• Brookings Web site • Special Coverage: America At War • Live Online Special Coverage: America At War • Talk: National message boards • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

Israeli helicopter gunships fired missiles near the headquarters of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat Monday morning, in apparent retaliation for weekend suicide bombings by Islamic militants.

Martin S. Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, will be online to take questions and comments about the Arab-Israeli conflict, how the recent escalation will effect America's war against terrorism and what lies ahead for the region.

The discussion is part of a regular series developed by The Brookings Institution's Project on America's Response to Terrorism and washingtonpost.com to examine the key policy questions related to the U.S. fight against terrorism.

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.

New York, N.Y.: Do you think there is any chance of actually achieving Palestinian/Israeli peace with Arafat remaining in a leadership position? Why or why not?

Martin Indyk: Whether peace can be achieved with Chairman Arafat depends entirely on whether he is now prepared to take a strong and sustained stand against the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations who do not have any interest in peace with Israel. There are a lot of other questions that will then arise about whether Arafat is interested in making the necessary compromises to achieve a final peace agreement, questions that were raised in the wake of the breakdown of negotiations last year. However, those are second order questions. Unless he stops the terror, violence and incitement, there simply won't be any peace process to worry about.

Washington, D.C.: I consider the Oslo Accords a failure in light of the fact that more Israelis have been killed in terror attacks in the 8 years since the Oslo Accord than in the 45 years of Israel's existence before Oslo. Do you agree?

Please permit me one follow-up question, as well. If Arafat HAD accepted Barak's offer at Camp David, what do you think the current state of affairs in Israel and the area would be?

Thank you for taking the time to respond to our questions.

Martin Indyk: Certainly the whole Oslo process is now in a deep crisis and the fundamental issue of terrorism has to be addressed and definitively resolved before it, or any other peace process, can be revived. Oslo was an effort to develop that way. We should recall that it was worked out by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in direct negotiations behind the back of the United States. We did our best to support and implement that agreement even though its opponents used terror, violence and assassination to kill it.

One way or the other, Israelis and Palestinians will have to find a way to coexist. And the best way for both sides to work this arrangement out is through negotiations that lead to an agreement, if not for a marriage, then at least for an amicable divorce. But that can't happen unless the basic principle is reasserted by the Palestinian side: no resort to violence in the effort to resolve the issues in dispute. This was the principle that Yasir Arafat solemnly subscribed to on September 13, 1993 with the whole world as his witness. He has not fulfilled that obligation.

Alexandria, Va.: Could you please explain to me exactly what it is that Arafat will need to do in order to win over support from both Israel and the United States? Can he realistically achieve such goals without loosing support from his people?

Martin Indyk: It's straightforward: stop the violence, arrest the terrorists (and keep them in jail), suppress the terrorist organizations, and stop the incitement.

There is deep anger and hatred amongst the Palestinian people. In this environment, these actions will not be popular. But Arafat is now in a corner of his own making. He has to lead his public opinion and no longer be intimidated by it. Musharaff did it in Pakistan despite much more serious protests than Arafat has faced in the West Bank and Gaza. It's called leadership. If Arafat doesn't have it any more then we will all be at the mercy of popular rage and that leads straight over the cliff.

Somewhere, USA: Why isn't the UN getting involved in a peace-keeping mission in Palestine (similar to the current situation in Macedonia or Kosovo)?

Martin Indyk: This is not a peacekeeping situation. The UN forces would become the targets of the terrorists (as they did in Lebanon before the PLO was evicted from there in 1982).

There is a UN envoy, Terje Larsen, on the ground. Kofi Annan is willing to get involved but a modicum of normalcy has to be established before the UN or anybody else can play a positive role.

Gaithersburg, Md.:

I have read much recently about the void that would follow if Arafat were expelled or assassinated and the likelihood that he would be replaced by Hamas. This leads me to two questions:

-- Is a government, led by Arafat, that gives freedom of movement and action to Hamas really any worse (or different) than a government run by Hamas?
-- Why, in all the talk of a successor (which will come sooner or later, regardless of whether or not Israel goes after Arafat now), is Sari Nusseibeh (the Palestinian Representative in Jerusalem) never mentioned?

He is by far the most moderate, reasoned voice in prominent Palestinian circles, at least as far as I can tell. Does he lack the stature for the top job? The support? The interest? Thank you for answering our questions!

Martin Indyk: If Arafat acts against Hamas, his Palestinian Authority obviously will be different to Hamas. If he doesn't then it becomes a question of terror with Arafat or terror without Arafat. Israelis are now asking themselves which would be better. However, the Israeli cabinet -- despite its recent branding of the Palestinian Authority as a "terror-supporting" entity -- has not yet given up on the idea of Arafat acting against the terrorists. I take that as an indication that they still think there is a chance that a government run by Arafat can be different to one run by Hamas.

Sari Nusseiba isn't mentioned because, notwithstanding his courage and brilliance, he does not command the support of "troops on the ground." He is a Jerusalem intellectual with little ability to command support in the West Bank and Gaza. The hope is that others who can command that support will take up his ideas.

Leesburg, Va.: Are we expecting more from Arafat than what he can deliver?

Martin Indyk: Possibly. We will know in the next week because it is the moment of decision for him.

I firmly believe he has the capability with nine security organizations answering directly to him and more than 30,000 men under arms. Does he have the will to do something he has preferred to avoid all his political life, i.e. confront his opposition? That is the question. If not now, when? And if not now then, I'm afraid, it will be never and we will all have to draw the appropriate conclusions. Bear in mind that the terrorists are operating out of territory that is under his control.

Arlington, Va.: Why is it that there seems to be a double standards when it comes to atrocities committed by the Israelis and then those committed by the Palestinians.

Last week a bomb had been planted by the Israelis in the West Bank that killed 5 to 6 children - all under the age of 9. Why isn't this considered terrorism? How is it any different than what happened over the weekend?

When Israeli's do it, it's considered military operations, but when the Palestinian civilians retaliate and do it, it's considered terrorism. Nearly a thousand Palestinians (most of which are under the age of 18) have been killed during this resistance to Israel's illegal occupation.

Should Americans value Israeli lives more than Palestinian lives?

Martin Indyk: The deaths of those Palestinian children last week was horrible and deserving of condemnation. Indeed, there has been much too much killing of innocents on both sides.

The difference, however, is essential. The Israeli army does not target innocent people, any more than the US Air Force targets a hospital in Afghanistan. The bomb you are referring to was laid as a trap for Palestinians who were firing mortars into an Israeli settlement. The targets were not children. The terrorists who attacked in Jerusalem and Haifa over the weekend were deliberately targeting innocent people in cafes and on busses.

Beyond that there is a wider issue that needs to be borne in mind. Israel has tried over many years to end its occupation through negotiations. That's what the Oslo process was about and that's what Israel offered to do last year. By the time of the Taba negotiations in January 2001, Israel was offering the Palestinians a state in 95-97% of the West Bank (with territorial swaps to compensate for the rest), plus all of Gaza, with its capital in east Jerusalem and a fair resolution of the refugee problem. This would have involved the evacuation of some 50 settlements. The Palestinians rejected this offer, preferring to "end the occupation" through violence and terror not just in the West Bank and Gaza but throughout Israel.

Martin Indyk: THank you for all your excellent questions. I'm sorry that I don't have time to answer them all but, hopefully, I can come back on another day to resume the discussion. Best wishes,

Martin Indyk

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie at Noon EST
Federal Diary Live at Noon EST
Michael Franz: The Grapevine at Noon EST
Holiday Safety: Consumer Product Safety Commission at 1 p.m. EST
E-Learning: Blackboard, Inc. at 1 p.m. EST
Michelle Singletary: End-of-Year Tax Strategies at 1 p.m. EST
Weapons of Mass Destruction at 1 p.m. EST
America at War: Sen. Byron Dorgon (D-N.D.) at 2:30 p.m. EST
Live Online Special Coverage: America At War

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |