Focus 580; Palestinian Succession and the Future of Palestine

In this our focus we will return to the politics of the Middle East a subject we have discussed many times on this program before. We try from time to time to include in this discussion different perspectives on the issues last week. For example Natanz Sharansky was a guest on the program. He was here in the United States to promote his new book about democracy in the Middle East. He has spent for some nine years now an important player in Israeli politics and had has had several positions in the Israeli government. He certainly has an expected kind of take on the issues that we'll be talking about here this morning and in this hour we have another guest that has a different kind of perspective. Our guest for this hour is Jeff as he holds the Christian Johnson chair in international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College in New York. He is also a consultant regular commentator for ABC News and has appeared on many television and radio networks throughout the world. He is interested in Islam and the political process American foreign policy in the Middle East and the modern history of the Middle East. Among other things he's the author

of several books just to mention a couple America and Political Islam Clash of Cultures or clash of interests that book was published in 1909. Published by the Cambridge University Press he has another that's scheduled to come out from Harcourt next summer and titled The Jihad ist on the holy warriors and he's contributed essays and articles to a wide range of publications foreign affairs foreign policy the New York Times The Washington Post the Los Angeles Times and many others he's joining us this morning by telephone to talk. And as we do questions from people who are listening are certainly welcome. The only thing we ask is that people who are calling in just try to be brief so that we can accommodate as many different callers as possible and keep the program moving but of course anyone is welcome here in Champaign-Urbana. The number to call 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Also we do have the toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Professor. Yes hello.

Hello David many. Thanks for this kind introduction. Well we certainly appreciate you giving us your time to begin with let me ask you a very big question something that I'm sure that we could talk about for probably the rest of the hour. But it was certainly one of the areas that we wanted to explore and that is that what what the. Possibilities now for the conversation between Israel and the Palestinians how have things been changed or have they been changed by the passing of Yasser Arafat's. Well I think as we have had in the last few weeks I think there is a small window of opportunity for both sides for several reasons. David I mean I think that now you have the potential measurements of a new dynamic Palestinian leadership Palestinian leadership that would put its house in order that would invest in institutional building that would nourish civil

society and that also one would hope would have a legitimate mandate from the Palestinians because elections are likely to take place in the next 60 days. Secondly. Think you have an American president with a second. With a much more flexible mandate to take action and initiate policies if he desires to do so. And thirdly I think you have an Israeli prime minister that is Ariel Sharon who has no longer any justification to use the presence and existence of office as a justification neck to engage the Palestinians politically because as you know the common wisdom in the United States and Israel in the last three years was that out of five to present that the major impediment to peace making between Palestinians and Israelis I think regardless of whether we agree on that or not that's not the issue I think. And since he is not with us anymore that particular impediment is not

that any longer and the question is will see how will that see play is Israel the United States and the Palestinians will act in the next few weeks and few months. Well as you say Prime Minister Sharon and I think probably other people in the Israeli government had said that very thing that you said they said they have said that that Mr. Arafat had been an obstacle to peace it was not possible to talk with him as long as he continued to be the leader of the Palestinians that was an obstacle to talks between Israel and the Palestinians and not a lot of people said. Now Mr. Arafat's is gone that that obstacle is not there anymore but what one wonders if you take a look at the Palestinian leadership or the people who who you might think might be likely to move into positions of leadership. Are there people there that you think the government of Israel would be willing to talk with. Or is there a possibility that you know whoever comes along that that the government of Israel might say the same thing and they might say well no we can't talk to this guy either.

Thank you David. What is critical. I mean when questions I think the first question it's a very critical point because I think a new Palestinian leadership will likely and match. And I suspect that Mr. Mahmoud Abbas Mahmoud Abbas as you know David was a former prime minister appointed in 2003 and he's very much liked by the United States in particular by the Bush administration I think he appears to be the likely successor to yes off. I am a bit skeptical David and I hope that you listen as will please disagree with me I know that skeptical because I believe that we in the United States we as Americans we tend to exaggerate the role of personalities and their role and ignore what they call the role of systematic and structural factors. What do I mean by that. I mean are you really and this is just I hope I am wrong. I hope that history will prove me wrong regardless of whatever Palestinian leadership

emerges. There is no Palestinian leader David who can accept a Sharon vision for peacemaking that is not even a single palestinian not even a single Palestinian leader or opinion maker or civil society from the extreme left to the extreme right who would accept what Ariel Sharon has on the table that is a a you might say the shape of a Palestinian state of course. Sharon does not subscribe to the President Bush's vision of a viable Palestinian state. He believes that the Palestinian state should be on less than 60 push. 60 percent of the occupied West Bank and Gaza no Palestinian state on an East Jerusalem the occupied East Jerusalem. And of course the right of return for the 4 million Palestinian refugees is out of the question. And this is why I think it comes that yes we're going to have a Palestinian leadership and regardless of what Ariel Sharon has or does not have in store for

the Palestinians it is their responsibility their moral and legal and political responsibility for their people to put their house in order to have a transparent and a genuine elections process to receive a mandate a popular mandate and then to begin the process of being gauging the Israelis. And one would hope that the Israeli public the Israeli public would at least discover that it is their leadership and that the Palestinian leadership who is also of sucking the peace and this is why. Regardless of what we think of Ariel Sharon it's the moral and political responsibility of the Palestinians to begin the difficult painful and complex process of putting that house in order and having a transparent and genuine political process and empowering civil society. And then I believe the ship of the United States becomes an issue as well. Because as you said there and now we're anticipating that will be there will be elections for a Palestinian leadership on the 9th of January and a number

of the Palestinian groups have said that they will participate. However two of them Hamas and Islamic Jihad have said that they will not. And both of these groups have expressed some anger perhaps or disappointment or at least at the very least to say they have chafed against the fact that Fatah movement. Mr. Arafat started all always was the the ruling power within the Palestinian movement and they say if Mahmoud Abbas becomes the head of the Palestinian leadership then nothing will have changed it will just be the way that it was before. If if you have an election but Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't participate then what does that tell you about the outcome of the election and what happens after a point of clarification David. Yes Mattson Jihad will participate in the elections. They will not

have candidates to run and they like I say well they committed a major correction major distinction because Hamas and Jihad are expected to also I mean have candidates for the parliaments and also the local elections as well because they have a more chance even if they have candidates for the president. I don't think they have a chance because their power base in Gaza are not in the West Bank. But I think you're raising a highly critical point here I think what Hamas and Jihad are saying is that we cannot participate we cannot actually put candidates and be part of the government as long as the Israeli military occupation exists and we do not accept the conditions on the table put a by Israel and the United States. So how messenger had I saying well listen while we wish you the best of luck we would like to keep the so-called the military resistance option for us. And this is this is I mean actually it would have been

wonderful if Hamas and Jihad would I mean that this update in the political elections in January because if peace then we would they would have responsibilities. Possibilities to accept the the the popular mandate of the people. And then of course the consensus among the Palestinians hopefully would be enough for military action. And it's about time to acclaim the political struggle option that is civic disobedience and political resistance instead of military resistance. But it seems to me that it all depends on the new leadership that emerges in the next few months and whether this new leadership will have the political will and the mandate to at least tell Hamas and Jihad this and that's it. The Palestinian people have spoken. The Palestinian people would like to chart a new course a new mandate a new paradigm a dime based on political resistance political struggle not a military option. Because obviously

David military resistance has. Taking the Palestinians and in particular has and has done a great deal of damage to the Palestinian suicide bombings and in targeting Israeli civilians. A truly have been disastrous disastrous not just what is right in society but I would argue these losses for the moral case the moral compass of the Palestinians and I hope that the new Palestinian leadership having a legit and popular mandate will that have mass and Jihad and also tell the mater's Brigade which is loosely affiliated as you said was. That being the largest political faction and the Palestine Liberation Organization the PLO. This isn't the military option is no longer viable. It's about time that the Palestinians utilize different means and different options to basically have self-determination and to rid

themselves of is right the minute they occupation. And I wonder if I might ask you to to continue to talk a little bit along that line because I know this is something that you have written about and had talked about and that is and not just as far as the Palestinians are concerned but perhaps with other Islamist movements in other places that you feel that perhaps slowly but increasingly the people in those. Movements have to have looked at the tactics that they have chosen and that they're beginning to look at the at the tactic of using violence using terrorism and saying this has not worked. And so we need to be doing something else. David I would go further I would go further and say even even those tactics work for the Palestinians and this is I think I really I mean there are some as you know there's a great debate taking place in Palestinian society and unfortunately this internal vibrant debate. We don't hear about it because we I mean we know that the

militants make a great deal of noises and we all of us here in the United States we tend to focus on the noises not on what I call the debate under the surface. I think many Palestinians are now focusing on the moral case that is even if suicide bombings walk that is would bring about a Palestinian state. I believe that suicide bombing would ultimately be via our valor what have a Palestinian society images out of the rubble of this particular. So I think the Palestinians now and you know some civil society leaders Arab opinion makers are making the case that this is not only even if it works that the implications the repercussions in the long term would be disastrous for the what if it emerges a Palestinian society and Palestinian state. And this is why I think now this particular debate that's taking place in the Arab and Palestinian. Even though even though it's not it has not been decisive even know that Hamas and Jihad

still believe that they have a great deal of support among the Palestinians because they've it's what you need to remember that Palestinian territories have been reoccupied in the last three years. Palestinian society truly is in a terrible bind. You have 80 percent of Palestinians in Gaza live below poverty line 80 percent 65 Palestinians are unemployed. You have a very brutal repressive military occupation and this is what Hamas and Jihad get that support because Palestinians don't see you might say a lot. At the end of the tunnel but the debate is taking place and I think that's what we hope that the new Palestinian leadership and basil. Other hopefully one would hope a new generation basically would chop in a new paradigm. A dime that is based on the political and moral will of the Palestinian people that has distant military violence has not taken military resistance

a military struggle whatever you call it has mapped they can the Palestinian too far. In fact it has done a great deal of damage to the Palestinians. It has turned world public opinion that public opinion against the Palestinians. It's about time the Palestinians will claim the moral high point and convince world public opinion and American public opinion that what Ariel Sharon would like Americans to know that his war against the Palestinians is not an extension of the American war against terrorism. This is an entirely different political thing. Nation I think this is the challenge facing the new Palestinian leadership. And I really do hope deep in my heart that the new mandate the new popular mandate would enable people like me. What about that how about that you had this and that's it. The game is over. Let's begin a new journey in you journey that would help us to get rid of Israeli military occupation. Let me introduce Again our guest for this hour for was your jazz he holds the Christian Johnson chair in

international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College in New York and is widely interviewed and quoted in both print and broadcast around the world he's particularly interested in Islam in the political process and American foreign policy in the Middle East in Arab politics. We're talking this morning about particularly about what the passing of Yasser Arafat means for resolution of the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. And perhaps we get to some larger Middle East issues as well. Questions are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. Serious in having you talk a bit about another point and I think that it is the case that if you go around the Middle East and if you ask people what do you think is the biggest problem in the region. They will say that it is the issue of the Palestinians. Now whether whether Americans think that that's the case that's maybe another question but if you talk to people in the Middle East they will say this is the most pressing issue. Let us let us imagine and

obviously it would be very difficult in long drawn out process but if that could be resolved supposing that that was taken off the table what would that mean for politics in the Middle East. I'm generally in the Middle East and the United States. I think David again I'm a great question. Thing that we have done and this is really we're not I'm not saying anything or original here today everything all our studies and I'm talking about various political scholars some of us who spend considerable time in the Middle East I mean really I spend at least three four months a year sometimes i last year I spent the entire year in the Middle East. I spent two years between 1999 and 2001 doing research in the field. All our studies the polls we have show that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of the most critical issue that is structuring political and social economic development in the region. And one of the most posing the issue in relations between Muslims and

Americans and westerners. This is I think it it's now it has become not just a hypothesis I think it's a proven thesis. The you might say the importance of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Arab politics within Arab politics and between Arabs Muslims on the one hand and the United States and I think I would argue that. 85 percent of the ill will that exists between the part of the world and the United States is a result of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the widespread perception in the Arab and Muslim world that the United States has blindly supported Israel at the expense of legitimate Palestinian rights. I mean this that the killer regardless whether it's liberals or conservatives or the slammin or nationalists this is you might say the popular popular public opinion believes that the United States has sustained and maintained Israel's superiority over all the Arab states and that the killing of the Palestinians and this is

why engaging in Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking would not only help stability and security in the Middle East but I would argue would remove would remove a major hurdle obstacle in relations between the United States and the Arab world and would. I would argue hammer a deadly nail in the coffin of militants like Osama bin Laden like Abu Musab Zarqawi who use and abuse the existence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to recruit foot soldiers and suicide bombers bombers to attack the United States and Israel and this is why the vitality. The primacy of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Again not just a regional politics but also to how the United States is seen and perceived by Muslims all over the world. Recently shortly after the election British Prime Minister Tony Blair was in the United States visiting with President Bush and the two of them had a had a meeting with the press and at that time the president said that he believed that it was possible for there to be a

Palestinian state by the time he left office in 2000 and 9 certainly And now at the moment Secretary of State the current secretary of state Mr. Powell is in the Middle East talking with people about the fact that they think that they do have an opportunity now and calling on the Israelis to do everything that they can to make it to make it possible to have a an acceptable election for the Palestinians. I think for a long time many people have felt that if there was one nation that could do could do something to try to move things along in terms of talks between the Palestinians and Israel it was the United States. However during the time that President Bush has been in office I think also some people have said you know the United States really hasn't done much. Do you think the United States really is in a position to make a difference. What could the United States what do you think the United States should be doing. Well David again a great question Athan could happen in terms of peacemaking without the actual intervention not only of the United

States but also of the president personally. If history teaches us any lesson about peacemaking and we have worked very hard about this particular issue is that presidential intervention is critical to managing Palestinians and Israelis to the negotiating table. So this is point one not only the leadership of the United States not only our leadership in peacemaking is crucial but also the personal intervention of the president of the United States is the ultimate You might say the key to unlocking the Palestinian-Israeli puzzle. Whether it was President Jimmy Carter during the Camp David accord between Egypt and the Israelis or whether it was President Clinton who almost People forget that President Clinton came very close at Camp David to really making achieving a breakthrough between the Palestinians and the Israelis even though it did not happen. Both sides came very close. And the third point I would argue here is that

this president President Bush came to office. On the premise that he did not want to invest political capital in Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking and actually in the last four years one thing this president has not done he has not basically invested the precious capital that he has in trying to match Palestinian and Israelis on the contrary. What President Bush has done he has given Ariel Sharon the Israeli prime minister caught a blockage and accepted his claim that Ariel Sharon's war with the Palestinians was an extension of our war. That is American war against terrorism and this has done a great deal of damage not only to America's status and leadership in the region but also in terms of deterioration on the ground. I mean Ariel Sharon has reoccupied all policies that most the Palestinian towns and cities he cracked down brutally against the Palestinians I mean Palestinian institutions have been damaged considerably I mean in fact destroyed. And this is why now I think we have a new challenge which the new chances that

you have President Bush with the second mandate or the second or second term in office and let's hope let's hope they've done this. The question it's not really because the president has been saying for quite a long time that he is committed to bringing about a viable political Palestinian state. It's about time that this president translate his rhetoric into concrete political currency. So far he has not done so but he is out of the scene. Let's wait and see whether President Bush is willing is willing to invest precious political capital after all he says that he has now political capital. We shall see if he is willing to exert pressure not just on the poor and Palestinian but also on our ally that Ariel Sharon and convince and force ever shown to accept what I call international consensus. And we know what international consensus as the international consensus says and we are leading the consensus I would the United States two viable states live

side by side in peace and what I mean by that. It's not just a general statement. It Palestinian state on the whole of the occupied West Bank and Gaza was you know you might say two three four percent exchange of territories with its capital in East Jerusalem. This is what the international consensus and President Bush has time and again that's something and this something else done the settlements and so on and so forth. And this is why the world the world not just Arabs and Muslims Palestinians the world including our allies Tony Blair are watching very closely to see whether President Bush would basically translate his wrestling rhetoric into political reality. Let's hope for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians and also for the sake of our own vital interests America. Vital interest in the war against militant and killers like was handed bin Laden and I was alive. We have a caller to bring into the conversation let's do that in Urbana here where we are line number one.

Yes. I like much of what you're saying very much. And I certainly am in favor of a two state solution as you suggest but one of the things that haunts this whole debate is the feeling that the Palestinians and many of the Arab states really don't don't want a two state solution. Some Palestinians and some Palestinian groups state this very explicitly that by the occupation thing means that the occupation of what's going to turn state of Israel and they want one Palestinian state and not a two state solution. This is been articulated and the argument is that in aid to many of the actions of the Palestinian Authority of Arafat in the past you know have reinforced that notion that it's the Palestinians who don't want in their heart a two state solution. Could you talk.

If I said insurance I thank you I thank you very much for your question because again this is the conventional wisdom in the United States and the conventional wisdom in certain circles in Israel that is the Palestinians not just the Palestinians are the rejectionists. Let's look at the reality and I think I'm going to make some nonsensical points here today. Please don't take it for granted. The first point is that yes they are rejectionists and their reaction is Hamas and Jihad on the Palestinian side and Ariel Sharon and the settlers on the right wing in Israel on the other. These are the rejectionists. In fact if you look at the political programs and actually actual And we're not talking about rhetoric here the political programs both have Afghan jihad on the one hand and Ariel Sharon they really mirror each other. Ariel Sharon and his religious right in Israel don't subscribe to the premise or the notion or the idea of a viable Palestinian state or any Palestinian state. And Hamas and Jihad still hoping that somehow Israel will go away

vanish which is which is basically nonsense because Israel is that a state these are the. Actions and what has happened David and this is really some of the students of Arab and Muslim politics. And I don't know why we haven't been able to really elaborate on this particular point is that the sea change has taken place in the Arab world and the last I would argue eight years in fact as you know two years ago him Asia summit of Arab states all the Arab states met together in Beirut and basically put on the table a new a new peace proposal says for peace for withdrawal Israel pull out of territories for peace including diplomatic social and economic policy. Truly it represents a major sea change. And guess what. It was Saudi Arabia one of the most conservative society in the Muslim world that basically led the Arab team to put on the day on the table a truly original peace settlement based

on full withdrawal full full peace between Israel and the Arab states. The question to say just the strong idea that the Arabs might want peace it's not just it's not just politically it's not true. The Arab states have made it very clear. They told the United States of America we are with you if you are willing to push for it. The settlement a historical breakthrough. And yes they are rejectionists the rejectionist and not just the Palestinians their rejection of Hamas and Jihad on the one hand and Ariel Sharon on the other. In fact the majority of Palestinian society David everything. Has happened since the outbreak as the Sunday Father and the last four years. Despite the deaths despite the destruction despite the killings in majority both Israelis and Palestinians more than sixty eight percent of Palestinians and Israelis feel subsequent to it the settlement based on a two viable states living side by side. It's Ariel Sharon and his religious right on the one hand and Hamas and Jihad on the other. The two religious

rights in both societies not just one party as the qualität. Can I can I cry for having more yes or no if you go ahead you can follow. Yes. I know that that that and that there are two rejectionist groups that the religious resettle is and and these Islamic groups. I understand that but if you if you ask certain questions you know if you look at it historically I mean in 1948 it was five Arab nations that attacked Israel after 1967 when Israel wanted to give back the territories. Arab nations said no can't David Taba where we were it was on the table was what you were proposing and which I like. That is a two state solution capital of East Jerusalem. Are you

following the borders. It was rejected. No it was not just that it was accept it was directed it was shown in Taba after the Camp David what what what you're talking about is that yes I said no to the proposals put to him on the table by Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton that was a follow up. It met Palestinians any Israeli as the Labor Party and Palestinian the Palestinian negotiators it talk about. In the Sinai and Israel and the Palestinians were all for it. It was Ariel Sharon and this is the point I'm trying to make now. Well I mean as Ariel Sharon and the religious right who basically said no to the top because any inch as I said Ariel Sharon does not does not even subscribe to a Palestinian state on 60 percent. I I I agree with you who please me on the mouth area if I could agree with you completely about Ariel Sharon and and about the religious right in Israel and both sides and I think you know I think they are rejectionists and I think they are. It is a terrible position.

And the point the point I'm really trying to make here is that yes you might say in 1948 the Palestinians and the Arab states made a terrible blunder. But I mean you remember in 1048 you might see if you were a Palestinian Why would a Palestinian accept an alien state. Why would they accept. I mean basically historic Palestine to be divided into two states I mean after old I mean that there is more to the question of why the Palestinians did not accept the I mean the establishment of an Israeli state. I just want to say one thing that everything I have read and I don't have. Approached a millionth of the knowledge and experience you have but everything I have read suggests that even at our Fed who who did not accept who did not make any counterproposals who did not negotiate that it is that the Israelis are separate but Barak was in favor of that at both and I and I and that

and that that I think is questionable. By the way I mean please if you just say this is not just my and my point to you at Taba. The Israeli Labor party Labor negotiators on the Palestinian both sides put on the table the proposal the it was a follow up to the Camp David peace and it was accepted by both sides that we met. I don't think that's a point I'm making any point here at the Taba peace negotiations. Basically were accepted by both the Labor Party and the Palestinian team. It was Ariel Sharon from the Likud Party who basically And again please go back and just check on this particular historical point because shown why should we give the Palestinians anything at all. He came on the premise that what Barak offered on the table was not in the interest of Israel and this is why the Palestinians now as you know saying we will go back to PA but that's exactly what. You want that you see the conventional wisdom now has it soon. I thought it was. DeMatteis so much because

everything was blamed on yes off. This is not to say that Yesod was not to blame. Partly to blame for what happened. Absolutely. In fact I would argue that now that painful as it is it was for the Palestinians I think the exit of Yasser Arafat's from the scene provides the Palestinians with a new opportunity and historic opportunity to begin the journey of putting their house in order nourishing the institutions of nourishing civil society and creating a new leadership and engaging and engaging Israelis see if we could reclaim what I called mainstream Israeli society I think the challenge facing the Palestinians today is not just to convince world public opinion and Americans of their moral to the moral importance of the case but also to convince Israelis to regain the trust of Israeli public opinion mainstream public opinion because so much blood has been spilled in the last four years and so much mistrust has accumulated and this is the

challenge facing the Palestinians and the Israelis the next few weeks and months ahead. Let me ask you this question and it's something I've been curious about for some time if we go back to this time and look at what was happening in Israeli politics at the time. Following up on Camp David. And when Ariel Sharon made his ill fated visit to the Temple Mount that touched off the second intifada. At this time there was a struggle going on between Arias Sharon and the new minister who with the leadership of the khud the Likud Party how much of where we are now can be traced to that. That struggle between those two men for the leadership of their party. Thank you David because I think this is the point I was trying to make and when when the caller called about the Taba agreement I mean I think the public reman presented a major threat to the Likud Party because the liquid party's political program basically does not subscribe to a the existence of a.

Actually they even question the existence of the Palestinian people as you know when Golda Meir an Israeli for me and the late Israeli Prime Minister off after 1967 about the Palestinians said Who lot of Palestinians I mean who are quote unquote the Palestinians because to the really cool hard core of the liquid poppy like Ariel Sharon and then you know the Palestinians basically are part of the Arab Well there is no such thing as Palestinian nationalism and still today they're equal poppies. And so the Likud Party subscribes to the fact that there is a Jordan the Palestinian should go back to Jordan and neighboring say there is NO SAY THERE IS NO NEED to a Palestinian state and you're absolutely correct. I think there was a major struggle for the soul taking place for the soul of the Likud Party and the struggle is between two really. You might say militant. You have Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu. And both sides subsequent You might say to the same strategic existential goal with different technical you might say mechanisms. Netanyahu now is saying listen he will

never accept the existence of a Palestinian state. Ariel Sharon. No no no will accept something something a Palestinian state will maintain to the two hundred and eighty thousand settlers on the West Bank. No Palestinian state in East Jerusalem no return no right of return to the Palestinians. What he's really talking about is that little settlements here and that for the Palestinians and yet the struggle between Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon did a great deal of damage not only to the peace negotiations between the Labor Party and the Palestinians but also I think to the overall hope and goal and objective of reaching a historical settlement between Israelis and Palestinians for the benefit of people listening I should introduce Again our guest and we have some other cause. About 15 minutes left by the way in this part of focus 580 Our guest is jazz. He holds the Christian a Johnson chair in international affairs in Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College in New York and has appeared on many television and radio networks throughout the

world. He's taught at Oxford Harvard was a research fellow at Princeton. He's particularly interested in Islam in the political process in Arab politics and also American foreign policy in the Middle East among his books America and Political Islam Clash of Cultures or clash of interests. The book that came out in 1909 and one that's coming out next year and titled The Jihad rests on holy warriors that'll be published supposed to be published by Harcourt in the next summer summer 2005. Questions welcome. We do have several people who will try to get him. Everybody in the time that remains in callers can also help us by being brief. We'll go first to Gibson city and that is line number two. Hello hello yes hello. Yes go ahead. Yes well first I have a comment on the I think the last caller wondering why Arafat refuses to. The agreement that they came upon him and I don't have the actually been to the West Bank and little in the West Bank three times anywhere from two weeks to a month.

And one of the Palestinians told us I thought was so good I wish everybody could hear this. Well after that was 90 percent of the people meaning living in the West Bank the Palestinians living there. 10 percent of the people having the key meaning the Israelis I don't think people realize that on the West Bank the roads are controlled and the ins and outs and goings and comings are controlled by the Israeli and the Israeli Defense Force. That's not the reason why I called I called because I'm I believe in nonviolence and I but unfortunately I see on the ground level peacemakers on both sides Israelis and Palestinians. And my question is how do you feel about the possibility of something happening like in South Africa a nonviolent uprising and you know the Palestinian getting their rights that way and timid but not violent is the only way and I just want to thank you for being on the

program and I really appreciated listening to you during our hang up. Well thanks for the call. Thank you for your call and you're really two great questions I think all of us really Americans the Israelis and Palestinians would like one thing to happen is that for both people for both summer people symmetric people to live in peace I think. It's a shame what has happened in the last 60 or 70 years between these two great peoples and I think this is not really about scoring debating points. What we're trying to do here is to try to do whatever we can to convince the United States I mean convince our government to invest precious capital in nudging both sides to the negotiating table and yes absolutely I believe that military resistance has not taken both sides to the ultimate save. Let's remember David Israel has won almost every single war every since 1947

against its Arab neighbors with the exception of its war against in Lebanon against Hezbollah. Yet Israel does not have peace with the Arab world it has. You might say a military superiority over all the Arab states. Yet it does not live in peace. It has not been able to translate its military superiority into political. The Palestinians the same way despite everything that they have they have done despite the suicide bombings that everything else the Israelis go in anywhere. The Israelis are saying that it's about time that both sides they recognize the humanity the humanity of each other. The problem. People exist they are a nation and they are an imagined community. These radii people exist they have their own state it's about time that military occupation. I mean this is this is amazing I mean South Africa was one of the you might say the second a colonial experience or experiment to disappear. You have now the only colonial experience in the world. Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian

people it's about time that it ends and also on the final point you mentioned we talked David about elections. Let's remember that they are 500 almost 500 military. I mean checkpoints and roadblocks in the Palestinian 500. How could the Palestinians move anywhere. How could the vote help. I mean this is why I think the United States the Bush administration is doing wonderfully in the last few days to exert pressure on the Israelis to pull out their forces from the Palestinian areas. So the Palestinians can I mean move around and vote and the Palestinians will not be intimidated by the presence of military forces and yet there is no way out of this particular deadly embrace except a political solution based on a historical settlement. Those people live in two rival states side by side in peace. To our next goal is someone on the cell phone or toll free line line for. Hello. Thank you. I have a question or I have a comment and that is like your reaction to

the Christian Science Monitor a couple years ago made a statement in the last 30 years there's been 1.7 trillion dollars spent on Israel and the peace surrounding Israel with the with some of the Arab states. Some of that money might have been included in a guarantee on the loans and the buildings that are on the West Bank. Then if the American government has said that if they should the fault that the that we will guarantee those particular loans. Now my point is why is the American government fueling such fire if this much money is being spent why couldn't that been some of that. Hellish journey is to ensure good will and. What's your comment about these tricky bits of information. Thank you.

Well I think I mean you are absolutely correct on that. I mean when we talk about the leadership I work with the leadership of our government that's in the United States. We're not just talking about a rhetorical question here. We provide Israel with more than three point two billion dollars in aid every year and you will I mean this is big money. 3. it translates almost sixteen hundred dollars that average Israeli. I mean yearly basis. And surely we should have I suppose some we can at least exit pressure in order to achieve a wonderful goal. That is the peace process and I think the point is not just about how much money we give to Israel or to Egypt but what this tells you is that in the eyes of most Palestinians in the eyes of most ads and Muslims American money American weapons American political weight sustains Israel's military occupation of the Palestinian territories I mean this is the big point and this is why in the region throughout. I mean the. I mean that part of the

world. People don't say well look Israel does kill the Palestinians. People say American money American weapons American at. Actually helicopters American at 16. This is a reality and this is why it's crucial that we the United States being the greatest talent that exists in history exert pressure on both sides not just one side. The poor occupied Palestinians the victims on both sides. I'm not Jim back to the negotiating table. This is not just in the interest of regional stability as they sat It's the interest of our own interests American vital interests because we not only have one friend that Israel I would very primary interest oil trade civilization holy places are all I mean interlined in the top of the world. And now of course we have the war on terrorism. How can you win the war against al-Qaida and the killers. I mean millions and millions and millions of Arabs and Muslims see Israeli tanks and Apache helicopters

bombing the Palestinians and brutalizing their lives and this is why. Well but I would leadership is crucial. Yes we give money. Let's use our money and leadership to exert pressure on both sides and achieve a settlement. A lot of things happen and most people try to get at least one more call or the next in line is in Urbana in their way. Bee line number three. Hello hello. Yeah so I guess what my concern has always been is that in terms of the reaction of the Israel Israel against the Palestinians you know you know if you if you people's lives are taken they go over and push you over you know hundreds of houses and you know kill a hundred and ten people or something in the heavy handedness you know in terms of their military reaction so just like you comment on that. Well yes I mean absolutely I mean no doubts about it. I mean as I suggested earlier I mean really we talk about the Palestinian leadership. Let's

talk about the Palestinian people the Palestinian people. People live and when you might say depression on the one hand they live between a rock in a bind dropped the U.S. off by the corrupt leadership and a hard place military occupation. They basically cannot move from one village to another from one neighborhood to another you have military checkpoints Israeli military everywhere. I mean almost 500. You have on the West Bank almost 200 and that you know some people two hundred and eighty thousand fact is a hop of the West Bank East Jerusalem has been occupied since 1967. I mean Israel has a copper belongs to do what it wants. Send it to the military army Armada. That's basically mainly American to bomb the Palestinians. Yes Hamas and Jihad suicide bombings are a horrible awful terrible. But again President Bush unfortunately instead of trying to restrain Israeli Prime Minister and say listen you have to remember that at the end of the day the two people must live together. Basically he has given him a cot to launch and he has accepted his

premise that what's going on in Palestine and Israel is an extension of the American war against terrorism. If mom sends if that changes it fuels terrorism. It supplies more ammunition to killers like was some of bin Laden and I will not have a Zarqawi. It's about time we use our leadership American leadership in order to exert pressure on head on and say listen enough is enough. Don't use disproportionate force. Don't brutalize the Palestinians. Your very actions produce more militants then you would hope for. I think that we're at the point here that we're going to have to conclude because we've used our time. I want to thank Professor Gerges for being with us we certainly appreciate you giving us an hour of your time this morning. Thank you for having me David.