On October 1, 2001, Ambassador Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs, addressed The Washington Institute's Policy Forum to discuss the impact of the September 11 attacks on ending the year-long Palestinian intifada. The following is a rapporteur's summary of his remarks.
The current Palestinian-Israeli truce — certified by the meeting between Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority (PA) chairman Yasir Arafat at Rafah Airport, Wednesday — has a greater chance of taking hold than any of the five previous ceasefire agreements announced since the outbreak of the intifada exactly one year ago. The potential of this effort to achieve a relative calm stems not only from the changed international circumstances following the terrorist attacks on America on September 11, but also from a growing sense among Palestinians that the intifada has lost its way and is failing to produce any tangible gains.
At the direct and repeated behest of the Bush administration, Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasir Arafat met yesterday at the Gaza Airport — their first meeting since June. Given the extraordinary circumstances of the September 11 attacks and the U.S. desire to fashion an international coalition against terrorism, the meeting is bound to raise hopes that the latest ceasefire will take hold. As previous Israeli-Palestinian ceasefires have collapsed, however, the implications of this meeting cannot be predicted with any certainty. This Friday, September 28, marks the first anniversary of the violence that has engulfed Israelis and Palestinians and scuttled the peace process. Such an occasion presents an opportunity to assess the impact of this violence and to consider the future in light of the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution
Political Geography:
United States, New York, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Arabia
On September 12, in the media haze of the September 11 terrorist outrages, the State Department delivered to Congress the semi-annual report assessing PLO and Palestinian Authority (PA) compliance with their "peace process" commitments. On the plus side, this document — the first covering a period on the watch of the Bush Administration — goes further than any previous report in citing PLO/PA acquiescence and even connivance in acts of violence. Regrettably, however, it follows the pattern of previous reports in failing to provide a full and unvarnished appraisal of PA/PLO compliance with its anti-terror, anti-violence and anti-incitement responsibilities.
Yesterday's killing of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) chief Abu 'Ali Mustafa by Israel, and the State Department's condemnation of this act, have refocused attention on Israel's use of "targeted killings" as part of its counter-terror policy. Since the start of the "al-Aqsa intifada," Israeli forces have killed more than three dozen Palestinians allegedly involved in planning or carrying out attacks on Israeli civilians. Nearly all have been from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Palestinian Authority (PA)-affiliated groups such as the Fatah Tanzim. Critics of these actions claim they are ineffective, if not counterproductive. What does the record show?
In the aftermath of the horrific Hamas suicide bombing of a Jerusalem pizzeria on August 9, President Bush once again called on Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Yasir Arafat to take the necessary steps to end the violence. Inside the PA, however, there is little discussion about a cessation of violence. Instead, the principal topic of discussion in the PA today concerns the prospect that Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the leading nationalist opposition groups may join a Palestinian "government of national unity," formalizing the already close cooperation between these groups.
On August 8, Dennis Ross, Counselor and Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute and former Special Middle East Coordinator, answered questions posed by Margaret Warner and Jim Hoagland at a special question and answer session. The following are excerpts from the discussion. The full text is posted on the Institute's homepage.
The horrific suicide terror bombing today, during lunchtime in the heart of downtown Jerusalem, cannot merely be dismissed as an attack by a deranged fanatic. In the immediate aftermath of the suicide bombing, Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdullah Shalah immediately went on the popular Arab satellite television station Al-Jazeera defending the attack and calling for similar blasts to be launched against the United States. (Immediately after providing Shalah with twenty minutes to deliver a soliloquy, the Al-Jazeera anchor called the terrorist incident that killed at least fifteen civilians including six infants, a fedayeen or guerilla operation.)
Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak addressed The Washington Institute's Policy Forum on July 19, 2001. The following are excerpts from his remarks. "I will . . . make some telegraphic remarks about why I believe we are facing now the kind of violence that we are facing, what could or should be done about it from my point of view, and what is the longer term prospect for what will happen in the Middle East. . . . "Why are we facing this violence? Since Chairman Arafat decided deliberately to turn to violence. . . . He decided [this] when he realized at Camp David exactly a year ago we had a moment of truth where real tough, painful decisions were needed on both sides, not just plain or smooth talk.
Reuven Paz, academic director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herziliya, Israel, visiting fellow at The Washington Institute in 2000-2001, and author of the forthcoming Institute policy focus, Tangled Web: International Networking of the Islamist Struggle, addressed The Washington Institute's Policy Forum on July 12, 2001. The following is a rapporteur's summary of his remarks.