thumbnail of WGBH Journal; Middle East
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance is to meet in Jerusalem next week for a first round peace negotiations between Egyptian and Israeli military committees. And while parallel talks were to have taken place in Cairo at that same time Egyptian officials have chosen to push up those meetings and begin today. Sources say this move was made in an effort to better understand the recent Israeli decision to reinforce and maintain its existing settlements along the Sinai Peninsula. Why this is of great concern to Egyptians is because according to demands made in past negotiations Egypt has asked to regain full sovereignty rights over the Sinai. Good afternoon. This is GBH Journal and I'm Joan Friedman burg. While recent meetings between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem begun have been unprecedented moves for peace in the Middle East all is not without tension and disagreement. The major bones of contention involve self-determination for Palestinians displaced after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and a return of all
territories captured by the Israelis during the June war of 1967. Israel at present holds firm its conviction not to create a separate Palestinian state and sovereignty rights over the Sinai would only be granted if Israel is allowed to maintain military post in that area. President Sadat has been quoted as saying that not a single Israeli soldier or civilian would be allowed to remain in Egyptian territory after that land was regained. For a closer look I spoke with three members of Harvard University Herbert Cowan Cabot Professor of Social Ethics and a member of the Center for International Affairs has just returned from one of his many visits to the Middle East with Professor Kalman is Marti Pellow lead a retired Israeli general who now serves as a research associate for the Center of Middle East studies. Sama Hasan the Gyptian also joined us. Ms Assad is working towards her doctorate in government and with aamod salon has coauthored between enemies which describes a
debate she and Alon had on the Middle East crisis. It seems with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance visiting Jerusalem next week and Egyptian and Israeli military committees commencing talks in Cairo today that it might be interesting to ask you what kind of approach you'd suggest to those negotiators in light of the delicate nature of the present situation. Professor Kalman. Well I think one of the most important things in any effort at conflict resolution is to get into a situation where the parties to the conflict begin to look at the conflict as a joint problem. You know in other words they approach the conflict as not something that requires they are opposing each other and essentially taking action. Trying to beat each other in a battle but rather get to look at the conflict as a problem that they share and that they can only resolve through joint collaborative effort and I think one of the most important effects of Sadat's initiative in the
MBR with his visit to Jerusalem was that it really created a kind of situation in which both parties are now looking at the conflict as a joint problem which they have to solve in which they have to support each other work with each other and so on. Now it's through this kind of joint problem solving that one can get into a situation where new creative ideas for redefining the conflict can come into play. One of the problems in a conflict situation is that usually through the whole posturing that takes place in conflict the parties define the issues of conflict in such ways that they are by definition incompatible. And one of the common examples that I like to give that comes out of a book on the creative problem solving that was published quite some years ago is an example of two men who were in the same room and had a big fight because one of them wanted to open the window and the other one wanted to close the window. As long as they were arguing on these terms there was absolutely no way to resolve it because either A wins and the window was open or B wins and the window was
closed. But then when they started to probe a little bit and to ask well why does a want to open the window and why does B want to close the window. They discovered that A wants to open the window because he wants to get fresh air and B wants to close the window because he's afraid of getting a draft. The moment he got behind these original posturings they were able to find a resolution that satisfied both of them namely what they did was open a window in another room sort of there was enough fresh air coming in and yet they avoided having a draft. So the kind of thing that is needed in conflicts situations in which the issue of the fight is incompatible is to find a way of redefining the redefining the conflict so that now the resumption to work with and I think we are perhaps beginning to move in that direction. But it seems that opposing Egyptian and Israeli positions especially on questions concerning settlements some on the Sinai Peninsula and the formation of the Palestinian homeland might bring us to believe that maybe there's only one
window. What steps would you suggest so that both sides can feel their interest have been fulfilled without a type of King Solomon style compromise. Mr. SAWYER. Well I think that a very important first step has been taken by Sadat Strip and the most important thing that it cheers is that it gives the Israelis a feel and the smell of peace which I think is very important to awaken the appetite and to make them believe that such a thing is feasible and and I hope that it will have a carry over to other Arab countries to their feeling that peace is also possible with the Syrians for example with the Palestinians. However I feel that very strongly that the the the important first step that the Israelis have to reciprocate with has to do with recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination. And this is a step which you know they have not yet taken and up to now I see I don't want to be negative but I see I hear for example yesterday that three settlements have gone up in the West Bank. So I don't see a pattern our willingness to take that's a perhaps I'm being too pessimistic and perhaps Professor parrot you know has another point of view. Professor. While I think that really the important phase we see now in the Israeli-Arab relations is that there is an acceptance on the Arab side of Israel a claim for a secure existence which was made very clear through so that's a visit to Jerusalem. And I think we see also in Israel a great willingness to consider a peace settlement on the basis of far reaching concessions territorial concessions. Now this is a
situation that we never saw before and in this respect of course we are in a much more hopeful situation at the moment. But there are still many other problems to be solved. And we see their communities beginning to meet this week. The military and the political committees to solve the other problems. I think there are still very severe but as long as both parties accept that a settlement should be based on these two premises on Israel's security distance on the one side and on the Arabs. Getting back the territories which they lost to Israel in 1967. Think of these private premises will really be acceptable on both sides of the likelihood for a settlement is quite good. A question that struck me recently I've read something that's called a big leaf solution. And this was one where if I understand it correctly Sadat has suggested that if his
basic position which would be self-determination for Palestinians and all the 67 territories to be returned if this wasn't complete. Instead all the 67 territories would be returned and questions of self-determination of the Palestinian homeland would be worked out and later negotiations between Jordanians and the Palestinians themselves. Some have claimed that this is actually working out a separate peace with Israel rather than a comprehensive settlement. And I wonder what are your feelings on this kind of settlement as this crisis of a kind of negotiation that you would accept. Well you're asking yes yes because I feel that that the Israelis I mean have to recognize the principle of self-determination for the Palestinians. And you know other questions which can be resolved later may be questions about you know who will represent the Palestinians for example I personally feel that the PLO should represent the Palestinians but I
mean this is an issue which could be left to a second stage but the at least the fundamental primary principle is that the Israelis have to recognize that the Palestinians have an equal right to self-determination and they have to understand that you know just as they you know. Through years of diaspora experience and persecution you know learnt the supreme importance of of having a state of their own and of you know being able to be sovereign in that state so also they must recognize the same right to the other part you are the Palestinians. I don't think that it's just a question of you know pulling back from some of the West Bank and giving it to Jordan and if this were to happen you know I wouldn't think it was a satisfactory solution myself. And I I don't think that President Sadat would. I think it would be a kind of separate peace in the sense that the most important party to this conflict which after all started as a conflict almost a century ago between Jews and Palestinians and has to end by a peace
between Jews and Palestinians I think the most important Porton party would be left out and that for me would constitute you know a separate peace it could be a separate peace with Jordan or with Egypt or first with Egypt and then with Jordan but it would still be a separate peace and not a comprehensive settlement. Professor Kelly I basically agree in fact agree very much with most of the points that Saddam made. But I think that there is something to this proposal I think it shouldn't be called a fig leaf I think it shouldn't be it. You know I think certain distinctions need to be made and I think these are in fact distinctions that Saddam was making between what are some of the fundamental principles and what are the specific steps of implementation. Now I think that at this point one of the most important things that needs to be done is to have a really significant symbolic gesture on the part of Israel visa vi the Arab world of Egypt and the Arab world which of course means essentially a symbolic gesture
of the Palestinians. I think that the you know the one of the most significant steps one of most significant implications of what Sadat did was the enormous symbolic gesture that was involved in his Going to Jerusalem and essentially. Concretely saying that he is accepting Israel that he's accepting Israel's existence as a permanent feature of the Middle East and also of course you know as a professor Pella pointed out before he was very clear on his recognition of the need to take into account Israeli security concerns and so on. Now what is necessary is a return gesture on the part of Israel and that's gesture essentially must take the form of some kind of recognition of the human rights of Palestinians some kind of recognition of the fact that Israel is cognizant of the sufferings of the Palestinians that it is cognizant of the fact that the Palestinians that any permanent solution
to the Middle East conflict requires some very careful and sincere attention to the needs and rights of the Palestinians as a people. Now I think that can be done without at the same time making any specific commitments about the precise way in which these rights are going to be implemented. I think if that were done if there was some kind of declaration of the sort of principle then I think all kinds of steps could be taken that would provide the necessary assurances to Israel that the establishment of a Palestinian national rights would not threaten the existence of Israel. And I think time is a factor. I think it does make sense to spread out this process over a period of time. And I think a lot of negotiation can go on and so on. So I think. But if there was a declaration of principle then I think the steps of implementation can be worked out more gradually and of course with consultation of all the different parties involved. Professor Bennett however that the process has already begun so I think maybe
I want to to make a preliminary point. So that's of course is a very important Arab leader. But he doesn't speak right now and then and for the Arabs there is a greater position inside the Arab countries to watch for that he's doing it so that in fact invited to Cairo to take part in the discussions that have a part you see invited Jordan invited the Syrians invited the Palestinians the PLO. They refused to come. So I think at this point Israel is probably justified in trying to deal with Egypt because Egypt is the only Arab country which has accepted the principles which I mentioned earlier. And the only Arab country who is prepared to negotiate with Israel. So if this is if this will turn out to be the preference of the rest of the Arab countries to let Egypt go ahead with these make a separate peace without their participation I suppose that this may be
one of the consequences of the present process. If it's some later stage they will join in I suppose that in that case there will be a comprehensive peace. I think it it must be realized that Israel cannot force the other Arab countries to join in the peace conference as long as they stay out there out for all practical purposes. Now if you were to discuss what can be the final solution that the ideal solution. I agree that your solution should allow the Palestinians the right of self-determination and I assume that if they get this I they will probably decide to have a state of their own and I think that Israel should then respect their decision and allow him to have the stair state of their own. But I don't think that that this moment just as violence is going to Jerusalem next week and the committees are going to join this is really immediate the immediate issue of the immediate issue is what kind of. The terms Israel and Egypt can work between themselves because they are the only ones who
participate in the discussions. Well I am free to disagree here quite strongly with what Professor Pella just that I think that it's true that Israel cannot force the other parties to negotiate but it could certainly entice them and I think that we are a little too happy with with with vegans present position although I do admit that vegan has come a long way. You know in the moderate direction from where he stood before but I mean we forget that for example I think under the previous government there was not. It's true it was a minority position but at least it was a position which surfaced at the very highest level which is at the Cabinet level. When for example minister of intelligence and level minister of information you receive extended and hand towards the Palestinians by saying that Israel's position should be that it should be willing to negotiate with any Palestinian party willing to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. This was an extra hand extended even at the PLO in fact
and and this position could have enticed the Palestinians to come along but as long as Israel categorically refuses them any national rights or any political rights of sovereignty or for self-determination I frankly don't see what the Palestinians. You know you have to talk about I mean and so I don't think that I think that you know Israel has to make some step towards you know entice ing them. That's my position I think says something here must be should be made clear. The present government of a government led by Mr. Bergen has done is taken many steps I think to to meet the Palestinian point of view in the working paper which was issued you know tober. After a day on and President Carter had their session recognized that the Palestinians are a party to the conflict and must be a party to the peace process that they should participate in the Peace
Conference and that they should take part in discussing the fate of the political future of the West Bank and Gaza. I think this has never been done before and this was done by the present government. Secondly since that meeting actually after so that's a visit to Jerusalem Israel officially admitted that its own claim for sovereignty over the occupied territories is an open question because there are other claims which must be considered. Israel has admitted that the Palestinians are a nation who is now being suppressed and are entitled to some kind of recognition. And these are steps which were aimed I think being only towards the Palestinians there's now there was no other address for these for these gestures. I agree that once the Palestinians join in the dialogue or in the debate. Israel should be prepared. Provided its own security is
observed. Should be prepared to admit the right of the Palestinians for self-determination. But I think the obligation is on both sides. Now one side that extended an invitation to the PLO to come to Cairo and they refused. They are out and I don't think it is realistic to expect any government to make gestures to an organization which is so adamant in refusing to come to a dialogue as the PLO seems to be now. I think there is an obligation on both sides and I personally don't see why the PLO refused to come to Cairo they were invited to come without any conditions just to come and participate. They refused. So to sum up I feel that the present Israeli government did take significant steps here to meet the Palestinian point of view. It will have to take many more steps. But I don't think that this can happen before the Palestinians on their side give any indication that they are prepared to be parties to this process.
Professor Kammen. I agree with with Marty's analysis that that if one looks at where begun and in fact any Israeli government not just not just begins government stood even some months ago there has been a tremendous amount of movement. You know there's been a great deal. There's been a great deal of change in all of the different ways that he described. The trouble is you know it's the old you know is the cup half full or is it half empty problem. The trouble is are we looking at the change from you know from how far have they gone from where they started or how far have they gone towards where they would need to end up if there is going to be a response on the part of Palestinians and on the part of other Arabs and indeed a response on the part of Egyptians because I think Egyptians still feel and I I believe that they still feel sincerely that the Israelis have not yet responded in kind of the wind. I mean I'm short of doctors aware of all the political problems that Bacon has and I'm sure he's aware of the fact that he has moved a great
deal. But nevertheless publicly he hasn't. So now I'm you know one of the things. Let me come back really to the point I made before about symbolic gestures. Despite the fact the Bagan has moved so much he has not really shown this I think convincingly. To those who listen to what with a different set of ears for example one of the things that that I found particularly troubling. While I was at the you know at the press at the sort of big press conference and as my Leo was the fact that bacon still refused to accept the concept of Palestinians as a people essentially of color you know the cons of the Palestinian nation. He was still arguing on his own ideological grounds that one has to speak of Palestinian Arabs because they're also Palestinian Jews. Now which basically is a denial at this kind of a denial of this fundamental level of the fact that whatever may have been true 30 years ago right now there is such a thing as a palestinian nation and that
that the national identity of that group has to somehow be recognized if there's going to be a meaningful lasting settlement not only from the point of view of the Palestinians themselves but also from the point of view of the rest of the Arab world who for whom this has become really a matter of fundamental principle now. The trouble is that at this point in time it is necessary I feel to make these kinds of visible public symbolic gestures the whole game has moved to a media level in a sense. This is unfortunate from one point of view but from another point of view I think it's been part of the you know part of the momentum has been precisely the fact that it is happening at the media level that people are playing for large populations in many respects the populations the population of Egypt the population of Israel of these populations themselves I think are much more anxious for peace and willing to pay prices for peace than than their leaderships often are so I think in one sense the fact that it's at this public level is not an altogether negative thing but what it does is that it makes it necessary to move more quickly and move more visibly.
And I think this is the sort of thing that I think is still is still missing in the Israeli response despite the fact that a great deal has has has in fact happened in Israeli thinking. Are there any specific suggestions you would have now. Are there some concrete things that that you could point out. Well I think I can make one the one suggestion which seems to me to be a very crucial one. It seems that over the last two or three weeks the statements made by the American administration and actually ruling out the possibility of a Palestinian state. In describing the PLO as an organization which doesn't have to be considered at all this creates a very unfortunate situation particularly since it is being received with a lot of acceptance in some of the Arab countries. Jordan certainly is very happy with this kind of
statement. Iran which is not an Arab country has received it with great satisfaction. And there are indications that probably some other Arab governments are not quite unhappy with this. Now if this is the attitude on the part of some of the Arab countries and if this is really the attitude of the American administration I think that practically speaking it would be futile to expect Israel to go beyond that. So if if we are to think of what should be done now to enhance the likelihood of a Palestinian state in the future I think the first address we have to turn to is the United States. Is there anything else you'd like to add I think we're running out of time. Well I mean there are many many things that I could see as being added for one thing although I think that you probably disagree violently but I don't know I don't want to do that. But I think that for example I think that I see no reason why a Palestinian
national rights cannot be recognized in Resolution 242 I see no reason why you cannot have a clause added to Resolution 242 which instead of categorizing them as refugees recognizes their national rights in exchange for which I would expect you know the Palestinians to agree to recognizing you know the right of Israel to exist but that would certainly be a first step to entice them in that direction. And you know on the Israeli side. I see I think the most important thing is to put a stop to this policy of settlements particularly of settlements in the West Bank which seems to give a categorical no to any possibility of the West Bank being returned to anyone even to Jordan I mean not that had wanted to return to drawn. And on the Arab side I think that although I understand very well their fears and and I can understand some of the you know the strong arm of you know being afraid Egyptians go ahead and make a separate peace. I think that they make a mistake by not negotiating with this right. It's very important to convince the Israeli public that there is a concrete
chance for peace and security with the Arabs and in this way going above the heads of begin and above the heads of the Knesset too to the public itself which has a very real yearning for peace and you know I can testify to this having spent two years in Israel myself and to get get from the grassroots in Israel some pressure on the cabinet towards a more moderate position and certainly you know towards recognition of Palestinian national rights. Well I don't disagree I think in a country agree entirely with what her son had to say. I just want to point out again a very practical matter that the Security Council cannot do anything for the Security Council Resolution 242 without American sponsorship. Yes and if America is against the Palestinian state there is very little chance that any amendment to the resolution will be made. So are I. I want to end where I had the last time. I think the address now for all these kind of requests or
demands or whatever is the United States. Yes I agree I think America should be for. Well I'm not. I would only only add that there is you know I mean I think Carter has begun in a sense to to move in this direction but I think the movement is very clear that there is although although bacon insists on identifying self-determination with a Palestinian state I think there is room for making a distinction here In other words self-determination does not necessarily mean that a quote PLO state unquote is going to be established in the West Bank and Gaza. And I think that may be a way of recognizing the principle of self-determination while leaving the implementation open to a certain degree although I you know I agree that if one says self-determination that means that one has to be prepared for whatever. You know if people are going to determine their own fate will they have to be prepared for how they're going to determine it. But it isn't you know it isn't absolutely clear that
self-determination is going to lead to the you know the dire outcome that is that is so so often feared I think may be making some of these distinctions might be might be helpful and I I I I do agree with with what SANA said that that somehow the the the visible recognition of Palestinian national rights as well as human rights in general is is one of the key things that has to be entered into the picture now. Many thanks to Sana Husain and professors Herbert Kalman and that of Harvard University for GBH Journal. I'm John Frieden very good afternoon.
Series
WGBH Journal
Episode
Middle East
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/15-15bcc9qb
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-15bcc9qb).
Description
Series Description
WGBH Journal is a magazine featuring segments on local news and current events.
Description
Half hour show on the Middle East, with three people from Harvard - - interview. Engineer: Garrison
Created Date
1978-01-12
Genres
News
Magazine
Topics
News
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:29:27
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
Production Unit: Radio
AAPB Contributor Holdings
WGBH
Identifier: 78-0160-01-12-001 (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Generation: Master
Duration: 00:29:00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “WGBH Journal; Middle East,” 1978-01-12, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-15bcc9qb.
MLA: “WGBH Journal; Middle East.” 1978-01-12. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-15bcc9qb>.
APA: WGBH Journal; Middle East. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-15bcc9qb