Focus 580; The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom To Overcome Tyranny And Terror

In this hour of focus 580 will be talking with a man who for perhaps the last decade or so give or take a year has been a key figure in the politics of Israel that time Sharansky he has held a number of posts in the Israeli government. He served as Minister of Industry and Trade as minister of the interior as minister of housing and construction and also Deputy Prime Minister. Before coming to Israel he was well-known for his political work in the Soviet Union he was born in the Ukraine. He's a graduate in mathematics from the physical Technical Institute in Moscow and was for a number of years at least a decade involved in the human rights movement in Russia in the Soviet Union. First as an English interpreter for Andre Sakharov and then becoming a leader a dissident in his own right. He was involved in that activity for a number of years he was convicted in 1988 of treason and was imprisoned. And finally in 1986 he was released as part of an East-West prisoner exchange

and then moved to Israel and has lived there ever since. He's the author of a new book that is getting some attention here in the United States titled The Case for Democracy the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror. The book is published by Public Affairs and makes the basic argument that peace in the Middle East particularly the solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians depends that is the solution depends on democratization. The book is out now in the bookstores he spending some time here in the United States talking about it. He met last week President Bush who read the book when I had some good things to say about it. So he's in Chicago today and this. Good enough to spend some time with us talking on the telephone also along with him is he is co-author on this book his name is Ron Dermer. He holds degrees from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business and from Oxford. He's worked in Israel as a political consultant for the last eight years. He is a former columnist for The Jerusalem Post and now makes his home in Jerusalem. As we talk with

our guests questions are welcome the only thing we ask callers is that people try to be brief in their comments so that we can accommodate as many different people as possible and try and keep the program moving. The number here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line that's good anywhere that you can hear us and that is eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 3 3 3 W I L L and toll free 800 1:58 WLM. Mr. Sharansky Hello. And Mr. Dermer thanks both of you for giving us some of your time today we we appreciate it thank you. I wonder maybe I would ask you Mr. Sharansky if you could summarize for us the the essential argument that you're making in the case for democracy and specifically how that applies to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Look everybody understands that the weapons of mass destruction

and the kinds of terror of it that you know but if you understand that the weapon the one constant ox being the weapon of freedom of democracy in the hands of the free world can change the world and so they have the key of the same questions the same doubts as as I as a dissident fillets in the Soviet Union so dealable this here but freedom for everybody. If freedom in some way is good. Will our stability is better for us to have some reliable dictator and thought even if it is for everybody and the even if it gives us more stability and security in the role for the free world can really revolt impose good college democracy anywhere and we explained why freedom is for everybody. Why freedom is very good for security and even the most friendly dictator is very dangerous. Put these on these are

old and wise if remote and play tremendous role as it was in the case of winning the Cold War to promote democracy without even one shot and when the linkage between security and democracy is taking place. As it was in the case of the Soviet Union and the result can be what is successful in defeating tyranny and bringing freedom. When this linkage is waylaid that as in the case of roses of the Middle East when all the peace proposals will built on the illusion that the stronger the case the state that can take care of the terrorists then the result of going to bed. That's more or less what this book is about. You as I understand met with the president last week and he the stories that I have read say that the president has has read a good portion of your book and supports the ideas and I think that you have been supportive of marriage for the large for the most part American policy in the Middle East

specifically in Iraq. You you were quoted as saying to the president very few people in the world believe like you do in the ideal of democracy for all people you are going against the flow you are the world's dissident assuming that that's an accurate quote unquote is absolutely correct though all the connotation was all there. What I said I permitted myself to quote several to true I have to say I was very impressed. The little governess and your old school called mean that people who are insolent of the policy will read it and we hope that the step will start from the grassroots and of some moment you will reach to the needles for influence through the politics because of course we didn't expect that amount of diverse American school in this book will be prez of United States of America and when we leave the call of the third day of all books to receive calls from Whitehall the Rebs which once discussed this book and oh out of the we received call the company Horizon was discussed in the book it was one

impression when we came just to believe her eyes and they brought the book with the inscription. You already read this book she wasn't waged while Assad is approximately as you said you know why we're reading the book. So I saw that she was able to touch a good book but she said and written the book with course present reading and measures with them. Oh what if you really did and then went to game as to where it would go the stations you know then again to present some hours later and he was on page two hundred and ten from two hundred eighty six pages and it was very impressive whoa how deeply he had supplied the simplest sizes to these ideas on this NG the reason why he wanted to read because he found out that those were important things which you think will not for two years at least. There can be a few necessary medical background. When you studied from inside of that the lieutenant of GM and up from the top of the free world you can understand.

Oh mechanism oved an e-book and right it is the right approach to do when you look close stability and democracy to start from democracy and then you will get those whose stability was both President Bush and Prime Minister British Prime Minister Tony Blair have said that they think that Middle East peace is very important perhaps one of the most important things in their gender at least when it comes to foreign policy. In what ways do you think the United States and perhaps also Britain can be constructively involved in this process. If I could interject. Sure I think the important thing to realize in terms of thinking about what role the free world can play to move this process in the right direction if any are the ARG. And the book is essentially vicious there with US policy should be what the policy of the entire free world frankly should be is that those leaders among the Palestinians who are willing to embrace reform should be embraced though. And what does that mean by embracing reform it means not focusing necessarily on how

this Palestinian leader think what he thinks about Israel the question that we are much more interested in is how he thinks about his own people is he giving rights to his own people. Is there dissent in his society is he taking Palestinians who for four generations have lived in refugee camps. Does he want to take them out of those camps is he educating them and giving them a real education or just educating them for hate. Is he trying to improve their lives with job opportunities all of these questions or in previous years were basically abandoned what they said was let's make Arafat as strong as possible. We don't really care what he does in his own air. Is under His control the only thing that's important is that Arafat fight. The quote unquote extremists and Hamas and the other terror groups and this approach of saying that peace will be built with a dictator has been seen to be a complete failure and the approach has to be the opposite. Now the leaders of the free world can play a critical role particularly with the Palestinians because Palestinian society is entirely dependent on the free world. They're entirely dependent for their money. They're entirely dependent for international aid for territorial

concessions for jobs for everything they're entirely dependent. And so we have a very clear message. You want to give rights to your own people you want to embrace real democratic reform will embrace you if you don't. And we won't give you any legitimacy we won't give you concessions and we won't give you support and very quickly this process will be moving in the right direction. The big question that everyone has been discussing now since Yasser Arafat died was how this how that changes things and before many people in the government of Israel certainly Mr. Sharon said that they felt that Yasser Arafat's was an impediment to peace. Now that he is gone the big question is will this will it have some sort of positive effect. Will it make it possible for where the representatives of the Palestinians in the government of Israel to actually sit down and start talking again. Do you think Mr. Sharansky that that's that's. Likely to happen. Also all the dogs that Yasser Arafat was a very serious obstacle for peace and

where their way we have to salute to President Bush who really made the best effort to marginalize him and to weaken his influence. Yasser Arafat's influence negative influence on the development of the Middle East. But today in fact there is no opportunity. President Bush two years ago his historical speech in June 2000 was speaking about the need of change in the leadership. Today this change is happening because of the objective reasons. Where are these new opportunities will be used or not depends on where they will be looking now in the primary for a new strong leader who can bring stability to the Middle East. Then definitely do mean that we repeat the mistakes of the past and the suffering of philistines will continue and there will be no

peace. All the new leadership will be ready to take the years out to refugee camps to change to the system of education from hatred to good education affordable easy and to work together with Rosalyn free role in creating jobs for politicians to permit dissent and to defy. Then it should be reinstated. And if I could just add to that very quickly I think based on your question about are we going to be able to have meetings and talking can we sit down at the table. I think one of the illusions that we're trying to argue against in this book is that simply by talking you get somewhere the idea that that a democratic state will meet with a dictator and they'll have conferences and they'll have summits in the law have all this goodwill between the parties that this will lead to any result. This is what we fundamentally reject and I think that was shown during the Cold War particularly the end of the Cold War when the one hand you had people those who are advocating a policy of detente and they said look we have the Soviet Union we're not going to be able to change the nature of this society from within. The best thing that we can do is

try to reach some sort of accommodation with it. Let's talk with them let's have a lot of goodwill let's start all of this so warmongering that they accuse President Reagan of the time of leading this policy of warmongering. Let's just sit down and talk around the table and we'll solve the problems. And then it was another approach and said we don't really are not interested in having summits and conferences with Soviet leaders. We're not interested in what the Soviet leaders are saying about us we're interested in whether the Soviet leaders are giving their own people's rights are they giving human rights to their own people because if they are. That is the type of society with which we could live in peace and it's the same thing here if we focus on who the leaders are and rushing to sit down at the table with them and to talk to them and say Here is a guy who's a moderate here's a guy who wears a suit here's a guy who speaks good English. Then we're going to fail again but if we focus on what this person is doing for his own people is he interested in improving Palestinian lives. If he's interested in improving Palestinian life if he's dependent on the Palestinians for his power meaning if you see a democratic and accountable leader then eventually you will get a compromise no matter what because of the case that we make in this book

The Case for Democracy is that democratic states don't go to war because leaders are depending on people who only see war as a last resort. Well I want to put words in your mouth either of you but do I hear you saying that you believe that Yasser Arafat was a dick. Hue of corruption dictates and the fate of the five years ago it had many debates and my own government. When everybody was agreeing the few scrub the data but some of my colleagues are saying it's very bad just to say that because here's the funeral for the city and people in the you're insulting them. Why do great in the polls and they will sing together in their father's funeral few people live. Thailand was refutable a few people in the after style and very quickly you could find out what people feel and what at least I think when they are not dependent anymore on these dictates and they think the same who will have them.

Look I know that for some of your listeners it may be very difficult to imagine that you can actually create some sort of free society among the Palestinians because they will see day after day on their television screens of pictures of thousands of people chanting in the streets and a bus will be blown up and people will be dancing as they danced in Palestinian cities after 9/11. So what are you talking about democracy with these people they have. A completely different culture completely different values and everything else that you have to understand and this is what I've tried to understand somebody who didn't grow up in a fear society like not that I grew up in the United States but what I've tried to understand over the last few years in working and listening to knock on is how these societies work. If you were a Palestinian it's important for I think your listeners to understand that the regime that governs the Palestinians had rules with a lot of oppression that rules the Palestinian they control all the jobs they control all the aid. They have a monopoly on all the goods so that if you're a Palestinian and you want to survive in that society you have to demonstrate loyalty to this regime. Now we from the free world we look at the society

from the outside in and we say look they're just a bunch of fanatics running around. But the fact is is that we've been the argument they were making in this book is that people will not choose to live in fear they will choose freedom. And when you have leaders that are interested in improving lives not because they're good leaders not because a leader tells you he's interested in proving allies simply because he's accountable. One of the arguments that we make in the book is you know what's the difference in a democratic leader and a dictator both Democratic leaders and dictators want to stay in power. But you know the difference is that a Democrat in order to stay in power has to keep people happy. A dictator to stay in power has to keep people under control. And that is the fundamental difference and if we push the region much more in that direction and focusing on accountable leaders and Democratic changes then you're going to see this foreign region move move towards a much more peaceful and stable situation. It is now. Well let me ask one more question and then I have a caller I want to get to. Given the fact that some Palestinians at least would have said that Yasser Arafat had been their

choice their democratically elected choice as leader. What sort of an election would what would be the qualities of an election that then the the the government of Israel and the people of Israel would accept to produce a new leader. Well let me say quickly about Yasser Arafat's election Obama. I've been involved in a lot of campaigns an election I would love to run a campaign for a politician who has absolutely no opponents who has total control of the media and then when you taps anybody who dares criticize him. So to argue that he this is some sort of freely elected leader Arafat is the choice of his people. I just don't think is borne out by the fact he was a dictator who was brought in from Tunis and imposed on the Palestinians and then there was some sort of snap for selection. But I think a wider point is this elections are not the beginning of a democratic process and elections. Well it's not the end. Well towards the end of it what we're looking for here and what we argue for in the book how do we define a free society a free society society that has to pass what we call the town square test meaning you can go in the middle of the town square and you could say what you want without fear of arrest imprisonment

or physical harm. That was never the case under Yasser Arafat. Never the case on the surface. When you have an election in such a society where you can actually go to the town square and you can dissent then you have a free election until you can do that you won't have a free election. That said whatever process right now that the Palestinians will choose their leader it doesn't make a difference. That is certainly not going to be a democratic democratically elected leader but it will be some leader with some sort of legitimacy. The question is how does the free world then behave the free will then have the demand of that leader. We want you to have certain reforms and if you don't have reforms we're just not going to deal with you. You can continue to stay into oppressively rule your people but you're not going to be invited to the White House. We're not going to be showering you with millions and millions and billions actually dollars in aid. We're just going to cut you off. That is I think what the message the free world pass the Senate. And then you can move this process along the path towards democracy which was take many years but at least we can start. Mistress rescue anything you want to add to that.

Oh I think that was very important to remember that the Soviet Union had elections through all the years all the time all of this night tonight been sensible to for and there was never democratically to Saddam Hussein. So I will say it was the left of the regular elections. So elections were themselves it's not their focus is it doesn't matter what method you organize elections or people are living in free society and elect freely or do you live in fear society and then it doesn't matter what kind of elections. That's why in two months is but if the of going along to go elections we have to understand it's technical process follow this leader will be chosen will be one of the kind of day they'll decide in advance the leaders who will do just that. And I'd still be elected. Important thing begins of these after this that must be serious reforms which with time really will bring to real actions in a free society and that should be our.

Let me introduce again our guests were almost at our midpoint here and then I have a caller we're going to get to the ton Sharansky is a former Soviet dissident and political. Prisoner who is now and has for a number of years now been living in Israel has become an important player in the politics of Israel. For the past nine years he served in different Israeli governments holding various positions including deputy prime minister currently he is the Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora affairs. He's the author of a memoir about his experiences in the Soviet Union titled Fear No Evil and does author the co-author of a new book here that's titled The Case for Democracy the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror. It's published by public affairs he is spending some time in the United States talking about the book along with his co-author who is also our guest this morning. RON DERMER He's worked in Israel as a political consultant for the past eight years. He's also a former columnist for The Jerusalem Post newspaper and they're both joining us by telephone from Chicago. Questions are welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. We do have a call. You're

here with us in Champagne County wine wine. Well hi. It's hard to know where to begin but I think I'll focus on what I what I was planning on calling about which is. I don't know if a close reading at the White House would have would have asked this question but I have the question of you which is if you're talking about a real democracy one cannot have a particular confessional group or a if in that group and any kind of particular privilege in that democracy. I don't know whether that goes down well in the and on our current White House but there has to be some kind of secularity and it just seems to me that you would probably oppose an Islamic republic in Palestine. Why. Why should anyone accept that there shouldn't be a separation of church and state whatever you want to call it in Israel and anywhere else in the world isn't the basic premise of democracy and do you spend any time talking about that. You know we do actually discuss that question somewhere in the book

and to tell you the truth you wouldn't have a problem with a society where people who are very committed to their religion would be those that would be freely elected if you have a situation where you're living in a free society where people have a right to dissent where there is the exchange of ideas. And let's say you have a situation where people have decided through free elections to elect what to most people in the West would call fundamentalists leaders then what do you do. And I think the real question is what is the free world do after that. If that society will then continue to hold elections will continue to be a free society will continue to protect the right of dissent. Then I think that that's the choice that that society made and you have to respect that choice. But if they repress dissent afterwards if it's one man one vote one time then the free world has to take a very clear stance there are a lot of people who say look you know you talk about democracy but can't democracy bring to power very unpalatable leaders take 1933 in Germany were Nazis were elected in democratic elections they got a plurality of the vote. But we have to ask ourselves was the danger of Nazi Germany the

fact that the Nazis were democratically elected. You're the fact when the Nazis decided to suspend democracy within Germany the free world did not respond. That's really the question the same thing with Iran it's Or it can be argued that Iran in 1979 that these people represented at the beginning the will of the public but very quickly it became clear that this was a repressive and totalitarian regime they did not allow free dissent within their societies and the world did not hold them accountable. Well there are about five of the more common kind of a Slavic democratic country there can be creation of a critic of their government Jewish Democratic governor and they have a government secular democrat. Because whether it's democratic or not is defined by one thing whether dissent is for meat that or dissent established in majority of people who are going to decide what kind of democratic country it will be. Well it's a very I don't accept that actually I think that democracy means rule of the people and doesn't and should not allow

any particular privilege for any particular ideology when it's your religion really or disagree fundamentally and I rightly noted as a defendant with a phase of this that there is a rightful dissent as the Romans that has little rightful dissent that writes a window to the law to protect Well the right to say that they don't like the situation is protected but the right to do anything about it is probably not. Well as you know we're in a quite wildly widely. Thing about it. Excuse me. If they have elections if you have free elections let's say for argument's sake you have a fundamentalist regime that takes over but that the free world insists that the right of dissent is protected. And let's say the people don't like it when the people throw them out the problem is he's going to be even almost never been a time where fundamentalists have actually been chosen. And once they get into power from some means or another they always repress democracy they only suspend them ocracy because they know when people are given a free choice they're not going to choose to live in fear. That's very clear and it's a that I think is what the position of the free world has to be all the time to

insist that every country respects the right of dissent. Within days a deal model of democracy but its all only type of democracy today this will well this is a lot more complicated than what we're getting out in Iran there was a quite a widespread variety of sources and actually it was the isolation by the West that that undermined such as Bani Sadr who were the secular types and then and we sort of got what we asked for which is sort of like when Israel was funding Hamas as a counterbalance to the secular PLO. You know one of the little Evidently this old beast Rose is a little bit of this and that secular dictator fought to destroy the religion of the day the Sabbath and you see what came out of these as long as we'll be glad to use what dictate they get is that the good it does security. That's what you'll get. Well that's what Israel did when it was funding Hamas. But I'll let someone else have a chance but as far as the corruption both Sharon and.

Nothing Yahoo or R have escaped but are really fundamentally corrupt business and have corrupt business practices. It's ridiculous for people to be holier than thou and tell me that if it isn't really physical and that's exactly what you mean in no book when we're speaking about moral clarity. Of course in every free society there are going to be problems it's going to be absolute justice that you'll have you know what there are good you called awful scandals in the pleasant with ritual to just all mention the vote of the gavel and sit on it on the ridiculous but the bar of democracy is that all of the scandals would have brought to light and you have institutions to provide that. Can't you look seven inside the old dictator simply decide to keep take 20 percent of public money and political your private account and know all the rule to surprise from these billions of years. But if only 100 scientists that they can in such a way without the yellow shirt on Know anybody they will build it in and I just want to add one thing that I think is very important in this

point about moral clarity. If these really people find their leaders to be corrupt they can throw them out of office. If the Palestinian leaders find their people to be corrupt they still have to be. Stuck with it and to be repressed by them so to compare one thing in the other is to me absolutely an absurdity. And that is for the American people to decide when they have their leaders how to judge them. It's with the Israeli people to decide and I very much wish that the Palestinian people of the years had a right to decide because I can assure you Yasser Arafat would have been thrown out of office a long time ago. Let me ask. I'm interested in asking Mr. Sharansky and of course you could get in on this question to let us assume that elections are held and you get a new Palestinian leadership that you feel the the government of Israel can work with. What do you do you think that there is anything that the government of Israel could do or should do to try to say. Support that new Palestinian leadership of course is a set time and

it was written in my plan which you proposed to Prime Minister two years ago that if there is agreement that the leadership starts dismantling refugee camps and stop keeping for the generation of police use of these refugee camps the review should belies all our analysis from from Israel and for all the free world to help them in this. Even they want to create a real joint venture for the business. Everybody away we are trying to propose but there is enough I didn't want to lose control over these people. We should use all our influence in the three months of use all the resources to help them in this if they want to sort of this awful education for hatred and to give decent education to police they have I think there are big opportunities way we can cooperate with the way also with the policy of the Diaspora who are highly educated and so on and so on and as are all in the dreadful my pride to believe we were created with Swati the depths of all concessions

including all types of conditions should be. The death of Democratic pros on the other side. Do you still remain opposed to Mr. Sharon's plan to withdraw Jewish settlers from the Gaza. Yeah. Voted against and they want to remind you write a will to the gates not because you have to stand. I believe that all concessions for peace will be much bigger than all of them even maybe there in many other places but when you're doing giving one sided concessions to the parents it's only means that if we leave today I think you left already many years ago but do you wish that you will become proud over the battle grounds for the terrorist state that's left all those bridges which were left became the center of terrorist activity that's why. Yes we have to make these concessions but only as a part of the prose has all the democratization of building civil society.

Some people apparently have called for a popular referendum on this and Mr. Sharon says he's he opposes that. Do you think that it's likely that that will happen. That there's there would be a referendum or he does have the votes does he not do it all democratically to religion on them do no disengagement without asking for two awards. Because I trust God to trust less and that's it and we have a very strong democracy in the most difficult in the middle of the war. The never performed our elections even for one. So the democratically you can do it but it is such a difficult decision such a painful decision for many people that many others feel that this same decision will be much easier to fulfill to make the implement even it will be if it will but also the test of the public vote by the way I believe that I didn't show up can get this support. But again

today when the station is quickly changing on whether there are probably will be no problem now it's clear that there will be new leadership I think the blessing is to find a way to connect all all concessions with the possible change of democratic changes. Let's talk with someone else in Champaign line number two. Oh yeah hi. Mr. Hunter I do want to thank you and I mean this seriously for you know bringing us these sort of alternative Orwellian universe Zionist propaganda I think. It is something that people should hear and that people should understand that this is the world the universe the sort of alternative universe that that many people who are just you know operate within Jewish institutions. This is what they hear every every day from the literature they receive the meetings they go to a Jewish Federation and various temples and synagogues. So I mean this this is the world that is being defined you know in line with the mainstream media but even when you listen to the mainstream media I don't think you get

anything quite this blatant and it is important for you or your listeners to be exposed to alternative points of view. But if I may just take a slight detour into the real world here. And then the military there is a military dictatorship in the occupied territories it's been imposed on the Palestinian people for the last thirty seven years by Israel and there is no way in which the government of Israel wants a DM up a democratic government in Palestine. They have rejected it with the state. US support again and and and and united you know again over and over again and it's just you know the the the the real world will tell us and history will tell us something very very different from what these two men are saying about the military occupation the control of a people's movement the strangulation of the economy of the settler violence the bypass roads Jewish only settlements and since when does a democratic society have something called Jewish

only settlements and Jewish only roads. Since when does a democratic society threaten a power Israeli citizen Palestinian legislature legislator who want who who advocates for something other than a Jewish state threatens him with being disbarred from his home from his member in the in the Israeli parliament. Since when is a democratic government in 1980 to attempt to by force impose a non democratic government upon Lebanon and in the process kill 20000 people. So you know I mean there is there is much to be said here but just just to say that you know we're entering an alternative route ridden region reality here I understand it as a host you have to take it seriously. I recommend that people look elsewhere to that and not be shy about about this. This propaganda exactly for what it is what it is. Well if I could just respond to the rantings of your last guest. First of all let me just say that

I have to say this is what you hear in Federation all the time they have today I would recommend that all your readers look at exactly what Israel has been saying for many many years because frankly one of the reasons why we wrote Israel has rejected. If I could just finish your eyes really have a revolution. I found many of the things that you say could be addressed because if you refuse to respond if you could just let me respond just to give me the same respect that I gave you because you made a lot of charges against Israel I'd like to respond to them. First let me say that the ideas have not been has been champ and he's been champing for 30 years he did it from the group. If you can do it from the free world and he's also doing it from the Israeli cabinet table these are ideas the idea that you have to win the peace process to democratic reforms that very few Israeli leaders either on the left or the right have actually supported what is nothing. I don't know what the rantings of Zionist propaganda and everything else that you're saying it has nothing to do with it this is a different idea one of the reasons why I wrote this book and why we were hoping that it would somehow influence American policies precisely because it has not been the policy of the government of Israel or the governing United States for many years. As to the idea of imposing a military occupation it might

be good for you to understand what happened in 1067 in 1967 the state of Israel today. At the time your listeners should understand it did not control the West Bank did not control the Gaza Strip did not control the go on high. It was a very small state that was non miles wide now where there are roads not only in Texas but in most cities probably in Indiana and probably in Illinois. There are longer than Israel was why it was attacked by or by an aggressive war on Arab countries and Israel defended itself in the course of this war of self-defense in the course of a war self-defense that the whole international community said was a war self-defense. Israel took control of these territories and the UN the international community passed resolutions saying that only one is when and when the Arab states are willing to make peace with Israel should Israel return these territories it was territories in return for peace not territories in return for terror but territories in return for peace and the Democratic State of Israel by the way when it controlled these places in the West Bank and

Gaza Strip gave the Palestinians the right to dissent. It's very different than what the rights that they were used to you should understand your listener should understand that the only place in the Middle East today where an Arab can say what he wants when he wants where he wants is within the state of Israel the example that you gave of a royal being the sport and not being in the parliament is absolutely ridiculous. That was a member of parliament of the Israeli parliament that went and met with an enemy. It meant with him met with Hezbollah in Syria and there was a debate within the Israeli government whether or not this person in the Israeli parliament whether this person should be prevented from running in the Knesset and the Supreme Court of the state of Israel a court that defends rights that no Arab state to the best of my knowledge actually has a court that defends the rights of its own citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that. This person would met with an enemy in a time of war should be allowed to run so I don't know all these rantings in who are living in the OR in the in the New Your well in world but I think it's very important to understand the facts and to not just simply try to sell propaganda to

listeners that the running water mark there it was said where can you see a purely Jewish settlement and the not Arab settles I want to remind you that in the US in there though 20 percent of what you lation are Arabs who live in the lone religion and together with Jews who live in their own towns and to get a whole new set of rules over their rights then 12 or is it really prevented them Knesset and who have the right to dissent and everything else and nobody would ever think would ever think of democratic use of oh that these citizens should be removed. No at the same time every piece of territory which goes under the control of police in a sort of the it goes without saying all of them know that. That all the Jews will be able to ape and write the book it's clear they will just simply killed it. They will not give a good till you know that its great its territory which is free from jewels instead of that which is of the control of the US in the sort of thing at it's accepted with the old you know they're not terrified of a children

at a level equal to the letter of the tip of the state of the little guy and also just the final point it should be aware that you know in Saudi Arabia a Jew cannot come and put his foot in Saudi Arabia it's against the law and in Jordan a Jew cannot buy land. So there is no laws like that within the state of Israel that prevents the Arabs from living there is not on say 20 percent of our citizens lives there they have the right to vote they have elected leaders. A Jew cannot get land by land in many Arab countries and to make this sort of comparison between how Jews on the one hand are treated within Palestinian society is not unexplained. It goes without saying that the world thinks that all of a sudden no Jew was allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. But of course Israel would have to give full rights which they do to 20 percent the 20 percent of their population that is Moslem So I think you got to get your facts straight. I'm going to jump in here we have about seven eight minutes left to have another caller a feel I should introduce Again our guest So we're talking this morning with a time Sharansky and Ron Dermer.

Former Soviet dissident and political prisoner and now important player in Israeli politics currently she's minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora affairs. He has held a number of other posts and various Israeli governments including serving as Minister of Industry and Trade as minister of the interior as minister of housing and construction and also Deputy Prime Minister. RON DERMER has worked in Israel as a political consultant for the last eight years he's a former columnist for The Jerusalem Post. Together they're authors of a book titled The Case for Democracy the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror. It's published by public affairs they're spending some time in the United States talking about the book there in Chicago. Today we have another caller here in the nearby community of Belgium near Danville on our toll free. Fine line for Hello good morning sir. I have a question and I think I wonder what kind of combinations of cultures and societies get to gether to form the situation to have young women strap a bomb on their

body and go to other people. Something totally upon everybody. There are two sides to this. That's cause it's not just the Palestinians that make these bombers. It takes the conflict with Israel to make these bombers. Well let me ask you a question the other members it was one woman some of civil police to whom. Belt was explosives on the leg and foot and it came and could explode and kill yourself killed four Israelis and the Western press was writing what how cruel is easily swayed if this woman is ready to leave fuel to children three years old and Robbie of old and to be covered. Said Will as a process is very simple. This woman were sentenced to on the killing floor as he said was I'm faithful to your house with all of the killings. Something regular normal

in Palestinian side unfortunately and these dictatorships and you nod and then chills given the choice or she will be killed by all of the killing. Oh and there were the special threats that she can be permitted to become a suicide bomb and Lauren was sentenced by this society by these groups to interact to kill or to leave your two children and to kill Jews. And yes what kind of right to put me on the killing. What kind. But the concrete sexual minorities in the way in which both sides of that three did when the only way the pro-homosexual to be saved the Mali story to a political asylum in Jerusalem and so on and so on it is very important to the extent that only that which respects human rights. Going to guarantee real peace and stability and that's a threatening suicide to which we want for Palestinians yes we love that but infinite

leadership itself will create the site that with the rights of even with respect to those we know all of the killing that the rights of every beautiful beautiful but that and as such they have a right to live in peace with us. OK and if I could just also add to that extent I think that the caller brings up a very important point and it's something that I think is widely believed and that is that the root cause is terrorism against Israel is the Israeli occupation and that in Israel and somehow is just as responsible if not more responsible for bringing the Palestinians to do these what are commonly referred to as desperate acts I think it's very important at least for the listeners to open their minds for a second and try to understand what the root cause of terrorism is. And when I say terrorism anyone can call anyone a terrorist so we have to have what a definition what is terrorism terrorism is it deliberate systematic attack against civilians that is how I'm defining terrorists and then we have to ask yourself what is the root cause of terrorism is it. Occupation Well if the root cause of terrorism or occupation then we could take the worst occupation in the history of the world and that was the occupation by the

Nazis of Europe I think most people would agree to it. The French Resistance did not kill the wife and children of German officers. They did not blow up buses they did not go into cafes and kill people because the French Resistance were Democrats. They were not terrorists. The idea that there is somehow a grievance that justifies terrorism and if you redress the grievance then you will get to the root cause of terrorism is fundamentally misguided. Gandhi had a legitimate national grievance but Gandhi did not resort to terrorism. More Luther King had a legitimate grievance but he did not resort to terrorism. So then you have to ask yourself why is it that leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King and frankly the Jewish underground they were fighting under very difficult conditions under the British. And again the Jewish underground almost never almost never attacked the civilians they attacked military installations of the British and pre and pre 1948 Israel but they almost never attack civilians. Why is it that all of these people Gandhi Martin Luther King the French resistance. Why is it that they did not resort to terrorism is the root

cause of terrorism is an occupation or a grievance and the answer is that the root cause of. Terrorism is a totalitarian mindset and that is a result of systematic brainwashing of people that happens within fear societies and under totalitarian regimes they can create people that can believe that their circs some grow to be so all encompassing that it justifies anything. That is the root cause of terrorism. That is why every single totalitarians regime in human history has been ready to terrorism and we have to get rid of this nonsensical idea that occupation has somehow driven the Palestinians to commit terrorist acts. There is a legitimate way for Palestinians to redress their grievances. It belongs to the negotiating table. It is meeting with Israel is giving rights to their own people and engaging in a peace process and then they will find a ready and willing Israeli society. Every time Israel every time Israel has faced an Arab leader who wanted to make peace and who talks peace to his own people they made peace whether it was Anwar Sadat or there was King Hussein if the Palestinians have a leadership that is dependent on them that cares about improving their lives Israel and Palestinians will make peace.

Would would you accept the notion that by this point that both sides in this conflict have demonized the other to the point where they see them as less than human and that thats an obstacle. Two people I gather in talking you know I fundamentally don't accept that and here is the difference again. Let us look at what the state is doing in these societies dry think that there are individuals within Israeli society who have demonized Palestinians. Absolutely. The question is what is the state. What is the government. What is the media doing. That is the issue. The Palestinians control the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat control every word that was published in its press that aired on its television and it was incitement the likes of which Israel has never seen in fact a generation of Palestinians that grew up under Yasser Arafat. Hate Israel far more than the generation that grew up before. And frankly Israel was giving concessions Israel had given back territory so the idea is if Israel would just end the occupation you'd end the incitement and the hatred. It's just fundamentally not true the more Israel make concessions to this the

more there was hatred on the Palestinian side on the Israeli side you do not have in any way incitement from the government or from the media and you can't compare an individual quote unquote. Extremist individuals within Israeli society of which there are few like there are in any society with the systematic state support for incitement and hatred. I want to say that there is a flood of traditional and to some it is really a flood of traditional Edison's which covers the day from policing the sort of thing from Egypt and from Syria and you can see how Jewish rabbis are cutting the throats of Christian boys and making from the blood much how Jews are poisoning the well. Oh Jews control the world. I never saw anything like the way they said way. Jewish media Oh Jews state about urban policy and then in fact all over all of this is not only about love to our state it's also about deep respect and love to Palestinians who we want

to see living in the same with the same destiny with the same with dignity with the same sense of freedom as really and that's the difference. We have we're almost out of time I want to try to very quickly accommodate maybe. More call or at least very briefly are banned here line one hello. Yes there was an article recently by Bernard Lewis who posed this question when the Palestinians talk about ending the occupation. Do they mean a one state solution which is crude. Palestine as one state of Palestinians say or do they mean a two state solution. What is your view of that. Well I would say first of all that when the when you started the question by saying when the Palestinians talk I wish that the Palestinians could talk because the only people who we've heard from is a Palestinian leadership that is an unelected unaccountable dictatorship it's like saying what the Chinese want how do we know what the Chinese want haven't the media says OK so the media said

immediate Of course there are going to be certain people that are going to say one thing or the other I think there's no question that this idea of destroying the Jewish state. The idea is that that that the peace process the some sort of Trojan hout horse to destroy the Jewish state in the end is very prevalent today and is a center within Palestinian society you have a society that has been poisoned because of the systematic state supported incitement. Very much like Nazi Germany in 1933. You take Germany in the 20s in the early 30s and then take Germany in the 30s and the early 40s and it's like keep to come. Clearly different societies and right afterwards by 1950 by 1955 you also had a new Germany and a different Germany because of the fact that you ended the state support for incitement. Right now I think that the PLO has always been dedicated to the idea of destroying the state of Israel it was founded in 1064. I want to repeat that date nine thousand sixty four which is three years before 1967 at a time when Israel did not control the West Bank and did not control Gaza Strip and they said we want to liberate Palestine. Well what was Palestine at that time.

Palestine at that time was bint pre 1967 state of Israel. So it's very important to understand the facts and understand that the PLO has always been dedicated to destroying Israel we hope very much that a Palestinian leadership that is dedicated to improving the lives of their own people will by necessity because they want to improve the lives of their own people try to forge a compromise with the state of Israel so both both peoples can live in peace. One more thing that it's very easy really easy and simple. The accused Palestinian leadership to the dictators in the Middle East in the suffering of their own people but in the overall we are accusing most of the leadership of this revolt. Our leadership the values that they were trying to appease these dictatorships instead of being concerned about free and good lives for all the people in Israel then what we are saying you know evoke that all of not only all the people you call all the peoples equal they all deserve to live in freedom but freedom of people is good for our stability and

security and that it isn't a sense of the free will to encourage to strengthen freedom and democracy or we're going to have to leave it there where at the end of our time I want to thank you both. Natanz Sharansky Thank you Mr. Schrenker for talking with us. Thank you very much and Ron Dermer thank you. Thank you for having us.