOCRACY. WE CAN’T—WE CAN’T MILITARIZE THE REGION, AND WE CAN’T HELP OUR FRIENDS. WE’RE REALLY HURTING THEM WHEN WE PRINT 4-COLOR POSTERS TO TRY AND GET THEM ELECTED. PEOPLE VOTE AGAINST THEM.

Berry: LET’S TAKE THE NEXT CALLER FROM CANADA. GOOD EVENING, CALLER.

Caller: GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE YOU?

Berry: FINE, THANKS.

Caller: GOOD. MY QUESTION TO THE GENTLEMAN ON THE TV RIGHT NOW, GOOD
EVENING.

Perry: GOOD EVENING.

Berry: GO AHEAD.

Caller: YES. MY QUESTION IS WHY THE LEBANESE ARMY IS NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO THE
CAMP? AND IS THAT—WHY THAT—

Berry: WE’RE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM YOUR TELEVISION. IF YOU WANT TO EITHER
TURN IT DOWN REAL QUICK OR JUST ASK THE QUESTION QUICKLY.

Caller: WHY, BUT THE PALESTINIANS, THEY CAN CONTROL THEIR OWN CAMP.

Berry: OK, THANK YOU, CALLER.

Perry: WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DIVISIONS INSIDE THE CAMP.
THERE ARE FACTIONS INSIDE THE CAMP. BUT THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED INSIDE A LEBANESE SOCIETY AS AN INTERNAL PALESTINIAN MATTER.
THE RULE OF THUMB AND THE TERRIBLE SAYING WHICH I’VE HEARD MANY
TIMES IS “WHEN ARABS FLY, PALESTINIANS DIE.”
AND WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE ARMY INTERVENED IN THIS
CAMP. THERE WAS SHELLING OF THIS CAMP, AND A LOT OF CIVILIANS DIED.
AND THE PALESTINIANS DON’T LIKE THAT. NOBODY WANTS THAT.
IT TENDS TO DESTABILIZE THE 11 OTHER PALESTINIAN CAMPS IN THE
REGION, AND WE DON’T—I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE AGAINST THIS KIND OF
INTERFERENCE. IT’S A LONG-STANDING AGREEMENT DATING FROM 1969.
OBVIOUSLY IT HAS BEEN VIOLATED FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT INTERFERENCE IN CAMP LIFE AND PALESTINIAN LIVES MILITARILY IN LEBANON ALWAYS TENDS TO MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE, NOT BETTER.

Berry: LET ME ASK YOU, IN TERMS OF U.S. POLICY, THIS ADMINISTRATION TOUTED IN THE BEGINNING LEBANON’S CEDAR REVOLUTION AS A SUCCESS FOR THEIR PROGRAM.
WHEN THINGS DIDN’T QUITE WORK OUT THE WAY THAT THEY INTENDED TO, WE
STOPPED PAYING ATTENTION, SIMPLY SORT OF DROP IT AND MOVE AWAY FROM IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THE U.S.LEBANESE
BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP AND HOW IMPORTANT LEBANON IS.
TODAY, FRANKLY, GIVEN WHAT’S HAPPENING, PARTICULARLY WITH IRAN. I MEAN, THE PRESENCE OF IRAN IN LEBANON IS DISCONCERTING TO MANY, MANY LEBANESE, GIVEN WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH SAUDI ARABIA AND THEIR SUPPORT OF A PARTICULAR
SEGMENT OF YET ANOTHER LEBANESE… AND THEN YOU HAVE, SORT OF, THE AMERICAN ANGLE HERE. WHAT IS THE BEST POLICY FOR LEBANON FROM AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE?

Perry: I CAN REMEMBER TALKING TO A-I WON’T NAME THE CHRISTIAN LEADER,
BUT A PROMINENT CHRISTIAN LEADER IN LEBANON WHO SAID, “YOU KNOW,
WHEN I SEE HEZBOLLAH WALK IN THE ROOM, I’M WATCHING IRAN WALK IN THE ROOM.”
AND I SAID, “AND WHAT DO THEY SEE WHEN THEY SEE YOU WALKING IN THE ROOM?”

Berry: WELL, THAT’S TOO SIMPLISTIC FOR LEBANON.

Perry: HE SAID, “I DON’T KNOW. WHAT DO THEY SEE?” I SAID, “THEY SEE THE UNITED STATES WALKING IN THE ROOM.” SO THERE’S NO WONDER THAT THERE IS MUTUAL MISTRUST HERE. AND IF YOU TALK TO HEZBOLLAH LEADERS THEY SAY, “WE’RE LEBANESE
FIRST AND SHIA SECOND.” IF YOU TALK TO A CHRISTIAN LEADER WHO SAYS, “LISTEN, I’M LEBANESE FIRST. I’M CHRISTIAN SECOND.” IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE CAN—I KNOW IT SOUNDS NAÏVE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I’M A TREE HUGGER. I KNOW IT SOUNDS NAÏVE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE CAN GET PEOPLE TO ACT IN LEBANON’S INTERESTS AND NOT TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY, TO NOT HAVE A PRIME MINISTER WHO SAYS, “YES, LET’S HAVE ISRAEL ATTACK HEZBOLLAH.” LET’S TRY AND SOLVE OUR INTERNAL PROBLEMS AND
UNDERSTAND FOR SHIAS AND FOR CHRISTIANS AND SUNNIS, WHEN THEY TURN AROUND
SOMEDAY, THE AMERICANS AREN’T GOING TO BE THERE SUPPORTING THEM. AND THEN THE IRANIANS, THEY’RE GONNA BE ON THEIR BE ON THEIR OWN AS LEBANESE.
THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THAT’S WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE WORKING FOR, IS
A HANDS-OFF POLICY FROM THE UNITED STATES, FROM IRAN, FROM SYRIA.
LET’S ALLOW THE LEBANESE TO RESOLVE THEIR POLITICAL DIFFERENCES
BY THEMSELVES. AND TO THE DEGREE THAT WE CAN DO THAT, I KNOW EVERYONE HAS A
LOT OF INTERESTS, BUT TO THE DEGREE WE CAN DO THAT AND REASSURE
THEM THAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO THAT, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THEIR
PROBLEMS BY THEMSELVES. THAT’S WHAT SELF-DETERMINATION IS. ISN’T THAT
WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR? NOT JUST DEMOCRACY,
SELF-DETERMINATION. SO LET’S BE FOR THAT.

Berry: MARK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US. WE APPRECIATE IT.
OUR CONVERSATION COULD GO ON MUCH LONGER, BUT WE’RE OUT OF
TIME. UP NEXT IS JONATHAN BRODER OF “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY” WHO JOINS US TO
DISCUSS THE ISRAELI PEACE MOVEMENT. WE’LL BE BACK TO TAKE MORE OF YOUR CALLS.

Berry: WELCOME BACK TO “VIEWPOINT.” I’M MAYA BERRY.
OUR NEXT GUEST IS JONATHAN BRODER, EDITOR OF DEFENSE AND FOREIGN POLICY
FOR “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY.” JONATHAN HAS WORKED FOR TWO DECADES AS A FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA, INCLUDING REPORTING FROM IRAQ ON THE WAR. JONATHAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

Jonathan Broder, Congressional Quarterly: PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

Berry: WE CAN TAKE YOUR CALLS AND QUESTIONS AT 001-202-842-5056.
HERE IN THE U.S., IT’S 1-800-528-2090.
IN ADDITION TO THANKING YOU FOR BEING WITH US TONIGHT, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THIS INCREDIBLE PIECE YOU WROTE.

Broder: THANKS VERY MUCH.

Berry: AND THE TITLE IS “A TIME OF FERMENT.” AND FOR OUR VIEWERS, I WANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS A LONG PIECE THAT APPEARS ON THE COVER OF “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY,”
WHICH IS A PUBLICATION READ BY PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE HERE IN WASHINGTON.
TELL US A BIT ABOUT THE PIECE ITSELF AND HOW YOU CAME TO WRITE IT.

Broder: THE WAY I CAME TO WRITE IT WAS AN OUTGROWTH OF THE FUROR
OVER JIMMY CARTER’S BOOK WHICH WAS, THE TITLE OF WHICH WAS
“PALESTINE, PEACE NOT APARTHEID.” AND THE REACTION, PARTICULARLY AMONG RIGHT- WING JEWISH GROUPS TOWARD THE PIECE WAS VERY, VERY UNFAVORABLE. AND PRESIDENT CARTER WAS ACCUSED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, OF BEING A LIAR, A PLAGIARIST AND AN ANTI-SEMITE. AND AT AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT THIS ENTIRE FUROR WAS RAGING
OVER THIS PIECE, THE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER, OR THE FORMER DEPUTY
FOREIGN MINISTER OF ISRAEL, A MAN NAMED YOSSI BEILIN WROTE A PIECE IN ONE OF THE ISRAELI PAPERS WHERE HE BASICALLY SAID, “I DON’T KNOW WHAT ALL THE FUROR IS ABOUT. WHY IS EVERYONE SO UPSET ABOUT WHAT CARTER IS SAYING
BECAUSE CARTER ISN’T SAYING ANYTHING IN THIS BOOK THAT WE IN
ISRAEL, PARTICULARLY ON THE LEFT, AREN’T SAYING OURSELVES.”
AND IT BECAME VERY CLEAR THAT THE SCOPE OF DEBATE IN ISRAEL ON
ISSUES LIKE PEACE AND THE PALESTINIANS AND THE TERRITORIES IS
MUCH BROADER IN ISRAEL THAN IT IS IN THE UNITED STATES. THERE’S A CERTAIN STIFLING OF DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES ON THIS SUBJECT, PARTICULARLY ON CAPITOL HILL AND IN WASHINGTON. SO THE IDEA WAS TO GO OVER AND TO HEAR SOME OF THOSE ISRAELI VOICES ON THE LEFT THAT ARE SAYING THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WOULD GET YOU ACCUSED OF BEING AN ANTI-SEMITE IN THE UNITED STATES. THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THE PIECE.

Berry: AND FOR OUR VIEWERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE READ IT THUS FAR, YOU
BASICALLY LAID OUT SORT OF THREE GROUPS IN ISRAEL—YOU’VE THE
RIGHT, YOU’VE GOT THE LEFT, AND YOU’VE GOT SORT OF THE SILENT
MAJORITY IN THE CENTER, SO TO SPEAK, THE PASSIVE CENTER I THINK YOU CALL THEM.

Broder: YEAH.

Berry: AND IN THE PROCESS OF TALKING TO DIFFERENT GROUPS AND WHERE
THEY HAVE FALLEN ON A VARIETY OF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS OR DEALS THAT
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND NOT PRESENTED, YOU PRESENT WHAT IS A VERY REAL DISCOURSE ON WHAT ISRAELI POLICY OUGHT TO BE WITH REGARDS TO SOLVING THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JIM HAS SAID REPEATEDLY ON THIS SHOW, ANYTIME HE SPEAKS ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND I SAY IT AND REPEAT IT AND QUOTE IT ALL THE TIME IS THAT WE’VE LOST MORE LIVES, WE’VE SPENT MORE MONEY
IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD AND NOT AT ALL HAVE FOCUSED IN TERMS OF
THE DISCOURSE ABOUT IT. WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT IT.
NOW, THE REASON THAT YOUR PIECE IS SO, I FOUND GROUNDBREAKING FRANKLY, IS NOT
JUST THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IT IN THIS WAY TO SAY HERE’S THE DEEP DIVIDE.
THIS IS THE ISRAELI SOCIETY FULLY ENGAGED IN THIS DEBATE.
HERE WE ARE IN AMERICA BEING VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS, VERY CAREFUL
BECAUSE ONE WOULD BE LABELED AN ANTI-SEMITE. AND THAT’S A HORRIBLE THING.
THEREFORE, NO DISCUSSION. BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU PUT IN WHAT IS THE MOST MAINSTREAM POLICYMAKER PUBLICATION THERE IS. WHAT’S THE FEEDBACK BEEN TO YOU?

Broder: WELL, THE FEEDBACK FROM PRO-PEACE GROUPS HAS BEEN VERY
FAVORABLE. AND QUITE PREDICTABLY, THE FEEDBACK FROM RIGHT-WING GROUPS HAS
BEEN VERY, VERY NEGATIVE. AND IT’S QUITE INTERESTING THAT, YOU KNOW, JIMMY CARTER AGAIN REFERRING BACK TO THE CONTROVERSY OVER HIS BOOK, THESE GROUPS DON’T HESITATE TO ATTACK WHOEVER SUGGESTS A POLITICAL LINE OR A LINE OF THOUGHT THAT IS COUNTER TO THEIR OWN. AND THEY GO AFTER THEM FEROCIOUSLY WITH LOTS OF NAME- CALLING AND TRYING TO SMEAR THEM. I THINK ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE TRIED, AT LEAST, TO INOCULATE OURSELVES FROM THE DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES FALLING TO THAT LEVEL WAS TO HAVE THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THIS DEBATE COMING OUT
OF THE MOUTHS OF ISRAELIS WHOM IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCUSE
OF BEING ANTI-SEMITES. SO THE CHARGE COMES AGAINST ME.

Berry: ONE OF THE QUOTES THAT I FOUND MOST INTERESTING IN YOUR
PIECE COMES—THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PEACE AGREEMENTS,
PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, THE IDEA OF THE PEACE PLANS. AND THE LEFT HAS
CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IT’S THE ISRAELIS
WHO ARE SAYING NO TO ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS. AND THE QUOTE YOU HAVE, I
BELIEVE IT’S YOSSI BEILIN, ALTHOUGH I MAY BE GETTING IT WRONG, SAYING WE ARE NOW
BECOMING LIKE KHARTOUM HERE.

Brolin: IT WASN’T YOSSI BEILIN. IT WAS A MAN NAMED DAVID KENFI, WHO IS THE FORMER DEPUTY HEAD OF THE MOUSSAD, AND ACTUALLY NOT REALLY A MAN OF THE LEFT. HE’S REALLY FROM THE CENTER, AND IF ANYTHING, FROM THE RIGHT CENTER.
HE SERVED IN THAT CAPACITY IN THE MOUSSAD DURING THE LIKUD GOVERNMENTS.
BASICALLY, WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING OVER THERE IS THAT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, ISRAEL USED TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT RIGHT AFTER THE 1967 WAR WHERE ISRAEL CAPTURED THE WEST BANK AND GAZA AND THE GOLAN AND SINAI, THEY OFFERED PEACE
NEGOTIATIONS IN RETURN FOR PEACE AND RECOGNITION. AND THE ARAB RESPONSE CAME FROM THE ARAB LEAGUE SUMMIT IN KHARTOUM LATER THAT YEAR, 1967, WITH THEIR THREE FAMOUS “NOS.” NO NEGOTIATIONS, NO RECOGNITION, AND NO PEACE.
NOW 40 YEARS LATER THE TABLES HAVE TURNED. THE ARAB PEACE PLAN, PROPOSED BY SAUDI ARABIA AND ENDORSED BY THE 22 NATIONS OF THE ARAB LEAGUE HAVE OFFERED ISRAEL FULL PEACE, FULL RECOGNITION, AND FULL NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS IN RETURN FOR AN ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL TO ITS 1967 BOUNDARIES, ESTABLISHING A PALESTINIAN STATE WITH EAST JERUSALEM AS ITS CAPITAL IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA, AND AN AGREED UPON SOLUTION, AND I STRESS “AGREED UPON SOLUTION”, TO THE
PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM BASED ON U.N. RESOLUTION 194, WHICH CALLED FOR EITHER THE RETURN OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES TO THEIR HOMES OR SUITABLE COMPENSATION. AND ISRAEL IS SAYING NO TO THAT. IT IS ALSO SAYING NO TO A SYRIAN OVERTURE FOR PEACE, AND IT’S SAYING NO TO A PALESTINIAN OVERTURE FOR PEACE
FROM THE UNITY GOVERNMENT. SO YOU HAVE A FELLOW LIKE DAVID KENFI, AS I SAID, FROM THE CENTER, LITTLE BIT TO THE RIGHT, DISMAYED BY THE FACT THAT ISRAEL IS NOW THE COUNTRY WHO IS SAYING NO. I THINK HE CALLED IT THE CAPITAL OF NO.
AND HE BASICALLY PUT A CHALLENGE TO THE PRIME MINISTER, EHUD OLMERT. HE SAID, “WHICH IS IT TO BE, MR. OLMERT?”

Berry: WHAT I FIND INTERESTING ABOUT THAT, TOO, IS THAT YOU’RE—THE CONTRAST THIS WAS A PUBLIC RELATIONS BLUNDER FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THEM, BUT IT WAS
ALSO AN ISSUE OF THEIR NATIONAL SECURITY, THAT THE U.S. POLICY OF DON’T NEGOTIATE WITH SYRIA, DON’T DO THIS OR DON’T DO THAT, WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME BEING RE-EVALUATED WITHIN ISRAEL IN A WAY THAT I FOUND FASCINATING. I WANT YOU TO COME BACK TO THAT. FIRST LET’S GET—SQUEEZE IN A CALLER FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM. GOOD EVENING, CALLER. DO WE HAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM?
DO WE HAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM?

Caller: YES. UNITED KINGDOM.

Berry: HI, THERE. GO AHEAD, CALLER.

Caller: YES, HI. I WANT TO SAY THAT WE HERE IN ENGLAND, WE START A CAMPAIGN FOR BOYCOTTING ISRAELI SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS. WE TRYING TO PUT THE PRESSURE ON THEM BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE THE EDUCATED PART OF THE SOCIETY. AND I THINK THAT THROUGH A CAMPAIGN SIMILAR TO SOUTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN, WE MIGHT ACHIEVE
SOMETHING. IN AMERICA, THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE THAT THE MEDIA HIJACKED ALL
PEOPLE OPINION ON THE ISRAELI LOBBY IS A BULLY. THEY ARE A BULLY CALLED THE AMERICANS. I THINK THIS IS THE ANSWER OF THAT QUESTION, “WHY DO THEY
HATE US?” WHAT IS THE AMERICAN DOING IN SUPPORT OF THAT KILLING FOR THE PALESTINIAN AND TORTURE FOR THESE YEARS? AND THIS IS THE QUESTION WHICH THEY HAVE TO ANSWER. THEY HAVE TO STAND TO THOSE BULLIES, AND THEY HAVE TO LOOK INTO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE IN THAT PLACE EXACTLY LIKE THEY ARE LOOKING INTO IT IN LEBANON AND OTHER PLACES.

Berry: THANK YOU, CALLER. THE QUESTION OF HOW U.S. POLICY HAS PLAYED OUT IN THIS—IN THE ABSENCE OF DEBATE, IS CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT ONE IN YOUR
PIECE, AND IT’S ONE THE CALLER IS TOUCHING UPON, THAT THEY’RE TRYING TO REACH OUT TO WHAT WOULD BE THE JEWISH OR ISRAELI EDUCATED CLASSES. THOSE FOLKS ARE ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS.

Broder: THEY ARE. THEY VERY MUCH ARE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE U.S. POLICY IS NOT TO TALK TO SYRIA, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND THERE WAS AN OVERTURE BY THE SYRIAN PRESIDENT BACK IN 2004
TO HAVE SECRET PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ISRAELIS. IT WAS AN OVERTURE THAT WAS MADE BY BASHAR AL-ASSAD THROUGH THE TURKISH PRESIDENT.
AND THE TURKISH PRESIDENT WAS ASKED BY ASSAD TO MEDIATE SECRET TALKS.
THE ISRAELIS WERE APPROACHED ON THIS. THIS WAS DURING THE TIME OF SHARON, AND SHARON REFUSED SAYING THAT IT WOULD GO AGAINST AMERICAN POLICY.
SO THE ALTERNATIVE WAS TO HAVE WHAT THEY CALL TRACK-TWO NEGOTIATIONS, WHICH ARE
UNOFFICIAL TALKS BETWEEN THE ISRAELIS AND THE SYRIANS. THOSE TALKS WENT ON FOR TWO YEARS. ON THE ISRAELI SIDE WAS A FORMER DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE
FOREIGN MINISTRY. AND ON THE SYRIAN SIDE WAS A SYRIAN AMERICAN PROFESSOR WHO WAS
VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE ASSAD FAMILY. THEY MET FOR TWO YEARS, AND THEY REACHED A DRAFT AGREEMENT. AT THIS POINT, THE SYRIANS SAID, “OK, LET’S MAKE THIS OFFICIAL.
LET’S KICK IT UP FROM THE TRACK-TWO UNOFFICIAL LEVEL TO THE OFFICIAL LEVEL.”
BY THIS TIME OLMERT WAS IN POWER. ONCE AGAIN, HE SAID THE AMERICANS WOULD NOT BE HAPPY WITH THIS, AND HE REFUSED TO ENGAGE IN OFFICIAL TALKS.
AT THIS POINT, FOLKS ON THE ISRAELI LEFT, AND PARTICULARLY THE
ISRAELI WHO CONDUCTED THE SECRET NEGOTIATIONS UNOFFICIALLY, WENT
PUBLIC WITH THE DRAFT AGREEMENT. SO EVERYONE COULD SEE WHAT THEY HAD ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED. AND THAT’S WHEN PRESSURE BEGAN TO BUILD FOR, AND IS STILL BUILDING RIGHT NOW. THERE WAS A DEMONSTRATION IN ISRAEL JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO WITH
EVERYONE HOLDING UP SIGNS SAYING “TALK TO SYRIA.”

Berry: JONATHAN, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION.
WE HAD MORE CALLERS ON THIS.
I WANT TO MENTION FOR OUR VIEWERS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY PIECE OF MAY 14, 2007, THAT I’M SURE
IF IT’S NOT UP ALREADY ON THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE WEBSITE,
WHICH IS AAIUSA.ORG, IT WILL BE. THANK YOU AGAIN.
WE’RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE YOU BACK WITH MORE TIME TO CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION.
AND THAT’S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE TODAY.
BEFORE WE CLOSE, I WANT TO MENTION A SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY THE
ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE TO MARK THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE. IT’S CALLED “40 HOURS FOR 40 YEARS. PALESTINE LIVES.”
ALL NEXT WEEK THE ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE’S WEBSITE, WWW.AAIUSA.ORG,
WILL HIGHLIGHT THE HISTORY AND IMPACT OF THE PALESTINIAN OCCUPATION.
YOU WILL READ AND HEAR STORIES BY PALESTINIANS AND PALESTINIAN
AMERICANS TOLD IN THEIR OWN WORDS, PLUS IMAGES, WEBCASTS AND MORE.
YOU CAN BE A PART OF THIS EXPERIENCE BY SUBMITTING YOUR OWN
STORY AT WWW.AAIUSA.ORG. ALSO, A QUICK MENTION ABOUT OUR RECENT PROGRAM, “DAVIDSON AND BAGHDAD, FOUR YEARS LATER,” A THOUGHT-PROVOKING DIALOGUE BETWEEN STUDENTS FROM DAVIDSON COLLEGE IN NORTH CAROLINA AND STUDENTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD. THE PROGRAM IS NOW AVAILABLE ON DVD BY VISITING
WWW.AAIUSA.ORG/DVD. THANKS TO OUR GUESTS PHILIP GORDON, MARK PERRY AND JOHN
BRODER. AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. JIM WILL BE BACK NEXT WEEK.