Focus 580; Israel and the Palestinians

In this part of focus 580 we will be talking about the now ongoing for more than a year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians or at least some segments of the Palestinian movement. Our guest of the program is Mark Perry. He has been with us before on the show fairly recently in fact. We talked with him about the issue of military tribunals for people who are suspects of terrorism and concerns the number of people have raised about civil liberties and the war against terrorism and. And at that time also we said well it probably would be a good idea to talk a little bit about the Middle East and we just didn't get the opportunity and he's been good enough to say yes he would spend some more time with us this morning and let me give you a little bit more background on him. He is an author a journalist a foreign policy analyst. He has written articles that have appeared in many many magazines and papers and just to mention a few THAN THE NATION. The Washington Post the L.A. Times The Christian Science Monitor. He has authored five books that deal with American

politics American history and also with the Middle East. That book. Is a Fire in Zion the Israeli-Palestinian search for peace that was published in one thousand ninety four and more recently he's been writing on issues like American history around the period of the civil war civil rights and so forth. He's been a journalist he's served as editor and Washington bureau chief for a number of publications was editor publisher of Washington DC City Paper. He was editor of the veteran. He served as a special correspondent for The Nation was editor of Middle East insight. He's also involved with the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation that's an international humanitarian group and in that position he was involved in coordinating the work of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines for which they founded and which won the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize. He's joining us this morning by telephone.

And as we talk our questions or comments are certainly welcome all we ask of callers as people just try to be brief so we can get in as many different people as possible and keep things moving along. But anybody is welcome to call here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us and that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 so at any point here people want to call. They are welcome. Mr. Perry Hello. Good. And it's good to be back. Well we appreciate you giving us your time very much. This is I know a very difficult question because a lot has happened over the last. Now something like 16 months of this what has been called the Second Intifada. But I guess I find myself going back thinking back to a story that I read that came it was published and it was in the New York Times in 2000 and I don't recall whether this was say early September or were late August but it was just shortly before Ariel Sharon made his ill fated visit to the Temple Mount.

And there was a story that about the fact that Yasser Arafat had gone to dinner at the house of the former Israeli prime minister. And and the fact that before before the current government and about the fact that he had they had gotten together and that they had had the best meeting that they ever had it was a story that was just glowing with with optimism this was a good a good Barach. That's great. And that they had this fabulous meeting and that it was not it was a matter of days. It may have been a week a few days when suddenly the whole thing fell apart. And one you know one wonders assuming that that story about the you know this wonderful dinner that the two men had had was was the way that it was. What happened were things in fact so was the balance so fragile that somehow in a matter of days that that in the end it would seem that that in a matter of days the entire peace process just completely fell apart. What

happened. It's really interesting that you would focus on had dinner with Brock and Yasser Arafat had just finished a series of negotiations in which they had come a very close to an agreement. Now nothing was agreed to the offer was on the table it was a good offer but it wasn't what the offer. It wasn't the offer that Arafat wanted but they agreed to work on the offer and we were let's say three days away from a final resolution of the problem. And you're absolutely right. After that dinner everything did fall apart at that dinner you should know. David Brock mentioned to Yasser Arafat that Ariel Sharon was seeking permission to march on the Temple Mount and that both Arafat and Clinton wasn't at the dinner but later Clinton also pleaded with Barak not to allow the march he thought it would be incendiary and inflammatory and would lead to violence. And Arafat was very blunt he didn't know whether he could control that kind of violence and the march was coming at a particularly bad time. Barach later told Arafat that he

controls Sharon not to worry it was just a little march. I was in the West Bank in Israel at the time the night before the march and it was already clear that things were falling apart that the fact that Barak let the march go forward was going to lead to violence. The march occurred the day I left and the day after that six Palestinians were shot in Jerusalem and we had a spiral of violence that no one was able to control not the Israelis nor the Palestinians and here we are 14 months later and it has been an ongoing tragedy and we are now worse off 14 months later than we have been in any point I think in the last 10 years in this peace. Well certainly one of the things that I guess that it would suggest is that it takes it takes fewer people to make war than it does to make peace. And here we had the two men Iraq and. And that for them it seems that they both of them had to deal with people who were hardliners

on both sides that they really either had to try to placate or at least try to keep under some kind of rein. And what it it turns out that neither of them could. I think that's right and we've been focusing most recently on Arafat's inability to do so but it's not surprising that he's unable to do so. It's difficult to rein in radicals in a situation where your people are under occupation and economic conditions are deplorable worse now than in any time. And the settlements keep expanding. And it's it's difficult also for the Israeli side because no one can defend or justify car bombs in Jerusalem. On the other hand the continued occupation of the Israeli of the Palestinian territories and even an offensive against Hamas and Islamic Jihad just doesn't seem to be working and it's certainly not a long term solution. So we're almost in what I call a political lockdown. Neither side is able to move

very easily. I think that there is a silver lining in the clouds. Things seem to have calmed a little bit terrified his right. Then slowly but surely attempting to regain regain control of the moderates he has made significant arrests as have the Israelis so perhaps here in a week or two will be in a situation where we could return to the peace table and pick up where we left off 14 months ago. I suppose the pessimists would say that I would point to the fact that now through all of this it seems that at least when you talk to the official spokespersons of both sides there the first thing they always say was Well it's the other guy. If the other guy if the other side would just stop what they're doing then we could go forward and it seems to be that that with there seems to be at least in my mind some question as to whether in the past on both sides they have made commitments that they didn't really intend to keep and that in both cases there are. There are cherished

ideas that they are holding onto that are counterproductive that can't be made to work and at the you know on the one hand maybe the idea that violence can somehow get we can somehow sweep Israel off into the sea and get rid of them on the one hand or the other hand that somehow that they're that Israel can continue expand and get and that we can continue to build settlements and we don't really have to deal with the claim of the Palestinian state to actually have a homeland that somehow it seems somehow on both sides there are people who said they were committed to dealing with those but in their hearts you wonder did they really mean it. I think it's a hallmark of the relationship. It's actually you. A pretty good observation because it does seem to be a hallmark of the relationship that when you get a Palestinian and Israeli in the same room and I've been privy to a lot of these conversations they spend the first 20 minutes pointing the finger at each other trying to figure out whose grandmother started this mess and that gets nowhere and that's where we are now we're in a shouting match

and what we need to do is is to get past that. I think the I think the situation we've been in is that the politics of the center in both Israeli and Palestinian society has been very and dynamic. They haven't moved very quickly. Neither of the center parties and neither of the moderate parties and so they've allowed themselves to be pushed by the extremists on both sides and it's happened in Israeli history where you had a guy like Goldstein go into a mosque in the shoot twenty seven Palestinians dead. And what I think the only way to the way that we got out of that situation was Rabin was the Itzhak Rabin who was prime minister time called Arafat and said listen. I'll control my radicals you control yours I'll support you in your control of your radicals you please support me in my control of my radicals and will work together as a team to try to get the peace process going. And that worked it worked for quite a while work for five years and there was steady and certain progress towards a political solution. Ariel Sharon has

rejected that that way of doing things and Arafat has reciprocated and we are now in a situation where we have a lot of you know name calling whose grandmother started this thing and a lot of each of the side is looking over their shoulder trying to determine what the radicals are going to do next to break out of that is going to take a kind of a partnership between Sharon and Arafat that doesn't seem likely to happen. Well that's and that was when a when a bill would be one of my next questions given what Mr. Sharon has said about Mr. Arafat said he was quote unquote irrelevant made it sound as if there's no way that he's ever going to sit down and talk to him. Other other say European governments and other people have said as far as we're concerned the that our fat is still the person that the majority of the Palestinians think is their their leader and their representative as long as they feel that way were you know weren't. We're going to continue to say well all right he is the represent of the Palestinians but if the government of the if the

prime minister of Israel says I'm not going to have anything to do with this guy then where do you go from there. Well it's it's it's shocking to me that Sharon said that there doesn't seem to be any message discipline I guess is the term we use in Washington. That doesn't seem to be any missed message discipline coming out of the Israeli government. Sharon said he was irrelevant and you had a lot of head scratching in Washington because Arafat as the we might not like Arafat but he is the elected leader of the Palestinian people overwhelmingly there is a big consensus behind him. He has a lot of stature in the C's been around a long time. He's very well respected in the Arab world even admired. And other Israeli prime ministers have known that if you want to have peace with the Palestinians you can pick up the phone and call Arafat and you know he's the only guy to call on the other hand we also know that Sharon is to the Palestinians absolutely repugnant individual. They hold him responsible for the deaths of Palestinians in the

refugee camps in Lebanon in the early 1980s. They don't want to have anything to do with them and yet they know too if you really want to have peace with Israel you have to deal with their elected leadership but after all Ariel Sharon is the elected prime minister of a democratic state that they border and with people that they live with every day. So what we have to do a stock is stop talking about who's going to replace Who and understand Sharon is there for better or worse and so is Arafat. We're guest this morning is Mark Perry he is a journalist and author foreign policy analyst. He has written a lot about American politics and history but also about the Middle East and to we're talking here this morning about where things stand right at the moment in the conflict involving Israel and Palestinians and the possibility that some time soon things get better get get back on track to talking about peace. We have several callers getting lined up here and of course the opinions questions comments of people who are listening are welcome. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have toll free

line good anywhere that you can hear us and that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Start with Bloomington Indiana. Line for Hello. I have I have two questions about how Arafat is irrelevant. First question. Since Arafat has violated virtually every agreement that he's ever made. What point is there in making agreements with him. He's irrelevant. Second question since it's the radicals who are causing the problem. And Arafat can't control his radicals. What point is there in the go shooting with him. He's irrelevant. Well Mr. Perry what do you think. Well Israelis can't control their radicals either. And there is a strong and had one radical. Well there are there are radicals in Israeli society the settlers are armed and they're dangerous and they should Palestinians. And it happens how many Not how many times you have to have mass murders before somebody somebody in his on his own initiative is going to start shooting back.

Well you had mass murder in Beirut in 1984 you had a mass murder in Hebron. Five years ago you've had mass murders of Palestinians done at the hands of Israelis. There are believe me radicals on both sides. The question is can they get them under control. Well you might say that Arafat is irrelevant and Sharon might say Arafat is irrelevant. The last night. Ariel Sharon sent his top aides to a security meeting with top aides for Yasser Arafat he's not irrelevant he's not going to be irrelevant if you want to deal with the Palestinian people you have to deal with Palestinian politics in the head of the political establishment in Palestine. Is Arafat going to have to like Arafat. But the political reality is who else are you going to deal with. You can either deal with him or you can deal with Hamas. And I don't think that the Israelis want to deal with Hamas they've made it very clear they're not going to. Well you could deal with them the way Jordan dealt with him. Jordan kicked him out. Well if you dick if you kick Arafat out of if the Israelis go after Arafat and kick him out of the West Bank right now you're going to have a bloodbath. Nobody wants that. You had an Israeli member of the Knesset in the New York Times this morning pleading with the Bush administration

not to give Sharon a green light because the last time that any administration gave Sharon a green light it was in Beirut there were a thousand Israeli soldiers killed in a disaster for the next 20 years for Israel on its northern border. There has to be a way to rein in both sides both Arafat and in this case Sharon I would argue. And if we can get them back on track and back to the peace table we're going to have. We're going to have a chance of resolving this problem if you if you kill or fire you kick the Palestinians out if you expel the Palestinians in the Israeli government has been talking about that very incendiary. You can have a general war in the Middle East. We shouldn't allow our friendship with Israel to blind us to the political realities of the Middle East. If you if you walk in the Middle East and you talk to anybody who's an Arab in any country and ask what the major problem in the region is they'll say Palestinian statehood. They don't have to be right you don't have to like it but that's what they say. Well that's only one final question why it wasn't all right were Jordan to kick the Palestinians out of Jordan I mean here that there's an Arab country the Palestinians are

Arabs. Why was it proper and right and nobody complained when Jordan kicked the Palestinians out of Jordan. But the Israelis can't kick the Palestinians out of Israel. Well they're not in Israel. They're in the West Bank in Gaza. And that's not Israel. And we shouldn't pretend that it is Israel. There are a million Palestinians in Israel and they're Israeli citizens and they're and they're good Israeli citizens and they live in a democratic country and they have members of the Knesset that the West Bank and Gaza. Isn't Israel the West Bank and Gaza is 95 percent Palestinian other 5 percent being Israeli settlers who are radical. And what we're talking about. Talk about kicking the Palestinians out. It's kicking them off their land the West Bank and Gaza which they have right now. I'm going to want to get some other callers on the lines are all fall here and we're getting almost close to the midpoint. Just one of those. Touch on something that you mentioned that we really didn't talk about in the first you know 10 15 minutes we were chatting and that is that that while it is true on the one hand that Ariel Sharon said that Mr. Arafat was irrelevant he made it sound like he would

didn't wouldn't have anything to do with him and did as you say though that senior Israeli and Palestinian officers have been meeting to talk about what's going on so it's and makes it sound like Sharon really wants to have it both ways he wants to be able to make his public condemnation of our fight to satisfy the people who want to hear that. And yet at the same time even he has to know that that there's you know he may be he's not going to sit down across the table from Yasser Arafat but he's got to know that that there is that there as you say there is nobody else to talk to. Well his primary concern that's right. I think you're right. This is primary concern. As it is for every head of state is the security of his nation and his people and he knows our thought can get. Not all of the radicals under control but a lot of them and it is an Arafat has been working hard over the last four days to do that you haven't heard too many complaints about Israel saying it hasn't.

And so now Sharon has gone back to the Palestinian Authority and said All right you've taken some first steps. What about this can't you do this or can't you do this or how about this guy and the Palestinians are said listen we could do this but you need to do some things to like you could ease the closure of Ramallah so our police can move in. And so it's that kind of discussion that's going on in a dozen Vaal the Palestinian leadership. And I guess it would be one other quick point in and we and I have been as guilty of this is anybody else that we do talk about the Palestinians as if they were this is this monolithic kind of group and obviously not all. Indians are strapping bombs to themselves and going and blowing themselves up they're there. But then that gets back to the question that you raised earlier. If there are within it within the Palestinian movement if there are people who are interested in taking a more moderate approach then then where are they. How did they get involved in the process and get to the point where at least they have an equal voice if not a greater voice than those people who are saying the only way here is to use violence.

I think that we have a lot of stereotypes about Palestinian society and I think the stereotypes perhaps are the natural result of fear. This is a very secular society. They have a strong tradition of democracy 20 percent of Palestinians are Christians. Most of the Muslims the vast majority of the Muslims could care less about Hamas or Islamic Jihad. And we have had a lot of moderates rise up in the Palestinian political establishment three months ago Mr. Arafat appointed a man by the name a sorry new subbie as head of the Jerusalem bureau for the Palestinian Authority. Sorry no sabi is American educated Ph.D. head of a of a very distinguished family and of very very moderate person who has said publicly he doesn't believe in the right of return of the Palestinians the need to give up the idea of the right of return which is a total criticism of Arafat. The other day sorry new subbie had a reception for Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem. And right before the reception he was arrested by the Israeli forces and the and the and the comment from an

Israeli minister said well having a reception in Jerusalem among Palestinians is an act of terrorism. And everyone was laughed out loud about it and they released SARINO Sebi in a very embarrassing posture and apologized to him. But we have this kind of thing going on where even Palestinian moderates are targeted as potential terrorists by Israel albeit by an Israel that is very frightened and very concerned about its security. So this is a I mean this is a mess and it's going to take a long time for each side to unwrap it. But the kind of incendiary and inflammatory statements we've seen from both sides over the last four weeks at least have got to end and I think maybe they will over the next week or two. We have several of the callers next in line is Oakwood and sly and one yellow or whatever whatever trait of her government could be. It could change to a more moderate government area very rural and try to

win their fair share of our future. Whistling in the wind I'm afraid. I think that what we've seen over the last year not just in is Palestinian society as I mentioned a move towards a more radical posture but also in Israel the evaporation of the left in the peace movement in Israel. It's it's almost nonexistent now. I think the evaporation of the left and the peace movement in Israel came as a result of the car bombings which is interesting because it it clearly shows that the strategy of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is not to target Israelis although they do that they kill Israelis. They have no hopes of of defeating Israel. Their target the reason they set up these car bombs is to undermine and attack the peace process. They don't want an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian Authority and moderate Israelis want a peace agreement. So I think that at least for the foreseeable future we're going to have a government of Ariel

Sharon in place and in office. I would say for at least two years. Think they can get rid of it now. They think when they can get. They think that they can get rid of the peace process. They think they can enhance their political standing in the Palestinian territories. These are not it. This is going to sound a little controversial. Hamas is not crazy. They're not they're not led by crazy people. They're led by very intelligent often Western educated but absolutely dedicated political animals who seek political power and they seek political power within Palestinian society and they would love to be able to run a republic of Palestine. And they think that the way they can do that is to target the peace process which undermines Arafat and gives them strength inside their own society. They're not going to be able to throw the Israelis into the sea. They know that they don't have a prayer. This

is like spit wads versus tanks. It's just it's not even a contest so why are they doing it. The Israelis know they don't have a prayer of this. They're doing it to gain political power inside of Palestinian society. And every time that Israel rockets Arafat's headquarters and destroys the Palestinian authorities police who are supposed to go out and get Hamas the Israelis actually help Hamas and Hamas gain strength. That kind of policy has got to stop. Thank you. Let's go back here to the telephones and next caller up is in Champaign it's mine too. Hello. Yeah I think that you know your last point was very much on on target. And my feeling is that in fact Sharon and those people he's most closely aligned with have no interest in any kind of peace deal and are just using you know any rhetoric towards that that they can to you know further their own agenda which I think is you know they would really like to

do is annex the West Bank and drive the Palestinians out and I think and tell the United States stops you know really favoring the Israeli government and not in any way I see as you know acting as an even handed a negotiator and broker and start putting some pressure on Sharon and the Israeli government there's not going to be any real move to peace. Well I haven't agree with that and you don't hear many Americans actually saying that. I think Sharon is dangerous. And that and there I'm not the only one Samus I'm quoting Israeli officials who who not only oppose him politically but are just heartbroken that he's prime minister and are very afraid that he's going to wield military power and go over the line and wielding military power and plunge the region into a war that would be disastrous for Israel they'd win the war.

But it would be disastrous for them and they don't want that to happen. I'm not a fan of Sharon but he is the prime minister of Israel. I think that he must realize I hope that he does I think that he must realize there is no way that Israel could annex the West Bank. Just the sheer demographics of the situation no matter if you could you could maybe kick out a million Palestinians but another million would remain that would become part of Israel as a as citizens of Israel let's say eventually if the demographics would work against him and they are working against him. Israel could if he does that Israel could disappear as a Jewish majority nation and and taking over the West Bank would you. Would present him with almost insurmountable military obstacles. Very difficult. The war would go on for a long time. A lot of people would die. Israel would lose its standing internationally and probably also with the United States. So I don't think he's going to do it but I think that he will try to force out as many

Palestinians as he can and he will try to undermine Arafat in a half way military solution half way political solution at some point down the road. Do you think he has some kind of vision of an AND game and in mind or does is he just you know sort of haphazardly. Well maybe that's not the right term but I guess I mean it's kind of hard to understand given you know that reality what he thinks he can you know actually accomplish that you know going down the road he's going down. Well I don't have a crystal ball but I would you know I've often wondered whether Mr. Sharon has a strategy I think. I think if he does have a strategy it's it's something like. I guess we could call it a pacification a pacification campaign where the Israelis would control the countryside. I would continue to build settlements that would surround Palestinian towns and that the

Palestinians would live in five or six cities or Ramallah. Janine tul Karm Bethlehem Jericho. And that the rest of the Palestinians would be plunged into poverty from which they couldn't recover so they would be calmer. The urban poor of the cities but Israel would use the West Bank as a kind of a buffer. And as the Palestinians say their cities would be Bantustan and there would be a clear policy of a kind of a pro apartheid I think if he has a strategy that's it. I do not believe that he has a strategy as a what Barak did which was a full resolution piece of the peace process where the Palestinians get 97 and 98 percent of their land back. The Israelis and occupation but with clear security guarantees and perhaps even an international force for a period of time on the ground. And I think that that is the way to go I think of that's possible I think there are voices and powers

in both society that could make that possible. But I don't think that Sharon's vision. You know I think the only way you're going to get that is if we really are trying to cut off all funding and put some real political pressure on and trade there's probably not a political majority for that. Thanks. All right thanks. Well there you get to again one of the questions that I wanted to raise is that in what way could outside intervention by the United States or and or United Nations move things along and would it indeed take someone to come in and say as I've read some editorial say to say to both parties now look this is the way that it's going to be you're going to have to forget some of the things that you've held onto for so long if you want peace and that we're going to do all that you know we're going to guarantee on both sides we're going to guarantee security we're going to guarantee its statehood for the Palestinians but the Palestinians are going to have to forget. Right of Return and the Israelis

are going to have to move those people out of the settlements and find someplace else for them to live and we are going to put peacekeepers in between the two sides for as long as it takes before you give up the idea of killing each other and at the same time I think everybody says in the in the real world it seems pretty unlikely that that would ever happen. Is that indeed what it would take. And is it there is there any chance that it would ever happen. I think that there is a chance for an imposed solution by the United States where the secretary of state let's say Colin Powell gets on a plane takes a map lays it out where there are for Arafat Sharon or whoever and says Here's the line and the settlements got to go in and we're in and we're going to do this or both sides are going to suffer. But here are the inducements for doing it here's the pot of money to make to keep your countries economically viable to link of support themselves I think that I would be for taking a very clear stance and attempting to do that. But we should understand what that would take imposing a political solution in the Middle East means imposing it on the Israelis. And because there would have to

give up a lab they would have to end the occupation so imposing a political solution is imposing it on Israel and to do that takes enormous political will from any president the United States and it will come at enormous political cost. The United States and so far at least there has not been a president willing to walk down that path. And I wonder if I doubt that this president would be willing to do that when as well as that some people also would raise the issue of even even if you could argue that in the long run this would be good for everyone that there would be some people who would say see you know they're the United States is doing it again. You know there's the United States coming in and saying here you know of him. Posing some kind of solution saying OK this is the way we think that they should be and that you know what I would even wonder whether in the Arab world where they're at with that would fly. Well there is this accusation towards United States of our arrogance. And that is one reason that we've hesitated in the

past to put any pressure on anybody. Palestinians or Israelis and. And we're still accused of being arrogant. I think I think honestly that we might get to the point where in imposing the downside of not having and impose Aleutian would outweigh the downside of having one. So you know in fact if we are going to continue our war on terrorism and we need. To recruit moderate Arab countries to really stand behind us and whether the problem is that they're going to have in their own societies by standing behind us then the price of doing that might well be from Egypt Jordan Syria solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem now. And when you have Iraq out there with possibly weapons of mass destruction and you have a teetering Saudi regime that everyone is questioning the downside of doing nothing might Phar them is not what you want and so you you take you take your lumps by imposing

a solution you're called arrogant people here in the United States protest the American Jewish community is up in arms about how could we do this to Israel and Israel would do that too but Israel might might say publicly this is outrageous that you would impose a solution on us and privately say thank you. At least now we've we understand where we are. So there's a I mean this is a very complex problem and there is a lot of different ways to look at it but like I say it takes incredible political will when you get back to the phones here because I have several callers but also Rick wick again introduce our guest. We're talking this morning with Mark Perry. He is a journalist foreign policy analyst. His articles have appeared in many. Allocations including the L.A. Times and Christian Science Monitor in The Washington Post. He has been a special correspondent for The Nation. Editor of Middle East insight interviewed widely and CNN and other places he saw to a number of books and I want to mention just one because it bears directly on this is happy that we're talking about. That is a Fire in Zion the Israeli-Palestinian search for peace

that was published in 1994. I have a number of callers who will try to get in as many as we can going next to Belgium Belgium Illinois line 3. Hello. Yes. To echo a bit of the previous caller's sentiments and points of view we seem to have caused our own problem there and we are very much the center of the problem in that even the aspect and September stems greatly from this Middle East policy we have of not being. Equitable on both sides of the problem. When when a Palestinian sees an American produced a helicopter that's putting rockets into their their streets. It is obviously going to cause a problem for us when we allow a gentleman like Sharon who is very nearly a war criminal with his actions in Lebanon several years ago to become prime minister. There's another problem and it goes on and on we don't report equally on on the

topic in every direction. How can we possibly ever expect the problem to be solved in any way. If we're not fair on both sides of the problem Sharon aggravated the problem he purposely went to the Temple Mount just to cause the problem because he wants to be an ant. Just as you mention. Beyond political control and just pursuit the Tates itself on and on and on. Why can't we just either step completely back from the problem and let them totally fight the problem out themselves which unfortunately the Palestinians would lose because this is an asymmetric war. That's why you see young men putting 20 pounds of dynamite on their body and going into a Tel Aviv marketplace. It's just very obvious that this is the only way for them to solve the problem. I want to be very very easy for us to solve the problem just by saying OK today we are no longer going to have one side or the other. It's just a plain simple down the center. We're going to be even on both sides.

I think down the center is exactly right. But let me give you a different perspective I spend a lot of time in the Middle East when I was there last. It was in downtown Tel Aviv and that not many Americans I don't think I've been in downtown Tel Aviv unless you're a Jewish American but I have an I love Tel Aviv it's an amazing city with a Hebrew culture of the most distinctive Hebrew culture of any city in the world. And I would go into bars and discotheques just to kind of get a feel for whether the society is modern and how Hebrew it really is whether it's orthodox or reform or you know it's an interesting study. And what I find are young people 17 18 19 20 to 25 year olds who've been born in Israel who live in Israel grown up in Israel are going to make their life in Israel the only country they know. This isn't their fault and they don't deserve to be targeted by Palestinian terrorist bombers. And it has to be stopped. And we can go down the middle but we have to understand. Here's a country that if we don't support it nobody

else will. An American diplomat said the other day well we don't want Israel be isolated Well we're isolated with Israel but they don't have many friends in the world and this is a society worth saving and nurturing and defending. I agree with going down the middle. I think that is the solution. But there's a lot of sentiment here in the United States for Israel we've helped Israel a lot and they've helped us a lot so that's going to be it's going to be hard to overcome our natural ties to that country and and walk down the middle of the line I agree that we ought to but that's going to be hard to do. We have someone obviously is listening on the Internet in San Francisco. I'll go there next line for Hello. Yeah hi. I was pretty interested in this issue. I remember years ago I read a book called The last mafioso and by the way French Guiana and he describes back in the 40s that when the state of Israel was being developed David Ben-Gurion and whatnot. Malcolm bacon

came into the United States. He was trying to do a fundraising tour fundraising tour that Albert Einstein opposed with. You vote in river very vociferously because Stine very Although Einstein was a Zionist He very much disagreed with Begg and believing him to be organized crime and a terrorist and. And it's it was stated in this last mafioso book that when Bacon came in he was doing this fundraising tour he got in touch with Meyer Lansky in a number of other prominent Jewish organized crime figures. And they did a quid pro quo that if organized crime made donations to the emerging state of Israel then they would get control of the military. Well if we look at the huge funding that goes to Israel very little of it is going toward peace and a huge amount is going toward the military. So is this money going to organized crime. And to

your earlier statements just a couple of seconds ago you said that no one else in the world is interested in supporting Israel. Is this the reason why is organized crime in control of Israel and. And is that part of the foreign policy reason why we're not getting any justice out of it. Well I gotta admit that's a new one on me. Perry County Colorado I've heard I've heard this story my simple answer to the question is organized crime in charge of Israel is no. The Zionists are in charge of Israel it's a political secular movement within Jayde Judaism very strong in Europe at the end of World War 2 its program was to bring Jews to Palestine and settle Palestine. The program began in the 1890s and continued until there was a Jewish majority. The Zionists were extremely well organized it was a very well thought through political program but it was it had divisions and it just like the Palestinian national movement does. And one of the divisions occurred between David Ben-Gurion it and Menachem

bacon and Ben-Gurion and one famous incident the Knesset after the founding of Israel called Bega not a fast fascist a Nazi and begun almost strode across the hall and hit him so that even this is a very volatile political movement begun so far as I know was not involved in organized crime. And there's there's probably organized crime in Israel but there's organized crime in every country there is in the Palestinian Authority too. And we don't give money to Israel because of organized crime we give money to Israel because they're a strategic partner of ours. And that's my simple answer to an interesting story but a story that I think in this particular book and I'm familiar with it is filled with half truths. All right let's talk with the next person. Munster Indiana went to yellow. Yes I'm going to dance with unfair request by the Palestinian Authority to have monitors from the UN in the Gaza Strip and. Didn't they take a vote on that NE United States and

Israel voted it down. I was just wondering why. Why would they vote for something like that down. Wouldn't they want a clear picture of what was actually happening there. And I'll take my call off the air thank you. Now there was a last week in the Security Council. In that the general assembly but the Security Council and the United Nations vetoed a Palestinian request that international monitors be on the ground. The reason being that we vetoed it is our ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said well we did not want to isolate Israel in the world community of course being the only person the only country to vote against the resolution we did isolate them but that has always been our policy I think. The reason that Israel does not want U.N. monitors on the ground is because they simply don't trust the UN. The UN has a history of being very anti-Israeli. There was a UN resolution that was

up for discussion for many years calling Zionism racism and and Israel is very very because of that I think very mistrust mistrustful the United Nations. If there were to be some other international peace force that would include American elements as a part of a political deal. I don't think that Israel would oppose that so long as it wasn't the United Nations. So the caller is right. There was a resolution and it was the job by the United States. We have a couple minutes left to try to get least. One more call I will go to champagne here line for Hello. Hi. I want to ask about the what you started the discussion with which was the period just before Sharon went up to the temple mount when supposedly there was this Iraq and our fight almost had a deal and my understanding is and you could correct me is that Arafat's refused to take it even though it was the best deal supposedly it ever had in terms of getting most of

the land in the West Bank and various other things even some part of Jerusalem. The correct word that you use a supposedly big I can only say supposedly. I understand there. This is a story that is particularly has been particularly difficult for people who have been following this conflict to get around. We keep hearing that Arafat got the best deal he could have ever had a Camp David. In fact there was no deal at Camp David. There was nothing that was close to. There was nothing that was even close to what he had what he could have taken back legitimately to the Palestinian people as a peace deal. A week later this the best deal ever offered Arafat got better. Barach came back and said OK we understand there are reasons why you can except that what about this one. Arafat went back talked with his people and said you know what it's almost there but not quite I cannot do this for this reason this reason this when they came back a week later Israel even gave him a better deal.

There were three what remained were words paragraphs that had to be worked on. That was it. There were three days I think they were three days away from a final deal that would have been acceptable to both sides that is say it would have protected Israel security and given the Palestinians their state. When Sharon marched on the temple mount so they were almost there but not quite and it wasn't the deal of the century. It was good but it wasn't it wasn't something that Arafat would have taken back to his people. I will let me just mention one quote I know we're running out of time Clinton abraded Arafat and said well so that would have signed this deal. Sadat signed a deal with Israel and Arafat said Sadat was assassinated. That was Arafat's answer. He said if I'm going to take a deal back to my people I've got to be able to stand up in front of them without fear of being shot and tell them this is the best we can do and it's good for us he said. And we're not there yet. And that's that's how it went down unfortunately and tragically I wish it had gone the other way.

Thank you. Well I think that we're pretty much at the point that we're going to have to stop. Let me if I might just interrupt you and yes I have a recent book out it's called lift up my voice I did want to get it in and it's a shameless way to do it. But it's good it's a good history of an American family lift up my voice it's available in any bookstore just came out a year ago or at Amazon Dot com. And this is the book it's about it at least in part it's about the Civil War our America at the time of the Civil War of the time of the civil wars the history of the family that was a white family and became a black family were abolition who are slave holders than abolitionists and then civil rights leaders I think it's a fascinating read and I hope that your listeners are interested. All right so you can look at that look for that in the bookstore. Mr. Perry want to say thank you very much for talking with us. We appreciate great pleasure thank you. Our guest this morning Mark Perry.