Sharon's Visit with President Bush

Middle East Conflict

President Bush embraced a new Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, applauding a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The policy also outlines permanence of some of Israel's occupied West Bank and that Palestinian refugees would not have the right to return to Israel. In endorsing Sharon's withdrawal plan, U.S. policy would change toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by "softening the American objection to Israel's settlements and dropping a reluctance to dictate terms of a final peace settlement."

David Makovsky, senior fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute, will be online Friday, April 16 at 2 p.m. ET to discuss Sharon's visit with President Bush.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: While I think the "road map" has failed as a viable option, will Sharon's policy of withdrawal actually solve the Palestinian issue? I would think the Palestinians aren't going to accept a plan in which they had no role. And what happens to all this if Sharon is indicted?

washingtonpost.com: Bush Endorses Sharon's Withdrawal Plan (Post, April 14)

David Makovsky: The Gaza withdrawal will not solve the Palestinian problem. However, it is an important beginning, especially given Sharon's unique position as the architect of the settlement movement. There is not only a historic justice here that he is beginning the evacuation of settlements, but like Nixon going to China, it creates a pathway that will be widened by Sharon's successors. In short, it is an important political precedent. The Palestinians will see important deeds, and their response will determine the pace of future Israeli actions in this regard.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How is Bush's stance that different from what Clinton advocated at Camp David and before he left office? The proposals of this policy are very similar and do not seem to take away anything from the Palestinians that was on the table in 2000.

David Makovsky: President Clinton hoped to resolve the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the year 2000. However, the descent into violence and suicide bombings has shattered a sense of Israeli-Palestinian nascent partnership that was the cornerstone of that effort. Moreover, there are even very few people in the Arab world who believe Yasser Arafat can sign any grand deal with Israel. The hope now is to jump-start something that has badly stalled, but it is not an attempt to solve the entire conflict at this time, as was tried in 2000.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: How come the media never points out the inconsistencies with the idea the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis should all live in a Federal Iraq, but Palestinians and Israeli Jews should be segregated in separate states? DO you think Palestinians will start pushing for a one state solution or Israeli citizenship? That position always seemed to make more sense, Israel claims sovereignty over the West Bank and calls it Samaria, and if there was a big push for Palestinian citizenship of Israel, it would be hard to refute without sounding like Daniel Malan (father of Apartheid South Africa). If Palestinians are under Israeli control why shouldn't they have political rights?

David Makovsky: The idea is of a one-state solution may sound ideal, but it is both impractical and thus undesirable. It is impractical because in no small measure due to the enduring wounds of these peoples are so great due to decades of terrorism and occupation. When this is combined with demographic trends, the idea of a one-state solution is a euphemism for Greater Palestine.
The Middle East does not exist in a post-modern era, where ethnicity is irrelevent, nor for that matter does Rwanda or Kosovo. If someone wants to rid the world of ethnic states, they should go to India and Pakistan before they take on Israel and the Palestinians. The two-state solution is the only viable approach for both of these peoples.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.:
The person from the Electronic Intifada yesterday suggested that Israel, Gaz, and the West Bank all become one big country where all Jews and Palestinians could have the right of return. This approach seems to be gaining popularity with Palestinian sympathizers because it would flood the area with Arabs and destroy the Jewish state. Do you see this one-state disaster ever becoming a legitimate possibility?

washingtonpost.com: Transcript: Ali Abunimah co-founder of Electronicintifada.net and vice president of Arab American Action Network, discussed Sharon's visit with President Bush. (Live Online, April 15)

David Makovsky: See my reply to the last questioner.

_______________________

Linwood, Pa.: Don't Palestinians view Tel Aviv as a settlement?

David Makovsky: Polls of leading Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki in Rammallah consistently say that 70% of Palestinians do favor reconciliation with Israel. Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat never speaks about reconciliation or Israel's moral legitimacy. With the state-run media and Palestinian educational system under his control, he has amplified a theme that a peace process is more consistent with decolonization than reconciliation. This is a tragedy, since it makes Israelis very suspicious of Palestinian intentions. Therefore, the Shikaki polls have less impact inside Israel.

_______________________

Lyon, France: Since 1948, 700,000 arabs left Israel while over 900,000 jews were forced out of arab occupied lands. The big difference is Israel made these jews citizens of Israel. If the arabs had done the same, there would be no "palestinian issue." Would you agree?

David Makovsky: There is no doubt that with the exception of Jordan, the Arab states allowed the refugee issue to fester. The worst humanitarian situation appears to be in Lebanon. Responsible Arab leadership should now condition public opinion and tell them: we support a peace process predicated on a two state solution, and therefore we want the refugees to build up a new Palestinian state and we have no interest that they go both there and to Israel. Refusal to level with the refugees has deleterious implications: raises false expectations among the refugees that will lead to greater cynicism and deepens suspicions among Israelis about ultimate intentions. On the latter point, it suggests that the Arab states want Israel to lose its character as a Jewish state. Honesty is a better policy for all.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What entity will provide security in Gaza if and when Israel withdraws? Will the PA take control? Will Hamas challenge the PA's authority? Will Egypt have a military or police presence there? Thanks.

David Makovsky: You have asked a very important question. Much coordination needs to happen on this issue. Thus the term unilateral withdrawal is somewhat of a misnomer, since it will at least be coordinated unilateralism. Hamas may have no interest to take control, since its usual modus operandi is claim responsibility for nothing, thus it cannot be held accountable. Yet, the alternative to a Palestinian Authority control of Gaza could be chaos with Hamas have enough clout to block developments it perceives as negative.
Security: Egypt has offered to help with border security and train the Palestinian police, but this may not be sufficient. Israel fears if it turns over the Gaza airport and seaport to a PA under Arafat's control, it will lead to unrestricted smuggling. There needs to be a unified command structure of the PA under a responsible PA prime minister--who has real authority.
Institution building: Creative solutions must be found to ensure that money invested do not wind up in Arafat (or his wife's) pocket, but instead are done to benefit the Palestinian people. Finance Minister Salam Fayyad has made progress on transparency and this must be built upon for the future.

_______________________

Lisbon, Portugal: In 1921, 80% of the Palestine mandate was given to the arabs. That 80% is now called Jordan. Isn't Jordan the Palestinian state?

David Makovsky: It is true that a majority of Jordanians are from Palestinian descent. However, amid the growth of Palestinian nationalism, Jordan's King Hussein washed his hands of the West Bank and Gaza in 1988. If Israel made the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians Israeli citizens, the Jewish majority would become a Jewish minority by 2012, according to reputable demographic analysts. A two-state solution is needed for Israelis as well as Palestinians.

_______________________

Caracas, Venesuela: I contstantly hear claims of the anti-Israeli parties of "they stole our land." From all historic sources I've seen, it has been the Jews who have lived in Israel (including the territories) for over 3500 years, while the Arabs stole it from the Greeks in the 7th Century. Who are the real land stealers?

David Makovsky: I don't know if we can sort out the 7th century, as both sides have their own narratives of everything since then to what happened in the 1948 war. Yes, consistent Jewish presence in the last goes back two millennia, but Palestinians also can chart centuries of Arab presence. We won't solve the past, so we need to find away to solve the future and give hope to both of these two peoples who have endured so much.

_______________________

Demarest, NJ: Disclaimers first: I recognize the status quo is terrible. I recognize that much of the Palestinian leadership is corrupt or radical. I recognize the immorality of suicide bombings (while noting, with judgment suspended, that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis over the past three years than the other way around).

Still, how does crowding Palestinians permanently onto an ever smaller, shrinking "West Bank and Gaza" represent progress? These are people who lost homes in Israel proper in 1948; since 1967 they've been losing homes to Israeli encroachment; now the line in the sand moves again, and they lose their legal "right of return." However wrong they are to support Hamas and Jihad, their frustration is understandable: Over the years violence has gone up and gone down, but the one constant is that Israeli lands and rights grow and Palestinian lands and rights shrink.

Let's say that tomorrow Palestinians do just what Sharon says he wants and, fearing they'll lose everything, sue for peace. Then negotiations begin from the new status quo, right? And the final West Bank Palestinian state becomes even smaller, more crowded, less economically viable -- tailored even more to Israel's concerns and less to the Palestinians'. Peace comes for one state, but the other is left with two desperate ghettos behind barbed-wire fences and walls.

Does this seem either stable or just?

David Makovsky: Let's take a step back, and recognize there is actually growing convergence than divergence. The settlement blocs that Sharon is seeking to win support for constitute about 5-14% of the western edge of the West Bank, close to the pre-1967 boundary. He gave a speech in Israel before he left which could have easily been given by his liberal rival Ehud Barak just four years ago. To me it is obvious that he is no longer insisting upon the other 86-95% of the West Bank. Until a few years ago, he wanted 100% of the West Bank. This is a sea-change for Sharon. Like I mentioned to another emailer, I compare it to Nixon going to China. The trip was not the beginning of the process, but rather created a pathway that was widened by others. Palestinian reciprocal action could quicken the pace of Israeli withdrawal, and create a virtuous circle, or continued attacks can impede that progress.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: The EU does not seem too supportive of Bush's plan, judging by Brian Cohen's remarks the other day. Bush's comments do not have any validity under international law, ie he can override resolution 242 by fiat (as he seems to think) which stated that territory cannot be seized by war. So if only Israel and Bush support this stance how successful can this plan really be, especially if Sharon tries to seize more of the West Bank than he let on to the Bush administration. Does any resolution giving a large chunk of the West Bank to Israel with no approval from the Palestinians have any chance of going through the UN security council? Also the letter from Bush still calls for negotiations with the Palestinians and they refuse given these terms, how can the process proceed?

David Makovsky: My understanding is that British PM Tony Blair issued a very supportive statement today. I think both UN Secy General Kofi Annan and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder applauded Sharon for his move to evacuate Gaza settlements.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Who will step up as a leader of the Palisteian people to broker a deal with Israel and the US?
Who is moderate enough to appeal to the West and also has the passion to reflect the view of the Arabs?

David Makovsky: It seems clear to me that so long as Arafat is the leader, this process will never speed up. The Palestinians can name whomever they want, but Arafat's history is one of violence, blind alleys, and missed opportunities. If they would have said yes to Taba or Clinton, they'd have a state by now. Even if the leaders were Bush and Sharon, Arafat could have created an earthquake and possibly drive a wedge between the US and Israel and inside Israel by saying yes. I think it is clear that he is not capable. He is a revolutionary who cannot live without a revolution.
The next generation of Palestinian leaders need to resolve their minor personality differences and unite around a strategy predicated on land for peace. Nobody can do this for the Palestinians. They want self-determination. They need to determine.

_______________________

Washington, DC: What does the Arab world think of Clinton compared to Bush? President and Senator Clinton were both over the top in their support for Arafat. (By the way this is why I will never vote Democratic again.) Hillary went shopping with Mrs. Arafat in Manhattan and Clinton could never pass up a photo op walking with Arafat, slapping him on the back and laughing. Although, I personally found these actions offensive for an American President as I don't think its appropriate to associate with a Jew Killer such as Arafat I was wondering if this had the opposite effect on the Arab street? Do they love Clinton as he seemed willing to constantly ?negotiate' even when Hamas plotted blowing up women and children on busses in Tel Aviv?

David Makovsky: When Clinton ended his term of office, the Palestinians thought the new President would "tilt" towards them given the family oil background in Texas and the image of President George H.W. Bush, who they deemed friendly. One must be very careful in judging based on personalities. The American people and their leaders will respond to solid policies. No American leader, liberal or conservative, can welcome someone to the Oval Office like Yasser Arafat who exhorts for dispatching a "million martyrs" and thus legitimizing violence. This has consequences.

_______________________

Ballston, Va.: Isn't it the case that Arafat walked away from the peace talks at Taba because Clinton and Barak refused to recognize the right of return? Bush's announcement on this point is therefore simply a reiteration of existing policy, isn't it?

David Makovsky: Arafat never conditioned the Palestinian public to the obvious. Palestinian refugees will go to a Palestinian state and Jewish refugees can go to a Jewish state of Israel. Most observers know this will be the case, and therefore the US policy announcement is more consistent with past US policy. However, it takes true leadership to say tough things to your own people. Anwar Sadat had such leadership, so did Yitzhak Rabin. Arafat is neither, and therefore the tragedy of both peoples continue.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were entirely under arab control yet the arabs were still committed to destroying Israel. If the arab goal was palestinian statehood, why didn't the arabs create a palestinian state during this period?

David Makovsky: It took the Arab League in 2002 to say what they should have said at the Khartoum summit after the 1967 debacle that they are seeking a two-state solution. The biggest losers in this short-sighted approach have been the Palestinians.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Is there an unbiased resource on the Internet where I can find the history of this conflict? How far back does it go? How did it originate? There have been times in my life where the Middle East conflict takes the center stage in the news. However, I feel like many Americans have no idea how this country is affected or even how we became involved.

David Makovsky: You can go to the Washington Institute website for information about the Middle East. It is www.washingtoninstitute.org
Good luck.

_______________________

Roseland NJ: Could you talk about the consequences of the unilateral nature of the move? Doesn't the administration's approval of Sharon's "we're through negoatiating, we're leaving now, effectively imposing a settlement of the conflict and leaving you guys to clean up the mess" create an uncomfortable parallel during negotations for the transitional government in Iraq?

David Makovsky: There needs to be quiet Israeli-Palestinian contacts to ensure a handover of Gaza. Relative success in Gaza, including the halting of terror, will spur the prospect for further withdrawals.

_______________________

David Makovsky: I think my hour is up. I thank you all for tuning in, and look forward to other opportunities for continued dialogue.

_______________________