Samer Shehata, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Politics at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, will be online Monday, April 1 at 10 a.m. EST, to talk about the heightened military action in the Middle East and the state of Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Shehata teaches courses on comparative and Middle East politics and political economy, culture and politics in the Arab world, Egyptian politics and society and other subjects. Previously, he was a fellow at the Society of Fellows at Columbia University and the director of Graduate Studies at New York University's Center for Near Eastern Studies. He has also taught at the American University in Cairo and Princeton University.

His research interests include Middle East politics and political economy, social class in the Middle East and the impact of globalization on the Arab world. He has made numerous appearances on CNN, CNN international, MSNBC and Abu Dhabi TV.

A 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.

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: Thanks very much for havig me. I'm looking forward to answering as many of your questions as possible.

Alexandria, Va.: Would it be productive for the United States to propose once again the Clinton peace plan, possibly renaming it the Bush peace plan?

Why did the Palestinians reject the Clinton plan in 2001? Did the Palestinians reject the Clinton plan because it required the Palestinians to give up the dream of the so-called "right of return?"

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: Although I think that re-proposing the Clinton Plan with a new name - 'The Bush Plan' - would not wrok terribly well, you are indeed correct that the US and the Bush administration needs to play a more active role in attempting to end the conflict ... not simply by imposing a cease-fire, but by actively working on what a final and just solution to the conflict would be.

The Clinton Plan at Camp David failed for a number of reasons. Although all parties deserve a modicum of blame, I believe Yasser Arafat has been unfairly blamed more than he deserves. Both Clinton and Barak were operating on short political clocks and the right of return was indeed a tremendous stumbling block. Some Palestinians - evenif it is not a hige number - should be allowed to return to their pre-1948 homes in Israel proper. And in all fairness, the Palestinians were not offered 97% of the West Bank and Gaza as has been reported by some. They were offered significantly less, especially if one includes the security zone that was to be established around the West Bank.

Alexandria, Va.: Did the Saudi peace plan require Israel to grant Palestinians the right to settle inside of Israel's pre-1967 borders?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: The Saudi Peace Plan - known as the Abdullah initiative after Crown Prince Abdullah - called for a just solution to the refugee issue. It left the details to be worked out by both parties. Many of us believed that a symbolic number of Palestinians would have been allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel and the vast majority would have received some form of compensation managed by the United Nations. The plan did not demand that all refugees be given a right of return, somethign Israel has repeatedly said it would reject.

Alexandria, Va.: Do you think that suicide bombings alienate American, British and Indian public opinion?

Do suicide bombings actually harm the Palestinian cause? If so, why does Arafat's Fatah organization carry out such attacks? Would Fatah stop carrying out suicide attacks if it realized that the attacks were counter-productive?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: Yes, I do think that suicide bombings alientate much public opinion in many countries, including in the US. Whether or not suicide bombings harm the Palestinian cause is debatable, however. Some people might argue that it is only when the price of occupation is so high that Israel will no longer be able or willing to remain in the West Bank and Gaza. Many argue that this is what ultimately led to the Israeli withdrawl from southern Lebanon. Of course, I do not condone suicide bombing or the taking of any life. If anything, I think suicide bombings and Israeli military attacks in the West Bank and Gaza prove that there is not a military solution to this conflict. Israel's policy of harsh military reponses to suicide bombings has not brought peace. The only solution to the conflict is a political one.

Riesterstown, Md.: Do you have any comments regarding Colin Powell's lack of input regarding trying to rectify the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: I think the Bush administration is speaking with multiple voices. At times Colin Powell has made forceful and reasonable statements that I think are productive and show a willingness to engage. President Bush on the other hand has been much more willing to simply watch the violence and, with his silence, allow Ariel Sharon to continue military attacks against the Palestinians. Sooner or later Pres. Bush himself will have to become more deeply involved as this conflict is a matter of US national security. We always hear that State Department officials wonder why opinion towards the US is hostile in the Arab and Muslim world. The answer is simple. Arabs and Muslims all over the world are watching on CNN and Al-Jazeera as Israel continues its brutal assault on Yasser Arafat and an unarmed civilian population while the US - Israel's chief supporter - does nothing, essentially allowing the assualt and killing to continue. No wonder Arabs and Muslims all over the world are critical of US foreign policy.

Arab World: How can Sharon convince the world that Arafat is behind the suicide bombers, while he is under siege and barely he can talk to media or to people?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: I believe you are completely correct in pointing to the contradiction in Sharon's policy. The contradiction is namely this: call on Arafat to do more to stop the suicide bombings, demand that his security forces make arrests, etc.. while striking at the Palestinian authority and decimating his organizational capacity to act.
I do not believe that Arafat is controlling the suicide bombings. We have seen no evidence of this. And the suicide bombigs have only increased with the assaults on Arafat's compound and Ramallah.

Washington, D.C.: How much does the corruption within the Palestinian Authority and fellow Arab states contribute to the inability to create peace with Israel?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: I think very little. One can blame the Arab States and the Palestinian Authority (PA)for many things, but one cannot - in all fairness blame them - and corruption more specifically - for the lack of peace in the region.

India: Will George Bush's pro-Isreali policy have a negative impact on the so-called crusade against terrorism and how will it affect the Middle East/U.S. relations?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: There is no question in my mind that Arabs and Muslims worldwide hold the US partially responsible for what is happening in Israel and Palestine. Many believe, I think rightly, that the United States is the only country in the world that has enough leverage with Isreal to affect Israeli actions ... in the occupied territories and on the negotiating table.
Furthermore, we have already seen in Beirut at the Arab Summit last week the strong statements against any possible attack on Iraq from the other Arab States. Pres. Bush's pro-Israel policy will pose many problems for the execution of the war on terrorism. It is not making him or the US friends in the Arab and Muslim world, and beyond.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think Ariel Sharon will ever agree to retreat to 1967 borders?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: Ariel Sharon has said publically on more than one occassion that he will not agree to return all land occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. The truth of the matter, however, is that Israel can have only one or the other ... either land OR peace ... but not both. Unless Israel ends the occupation, there will be no peace in the region.

Alexandria, Va.: How did it come about that the US is responsible for fixing the Israel/Palestine situation and, in many people's minds, for creating it too? Isn't this conflict really the fault of Britain and other former colonial powers?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: You are correct to lay much blame on the British as they were the colonial power most responsible for the mess that we know face. But since 1945 and the end of World War II, as the US emerged as one of the world's two superpowers and a patron of Israel, the US grew more and more involved in the conflict. [I should also add that Pres. Truman recognized Israel 11 minutes after it was established and the US was the second country to recognize Israel. Kissinger played a crucial role in ending the October 1973 War and, of course, Carter was primarily responsible for Camp David.] As the only remaining superpower in world and as ISrael's primary ally, the US does have the power and responsibility to involve itself in working toward a peaceful resolution to this conflict. It is the only force in the world with enough carrots and sticks to do so. And US interests are involved, not only with regards to Israel and Palestine, but other interestes in the region.

Washington, D.C.: What do you suggest Yasser Arafat do next? Is there any way to quell the violence right now, or does Israel have to retreat first?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: It does not appear there is much that Yasser Arafat can do. He is holed up in his compound with little power to do much of any thign now. Israel must withdraw from Ramallah, Beit Jala, Bethleham and other cities in the West Bank before we can even begin to work toward some kind of lasting peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Melbourne, Victoria (Australia): Why are the Palestinians considered to be terrorist and the Israeli not?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: The definition of terrorism is a very tricky thing. Generally terrorism is defined as violence directed at civilians by sub-national groups for political ends. This definition itself is biased against non-state actors. While I would not want to throw out the word/term completely, or accept the idea that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' we do have to understand that the term is more often than not used for political ends. States - that is governments - often do terrible things ... whether it is bombing civilian populations, collective punishment, land seizure, etc... To my mind this is a kind of state terrorism.
And regarding the second part of your question ... about Israel. Many believe that Ariel Sharon himself is a terrorist of sorts because of his involvement in the massacre of innocent civilians (mostly women and children) in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Beirut in 1982. There is a court case against him in Belgium presently charging him with crimes against humanity and war crimes. It will be interesting to see how this plays itself out.

Montreal, Canada: Is there anyone among the PLO who can step in and take the place of Arafat?
It is my believe that Arafat's days are numbered and he will be sent into exile. This will not be a great loss, however, I am wondering if there are some realistic people in the Fatah movement?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: Yasser Arafat so far has not allowed a number two man to emerge. It is not clear who would emerge if he were to die or be killed.

Montclair, Va.: Assuming the sincerity of the Saudi peace proposal (which is difficult to do because of the Arab media and educational propaganda that blames Jews and Israel for all the world's evils and has refused to even acknowledge the State of Israel's existence since 1948) and assuming Israel agreed to it, who would be able to rein in the terrorist groups who would continue to push for the total elimination of a Jewish state?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: If a viable Palestinian state was established and a just solution to the refugees acheived (and Jerusalem), the few groups that call for the total elimination of Israel would become even more marginal and insignificant thanthey are now. The overhwleming majority of Palestinians would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. And this newly established state would be, of course, held responsible for actions committed by its citizens. Finally, other Arab states (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc...) do not have an interest in the conflict continuing. They would also not accept or support the existence of such groups if a functioning Palestinian state was established. It would be in their interests as well to maintain peace.

Washington DC: Dr. Shehata - thank you for coming on today. Can you tell today's readers what are the top three biggest misconceptions in the U.S. regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine? Thank you.

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: The first misconception is that the problem is about terrorism. The problem is the continuing military OCCUPATION of Palestinian land since 1967. The West Bank and Gaza (and the Golan heights and a small section of Lebanon known as the Shaaba farms) has been occupied by Israel for more that 34 years ... longer than I have been alive. This occupation is illegal and is the root cause of the conflict. Unless Israel ends the occupation - which many in the Israeli public and military are calling on it to do - there will be no peace.

The second misconception is that the conflict is between two equal parties. Israel is a nation-state with one of the most powerful military machines in the world and support (financial, military and diplomatic) from the US, the world's most powerful state to the tune of over $3 billion a year. It has US military airplanes (f-16s) and helicopter gunships (American made) and a navy, anti-aircraft weapons, etc... The Palestinians are a civilian population without an army, with a much lower GNP per capita and without the backing of the world's most powerful nation.
The last misconception is that the US is a "neutral party" to this conflict - somehow a 'fair broker' between the two parties. The US is Israel's most important ally and Israel is the largest recipient of US aid in the world - over 90$ billion dollars historically.

Toronto, Ontario: What do you think about Ariel Sharon's policy of isolating Arafat? Is it conducive to future peace talks?

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: Not conducive to future peace talks or an end to the violence. I think many people are coming to the realization that Sharon's policies have been a failure. He came to power with the promise of security but he has not been able to deliver security for Israel. More Israeli civilians have died while he has been in power than under any other Israeli PM. The solution to the conflict is not a military one but will only come through politics, negotiation and compromise from both parties.

Samer Shehata, Ph.D.: I'd like to thank The Washingtonpost.com for having me and apologize to all of those who submitted questions I did not have enough time to answer.

washingtonpost.com:

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

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Howard Kurtz: Media Backtalk at Noon EST
Film: Desson Howe at 12:30 p.m. EST
Post Magazine: Deaf Like Me at 1 p.m. EST
NCAA: College Park Police at 1 p.m. EST
Travel Talk at 2 p.m. EST
Authors" "Growing Up Baseball" at 2 p.m. EST
Astrology: Charlene Lichtenstein at 6 p.m. EST

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.

   |      |