Sharon in Washington
With Naseer Aruri
Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts
Tuesday, March 20, 2001, Noon EST

Naseer Aruri, a political scientist and the former co-chair of Amnesty International, predicts Israeli Prime Minister Sharon will pursue harsher policies toward the Palestinians.

"Now that the Oslo process has run its course and the Palestinians realize that it will not deliver independence and end the Israeli occupation, the next phase, in which Sharon will be at the helm, is going to be more dangerous," he says. He foresees an Israeli "policy of economic strangulation, starvation, virtual imprisonment of entire villages, towns, and cities. ... In South Africa it was called apartheid, in Palestine the euphemism is 'separation.'"

The transcript follows.

washingtonpost.com: Welcome Naseer Aruri. What was your reaction to Secretary of State Powell's speech to AIPAC yesterday? What did it tell you about this administration's Israel policy?

Naseer Aruri: Powell's speech to AIPAC yesterday tells me that the Administration will be dealing with the broader regional questions relating to Iraq and iran while allowing Israel to continue the repression in the Occupied Territories. Sharon's call for stopping the "violence" is being reiterated by Powell. Surely he Powell is not talking about israeli violence but Palestinian resistance to military occupation, which he calls "violence"

Washington, DC: I attended the anti-Sharon demonstration last night here in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the Washington Post did not cover the demonstration, did not interview the participants, did not print pictures of us and our signs and chants, etc. At its peak, approximately between 6 pm and 6:30 pm, there were over 1,000 of us. The most interesting thing about the demonstration, and to me the most thoughtful, were the large number of Jewish men who joined with us to protest against Sharon's visit. They carried signs like, "Israel Is Not A Jewish State", "The Messiah Has Not Given Us A State", etc., and many even carried Palestinian flags. Why is it that these anti-zionist Jews are never interviewed by the press? Also, how do you see the future of zionism as we enter a "new millenium"? Thank you very much for your response.

Asantewaa Nkrumah-Ture
Washington, DC

Naseer Aruri: The lack of coverage by the WP and others in the mainstream media reflects a well-established bias in the US. It seems that the self-censorship which the US media observes when it comes to Israel is not even done in Israel. Readers of Israel's daily Ha'Aretz will find so much more about the atrocities, the current siege and its impact on people than they will read in the US media.
As to the future of Zionism, it seems to be strengthened by the fact that the US is the sole superpower in the world at this time. And yet it is an ideology that is clearly at variance with the spirit of the age, particularly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the termination of Apartheid in S. Africa.
Apartheid is being resurrected in the West Bank and Gaza by Israel now.

Washington, DC: I read an interview with Sharon on Newsweek, where he says one of his priorities is to encourage immigration of Jews into Israel. This will no doubt lead to an increase in building of settlements. At the same time he is against the right of return of Palestinians. How can he expect to be taken seriously when he talks about peace but his actions indicate otherwise? Why don't pundits analyze these factors when predicting whether peace efforts will be successful instead of going through the usual rhetoric?

Naseer Aruri: It is truly amazing how un-scrutinizing the US media tend to be even when they interview a man like Sharon, who has a blood-tainted past and present--a person who was held directly responsible for a massacre of 2000 Palestinian refugees in 1982 and at least four other massacres.
The sad thing is that Sharon is not alone in his advocacy of building illegal settlements in occupied territories and in calling for "transfer" of the Palestinian population, a euphemism for expulsion. Most of his cabinet members and indeed most cabinets since 1977 have had many members who are on record supporting expulsion. Sharon can talk about peace just as his presumed dovish predecessors had, but the point is that seven years of Oslo have advanced Israel's goal of consolidating the occupation and promoting its maximalist goals--more land and less Arabs

James Madison Univ., Harrisonburg, VA: The Bush,Jr. Administration is dialing back it's "foreign policy" in Northern Ireland, North Korea, and in Africa. But the U.S. government gives $3 billion dollars to Israel yearly amounting to 1 out of every 8 dollars in their economy. Therefore Sharon is here speaking to AIPAC, whereas before January it would be unthinkable to invite him over without President Arafat. My question is: How powerful is this AIPAC Lobby (who are their major contributors, what moves have they made in the past, etc.) and how dangerous are they to future promotions of long term peace? Is there any chance that AIPAC will hold Sharon's feet to the fire, or will they support his lip-service. . ."security first, security first."

Secondly; Is there any chance that the Palestinians will embrace non-violent resistance?

Naseer Aruri: AIPAC is extremely powerful. In fact a book authored by Edward Tivnan is titled THE LOBBY, i.e Aipac as if there is no need to identify it. It seems to have moved from a strict lobby on behalf of Israel vis a vis the US Government to the position of a conceptualizer. That was done under Clinton when he invited Indyk to become his point man on the Middle East in the National Security Council. Indyk, Dennis Ross and Aaron Miller who were in charge of the so-called peace process were connected with AIPAC in one way or another. Now we hear that Bush is about to appoint Robert Satloff, another lobbyist from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy an offshoot of AIPAC to the same position held by Indyk at the NSC.
Funding comes mainly from wealthy American Jews.
With regard to non-violence, three days ago there was a peaceful demonstration by intellectuals and professionals near Bir Zeit University but the Israeli soldiers saw to it that it turned into violence . Yesterday another demonstration by women association near al-Ram check point adjacent to Jerusalem. It was totally non-violent until the soldiers began to fire sound bombs and tear gas canisters into the demonstrators.
Violence serves israel's purposes, and israel has been provoking it

Wash, DC: You clearly view the Israeli blockade policy in a bad light. I do not necessarily disagree that it is, at minimum, extremely detrimental to any future sustainable peace between the two peoples. But I would like to hear your answer to Israeli concerns that within hours of opening any blockade of a town, village, or city, they are faced with renewed terrorist attacks emanating from that same town, village or city, which was just opened. Politically, the hysteria among the public that results from such repeated terrorists attacks (whether they are bombings in Netanya or sniper fire on highways) forces the Israeli leadership to reimpose that blockade. What sort of PRACTICAL solution exists to end this dangerous phenomenon and allow the peace process to move beyond this low point?

Naseer Aruri: First if you read Gideon Levy and Amira Haas among others in Israel's daily HA'ARETZ during the past ten days you will see that even some top military officers in Israel are saying that the siege is not doing anything to enhance security.
As for a PRACTICAL solution I see nothing short of an immediate U.N presence .The Palestinians living under occupation are entitled to international protection under the Geneva Convention 1949. The US cannot be peace maker and co-belligerent at the same time. Only a US threatened veto is standing in the way of sending an international force to protect defenseless civilians now living forcibly in 42 bantustans with trenches around their villages and towns.

Washington, DC: Apartheid! Please, give me a break. As a Zionist I have no doubt that the Israeli public would gladly relinquish control over a large swath of the territory captured in the 1967 war to a negotiating partner on the Palestinian side that it could trust. There needs to be established a dynamic of trust from both sides. For me, the issue right now is that YOU are opposed to a Jewish state in that part of the world. But it's there and it's not going anywhere. In the meantime people throughout the region are suffering. Get over it.

Naseer Aruri: Not a single Israeli government has been willing to withdraw from occupied territory within the meaning of resolution 242. That is why at first they used the euphemism "administered" territories. By 1977 Menachem Begin's government began to refer to the as the "liberated " territories. Let me direct you to a recent book by Nur Masalha IMPERIAL ISTRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS Pluto Books 2000. In a chapter on public opinion quoting the major prestigous israeli P.O. institutes you will see shocking statistics about how the Israeli public feels about withdrawal( in Oslo they call it redeployment) and about expulsion.
The issue is not Israel's existence as you claim It is israel's willingness to live in co-existence with its victims

Charlottesville, Virginia: Is your position that the recent Palestinian attacks--a mortar fired into Israel and a hit-and-run ambush of an Israeli civilian--is not "violence" but a legitimate form of protest against Israeli occupation?

Naseer Aruri: No that is not my position. In fact such mortar attacks exacerbate the situation and provide the real hawks in Israel with the ammunition it needs to tighten the siege and make life miserable for innocent civilians in the hope that many of them begin to leave. Transfer again.

Civil disobedience and non-violent resistance are the best methods to counter the military occupation and its inhuman policies

washingtonpost.com: Naseer, I want to interject a couple of personal questions: Could you tell us a little bit about yourself? What has been your own personal experience of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? And how did you become involved with Amnesty International?

Naseer Aruri: I have been a dissident since after high school in Palestine - first with regard to a reactionary Jordanian administration. From that time on I have been a human rights activist. Was elected to the board of AIUSA three consecutive terms,, asked to serve on the board of Human rights Watch/Middle East for about two years. I am also a critic of Oslo and its architects on ALL sides, and continue to work for justice not only in the Middle East.

Chantilly VA: You say the issue is not "Israel's right to exist."

So would you be willing to unequivocally denounce any organization whose sole aim is to eliminate the state of Israel?

Naseer Aruri: Yes I would providing we are talking about Israel in the June 4, 1967 borders, but not "greater Israel" advocated by Ben-Gurion, Rabin, Shamir, Barak, Netanyahu and Sharon.

Arlington, VA: While I am certainly no specialist on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from following the Western press I know that in Israel there is a considerable wing of public opinion that has consistently pushed for a more conciliatory approach toward the Palestinians. But there does not seem to be anything comparable on the Palestinian side. It seems that all of Palestinian public opinion endorses the position, broadly put, that "We are the victims, therefore it is up to Israel to make any and all concessions." Is the Western press missing something?

Naseer Aruri: The sector pushing for a more conciliatory policy towards the palestinians is unfortunately peripheral, but hopefully it would grow as people realize that sharing the land is the only alternative to catastrophe. The center( not the periphery) of the Palestinian national movement has been for two states since 1972. There is much scholarship on this subject, but hardly any journalistic reporting

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Aruri,

Why do you think the Palestinians and their supporters have not been able to better leverage the numerous human rights reports issued in the past six months to gain support for their cause?

Naseer Aruri: There are two reasons for that;
1. Lack of competent leadership and good organization in the Palestinian sphere
2. The total black-out observed by the US media

Santa Monica Ca: When will the Palestinian Authority change its media perspective and school curriculum to accept Israel and Jews right to exist and to move its people into a attitude of peace rather than an attitude of continued war?

Naseer Aruri: Perhaps you ought to look at Israel's curricula and the socialization process, which views israel as "two-legged animals" or as a" cancer in the flesh of Israel", or as " drugged insects." These quotes are not in the curricula but they are attributed to a Prime Minister addressing his people, to an army general addressing his soldiers, and to a former general-cabinet minister-Raphael Eytan. Just a few examples of what opinion leaders and political leaders tell their own people how to think of Arabs.
I am not a fan of the PA but I don't think that their school books are as bad as you think. I certainly would welcome a genuine effort to scrutinize all such material. Perhaps this can be undertaken some day by a commission of truth and conciliation but it makes no sense to use it as a technique used by the israeli Foreign Ministry and Public Relations consultants. See a recent article in the Jerusalem Post about this campaign in the US

washingtonpost.com: I want to interject one point Naseer. You said that there is a "total blackout" of U.S. media on reports of human rights violations in Israel. Yet on Feb. 26 washingtonpost.com ran a piece headlined Israel Cited for "Excessive Force" about the State Department human rights reports, to cite but one example. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Naseer Aruri: I think that is good, but on the whole there is a lot of censorship and black-out. The European and israeli media are certainly more forthright.

Miami, FL: There have been a number of reports of deterioration of order and of rampant corruption within the Palestinian Authority in recent months. If the Palestinians and the Israelis were to return to the negotiating table, do you believe that the PA still maintains enough control to stop the violence within a short period of time?

Naseer Aruri: This "violence" a term invented by Israeli publicists refers to a people's uprising after it became apparent that seven years of Oslo have not brought the palestinians closer to independence and to realizing their internationally-guaranteed rights. It is an uprising against the palestine Authority just as much as it is against Israel. So the view that Arafat directs it by remote control is simply ludicrous. When the PA embarked on the so-called peace process it was accepting an assignment as israel's enforcer.

washingtonpost.com: Two questions: Do you favor any changes in the way that the Palestinian Authority is now dealing with the Israeli government?

Naseer Aruri: I favor a meeting under international auspices within the framework of international law. The "peace process" has been flawed from its very inception. You cant cure an infection with an aspirin, and the referee must be impartial

washingtonpost.com: Our time is up. Thank you Naseer Aruri for a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion. One reader wanted to know when we would have on an Israeli spokesman. The answer is tomorrow, Wed. March 21 at 11 a.m. Our discussion of Sharon's visit to Washington will continue with Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Join us!