Summer 1997
- There is a Solid Majority For the Peace Process
by Thomas Friedman
Middle East and American
Leaders
Address 400 People in Public Forum
on the Peace Process
Keynote addresses delivered by James Baker and
Thomas Friedman;
Panel discussions led by Arab and Israeli Diplomats
More than 400 people crowded into the grand ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel for the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation's Retrospective on the Peace Process in Washington, D.C. on December 5, 1996. The Retrospective included presentations and panel discussions featuring 14 leading diplomats from the Middle East and United States. The sessions set out to broaden public awareness of the complexities in the Middle East peace process and build support for its continuation. The President of the Center Wayne Owens articulated the Retrospective's vision when he stated, "At a time when the future of the peace process seems less than certain, we want to re-examine what has worked in the past and explore the possibilities for advancing the process beyond the current deadlock."
Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker opened the Retrospective by urging both Israelis and Palestinians to adopt a pragmatic view of the process and work together to move forward with negotiations. Mr. Baker called for active American involvement in the peace process and stated, "when we [the U.S.] are willing to act as a real, honest broker in the Middle East, the prospects for peace have always been enhanced."
The Retrospective's first panel discussion was entitled "Oslo and Jordan: How and Why These Negotiations Worked." The panel featured Yossi Beilin, Member of Knesset; Uri Savir, former Chief Israeli Negotiator for the Palestinian and Syrian Tracks; Fayez Al-Tarawneh, former Jordanian Ambassador to the United States and recently appointed Foreign Minister; Mohammed Rashid, Chief Economic Advisor to Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat; and Yossi Genosar, former liaison between Israeli Prime Ministers Rabin and Peres and PA President Arafat. The panel members delivered thoughtful presentations and widely agreed that a general mistrust between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders lies at the core of the negotiating crises.
Both Mr. Beilin and Mr. Savir emphasized how an incremental approach had allowed all parties to gain confidence in the process and build momentum to tackle more difficult issues that had been set aside temporarily. Mr. Tarawneh elaborated on this theme, explaining that teams of negotiators were able to discuss a variety of issues simultaneously and draft agreements, culminating in the direct involvement between leaders to bridge over certain political issues. Mr. Rashid and Mr. Genosar focused their remarks on the chemistry between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders - namely the relationships between Rabin, Peres and Arafat. Mr. Rashid and Mr. Genosar agreed that the leaders were able to build trust between their peoples because they had full confidence that each was acting in good faith.
The second panel, "The Syrian-Israeli Negotiations: Could They Have Worked?" was moderated by Stephen Cohen, Vice Chairman of the Center. Professor Alon Ben-Meir of New York University and Uri Savir were the panels' speakers. Both speakers agreed that the U.S. has an essential role to play in facilitating a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. Mr. Ben-Meir emphasized the psychological jump Israelis and Syrians must make to achieve peace. That is, Israelis must accept that full withdrawal is a necessary condition for peace, and the Syrians must recognize that full withdrawal will only take place if Syria establishes complete normalization of ties with Israel. Mr. Savir gave his perspective of the Syrian-Israeli discussions at the Wye Plantation, and emphasized the progress that was made. Mr. Savir noted that peace between Israel and Syria would fundamentally change the Middle East. He felt that many obstacles which prevented peace between the two countries had been overcome at Wye, however he stated that the parties could not make peace at Wye because Israel did not receive the answer it sought from Syria regarding the deployment of Syrian troops on the Golan.
Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times, was the keynote speaker at the Retrospective's luncheon. In a gripping speech, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist outlined a series of several questions which he suggested collectively held the answers to understanding the future of the peace process. He concluded his remarks by urging Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to be the voice of reality for the parties in the Middle East. Although this may hurt her popularity in the short run - as it did to Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, and James Baker - it is necessary in order to achieve the goal of the millions of Israelis and Arabs who want peace.
Following lunch, Mr. Owens moderated a fascinating panel entitled "Regional Economic and Political Cooperation." The members of the panel were Osama El-Baz, Egyptian Senior Undersecretary of State; Ahmed Abdel Rahman, General Secretary of the Palestinian Authority Cabinet; and Fayez Al-Tarawneh. Each speaker emphasized the critical link between peace and regional economic development.
Mr. El-Baz argued that the political and economic tracks ought to be pursued simultaneously. According to Mr. El-Baz, economic ties between parties serve as a strong basis for long term peace and stability. Mr. Tarawneh agreed with Mr. El-Baz's analysis and offered an additional comment on the need for the perception that the peace process is moving forward. He stated that in order to attract the private sector to invest in the process, businesspeople must have reason to believe the process will succeed. Until they reach that point, they will be reluctant to invest. Mr. Rahman continued the theme and spoke about the specific need to provide economic assistance to the Palestinian people. He noted that a final status arrangement must include a Palestinian state which is capable of sustaining itself economically.
U.S. Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross provided a break between panels with some remarks about the peace process. Ambassador Ross gave an interesting chronology of events since the signing of the Declaration of Principles in an effort to demonstrate the durability of the process. He pointed out the strong desire of the vast majority of people in the region for peace. Consequently, the peace process has sustained numerous challenges and crises. Ambassador Ross reiterated the American commitment to promoting and protecting the peace process. He emphasized, however, that the parties to the conflict must want and seek peace. The Ambassador expressed optimism that this is the case, and the Clinton Administration recognizes the vital role it must play.
Mr. El-Baz moderated the Retrospective's final panel discussion, "Permanent Status and Comprehensive Regional Security." The panel's participants included Yossi Beilin; PLO Executive Committee Member As'ad Abdul Rahman; Israeli Foreign Policy Advisor Dore Gold; and Alon Ben-Meir.
The discussion focused on the issue of achieving a final status peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. Mr. El-Baz introduced the session with an explanation of how Israelis and Palestinians arrived at the two stage formula in the Oslo process. He stated that the authors of Oslo recognized there existed too many obstacles to achieve an immediate solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, feasible challenges - such as limited Palestinian self-government in Arab population centers - would be met immediately. More complicated issues - such as Palestinian statehood, Jerusalem, and refugees - would be relegated to final status talks.
Mr. Beilin discussed the serious obstacles facing negotiators and the final status talks. He acknowledged the difficult challenges ahead, yet proposed several promising solutions for even the most complex problems. Mr. Rahman concurred with Mr. Beilin's analysis and appealed to all parties to set aside previous prejudices in order to arrive at peace. Following Mr. Rahman's remarks, Mr. Gold joined the group by teleconference and stated the Netanyahu government's commitment to implementing all the agreements reached by the preceding Labor government.
After nine consecutive hours of discussion and analysis, the Center's Chairman S. Daniel Abraham concluded the Retrospective. He called it an extraordinary day and expressed his hope that the leaders assembled at the Retrospective would leave with more tools to make peace a reality.
A letter from Daniel Abraham and Wayne Owens Dear Friends: Recent events in the Middle East have provided cause for concern and reflection. We are deeply saddened by the loss of our close friend and mentor, Chaim Herzog, who passed away on April 17. Our last opportunity to see President Herzog was in December when he presided at the celebration for the opening of our new offices. His friendship has played an important part in our lives and he will be sorely missed by all who knew him. Our thoughts are with President Herzog's family and friends. Currently, the Middle East peace process is at a critical point. Recent events in Israel and the Palestinian autonomous areas have resulted in a dangerously deep rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Although the peace process has survived several challenges since the historic signing of the Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993, it presently faces a serious crisis that has derailed the progress which had been made in the January Hebron agreement. For the last eight years, the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation has sought to bring all parties together and help provide the conditions for a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the present atmosphere of heightened tension, the Center has intensified its activities and added some new people to our team. We are proud to announce that Sara Ehrman has joined the Center as our Senior Advisor. A close friend of 25 years, Sara has served as a valued advisor to President and Mrs. Clinton on the American Jewish community. Sara has also played a leading role in promoting peace in the Middle East. We are thrilled to have her aboard. We are also very pleased that Dr. Stephen Cohen has rejoined the Center as Vice Chairman. Steve is the President of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development. As we continue to seek creative breakthroughs in the Middle East, Steve's expertise is a vital asset to the Center. Finally, we would like to announce our new Executive Director, Jim Gerstein, who joins us after working at the Democratic National Committee and recently spending two years studying for his M.A. in Middle East History at Tel Aviv University. We thank Scott Goldstein for his hard work as the Center's Executive Director during the last two years and wish him the best in his future endeavors. During the past several weeks, the Center has been quite active as we attempt to facilitate a better understanding of the conflict in the Middle East. Some of our recent activities included participating with a group of Jewish community leaders who met with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; hosting a meeting with Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani and American business leaders; and meeting with Members of Congress who seek to advance the peace process. In the upcoming months, we will be traveling to the Middle East with several Members of Congress. These fact finding missions have been quite beneficial in the past, and we expect to return from the region and share fresh ideas for moving forward with the peace process. The challenges facing us are quite difficult, however we know that the people in the region truly want peace, and the Center continues to work closely with the private sector to provide the conditions that will strengthen the peace process. We are certain that these efforts play a critical role in achieving peace. In this issue of Centerpeace, you will find some excerpts from speakers at our Retrospective on the Peace Process held in Washington. We would also like to draw your attention to the end of the newsletter where we honor the memory of Chaim Herzog. Sincerely,
|
| The United States Must Remain Fully Engaged in the Peace Process |
Excerpts from From Secretary of State James
Baker's Address
to the Retrospective on the Peace Process
As we move now into the second term of the Clinton Administration, one of the questions that has to be answered is, "To what extent will the United States remain fully engaged in the Middle East or in the Middle East peace process?"
In the last five years perceptions of what is possible have changed fundamentally. Really, who would have thought five years ago that we would be today where we are with the kind of progress that has been made. We can no longer dismiss hopes for a comprehensive peace in the region as simply a pipe dream. Obviously, we cannot ignore the frequent clashes, we cannot ignore the terrorist attacks, and we cannot ignore all of the bloodshed that still accompanies events in the Middle East.
What is surprising, and what we are sometimes too inclined to forget, is that there are any Israeli-Arab agreements at all. If the institutions of peace are still lacking, and I think they largely are, there has at least been for five years, an agreement to try and forge those institutions.
Now that's the good news. The bad news is the current sad state of the peace process and the setbacks that we have seen since the change of government in Israel - a government that was elected quite properly on a platform of security. But I think everyone would agree that there is never going to be any real long-term security for Israel without peace, and peace, of course, has many powerful enemies.
Yet we should not forget that because of Madrid, because of the Oslo agreements, the true conflict in the Middle East today is not what it once was just a few years ago. The true conflict in the Middle East today is no longer really between Arabs and Israelis. It is between moderates and extremists on both sides of the equation.
Today, the peace process stands at a critical crossroads. It can move forward or it can retrogress. There is no neutral gear in the Middle East. Either there is hope for peace and progress toward peace, or there is going to be violence on the ground.
The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are in serious straits. To move forward is going to require greater commitments on all sides than we have seen, including a greater commitment by the United States of America. Especially crucial to peace on the ground is the implementation of economic measures from Oslo I and II that would alleviate the dismal standard of living in Gaza and in the West Bank.
Since the 1993 accords, Palestinians have seen their per capita income fall as Israel's climbs, leaving the average Palestinian with one-sixth of the annual income of the average Israeli. The unemployment rate in Gaza today, I am told, is close to 50 percent, 35 percent in the West Bank, and only seven percent in Israel.
It is extremely important for the parties to move beyond today's crises and to focus on substance and not on symbols. Don't let symbols get in the way of substance. But that is very hard to do when there is absolutely no trust at all between the two sides. And that is the single most important missing ingredient today.
The opening of the tunnel paralleling the temple mount was simply a match that lit the tinder. The tinder accumulated when Prime Minister Netanyahu, who at that point had little experience at the highest level of government, didn't moderate his campaign rhetoric quickly enough after becoming Prime Minister. We all know it is one thing to campaign. It is quite something else to govern.
In addition, there was a refusal to even meet with President Arafat for over 100 days. There was also the adoption of a rather aggressive new policy regarding settlements, which create facts on the ground. To some extent there was also an abandonment of some of the commitments - particularly the oral commitments - of the previous Labor government involving redeployment from Hebron and other issues.
When all of this happened the Israeli government was the subject of a flood of protest, both at home and abroad. The Prime Minister was widely seen to have badly miscalculated, and Palestinians, at that particular moment, held a political and public relations high ground.
But then something terrible happened. What happened was that Palestinian security forces used weapons that had been given to them by Israel to kill Israeli soldiers - something that President Arafat should never have let happen if he were in control. And if he wasn't, he should have been.
Now, at some point, I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to have to decide in his own mind what he wants to be his legacy. Does he want to be remembered as the Prime Minister of Israel who brought her a secure peace with all of her neighbors, who ended her status as a nation perpetually at war? Or, does he want to be remembered as the Prime Minister of Israel on whose watch the peace process died?
I hope that he is going to want the former legacy. And frankly, I believe he is going to want the former legacy. Unfortunately, we see a cessation of progress toward peace, and we see a diminution of hopes for peace. Until that situation is reversed, let us all hope and pray that the dangers of a military miscalculation are avoided.
The United States simply must not shrink from its historic role. When we are willing to act as a real honest broker in the Middle East, the prospects for peace have always been enhanced. This is the role that President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger played in the disengagement agreements of 1973, that President Carter and Secretary Vance played in the Camp David accords in 1979, and that President Bush and I played in Madrid in 1991.
It is precisely this spirit of Madrid that the United States must seek to rekindle. It is a spirit of cooperation, not confrontation. It is a spirit of realism, not radicalism. And it is a spirit of hope and not despair.
| There is a Solid Majority For the Peace Process |
Excerpts from New York Times Foreign Affairs
Columnist
Thomas Friedman's Address to the Retrospective on the Peace process
I'd like to give you the questions that I believe hold the answers for where this peace process is going, and where the Middle East is going.
To me, question number one, and the most important question, bar none, is the question of will the handshake be restored? And, when I say the handshake, I'm talking about the very difficult, very hard, almost tortuous handshake that was forged between Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat as a result of Oslo I and Oslo II.
To me, that handshake is really the key to everything. What those three men agreed to was that none of us can succeed unless the other succeeds, and that this process is heading toward a two-state solution.
The handshake based on those two principles has really been the foundation of this whole peace process. The most fundamental and important thing that has happened in the last six months is the breakdown of that handshake. Without that handshake being restored, there are not enough words in the Oxford English dictionary to write a Hebron agreement, or a further redeployment agreement, or a final status agreement.
I believe the real story in the Middle East since Arafat and Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn has been the silence with which the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians accepted that handshake, and wanted to see it nurtured and furthered. And, to me, that silence of that silent majority is still the operative political element at the center of this story. Never, ever lose sight of that. There is a majority for a peace process.
Now, we don't all agree on what the contours are. We don't all agree where the final line shall be. But have no illusions. There is a solid majority for this process.
I call it the seventy percent solution. If you follow the polls in Israel, you will notice that the answer to every important poll is seventy percent. How many people believed that Prime Minister Netanyahu should meet with Yasser Arafat before he agreed to meet with Yasser Arafat? Seventy percent. How many people thought that it was good that Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Yasser Arafat? Seventy percent. How many people want to see the peace process proceed? Seventy percent. There is a solid majority for this process. And I believe that they are still out there.
Another question: where is Prime Minister Netanyahu? Does he believe a Palestinian state is inevitable, and the only question is where the lines are, or, does he truly believe that the Arabs still want to destroy Israel?
Israel's position, will depend, in part, on the answer to the question what is a Jew? Not who is a Jew, but what is a Jew. That's the much more important question now being wrestled with inside Israel. I think the most important thing going on in the world is this phenomenon we call globalization. It is the integration of markets, of information, of technology, and of finance. It is the knitting together of a global village. To me, the most important thing about the last Israeli election was the way this backlash against globalization got fed into the politics. I fundamentally believe that a lot of traditional orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews fear that, if Israel assimilates with the Arab world, it will be the end of Israel's Jewish identity. There is a crying need for someone in the middle to define what is a Jew. Otherwise, it's going to be very hard to build the internal support for this whole deal.
My next question is how will this play out in the Arab world? The Arab world's ability to embrace this peace process politically and openly is also going to be affected by the backlash against secularism and globalism. People will attack the legitimacy of a regime that they're alienated from economically or culturally, and the club they will use is the peace process.
Therefore, how these countries get from here to there, from being outside the global economy to inside it, without melting down inside, without imploding, is going to have a huge and fundamental impact on the speed and the openness with which they will be able to embrace this peace process.
Another question is what will the Syrian role be in all of this? I do not subscribe to the school that says Hafez Assad missed the boat in dealing with Rabin and Peres when he had them. I think Assad truly believes that there is no difference between Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and Benjamin Netanyahu.
I think he is asking himself two questions: "If I move ahead with this process, what will it mean for my domestic base of support and for internal stability?" And, "can I continue to lead the Arab world if I stay out of this process - what does it mean for me, in regional terms?" And I believe the reason he is paralyzed is that he can't figure out the answers.
My last question is how interested will Secretary of State Madeline Albright be in this peace process? I believe that an effective Secretary of State has to play the role of the reality principal. The Secretary needs to let people know what, in America's view, they can and cannot do. It is, at times, a lonely and unpleasant task.
If you want to get something done, you're going to have to roll up your sleeves and be the reality principle. But what they can count on, what we can count on, and what I count on, is that there is a seventy percent out there that is just waiting for it.
| Chaim Herzog Remembered |
CHAIM HERZOG 1918-1917
On April 17, 1997, the world lost a champion of peace and special human being with the
death of former Israeli President Chaim Herzog. President Herzog led an incredible life as
a soldier, statesman, and author. He was a
close friend of the Center and we will miss him
dearly.
We last had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Herzog in December when he presided over the ceremonies celebrating the opening of the Center’s new office. During the ceremonies, he hung a mezuza outside the office’s entrance and signed copies of his recently published memoirs entitled Living History.
Chaim was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland on September 17, 1918 and was the eldest son of Ireland’s Chief Rabbi Yitzak Herzog. Chiam Herzog was educated at Cambridge University and the University of London. In 1935, he emigrated to Palestine and joined the Haganah. When World War II broke out, Mr. Herzog enlisted in the British army to fight against Nazi Germany. He participated in the landing at Normandy and fought bravely throughout western Europe. He became head of intelligence in northern Germany and participated in the liberation of the concentration camps.
After WWII, Mr. Herzog joined the newly formed Israeli Defense Force and fought in Israeli’s War of Independence. He became the chief of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Branch and served the military until his retirement in 1962. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Mr. Herzog returned to the military and became the first Military Governor in the West Bank. In 1969, Mr. Herzog was elected to the Knesset where he served as a Labor Party MK until 1975 when he was appointed Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Herzog delivered one of the most powerful speeches in UN history when he argued against the UN resolutions equating Zionism with racism, and then tore up the resolution in front of the General Assembly.
Mr. Herzog returned to Israel in 1978 and was again elected to the Knesset in 1981. Two years later, he became President of the State of Israel. He served as President for ten years and worked tirelessly to end Israel’s isolation while promoting a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict..
Chaim Herzog is survived by his wife Aura, their four childern and several grandchildren.