Source: El Khabar
Nathan Brown, an expert on Arab issues and professor of political sciences and international affairs at George Washington University has indicated to El Khabar his “pessimism about the future of negotiations between Palestine and Israel,” attributing it, on the one hand, to the weakness of Israeli leaders and on the other hand to the deep division among Palestinians. However, he qualified negotiations engaged between Israel and Palestine as “serious,” while believing that the separation of Palestinians between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank serves no interests.
After Annapolis summit later last year, President Bush, more has given the impression of being determined to boost peace process in the Middle East. Do you believe Palestinians and Israelis could live in peace in the short term, regarding what is happening in Gaza Strip and insistence of Israel on building new settlements? In your opinion what are things hindering the two parties to be engaged seriously in bilateral talks on sensitive issues like borders between the two states, Jerusalem, and the comeback of refugees?
There are serious negotiations going on right now between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships on the most sensitive issues. This is a welcome change from the past when neither side really engaged the positions of the other. But there are still deep problems with the negotiations that lead me to be very pessimistic. The gaps between the parties are very wide, but that is actually not the biggest obstacle. Instead the weakness of the Israeli leadership and the deep division of the Palestinian leadership make it impossible to make any progress. The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization are now hollow shells, thanks to the mistakes of their own leaders and to Israeli attempts to undermine them. I do not see how it is possible to each an agreement with leaders who cannot lead even if they wanted to do so.
Israel has made of Gaza a big prison following the unilateral withdrawal. Is there any solution for this issue? Does it have any impact on negotiations process? And don’t you think excluding Hamas by the US Administration and the international society is complicating the issue more than offering serious hopes for a solution?
The division of the Palestinians between the West Bank and Gaza serves no interest—it is damaging to the Palestinian, the Israelis, and all other concerned parties. We often say “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” All the Israelis have is the hammer of military domination—and it makes Gaza look like a nail to them. The cost in human terms in Gaza is very large. But for Israel to take a different approach would be politically very difficult. It would mean acknowledging the reality of Hamas and trying to trap them in the political process. Not only would that be unpopular; it would also be risky. Hamas is not an easy organization to outmanoeuvre.
Do you think the Arab Summit held recently in Damascus has managed bringing something new for the Arab-Israeli conflict and Lebanon issue? How do you assess the level of participation of Arab countries in the summit, and the absence of Lebanon precisely? Do you have any analysis on the political blockage in Lebanon?
The only thing new in this Arab summit was that divisions were even more in the open than usual. This was not good news, because the problems of the region could be easier to solve if the Arab regimes could reach a consensus on something other than restricting satellite broadcasting. The Lebanese stalemate needs an international atmosphere that is supportive of a solution rather than the current atmosphere, which aggravates the situation.
The US invasion on Iraq has reached its fifth year. Despite the usual optimism of President Bush’s Department, Iraq is still weltering in blood, mess, and sectarianism war. In your opinion what are available options for the US Department to end the war in Iraq? Regarding the course of US Presidential Elections, who is the candidate you believe owning an operational vision to find a solution for Iraq issue?
President Bush may speak optimistically in public, but I can say that I have not met anybody in Washington who is optimistic about the situation in Iraq. Even people who supported the invasion admit that many mistakes were made, and I think most would admit that the invasion itself was a mistake.
But acknowledging past mistakes does not point to a solution. I do not think any of the candidates has a realistic solution. Senator McCain offers a continuation of the current Administration’s policies; Senators Clinton and Obama both have a stronger inclination to withdraw American forces but they do not have a realistic plan to leave behind an Iraq heading toward reconciliation rather than civil war.