MIDDLE EAST

WARREN BASS, Council of Foreign Relations Terrorism Program Director, April 12, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Might it be possible that a coalition government with both Israeli and Palestinian input could someday government the disputed lands?
BASS: It’s not unthinkable; it’s called a “bi-national” state and it’s had some prominent advocates over the years. In the 1940s, the brilliant Israeli philosopher Martin Buber pushed strongly for it; today the Palestinian intellectual-activist Edward Said has backed it as an alternative to Oslo.
I just think it’s a dream, unfortunately. There are two very angry nationalisms between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get them to rule together as if it’s Canada

LAURA BLUMENFELD, Washington Post Reporter, April 15, 2002
CZIKOWKSY: The ability to forgive is a powerful message, especially when it is hard to understand why someone would commit such an atrocity (when her father was shot by a PLO member). Yet, your personal story can carry an important symbol for the entire Middle East: Violence creates more violence, and the cycle continues for generations. Do you agree, or are you seeking a different message?
BLUMENFELD: Revenge doesn’t have to be about destroying your enemy, it can be about transforming him. When the gunman pulled the trigger and shot my father he was denying my father’s humanity. My revenge was restoring my father’s humanity. My goal was outsized and naïve and most of all elusive. I wanted the gunman to realize he was wrong.

DAOUD KUTTAB, Al Quds University Institute of Modern Media Director, August 7, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Have Palestinians and Israelis thought about slowly integrating a joint governance of government services? Over time, cooperative arrangements could lead to mutual respect. This has to be much better than killing each other.
KUTTAB: God bless you, many have been calling for this, but Israel wants to be a Jewish state and at the same time they want to keep a proud people under occupation. It has to make a choice.

DANIEL PIPES. Middle East Forum Director, September 11, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Israel is the only democratic government in the Middle East. What in Islamic countries is preventing the acceptance of democratic political values?
PIPES: The Muslim world has had a difficult time in the last two centuries coping with modernity, including democracy. There is nothing contrary to democracy in Islam, but there is a great deal of historical evolution ahead before the Muslim world becomes democratic.

ANTHONY SHADID, Washington Post Foreign Correspondent, February 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Today’s Washington Post has an article on how much of the world views President Bush more harshly than Saddam Hussein. Obviously, we have failed to convince the world about the need to invade Iraq. How will the United States be able to instill confidence that it is working to improve lives in the Middle East, the Balkans, Korea, etc. when our image is so low? How can the United States build its international image?
SHADID: In my conversations, it’s remarkable to the extent that the Palestinian conflict plays a role in shaping opinions. Even the most pro-American elements in places like Egypt and Jordan treat that conflict as a domestic issue. One intellectual remarked to me that it’s become a metaphor for the helplessness that many feel across the Arab world. My sense is that the end to that conflict would go gar in dissipating resentment of the United States. Obviously, that’s easier said than done. But to a greater degree than even Iraq, that remains the most pressing concern.

CARY BYKER, Senior Producer, May 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I envision Abraham looking over his descendants and, like a family leader, telling all his children and children’s children “quit your bickering”. It is sad, because much of the fighting is over whose flag gets to fly over pieces of land. Surely the lives of all would be better without all this fighting. Why can’t all sides decide that disputed lands be jointly governed? Fly both an Israeli and a Palestinian flag, and you can determine whether you prefer your public services be done by Israeli or Palestinian public managers (or, as should increase over time, by joint administrators)? Maybe the establishment of a Palestinian state and the achievement of a secure Israel will produce this peace. What are your thoughts on how peace will finally be achieved?
BYKER: One of the interesting things about the third episode (“Kingdom of David”) is that it helps us see the birth of terrorism as a political tool. And one of the reasons peace is clearly so difficult to achieve in the Middle East is that each side believes that it is doing God’s will. And when you believe that you’re doing God’s will, it’s very hard to be convinced that you should compromise.

DAVID LEWIS, “Frontline/World” Producer, May 23, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Hezbollah has its own perfume and key chains? Do they also have their own web site and do they take Visa? Do they ship into the United States, and dare a customer open the package? Isn’t it unusual for terrorist groups to engage in commercialization?
LEWIS: Hezbollah has their own (mediocre) web site, www.hizbollah.org. There are many Hezbollah souvenirs. I’m not sure if those are produced by Hezbollah or if it’s independent businessmen making this happen. They do sell some very tacky goods made by their former fighters, such as carvings of Arabic sayings, baskets made by former fighters, etc. And the sermons and speeches of leaders are certainly sold in many forms. No idea about the Visa card. But Visa is more accepted in Lebanon than Amex.
Since I left Lebanon, Hezbollah has put out a video game where players get to target Israeli solders and shoot them. Lovely.

HENRY SIEGMAN, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, June 4, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Israel was once ready to give Palestinians 90% of the land they wanted, and Arafat rejected the agreement. What factions of Palestinians are prone to accept the current agreement, which are going to oppose, and will the opposition weaken or strengthen in time, in your opinion?
SIEGMAN: The Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas have declared themselves entirely satisfied with a Palestinian state adjoining the pre-1967 borders of Israel. They have declared their formal acceptance of the legitimacy and permanence of Israel within those borders. They are prepared for minor territorial adjustments in order to deal with the problem of Israeli settlements, but not at the cost of the 20% of Palestine that would constitute their state. Pre-1967 Israel had 400% more territory than the Palestinians-that is to say, Israel had sovereignty over 80% of Palestine. Palestinians believe that the little that has left them should not be shrunk any further.
CZIKOWSKY: What assurances are there that Saudi Arabia will carry forth their agreements? How much can they assure the world that they themselves will not be pressured by or even overthrown by internal groups that support terrorism? How strong an ally to the United States is Saudi Arabia?
SIEGMAN: While there are unprecedented tensions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, the alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continues and remains important to both parties. There is no more reason to doubt the sincerity of Crown Prince Abdullah’s declaration last year that Saudi Arabia would establish normal relations with Israel if it concluded a peace agreement with the Palestinians than there is to doubt the sincerity of Sharon’s declarations.

JAMES ZOGBY, Arab American Institute Representative, June 4, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: In your polling of Arabs, doesn’t a majority prefer peace? What do most Arabs see as a long term solution to resolving conflicts within the Middle East?
ZOGBY: Our polling shows that most Arabs in fact want an end to conflict and the ability the control their own lives and live in peace. That has not been possible for over 100 years. Imperialism and colonialism have taken a terrible toll and the legacy of that toll is still with us. Just as I advised that people read Arab history to understand the forces that have shaped the contemporary Arab world, I also suggest that they read contemporary Arab writers to see how Arabs are reacting to their current dilemmas. Part of the problem that we have here in America is that all too often, we accept the Israeli narrative of history as the only history and others interpretations of Arab history and thought instead of seeing through the eyes of the Arab people themselves.

JAMES A. PHILLIPS, Heritage Foundation Research Fellow, June 6, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have an evaluation as to whether the agreement regarding Israel and Palestine will hold? What dangers do you foresee, and what steps do you argue should be taken to overcome these dangers?
PHILLIPS: I do not expect P.M. Abbas to have the power to halt Palestinian terrorism, even assuming he is willing to pay the political price with his own people to do so. According to U.S. officials, Abbas commands the loyalty of only about 400 Palestinian security officials out of more than 30,000 and most of the rest are loyal to Yasser Arafat, who already is nipping at Abbas’ heels, berating him for failing to get more Israeli concessions at the summit.
CZIKOWSKY: The opposition to Israel is not a unified movement. While agreements can be made with some principal opponents, there are still factions out there bent on terrorism and the destruction of Israel? What, if anything, can be done to minimize the opposition of such extremists?
PHILLIPS: Most extremists have closed minds and will not drop terrorism against Israel regardless of what Israel does. They do not want peace, but the destruction of Israel. The trick is to convince those Palestinians that would support them that they and their children would be better off with a negotiated peace than with an endless jihad. They must be persuaded that “half a loaf is better than none”.
This will take a long time—probably more than a generation. Education is important. The Palestinian Authority must stop spoonfeeding hate propaganda to kids in school. And the Palestinians must see concrete political and economic improvement in their daily lives.

CHRIS TOENSING, Executive Director, Middle East Research and Information Project, June 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I overhear concern in the media that the suicide bombing will delay the peace process. My question is: why should it? This attack was a tragedy. Yet, it should have been expected. In fact, I presume militants would renew resume their efforts at terrorism in order to disrupt the peace process. In simplistic terms, isn’t the best thing to do is for the peace process to ignore the cries of these sad, crazy militants?
TOENSING: I agree with your sentiment here. But one of the parties keeping the cycle of violence going is the interlocutor in the putative negotiations—the Sharon government.

ROB SOBHANI, Adjunct Professor of Government, Georgetown University, June 26, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: If Hamas agrees to a ceasefire, is it more likely because they are considering the prospects of peace, or because they are taking the time to rest and prepare for future attacks?
SOBHANI: I think that the new Palestinian PM has made it clear to Hamas and others that violence must end if Palestinians are to have their own state. Whether Hamas sees it this way is still not clear.

JANINE ZACHARIA, Jerusalem Post Washington Correspondent, August 21, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: The fact that Israel killed Ismail Abu Shanab and went into high alert indicates they know to expect retaliation. Do they believe the risk of retaliation is worth the attack? When does this cycle of violence end?
ZACHARIA: Israel believes that these groups will attack civilians whether or not they carry out targeted killings.

SAMER SHEHATA, Assistant Professor, Georgetown Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, December 17, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Have you overheard comments, not from government officials, but from people you meet in the streets and offices in Cairo regarding the fall and capture of Saddam Hussein? If so, what have been their reactions? Further, how do they view the U.S. presence in Iraq?
SHEHATA: Almost universally, everyone in Egypt was against the U.S. war and is against U.S. occupation of Iraq. On Monday, the picture of Saddam’s capture was all over the Egyptian press. Many are speaking about it and their views vary from those who believe in conspiracy theories and that the image of the man who was captured is not Saddam Hussein to those who fully support his capture to others who, while not supporting Saddam, felt outrage and dismay by his capture by the Americans and the images that were shown. Some have expressed delight that Saddam is no longer ruling Iraq.

FAWAZ A. GERGES, Chair, International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies, Sarah Lawrence College, March 22, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: When the Israeli government kills someone like Sheik Ahmed Yassin, does anyone consider how they expect the Palestinians will react? What reaction do they expect?
GERGES: If history serves as a guide, the reaction of Palestinians will be bloody indeed. For example, in March 1996, Israel assassinated Hamas’ chief bomb maker, Yahya Ayyash, who was held responsible for the death of dozens of Israelis. Initially, Israeli security services boasted about the success of their assassination operation, yet Hamas subsequently retaliated with a wave of suicide bombings, which killed 62 Israelis and injured many others, and terrorized Israeli society.
If Hamas retaliated so brutally to avenge the killing of one of its famous engineers, one can imagine the extent and nature of its response to the assassination of its spiritual leader. Hamas’ officials have already promised to avenge his death by killing hundreds of Israelis. It remains to be seen if Hamas can still deliver on its threats/ But the writing is one the wall. Ariel Sharon knows full well that Hamas will retaliate and blood will be shed on both sides. Both sides will be worse off.

ALI ABUNIMAH, Electronicintifada.net co-founder, April 15, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts on the disputed lands being jointly administered by Israeli and Palestinian authority with administration working jointly or separately, where appropriate?
ABUNIMAH: I would favor that as long as it is applied to the whole country. If the Palestinians are prepared to administer Bethlehem or Ramallah or Gaza jointly with Israel, then in all fairness Israel ought to be prepared to jointly administer Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva, Herzliya, and Mevasseret Zion with the Palestinians. Sounds fair to me!

JUAN COLE, University of Michigan Professor, August 16, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Iraq and Arabia have a long history of distrusting the presence of foreigners. Is it more the fear of a parliamentary system of government being associated with foreigners that is the objection, or is there resistance to any type of democracy?
COLE: The Middle East has a long experience of parliamentary governance by now. The Tunisian parliament dates back to the early 1860s, and Egypt first had a consultative body in 1866. By 1881, the Egyptian parliament was relatively freely elected, and was demanding control over the Egyptian budget. The demand alarmed the French and the British, to whom the pliant Egyptian executive owed huge sums of money. Although it was a complex situation, these fears of Egyptian democracy were among the factors that led the British to invade Egypt in 1882 and to re-install the authoritarian Ottoman viceroy on the throne.
Likewise, Iran developed a lively parliamentary life in the 1940s, but the U.S. C.I.A. overthrew the democratic government of Iran in 1953, making the Shah an absolute dictator.
The various Middle Eastern experiments with parliamentary governance have been either undermined by Western intervention, or become associated with big landlord oppression and overthrown by populist forces, or undermined by ethnic conflict exacerbated by foreign interference (Lebanon, where Israel and Syria fought out a proxy war).

STEVEN A. COOK, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, February 8, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What would happen, in your opinion, if HAMAS or the Islamic Jihad was to attack and Israel did not retaliate? Would HAMAS or the Islamic Jihad sense that as a sign of weakness and attack more, or might they then feel there is less of a reason to retaliate for the lack of a retaliatory attack on them, and thus they would be less apt to attack?
COOK: Israel has, in the past, demonstrated that it is willing to take a blow when the PA (Palestinian Authority) is attempting to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. This was certainly the case in the mid-1990s under Prime Ministers Rabin and Peres. Sharon looks at security quite differently, but it is significant that Israel’s Defense Minister and the Army Chief of Staff have indicated that they are willing to pull Israeli forces out of populated areas as long as the PA is attempting to undermine HAMAS and Islamic Jihad. This makes it seem like Israel would hold off on retaliating in the face of new violence, BUT not for long. Israel would never abrogate its responsibility to defend its citizens and the political pressure to retaliate would be tremendous.

STEVE COLL, Washington Post Associate Editor, May 31, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Is it safe to presume that Osama Bin Laden never expects to see his goals within his lifetime? If so, we should deduce he is prepared to fight until the end, whether it comes naturally or from martyrdom?
COLL: Just reading all of what he has said and written over the years, my sense is that he does hope to see some of his goals within his lifetime, in that his goal is to light the fire, awaken the ummah, or the community of Islamic believers, and get them started on the path to liberation. He sees himself as having helped destroy one infidel superpower (the Soviets) and as on the path to destroying a second (that would be us). It’s the process of defeating his enemies that seems to interest him most, not the prospects of governing in a pure Islamic society. Its’ remarkable, really, how little he talks about the establishment and management of Islamic governments and how much he seems interested in sustained revolt and conflict.

MICHAEL B. OREN, author, January 23, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Has there been much contact from the West—the British, the French, and Americans—with people in the Middle East that was not designed to change their thinking? Doesn’t this breed resentment that Westerners insist their cultural ways are superior to those in the Middle East? Have efforts at offering cooperation proven more effective?
OREN: Paradoxically, the West has probably aroused more resentment in the Middle East, not by telling Middle Easterners what to do, but by supporting the status quo in the region, particularly in supporting autocratic regimes that suppress their peoples.
CZIKOWSKY: What role, if any, did Christian missionaries play in the attitudes of Muslims in the Middle East? OREN: The major role of missionaries in the Middle East was not to explain Christianity, but to impart American ideas. Embarking for the Middle East in the middle of the 19th century, missionaries discovered that few people were interested in converting to their brand of Protestant Christianity. Instead, they devoted their energies to building elementary and secondary schools. They constructed the area’s first modern universities, including the American University of Beirut and Robert College in Istanbul, and instilled in their students the idea of American-style patriotism and civic values. The graduates of these institutions later became pioneers in the Middle Eastern nationalist movement, which in the following century threw off the yoke of European rule. Today, nearly 200 years later, this legacy is being challenged by religious extremists who reject this nationalism and the American ideas that helped inspire it.

KHALID AL-DAKHIL, King Saud University Sociology Assistant Professor, February 5, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: There has been some discussion that some of the anti-Israel sentiment expressed by some Wahabbists seemed to be traceable back to anti-Jewish propaganda spread in the Middle East by Nazis and by Christian missionaries. Have you seen any evidence that such links in fact exist?
AK-DAKHIL: Now, this is farfetched. No need to go back to the Nazis to be anti-Israel. The state of Israel is the reason and the source of this. Its expansionist, and ruthless policies, and its refusal to reach a reasonable settlement with the Palestinians is very disturbing for the people of the Arab world, not only the Wahhabis. The plight of the Palestinians which is running now for more than half a century is caused mainly by the state of Israel. You don’t need to fall back to such a racist ideology, to see what is wrong with the state of Israel.

BENNY MORRIS, Israeli historian, March 12, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: This may be a naive question, yet when you mentioned the purchase of land: what is Israel says to the Arabs, you’re right, this is your land, we’ll buy it from you, and Israel provides some purchase price, perhaps in goods and services to Arab residents, and then land then belongs to Israel? I know may Arabs won’t buy that, but maybe a lot will?
MORRIS: The question—at least as it relates to the past—is one of depth of national commitment. The fact is that from 1881 to 1947 (and again, in various places, in the West Bank, after 1967) Arabs sold land to Jews on a massive scale. Jews did not, would not, sell land to Arabs. And this says something about Palestinian Arab ‘nationalism’, at least at the time.

AARON DAVID MILLER, Woodrow Wilson International Center Public Policy Scholar, April 30, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t it difficult to state that anyone represents the “Palestinian” side, or even that any one party fully represents the “Israeli” side? One can negotiate peace with certain elements of each side, yet as long as there are elements that refuse to agree to terms, isn’t it going to be impossible for any agreements that is agreed to only by partial elements of each side to remain effective?
MILLER: I think the answer is yes, but the question is to what degree do their respective national politics respect whatever agreement the two sides work out. You’re always going to have elements that remain dissatisfied, but will the centers of each society agree? I think there is a basis on which that can happen.
CZIKOWSKY: What do you see would get a negotiated settlement that would accept enough of the center that the fringes would be marginalized enough to no longer effectively disrupt any agreement? What actions could be taken that would allow that to happen?
MILLER: The fact is, when all is said and done, Arab-Israeli peace ageements, when they came, resulted from leadership—Arab leadership, Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, Israeli leadership Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, and U.S leadership, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, James Baker. If I had to define one missing ingredient it would be that.

ROBIN WRIGHT, Washington Post Diplomatic Correspondent, March 6,2006
CZIKOWSKY: I too am hopeful for peace in the Middle East. I see a growing understanding of the need for peace and acceptance of compromises that could be approved by all but extremists, especially among the young. Is the key to hope that the voice of the extremists diminishes and it time they become ineffective? If so, how can that be achieved, especially when they often respond by violence that only keeps the situations in conflict?
WRIGHT: Thanks for your good question. During travels for my book, “Dreans and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East”, I was constantly struck by the number of people who have no sympathy or empathy for the extremists because they have provided nothing to solve the basic problems of everyday life—from health care to education. These are the issues that people in the Middle East want addressed. At the same time, youth is a huge dynamic in the region, with up to 70% of the population in some countries under 30 years ago. They will increasingly define the political agenda over the next decade and potentially the political systems down the road. And they are quite restless because youth of the Middle East face higher unemployment—roughly 1 in 3 in several countries—than in any other part of the world. That provides a well from which from which the militant movement may be able to draw.
CZIKOWSKY: What effects do you see the Internet having on the Middle East? How is the speed of communications helping in the transmission of ideas and political statements, and what benefits and detriments is this posing for our policymakers? WRIGHT: An important question. The Internet and other information technology has helped people in the region gain access to information outside of state-controlled media. Wael Ababas is one of the more than 1,000 Egyptian bloggers who have begun holding the government to account. He posted a cell phone video of an Egyptian detainee being sodomized with a broomstick on his blog, which created an uproar and forced the government to prosecute two policemen. New groups are using the Internet to publicize vote rigging. Along with the youth vote, information is among the catalysts of change in the region. I was struck by the fact that even in Syria now there are Internet cafes—even though the government blocks some dissident websites.