Focus 580; The Middle East Peace Talks: An American Jewish Perspective

Today's broadcast on AM 580 is made possible in part by a grant from Franklin travel presenting the seventh masterpiece and more tour leaving September 24th for England and France the 16 day w while benefit will visit the French countryside and includes live theatre and symphony performances. Good morning welcome back to our number two Focus 580 My name is David Inge. Glad you could be listening. We'll be talking this part of the show about the Middle East concentrating on I suppose on three areas on the current round of the Middle East peace talks on U.S. Israeli relations and also the possibility of possible outcomes of elections scheduled in for June for Israel. We have as our guest this morning John Rothman He's a political and foreign policy consultant who specializes in the United States the Middle East and also Soviet affairs among his activities. A lot of traveling a lot of lecturing. He's spoken on a great number of college and university campuses throughout this country and also Canada and Israel. He served on the faculty of the University of San Francisco was a long time member of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council on a number of other. Kind of organizations he has been with us

before. This is his second visit on the program a number of years ago he was in the area and was here again and we thought it be a good opportunity to talk with him once again as we do talk you should feel free to pick up the telephone and call in if you have comments or questions. Our telephone number here locally is 3 3 3 wy L.L.. Also toll free 800 to 2 2 W while. Thank you very much for you for being with us again David it's a pleasure to be back. Lovely to see you you look younger than ever. Well we'll let that one pass. We just wrapped up the the most current round of peace negotiations in the Middle East and we seem to be at an impasse and it seems to be sort of the same impasse that we've been at before. As the as both sides the Palestinians and the Israelis have presented each other with their vision of the territories on the Palestinian side they would like to have elections and they would like to have Israeli troops leave and the Israelis have continued to maintain while they would give the Palestinians authority to oversee a number of

aspects of life in the territory that they do not want to see elections for some kind of overarching Palestinian Authority happen and would like to continue to. Hold the responsibility for maintaining security. And they say that the Palestinian plan what it amounts to is the beginnings of an independent Palestinian state which is what the Palestinians have said that they want. So there doesn't seem to be a great deal of room for negotiation between those two points. Well yes I mean you're there from there. I guess we can start by saying that things have improved dramatically since last time I was here in 1989. When I say improvement I think it's important to consider where we've come since then. If I had suggested in 1989 that there would be a peace conference on that. Sitting around the table would be all of the adversaries of Israel the Israelis and representatives of the Palestinian people. I think most people would have said it was very farfetched. And the reality is that what we saw in Madrid just a few brief months ago was a breakthrough of monumental import where you

saw Arab and Israeli leaders talking with each other. I want to draw different been talking at each other or talking to each other and talking with each other. They really are in dialogue now. Much of what happens happens in private but it's very important. Now there is no doubt that there is an impasse there is an impasse on several levels of the peace discussions. There is an impasse between Israel and Syria over the question of regional talks including talks about water which are central to the region and Central the question of the Golan Heights. Two of the headwaters of the Jordan River two of the three head waters are located in the Golan Heights. The Syrians really can't expect a territorial compromise on the Golan unless there are discussions about the issue of water. If the Syrians refuse to participate in a water conference no doubt there is an impasse between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Your summary is only quite apt. And that is that the Israelis insist for their security concerns on military control of the territories they are willing to go with autonomy elections. That is to say for Palestinians to hold

elections to elect their own authority but that authorities control would be severely limited. In fact the Israelis view autonomy as autonomy for the Palestinians who for years rejected autonomy. Now say that they view autonomy as a first step toward statehood. I think in the Israeli mind there is an image. The images of Palestinian standing on the rooftops of Scud missiles hit Tel Aviv cheering. There is the realization that had Yasser Arafat had a state the Scud missiles would not have flown 250 miles from Iraq to hit Tel Aviv with relative imprecision doing great damage but would have in fact been able to be launched from 10 or 12 miles away from Tel Aviv. There is a real feeling in his round of insecurity perhaps the best line of all was articulated by Moshe Arens the current defense minister of Israel who said the Middle East is not the Middle West there are not vast expanses of territory. So I would suggest to you that while there is an impasse there is something else that is critical and that is the talks are continuing. Israelis and

Palestinians are talking not only in the context of the discussions themselves but behind the scenes there are ongoing discussions between the Israelis and the Syrians Israelis and Jordanians Israelis and he Gyptian zx. I think it was very encouraging the Saudis sent an observer as did a number of the Gulf states to send observers to the conference. I think it was very useful and important are we on the verge of a breakthrough in terms of peace. I think what we are doing is making step by step progress and that is an important realization now. Are the talks going to bring immediate results the answers we're on hold now because of elections which will be held in Israel on June 23rd. The Israelis have some very tough decisions to make. This will be an election that will be based primarily on foreign policy issues in contrast to say the election of 1984 when the real issue was double digit inflation and the Question of the economy. And maybe you can perceive now some of those questions about the elections.

Well yes let me ask you about that because I think there there certainly is a lot of. Interest focused on the elections and in part I suppose because Mr Rabin seems now to take over the leadership of the later Labor Party and from taking away from leadership from Shimon Peres and some people are suggesting that perhaps he might have the right combination of qualities being have being sort of uniquely conservative on some things and liberal on some other things that it's possible that he might be the man to beat Mr. Shamir. Well there's no doubt that the Labor Party selected Rabin because they viewed him as a stronger candidate than Mr. Peres. But I want to emphasize there are points of similarity between Likud and Labor that are important for us to understand both Likud and Labor believe Jerusalem must remain the united undivided capital of his room both Likud and Labor reject the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian

state on the West Bank and Gaza. Both Likud and Labor oppose discussions with the PLO a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel. Both Labor and Likud believe the Jewish settlements in the territories are legal. There is a difference between the two of them in that Likud says we need to settle the whole land of Israel meaning everywhere including heavily populated Arab areas while labor is committed to settlement in three areas. Jerusalem the Golan Heights and the Jordan River Valley. I would hasten to point out that 90 percent of the Jewish settlers live in those three areas. So there is not a substantial difference between Labor and Likud. And finally that both are committed to a strong alliance with the United States. So there are broad consensus issues which the overwhelming majority of people in Israel concur upon. I can't tell you who will win the June 23rd election. I can tell you the polls show it to be a very close election. There are some who believe a national unity

government may emerge. There are 120 members of the Israeli parliament to form a government you need 61 seats. No political party has ever won 61 seats. Every government of Israel has been a coalition government. You will recall that there was a national unity government in Israel for one hundred forty one thousand ninety that Mr. Rabin served as defense minister in that government while Mr. Peres and Mr. Shami are alternate of the position of prime minister. I think that that the talks will probably in terms of peace talks will be on hold until after the Israeli election in fact the Syrians have suggested that there be a delay in renewal of talks until a new government is formed and that's probably a good idea. I don't know that it's reasonable to expect a nation that is in the midst of active electioneering to be able to make any kind of decisive decision. But make no mistake the people of Israel are having a referendum on foreign policy and the decisions that they make about the directions they choose to

take will be critical in the formulation of Israel's position on peace. So you're talking about the fact that there are there areas where there is agreement between. Could and labor one of the areas where they differ. How is that the how is that Israeli voters are going to make their decision based on what sort of it will on foreign policy I think one of the key things is Likud is opposed to land for peace. Likud believes that the whole land of Israel should remain under Israeli sovereignty. Labor believes in a land for peace formula. The question you have to pose is what land. For what peace and to whom. You suck Rabin will run on a platform advocating a Jordanian option that is to say that Israel and Jordan should cut some sort of deal now I know that on the campus today I believe at 3 o'clock or 3 or 4 o'clock the Jordanian representative at the talks in Madrid will be speaking on campus and I hope your listeners was also going to be here tomorrow you know here tomorrow great and you will be able to

ask him and I hope you do ask him directly what the implications in his mind would be of a Rabin victory. Because if Rabin wins he's going to try to convince King Hussein. The ruler of Jordan to enter into a relationship with Israel to secure some sort of accord. Now she want Paris tried that during his two years as prime minister. He and King Hussein had 22 separate secret meetings there so secret we know exactly how many meetings they had and they were unable to come to any kind of resolution. So I think the real bottom line question for the interview tomorrow will be what if Rabin wins. What if Rabin offers the Jordanians some sort of an accommodation. Where does that leave the Palestinians. The main theme that the Jordanian representative struck in Madrid was a theme that Jordan is not Palestine. As you understand 80 percent of the land area of Palestine under the old British Mandate is today Jordan. About 15 percent is now

Israel 5 percent is in dispute in terms of territory. Seventy percent of the population of Jordan are Palestinians half of the Palestinians in the world are Jordanian citizens. And the Jordanians are very sensitive to the fact that they are Jordanians they are not Palestinians and yet there is no doubt that the Jordan as Palestine question is one which deeply concerns the Jordanians and one of the things I think you can logically say terms of differences between Likud and Labor is that labor really wants to deal with King Hussein. They want to strike a deal with Hussein. Uh the Likud is committed to making a deal with Hussein if they can but they also believe that perhaps the FIM of Jordan is Palestine is not a bad one to strike in terms of giving the Palestinians a place of their own. So there are differences on foreign policy. The other major difference of course is that the Labor Party would not have Jewish settlements in major populated Arab areas and that is a substantial difference from the Likud although the number of settlers settling in heavily

populated Arab areas is so insignificant that it's really not the problem. Well let me ask you further about that. The this deal that you're talking about labor being interested in doing with King Hussein. Are we talking about. Taking it removing the Palestinians from the territories and having them move to Jordan we talk about redrawing the border and I'll tell you what the deal is you understand that there is a joint Jordanian Palestinian delegation now and that even in the 1900s prickly 1085 King Hussein and Yasser Arafat's signed an agreement that they subsequently tore up for a joint administration essentially a joint relationship. I think that Rabin views the Jordanian regime as more trustworthy as a military force than a potential Palestinian military force. So a combination of Jordanians and Palestinians together is a more acceptable formula but it involves

directly a role for King Hussein. I have to tell you that I really believe that if a Palestinian state were created the first target of such a state would not be Israel. The first target would be King Hussein. And I think that's a concern of Hussein's that that is an underlying problem he went through Black September of 1070 when the Palestinians tried to remove him from power. And of course his relationship with Yasser Arafat has been less than satisfactory over the years. In fact I remember in 1086 King Hussein took to the airwaves and delivered a three and a half hour diatribe against the PLO and Yasser Arafat as being completely untrustworthy. And of course things change and relationships change but there's no doubt that the Jordanians are concerned about that issue. So I think Labor's point is well let's get the Palestinians and the Jordanians together and let's cut a deal. Giving the Palestinians a real relationship with Jordan. And as I say the question for Labor is what Lanfear what peace and to

whom. Labor is not prepared to give land to Yasser Arafat's it is prepared to return land to Jordan. We're talking this morning with John Rothmann he is a lecturer and consultant who specializes in among other things Middle Eastern affairs and he's visiting here in Champaign Urbana. Good enough to come over and spend some time with us talking about the Middle East if you have questions or comments. Pick up a telephone call 3 3 3 800 to 2 2 W I love those are the numbers. Let me ask one further question about the elections and I don't know if this is this gets to finally into detail about Israeli politics but apparently. On Sunday I believe this was the central committee of Likud dropt foreign minister Mr. Levy a levy from the number two spot on the party's list. And I guess the thing that's important about that is that it did imply some sort of order of succession after Mr. Shamir. So they took Levy out and they put him down to number four putting him behind Moshe Arens the defense minister and Ariel Sharon the housing minister and apparently Mr. Levy was rather upset about it. And there seemed to be some suggestion in stories that I've read about is that he could withdraw his

support from Likud and if he decided that he was going to support he talked Rabin that maybe that would increase his chances of a victory. How do we sort all that out. I don't think that's likely I think Levy is firmly wedded to the Likud he may have had a setback in this particular situation but things can turn. Mr. Show me or got his number to the man he wanted. MOSHE ARENS Aarons is very much the model of Mir there are 13. They work very well together. There are some people who think that Aarons is the logical successor to shame your parents is the former foreign minister and current defense minister of Israel. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States a very articulate solid fellow and in the mainstream of Likud Then there's already Sharon about whom we say. He's like a bull who carries with him his own china shop has a substantial amount of support in the Likud but not enough to become party leader. The beggin Shah Mir

wing would absolutely oppose his elevation and he does represent the right of what he could and he was able to come in third because he has a substantial following not enough to come in one or two. Davida Levy's problem really has been that people don't view him as a credible candidate for prime minister. They think he's very able as housing minister that he's done an adequate job as foreign minister but he has some disadvantages he doesn't speak English. He has not been viewed as a particularly active person in terms of the field of foreign affairs. So I think really what this demonstrated was that while Levy is firmly in the Likud upper list and is viewed more as a to the left in the league could. But he is not viewed as a potential successor what this means is that. The top five candidates six candidates are really the key people Aarons who came in number two Benjamin young. Not on yahoo who came in number five and Benyamin beggin Benny beggin the son of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin who came in number

six. And if I were going to be a prognosticator I would say that the next prime minister after Shamir if the Likud were to win would either be Arians or Benny begun. And that in all likelihood not on Yahoo being out high on the list is almost a certainty. If only could forms a government to be foreign minister. If not this time the next one will stop with some we have a caller here our toll free line talk with him. Hello. Oh I'm interested I guess what I call your methodology. I'm interested in how you make decisions on certain terms potations of people's moods over there in the Middle East particularly you were just talking about Mr Levy and they even asked you a question about him and you said no you didn't think so then you gave me no on the reasons why I'm interested in what newspapers you read what journals or magazines whether in English or Arabic or French or in particular what kind of connections you have and how you go about summing up these

things other than you know the rest of us can read the newspapers and we get fact more alas. But somebody who has fingertips on a law I'd like to know something about that aspect of how you go about doing your job. Thank you. Thank you very much my job is to be an analyst that means that I take information I try to analyze it very carefully I read a broad range of journals and everything from the Jerusalem Post to the Journal of Palestine Studies. I read all of the major American newspapers and magazines I do read some foreign publications. I try to listen to the news on an hourly basis. I walked into the studio here in 11 when I was saying stop we gotta listen to the news. I try to keep up on things but like it's like anything if you're interested in the subject and you have a working knowledge of a subject and you develop any proficiency in a subject it doesn't mean your analysis is always right. Believe me I'm not always right sometimes wrong. And but what you try to do is to learn from your experience so in my mind there is one of the thing that you can do that to me is very useful and

that is I think it's very useful to visit. An area that you're particularly interested in I spend a good deal of time in the Middle East. I visit Israel and the Arab world on a fairly regular basis I try to get there at least once a year and I go to hear lectures I go to listen to other people when they speak I deeply regret that I'm not going to be here. And sure Champaign-Urbana safter noone to hear the Jordanian the representative of the peace talks I would very much like to hear him. Regrettably I have to be in Bloomington Indiana to give a lecture tonight. But I always listen very carefully to what people have to say. Even people who I might not necessarily agree with on issues and I think by keeping an open mind by reading by listening by visiting the area you gain a comprehensive working knowledge and I would emphasize that no one who speaks about the Middle East is unbiased. There is no such creature. Everyone who has an opinion has a bias. And so I think one of the key things is to identify what people's biases are when you listen to them I unabashedly a friend of

Israel I believe that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders. I try to understand the Arab position and I try to understand that it takes two to tango in order to have a full comprehensive peace in the Middle East. There has to be an accommodation. And the question is how to ensure Israeli security and Palestinian rights and I must say to you there is a bottom line in this from the Israeli perspective and I believe. In the American perspective and that is the Palestinians have rights but not at the expense of Israel's right to exist. We are about midway through a conversation here with John Roth and we'll talk some more in a moment we'd like you know about upcoming programs. First of all tomorrow morning on our show at 10 o'clock we will get a chance to speak with Congressman Tom Ewing. He is a Republican and incumbent who. You can call and talk with him you'll be joining us tomorrow morning at 10:00 as we have mentioned we will be

speaking with Abdel Salam a Jolley who was head of the Jordanian delegation to the Middle East peace talks in Washington he is visiting here in Champaign-Urbana will be with us on this program tomorrow morning at 11:00. So you can talk with him next week on the show. Monday we'll talk about our agricultural news programming on the station we'll have two guests with us our own egg news director Charles Lindy and also Darrell Goode. He's professor of agricultural economics here at the U of I'm and then on Monday and our number two our guest will be Al hall felt he is a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate here in Illinois. And we'll take your questions as well. We'll give you two more on the program Tuesday and we'll talk with Carol Moseley Braun who was also a Democratic candidate for Senate one of three. And then on the program. Tuesday at 11:00 we'll speak with Andre Moore Roux who is the Libertarian Party candidate for president. I thought you might be interested in hearing from him and talking with him. Those are some of the things we have coming up over the next few days of course we're here weekday mornings 10:00 until noon. And we have 10 different topics for you each week. One further reminder we will have another Democratic

presidential candidate's forum for you tonight. This is a live broadcast and it will originate from a Dallas which Texas of course will be one of the most important states coming up in Super Tuesday which is next week the 10th this debate will begin at 10:30 tonight it will be hosted by ABC Peter Jennings and will last 90 minutes so you can hear it on this program radio station that is tonight at 10:30. Again I guess this morning is John Rothmann he is a lecturer a consultant analyst on Middle East affairs and the relationship between the United States and that part of the world if you have questions or comments you want to be involved in our conversation. Give us a call 3 3 3 wy although 800 to 2 2 w I'll like to talk about it. The relationship between Israel and the United States which seems rather strained at the moment over the loan guarantees which Israel has asked for and the United States has steadfastly said if you want us to do this we'd be

happy to do it. However what we want to do is freeze settlement activity and in the West Bank something that Mr. sumir has said that he's not going to do. So there again we've had another impasse that's been standing like this for some time. One of the questions I'm interested in having you talk about is why you think that the United States and I suppose we really should say President Bush has taken such a hard line on this and made it such an issue over George Bush has a notion of what is required for there to be peace in the Middle East. George Bush believes that for there to be peace. Israel must withdraw to the pre 67 borders. He believes that the Golan Heights the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem are occupied territory and the only way to secure peace is for Israel to withdraw from those territories. I have to tell you that the problem that I have with President Bush's perception is that while theoretically he may have a point in terms of an ideal world the reality is that geography dictates against that kind of situation.

The Israelis have been remarkably forthcoming. They've ceded land on the Golan Heights already and I mentioned earlier the question of a coup nature. They gave away a piece of the Golan Heights to Syria on the agreement that Syria would rebuild the capital the go on Quinn Atra and that civilians would live there and of course that was back in 75 and there's still no civilians living in good nature the Israelis returned 91 percent of the land they took in the Six Day War the entire Sinai in return for peace with Egypt. The Israelis have given land for peace. But I think for President Bush to insist on this kind of move which would put the. Arabs only nine miles from Tel Aviv from the seashore is something that no government of Israel is going to accept and I expect the impasse will continue even if Mr. Rabin wins because Mr. Rabin is not in favor of a settlement freeze in Jerusalem in the Golan or in the Jordan Valley where 90 percent as I pointed out of the settlers live. I think the

president of the United States is king in foreign policy. You know I'm always reminded when Ronald Reagan ran for president and when he was elected eight years in a row in his addresses to the Congress he advocated prayer in school and he said I'm for prayer in school the president the United States can be for prayer in school but a president of United States can't order prayer in school but in foreign policy a president really is king and you take a look just at the Middle East. Harry Truman's unilateral decision to recognize a new born state of Israel over the object. Sins of his secretary of state George Marshall and secretary of defense Jim Forrestal Eisenhower's decision in 1956 and 57 to have the Israelis withdraw from the Sinai after the Suez war something imposed the Richard Nixon's decision in 1983 unilaterally to resupply Israel in the face of the massive supply of Soviet arms to the Arabs. Jimmy Carter's unilateral decision to guarantee Israel a 15 year supply of oil no matter what. Following the Camp David Accords these actions by presidents and I'm using the Middle East I could use any area of the world as an example are

ample demonstration of the president's supremacy and I think for friends of Israel there is a concern about George Bush's approach I was profoundly disturbed by Secretary Baker's comments before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week because he said something was wrong. He said we all we give Israel four billion dollars a year which is untrue part of that is granted aid. All of that money basically comes back to the United States for every billion dollars we spend in Israel or we loan Israel or grant Israel sixty thousand jobs are created in this country. But then he did something that to me was deeply offensive he said. And now they want 10 billion dollars in loans. That isn't what Israel is requesting. The Israelis are requesting 10 billion dollars in loan guarantees David it would be like you're buying a house and asking me to sign as a guarantor on the loan. Wouldn't cost me a penny assuming you're good for your. Payments and the point is the Israelis are paid their payments on time. I think that the characterization that Secretary Baker used was wrong it was incorrect it was a misstatement and it was a deeply offensive kind of thing. In fact the

Israelis are now doing something that American foreign policy has wanted them do for years. We in the United States advocated the right of Soviet Jews to leave the Soviet Union and come to Israel. And now the Israelis are confronted with the task of absorbing the equivalent of the United States absorbing the entire nation of France. It's a massive undertaking and it requires assistance from the world. After all the world encourage the Israelis and encourage Soviet Jews in their struggle for freedom. The United States has a legitimate right to make the request that money not be spent outside of the green line that is that money only be spent in the pre 67 borders. The Israelis have not objected to that. But to use a loan guarantees as a club over the head of his row is to me wrong. I don't believe that you use humanitarian help and assistance and in this case not a dime out of the American taxpayers pocket. To hold hostage people who are fleeing from oppression. And it

is interesting to reflect that the entire Arab world opposed and has opposed the right of Soviet Jews to come to Israel because they even within Israel proper and and it is a commentary the about the state of things in the Middle East. But I believe that ultimately the relationship between the United States and Israel is secure overwhelmingly the American people believe Israel has a right to exist. That isn't a debatable point. Even a Jesse Jackson or a Pat Buchanan in my book two sides of the same coin and 80 percent of what they say makes sense if you're a liberal or a conservative to 20 percent frankly particular when it comes to Jews and Israel is deeply offensive to Jews and friends of Israel. Both of these men no matter what they may say on many issues believe that Israel has a right to exist. Paul Findley a congressman from the state for many years who is certainly a critic of Israel believes Israel has a right to exist. And I that's a broad consensus issue and I think therefore that while there may be differences between the United States on Israel and Israel on individual policy the reality

is that these two nations are firmly aligned. Maybe because we're both democracies maybe because we're both aligned with a free world maybe because we're both founded on biblical principles maybe because we're both a nation of immigrants. There are a host of reasons that bind our two nations. And I would hasten to remind you of something else when the Gulf War just before the Gulf War broke out. The United States for gave for gave a 7.1 billion dollar debt that Egypt owed the United States. This wasn't loan guarantees. The American taxpayer four gave a seven point one billion dollar debt of the Egyptian government owed the United States of America. We did so because it was in our interest to do it. And I don't begrudge President Mubarak or the people of Egypt the aid which we gave them because frankly they helped us during the Gulf War and more than that they are a becoming a more reliable ally than we could ever have expected of Egypt 20 years ago. But I want to suggest to you that to give

Israel 10 billion dollars in loan guarantees is not a dime out of the taxpayers pocket and works to the very best principles of American foreign policy. So I think that while there are differences and points of dispute that in general support for Israel is very firm and President Bush has said that repeatedly as Secretary Baker has talked with someone else one of our local lines the line number one. Well I would say one. Yes yes go ahead you're on the right. But I don't find him to be there all right. Going all picture I can tell right now. I recently heard someone say that. Well it's true. I don't care. Keep in mind that we have money working right by the way. Let me assure you that is not correct I would never listen to what someone else says I would really take a look very carefully at the situation. Absolutely doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime it's simply a

guarantee you don't have to set any money aside believe me you have more than enough money in the treasury to cover the problem. Fine I don't have a point yet where you might just win your money if money is a politically loaded political price and I think what a 50 percent of people statement after some people will feel it. Not trading land for peace is quintessential defining piece of what you're. Seems to get the impression it like Britain cannot field it. I didn't get him. I want to be accurate. No question about it then I think Secretary Baker is saying that very clearly. Take your position be saying just what you're saying. My point is that I do not believe that the million the Soviet Jews who are coming out of the Soviet Union as a result of the work of many of us in the West for their freedom over many

years should be jeopardized over the question of 10 billion dollars in loan guarantees. I think the Israelis have been very clear that they are prepared not to spend a dime of that money on new settlements. By the way they have made this very very clear. Now there is of course the argument that can be made legitimately that still the Israelis will continue the settlement policy and we're liberating funds that they may spend. Well my answer to you very clearly is that that's what the Israeli election is all about. Israel is a vital democracy and on June 23rd the people of Israel are going to make a choice and they're going to send a single signal. And I think that everything the peace talks the loan guarantees all of these questions are going to wait until June 23rd. I think nations that are democracies that hold these kind of elections understand the people understand very clearly what they're voting on. And I'll tell you there's only one democracy in the Middle East is only one nation to hold elections. There's only one nation that you you can count on to have a good free for all that's Israel and by God that's what we're going to get

ready. Thank you very much. Thank you for the call. We have a couple of the people let me set you one for the thing because I again I'm curious about what you think there was a piece an op ed piece that appeared in The New York Times last week by Leslie Gelb. Yes you would you probably saw that where he says he thinks that the reason that. The Bush administration has been so tough on loan guarantees is they're hoping that that will guarantee the defeat of Mr. Shamir that as they continue to do that it will mean that that that liquid will lose. No question about it I think that the Bush administration would much prefer to deal with a Labor government. I think that this is interference in a sense in a in a domestic Israeli election. But I would remind you and it's an interesting thought that many years ago Mr. Rabin endorsed Richard Nixon over George McGovern here in the States when he was the Israeli ambassador to the United States. But it's interesting to remember that when Jimmy Carter was first elected president Rabin was prime minister of Israel. He and Rabin had a disastrous meeting at the White House

prior to the Israeli elections and prior to his removal as Labor Party leader one of the compelling reasons that Rabin lost his job aside from the real scandal of his wife in a foreign bank account had to do with his very bad relations with Carter. I think that that in fact Bush would row I to deal with Rabin. It may be a factor in the Israeli elections and I think wisely Gold's point is well taken. OK I'll start with some of the people line. Two is next time. Lie number two. Well I was wondering who owned the land. Settled. What else. Well the presumption isn't correct and I'll explain to you why most of the land that exists on the West Bank that is the land that Israeli settlements are built on was state own land. That meant that it was originally owned by the Ottoman Turks then it was owned by the British. Then it was owned by Jordan and remember the Jordan annexed the West Bank and ruled the West Bank from one hundred forty eight or

actually 151 annexation went into effect until 1967 only two nations in the world recognized that annexation. Interesting. Great Britain and Pakistan I've never figured out why Pakistan did. The land is state owned land and it is interesting that when Israel has tried to confiscate land. That is not state owned land. They've been sued by Palestinians mind you. Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel. The cases of the Israeli Supreme Court and every case the Palestinians have won. It's a curious commentary on the way Israeli democracy works so state owned land means that the land didn't belong to anyone except the government that ruled by the way that's very similar to here in the United States. The overwhelming majority of land well over 80 percent of the land in this country is owned by the government it means the government can use the land as it sees fit. And as Israel is the existing government in the territories they are exercising that right. So but you can make another argument which I think is a more valid argument and that is that in order for there to be peace there has to be an accommodation with the

Palestinians. Are settlements an obstruction to peace. There are some who argue yes someone argue no and I believe that as I said earlier this election in Israel will be a referendum on the very question of the settlements and the question of land for peace. When I was head of papers I only read the article. It's well you haven't at least I haven't seen articles about seizing of land I've read about new settlements. I have and I think the answer I've given you is a very precise answer a very clear answer. It's a career I mean and there's no I don't think anybody can dispute the answer and that's simply the reality I would also tell you sometimes I read headlines or articles in the newspaper that are not exactly precise and therefore I am skeptical when I do try to go beyond the headlines which is why I listen to wonderful talk shows like this where I can hear a broad spectrum of points of views you hear my point of view today and you will have the opportunity

to hear a counterbalance to it tomorrow at 11 o'clock when the Jordanian representatives here. I also have a fatherless brother so have I. Excellent book he wrote another one by the way more recently a very good book as well. But he was somebody who advocates peace. Every Israeli village they said let's go into this bank. It is at the request of army. That's correct yanking 48 when they were not allowed back in the village. But the court the court came down the villages I mean which. Let me explain to you that village of course is on the Lebanese border. B has been a target or would have been a target under any circumstances. There happens to be a real dispute in Israel over Mr. Gore's a point of view. I want to make a comment about a word you use that intrigued me and the word was Israeli expansionism

and I don't like the word because it is a term that I think needs to be understood. If you Israel were expansionist it would not have returned 91 percent of the land that it took in the Six Day War nor would it be engaged in talks which may result in land for peace. I think rather than using the term expansionism I think you have to understand that the Israelis are highly security conscious. They live in a very very small area. And in fact the Israelis have demonstrated repeatedly over the years that they are prepared to give land for peace but they pose the question what land for what peace and to whom. Imagine as I said earlier if Yasser Arafat's had a state on the West Bank during the Gulf War as a man who supported Saddam Hussein who called for the use of biological and chemical weapons against the Israelis there was real concern and I think that one has to take into context that when you use a term like Israeli expansionism that it is a pejorative term which needs to be understood in a proper context. The Israelis have given land for peace they're prepared to make

compromise but not compromise which puts their very existence in jeopardy. I just use that word. That's our right. No problem. You're on the radio after all the proper language to discussion it but I think it. Precision is very important because I misuse the words sometimes creates misunderstanding and I'm very glad to be able to work with you to clarify that thought. But part of my concern is being. I was reading a chalice and the blade discussion patriarchy and was pointing out among other things a small part of the book the original movement of these the Israelites and and it was something about I mean it's a real small town and they had this golden Bible book and with beautiful pictures I like looking you in it. Were there people there before they really is moved in

and there were the references in this book and what happened to the people who were there the men were all killed. All the adults were killed. The virgin girls for saving They were numbered along with the cattle and the sheep and the donkeys for use by the soldiers. And it just bothers me to think that there is a possibility that people and I think I think that there is some evidence that there are people who have lived there for a long time whose property is being confiscated. I'm not sure that I know. Let me just show you some of it. That is. Yes Governor let me just say to you I understand your point of view I don't want to tell you if you read the Bible you will find there are two interpretations. One is the interpretation you've given but if you read the book of Joshua you'll also see that there is reference to the peaceful occupation of the land. Perhaps it means that there were two different writers with different interpretations. But I want to suggest that to apply the Bible to what happens today is not something that I normally do. I don't believe it's a

political. I think most Israelis view it purely from the point of security. And I would point out to you something it's very significant that 18 percent of the population of Israel are non-Jews. They are people who live within the Green Line. They are citizens of Israel. They include Muslims and Christians and they live in the country. And I would suggest to you there are a million and a half Palestinians who live in the West Bank in Gaza whose future has to be negotiated. They aren't going away and the Israelis aren't going away. There have been. Injustice is created on both sides. What has to happen though is to be able to get two sides both of whom have rights to come together to try to reach a solution. I would be the last person in the world to tell you that anyone has complete right on their side. But I would suggest that those who criticize Israel repeatedly and dogmatically that sometimes the underlying current really is Israel doesn't have a right to exist and I know you join me in saying that of course Israel has a right to exist and the question is how do you achieve justice and equality and peace for all the

people in the area. I hope that God will forgive me because we just have about five minutes left and the lines are fall and we won't be able to get in everybody who is waiting and my apologies to them I want to try to get at least one more possibly two calls before we have to finish. We'll go to our toll free line next. A lot more sir. I hear tell you where I'm coming from I I can hear I might as I watch on TV. Representative Carter what was his name. Larry Smith Larry Larry. Cheers. OK. Central James Baker or it's about time somebody got after these guys. I'm not Jewish but I I respect. I'm inspired by either either of them and there are no other energy elegance and. Way back when when George Bush first announced this a question of withholding

miscarriage I think was back last summer that far back in September when I said in September. Yes are you still sorry I think and you you indicated that this was his some of his real politic I submit sir that it was a question of wanting to get re-elected. It was a cynical utterly cynical move designed to get more. He thought he could get more votes from bigoted Jews in this country than he could from from Pew. And I kept your comments on that were slightly disingenuous or maybe a little bit. Right from my very well we and we and we take your point. We don't have a lot of time we have. I'm not sure that the reason Bush story was so that he can be elected is that you know I think

there is a real low point there it's very possible that's one of his goals but I think that George Bush has a real commitment as I explained earlier and I appreciate very much your comments. You do you do you do you see this or not see this is an attempt to to play to anti-Jewish sentiment in the United States. I think that George Bush had a genuine shock last year when the White House switchboard lit up and all the closet anti-Semites climbed out of the walls to call him. And if you know he sent a letter to Shoshana Carden the president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations apologizing for any any inference because I think George Bush has a foreign policy approach I think we have our share of bigots in this country who will seize on this kind of an issue and I hope George Bush learned his lesson. I'll grab one more caller real quick lie number one. Hello. Yes the conference on the peace talks I think will be futile until they come to an agreement allocating water right. Israel is now drawing a major water act for which

lies underneath the West Bank. They don't want to lose control. The Palestinians have had access to water but they've had it curtailed and they want it back again. Israeli interests live on the water. Well let me just answer you by saying that there's only one nation in the Middle East which refused to come to talks relating to water and that was the Syrians. But if there is going to be peace in the Middle East the Syrians have to be a part of this. And there's no doubt in my mind that the question of the water which flows in the Jordan River meaning from the Golan Heights from the dawn on the bonniest is what's really critical. The Palestinians have concerns about water. There is no question about it. Those issues have to be addressed in the Peace Conference and I believe that it would be very constructive if the Syrians would join the Palestinians in discussions on these regional issues. I think that's the only way to make progress believe me the water on the West Bank is nothing nothing compared to

the water that's affected by the Jordan River. And I might add if you travel in the areas I have no one is without water and no one is unable to to drink water and fertilizer to take care of their land. That's not the issue. And I think that we've got to address the regional issues and I hope that as the peace talks reconvene after June 23rd that these regional questions will be addressed. OK well I think that there is where we have to leave it because here we are at the end of the time I want to thank you very much as. Boys are an absolute delight and I can only say that I hope when next time here rather than conflict in war that we are going to have real peace and I am only sorry I'm not going to be able listened 11:00 tomorrow to your broadcast with a Jordanian representative but I want to thank you David it's always a pleasure to be with you. Thanks very much John Rothman is a political and foreign policy consultant specializing in the Middle East among other things and for people here in Bloomington Indiana he's going to be there tonight. I'm speaking there tonight. And if you call the local Hill Well they will be able to tell you where can I pick this up in Bloomington. Yeah I think so. Then you know what I'm going to try to

listen to Mark a little clock. Thanks David. It is up next she's the host of our afternoon magazine and she will be with you for the rest of the afternoon will you be doing at 1:00 today. Well today we'll be joined by Thomas Lazio He's the chancellor of the Board of Governors system here in Illinois. And on Monday we had talked with state represent.