|
Elections in Israel
With Dr. Steven L. Spiegel
Associate Director of the Burkle Center for International Relations, Professor of Political Science, UCLA
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003; 3 p.m. ET
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon won a decisive victory in Israel's election Tuesday, gaining an overwhelming endorsement for his harsh military crackdown on the Palestinian uprising and his tough response to terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. What will happen to the peace process? How will this play into the U.S. role in both peace negotiations and possible military action in Iraq?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel specializes in analyzing world politics and American foreign policy in the Middle East. He is the associate director of the Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA. He was online to talk about the Israeli elections and how the outcome will affect the U.S. and its standing in the region on Wednesday, Jan. 29.
Spiegel, a professor of political science at UCLA, recently served as international chair of the Middle East cooperative security program for the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, San Diego. There he focused on creating scenarios for dialogue among Middle Eastern nations. His latest book, "World Politics In a New Era," written with Fred Wehling, was published in second edition by Harcourt College Publishers in 1999. He is now working on a volume about the Middle East in the post-Cold War era.
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.
Washington, D.C.:
Dr. Spiegel,
What is the appeal of Sharon? Does he have a realistic plan for peace? I'm afraid he dare not say what he really wants, so as not to upset U.S. funding -- a peace based on a "greater Israel" with Palestinian "transfer" (ethnic cleansing). As long as the settlements continue and grow, Sharon can't claim the occupation is for security. It sickens me that my tax dollars are funding Israel's expansionist dreams through brutality towards the Palestinians.
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: You have to remember that Sharon was running against Arafat, and Mitzna was running against Sharon. And Arafat really elected Sharon. The appeal is that he could handle the violence, and even though he hasn't been that successful, he's the last of the old-time leaders, in addition to Shimon Peres. There was one poll that suggested that if Labor had put Peres up for prime minister, he would have given Sharon a run for his money. So the thing here is that there was a sense that he really was able to connect with the people as a grandfather figure who could help them in their time of need, and that's his great effectiveness.
What does Sharon think? Nobody really knows. Don't forget that the centerpiece of his policy is not to alienate George Bush and to maintain the personal alliance that he has with him. Which seriously inhibits him. So whatever he might like, there is a limit to what he would do in terms of trying for a greater Israel, which is now a dead dream. And transfer is just out of the question. On the other hand, in his first term, he was preoccupied with the election, and that meant that he was catering to his natural constituency, which included settlers and the like. The question now is who is the real Sharon? What does he do now? All we know is that he wants to avoid a right-wing government desperately, and wants Labor in. Whether he wants to pursue policies more compatible to Labor, we don't know.
The other point is that during his first term, he seemed to have no clue as to how to resolve the issue diplomatically. But whether he has a secret plan, no one knows. But his son gave an interview within the last 24 hours that said his great goal was to bring peace, whatever that means.
Carlsbad, Calif.:
Since PM Sharon will continue having a major mandate to fight Arab terror in the same way he did up to know, what makes you think the result of these elections will make a difference in American policies in the Middle East?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: I don't. I think that the president has made it clear that he believes the Palestinians must reform politically -- either kick Arafat upstairs or oust him -- and stop the violence. If those two things happen, he expects major concessions from the Israelis. In the past, the president has not done very much to implement his policy -- whether he'll do so after the Iraq war or not remains to be seen. That's the key question. The policy is fine, but it doesn't mean he'll do anything about it.
Wheaton, Md.:
Has there ever really been a peace process on the Arab side of the conflict? Their terrorism and incitement has only increased since Oslo. Does it matter to the Arabs who rules Israel since thier goal has always been the complete distruction of Israel?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: That there are Arabs who want to destroy Israel, and that's the avowed aim of most of the terrorists and some states which surround Israel, such as Iraq and Iran. On the other hand, Israel does have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and Mauritania, and on the eve of the intifada, it had very complex, but semi-public relations with such countries as Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar and Oman. It's also true that Saudi Arabia offered a peace plan about a year ago, which was vague and never fully explored, but which, when ratified by the Arab summit in March 2002, did offer Israel normalization of relations with all Arab countries in exchange for a comprehensive peace. The Palestinians are similarly split, despite the intifada. Obviously the Hamas and Islamic Jihad want to destroy Israel (and the same could be said for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon), but whatever Arafat's real aims -- and he's clearly lost the faith of the Israeli people -- most Palestinians we know from the polls do want at the end of days, a reconciliation with Israel, and know that they will have to coexist with her.
Los Angeles, Calif.:
Dr. Spiegel:
I took your class at UCLA back in 1982. Much has changed since then, and little has changed since then.
Here is my question:
In the last Gulf War, Israel was bombed by Iraq with the intent to draw Israel into the war. Israel, largely at U.S. insistence, did not respond. The U.S. feared that the Arab nations in the coalition would withdraw from it if Israel fought against Iraq.
If we go to war with Iraq, and if the coalition has fewer, if any, Arab nations, and if Iraq bombs Israel, what do you think Israel's response will be?
Will they stay out of it like last time or will they respond?
Mi
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: The Israelis are more likely to respond, and they've said so, than last time. Both because there'll be fewer Arab allies of the United States, but particularly because many Israelis believed that their deterrent strength was harmed by their failure to respond. And, indeed, they think that many of their problems since are a consequence of Arabs thinking they're getting soft. On the other hand, Iraq is less capable of attacking Israel, and the United States has been very active already in trying to limit his capabilities in the western part of his country so that he won't be able to attack, as well as beefing up Israel's defensive capacity. Israel also has its own Arrow missile, which it didn't have in '91. Whether Israel responds will depend in part on the nature of its government, and most analysts agree the only chance of the Labor government going into coalition with Sharon is war.
Morro Bay, Calif.:
With the election of Ariel Sharon, aren't the Israelis basically voting for war and to continue the policy of settlements? Sharon has shown no interest in any negotiations, can we expect more harsh measures against the Palestinians living under occupation?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: Sharon certainly will want the Palestinians to think that he's going to be tougher in the hopes that they will be less likely to act. A lot of what will determine his policy is the nature of his coalition, and we're far from knowing that yet. But at the same time, he's likely to be pressed after the Iraq war by the United States to make some more positive moves, and Sharon cares about his relationship with Bush more than he cares about any other policy.
Settlements are a problem for Sharon, and he will wait as long as he can to limit them. He would rather withdraw from the territories back to the line that Israel held before the Intifada than freeze settlements. But obviously, there's not going to be major progress until that happens. And if Bush makes it a key priority, then Sharon will have to face that reality.
New York, N.Y.:
A historical, economic and military alliance can be forged with Jordon's King Hussein II that would stabilize the region and force change in Palestine within three years. Agree or disagree?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: It is certainly critical to have a strong military and economic alliance with the Jordan of King Abdullah II. His country is a critical moderate and positive factor in a crisis-ridden region. It is doubtful, however, that Jordan can single-handedly change the Palestinian situation, even though it is possible that if the peace process were to be renewed and there was a decision made to involve some kind of international monitors or peace keepers, that as part of a multi-lateral enterprise, Jordan could well participate in a manner acceptable to all parties.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Do you have a sense of the Bush administration's interests in the outcome of the Israeli election? I.e., do they want a hardliner or would they have preferred another, less combative candidate?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: The popular perception in Israel was that the Bush administration preferred Sharon to Mitzna. Whether or not it was true, certainly Sharon's overall international philosophy is much closer to Bush's. And Mitzna said he would negotiate even with Arafat, and Bush is against negotiating with Arafat, so it would have been highly embarrassing if Mitzna had won. At least that was the perception in Israel.
Pennsylvania:
If Israel were to remake the similar offer it made several years ago to return about 90 percent of the disputed lands for Palestine, would there be a greater chance that a final, peaceful deal can finally be reached?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: Ironically, I think that the Palestinians know that their strategy of violence backfired. And there might be a greater likelihood that it would succeed. There would still be the problem of refugees in Jerusalem, which was a huge sticking point last time. The Palestinians would insist on a greater percentage of the land, which Barak was ready to give, but Sharon isn't. And the deeper problem is that the Palestinians blew the trust of the Israelis -- even those on the left. So it's going to take years, probably, of rebuilding of mutual trust to get back to where we were in 2000. Certainly, it's hard to see Sharon and Arafat negotiating the kind of comprehensive deal Barak was proposing.
Baltimore, Md.:
Did Alei Yarok get any seats in the election, how critical is their support?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: That party, which favored legalization of marijuana, came very close to getting a seat, but has not so far. By Friday morning, the votes of diplomats, prisoners, soldiers and those in hospitals come in. And it is possible that they will squeak into the Knesset at that point. I was told that that could happen.
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: They have no significance, because no one will join them in a coalition. But the question is if they were to squeak in, whose seat would they take away?
Arlington, Va.:
Dr. Spiegel, I am a Palestinian-American, born and raised in the good old USA.
My question is this, Why can't cooler heads prevail with both Palestinians and Jews co-existing in peace? Aren't there leaders on both sides who can work out their differences without all the needless killing?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: That's where we thought we were in 2000. While it's oversimplistic to suggest that Barak made a generous offer that Arafat refused, it's also true that Barak made a tantalizing offer which had major possibilities, and the Palestinians resorted to violence, killing the Israeli incentive. We know from the polls that upwards of 70 percent of both Israelis and Palestinians want reconciliation and coexistence. The problem is ending the violence and beginning a new diplomatic process, and for that we need a more active American role. You can't play a football game without referees, and that's where we are -- we lack referees.
Bakersfield, Calif.:
How would things be different if Netanyahu was the current prime minister?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: Based on the rightist positions that he has taken since the Intifada began, they would be worse. However, it is worth remembering that as prime minister, Netanyahu was the only Likud prime minister in history to give up land to the Palestinians. And unlike Barak and Sharon, he actually did give up land.
London, U.K.:
What solution would you endorse to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would enable both Jewish and Arab self-determination? Or do you insist that Jews not have any self-rule and once again experience the horror of Arab rule, particularly bad in Yemen, that Jews have been subject to?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: President Bush has stated American policy, which I think is correct: there must be two states coexisting side by side in peace. One an independent Jewish state of Israel, and the other an independent Arab state of Palestine on the West Bank and Gaza with borders mutually defined by the parties. If that is not possible, then some form of unilateral separation, as supported by the majority of the Israeli people, is a possible alternative, but one that is frought with problems. But it is essential on moral, humanitarian and political grounds that there be a permanent independent Jewish state as part of any settlement, just as the Palestinians must have room for self-determination, so long as it doesn't threaten anybody else.
New York, N.Y.:
Now that Israelis voted when will the Palestinians have their alleged planned elections? Or are they concenred Fatah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad gangs might terrorize voters?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: The Palestinians have announced an election for this month, but oddly enough the United States and Israel were opposed to it on the grounds that given internal conditions and the state of Palestinian reform, it would simply constitute a reelection of Arafat, who was first elected on Jan. 20, 1996. Both the U.S. and Israel were not opposed to local elections. But there is not only the problem of internal Palestinian violence, but the fact that it would have been extremely difficult to conduct elections, given Israeli presence in the Territories as a part of their response to the suicide bombings.
Arlington, Va.:
Dr. Spiegel, thank you for coming online. I am slightly distraught at the victory of Prime Minister Sharon, to be honest. The disenchantment of voters mentioned in The Post article here today seems to echo that of many American voters in the last Congressional election. We, like the Israelis face a slumping economy, but we both also turn to the strength of our leadership, as opposed to those willing to provide concessions to our enemies, to bring us out of our troubles.
Much like Bush's own tactics, though, Sharon's promises and talk of security seemed to have overwhelmed his talk about the economy. So my question is this: What has the economic policy of Prime Minister Sharon and the Likud party been for Israel in the last administration and what have they proposed for the current administration?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: Sharon in some ways does pattern himself after Bush, and you are correct that the atmosphere in the two countries is similar, and the electoral reaction is similar as well. Sharon has no particular background in economics, and his economic policies have generally been a failure. But the voters blamed the Palestinians and Arafat especially, not Sharon, claiming that if the Intifada would end, the economy would be recussitated. It's also fair to say, similar to America, that Mitzna's Labor did not effectively exploit Sharon's economic failures. They did not talk enough about the economy and show how they'd be different.
Alexandria, Va.:
Both Sharon and Mitzna have been accused of campaign funding violations and corruption. How credible are these accusations? Did they reduce support for either Likud or Labor?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: The accusations against both Sharon and his party appear to be much more serious than the relatively minor infractions that Mitzna is accused of. And Sharon could be in for some serious trouble in the months ahead. Some people have compared this Israeli election to the Nixon-McGovern 1972 campaign. At one point Likud was at 41 seats, and they ended up with 37, although most polls showed they'd get in the low 30s, so the scandals didn't hurt as much as anticipated.
Washington, D.C.:
Does it really matter who wins the Israeli election? What will make the difference in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process?
Dr. Steven L. Spiegel: I think it matters a great deal. Mitzna offered a genuine choice with a different policy involving negotiations for a year with the Palestinians, even Arafat, followed by unilateral separation. There have been vague hints that Sharon might negotiate with the Palestinians, not Arafat, and he basically opposes unilateral separation, though he is very reluctantly starting very slowly to build a fence. Mitzna was prepared to withdraw from Gaza immediately, and he was basically prepared to ultimately evacuate settlements in a way that Sharon has not been prepared to do. In an odd way, we know from the polls that the Israeli people want Sharon to be more flexible and pursue policies similar to Mitzna, but didn't trust Mitzna to be tough enough with the Palestinians on a day-to-day basis. So that's why many are comparing it to Nixon/McGovern -- there was a difference in policy presented by the two candidates.
This election was a victory for Sharon personally, not necessarily for his policies.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
