Israel & Palestine

An Israeli tank and helicopter fired on rock-throwing Palestinian demonstrators Wednesday, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens of others, according to witnesses.

Brooking Institution fellow Tamara Wittes discussed the attack, the unrest in the region and the current state or Israeli-Palestinian relations.

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.

________________________________________________

Tamara Wittes: Good afternoon, everyone. This week's events signal how difficult it might be for Israel's current proposal to withdraw from the Gaza Strip to become a reality. I hope that in addition to discussing the current violence we can talk about some of the broader dynamics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the prospects for diplomatic progress. I look forward to your questions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A month ago, President Bush essentially made some fairly significant concessions to Prime Minister Sharon on West Bank settlements in return for a commitment from Sharon to withdraw from the Gaza strip.

In the intervening period, Sharon's own party has voted against withdrawal from Gaza, Israel has mounted very significant incursions into Palestinian portions of Gaza, and is demolishing Palestinian homes.

Given that the Israelis appear to be unable to meet their end of the deal, is their any chance that the president might rescind his promises on West Bank settlements? If not, why not?

Tamara Wittes: The assurances President Bush gave to Prime Minister Sharon last month concerned American views of two final status issues: the fate of Palestinian refugees and the disposition of large Israeli settlements in the West Bank. While this was a statement in support of an Israeli position, it was not a "promise" to do anything in particular. Moreover, the letter from Bush to Sharon specifically noted that these two issues would have to be discussed and agreed upon by Israel and the Palestinians. So these were symbolic words of support, and not anything that obligates anyone. I therefore think it unlikely that the assurances might be "rescinded."

That said, there is no question that Sharon is having great difficulty following through on assurances he gave to Bush regarding his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, and his government has also undertaken actions in the West Bank and Gaza that are not helpful for the regional environment (much less for any hope of a peace process). This has happened while the United States has worked hard to rally international and Arab support for Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan.

The American displeasure with how things are going in Israel was reflected in its decision yesterday not to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Gaza incursion. American officials have also expressed public concerns about the action and are pressing the Israelis privately to end it.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: Israel always lays blame on Arafat and the Authority for Hamas' terrorist activities. As far as I can tell, the Palestinian Authority barely even functions, certainly the security aparatus can't do what Washington and Israel want it to do. Is this correct? I remember Israel bombing Palestinian Authority jails with Hamas terrorists arrested inside, effectively eliminating the Palestinian Authority guards/police in the process. It seems to me that Israel is blaming the Palestinian Authority for not doing enough, yet undercutting and eliminating through a variety of means.

Tamara Wittes: The Israeli government blames Arafat for two things: first, for encouraging (and funding and ordering) violence against Israeli civilians after the beginning of the uprising on September 29, 2000; and second, for refusing to take action against Hamas and other rejectionist violent groups when they have carried out such attacks.

The Palestinian Authority, headed by Arafat, is also largely populated by activists of Arafat's Fatah movement, which has a military wing (the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade) that has been very active these past few years. Because of this many PA institutions and capabilities have been targets of Israeli military operations.

When the Roadmap was agreed to, Israel and the PA also agreed that the PA had the ability (despite the earlier Israeli attacks on them) to carry out certain initial steps to halt violence and fight extremist groups. But these steps were not carried out (nor did Israel carry out some of its Roadmap obligations).

At this point, the PA is weak but it could assert its authority to a degree if it were willing to fight an internal political battle for dominance against the Islamist extremists. It is not willing to do that because it doesn't think it can win the battle until it can offer the Palestinian people a compelling alternative: a viable peace process that will lead to a Palestinian state.

_______________________

Woodbridge, Va.: What is with these unprovoked attacks? What do they prove?

Tamara Wittes: Some Israeli commentators in today's press are wondering today why Israeli soldiers are fighting (and killing and dying) in Gaza today when the prime minister has already decided to withdraw from the Strip.

By way of background, the current military operation in Rafah was "provoked" by the killing in Rafah last week of seven Israeli soldiers along the Philadelphi Road, a road that runs between Rafah and the border with Egypt. This area is a frequent flashpoint because arms and other smuggling takes place through tunnels that go from Egypt under the Philadelphi Road into Rafah. The Israeli military plans to a) widen the road to make another ambush harder; b) destroy smuggling tunnels; and c) arrest or kill Palestinian militants in Rafah.

Since Israel has faced the same smuggling problem for years, and couldn't control it even when it fully controlled the Gaza Strip, there is a lot of questioning, in Israel as well, as to whether a military operation like this one can be expected to have much long-term effect on Israeli security. At the same time, there is speculation that Israel is taking advantage of the period before its hoped-for withdrawal to tamp down militant activity as much as possible.

_______________________

Lakeland, Fla.: An Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems more certain and intractable than death and taxes. My impression is that Israelis define themselves as people who hate Palestinians, and, likewise, Palestinians define themselves as people who hate Israelis. If either group stopped hating the other, in a deep psychological sense, that group would cease to exist. Realistically, do you see any hope at all in this conflict, or any benefit from U.S. involvement? I see none.

Tamara Wittes: While the legacy of their conflict is great bitterness on both sides, I don't believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inevitable or intractable. Both communities do define themselves in part through their suffering and victimization (including at one another's hands). But they also define themselves through their positive cultural, linguistic, religious and historical content. In every long-running conflict, the history of the conflict gets wrapped up in the history of the people -- but that doesn't make the conflict totally intractable. It does suggest the need for any peace efforts to be accompanied by "people-to-people" efforts that help the societies overcome their bitter history and see each other in a new light. One of the only bright spots of the past three and a half years is that such people-to-people activities have continued nonstop between Israelis and Palestinians, especially youth. We in the United States can support these activities just as we can support diplomatic efforts to solve the conflict.

_______________________

Virginia: Is Sharon himself a major obstacle to peace in the region?

Tamara Wittes: Ariel Sharon is a very controversial figure because of his history in Israel's military policy -- most notably his involvement in a massacre of Palestinians by Christian militias during Israel's invasion of Lebanon. He was also a godfather of Israel's settlement movement in the West Bank and Gaza, and very supportive of the settlers throughout his political career. Some Israelis point out that Sharon's arguments in favor of settlements and (in his earlier career) keeping the West Bank and Gaza were always pragmatic, security-based arguments rather than ideological or religious ones. They suggest that with his embrace of unilateral disengagement he has turned a corner and now truly believes that Israel's national security demands that it leave the occupied territories. Others say that the leopard doesn't change his spots. Certainly his history means that he has a high bar to clear before Arabs or Palestinians in particular will trust in his good intentions.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Why does the Israeli government continue to approve missile strikes on its Palestinian militant opponents? Why not arrest them? The strike on Ahmed Yassin still doesn't make sense to me, especially since he was arrested by the Israelis before. Retribution is one reason, but aren't there are other costs involved in terms of negative world opinion, moral credibility, etc.?

Tamara Wittes: This is a difficult and important question. Indeed, Israel is still the overwhelming military power on the ground, although the Israeli army is not physically present in Palestinian cities in the way it was pre-1995. But in principle Israel's army could enter Palestinian cities to try and arrest Palestinian militant leaders without killing them. Israel argues that a) the intelligence as to a person's whereabouts is too time-sensitive to allow for an arrest (in other words, they know where someone is just at that moment and if they try to mount an incursion to arrest him he'll disappear); and b) to enter into a populated area to carry out an arrest (usually of an armed person with protection around him) will result in too much risk both to Israeli soldiers and to the surrounding civilian population. Israel's basic point is that it will not impose additional risk on its own soldiers to preserve the life of a wanted terrorist. Some people find these arguments unpersuasive and in any case the idea of extrajudicial killing is rather troubling.

_______________________

Tamara Wittes: I should add that the policy is controversial in Israel as well, and the debate is precisely about the costs in international credibility and morality that you cite. The United States has expressed strong concern about the policy but wont' outright condemn it -- in part because the United States has used the same tactic against al-Qaeda operatives.

The case of Sheikh Yassin is particularly tortured, not just because he was old and infirm but also because of the reason he was not already in an Israeli jail: he had been released to assuage Arab and international anger following Israel's botched attempt to assassinate another Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, in Jordan. So the assassination policy has already demonstrated its costs to Israelis.

I've appreciated the chance to exchange thoughts with you today. Thanks for tuning in.

_______________________