The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Peace in the Middle East

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. This is the first year in a long time when the Christmas season message of Peace on, Earth coming out of the Holy, Land didn`t sound like a mockery of reality. It`s true there are reports of fresh fighting today between factions in the Lebanon, but in the Middle East generally the month of December has been filled with what many observers, consider very positive signs. Tonight we want to examine what those signs add up to in terms" of prospects for an end to thirty years of sporadic war between Israel and her Arab neighbors. In particular, what are the prospects for Israel, the Arabs, the Palestinians and the superpowers getting together in a new Geneva Conference? The most recent development came yesterday from Syria, where it was reported that a twenty-three year restriction on travel for Syrian Jews has been lifted. The move was described by Egypt; as a new step in the coordinated Syrian-Egyptian peace offensive for a negotiated settlement with Israel. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, as you said, the Syrian development is only the latest of many that have occurred this month, starting off with December 2 at the U.N., where both Israel and Egypt called for a re convening of the Geneva Conference, which hadn`t met in three years. On December 14, the Palestine Liberation Organization for the first time in history endorsed the concept of an independent Palestinian state, which implies co-existence with the separate Jewish state of Israel. The next day, December l5, Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres said he expects meaningful negotiations in the second half of next year. And last week, on December 21, Egypt and Syria announced the formation of a united political leadership to coordinate their strategy at Geneva. Of course, all of this optimism was jarred a week ago by the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Robin There seems to be little agreement whether the present Israeli cabinet crisis will speed or hinder negotiations, but the present labored caretaker government insists that negotiations can and must go forward quickly. Robin?

MacNEIL: What has to be settled is just how much of the territory` occupied since the,1967 war Israel is willing to restore to the Arabs, and how far will the Arabs go in return in recognizing Israel`s right to exist. The largest populated piece of occupied territory is, of course, the Jordanian West Bank, and this, along with the Gaza Strip, .is being spoken of as the basis of a new, independent Palestinian state. The PLO described its own endorsement of statehood as a watershed in ` Palestinian politics. With us tonight are two men, an Israeli and a Palestinian-born American who have been studying the question of statehood for three years. With me in New York is Joseph Den-Dak, Senior Scientific Advisor to the University of Haifa and visiting .`Professor of Peace Studies at the School for International Training at Brattleboro, Vermont. With Jim Lehrer in Washington is George Assousa, Professor of Physics at the Carnegie Institution of Washington., Dr. Assousa was born in Jerusalem to a Palestinian family and became a .refugee at the age of twelve. They are both co-founders of the Foundation for Arab-Israeli. Reconciliation -- its acronym is "FAIR" -- which they describe as the largest group of Arabs and Israelis currently working together on problems of co-existence in the Middle. East. Starting with you, Dr. Ben-Dak, do all these things that we`ve mentioned happening in December justify optimism about serious peace negotiations happening this year?

JOSEPH BEN-DAK: They do justify some sort of optimism. I would define that as a very cautious optimism; an optimism in the sense that the direction is very clear -- it`s a direction towards ` peace, towards more motions of co- existence being legitimized both by the Israelis and by the Palestinians, and especially by Arab countries-- particularly I`m talking about Syria and Egypt -- that in the past have had difficulty in coming to terms with such a possibility. The key achievement that has been achieved is the legitimacy of co-existence as notions that people can talk about openly, leaders included, not only minorities. And I`m not sure that the specifics of the legitimacy are very clear, but the whole train is towards legitimating co- existence.

MacNEIL: Dr. Assousa in Washington, do you see all these trends and strands that we`ve talked about in September pointing .in the same direction, and do you think they justify optimism?

GEORGE ASSOUSA: I agree with my colleague that one has to look at this with some caution -- optimism but, I think, a fair amount of caution -- because it has to be looked at against the background of Lebanon, which has sort of been ignored as a major source of potential problems in the future as it has been in the past. So I would say that we are approaching, I think, the whole new concept of co-existence cautiously; and it has been very interesting to see the rapid changes, the rapid changes in alignments between countries, the changes of positions, and I think all of them have been leading to-wards a very quick zeroing-in on discussions towards co- existence. So I agree with him, but I`m very cautiously optimistic.

MacNEIL: Let`s take up this question of the Lebanon first, and .get it out of. the way, if we can get it out of the way. There were reports today that there`s new fighting in the south of the Lebanon between rightist Christian forces and leftist Lebanese forces and, Palestinians, who apparently resent being disarmed of their heavy artillery by the Syrian peacekeeping force, which has not moved into the south because the Israelis don`t want it in the south near their border. Now should we take this in the same context and think this is a threat to these other trends we`ve been talking about?

BEN-DAK: I think when Kissinger and others have talked about interdependence -- and usually it was conceived in a positive way-it has also its negative spillover. When we talk about south Lebanon ,or; `we talk about north Israel we are really talking about the same region. And you cannot separate what happens in south Lebanon, because it`s reported about in Egypt from Egypt, or, for that matter, in Syria. Now, I think that every attempt towards reconciliation that is successful in Lebanon can have a positive effect on what will happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as every failure can give more force and more reinforcement to negative feelings and expectation and some think wars will happen between Arabs and Israelis.

MacNEIL: Dr. Assousa, how do you see the current Lebanese situation as affecting the possibilities of negotiations?

ASSOUSA: I think it`s really immediately crucial; I think that it has been looked at as a sideshow, and I think it has been just the opposite. Lebanon is a very crucial arena where many of the developments have taken place, and I think remains a crucial problem to resolve. Where in the past the discussions have centered on Israel and the Palestinians, I think it`s very important. to note that today there can be no resolution for the Israel- Palestine confrontation without.` the inclusion of Lebanon, and therefore I see that a comprehensive solution which leads to a lasting settlement must include in it very importantly Lebanon and the future of Lebanon ... and in so doing, I, think, must consider Lebanon` as a crucial component.

MacNEIL: All right. Can we go over some of the things that Jim just recited as having happened in December and get your Idea of the significance of them as affecting the possibility of some movement towards peace negotiations; from the Israeli point of view, first of all, how will Rabin`s resignation affect the possibility of negotiations, positively or negatively -- was it designed for that, or was it for other reasons; what do you feel?

BEN-DA K: is it possible to move a little bit aside from the is- , sue before we focus on it? There is a sub-issue here. Let`s consider, for instance, the Palestinian problem in south Lebanon the way we just described. There is today within the Palestinian camp a criticism of the fact that Palestinian leaders have got involved in the war in Lebanon. An increasing number of Palestinians feel that if Palestinian leadership had got away from the problem altogether and let the Lebanese situation settle itself they would have never got involved on one side or the other.

MacNEIL.: You`re talking, presumably, about the Palestinians who live on the West Bank of the Jordan, or...

BEN-DAK: No, I`m talking about the Lebanese situation. I`m strictly speaking about (unintelligible) because what I`m trying to emphasize in the thinking that George Assousa and myself have been trying for a while to crystallize, the interdependence we just talked about is coming down to the falling fact: if Palestinians in Lebanon would have not been involved in the war in Lebanon, or in the conflict, and stayed away from it, the situation in Lebanon could have ended very differently from the bloody war that has happened there. I don`t think the conflict would have been resolved easily, but the bloodshed was not necessary, and the Palestinians` addition to that conflict would have been Very serious. The reason I talk about it, when you asked me the question about Prime Minister Peres is that precisely the nature of Peres. resignation is not clear.

MacNEIL: Rabin`s.

BEN-LAK:I`m sorry ...Rabin.

MacNEIL: You`re looking ahead a little bit.-- Rabin`s resignation.

BEN-DA K: Yes.(Laughing.) Rabin`a resignation is not clear, But the issue here, the issue at point that I think we have to crystallize here is that it will have effect, definitely and one has to look at the contingencies and assume that it will have effect and they look farther. I can suggest some contingencies, but I`m sure my friend could also look at it.

MacNEIL: Can I ask two simple questions? Rabin resigned after having pushed the national religious party, which was opposed to concessions that might have been involved- in the peace negotiations out of his government -- coalition government; will their being out of the government make it easier for him to lead the country now or after elections towards negotiations than it would have been before?

BEN-DAK: It definitely will give the government an easy time ahead because once defined as resigned -- in other words, it`s a curtailed government -- it will not have the normal taboos, the normal behavior constraints that the regular government has. So the government will be able to move more smoothly towards the next period.

MacNEIL:. Dr. Assousa, moving along, can you explain - why has the Palestine Liberation Organization suddenly apparently shifted its line on the possibility of a Palestinian state without mentioning as they always have in the past, a secular state, which presumably meant the disappearance of Israel?

ASSOUSA: Your question, I think, is a very interesting one be cause it points to the fact that we are not always aware of the subtleties of the dynamics of, what`s happening in the Middle East. The Palestinians have been taking about the possibility of a Palestinian state for quite some time , as a matter of fact, as early as the early occupation of the West Bank. More recently, since the `73 war there were some very serious discussions in the executive committee of the PLO on the question of the acceptability of the West Bank and soon thereafter, as you recall, it was the Rejection Front that came, against the idea of accepting such a possibility.

MacNEIL : That`s one of the splinter groups of the Palestinians...of the PLO.

ASSOUSA: Yes, that`s correct. So the Palestinians have beer talking about the idea of a West Bank state for quite some time; but suddenly, I think, now, and against the background of Lebanon, aga, the being completely with their backs against the wall the whole question of a Palestinian state becomes acceptable. So I think we must see that, again, as part of a progression which I think is very helpful and certainly encourage us to think-that a co-existence possibility -- the kinds of things that we have talked about for the last three years -- might be coming about. I think, however, that one must realize that it`s not so much the idea of a state that is important; a state can be set up, it can be in the West Bank, in Ga; it can connect with a corridor, it can take on many other forms: It is important, I think, is the-process leading to the formation of state and the role that individuals and countries play in its; reaction.

MacNEIL: Dr. Assousa, we`ll come in a few moments to disco the possibilities of a Palestinian state more exhaustively. Can just now ask you, going through these various things that have been happening, your opinion on what`s, behind the Syrian-Egyptian move toward some sort of unified approach on foreign policy? Many Israelis are calling this so- called peace offensive a public relations operation on the part of Syria and Egypt; what do you think is behind it?

ASSOUSA: It`s very hard to describe it; I don`t know whether my colleague, Joseph Hen-Dak, would agree, but it seems to me that Assad and Sadat arrived at the airport together and they`re taking the same cab. It`s very difficult to know how far they will ride, and I exactly would phrase it that way. I don`t know exactly how long this relationship will last, but I think it`s very positive if it can aid in coordinating the peace initiatives that are sprouting. I don`t think one should minimize any initiatives; right now what we need is more such possible peace initiatives, rather than deny them.

MacNEIL: Dr. Ben-Dak, as an Israeli, do you see it as a positive sign?

BEN-DAK: I see two sides to it -- the negative side is that many times before, explicitly, six times, has Egypt and Syria decided on some form of confederation; it didn`t work before., That`s the negative side. In other words, if. you were pessimistic you could say you could expect another failure. But I take, actually, the position that Dr. Assousa had, and that`s look at the positive side. One of the most interesting signals that I see in this confederation, or notion of unity is the fact that specific mandates have been commissioned to committees to study the process of unification. Not too many drastic statements were made about the notion-of unity; not any promise was made that leaders cannot actually actualize. That is important; it may sound obvious or expected but it`s the first time I see that approach in...

MacNEIL: But viscerally, would Israelis see it as something to fear or as something hopeful? In other words, as heading towards peace, or heading towards war?

BEN-DAK: Like to .a (unintelligible), at least, I represent only my own opinion; I do not try, nor would I like, to represent the Israeli government`s point of view, nor would they like to have me represent them. But on the question of unity you indicated before, in the indications, that, Syria has just done something good with regard to the Syrian Jewry. Emotionally, I feel they should have done that long ago, but the fact is, regardless of when they have done it, they have done it. So I look at as a positive side. I think that currently the shift in Syria is more positively inclined to get involved in some positive peace situation in the Middle East. I can say easily the same thing for Sadat. He`s the first leader in the Arab world that has committed himself to some notion of reconstruction and a positive co-existence with Israel.

MacNEIL: Okay. Jim, I guess what these two gentlemen are saying is that the signs of the last month add up to some thing vaguely positive.

LEHRER: Yes, and let`s follow that and see where we go from there.. Obviously, most of the attention now is on a Geneva Conference. Is a Geneva Conference now Inevitable, Dr. Assousa?

ASSOUSA: Geneva is a town in Switzerland and one can go there frequently.

LEHRER: No kidding. (Laughing.)

ASSOUSA: I think we tend to focus on places, land delineation`s and so on. I think what; is crucial is not just to look at it as Geneva, as the goal, but again...

LEHRER: Everybody`s saying we`re going to have a -- everybody`s in. favor of a conference at Geneva, etcetera, etcetera...

ASSOUSA: A Geneva Conference is an excellent idea if` the agenda of the conference is appropriate, and if the preparations for the conference would include not only what we see happening in the next year or two for the region, but if it actually articulates beforehand a long-range vision of what the relationship of states in that region will look like. I think anything short of that will make Geneva an exercise in putting out fires rather than being the mechanism for creating peace in the region.

LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Dr. Hen-Dak?

BEN-DARK: Actually, I agree completely, but I want to emphasize the fact that I `think that while I`m very positive about the general trend in leaderships in the Arab world today, I think that it`s very clear that people are more and more talking about legitimacy of peace, the specifics of peace are not clear. The specific of peace are totally out of any perception right now with regard to Geneva. I don`t see any chance to achieve something concrete for the people in the Middle East by going to a Geneva in which an outline of peace has, not been studied carefully before, not only by leaders but by the peoples in the various countries.

LEHRER : Well, then, why is everybody saying, "Let`s go to Geneva"? That`s supposed to be in the wind.

BEN-DAK: (Laughing.) ;I believe that in international relations this country, like many other countries, are very much in the dark. It`s extremely clear than many international relations are not understood in their complexity; people do not like to understand their, complexity, they like to shy away. And the suggestion of Geneva provides people with some headline, especially people that write in the press. I should think that your program is one of the very few places in America that one can see an intelligent analysis of news.

MacNEIL: Could you elaborate on that a little bit?.

ALL : (Laughing.)

LEHRER: But gentlemen wait a minute now...

BEN-DAK: Let us elaborate on that, and see what I mean, maybe, no? I can explain that in one sentence. We`ve been on several television shows before, we had many interviews with the press. We tried to explain Geneva to people. It `s very clear that the whole notion has to be explained in one sentence; there`s no process involved.

LEHRER: All right, but what I`m asking -- maybe I`m not asking it very well, let me try one final time -- what has caused everybody to say. "Let`s have a big conference"? All sides are now saying, "Okay, let`s go talk in Geneva," and it seems to be they`re saying they don`t want, maybe, the shuttle diplomacy, the step-by-step thing of Kissinger, or that type of thing. Let`s all go have a `big meeting; we`re going to work this out. My question is, what has caused everybody now to say, "Let`s do this ?

ASSOUSA:I will make an attempt to answer it in the way you asked it. It`s quite clear that given the fact that everyone, is positively inclined towards discussions, towards moving towards coexistence, it seems very natural that there would be a forum where these ideas would be discussed; and so I think it`s natural to think about. a large-scale meeting. But if you`ve ever been to a large-scale meeting, you know that that`s not where things actually happen., It`s in the back rooms.

LEHRER: Right. But, look, both of you are saying that a meeting in Geneva is meaningless unless there are a lot of things that are actually worked out before Geneva; what do you think are some essential things?` Does the PLO thing have to be worked out before anything meaningful could happen in Geneva, for instance? What do you think, Mr. Ben-Dak?

BEN-DA K:I don`t want to sound insistent or arrogant or obnoxious, but I guess I will...

LEHRER: That`s my role.

BEN-DAK:(Laughing.) `In order to go to an international conference and get something- concrete achieved, like in the Middle East, one has to expect something-which is defined in such a way that every side will have something to gain. Now, I don`t see at the moment much that can be achieved in lack of basic infrastructure for peace in the Middle East, except that there can be a step-by-step movement between the major parties.--that is, the countries, the states towards solution. They are what George Assousa and myself have been focusing on -- the Palestinian issue; the crux of the matter, still, in my opinion, psychologically if not in any other way, is still far, from becoming a reality that one can deal with and say, "This can be expected." For instance, I can give you one outline, for example, for what Geneva can be based on and show you that it doesn`t exist. Step one, a decision to go to some sort of confederation of economic relationships between Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon that can get the whole, area into some sort of economic activity...

MacNEIL: A kind of Middle Eastern Common Market, you mean?

HEN-DAK: Exactly -- Middle East `Common Market -- that is highly talked about in the press. No mention of it.` No way to discuss it seriously with any press people in this country, for instance. Step two, after this confederation is a growing entity, to see how the Palestinian public, which is diffused through the region -- there are Palestinians in Lebanon, there are Palestinians in Jordan, there are Palestinians in Syria, there are Palestinians, in Egypt, for that matter, and of course, there are Palestinians in the West Bank -- solve the problems in the whole region. And if you have economic activity and economic cooperation between the states, you can also talk about the Palestinian solution. Then, step three is really to talk about positive peace -- peace in which interdependence will be translated to a language of people really able to see each other as natural people, not enemies, and not any more with -the suspicions that have been dividing in the past.

MacNEIL: What you`re really saying is that it`s far too early for a Geneva Conference, that although there seems to be this sort of momentum towards one-there`s another year or two of preparation before one could be effective...

BEN-DAK: At leash one year.

MacNEIL:. One year or two?

BEN-DAK: At least one. I`m not suggesting that what I just said is the only base.; I obviously think it`s a good base. But the fact is, let`s look at the news, for instance, let`s see what people are saying today with regard to peace in the Middle East. Everybody`s looking for the bombastic event that is going to bring peace. Kissinger supplied it when he had been traveling around with the shuttle diplomacy, and all the people running after him. That is good, and it`s very useful." for people to get interested in international relations; but it does` not ring peace to the Middle East.

MacNEIL: How feasible is the idea of a Palestinian state which would comprise the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Dr, Assousa? ASSOUSA: If you look at the map of the state, as we did in the early part, it`s clear that we`re talking about two pieces -the West Bank and Gaza -- with a strip of land which constitutes Israel running all the way down to the Gulf of Aqaba. So if you talk about the formation of a state of that kind you obviously must interconnect the Gaza Strip with the West Bank`. So from the very be ginning you`re already putting in fragile connecting points which will, make the state less desirable as it`s formed in this way.

MacNEIL:. As well as cutting Israel in two.

ASSOUSA: As well as cutting Israel in two; so that to just say, "Now we will create a state made up of these two pieces with a slide between them," I think is not realistic. I will go back to what Dr. Ben-Dak just mentioned, and again refer to the fact that if you want to create a state, you have to create the state within the context of what happens around it you must be a partner within the unity of states, which includes Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Israel. So that you would not really have to have that corridor, that the relationship between the states, between Israel and the West Bank, will be of such a nature that a corridor would not be necessary. And I ,think that if we pre-empt that actually happening, preparing in order for that to happen we will be creating a state which will not be able to survive, either economically because of isolation, or politically and for many other reasons. But I think it`s very clear that a region for the Palestinians must be created there.

MacNEIL: What do you think, Dr. Ben-Dak? And can I couple another thought with it -- why should Israelis be sure that the Palestinians weren`t, as has seemed so often in the past, wanting this as a first step; they`d get a state and then use that as a jumping-off point for a further sort of campaign against Israel once that were established?

BEN-DAK: That is a very good point. Let`s look at it this way: Palestinians today do not have, in my opinion, a leadership that can take them to a place of peace. That is to say, the fact that you give territory to the Palestinians and you let them have a place they call call their own -- which theoretically looks exceptionally good and morally looks right -- is not going to happen right now, regardless whether I like it, or George likes it, or all of us like it. The reason for that is because there are meddling of powers in the Middle East today. I`m talking particularly about the Soviet Union. Three is no way a Palestinian state can be established tomorrow, in two weeks or in a year from now. If a Palestinian state is established right now-it will be a case in which you have, actually, a rational possibility of involving the Middle East. I want to prepare a suggestion where this will not be possible.

MacNEIL: All right. We have just a few seconds and I just wanted to ask each of you, are we then exaggerating the optimism that should flow out of recent developments? Dr. Assousa, in a word.

ASSOUSA: No, I don`t think we`re exaggerating, and I see some good signs coming, even from the United States; I see the election of...

BEN--DAK: If we focus on confederation, there is optimism; if we focus only on a Palestinian state or one-sentence topics we will never get anywhere.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, you said at the beginning that you had cautious optimism. It would seem to me, just in the course of this program, you`ve emphasized the caution rather than the optimism.

MacNEIL: We`re out of time, Jim. Thanks very much; good night. Thank you, Dr. Assousa, and thank you, Dr. Ben-Dak. We`ll be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil, Good night.