‘Time is not on the side of Israel’

‘Time is not on the side of Israel’

INTERVIEW—RABBI DAVID ROSEN, ISRAELI LEADER

By Iftikhar Gilani

Having achieved the goal of killing of Al Qaeda supreme leader Osama bin Laden, avenging 9/11 terrorist attack, an end game is likely to begin in Afghanistan and in the Middle East. With American operations having targeted Muslims, be that in Afghanistan or Iraq, Washington is veering around to dole a carrot, to pursue peace process in the Middle East, by forcing Israel to grant some concessions to Palestine, the issue core to Muslims hearts, around the world.

Iftikhar Gilani talked to an influential Jewish leader Rabbi David Shlomo Rosen (60) , Advisor to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and also serving on the Permanent Bilateral Commission of the State of Israel and the Holy Sea to understand latest peace moves.

Currently also Director of powerful American Jewish Council (AJC), David Rosen has been actively involved in Israeli-American relations as well as in the wavering Middle East peace process. Formerly a Chief Rabbi of Ireland, before moving to Israel, he also headed the International Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultations (IJCIC), the broad based coalition of Jewish organizations and denominations. He talked to Financial World during his visit to India on Middle East peace process, US President Obama’s overtures and on recent developments. Excerpts of his interview:




What are your impressions about the newest American attempts to forge peace between the Israelis and the Arabs?

A; I would say, all of us Israelis and Palestinians are victims of second Intifada. The second Intifada, not only led to enormous breakdown of any kind of trust that had been built up between Israelis and Palestinians. It also led to profound suspicion of the intentions of other side. Mostly Israelis would say, we want to live in peace; we want two states of Israel and Palestine. But there is nobody to talk to. Mehmoood Abbas is too weak. He cannot deliver. Hamas keeps him out of Ghaza and therefore, we cannot do a deal with him as he is not representative of whole Palestinian people.

We cannot do a deal with Hamas as it is commited to our extermination. So now I would say, when Israelis hear US President Obama to speak they would say Americans are rather naive. We know this is goal to achieve. We want it to achieve. After messing up two years and getting nothing, Obama’s statement is going to invite more frustration from us. We are not the problem. That is how, Israelis perceive it.
What is the problem then? Opinion polls said 70 per cent Israelis favour two states. When Obama says the same thing, why should it cause frustration in Israel?

For the reasons I mentioned. Israelis say, if the two state formulas is a solution, it means all the Palestinians would also agree on two states living peacefully side by side. That is fantastic. We want that. How come we believe that they also believe in it when one of most powerful component and democratically elected Hamas still has a charter and preaches they want destruction of Israel and the wiping out of Jews. We want it in theory. But in practice we don’t know how to reach there. Unless Mr. Abbas or the Arab League, or the America persuades Hamas at least to say, “we are not happy with the creation of Israel, and we can never say, we can be happy. But we will renounce violence and live peacefully side and side.” If they can do that Israelis will overwhelmingly support.

Have you told the Hamas what you just said?
Not directly. I am in touch with religions leaders, who are close to Hamas. I am speaking as a religious figure with them and not as a political figure. For a political institution to talk to a terrorist organisation committed to your destruction so openly is very silly thing to do. That is undermining your own security interests. But to use third parties, whether it is possible to find ways is to influence to change, that seems to me an intelligent way to do behind the scene.

Who are third parties?

A: There are number of European countries, who have contacts with Hamas. Even though, official EU position is that there can be no negotiations with Hamas until they renounce violence. And there are individuals of various kinds, not officially necessarily to represent the state of Israel.

On one hand, you don’t want to deal with Abbas, because he is weak to deliver, on the other when he joined hands with Hamas for the sake of Palestine unity, you still have reservations.

I agree, it is a paradox. On one side, when he was not with Hamas, he was too weak to deliver. Now he is with Hamas, he is with organisation, which preaches our extermination. So from Israeli point of view, we don’t know how to get out of this situation. Only way out of it is Hamas say even if it is temporary that , “we are prepared to renounce violence and accept Israel as reality in order to come to two state solution.” Even if they keep the option of renewing violence if the Israelis don’t deliver or war erupts. Let me put it other say, if they say, in order to test the waters, we accept Israel and renounce violence and we would work together towards a two-state solution. That will be different and Israel would move ahead to conclude negotiations. I personally would say to you, in order to achieve something, it is necessary to take risks in an undesired situation. But what if after there is a terrorist attack. I have to bow before my electorate. What is the answer I will give to them? As a politician I will be defeated. It may be easy for me, as an arm chair religious leader to argue on these lines. But for a politician, it is a huge risk to take.

But, Northern Ireland conflict which Birtish settled almost amicably gave us a lesson that you cannot ignore hardliners in a peace process.

That is true. But in Northern Ireland, British only negotiated with Shin Fein, once it renounced violence. I agree with you. Yesterday’s terrorist is tomorrow’s diplomat. But, nevertheless, when he has renounces the violence.

Is it not naïve to ask a militant outfit to renounce arms first? It is their only strength at the negotiation table.

Negotiating point is an assumption of both sides we want to live in our own countries, but in peace. If Hamas is willing to renounce violence. That means it is willing to live with Israel. If it is not willing to renounce violence. That proves, it does not want to negotiate and don’t want to live with Israel.

Israeli leaders, quite often have also raise fears of demographic growth of Muslims . Is it really a threat to existence of Israel:

A: Arab Muslim population in Israel is definitely growing faster than Jewish population. We are still talking to one million v/s six and half million. So the demographic issues internally may not become problematic. If so, it is long way away. Intelligent thing on the part of Israel would be to invest more on women education and empowerment. Because, it is seen all over world, where there is more women empowerment and education the birth rate is lower and social commitment is greater. And therefore, if Israel is wise, the issue can be handled in a legitimately democratic way.

But externally in West Bank and Ghaza, you have probably as many Palestinians as as Jews in Israel. And therefore, if Palestinians don’t accept the idea of two state solution, and if they say, we want one state between the Jordan and Mediterranean and this is what they start agitating for. This will be a real threat for Israel survival. Israel is a democracy and it will not be able to resist the one-man one-vote between the Jordan and Mediterranean. And that will automatically give Arabs a majority.

There I believe President Obama is right, when he says, time is not Israel’s side. And the Palestinians can geographically stay where they are, have children and invest in demographic elimination of Israel. It may take generation. Not everybody has patience to wait for generation. Nevertheless, that means time is not Israel side. Therefore, sooner Israel finds a political solution to this conflict, the better it is for Israel.

Arabs around Israel have stood up against their rulers. What is the affect of Jasmine revolution on Israel-Palestine conflict.

A: Many effects. Just today, Egyptians have opened up the border at Raffah with Hamas controlled Ghaza. This would mean not only that siege of Ghaza has been lifted. It also means flow of weapons to Ghaza will also go unlimited and therefore, Hamas or Islamic Jihad would be able to fire more rockets into Israel than before. So it poses more security threat. There is uncertainty, even as where Egypt is going as a country? Though Amar Musa, who is going to be next president has said, they would honour bilateral commitment. Situation in Syria is also uncertain. It could be better but worse as well. So this is anther reasons, where Obama is right to say, that time is not Israel side and it needs to take advantage of a window. Still we are again in a vice, in a conundrum between the rock and the hard place.

As you said, you are ready for a two-state solution. Earlier, we had been hearing that Israel is ready on 1967 borders. But, now when it was pronounced by Obama, there is consternation in Israel.

A: There was, I think a knee jerk reaction. President Obama clarified, he didn’t mean going back to 1967 position of borders. I don’t think, any serious country anywhere in the world thinks that an option. The 1967 borders means whole width of country is just nine kilometres, less than your city of Delhi. Off course, it is not tolerable. It might be good for a female figure to have slim waist. It is not good for a country to have such a narrow waist. So obviously, no right mind would imagine, to go back to 1967 borders. Obama said it would form basis of a dialogue. Most Israelis would live with that. We went to Oslo agreement, in order to establish a Palestine state. That was our purpose. We withdrew from most of West Bank and subsequently from Ghaza. We went back because we perceived that Yasir Arafat engineered the violence through second Intifada. So Israelis say, look every time we tried to find a solution, there has been encouragement of Palestinian violence. We need to be sure, whoever, is going to rule Palestinians, is going to control violence elements of Palestine. As along as Hamas continues to preach its commitment to belittle and exterminate Israel, how can we be confident.

You are not ready for a 1967 border. Then what is basis of solution?

A: Basis of solution can be the 1967 borders, with modifications. There are claims and parameters. And what vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians know is that those are border outlines for two states. That is not the issue. The issue is can we cut a deal and with whom to cut a deal with. Now I say, there are reasons to be optimistic about Palestinians Authority. Under the government of Salam Fayad they have developed good security apparatus and they have developed viable economics. You go to Ramalla today; it is quite a flourishing city. Nevertheless, there is certainly development.

What is difference between Bill Clinton initiate and what Obama has been pursuing?

I think, he is talking the same language as Clinton. Why he did not use Clinton language, I don’t know. May be using the term 1967 borders, with land swaps would have sounded better to Arab nations. May be he wanted to sound better to Arabs. But in my opinion, there is no change in what he is saying and what Clinton was not saying as per parameters.

Since Americans achieved their objective of killing Al Qaeda chief, and after using stick lethally in Iraq and Afghanistan, they may be in search of a carrot to offer to Muslim world.

A: This analysis is absolutely correct. I think, this is what Obama is being told by his European friends as well. He is being told, if you want to still have an influence in Muslim World and Middle East, you have to find a solution to Israel-Palestine issue. So Obama knows it. That is why, it is critical for them to find some way to get some statement out of Hamas, “we are willing to give peace and negotiations a chance and in order to do so, we now in order to negotiations to develop we will renounce violence” and if they are able to get that statement, that will change the whole situation.
Control of city of Jerusalam as well as right to pilgrimage will remain an issue?

A: First, right to pilgrimage, the limitations are only security limitations. There is no bar. There is no Jewish competition. Not only Jewish have been prohibited to pray at Al-Aqsa or Temple Mount due to security reasons, but Chief Rabbi of Israel does not allow Jews to go inside and pray there. So religiously there is no competition for the Sanctum Santorum . If there will be real peace between Israelis and Palestinians, I am sure modus vivandi can be achieved in Jerusalem.

Israel is committed to right of pilgrimage to Muslims. Those Muslims who live in East Jerusalem or live in Israel are not prohibited to go to Haram (Al-Aqsa). Only limitations are to Palestinians from West Bank, due to security reasons.

Palestinians under Israel are not only experiencing occupation, but apartheid as well. There are separate roads for them, security walls separating Palestinians and Israelis.

A: Since these security walls have been erected, there are less terrorist attacks on Israel. According to Israeli military, they are foiling terrorist attacks on virtually weekly basis. So, there is quite not because, nobody is trying to attack us. But, because, Israel has been successful in foiling such attacks. If there are no attacks, there would be no restrictions.

Why there are different roads? If there is no violence, there is no need for such separate roads. If things are quite and calm, everybody will use same roads. It is not anybody is trying to deny or usurp other right of humanity or liberty. But it is responsibility of a sovereign state to give security to its subjects.

As a Jewish leader, what you tell Muslims around the world?

A: I tell them all what I told you, But they don’t believe in me. They say, I am telling them fairy stories. Most important thing for me, is when I encounter Muslim leadership I show respect for them. To show respect for Islam, as I know the religion has most noble values. When I can do it then there is possibility to tell people the reality on ground.

But just to tell you, there is no conflict in the world other than Israel-Arab conflict that gets most of the coverage in media. It has variety of reasons. It is interface between Islam and West. It is bed rock of three great religions. It is also five star journalist conflict. What do I mean is a journalist can stay in a wonderful hotel and in two minutes he has a story. And where you can get conflict so live in world like that. We know in conflicts in other parts, media is banned; newspapers are made to seize publications. You may have such five star hotels in Kashmir as well. But to get to Kashmir may not be so simple. Covering story is complicated. There is nowhere in world, where you have more journalists per sq metre than in Israel, highest concentration of journalists anywhere in world. The stories are directly beamed to people’s lounges and homes. Muslims see that and they see that as the embodiment of historical humiliation of Islam and contemporary humiliation of Islam. So it is taken a personal insult. So as long as that reality is there, all efforts building Jewish Muslim relations are all a damage control. As long as this conflict continues and comes to their lives through media, everlasting Jewish Muslims relations may not mature.

So u think media is the culprit?

A: I am nto blaming media. Reality of media is it portray reality. But by definition it never portray objective reality and never portray globe as a whole in a equal terms. It is going to focus a particular way in a particular time and place. Yes, media does exaggerate problem. But that does not mean media is at fault. And it does not mean you eliminate media and you eliminate problem.