“If We Do Not Solve the Middle East Conflict, It Will Become Very Expensive”
Published in Basler Zeitung
(Switzerland) on 2 June 2011
by Claudia Kühner (link to original)
(Switzerland) on 2 June 2011
by Claudia Kühner (link to original)
Translated from
by Hannah Keet.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
Barack Obama's America has taken its leave from an active Middle East policy, says former U.S. Ambassador Charles Freeman. The EU could step in and help here.
A Man with Middle East Experience
Charles W. Freeman served as a U.S. diplomat for decades. Some of his roles include U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and assistant secretary of defense. He served as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank. In 2009, Freeman was considered as a nominee for the chair of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman withdrew his nomination after a weeklong campaign against him for alleged pro-Arab sympathies. Pro-Israeli circles were behind it. Today, Freeman is a guest at the International Security Forum conference organized by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.
The U.S. Middle East diplomacy seems to be making no progress, even under President Barack Obama. Why is this?
The U.S. has been trying to mediate an agreement for 40 years now. But they have a very pro-Israel stance, and their aim is to make Israel accepted in this region, by the Palestinians and the Arab world.
Where does Obama stand on this?
This is his approach, and it was also a proviso for the mediator, George Mitchell. It did not work this time either. Obama is also too biased toward Israel to be able to mediate properly.
Has Obama understood the nature of the conflict?
Yes, he has understood it, but his administration is known for not turning this understanding into policy.
What is standing in the way?
The influence of right-wing Israelis and the Israel lobby, for example.
You mean AIPAC, the largest lobby organization in the U.S.?
It is actually controlling the U.S. Congress on this point. Another place it could be seen was in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech, when members of Congress leapt up and down like yo-yos in applause. They do this out of self-interest; they are thinking about their next election campaign.
Is there a genuine American interest in resolving this conflict?
There certainly is, because so many other problems are linked to the conflict: energy supply, security, terrorism and coexistence with Muslim minorities in the West. If we do not solve the Middle East conflict, it will become very expensive. If I understand President Obama’s recent speech correctly, he simply summarized the central elements of his policies and suggested that he and his country are not capable of playing the role that he had hoped.
So he doesn’t have a political strategy?
George Mitchell, for example, was not replaced. There is no visible intention of recognizing further engagement.
Could the EU step in and help here?
That would definitely be a challenge. So far, the EU always hides behind the U.S. From a self-interested American point of view — which would not be appreciated by the Europeans — it must be said: In Europe, millions of Jews were killed, and the survivors went to Palestine and other countries. Now, Europe should be focusing on the consequences of its history.
But Germany wants to prevent Israel from being urged to do something for this exact reason.
This is the consequence of German history, and it is fully understandable. Since Germany is at the heart of Europe, it is also difficult for the European Union to act. On the other hand, if nothing is done, it has serious consequences. Think of the 20 million Muslims living in the West, of the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, of Europe's interests in the Middle East — they are all paying the price for this.
Nobody doubts Israel’s right to exist. Why do we always speak of a two-state solution, but not of the fact that the occupation preventing it is illegal?
That has actually been said on many occasions — for example, at Camp David in 2000. But we are not standing by our conviction, and Israel was never faced with the choice.
What is the Israeli interest in the occupation? What future does the state of Israel have, whose Jewish population is becoming the minority?
Israel will not evacuate these areas, at least not in the near future, even though the occupation is morally corrupt, and it is bringing Israel’s — mostly Jewish — supporters to an ever-increasing moral dilemma. The democratic nature of the state is at risk.
Can you execute this?
For instance, more and more legislation is passed restricting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and NGOs. This policy leads to isolation and increasingly contradicts the once robust democracy.
The Arab uprisings are a new factor. How do they affect the Middle East conflict?
Egypt, for example, will no longer look on in silence at how Israel puts pressure on Palestine. The situation at Israel's borders is generally changing. I hope that in the future, Israel will make better decisions than they have so far.
Until now, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not seem to be willing to move in this direction.
We do not expect him to make a decision like this, but the Israelis are able to arrange a change in government. After all, they do have capable and intelligent politicians.
Who are you thinking of?
Nobody in particular. It's also not up to a foreigner like me to give the Israeli people advice on this subject. The old generation of politicians must and will make room for younger and more intelligent people.
The Palestinians, meanwhile, support a new and non-violent strategy: They are building state institutions and hope to obtain international recognition this way.
They no longer rely on the U.S. but on those countries that ought to put pressure on Israel. I think they have a good chance.
The U.S. and Germany will prevent the Security Council from recognizing Palestine as a state, so what is the point of this strategy?
I'm not sure if they need the U.N. Security Council at all. It is entirely possible that the U.N. General Assembly will simply recommend that each state should recognize Palestine this September. In fact, some have already done so. We will have to wait and see whether the EU decides as one or each member for itself. It could by all means be a step forward.
That would mean that one state is occupying another. What could the consequences be?
It is certain that no one will start a war because of it, but sanctions, boycotts or withdrawing investments would be plausible options. However, contact must be maintained with Israel. The people in Israel who want to find a solution must be supported at all costs.
In case of agreement, what would be demanded of the Palestinians?
They have to understand that there are reasons for a Jewish state in their territory. The Palestinians would have to get their capital in East Jerusalem, and West Jerusalem would be recognized as the capital of Israel. The right of return for all refugees is unrealistic; the solution to this would be compensation — even if it is fraught with emotion, because in the Palestinians’ eyes, an injustice was done to them in 1948. However, the Israelis will not admit this.
And how should Hamas be dealt with?
It is not the problem it has been made to be. It is a democratic movement and was elected into Palestinian government in 2006. We will only find out how popular it still is now after the next elections. Israel has also not spoken to the Palestine Liberation Organization in years. If the Palestinians feel the same way, they might ask themselves why they should talk to a right-wing Likud government in Israel, whose charter rejects the Palestinian state.
A Man with Middle East Experience
Charles W. Freeman served as a U.S. diplomat for decades. Some of his roles include U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and assistant secretary of defense. He served as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank. In 2009, Freeman was considered as a nominee for the chair of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman withdrew his nomination after a weeklong campaign against him for alleged pro-Arab sympathies. Pro-Israeli circles were behind it. Today, Freeman is a guest at the International Security Forum conference organized by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.
The U.S. Middle East diplomacy seems to be making no progress, even under President Barack Obama. Why is this?
The U.S. has been trying to mediate an agreement for 40 years now. But they have a very pro-Israel stance, and their aim is to make Israel accepted in this region, by the Palestinians and the Arab world.
Where does Obama stand on this?
This is his approach, and it was also a proviso for the mediator, George Mitchell. It did not work this time either. Obama is also too biased toward Israel to be able to mediate properly.
Has Obama understood the nature of the conflict?
Yes, he has understood it, but his administration is known for not turning this understanding into policy.
What is standing in the way?
The influence of right-wing Israelis and the Israel lobby, for example.
You mean AIPAC, the largest lobby organization in the U.S.?
It is actually controlling the U.S. Congress on this point. Another place it could be seen was in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech, when members of Congress leapt up and down like yo-yos in applause. They do this out of self-interest; they are thinking about their next election campaign.
Is there a genuine American interest in resolving this conflict?
There certainly is, because so many other problems are linked to the conflict: energy supply, security, terrorism and coexistence with Muslim minorities in the West. If we do not solve the Middle East conflict, it will become very expensive. If I understand President Obama’s recent speech correctly, he simply summarized the central elements of his policies and suggested that he and his country are not capable of playing the role that he had hoped.
So he doesn’t have a political strategy?
George Mitchell, for example, was not replaced. There is no visible intention of recognizing further engagement.
Could the EU step in and help here?
That would definitely be a challenge. So far, the EU always hides behind the U.S. From a self-interested American point of view — which would not be appreciated by the Europeans — it must be said: In Europe, millions of Jews were killed, and the survivors went to Palestine and other countries. Now, Europe should be focusing on the consequences of its history.
But Germany wants to prevent Israel from being urged to do something for this exact reason.
This is the consequence of German history, and it is fully understandable. Since Germany is at the heart of Europe, it is also difficult for the European Union to act. On the other hand, if nothing is done, it has serious consequences. Think of the 20 million Muslims living in the West, of the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, of Europe's interests in the Middle East — they are all paying the price for this.
Nobody doubts Israel’s right to exist. Why do we always speak of a two-state solution, but not of the fact that the occupation preventing it is illegal?
That has actually been said on many occasions — for example, at Camp David in 2000. But we are not standing by our conviction, and Israel was never faced with the choice.
What is the Israeli interest in the occupation? What future does the state of Israel have, whose Jewish population is becoming the minority?
Israel will not evacuate these areas, at least not in the near future, even though the occupation is morally corrupt, and it is bringing Israel’s — mostly Jewish — supporters to an ever-increasing moral dilemma. The democratic nature of the state is at risk.
Can you execute this?
For instance, more and more legislation is passed restricting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and NGOs. This policy leads to isolation and increasingly contradicts the once robust democracy.
The Arab uprisings are a new factor. How do they affect the Middle East conflict?
Egypt, for example, will no longer look on in silence at how Israel puts pressure on Palestine. The situation at Israel's borders is generally changing. I hope that in the future, Israel will make better decisions than they have so far.
Until now, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not seem to be willing to move in this direction.
We do not expect him to make a decision like this, but the Israelis are able to arrange a change in government. After all, they do have capable and intelligent politicians.
Who are you thinking of?
Nobody in particular. It's also not up to a foreigner like me to give the Israeli people advice on this subject. The old generation of politicians must and will make room for younger and more intelligent people.
The Palestinians, meanwhile, support a new and non-violent strategy: They are building state institutions and hope to obtain international recognition this way.
They no longer rely on the U.S. but on those countries that ought to put pressure on Israel. I think they have a good chance.
The U.S. and Germany will prevent the Security Council from recognizing Palestine as a state, so what is the point of this strategy?
I'm not sure if they need the U.N. Security Council at all. It is entirely possible that the U.N. General Assembly will simply recommend that each state should recognize Palestine this September. In fact, some have already done so. We will have to wait and see whether the EU decides as one or each member for itself. It could by all means be a step forward.
That would mean that one state is occupying another. What could the consequences be?
It is certain that no one will start a war because of it, but sanctions, boycotts or withdrawing investments would be plausible options. However, contact must be maintained with Israel. The people in Israel who want to find a solution must be supported at all costs.
In case of agreement, what would be demanded of the Palestinians?
They have to understand that there are reasons for a Jewish state in their territory. The Palestinians would have to get their capital in East Jerusalem, and West Jerusalem would be recognized as the capital of Israel. The right of return for all refugees is unrealistic; the solution to this would be compensation — even if it is fraught with emotion, because in the Palestinians’ eyes, an injustice was done to them in 1948. However, the Israelis will not admit this.
And how should Hamas be dealt with?
It is not the problem it has been made to be. It is a democratic movement and was elected into Palestinian government in 2006. We will only find out how popular it still is now after the next elections. Israel has also not spoken to the Palestine Liberation Organization in years. If the Palestinians feel the same way, they might ask themselves why they should talk to a right-wing Likud government in Israel, whose charter rejects the Palestinian state.
Previous article![]( "There Is Peril for Obama in Touting the Auto Bailouts")
