Dangerous Liaisons Homepage
Q&A: Page 1
Q&A: Page 2
Q&A: Page 3

Can the Palestinians control their destiny?
What chance does the peace movement within Israel (the Refusniks and the women in black) have to temper the extremism of the military state?

Do the Palestinian people have any control over their own destiny? What if they changed their leaders? What if they stopped attacking Israel? What if they tolerated what is happening to them?
Best Wishes,
Nick Webley

The peace movement is, I think and hope, in the process of revival in Israel, although they are in a very difficult position with the suicide bombings, one of many reasons why these acts are so futile. Yossi Beilin is starting up a new party and there are crucial negotiations going on between Israelis and Palestinians by-passing the government and the US.

I certainly believe the Palestinians, although the victims of an injustice in this situation have control, like all peoples, over their own destiny and that it is crucial to believe this.

I do think the leaders should be changed but this should come from the Palestinians themselves and not by diktat from President Bush.

Last week Jonathan Freedland had a very interesting argument in The Guardian envisaging a peace movement based more on the pacifisms of Ghandi, a utopian vision as he acknowledged but one that would bring Israelis and Palestinians together from Jerusalem to Jenin. But I do not see how the Palestinians can tolerate a situation of such historic injustice.

Who was the man in the clip shouting at Sharon?
When the clip was shown of Sharon addressing parliament concerning the Sabra & Shatila massacres, who was the man shown who was arguing against him?
David A' Gardner

Sincere regrets, we have tried – so far unsuccessfully – to identify this man.

Why do the Palestinians not live in Jordan?
Can you tell me why you omitted to mention the following in your programme?

1.  Ehud Barak's offer to Arafat which Arafat refused and then walked out of the negotiations.  

2. Where have the millions of dollars (and other European currencies) that have been given to Arafat for the Palestinians gone?

3.  The arabs were given an area, Jordan, as their homeland and according to reports I have read, the Grand Mufti told the arabs to leave Jerusalem in 1947/8.  No arab states would take their own people in, preferring them to live in refugee camps for  political means.

I look forward to your reply.
Ruth Waxman

1. Camp David and Taba have been subjects of much debate.The account by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in the New York Review of Books of August 9 2001 lays out very carefully how the breakdown of talks came to be presented unfairly as Arafat’s failing alone and how this is not the full story (Malley was Special Assistant to Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs).

There were no formal offers at Camp David, and Barak’s continuous building of settlements was a serious problem. It is continually stated that Palestinian violence was the cause of the failure of Oslo, but Palestinians had lost faith in the process because the Wye accord had not been implemented and their situation had improved so little. Doubtless, as Palestinians also acknowledge, Arafat’s failings – as we say in the film – played their part.

2. We say in the film that Arafat’s authority is corrupt.

3. The Arabs of Palestine did not want to live in Jordan but to live in the land they considered their home; although I agree that there has been political use made of the refugees, to take them into other Arab countries would have been to end the claim for their own state and homeland.

A very good account of this history is provided by the Jewish historian Avi Shlaim in his book, The Iron Wall

Relation to Northern Ireland situation?
I am a political science student from Dublin, Ireland and as part of my studies I am interested in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, specifically comparing and contrasting it with the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland.  I am curious as to what you think about state contraction in both these conflicts and also if you have any thoughts on Ian Lustick's treatment and theory of the Israel Palestine Conflict.
David Sherry.

Thank you for your response. Your comparison is a really important one and has been at the basis of meetings between people involved in the two conflicts, notably this summer organized by Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian newspaper. 

You should be able to access this information and relevant articles through their website on the Middle East. 

What about Camp David?
In her documentary, Jacqueline Rose glossed over Clinton's significant efforts in attempting to bring about peace, not only in the early 1990's but in his last year in office. 

This omission is significant and brings her whole hypothesis about America's role into question, especially given the breakdown of peace efforts following Arafat's rejection of Barak's peace proposals, which led to the current Intifada.

She also failed to acknowledge that peace requires the willingness of both sides to engage and make those necessary and difficult compromises, not just the Israelis as she clearly implied. 

Did she not feel it necessary to consider why America is taking a less active role today following the rejection of Clinton's peace efforts by Arafat and the inexcusable suicide bombings?  
Name withheld

I see the Camp David/Taba negotiations very differently. 

The account of Camp David and Taba by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in the New York Review of Books of August 9 2001 (with a follow up debate in the issue of June 13, 2002) lays out very carefully how the breakdown of talks came to be presented unfairly as Arafat’s failing alone (Malley was Special Assistant to Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs and present at the negotiations). There were no formal offers, and Barak’s continuous building of settlements plus the insistence that some would still remain was a serious problem. It is crucial to remember, when it is said that the Palestinians were offered 97% of West Bank and Gaza, that this constitutes only 22% of the land that was their home prior to 1948.

I agree that both sides must want peace and indeed, as Yosi Beilin has suggested, both sides fear it as it will mean an end to two myths- that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel, that all the refugees will be able to return.

I also agree, as we say in the film, that the Palestinians are ill-served by their leaders.However I do believe the situation is unequal. 

Israel has the economic and military power of full statehood backed by the West; the Palestinians have virtually nothing. 

The US should make its support of Israel conditional on a just solution for the Palestinians, which must in turn be backed by full economic support for the new state. 

In my view Israel is endangered far more by the continuation of its current policies than it would be by the pursuit of peace on these terms.

What is the way forwards?
What do you feel is the way forward for resolution of the dispute? Your programme asked many questions, but the answers are the hard part. As you showed, the US has been very biased towards Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Do you think a more even-handed approach would solve anything? Or do you think the Palestinians should continue with the Intifada as no "outsiders" have shown a willingness to help them?
Yours sincerely
Zaid Akhter.

I think Israel must be made to withdraw to the 1967 borders, a solution which – as Chomsky pointed out – has been the basis of an international consensus since the 1970s.  I do think a more even-handed approach would dramatically improve things. 

Although I wholly condemn suicide bombing, the intifada does seem at the moment, tragically, the only form of resistance available to the Palestinians.  Several we spoke to, however, are also very keen – without pressure from America – to transform their political organizations to make them more accountable and effective.

Mis-use of "anti-Semitic"
Dear Ms Rose

I want to congratulate you and thank you for your excellent television programme on the Israeli conflict.

I was a refugee from Nazi Germany/Austria in 1938 and my parents died a miserable death at the hand of the Nazis. Yet I have felt for a long time a sense of outrage that my parents suffering should be used to justify the injustice, brutality and aggression against the Palestinians.

Like you I object to the misuse to the word 'anti-Semitic', I have experienced really anti-Semitism, which is racial prejudice. It is now employed against anyone criticising Israeli policy.

I would like to ask one question:

How many suicide bombing were there before Sharon took power? No one seems to ask this question.

Thank you again for your courage in telling the truth.

Sincerely
Rose Knight

Dear Rose Knight,

I am very moved by your letter.  Thank you so much for writing to me.

My grandparent’s family all went to Chlemlo so although I am one generation removed from your tragic story I am linked to it as well.

I do not have the exact figures but of course you are right that this round of suicide bombers arose in response to Sharon’s reaction to the second Intifada, a point that needs to be made time and again.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Rose

One over-riding rule to survival
The ending of the conflict requires one overriding rule

Both sides have to agree that they guarantee the right to peace and self-fulfilment of the other side and that they will fight on the other's side to defend those rights

Until that happens, there will be no peace or trust.
Norman

I agree. Nomi Chazan says in the interview that she always tells her Arab friends that it will be crucial that Jewish people live in any future Palestinian state, as the ethical well-being of a country is judged by how that country treats its minorities.

Dangerous Liaisons Homepage 
Q&A: Page 1
Q&A: Page 2
Q&A: Page 3