Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

The recent spate of suicide bombings in Israel and the raid upon the Ramallah compound of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has brought the conflict in the Middle East to a new boiling point. Whether the escalating violence in the region explodes into all-out war or the United States and others manage to bring about a truce, the long struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is likely to continue.

FRONTLINE's "Battle for the Holy Land," airing on PBS Thursday, April 4, at 9 p.m. EST (check local listings), examines the latest violent chapter in the ongoing cycle. With unprecedented access to key figures and covert operations on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the film reveals the strategies, weaponry, and intelligence gathering that fuels the increasingly volatile situation.

The show's executive producer, Tom Roberts, was online to talk about the film and what's next in the Middle East on Friday, April 5. Producer Stuart Tanner was online last week to discuss his experience with the Israeli army as they invaded Arafat's compound.

Beginning with the story of how the Palestinian intifada over the past 15 years the Palestinian intifada has escalated from schoolboys throwing stones to suicide bombers and underground militias, the film looks inside the Al-Aqsa brigade, the military wing of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah organization and one of the many and militias that conduct suicide bombings against the Israeli military and civilians alike. The film also shows how the Israelis have responded to this new challenge, going inside two of Israel’s special commando units, highlighting the training and high-tech techniques they employ in combating the Palestinian infitada.

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.

washingtonpost.com: Thanks for joining us, Tom. The conversation with with the "living martyr" in your film was particularly interesting. Do you think that Arafat holds any sway over groups or individuals that believe in or carry out suicide bombings? Would they listen if he condemned the actions and asked them to stop? Do you know what has happened to this young man since you taped your interview?

Tom Roberts: We have no idea what has happened to him. My suspicion would be that he's no longer living, but we have no knowledge of that. And the only way to find out would be to go back directly to the location, because discussing on the telephone by either side would be a breach of security for them.

In terms of Arafat having some sway, without getting into semantics, it depends on what you mean by sway. He has, in my view, what we know, no direct control over the fundamentalists and their suicide attacks. Yet one of the complications of late has been secular suicide attacks, and therefore it's difficult to know to what extent Palestinian Authority officials had knowledge or influence over the secular suicide attacks. Nevertheless, Arafat is recognized by virtually all Palestinians as the figurehead representing nationhood, and there have been times in the past when Hamas have unilaterally announced that they would cease attacks against Israel because of the complications it was causing Arafat. And there have been times when they deliberately carried out attacks in order to put pressure on Arafat. There are recent and unpublicized reports that papers have been found in Arafat's office showing a direct connection between some groups that have been carrying out attacks, along with demand for payment for those who have been carrying them out. This is unsubstantiated information, and I don't know the veracity of it. But the overall situation is a very complex interplay of political forces. In Israel some people speak of Arafat riding the tiger of Palestinian nationalism, and that's how I prefer to think of him -- as an individual who is safe while on the back of the tiger of Palestinian nationalism, but if he falls off is in danger of being devoured.

It is important to note that he is not in direct control, but does have influence.

Boston, Mass.: For some time now governmental relations between the U.S. and Israel has been good and information sharing between the two countries has been substantial. Also, Israel currently has few significant allies other than the U.S. These things considered, would you say that much of Israel's military efforts and political stategies toward the Palestinians are done after some deliberations with the U.S.?

Tom Roberts: I would think that it's unlikely, and I know about the Israeli military and know quite a few senior officers. It's unlikely that there are any direct quid pro quo conversations from one to the other about an action being carried out. I'm an American citizen working in Britain, and one of the reasons I wanted to make these two films is that I wanted to try to alert the American government to the massive complexity of its so-called war on terror. I have been told, for example, by one Israeli intelligence official that they tried to warn the American intelligence community of impending attacks on America, but were not believed. Again, I don't know if this is true or not. I think the situation is more like that which occurred during World War II, when the American and British armies fought side by side, and there was a degree of coordination, but not control.

Certainly, in this administration, very little attention appears to have been given to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until very late in the day. So information is shared, contacts are extensive, but there is no permission asked for or granted, and no direct coordination of activities.

Los Angeles, Calif.: A question from your views from last week. You said: "But I think it's very clear that there are inevitable civilian casualties as a result of these operations, and in fact they cause more civilian casualties overall than casualties to their targets." Do you include civilians that carry machine guns as "civilians" or militants? I ask this because in the footage most of the militants are in civilian clothing. Thanks.

washingtonpost.com: Tom Roberts was not online with us last week. That was producer Stuart Tanner, who was online last Friday from Ramallah.

Tom Roberts: Not having read the dialogue of last week, but knowing Stuart as I do, I would assume that when he said civilians, he meant civilians, i.e., people who are non combatants.

The question of what clothes combatants are wearing is much more complicated than one might think. For example, for years the Israeli army ran Mistarvim units, in which their undercover soldiers dress up as Palestinian civilians -- sometimes as women, sometimes as boys, sometimes as old men -- and approach their targets before they bring their guns out. In the nature of this kind of warfare, where there are no front lines, where intelligence is very important, where, in the Vietnam phrase, people are farmers by day and fighters by night, this kind of splitting hairs doesn't really help understand the nature of the tactics that are employed by both sides.

Take, for example, Israeli settlers. They are not members of military organizations, they wear civilian clothes, they drive in cars with their wives and children. Many of them are heavily armed. Are they legitimate targets by the Palestinians? You tell me.

Washington, D.C.: Have you found that the deep-seeded hatreds characterizing this conflict have permeated all elements of life in Israel and the Palestine territories? For example, is it possible for local journalists on both sides to be objective when reporting? Or, is there a larger "silent majority" that wants peace, acts peacefully, and is not depicted in the media? Thank you.

Tom Roberts: First, both communities live cheek by jowl with the other. And they know each other extremely well. Palestinians can usually tell and Israeli in their midst and can differentiate between a European or an American and an Israeli. And the same, if you will, animal skill, exists with Israelis who can spot a Palestinian in a similar vein. The vast majority of contacts are not violent ones, but everyday, boring mundane contacts along the border in places of work where Palestinians come into Israel to work, though fewer and fewer are doing that all the time.

In addition, the journalists on both sides, though I can't speak for all of them, endeavor to be as objective in their reporting as they can, given that they are caught up in a conflict. But having worked there extensively, there is no incident that I've ever heard of or encountered, where international journalists have been targeted by either side. It's an amazing mixture of hostility and tolerance.

It is my really deep belief that the majority of people on both sides of the divide really very sincerely want peace. But not at any price. The Palestinians want peace with dignity, with freedom and with the opportunity to be themselves and run their own affairs. The Israelis want peace with security -- a sense that their lives and their childrens' lives are not under threat, nor is their nation under threat. Yet both sides have dreams. Many Israelis dream of a greater Israel, having access to or control over important religious sites in the West Bank. And many Palestinians in the refugee camps dream of returning to their grandfathers' homes in what is now Israel. For there to be peace, both sides have to learn to live with the others' dreams, while allowing each other's reality.

Detroit, Mich.: Are there any Palestinians voicing opposition to the suicide bombings?

Tom Roberts: When the peace process began in 1993-94, about 8 percent of the population were supporters of Hamas, the strongest fundamentalist group -- less than one in 10. Today the figures are somewhere between 60 and 80 percent are supportive of Hamas. That represents the fundamental failure of a totally flawed peace process. It is difficult for a variety of reasons for Palestinians to voice opposition to the current tactics of suicide bombings. For a start, a people who are completely inadequate in military terms have a weapon that actually does hit back at their enemy. And to that extent, suicide bombings have been successful from the narrow perspective of hitting the Israelis. At the same time, it's difficult to speak openly in a community where militants now control the general mood, the general state of affairs, because of the risk that you could be called a collaborator, a sympathizer. And the Palestinian people are a desperate people as well, and consequently they see the world through a very distorted prism.

Yet deep in most of their hearts, I believe, they would like nothing more than to farm their land and run their shops, certainly without influence from Israel. But basically accepting Israel. This does not include the fundamentalists, who want to see the complete destruction of Israel. And it doesn't include the people who live in refugee camps -- squalid, hopeless places -- who dream of returning to their forefathers' homes in Israel.

Santa Barbara, Calif.: One of the Palestinians interviewed said that he would like to see "A Palestinian state from the river to the sea" which in other words mean from the Jordan river to the Mediternean sea, so where exactly would the state of Israel fit in that area? If that is the opinion of the majority of Palestinians, why exactly should anyone negotiate with them. I also did not hear any Palestinian recognizing the right of Israel to exist in any defendable borders? Why?

Tom Roberts: I think that's a misreading of the reality there. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of Palestinians would accept the complete existence of Israel within the '67 borders, but they have been failed by the Oslo peace process. The plan was that the peace process would take place over five years, in which the most difficult issues -- the question of a Palestinian state, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem -- would be discussed at the final stages. During those five years, Israel would gradually hand over more and more land to Palestinian control, and trust would develop between the two communities. In reality, eight years into the peace process, only 13 percent of the West Bank and the occupied territories have been handed back to Palestinian control. In Gaza, a tiny strip of land, massively overcrowded -- about one and a half million Palestinians live in 60 percent of the Gaza strip, where less than 5,000 Israeli settlers live in 35 percent of the Gaza strip. By any measure, the Oslo peace accords did not work.

I made a series of films following the early stages of the peace process in 1994-95, and its impact on ordinary Israelis and Palestinians. At the time, I couldn't find a single Israeli on the left or the right who couldn't understand that the peace process would lead to a Palestinian state. In other words, they had a sophisticated view of the long-term consequences of Oslo. On the other hand, I could find virtually no Palestinian who believed in their heart that there was a certainty of a Palestinian state. They couldn't allow themselves to believe that it would occur, that it would take place. And this simple example demonstrates the tremendous gulf in between the two peoples.

I personally believe that if the Israelis withdrew from the settlements, from the West Bank and Gaza, even with more adjusted, secure 1967 borders, security threats with Israel would fade away very rapidly. There would still be a great risk of a severe conflict between the fundamentalists in Palestine and the secularists in Palestine, which could spill over into Israel. But a situation such as that would so strengthen the secularists that they would likely prevail over the fundamentalists. On the other hand, so much blood has been shed, and there's so much hatred that there will always be for a very long time, individuals who feel a personal necessity to avenge their families' loss. I remember telling a friend a few days after Barak Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinians in Hebron in the Temple of Abraham, that there would be a reprisal some time in the future, and sadly Israeli blood would be shed. I thought it would come back in 20 years time. I was wrong. Two years to the same day and to the same minute that Goldstein opened fire, a bomb went off in Jerusalem, killing several innocent Israelis. Though I don't wish to be glib and say give the Palestinians the state, withdraw from the settlements and all of Israel's problems will disappear, I find that difficult to imagine for several generations.

Washington, D.C.: There are some factual errors and omission in your "timeline of events" section.

1. The Intifida II did not begin with Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. This is according to Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister. "It [the uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former U.S. president and rejected the American conditions."

2. You mention that Al-Quds is Islam's third holy site, whereas it is Jews' FIRST and ONLY holy site.

3. As of today the victims of the bombing in Netanya is at 26 people, not the 20 you had mentioned.

4. The land you refer to as "occupied" territories was won in a war against Israel in 1967. Before the withdrawals of the Israel Defense Forces under terms of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the West Bank was disputed territory unallocated from the Palestine Mandate. Ottoman Empire sovereignty never passed to Jordan, which seized the West Bank during the 1948 War.

Tom Roberts: I understand the first point. It is generally accepted by all contemporary observers, that the spark that caused the second intifada was Sharon's visit to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is the third holiest Muslim site. It stands above and is built upon what is thought to be the ruins of the first Jewish temple, and one of its supporting walls is the Wailing Wall. But I think to spend time picking apart these details is to ignore the realities. You mention a convoluted historical and legal status of the West Bank. The point is that there are millions of Palestinians who actually live on that land under occupation, and the question is what to do with the real lives and real people who live there today. That is the issue that should be addressed.

Washington, D.C.: I've never understood why no Palestinian leader ever tries the tactic of nonviolent resistance. Obviously, Arafat began his nationalist career as a sort of guerrila fighter, but you'd think at some point, someone would want to see if it was going to be a successful tactic.

Certainly it's easier said than done, but massive, nonviolent demonstrations would surely change opinion inside of Israel and greatly alter American preceptions of the conflict.

Tom Roberts: Certainly it's always been in the back of my mind, why the Palestinians have not developed more sophisticated tactics. There's the old quip by Aba Eben, the foreign minister in Golda Meir's government, which was that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But joking aside, the truth is more complex and difficult.

Eyad Sharag, the only psychiatrist in Gaza until the mid-'90s, a man of remarkable intelligence and insight, made a speech in the Jebalaya refugee camp when the first intifada began, two weeks into that intifada. Up to that point, he said, we have only used stones and non-violent tactics. We must never start shooting during the intifada. The reason, he said, was that the Palestinians and the Israelis share one thing in common. They are both historical victims. And when you start shooting and killing, people retreat into their victimhood, which is an extremely secure and safe place to be psychologically -- I'm hurt and you've hurt me -- even if it is a very unpleasant place to be. He said once the Israelis have retreated into their victimhood and we have retreated into ours, there will be no dialogue. Sadly, Sharag was not heeded, and soon Israelis were being shot at. Why Palestinians were not able to find peaceful tactics is a question I don't think can find easy answer. But I think it has something to do with the level of oppression they feel they've experienced, as well as the nature of their culture.

If you recall, Israel was born in a ball of fire, in which there was fighting on all sides. And that probably covered all subsequent reactions to the creation of Israel on the part of Palestinians. But who knows?

Brooklyn, N.Y.: In a recent online chat, your fellow producer Stuart Tanner said, "To give you an example, the suicide bombing on Wednesday, the "Passover massacre," as the Israelis call it, whose interests did that serve? I'd say it certainly undermined the whole Arab summit and peace proposal. It strengthened Sharon's claim that Palestinians are not interested in peace. And it further damages the image of Chairman Arafat. And therefore sometimes you get darker currents of conspiracy theory, whereby people begin to think that maybe these attacks are allowed, because the timing of them would suit Israel politically so strongly."

This outrageous statement imples that Israel permitted, or even facilitated, the attack. Do you agree with Mr. Tanner?

Tom Roberts: Again, I know Stuart well, and I cannot believe that he would ever suggest that the Israelis would allow an attack on their soil. It is unimaginable that such a policy would be carried out by the Israeli government, and it is unimaginable that any Israeli, at any level, would carry it out. It's just not possible.

One of the things that distinguishes Israeli military policy and makes Israel unique among any other army, is the discretion given to commanders to avoid casualties among their own men. Certainly, the death toll among Israelis would be much higher if dozens of Israelis didn't risk their lives attempting to thwart attacks on their own soil.

Houston, Tex.: How can the U.S. give a fair resolution and hopefuly end to this over 30 years of conflict when it's a strong ally to one side of the two. We don't need to hide that U.S. is strongly funding the Israeli army with weapons and money while stops the funding to feed the PL civilians as part of the war on terrorism. Shouldn't the U.S. step aside of being the only peace maker and let another OBJECTIVE party that has no conflict of interest leads the peace process since U.S. hasn't been productive for all these years.

Tom Roberts: The Europeans have tried to have an influence, but there isn't any doubt that America is the most influential country in the region, by a long shot, and unfortunately America can't walk away from its responsibilities. My own personal view is that America is a contributor, inadvertently, to the conflict, despite its many efforts in the past to promote peace. The former head of the Israeli equivalent of the FBI, a man who's fought the Palestinians for most of his life, said to me recently that all the Israeli army is doing is providing the space and time for Israeli politicians not to make the necessary decisions for peace. And to a similar extent, America makes the same contribution. Israeli society is deeply divided. It has its own secularists and fundamentalists. The secularists have no interest in occupying the West Bank and Gaza, want to get on with their own lives and are happy to let the Palestinians get on with theirs. The fundamentalists believe in the idea of a greater Israel, called ersatz Israel, and they comprise a small portion of the settlers. The vast majority of the settlers are people who have moved to the West Bank because of economic incentives -- cheaper housing and other kinds of incentives. The U.S. tolerated, throughout the peace process, the extension, the expansion and the growth of the settlements in the West Bank. If the U.S. had said, for a start, that not another penny goes to the Israeli government until there is a full and complete stop of settlement; secondly, that it offered $10,000 or $15,000 per settlement family to move back into Israel; we would very very quickly realize that only a small number of settlers are determined to retain a presence in the occupied territories. And we would understand very clearly how a relatively small number of people are the tail wagging the body of Israel. The third stage would be to say to the settlers, you have every right to live where you want to live, but you will have to live under Palestinian sovereignty. If that were the case, a tiny number of settlers would remain in the West Bank. And the force would be for the U.S. to absolutely guarantee, with U.S. military forces if necessary, the borders of Israel, because every Israeli has a right to a safe and secure home and to their own national destiny. But at the moment, Israeli society and political system is unable to make the decisions necessary to change the landscape of the Middle East to allow peace a decent chance.

Somewhere, USA: Dear Mr. Roberts,

In a post-cold War period, why should the United States be so concerned about the state of the Middle East? Aren't journalists being hyperbolic when they write of "situations spiraling out of control", "areas laid waste", etc.? I doubt even 100,000 have been killed in the last decade. Tutsi-Hutu relations in central Africa, Muslim-Hindu relations in northern India, even Tamil guerillas in Sri Lanka -- all seem likely to result in more deaths. So why should the Middle East so dominate the news and policy-making? European and American journalists don't cry out for the U.S. to provide a solution to Sri Lankan problems -- nor is Dan Rather in Congo. Why is this area so important now that it's no longer a U.S.-USSR area of confrontation?

Tom Roberts: I think the question should not be addressed to me, but should be addressed to the U.S. government. Israel is the biggest benefactor of U.S. foreign policy -- $3 billion a year. U.S. non-proliferation nuclear policy is fundamentally undermined by the fact that it will not force Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but introduced sanctions against Pakistan when it developed a nuclear weapon. The world cries out "hypocrisy." American regional interests, particularly the threat it feels from countries like Iraq or Iran, is directly fueled by the sense of injustice the Arab people feel by the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. And in addition, American targets, whether they are embassies in East Africa, or journalists or troops in other parts of the world, have been attacked by Muslim fundamentalists claiming as one of their motivations the battle to liberate Palestine. So the American government is prepared to make significant sacrifices for its support of Israel. And the question is why do they feel it's so important to provide this level of support? As an American myself, I would say that my country for too long and in too many places, has ignored the rest of the world. It is the greatest polluter on the face of the earth, and yet decided to abrogate a treaty signed by every other country on the face of the earth to reduce pollution. It ran a campaign against the international effort to create an international court to try war criminals. A member of the administration was quoted as saying, "the only way we would sign this is if there were a provision in the treaty stating that no American could ever be tried before the court." I don't know about you, but I believe that Americans are the same as everybody else, and we are as capable of goodness and evil as anybody else. And why should there be an exception for any one nation?

American prosperity is built on trade, and for decades America has promoted policies of democratic capitalism. So I believe it's in America's economic interest as well as the world's economic interest, to promote policies of democracy in the world, and to oppose oppression and tyranny. The difficulty in the Middle East is that one nation feels profoundly insecure and at risk, while another nation has yet to be given birth. And the only possible solution for peace in the Middle East is where both Israelis and Palestinians have secure national borders, free of threat from either side, and free of oppression. Given the tremendous support America has provided Israel over the years, it has a moral obligation to work much, much harder to achieve peace in the Middle East.

I would simply finish by saying, we have seen the terrible consequences to Americans by the result of policies that ignored certain realities in the wider world -- and I'm thinking of Sept. 11. The world is too small a place to ignore realities in other countries.

washingtonpost.com:

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

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Bob Levey: Speaking Freely at Noon EST
Carolyn Hax: Tell Me About It at Noon EST
Comics: Meet the Artist -- "Sherman's Lagoon" at 1 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.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>