Dr. James Zogby

Viewpoint Episode and Transcript: 06/07/07

Posted on Friday June 22, 2007

J.Z.: HI. I’M JIM ZOGBY AND WELCOME TO A SPECIAL EDITION OF
“VIEWPOINT.” 40 YEARS AGO TODAY, THE MIDDLE EAST WAS IN THE MIDST OF WAR, THE IMPACT OF WHICH IS STILL WITH US. DESPITE PEACE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND EGYPT AND ISRAEL AND JORDAN, THE REGION REMAINS VOLATILE.
ISRAEL REMAINS INSECURE AND POLITICALLY MORE DIVIDED THAN EVER BEFORE. PALESTINIANS, TOO, ARE AT A LOW POINT. THEIR LAND IS DIVIDED BY SETTLEMENTS, ROADS, CHECKPOINTS, AND NOW AN INSIDIOUS WALL THAT SNAKES IN AND OUT OF THE TERRITORY. AND THE PALESTINIANS THEMSELVES ARE DIVIDED IN FRATRICIDAL CONFLICT. TONIGHT WE’LL TAKE A LOOK BACK AT 40 YEARS OF OCCUPATION, AND WE’LL TAKE A LONG, HARD LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE TODAY. AND THEN WE’LL DISCUSS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS. JOINING OUR DISCUSSION IS A GROUP OF EXPERTS AND ANALYSTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND STUDENTS.
I’D LIKE TO BEGIN INTRODUCING OUR GUESTS. THE FIRST IS AARON DAVID MILLER. HE’S A PUBLIC POLICY SCHOLAR AT THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER IN WASHINGTON, D.C. HE’S BEEN AN ADVISOR TO SIX SECRETARIES OF STATE, INCLUDING THE POST AS SENIOR ADVISOR FOR ARAB ISRAELI NEGOTIATIONS. HE’S FORMER PRESIDENT OF SEEDS OF PEACE, AN ORGANIZATION THAT TEACHES CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS TO YOUNG PEOPLE IN CRITICAL REGIONS OF THE WORLD.
GHAITH AL-OMARI IS A SENIOR FELLOW AT THE NEW AMERICAN FOUNDATION. HE’S A FORMER ADVISOR TO PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS. HE WAS A MEMBER
OF THE PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATING TEAM AT CAMP DAVID AND TABA AND WAS THE LEAD PALESTINIAN DRAFTER OF THE GENEVA INITIATIVE.
ALSO JOINING US IS DANNY SEIDEMANN. HE’S A LAWYER FROM ISRAEL WHO SPECIALIZES IN
LAND ISSUES AND DEFENSE OF VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. HE’S SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED FOR MANY YEARS IN BOTH HUMAN RIGHTS WORK AND IN ADVOCACY WORK IN THE TERRITORIES. HE PARTICIPATED IN TRACK TWO TALKS ON JERUSALEM BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS AND SERVED IN AN INFORMAL ADVISORY CAPACITY DURING FINAL STATUS NEGOTIATIONS.
LEENA EL-ALI IS DIRECTOR OF PARTNERS IN HUMANITY AT SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND, AN
INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION ORGANIZATION.
LEENA’S WORK IS FOCUSED ON HELPING TO EASE TENSIONS AND INCREASE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN MUSLIM AND WESTERN SOCIETIES.
I WANT TO START WITH YOU, AARON. YOU’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS WORK NOW FOR ALMOST HALF OF THE OCCUPATION, SERVING IN SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS, GOING BACK TO THE LEAD-UP DAYS TO WHEN WE ACTUALLY WENT INTO THE MADRID PROCESS. YOU RECENTLY WROTE A PIECE IN THE “WASHINGTON POST” THAT WAS
REALLY QUITE POWERFUL AND PESSIMISTIC. AND I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT.
AT THIS POINT, YOUR PESSIMISM IS BASED ON WHAT? AND WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW? WHAT’S WRONG WITH WHERE WE ARE?

Aaron David Miller: FIRST, LET ME SAY BY INTRODUCTION, I BORROW A PHRASE FROM
JOHN F. KENNEDY WHO DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS AN IDEALIST WITHOUT ILLUSION. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ANYBODY SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN ANALYZING OR PARTICIPATING AND ENDING THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT HAS TO LOOK AT THEMSELVES THAT WAY. WE HAVE TO LOOK, NEVER GIVE UP THE POSSIBILITY, AND HOPE THAT THE CONFLICT CAN BE ENDED. BUT WE HAVE TO DO IT THIS TIME AROUND WITH OUR EYES OPEN. AND FOR TOO MANY YEARS, I WOULD ARGUE, ARABS, ISRAELIS, AND AMERICANS HAD THEIR EYES SHUT.
SO MY PESSIMISM IS ESSENTIALLY GROUNDED IN THAT FACT.
I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW, TODAY, OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, THERE
ARE REAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WHAT I WOULD CALL PROCESS AND MEETINGS BETWEEN ARABS AND ISRAELIS. AND GIVEN THE LOW EXPECTATIONS THAT EXIST IN THE REGION, PERHAPS THAT WOULD MAKE SOME PEOPLE HOPEFUL. BUT ENDING THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT?
PRODUCING A CONFLICT-ENDING SOLUTION WHICH RESOLVES ALL CLAIMS, AND TURNS THE
MIDDLE EAST INTO THE POSSIBILITY AT LEAST IN THE ARAB-ISRAELI AREA OF
ANYTHING THAT YOU AND I WOULD REMOTELY DESCRIBE AS PEACE AND
RECONCILIATION?
THE CONDITIONS FOR THAT ARE NOT PRESENT.

J.Z.: LET ME ASK YOU. WE WERE TALKING BEFORE THE SHOW ABOUT THE
FACT THAT YEARS AGO, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS DURING THE OSLO PERIOD, NONE OF US HAD AN IDEA THAT IT WOULD SINK AS LOW AS IT HAS. IS THERE A POINT WHERE VIOLENCE, FEAR, ANGER BECOMES SO INTERNALIZED THAT IT BECOMES IRREVERSIBLE?

Miller: PERHAPS, BUT WE HAVEN’T REACHED THAT POINT.
AND I WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE DIPLOMATIC “FIXES”, THE CLEVER, CREATIVE FIXES THAT I THINK PEOPLE GENERALLY AGREE ON
WHICH ARE PRESENT IS THE ABSENCE OF THE POLITICAL WILL AND THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF REAL NEGOTIATIONS BASED NOT ON A IMBALANCE OF POWER
BUT ON A BALANCE OF INTEREST. THAT IS NOT PRESENT.

J.Z.: YOU LAY OUT IN YOUR PIECE THE WEAKNESSES THAT EXIST ON THE ISRAELI SIDE AND ON THE PALESTINIAN SIDE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THEY WERE THERE EVEN DURING THE OSLO PERIOD…

Miller: YES.

J.Z.: BUT THE AMERICAN WEAKNESS AS WELL. PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS NOT A RISK TAKER. AND GEORGE BUSH HAS ABANDONED THE PROCESS. AND THE ONE TIME HE DID ENGAGED, I REMEMBER IT QUITE—IT WAS A LITTLE PROCESS THERE FROM APRIL TO MAY WHEN THE HORRIFIC BOMBINGS IN ISRAEL, WHICH COST MANY, MANY LIVES, AND SHARON ENTERED
THE WEST BANK, AND GEORGE BUSH CAME FORWARD AND SAID, “BOTH SIDES, YOU MUST DO THIS,” AND “SHARON AND ARAFAT, YOU MUST DO THIS”…
AND THEN THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT GANGED UP ON HIM. AND I REMEMBER THERE WERE ADS IN THE NEWSPAPERS AND PRESS CONFERENCES. AND NETANYAHU CAME AND ADDRESSED A CAUCUS OF THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE. AND IN THE MIDST OF SECRETARY POWELL IN THE REGION, GEORGE BUSH DID A FLIP. PRESIDENTS IN AMERICA—WEAK AND SUBJECT TO DOMESTIC POLITICAL PRESSURES, IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTIME SOON?

Miller: PROBABLY NOT. BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT’S NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTRAINT. THE REALITY IS THAT GOVERNING IS ABOUT CHOOSING. YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT. AND IT’S NOT DOMESTIC POLITICS THAT HAS DISSUADED THIS ADMINISTRATION FROM MOVING FORWARD. IT’S ONE SIMPLE FACT: THEY HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD, IT SEEMS TO
ME, THAT THERE IS A CENTRAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESOLUTION
OF THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT AND JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY WANT TO DO IN THE REGION. AND UNTIL THEY MAKE IT A PRIORITY, WHICH BILL CLINTON DID.
BILL CLINTON, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS EMPATHETIC ENOUGH BUT NOT TOUGH ENOUGH.
AND HE TRIED TO DO TOO MUCH TOO FAST, TOO SOON. GEORGE W. BUSH, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS TRIED TO DO VERY LITTLE.
SO WE NEED AN APPROACH WHICH REALLY DOES FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE, AND THAT BALANCE IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT, IN A WAY, WE’VE ONLY FOUND IT THREE TIMES IN FOUR DECADES OF AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT—ONCE DURING THE DIPLOMACY OF HENRY KISSINGER, WHICH PRODUCED THE DISENGAGEMENT AGREEMENTS; THE SECOND TIME DURING JIMMY CARTER’S ADMINISTRATION, WHICH LED TO AN EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE TREATY; AND A THIRD TIME, SHORT-LIVED, UNDER THE PRESIDENT’S FATHER AND JIM BAKER.
THAT KIND OF DIPLOMACY—TOUGHNESS AND EMPATHY—UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ARAB-ISRAELI ISSUE IS LINKED TO AMERICAN NATIONAL INTERESTS, THAT’S THE KIND OF DIPLOMACY THAT WE NEED, AND THAT’S THE KIND OF DIPLOMACY THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN IN MY JUDGMENT, WELL, SINCE 1991.

J.Z.: DANNY, SEIDEMANN, I REMEMBER SEEING YOU IN A WONDERFUL FILM, “ARAB AND JEW,” TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF PERCEPTION, EACH SIDE SEEING IT—SEEING EACH PLACE ALMOST IN THE WEST BANK DIFFERENTLY THROUGH
DIFFERENT EYES. YOU’VE BEEN A LAWYER. YOU’VE BEEN DEALING WITH SOME OF THESE ISSUES, AND I WANT TO PUT UP, IF WE COULD, ON THE SCREEN BEHIND ME A MAP TO SEE THE WEST BANK TODAY, CUT UP, AS IT IS, IN PIECES—TRAVEL CIRCUMSCRIBED FOR PALESTINIANS, TRAVEL BEING FACILITATED FOR ISRAELIS—AND BECOMING QUITE A DIFFICULT SITUATION.
I ASKED AARON ABOUT THE CULTURAL IRREVERSIBILITY. IS THERE A PHYSICAL IRREVERSIBILITY? HAS THE SITUATION REACHED A POINT NOW WHERE THERE IS JUST NO WAY THAT A VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE CAN BE ESTABLISHED OR THAT ISRAELIS ARE GOING TO UPROOT THEMSELVES FROM THESE PLACES THAT THEY’VE PUT THEMSELVES INTO IN THE WEST BANK?

Daniel Seidemann: YOU KNOW, AARON IS IN MANY WAYS MY MENTOR, AND WE WORKED DURING THE YEAR OF 2000 TOGETHER. I WAS KIBITZING WITH HIM. HE WAS IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY.
TODAY AARON ASKED ME THE SAME QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED, AND MY ANSWER IS UNEQUIVOCAL. IN SUBSTANCE, THE OPTIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE SUMMER OF 2000 EXIST TODAY. IT’S STILL THERE. IT’S NOT A QUESTION OF THE FACTS ON THE GROUND. IT’S A QUESTION OF THE POLITICAL WILL. IT WAS DIFFICULT THEN. IT’S DIFFICULT NOW. BUT IT’S DOABLE. AND IT MAY BE A BON TON TO SAY THAT WE’VE ARRIVED AT THE POINT OF NO RETURN, THAT THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS GONE. THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE FACTS ON THE GROUND KNOW THAT THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE. WE KNOW WHAT FINAL STATUS LOOKS LIKE. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF THE SUBSTANCE. IT IS ALL OVER BUT THE BODY COUNT.

J.Z.: CAN YOU IMAGINE AN ISRAELI GOVERNMENT HAVING THE POLITICAL
WILL OR HAVING THE CONSTITUENT SUPPORT TO TAKE DOWN A WALL NOW THAT
IT’S GONE UP OR TO UPROOT SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT SETTLEMENTS?
I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT LITTLE TRAILER PARKS HERE AND THERE,
BUT SOME OF THOSE SETTLEMENTS THAT JUT OUT LIKE FINGERS INTO
THE REGION AND END UP MAKING PASSAGE IMPOSSIBLE. YOU KNOW THE INTERNAL POLITICS OF ISRAEL. CAN YOU FORM A COALITION THAT WILL BE STRONG ENOUGH TO GIVE THE SUPPORT THAT WILL ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN?

Seidemann: TODAY? NO. BUT I BELIEVE IT TO BE AN HISTORICAL INEVITABILITY. HISTORY IN JERUSALEM BEGINS TOMORROW MORNING. I THINK AN ISRAELI GOVERNMENT THAT WILL DISMANTLE SETTLEMENTS AND WILL ENGAGE IN A FINAL STATUS AGREEMENT IS SIMPLY INEVITABLE.
WE’VE CELEBRATED, “CELEBRATED,” 40 YEARS OF THE REUNIFICATION OF JERUSALEM THIS WEEK. I’D SAY 20 OR 30 PERCENT OF THE ISRAELI PUBLIC CELEBRATED KIM IL SUNG-STYLE BY CONTRIVED, RATHER TINNY CELEBRATIONS, ENGINEERED CELEBRATIONS. THIS HAS BEEN A SOBERING EXPERIENCE FOR ISRAEL. I MEAN, I THINK A MATURE PROCESS OF EVALUATING, NO, JERUSALEM IS NOT DIVIDED; NO, JERUSALEM WILL BE DIVIDED POLITICALLY. THAT’S INEVITABLE.
NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY HAS THE ISRAELI PUBLIC BEEN WILLING
TO PAY AS GREAT A PRICE—I BELIEVE THE NECESSARY PRICE—TO
ARRIVE AT A CONFLICT-ENDING AGREEMENT. THAT’S NOT AVAILABLE TODAY.
THE HORRIBLE CHASM OF THE PERIOD IN WHICH WE ARE LIVING, THE
GAP BETWEEN THE POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE AND THE HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE.
AND I AGREE WITH AARON. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE PROSPECT OF THAT HAPPENING.
BUT THAT DOESN’T DEROGATE FROM THE HISTORIC INEVITABILITY.
THIS CONFLICT ENDS IN A TWO-STATE SOLUTION INSIDE THE CITY OF
JERUSALEM. AND, YES, THERE WILL BE AN ISRAELI GOVERNMENT AND A
PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT SIMULTANEOUSLY ARTICULATING THIS AND BRINGING IT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE PUBLICS.

J.Z.: GHAITH, COMMENT ON THAT. FROM THE PALESTINIAN SIDE, DO YOU SEE THAT COMING?
BECAUSE CLEARLY, IF THERE HAS BEEN A TRANSFORMATION IN THE INTERNAL ISRAELI POLITICAL DYNAMIC, THERE’S BEEN ONE ON THE PALESTINIAN SIDE, AND WE’RE SEEING IT PLAY OUT IN RATHER HORRIFIC FORM IN GAZA AND IN PARTS OF THE WEST BANK. CAN PALESTINIANS COME TO THIS POINT?

Ghaith Al-Omari: CERTAINLY. THERE IS ACTUALLY NO OTHER OPTION FOR THE PALESTINIANS RIGHT NOW EXCEPT FOR A TWO-STATE SOLUTION, AS MENTIONED BY MY PREVIOUS COLLEAGUES. EVEN HAMAS ITSELF IN AN ARTICLE RECENTLY BY PRIME MINISTER HANIYEH IN THE “GUARDIAN,” HE TALKED ABOUT A SEPARATE PALESTINIAN STATE ON THE 67th BORDER. OUR WHOLE NATIONAL IDENTITY HAS BEEN WRAPPED AROUND THE CREATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE IN THE WEST BANK, IN GAZA. TO ABANDON THIS DIRECTION, ABANDON THIS HOPE WOULD MEAN DISMANTLING OUR WHOLE NATIONAL IDENTITY.
THAT’S NOT AN EASY PROSPECT. AND THAT’S NOT A PROSPECT THAT ANY OF THE EXISTING POLITICAL MOVEMENTS IN PALESTINE IS WILLING TO LOOK INTO. SO I THINK, YES, IT IS POSSIBLE. NOW, IS IT GOING TO HAPPEN NOW? OF COURSE NOT. WE’RE HAVING MAJOR ISSUES DOMESTICALLY. SOME OF THEM ARE A RESULT OF THE OCCUPATION IN MANY WAYS. THE OCCUPATION HAS STUNTED OUR POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT. IT HAS KEPT US IN MANY WAYS VICTIMS OF THE PAST. WE ARE STUCK IN OUR VICTIMHOOD. WE’VE BEEN UNABLE TO LOOK FORWARD. AND AS SUCH, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A DIRECTIONLESS SOCIETY, A SOCIETY THAT HAS LOST HOPE OF THIS HAPPENING. WHAT YOU HAVE IS WE ARE IMPLODING OURSELVES. AND UNLESS WE START MOVING TOWARDS THIS KIND OF TWO-STATE SOLUTION, REALIZING OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY, WE WILL EVEN FRAGMENT FURTHER. IT’S NOT EVEN A LUXURY RIGHT NOW. IT’S A NATIONAL NECESSITY.

J.Z.: YOU SAID ONE THING, THOUGH, THAT I WANT TO TAKE YOU UP ON, THOUGH.
AND THAT’S THE COMMENT THAT THE ISSUE OF A STATE IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA HAS LONG BEEN THE PALESTINIAN ASPIRATION. THAT’S NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. I MEAN, THE POINT WAS, IS THAT UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE 1980s THERE WAS A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW, AND THE RESISTANCE ACTUALLY CAME FROM OUTSIDE AND OUTSIDE-IN. AND NOW IT’S A RESISTANCE FROM INSIDE. TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT TRANSFORMATION. WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE WEST BANK, IN GAZA, THAT BROUGHT PALESTINIANS FIRST FROM THE POINT OF ALMOST QUIESCENCE, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS SOME RESISTANCE AND THERE CERTAINLY WAS SOME BRUTALITY FROM THE OCCUPYING AUTHORITIES, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE THE INTIFADA UNTIL THE LATE 1980s. WHAT HAPPENED UNDER THESE 40 YEARS OF OCCUPATION TO CHANGE PALESTINIAN SOCIETY, GOOD AND BAD?

Al-Omari: THAT’S RIGHT. THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS SOMETHING THAT CAME ABOUT OFFICIALLY IN 1988, WHEN THE P.L.O. HAD VOTED ON THIS. HOWEVER, 1988 WAS A CULMINATION OF A PROCESS THAT STARTED ALMOST IN 1974. IT WAS A LONG PAINFUL PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION. UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS A BLOODY ONE, ONE IN WHICH PALESTINIANS HAD TO BE EXPELLED FROM LEBANON AND OTHER PLACES UNTIL WE REACH THAT POINT. WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS INTIFADA AND THE TRANSFORMATION THAT HAPPENED SINCE THE EARLY NINETIES—IS BASICALLY THEY WANT HOPE. IN THE EARLY NINETIES, IN THE MID-NINETIES, PEOPLE FELT THAT THERE WAS HOPE OF
REACHING AN AGREEMENT, THERE WAS HOPE OF REACHING A SOLUTION TO THE CONFLICT. AND THEREFORE IN THE MID-NINETIES WHEN THERE WAS SOME BUS BOMBINGS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF PRIME MINISTER RABIN, PEOPLE IN WESTERN BANK AND GAZA CAME OUT SPONTANEOUSLY DEMONSTRATING AGAINST THESE ACTIONS.
TODAY, WHEN PEOPLE DON’T BELIEVE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE, WE DON’T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PARTNER ON THE ISRAELI SIDE, AND DON’T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN AMERICAN SPONSOR TO THE PROCESS, YOU GO BACK TO YOUR BUNKER MENTALITY; YOU STOP THINKING OF HOPE; YOU START THINKING OF REVENGE. AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT THE MOMENT.

J.Z.: LEENA, SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND, I’VE SEEN THE WORK YOU DO OVER THE YEARS, BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND FINDING WAYS TO BUILD. IS THERE ENOUGH COMMON GROUND TO BUILD ON? WHAT COMPRISES YOUR WORK AT THIS POINT?

Leena el-Ali: THERE CERTAINLY IS COMMON GROUND. THE CHALLENGE IS THE
LOGISTICS, IF I CAN SAY SO. THERE IS COMMON GROUND ON A MACRO LEVEL IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYONE WANTS A CHANGE, A CHANGE FOR THE BETTER, AND SURELY THAT’S THE
MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ANY KIND OF FUTURE SETTLEMENT. AND THERE IS A LOT OF COMMON GROUND ON THE MICRO LEVEL.
AND SOME OF OUR PROJECTS ON THE GROUND—OUR PROGRAM IN JERUSALEM HAS IMPLEMENTED VERY INTERESTING PROJECTS ON THE GROUND, WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS MICRO-PROJECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MIDDLE EAST CONSORTIUM ON INFECTIOUS DISEASE SURVEILLANCE, THAT BRINGS TOGETHER VERY EFFECTIVELY ISRAELIS, PALESTINIANS AND JORDANIANS. AND IT’S BEEN DOING SO FOR 5 YEARS. COMMON GROUND ON A MICRO LEVEL IS EASIER LOGISTICALLY, ONE MIGHT ARGUE. THE BIGGER PICTURE INEVITABLY REQUIRES SOME OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY MY FELLOW PANELISTS HERE. AND THEY INVOLVE THINGS LIKE THE POLITICAL WILL AND SO ON, BUT THERE ARE ALSO IN OUR VIEW AT SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF DOING THIS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND IN PARTICULAR IN WORKING THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT, THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT FOR A SOLUTION HAS TO BE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT NOBODY IS GOING TO GET 100% OF WHAT THEY WANT. THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT. NOW, THERE HAS TO BE ENOUGH FAIRNESS IN THE SOLUTION, IN THE EQUATION FOR IT TO STICK. OTHERWISE ANYTHING THAT ONE COMES UP WITH COME UNRAVELING VERY QUICKLY. BUT THIS IS THE KIND OF PRAGMATISM THAT IS REQUIRED. 100% OF WHAT BOTH SIDES WANT, ALTHOUGH BOTH SIDES ARE NOT EXACTLY MONOLITHIC, BUT JUST TO SIMPLIFY THE DISCUSSION, THAT IS NOT USUALLY ACHIEVABLE. AND WE KNOW THAT ISN’T IN THIS CASE…

J.Z.: ONE THING I WAS REFLECTING ON AS YOU WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE MICRO
AND THE MACRO IS SOMETHING IN THE WORLD BANK REPORT THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THE DEGREE TO WHICH, EVEN DURING THE DIFFICULT YEARS OF THE 1980s, THE AMOUNT OF INTERACTION THAT TOOK PLACE WAS SIGNIFICANT. AND EVEN IN THE 1990s WITH CLOSURE, THERE WAS STILL INTERACTIONS BOTH IN TERMS OF
PALESTINIAN WORKERS AND SUBCONTRACTORS AND FREE FLOW, MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE.
I MEAN, PALESTINIANS AFTER 1967 GOT TO GO AND VISIT FAMILIES AND FRIENDS AND MAKE ACQUAINTANCES IN NAZARETH AND IN HAIFA. THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN ANYMORE. THE PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF PEOPLES IS ALMOST COMPLETE. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT YOUR WORK, AND HOW DO YOU SEE THAT IN THE FUTURE PLAYING OUT?

El-Ali: IT CERTAINLY IMPACTS OUR WORK ON EVERY LEVEL.
AGAIN, I COME BACK TO THE IDEA OF LOGISTICS. THAT HAS SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR ANY KIND OF MICRO AND MINI PROJECT, INEVITABLY.
IT MAKES THINGS DIFFICULT, BUT I THINK WHAT’S IMPORTANT IN OUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE SEE THAT THERE IS COMMON GROUND HERE AND THERE ON AN ONGOING BASIS. AND WHAT WE DO IS TO TRY AND USE THAT AS A PLATFORM FROM WHICH TO REALLY BRING ABOUT HOPE, BECAUSE WITHOUT HOPE, AS GHAITH SAID, WITHOUT HOPE, YOU HAVE VERY NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. YOU HAVE THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT YOU POSSIBLY WOULD NOT HAVE IF THERE HAD BEEN A GLIMMER OF HOPE.
THIS IS PART OF OUR PHILOSOPHY, IF YOU WILL. HOWEVER SMALL THE COMMON GROUND MAY SEEM AT TIMES AND THE DIFFERENT AREAS IN WHICH COMMON GROUND MAY BE FOUND, SHRINK OVER TIME—IT COMES AND GOES. IT’S LIKE A WAVE. BUT JUST BUILDING UPON THAT I THINK GIVES HOPE AND THEREIN LIES THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY. IS IT EASY? NO. IT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT CONFLICT THAT WE WORK IN.

J.Z.: ONE LAST QUESTION. THEN I WANT TO GO FORE A BREAK. AARON, I WANT TO GO TO YOU. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE OCCUPATION IN THE LAST 40 YEARS ON ISRAELI SOCIETY AND POLITICS, ON PALESTINIAN SOCIETY AND POLITICS, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A DOMESTIC IMPACT AS WELL IN TERMS OF HOW THE MIDDLE EAST HAS PLAYED OUT FOR ALL THE ADMINISTRATIONS YOU’VE SERVED AND THOSE EVEN BEFORE YOU STARTED TO SERVE. TALK A LITTLE ABOUT THAT AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.
I JUST WANT TO CLOSE OUT ON THAT THOUGHT, THE IMPACT THAT THIS WAR
AND THE OCCUPATION HAVE HAD ON AMERICA.

Miller: I THINK IT’S INURED PEOPLE TO ACCEPT A LEVEL OF CONFRONTATION AND VIOLENCE WHICH IS ALMOST PARALYTIC, NUMBER ONE. I THINK THERE ARE OTHER FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES WHICH HAVE SUBSTITUTED THEMSELVES. IN A POST-9/11 WORLD, THE PREVAILING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE, IS THAT YOU NEED PREEMPTIVE AND PREVENTIVE MILITARY POWER, YOU NEED INTELLIGENCE, AND YOU NEED COUNTER-TERRORISM.
AND THIS IS USUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN HARD AND SOFT DIPLOMACY. I DON’T THINK THAT’S RIGHT AT ALL. CONFLICT RESOLUTION, THE IDENTIFICATION OF AMERICA WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN OCCUPATION AND INVASION AND COUNTER-TERROR IS CRITICAL, BECAUSE THE GAP BETWEEN WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE—AND THIS IS NOT A
REPUBLICAN ISSUE, AND THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC ISSUE—THE GAP BETWEEN WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE AND THE WAY WE ARE PERCEIVED AROUND THE WORLD IN MY LIFETIME IS AS LARGE A GAP AS I HAVE EVER SEEN, AND IT’S VERY DUMB POLITICS IN A POST-9/11 WORLD WHERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE SECURITY OF THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IS MORE CAUGHT UP IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD THAN AT ANY POINT IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY. WE ARE DRIVEN, OR SHOULD BE DRIVEN, ON THIS ISSUE BY A NATIONAL INTEREST PARADIGM, BUT WE’RE NOT. AND IT’S WORTH TRYING TO EXAMINE PERHAPS WHY NOT?

J.Z.: WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. AND WHEN WE COME BACK, WE’RE GOING TO A LOOK AT AN INTERESTING POLL DONE OF ARAB AMERICANS AND AMERICAN JEWS ABOUT THE VERY ISSUES WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. STAY WITH US. WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK.

J.Z.: WELCOME BACK. I’M JIM ZOGBY, AND THIS IS A SPECIAL EDITION OF “VIEWPOINT” MARKING THE 40th ANNIVERSARY OF THE OCCUPATION. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME POLLING NUMBERS THAT WE DID TOGETHER—THE ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE AND PEACE NOW. AND THE NUMBERS WERE RELEASED ON MONDAY OF THIS WEEK. LET ME PUT THEM UP ON THE SCREEN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THEM. WE ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS. I’M JUST GOING TO PUT FOUR OF THEM UP FOR YOU TO LOOK AT.
THE FIRST QUESTIONS WE ASKED WAS ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS WITH SYRIA. SHOULD THE U.S. NEGOTIATE WITH SYRIA? AND WE ASKED ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT, SHOULD THE U.S. SUPPORT ISRAELI-SYRIA NEGOTIATIONS. 84 PERCENT OF ARAB AMERICANS SAID YES, AND 81% OF JEWISH AMERICANS SAID YES. WE THEN ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ENDING THE OCCUPATION. 89 PERCENT OF ARAB AMERICANS AGREED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO END THE OCCUPATION, BUT 65 PERCENT OF JEWISH AMERICANS AGREED WITH THE SAME THING. ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS, WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE FROZEN OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD CONTINUE. 77 PERCENT OF ARAB AMERICANS AGREED THEY SHOULD BE FROZEN AND THAT THEY WERE AN OBSTACLE TO PEACE. 63 PERCENT OF JEWISH AMERICANS AGREED WITH THE SAME PROPOSITION. AND FINALLY, ON WHETHER A TWO-STATE SOLUTION WAS THE IMPORTANT GOAL THAT SHOULD BE SOUGHT BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS.
94 PERCENT OF ARAB AMERICANS, 87 PERCENT OF AMERICAN JEWS—SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH NUMBERS. AND I WANT TO GO TO LARA FRIEDMAN FR0M AMERICANS FOR PEACE NOW. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE NUMBERS, AND WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT WHERE THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IS TODAY?

Laura Friedman: WE’RE ALL VERY EXCITED WHEN WE SAW THE NUMBERS. CLEARLY, WE DID THIS POLL AT A DIFFICULT TIME. AS YOU KNOW, THE POLL WENT OUT AT A TIME WHEN THE SITUATION IN GAZA WAS DETERIORATING. NO ONE CAN SAY THAT WE POLLED THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY AT A MOMENT WHEN THERE WAS GREAT HOPE OR GREAT OPTIMISM. AND THERE’S ANOTHER QUESTION YOU DIDN’T MENTION ABOUT OPTIMISM. AND TO LOOK AT THE HONESTY OF OUR RESPONDENTS, BOTH ARAB AMERICANS AND JEWISH AMERICANS SAID THEY WERE OVERWHELMINGLY PESSIMISTIC, AND YET IT’S VERY HOPEFUL TO SEE THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN JEWS CLEARLY ARE STILL SUPPORTING—AS WE AT AMERICANS, PEACE NOW, HAVE LONG SAID—ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE POSITIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH RESOLVING THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT. ALSO, FOR ME, I THINK A LOT OF US, WE OFTEN ARGUE THAT THERE IS A LAG BETWEEN THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY AND THE ISRAELIS IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY’RE WILLING TO GO. PERHAPS THAT LAG AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY GOES IS NOT AS GREAT AS PEOPLE BELIEVE. IT CERTAINLY DOES SHOW THAT THERE IS DISTANCE BETWEEN WHAT SOME OF THE LEADERSHIP IN OUR COMMUNITIES SAY THE COMMUNITY WANTS AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY WANTS.

J.Z.: FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS ONE QUESTION ON IRAN, WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD
USE DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN. I MEAN, APEC IS PUSHING REALLY HARD FOR CONFRONTATION, AND 74 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY SAY, NO, DIPLOMACY FIRST.

Friedman: IT WAS VERY INTERESTING. IN SOME PLACES WE’VE BEEN CRITICIZED THAT THESE WERE ALL SOFTBALL QUESTIONS. AND I WOULD URGE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT TO READ THE WHOLE POLL, I THINK. AND YOU KNOW THIS. WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE. WE TOOK A LOT OF RISK IN PUTTING OUT THIS POLL, AND WE DIDN’T ANTICIPATE GETTING RESULTS THAT WOULD BE ACROSS THE BOARD SO GOOD, IT WOULD BE ALMOST DIFFICULT TO PRESENT THAT THEY WOULD BE THIS GOOD.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO NIDAL IBRAHIM, WHO IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE. WERE YOU SURPRISED ABOUT ARAB AMERICAN VIEWS HERE?

Nidal Ibrahim: JIM, I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, THE POLLS REFLECT WITH WHAT WE’VE FOUND IN THE PAST, THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF UNANIMITY ON THE PART OF ARAB AMERICANS WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THE SOLUTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT IS GOING TO BE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK I FOUND MOST STRIKING, OR NOT QUITE AS SURPRISING, QUITE FRANKLY, WAS THAT THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND HERE AND THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN JEWS AND ARAB AMERICANS PRETTY MUCH AGREE ON WHAT THE OUTLINES OF AN AGREEMENT SHOULD BE. I THINK WHAT WAS QUESTIONED BOTH BY THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY AS WELL AS BY ARAB AMERICANS WAS WHETHER THE POLITICAL WILL IN THE UNITED STATES EXISTED?
THERE WAS WIDESPREAD CRITICISM OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR THE LACK OF ENGAGEMENT. AND AGAIN, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT, I THINK, STRUCK ME MOST WAS THE FACT THAT BOTH COMMUNITIES EXPRESSED A STRONG DESIRE TO SUPPORT WHICHEVER CANDIDATE IN 2008 IS ABLE TO ARTICULATE A POSITION ON THE MIDDLE EAST.

J.Z.: I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING. THE NUMBERS THERE WERE IDENTICAL.
WHEN YOU SAID, “WOULD YOU BE MORE LIKELY OR LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT A
CANDIDATE WHO PUSHED ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE OR WHO SUPPORTED
ISRAELI-SYRIAN NEGOTIATIONS?,” THE NUMBERS WERE IDENTICAL BETWEEN
THE TWO COMMUNITIES. KIND OF INTERESTING. AND, AGAIN, NOT SO DIFFERENT FROM 2002, WHEN THERE WAS IN THE WAKE OF THE GENEVA AGREEMENTS, A WHOLE LOT MORE OPTIMISM OUT THERE. LET ME TURN TO YOU, DANIEL. YOU WERE ONE OF THE NEGOTIATORS IN GENEVA THAT TRIED TO BRING THAT TOGETHER. WHAT DID THIS POLL SAY TO YOU, AND HOW DOES ONE BUILD ON IT? WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH IT?

Daniel Levy: I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT WHERE THE RESPECTIVE COMMUNITY’S AT
AND OF COURSE OF THAT MAJORITY VOICE WOULD BE HEARD AND WOULD COME INTO
PLAY HERE. HOWEVER, I THINK IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THOSE OF US, ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS, WHO, AS WE GROPE
TOWARDS THIS TWO-STATE SOLUTION, AND IT’S DIFFICULT, THOSE OF US WHO’VE SAID THAT THIS WILL REQUIRE AMERICAN ENGAGEMENT, WHEN WE DO THAT WE’RE NOT ASKING FOR AN ACT OF CHARITY ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION, AND WE’RE NOT ASKING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO IT BECAUSE THE AMERICAN ARAB COMMUNITY AND JEWISH COMMUNITY SUPPORT IT, EVEN THOUGH THAT’S GOOD. WE’RE SIMPLY ASKING THE U.S. TO ACT IN THEIR NATIONAL SELF-INTEREST, AND IT’S THE POINT THAT AARON RAISED EARLIER. YOU LOOK AT THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT, FOR INSTANCE. I DON’T THINK IT’S COINCIDENTAL WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH A HIGH-POWERED, BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE OF THE WISE THAT THEY COME TOGETHER AND THEY LOOK AT IRAQ AND THEY, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SAY THAT THE REGION DOES NOT EXIST IN A SERIES OF ISOLATED BUBBLES. THE ISSUES ARE INTERCONNECTED IN WAYS THAT MAY NOT BE OBVIOUS, BUT WHEN YOU DELVE, YOU REALIZE THAT THEY ARE. AND SO A THIRD OF THAT REPORT—RIGHT NOW EVERYONE SAID LET’S GO BACK TO BAKER-HAMILTON—A THIRD OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT THE U.S. SHOULD GET ENGAGED ACTIVELY AGAIN IN RESOLVING THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT.

J.Z.: WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENS IN AMERICAN POLITICS IS THAT
PEOPLE PLAY THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OFF AGAINST THE REST OF THE POLITY. AND I KNOW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN ARAB AMERICAN THEY PLAY IT OFF AGAINST THE ARAB AMERICAN COMMUNITY—“OH, WE CAN’T DO THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.” BUT THESE NUMBERS SAY THAT YOU BASICALLY COULD SAY THE SAME THING TO BOTH COMMUNITIES AND WIN BOTH COMMUNITIES’ VOTES. WHY DOESN’T IT HAPPEN, AND WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH THESE NUMBERS TO MAKE A POLITICAL FORCE OUT OF THEM? CAN YOU MAKE A POLITICAL FORCE OUT OF THEM, OR ARE THEY JUST NUMBERS, THESE ARE PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES ARE, BUT THERE’S NO POWER BEHIND THEM?

Levy: WELL, CLEARLY THERE IS THE ARGUMENT THAT SAYS THAT WHAT MAY BE VERY WIDE IN TERMS OF MAJORITY SUPPORT IS RATHER SHALLOW IN TERMS OF HOW THAT GETS TO EXPRESSION. BUT I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THIS IN THE RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE ADVOCATING IS FOR AN ADMINISTRATION TO GET ENGAGED BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE THE AMERICAN INTEREST LIES. AND I THINK THAT WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN THE POLL IS THAT SHOULD AN ADMINISTRATION PURSUE THAT PATH, THEN MAYBE THERE WILL BE THE OCCASIONAL OBSTACLE STREWN IN THE PATH OF THE ADMINISTRATION BY ONE COMMUNITY OR ONE ORGANIZATION OR ANOTHER. BUT ULTIMATELY, IF A PRESIDENT, IF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS SET ON A DIRECTION, THEN I THINK THE COMMUNITIES WILL BY AND LARGE FALL INTO LINE BEHIND THAT.

J.Z.: YOU SPEAK GLOWINGLY OF 1991, AND CLEARLY THE PRESSURE THAT
CAME FROM JIM BAKER AND, I GUESS, THE CREATIVITY, THE CREATIVE GENIUS OF BAKER, THE WAY THE TABLE WAS DESIGNED AND THE FLAGS AND THE NO FLAGS AND THE
DELEGATIONS PUT TOGETHER, IT’S THAT A DYNAMIC WAS PUT IN PLACE THAT INEVITABLY RESULTED IN OSLO. THERE WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN AN OSLO IF WE HADN’T BROKE THE ICE IN THAT GROUND. AND I WROTE AN ARTICLE, I REMEMBER, AFTER RABIN WON, I CALLED IT “BAKER’S WIN.” I MEAN, HE CREATED A DIFFERENT POLITICAL DYNAMIC IN ISRAEL BY PUSHING THIS FORWARD. WHAT DANIEL IS SUGGESTING IS THAT WHAT PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST SUGGEST IS THAT GEORGE BUSH, JIM BAKER SAW AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST AND ACTED ON IT. BUT THE OTHERS WHO SAY THAT THERE WAS A POLITICAL PRICE THAT THEY PAID FOR IT IN TERMS OF THE NEGATIVE HITS THAT THEY GOT. WEIGH OUT FOR ME THE POLITICS AND THE POLICY ISSUE AS YOU SAW IT PLAY OUT IN THE ADMINISTRATIONS YOU WORKED UNDER.

Miller: HISTORICAL CONTINGENCIES, OR THE GAME OF HISTORICAL CONTINGENCIES, IS A VERY DIFFICULT ONE TO PLAY, BUT I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THE FOLLOWING, THAT HAD
TWO THINGS BEEN DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE PERIOD 1990 AND NOW, YOU’D
BE LOOKING AT A VERY DIFFERENT ARAB-ISRAELI PIECE OF THIS.
NUMBER ONE HAD—AND, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC AGENDA—HAD THE PRESIDENT’S FATHER BEEN RE-ELECTED IN NOVEMBER OF 1992 AND HAD RABIN NOT BEEN MURDERED IN NOVEMBER OF 1995, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD ONE AGREEMENT, IN MY JUDGMENT, EITHER BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS OR ISRAEL, PERHAPS MORE LIKELY, BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE SYRIANS. I BELIEVE, AND THE BOOK THAT I’M WRITING, ARGUES FAIRLY, I THINK, IN A COMPELLING WAY THAT DOMESTIC POLITICS HAS BEEN A DRAG AND A CONSTRAINT. AND ONLY, ONLY WHEN AMERICAN PRESIDENTS AND THEIR EMPOWERED SECRETARIES OF STATE DRIVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST PARADIGM WILL DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONSTITUENCIES FOLLOW. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW. ONE ADDITIONAL POINT. THERE IS A PARADOX HERE. I WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT SINCE 1991, WE HAVE FAILED TO DO THE KIND OF CONSEQUENTLY DIPLOMACY THAT IS REQUIRED. WE’VE FAILED TO BROKER ONE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 1991, AND NOW THAT WAS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED. THE HEYDAY OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IRONICALLY CAME IN THE PERIOD 1973 TO 1993, A PERIOD IN WHICH THERE WERE NO DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ARABS AND ISRAELIS. IT’S A CHILLING PARADOX. WE MOVED FROM BEING A BROKER, NEVER HONEST, BY THE WAY, BUT EFFECTIVE. WE’RE NOT AN HONEST BROKER. OUR SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL, WHICH IS THE KEY TO OUR VIABILITY IN THIS NEGOTIATION, HAS TO BE SPECIAL BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE. AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1991 TO NOW PERIOD IS THAT OUR SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP—AND BAKER WILL BE THE FIRST TO TELL YOU IT WAS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH SHAMIR THAT DELIVERED THE ISRAELIS TO MADRID. OUR SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL HAS BECOME AN EXCLUSIVE ONE. AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, AMERICA CANNOT SUCCEED IN ARAB-ISRAELI DIPLOMACY. I DON’T THINK THIS IS A QUESTION OF DOMESTIC POLITICS. BILL CLINTON WAS THE MOST
POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, PRO-ISRAELI PRESIDENT EVER, AND GEORGE W. BUSH
IS THE MOST PRO-ISRAELI REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. AGAIN, IT’S BIPARTISAN AMERICAN NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THOSE WHO RECOGNIZE IT DRIVE THE SUCCESS.

J.Z.: I WANT TO GET YOU OUT THERE INTO THE CONVERSATION. YOU CAN CALL US. IF YOU’RE CALLING FROM OVERSEAS, IT’S 001-202-842-5056. IF YOU’RE CALLING FROM HERE IN THE U.S., IT’S 1-800-528-2090. I WANT TO GO TO THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE WITH US AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYONE WITH A COMMENT OR A QUESTION THEY WANT TO ASK OF ANY OF WHAT YOU HEARD SO FAR. ANYBODY? YEAH. CAN YOU GET HIM A MICROPHONE? SURE.

Audience member: I WOULD LIKE TO POINT TO THE WEAKNESS, THE POLITICAL WEAKNESS OF THE GOVERNMENTS IN THAT AREA. WE HAVE ALMOST DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN ISRAEL, DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN LEBANON, GOVERNMENT UNDER PRESSURE, INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE IN SYRIA, AGING GOVERNMENT IN EGYPT, AND SO ON. DO YOU THINK UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A GOOD PEACE?

J.Z.: LET ME ASK—I’M GOING TO START WITH GHAITH AND THEN DANNY BECAUSE THEY’VE JUST COME FROM THERE. AND AARON MENTIONS IN HIS ARTICLE THE ISSUE OF RICE AND HER NEW-FOUND INITIATIVE TO CONVENE MEETINGS BETWEEN MAHMOUD ABBAS AND EHUD OLMERT. BUT THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT BOTH ARE SO WEAK AT THIS POINT THAT THE MEETINGS MAY NOT BE ABOUT ANYTHING, BECAUSE CAN THEY DELIVER? I WANT TO ASK YOU BOTH WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT THE WAY THE SECRETARY IS DOING IT WORKS. ARE THE GOVERNMENTS THERE TOO WEAK TO ACT AND TAKE THE DECISIONS THEY’RE ASKED TO TAKE?

Al-Omari: FIRST, ACTUALLY, LET ME JUST COMMENT ON A POINT THAT AARON MADE. I BELIEVE THAT ANY AMERICAN ENGAGEMENT IS POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT. AND EVEN THOUGH
YOU SAID THAT CLINTON WAS NOT EFFECTIVE, HOWEVER, IT KEPT A LEVEL OF STABILITY AND A BELIEF IN A PROCESS. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THE LAST 7 YEARS OF THAT HAS BEEN NO ENGAGEMENT, AND WE’VE REACHED THE SITUATION THAT WE’VE REACHED INTO. NOW,
ARE THESE MEETINGS EFFECTIVE? BY THEMSELVES, NO. THEY’RE NOT EFFECTIVE. AND IT’S NOT ONLY A VIRTUE OR A PROBLEM OF THE PALESTINIANS AND THE ISRAELIS, BUT AS THE QUESTIONER SAID, IT’S A REGIONAL PROBLEM. YOU HAVE REGIMES WHICH ARE WEAK, WHICH ARE UNDER THREAT, AND YOU HAVE VOLATILE REGIONS, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE IRAQ SITUATION. AND WHAT WE’RE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS THE POSSIBILITY FOR NOT PEACEFUL TRANSITION IN THESE REGIMES, BUT RATHER, A VIOLENT TRANSITION. NOW, THIS ACTUALLY MAKES PROGRESS ON THE PEACE PROCESS MORE FUNDAMENTAL AND MORE ESSENTIAL AND MORE PRESSING BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT CAN BUY YOU SOME LEVEL OF STABILIZATION IN THE REGION. THAT CAN BUY US SOME TIME NOT TO GO BACK TO THE BUSINESS AS USUAL IN THE PAUSE, BUT RATHER TO GIVE US THE SPACE THAT WE NEED AS ARAB REGIMES TO START OPENING UP OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, TO START MAKING SURE ANY POLITICAL DISSENT, ANY POLITICAL OPPOSITION EXPRESSES ITSELF POLITICALLY PEACEFULLY, NOT THROUGH VIOLENT MEANS. SO IT IS ESSENTIAL TO RESTORE SOME LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY. IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO BRING ONLY A [INDISTINCT], IT HAS TO BE A BIGGER REGIONAL ISSUE. BUT THE U.S. HAS TO COMMENCE WITH A REAL DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT. IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY HAVE THE MEETINGS. YOU HAVE TO DO ALL THE HEAVY LIFTING, AN AUTOMATIC KIND OF A LIFTING TO MAKE THE MEETINGS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

J.Z.: DANNY?

Seidemann: WELL, THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IS CLEARLY IN DISARRAY AND THE PRIME MINISTER OLMERT HAS SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO SURVIVE, AND THIS DOES NOT AUGER WELL FOR A STABLE POLITICAL PROCESS. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THERE’S A GROWING RECOGNITION IN ISRAEL THAT THE INSTABILITY AND THE CRISIS IN ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, NUMBER ONE, IS RELATED TO OCCUPATION, THAT THE OCCUPATION IS NOT ONLY—ENDING THE OCCUPATION IS NOT ONLY A MORAL IMPERATIVE, IT’S A SURVIVAL IMPERATIVE. THERE WILL BE THE EMERGENCE OF A STABLE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IN COMING MONTHS. ENGAGEMENT BY THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION CAN ONLY ENCOURAGE THAT, AND I WOULD NOT WAIT. I WOULD PROCEED NOW UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS A CLEAR
NEED FOR A POLITICAL PROCESS IN ORDER TO EMPOWER AN ISRAELI GOVERNMENT AND TO SIMULTANEOUSLY EMPOWER A PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO NEW MEXICO FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES, HELLO. I WANT TO THANK YOU, JIM, FOR SETTING UP THIS FORUM AND
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR BEING PART OF IT. THIS IS WHERE PEACE STARTS, WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY IN CONNECTION AND SPEAKING WITH EACH OTHER. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT AND SEE HOW THE GROUP FEELS ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THE WEAK STANDING OF THE OLMERT GOVERNMENT AT THIS POINT, AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS CERTAINLY FACING SIMILAR WOES WITH THEIR POPULARITY AT HOME. MY BELIEF IS THAT UNTIL WE GET MORE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT LIKE THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, WE’RE NOT GOING TO SEE CHANGE BECAUSE THERE IS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE AGENDAS OF THESE GOVERNMENTS AND WHAT THEY’RE CONNECTED TO AND THE GROUPS ARE CONNECTED TO AND THE PEOPLE IN THESE NATIONS THAT WANT PEACE. AND UNTIL WE CAN FORM THESE POPULIST MOVEMENTS OUT OF PEOPLE LIKE THE PEOPLE GATHERED IN THIS ROOM TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, I REALLY DON’T SEE MUCH CHANCE OF CHANGE. HOW DOES THE GROUP FEEL ABOUT THAT?

J.Z.: THANK YOU. ANYBODY WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?

Levy: YEAH. I THINK IT’S PROBABLY WRONG. I THINK THAT PUBLIC OPINION, AT LEAST ON THE ARAB-ISRAELI ISSUE, FORGET HERE, HAS BEEN A NEUTRAL TO NEGATIVE FORCE. YOU’VE SEEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ISRAELIS MOBILIZE OVER THE YEARS, BUT VERY RARELY DOES THAT MOBILIZATION BRING THE KIND OF DECISIVE PRESSURE THAT MAY BE REQUIRED ON A GOVERNMENT TO ACTUALLY FORCE THAT GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE ITS POLICIES. IN LARGE PART, THE ISRAELI PUBLIC HAS SURRENDERED THE PEACE PROCESS TO THE EXPERTS AND THE DIPLOMATS, ISRAELI, BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN CONDITIONED TO DO SO. IN THE END, THE PEACE PROCESS FOR ISRAEL IS A SECURITY ISSUE, AND ONLY THE GENERALS AND THE POLITICIANS SEEM TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK AUTHORITATIVELY ON THAT.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO MICHIGAN FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES. THE THING I JUST WANTED TO PUT THIS THING AS A QUESTION. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA, BASICALLY, [INDISTINCT] IS IN THE WHOLE TOTAL CONFLICT IF THE MEDIA IS NOT REALLY SUPPORTING OR SHOWING THE REALITY AND THE FACTS?
THE PEOPLE, WHATEVER THEY ARE, WHEREVER THEY ARE, THEY’RE NOT
GOING TO BE CHANGED. THEY ONLY LOOK AT WHAT IS IN THE NEWS, AND THEY BASICALLY CONCEIVE THAT’S THE REALITY.

J.Z.: THANK YOU. LEENA—IN THE SEARCH FOR A COMMON GROUND DOES A LOT OF WORK IN MEDIA AND BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND CREATING NEW PROGRAM FORMATS THAT SORT OF CREATE DIFFERENT THEMES. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE MEDIA HERE AS WELL AS IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN SHAPING ATTITUDES ON THIS?

El-Ali: THE MEDIA IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. ONE CAN’T UNDERESTIMATE.
IN THIS INTERCONNECTED WORD THAT WE LIVE IN, GLOBALIZED WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN, IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE GENERALLY HAVE A TENDENCY TO POINT THE FINGER A BIT TOO MUCH AT THE MEDIA FOR INFLAMING, YOU KNOW, EMOTIONS AND NEGATIVE FEELINGS. AND WHILST THAT MAY BE TRUE, I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO. AND THIS IS WHERE WE STEP INTO THAT SPACE, AS YOU MENTIONED. WE TRY TO MAKE NEWS OUT OF THE GOOD NEWS. YOU KNOW THE OLD EXPRESSION, “NO NEWS; GOOD NEWS.” WE OFTEN JOKE AROUND THE OFFICE THAT IT SEEMS THAT GOOD NEWS IS NOT NEWS FOR A LOT OF MEDIA. BUT IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO BE PASSIVE ABOUT THAT. WE CAN STEP INTO THAT SPACE AND SHOW THAT THE GOOD NEWS IS ALSO NEWS, AND IT’S REALLY—I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT IT’S A QUESTION OF SKILL AND REPACKAGING THINGS ATTRACTIVELY ENOUGH SO THAT THE NETWORKS AND THE REPORTERS IN QUESTION AND SO ON SEE THE VALUE, SEE THE WORTH IN THIS. AND OF COURSE, IT REQUIRES AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF MEDIA PROFESSIONALS AS WELL.

J.Z.: WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK, AND WHEN WE COME BACK, WE’LL TAKE MORE OF YOUR CALLS AND HEAR FROM MORE OF OUR PANEL. THANKS. WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK.

I’M JIM ZOGBY, AND YOU ARE WATCHING A SPECIAL EDITION OF “VIEWPOINT” MARKING THE 40th ANNIVERSARY OF THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE. I WANT TO GO TO A MINUTE TO A VISUAL YOU’RE SEEING BEHIND ME ON OCCASION. AND THAT IS “PALESTINE LIVES,
40 HOURS FOR 40 YEARS.” IT IS THE WEBSITE OF THE ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE, AND REBECCA ABU-SHADEED IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED PUT THAT TOGETHER.
I WANT—TALK ABOUT IT AND WHAT PEOPLE CAN SEE IF THEY GO TO THAT WEBSITE.

Rebecca Abu-Shadeed: THANKS. YOU KNOW, THE STAFF REALLY FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WEEK FOR THE ARAB AMERICAN COMMUNITY, AND WE WANTED TO COME UP WITH SOME ACTIVITIES THAT WERE INTERACTIVE AND THAT WERE APPROPRIATE TO REALLY COMMEMORATE THE LAST 40 YEARS OF OCCUPATION. AND SO PROBABLY THE MOST EXCITING THING THAT WE HAVE IS IF YOU GO TO OUR WEBSITE, AAIUSA.ORG, YOU CAN SEE THE STORIES OF PALESTINIAN AMERICANS AND YOU CAN HEAR THEM IN THEIR OWN WORDS. WE HAVE AUDIO; WE HAVE VIDEO. THEY’RE TELLING YOU THEIR STORIES, ALL REMEMBERING 1967. THERE ARE PALESTINIAN AMERICANS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN BACK TO PALESTINE WHO TALK WHAT IT’S LIKE TO LIVE AS AN AMERICAN AND ALWAYS FEEL THAT YOU’RE SOMEHOW A BIT OUT OF PLACE. AND SO WE’RE REALLY EXCITED TO SHARE THOSE STORIES. WE ALSO HAVE WEB CHATS WHERE YOU CAN TALK TO PEOPLE IN PALESTINE, AND A HALF-HOUR AFTER THE SHOW IS OVER AT 6:30 EASTERN TIME, IF YOU COME TO OUR WEBSITE, YOU’LL BE ABLE TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS TO DANIEL AND GHAITH WHO ARE HERE WITH US RIGHT NOW. WE’VE HAD—WE ALSO RELEASED OUR POLL WITH “AMERICANS FOR PEACE NOW,” THAT SHOWED THAT ARAB AMERICANS AND JEWISH AMERICANS ARE READY, AND THEY WANT TO WORK TOGETHER FOR PEACE. AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE FOUND MOST INTERESTING WAS THAT THE COMMUNITIES MIGHT NOT REALIZE HOW MUCH COMMON GROUND THERE REALLY IS
BETWEEN THEM. AND SO, WE ALSO THINK IT’S IMPORTANT, AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DOING HERE TODAY AS WELL. WE THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITIES TO WORK TOGETHER ON AN INCREASING BASIS.

J.Z.: THANKS. SO YOU CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE. IT’S AAIUSA.ORG. EITHER CATCH SOME OF THE WEB CHATS OR TAKE A LOOK AT 40 YEARS OF OCCUPATION THROUGH THE MEMORIES OF ARAB AMERICANS WHO HAVE EITHER COME FROM THERE OR HAVE DIRECT CONNECTIONS WITH THERE. LET’S GO TO THE PHONES. WE HAVE CALLS HOLDING.
FIRST CALL IS FROM WHERE? FLORIDA. CALLER? HELLO.

Caller: HELLO?

J.Z.: YES. YOUR QUESTION?

Caller: YES. I’VE BEEN OBSERVING THAT SINCE SEPTEMBER 11 AND THE WAR IN IRAQ, IT
SEEMS THAT THE AGENDA OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN IMPACTING COUNTRIES THROUGHOUT THE REGION. THERE’S BEEN CIVIL CONFLICT IN LEBANON, IN IRAQ, IN PALESTINE FOR SURE, AND IT SEEMS THAT—

J.Z.: GIVE ME YOUR QUESTION THOUGH, IF YOU WILL.

Caller: DO YOU AGREE THAT WHEREVER GEORGE BUSH SEEMS TO LAY HIS FOOTPRINT AND CAUSE INSECURITY THAT GROUPS SEEM TO SPLINTER OFF, AND ALSO THAT HE SEEMS TO BE GOING FORWARD—JUST ONE SECOND—FOR THE SUPPORTING WHAT HE CALLS THE GOVERNMENT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE WANTING?

J.Z.: WELL, THANK YOU. GEORGE BUSH, SINCE 9/11. SOME ARGUE—INTERESTING QUESTION. IT CAME UP IN THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE. ARE WE SAFER THAN WE WERE AT 9/11? AND HILLARY CLINTON WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID WE’RE SAFER. THE REST SAID NO. IS IT A BIGGER MESS THAN IT WAS, OR ARE WE ON SOME PATH TOWARD FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN THE REGION? DANIEL.

Levy: WORTH POINTING OUT TO THE CALLER THAT PHYSICALLY SPEAKING, THE BUSH IMPRINT AS PRESIDENT HASN’T YET ARRIVED—NOT IN ISRAEL, NOT IN THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES OR THE OTHER FRONT-LINE STATES OF LEBANON AND SYRIA. AS PRESIDENT, HE’S NEVER BEEN TO ANY OF THOSE PLACES. I THINK WHERE IT KIND OF GOT DRIVEN RADICALLY OFF A CLIFF WAS WHEN THIS WAR-ON-TERROR FRAMING SAID WE GO AFTER PEOPLE, WE CUT DOWN FINANCING, WE GET GOOD INTELLIGENCE, BUT IT OMITTED THE NOTION THAT THERE IS A GRIEVANCE-DRIVEN AGENDA HERE. AND IF ONE FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE GENUINE GRIEVANCES AND ISSUES WITH AMERICAN POLICY, THEN YOU MAKE IT MUCH EASIER FOR THE RADICALS IN THE REGIONS WHO GENUINELY ARE A PROBLEM FOR AMERICAN SECURITY. TO WIN RECRUITS, YOU MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO THE REGIMES, FOR OTHER MODERATE ISLAMISTS, FOR INSTANCE, TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE JIHADISTS, WHEN YOU DON’T RECOGNIZE THAT AMERICAN POLICIES SOMEHOW FEED INTO THIS. AND THE AMERICAN DISENGAGEMENT FROM ARAB-ISRAELI PEACEMAKING HAS NOT DONE ANYONE ANY FAVORS, ISRAELIS INCLUDED, BY THE WAY.

J.Z.: AARON, LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT THAT WAS SORT OF INTRIGUING ABOUT THE WAY THIS ADMINISTRATION APPROACHED THE ARAB-ISRAELI
CONFLICT WAS BY THE INSISTENCE THAT THE PALESTINIANS HAD TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY FIRST. I REMEMBER THE SPEECH HE GAVE IN JUNE, IT WAS JUNE 24, 2002,
AND INSERTED IN THE SPEECH, ALMOST LIKE SECTIONS YOU COULD, LIKE, CLIP OUT BECAUSE THEY SEEMED TO GET PASTED IN AFTER THE FACT, WERE AFTER YOU HAVE A WORKING, TOLERANT, MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY—I THINK THOSE WERE THE TERMS THAT WERE USED—THEN NEGOTIATIONS WOULD BE POSSIBLE. WAS THAT A MISTAKE TO INSIST ON DEMOCRACY FIRST? IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY WITHOUT A STATE?

Miller: I THINK THE RECORD OF THE ADMINISTRATION IS MIXED HERE. I MEAN, I WORKED FOR 4 DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS, AND THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT EVEN BOTHERED TO IDENTIFY RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, POLITICAL PLURALISM, DEMOCRATIZATION AS A PRIORITY FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY. I THINK THEY DESERVE CREDIT FOR THAT. I THINK THEY’VE OFF THE HIGHWAY, HOWEVER, IN THE WAY IN WHICH THEY’VE TRIED TO PURSUE IT AND THEIR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE END OF CONFLICT AND DEMOCRATIZATION. THE REALITY IS, IF YOU HOLD FAIR AND FREE ELECTIONS ANYWHERE IN THE ARAB-ISLAMIC WORLD TODAY, ANYWHERE AND THEY’RE FAIR AND FREE, GUESS WHAT? I’LL TELL YOU WHO IS GOING TO WIN. IN PALESTINE, IN LEBANON, IN IRAQ, AND IF THERE WERE FAIR AND FREE ELECTIONS IN EGYPT, THEY WOULD DO BETTER THAN THEY’VE DONE ALREADY BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION THESE DAYS IS THAT NATIONAL SECULAR PARTIES ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL, THEY’RE CORRUPT. THE ISLAMISTS ARE BETTER ORGANIZED, THEY’RE NOT PERCEIVED TO BE CORRUPT, THEY HAVE A FOCUSED AND DEDICATED MISSION, AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. SO I THINK WE’VE MISPLAYED THAT ASPECT OF IT. I THINK WE’RE REALLY INTERESTED IN DEMOCRATIZATION OVER TIME. THEN RESOLVING THE ARAB-ISRAELI ISSUE, WE’LL ACCELERATE IT BECAUSE THE REGIMES STILL USE THE NOTION THAT WE CAN’T REALLY REFORM BECAUSE THIS CONFLICT IS STILL TOO VOLATILE, AND THEY STILL USE IT. EVEN OUR FRIENDS USE IT TO PREVENT REFORM. SO I THINK THERE’S A CORRELATION HERE AND I THINK IT’S WORTH LOOKING AT.

J.Z.: LET ME GO TO ONE LAST CALL FROM FLORIDA. ANOTHER CALL FROM FLORIDA. CALLER, YOUR QUESTION?

Caller: YEAH, HI. I WAS IN PALESTINE A COUPLE YEARS AGO, AND I WANT—ISRAEL KEEP TALKING ABOUT, “YEAH, WE PULL OUT OF GAZA,” BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF PALESTINE THAT’S OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL? JINEEN CITY, EVERYWHERE ELSE. EVERYWHERE YOU GO IT IS A CHECKPOINT. [INDISTINCT] BUT WHY DOESN’T ISRAEL PULL OUT OR THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT MAKE SURE THAT ISRAEL PULL OUT OF PALESTINE, AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE AND SEE WHAT REALLY HAPPENS?

J.Z.: THERE’S A CONUNDRUM. ISRAEL ARGUES SECURITY; PALESTINIANS ARGUE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, INABILITY TO GROW THEIR ECONOMY AND DEVELOP ANY KIND OF SUPPORT FOR A PEACE EFFORT AS LONG AS THE SECURITY CHECKPOINTS ARE THERE. HOW DO YOU GET OUT OF THAT BIND?

Seidemann: THERE’S MASSIVE SUPPORT IN ISRAEL FOR AN END OF OCCUPATION, AND THERE IS A TOTAL DEARTH OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED TO THAT. IN MANY WAYS IT’S REMINISCENT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON’S QUIP THAT SLAVERY IS LIKE HOLDING A WOLF BY THE EARS. YOU’RE SCARED TO HOLD ON, AND YOU DON’T DARE LET GO. WHAT WE NEED ARE THE POLITICAL METHODOLOGIES NECESSARY TO ALLOW A DISENGAGEMENT IN A WAY THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR ISRAELI SECURITY AND GENUINE FREEDOM FOR PALESTINIANS ON THE BASIS OF PARITY, EQUALITY, EYE-TO-EYE, STATE-TO-STATE RELATIONS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE.

Al-Omari: IF WE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THE GOVERNMENT’S ENGAGEMENT, IT IS THAT UNILATERALISM DOESN’T WORK. UNILATERALISM, IF YOU WERE DOING UNILATERALLY, CREDIT DOESN’T GO TO THE MODERATE. IF YOU’RE DOING UNILATERALLY, IT’S SPUN AS THE RESULT OF VIOLENCE. IF YOU’RE DOING UNILATERALLY, THERE IS NO STAKE. THERE IS NO SENSE OF [INDISTINCT] FROM THE PARTISANS. SO ISRAEL WENT OUT OF GAZA. OF COURSE, ISRAEL RECEIVED THE VIOLENCE AFTER THAT. THEY DIDN’T TRY TO BUILD PARTNERS IN PALESTINE. IF THEY WITHDRAW FROM THE WEST BANK IN THE SAME WAY, THE SAME IS GONNA HAPPEN. IT HAS TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF PARTNERSHIP AND AS AARON SAID, ON A BASIS OF PARITY. ABSENT THAT, WE’RE GONNA CONTINUE THE CONFLICT.

J.Z.: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GHAITH AND DANNY. THANK YOU LEENA, AARON, AND DANIEL AND ALL OF YOU. THAT’S ALL THE TIME WE’VE GOT. BEFORE I CLOSE, I WANT YOU TO INVITE YOU AGAIN TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE WEBSITE AAIUSA.ORG AND TAKE PART IN SOME OF THE MULTIMEDIA EFFORTS THAT ARE THERE, “40 HOURS FOR 40 YEARS.” ALL THIS WEEK WE’VE BEEN HIGHLIGHTING THE HISTORY AND IMPACT OF THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE ON PALESTINIANS AND ONE ISRAELIS, AND I THINK ON THE WORLD COMMUNITY AS WELL. STAY TUNED. WE’LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK WITH ANOTHER “VIEWPOINT” AS WE CONTINUE
TO EXPLORE THIS ISSUE AS IT PLAYS OUT FOR THE WORLD. WE’LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK ON “VIEWPOINT.”