Expert panel discusses peace possibilities in Middle East
By NICK SWEDO
News Writer
A panel of experts discussed the possibility of peace in Middle East at the Hesburgh Center for International Studies Thursday.
The Middle East has experienced an escalation of violence between Palestinians and Israelis since the Feb. 6 election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a right-wing, hard-line leader. Palestinians still bitterly remember when Sharon, a former army general, assisted in the 1982 attack on Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
Notre Dame government professor Alan Dowty said currently the two groups are closer to a peace agreement than ever before.
"Israel has recognized the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] as a representative of the Palestinians and has negotiated with it," Dowty said. "They have dealt with Arafat [the leader of the PLO], who at one time was anathema to Israelis. Most Israelis today accept a Palestinian state in principle. In 1967, probably no more than 10 percent of the Israeli public was ready to accept the idea of a Palestinian state."
Palestine, a historic region that includes Jerusalem, became part of Israel in 1948. A Palestinian state does not legally exist now, even though Palestinians view the Israelis as occupying their territory.
"The Palestinians, for their part, have accepted the principle of a Palestinian state in 22 percent of what was at one time the British mandate of Palestine," Dowty said. "In other words accepting not only the legitimacy of Israel, but also an Israel that occupies the other 78 percent of the original Palestine mandate which from their perspective was a very huge concession."
He added, however, that a peace agreement is still a long way off. Some smaller problems have been solved, and now the two groups are trying to solve the larger, more difficult problems, such as who should control Jerusalem. Another issue to be decided is what to do about Palestinian refugees who want to reclaim the land their ancestors lost when the United Nations established Israel after World War II.
Peter Wallensteen, the head of the Department of Peace and Conflict research at Uppsala University in Sweden said that in past world crises, effective solutions were not ones that involved violence or repressive measures. He said effective solutions have been achieved by coming up with "new ideas, a new formula or a new suggestion" to approach the problem. He gave three ideas about how to help achieve peace.
First, he said secret negotiations between Sharon and Arafat were possible. A second possibility is a unilateral move by one of the two groups.
"Many ideas have already been tried in the peace process and have been rejected," Wallensteen said. "That means one has to think harder to come up with ideas."
"The third thing," he said, "is that there is a need for a third party [in negotiations]. The Clinton administration had played that role, and we don't know yet about the Bush administration and what [Secretary of State Colin] Powell will do when he is traveling around the Middle East. But I think that there is an expectation that the U.S. should play such a role."
The last speaker, Notre Dame government professor Dan Lindley, said he does not believe that peace will come to the region anytime soon.
"No one wants peace in terms acceptable to the other," he said. "It's not clear that anyone wants peace at all. Furthermore, both sides are pervaded by the perception that they have been duped by the other and that the other is not a very sincere peace partner. For these reasons, I don't think that peace is likely in the near term."
He also discussed U.S. strategic interests in the region.
"First and foremost," he said, "the primary U.S. strategic and material interest in the Middle East is oil … oil affects us, our allies, and world stability. Our second interest is weapons of mass destruction, missile proliferation by enemy states now called the states of concern."
All News Stories for Friday, February 16, 2001
