Elie Barnavi Interview with Alexandre Lati First World Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace, withdrawall of Gaza, the role of religious leaders in the peace process, significant events commented by Elie Barnavi, former ambassador to France and key personality active in numerous peace initiatives such as Oslo and Geneva.. Extracts: It is necessary to understand that the serious business commences the day after the complete withdrawal. For the moment we are fixed on this withdrawal and the visibility is limited by the 15th of August. But once it is behind us it is necessary to continue speaking, because there is still all the rest to accomplish and we shall then see the limits of disengagement or the opportunities that it will open. I could say that this escapes the protagonists on the ground, and it is the reason why I am hoping a great deal from the international community, the Europeans and above all the Americans. Israeli historian, Elie Barnavi est né en 1946 à Bucarest (Roumanie) et immigrate avec ses parents en Israël. He studied History and Political Science at the Hebraic University of Tel Aviv and at the Sorbonne in Paris. He was appointed professor of Modern Western History, at the Tel Aviv University, where he heads the Center for International Studies. He was also director of studies at the National Institute of Defense and member of «Neve Shalom» Peace Movment. He directed the Scientific Committee of the European Museum in Brussels. He was ambassador to france between 2000 and 2002 and after he returned to teaching at the University of Tel Aviv. Notably he published A modern History of Israel, A Universal History of the Jews and «An open Letter to the Jews of France, as well as works of the 16 th century in France. Interview Elie Barnavi July05 1
Interview with Elie BARNAVI July 2005 Alexandre Lati: According to you how can the First World Congress of Imams and Rabbis help develop peace and more precisely in the Middle East? Elie Barnavi: The idea of this Congress started at Caux in Switzerland during a meeting between imams, rabbis, intellectuals and lay people in which I participated. This World Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace was a very good idea, not because men of religion could make peace which is more the business of politicians but because they could create a context that would be propitious for peace. Religion today seems to be a source of conflict which is tragically real. The renaissance of religion is taking place under the form of violence, extremism, hate and even religious war. It was evident for us that many men of religion were not fixed in this kind of reasoning and this gathering has proved it. We were right to think that a great meeting between men of religion, supposed to detest each other, could be a powerful incentive to peace efforts and that it would transmit an even greater message since these men have often had an image of extremists. And it worked! Alain, his friends and I have had the surprise both at the number of men of religion who participated or who wished to participate and the very positive reactions that followed. As usual with this kind of success many people sought to expropriate it which is normal and are often ready to perpetuate the initiative but with an even greater dimension. Alexandre Lati: Would you say that this Congress was unique and above all necessary? Elie Barnavi: Yes, it was totally unique. There have already been ecumenical meetings, such as in Alexandria, and it was certainly not the first time that men of religion met, but what was exceptional was to gather together imams and rabbis, two worlds still in war. Alexandre Lati: You have just underlined the specificity imams and rabbis was it important that Jews and Muslims met? Elie Barnavi: Of course, naturally! It is a question of war in the Near East, therefore a war that has religious aspects. Even if effectively it is first of all a national conflict. It was therefore very important that it was imams and rabbis who met! If pastors or priests met to speak in the Near East that would not really be of any consequence. Rabbis and imams on the other hand have a very evident responsibility, they have something to say on this conflict and have a certain influence on it. Their meeting has therefore meaningful. Interview Elie Barnavi July05 2
Alexandre Lati: How can you explain the great weight and influence that they can have in this region of the world? Elie Barnavi: Here it is the Orient, not the West. In the West for reasons that are too long to go into, the Church and the State, even if they have always been allies, ended by separating and were always distinct. Now this is not the case, neither with Islam nor with Judaism; the separation of religion and the state so clear in the USA, in France and elsewhere in Europe is practically unthinkable for a Muslim country. Israel, though it is a secular country, has not gone as far as France and religion remains very present in the public domain. This is much truer in Muslim countries and in Arab countries where Islam is the state religion, except the Lebanon, for evident reasons. Religious leaders, whether we like it or not, have still their word to say, above all in fields that are so close to religion. Here we speak of Judea of Samaria of Jerusalem, therefore the countries of the Bible, the Temple Mount, the Haram ech Cherif, so many names of religious significance. And the word that these men of religion have to say is even more important as it is heard by whole segments of the population. Alexandre Lati: Where and at what level, religion or rather religious leaders could succeed where politics have failed? Elie Barnavi: It is necessary to avoid confusing the roles, religious leaders cannot succeed where politics have failed, and they cannot extract us from the trap, even less sign a peace agreement, it is only the politicians who can do that. What religious leaders can do is to create a better atmosphere more apt to favouring serious negotiations. In fact and this is an enormous problem to which we have to face up to, sometimes even when peace is achieved - the spirit of peace is not really there (as in Jordan and Egypt). In this case there is a peace of the leaders and not of the peoples. It is also true in the case of the Palestinians, certainly we have often had close contacts with the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, but not with their public opinion. Peace can be signed but it if is to last, it is necessary in one way or another that public opinion accepts it, otherwise it is no more than a piece of paper. Religious leaders have an enormous influence on public opinion, they can create this atmosphere necessary that we need for progress and help to neutralise the religious dimension of the conflict. It can be done in different ways, but the most efficient is for the religious leaders to join together to declare: enough, religion is not what you think, it is not exclusively violence, what is exclusive is fraternity, the ability to pray together, to be able to see the opportunity for dialogue. On this point they are important, really important. I believe that one of the errors that we have committed when we took the road of Oslo, of negotiation, was precisely to ignore this specific dimension. Interview Elie Barnavi July05 3
Alexandre Lati: Do you think that this dimension should have been taken into account right from the start of the peace process? Elie Barnavi: Yes, it was necessary to do many things that we had not considered doing at all. For example during the last Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Camp David the Arab countries and the religious leaders should have been included it was an omission of Clinton precisely in order to create this atmosphere I mentioned and which was missing. All that took place in a vacuum with only political leaders taking part in the discussions. You cannot evoke the question of Jerusalem or the Temple Mount without religious acceptance. I do not mean say that it is necessary to wait for religious acceptance, because I am not a partisan of the fusion between the Church and the State as you can imagine. But men of religion are men that must be listened to and who, if we can implicate them, can be extremely useful for a negotiation that is lasting. The meeting in Brussels had shown this, in a very impressive way, bringing together dozens of religious personalities who are not at all marginal but the very soul of religious consensus in their respective communities. Alexandre Lati: Now that this meeting has taken place and that imams and rabbis have met what in your opinion is the next step? Elie Barnavi: It is necessary to recommence with another meeting of this kind, even larger, because the publicity generated by the media is very important. So these people must come together again, repeat their common declarations, and reactivate opinion. Besides if I have correctly understood it is exactly what Alain Michel has the inattention of doing. Alexandre Lati: And on the ground action, and concrete actions? Elie Barnavi: In reality what we are waiting from the religious leaders who participated at the Congress in Brussels once they returned home was that they spread the spirit of this meeting, that they continue to work on the ground, in the field, that they undertake the work of convincing people, both to other men of religion and the congregations whose souls they are responsible for. The question is to know if the Foundation Hommes de Parole has the capacity to serve as a catalyser and to guide these operations. It is a long term project that necessitates the involvement of civil institutions and intellectuals, amongst others, that should be continued once peace is achieved, certainly it is an important phase, but then it must be maintained and given a meaning, a meaning that could only come after a very long effort, for which religious leaders in particular are very valuable. Alexandre Lati: Certain say that the word of God has been taken hostage for a long time, and it is now the moment for religious leaders to liberate the word of God, what does that signify to you? Interview Elie Barnavi July05 4
Elie Barnavi: It is a nicely put phrase. The word of God has infinite interpretations! The whole world speaks in the name of God, and anybody can find what he wants to in the sacred texts. We read our religious texts relative to the way we read the world, the way we see ourselves in the world, as well as the way we envisage political ends. Until today we have above all heard fanatics who have taken his word hostage! When someone tells me that Ben Laden is not Islam, I say that this is not true, there is not just Ben Laden in Islam, but there is also Ben Laden in Islam. What is necessary is to not let him speak alone. It is necessary that others are heard, and other interpretations are expressed, which are at the least as legitimate as those of Ben Laden. It is extremely important to organise these voices that exist and are heard, but not sufficiently so, and these voices should speak much louder. In Brussels we have seen for the first time a serious attempt by people to wrest back a certain control of God s word. Alexandre Lati: Let us talk about the news, starting with Israel s planned withdrawal from Gaza. Before going into more precise questions I would like your feelings on this subject at the present time. Elie Barnavi: My feeling is that this important step will be undertaken but nothing is settled in advance. It is an action that could have good or bad results. If the withdrawal goes well and if it results in other initiatives, then it could be said that is had been an important step. But if there is no follow up then it would have been simply the withdrawal from part of the Palestinian territory, and very quickly violence will start again as if nothing had happened. It is necessary to understand that the serious business commences the day after the complete withdrawal. For the moment we are fixed on this withdrawal and the visibility is limited by the 15th of August. But once it is behind us it is necessary to continue speaking, because there is still all the rest to accomplish and we shall then see the limits of disengagement or the opportunities that it will open. I could say that this escapes the protagonists on the ground, and it is the reason why I am hoping a great deal from the international community, the Europeans and above all the Americans. Alexandre Lati: How do you think the international community can play an active role? Elie Barnavi: You know there are endless ways to do things. If the Americans and their allies say firmly enough that it is necessary to continue after the withdrawal to show to the world that the time for hesitation is passed, something will surely happen. Personally I think that without international intervention, diplomatic, civil and military nothing will result. I am a great partisan of on the ground action, to help the Palestinian Authority to stand on its feet and to help us, and us to assure our security and make the moves necessary in order that peace is possible. That includes putting a halt to the settlements and finally Interview Elie Barnavi July05 5
evacuating the essential part of the territories. This is a very long undertaking and we already know the issue, since we have had Camp David, Taba, and Geneva. Everybody speaks of Geneva and myself I am not hostile to it, on the contrary, since I am part of the national committee for Geneva. I have always said that Geneva was not the problem, the problem is how to build the bridge that will lead us to Geneva. We need the international community to build it because will cannot do it alone. If nothing is done Intifada will be back with terrorism, violence and repression but this new Intifada will not be more successful than the precedent ones, because Israel is very strong. However, what can be feared is demographic growth and political action, if we do not quickly conclude peace with the Palestinians and determine a frontier between us in the long term it will be a bi-national state, with all the mortal dangers that means for the Jewish state. Alexandre Lati: We are looking at this from the international perspective of two peoples who must live together, but if we look at it from the national perspective of Israel itself, this withdrawal provokes a great deal of fear within the Israeli people in general. First of all, what do Israelis in the settlements think? Elie Barnavi: To be honest, I don t think very much about it. Speaking clearly, I think that the settlements in general have been a historical error, a most serious mistake. We have forgotten the goals of Zionism at its outset, which was to assure the survival of the people by the creation of a nation-state. But the equation has been inversed by those who had decided to create the settlements, because that is a question of land and not of the people. Today it is unrealistic to think that they are going to dismantle these large blocks of settlements, but they can only be kept by a territorial exchange with a future Palestinian state. It is in any case what has been proposed in all the negotiations that we have had up until now. The withdrawal is therefore very important because it is a huge crisis. The great majority of Israelis and even the minority hanging onto the territories have ended up by understanding that it is unrealistic to keep them. The battle for Gaza is therefore for this minority a battle for the West Bank and in a sense it is a disaster for them. If you look at the overall problem you will see that the withdrawal from Gaza is written into a long term movement of withdrawal from territories occupied during the Six Day War. It was the case of Sinai that was exchanged at the moment peace was made with Jordan. Today it is the turn of Gaza, and they fear that after it will be Judea and Samaria. They are right to be afraid, but it is the logics of history that makes it so. The risk is not having the state that we hope for. You know that a bi-national state never works, look at Belgium, a country that I am very familiar with, a country that is rich and civilised, even there a bi-national state does not work! Here it would be either apartheid or civil war, or probably both and most Israelis understand that. They won t necessarily say it like me, but they know it only too Interview Elie Barnavi July05 6
well, even if it does not rejoice their hearts. You can t have your cake, eat it and the smile of the baker s wife, it is not possible to see a democratic Jewish state and keep all those territories, even if each territory is a complex problem at the same time historical, sentimental and religious whether it is Sinai or the West Bank. Begin had perfectly understood that there could be no peace with Egypt if we kept Sinai, it will be the same thing tomorrow with the Golan Heights! It is necessary to understand that all policies are policies of choice. If you say: I want a democratic Jewish state and I want to keep the territories, there is a contradiction in terms. I understand those who are not preoccupied with democracy and who only want the territories, it s a choice. If you want an example, it is like the referendum in France, when the Sovereignists say they do not want the constitution, it is logical. When on the other hand the Europeanists say it, it is less logical! Therefore for us the question is to know how these political, moral and religious positions can be articulated, because they do not all work together. The choice that we make is relative to our own ideological, national and religious choice. Most Israelis have made their choice, these are the Israeli nationalists who say that the want a state to themselves, even a small one, but their own, that is as demographically homogeneous as possible and also democratic. Other Israelis have made the opposite choice saying that this state would have no meaning if it did not include all the lands of Israel and was not entirely governed by a medinate Halakha that is to say by religious law. Alexandre Lati: According to what you have just said on Israeli society, is this withdrawal difficult because it affects the identity of each citizen, the identity of the Jews and Israelis? Elie Barnavi: Yes, this withdrawal represents an important decision, because it is said that it is the first time that settlements have been dismantled. Now this is not true, it had already taken place in 1982 with the Sinai and it was very tough. Now it is a question of Gaza, and the heart of Biblical Israel is at hand, moreover Sharon has also decided to dismantle settlements in Samaria. It is why the withdrawal becomes difficult and even leads to confrontation between Israelis. It is a situation where a majority of people who think it is a good decision but are not entirely sure, and a small group of very agitated, determined people, ready to do anything to prevent the withdrawal. It is a classical polarisation between two tendencies, which France experienced on the Algerian question. Losers and minorities can therefore become very violent. Alexandre Lati: Earlier you had spoken of the role of religious leaders, in this precise case what can they do to ensure that the withdrawal takes place without too much difficulty? Elie Barnavi: They could speak out, but they don t, and it s very disappointing because all the rabbis are not in agreement with the extremists. It is the most Interview Elie Barnavi July05 7
important minority and most extreme that speaks out, certain at the core of this minority, like the Rabbi of Yesha, are extraordinarily violent. It is because of them that the situation is like that which preceded the assassination of Rabin. Even someone relatively moderate like Ovadia Yossef, the spiritual leader of the Shas, who considers that in order to save humans lives the territories could be abandoned, publicly wishes the death of the Prime minister! In such an atmosphere some madman can be found ready to execute the sentence. Ygal Amir, the assassin of Rabin, has said several times during his trial that without the green light from the rabbis he would have never committed the crime, so you see the importance of religion in Israel. There are however, many rabbis who are not at all part of this movement, but we hear very little from them. Alexandre Lati: Do you believe that the risk of civil war exists as certain people have talked of? Elie Barnavi: Everything depends on what is called civil war. This word recalls episodes of the history of the United States, Spain and of Russia, though in Israel there has never been an event of this kind. For a civil war it is necessary that two camps exist, this is not the case, there is only a small very agitated minority and the vast majority of the ordinary people. It would be necessary to have a division in the armed forces and the police, this is not the case. Therefore the conditions for a civil war do not exist in the country. On the other hand I do not exclude the possibility of violence. The conditions for violence and targeted assassination exist and no one can say the amplitude of the resistance to the withdrawal from Gaza will be. Sharon is now the man the most guarded in the world. There is the risk of targeted operations against Palestinian objectives, notably against the Temple Mount, which would be a disaster for everybody. Alexandre Lati: If we forget this worst case vision and look at things in a more positive way, do you think that in a Palestine of tomorrow, it would be conceivable to have Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians living together in peace? Elie Barnavi: In the framework of two separate states? Alexandre Lati: Yes Elie Barnavi: In the framework of two separate states, I can imagine that, because I do not believe in the irreversibility of history. That has already been seen, notably in Europe. It should not be forgotten the divide of hate that separates Israelis and Palestinians has never been and will never be as great as that which separated France from Germany. During the worst hours of the Intifada contacts were never interrupted and friendships were never broken. When I travel abroad with Palestinian partners, people look at us with wide eyes, stupefied, because they have so many preconceived European ideas in their Interview Elie Barnavi July05 8
minds that they think it cannot be possible. Things are much more complex here and it is why I am not without the hope of seeing two states living sensibly together. The greatest problem is from the economic disparity. We in Israel have a GNP equivalent to US$20,000 per inhabitant per year. On the other side you have twenty times less, with such a difference things are very difficult. The economy has its needs! I am not without hope in the long term of living intelligently with a neighbouring Palestinian state, with whom could be imagined a kind of common market, so as to take advantage of the few resources that we have, like water and tourism. I think that is feasible, it is simply a question of political will. Alexandre Lati: This being so, we are far from the euphoria of Oslo. We have the impression that the pacifist camp justifies itself by saying: it will never be like the love and euphoria in 93, there must be a phase of friendly separation first. Elie Barnavi: Yes I personally believe it is progress. There have been moments of euphoria, that is sure, but that prevents us from thinking politically. I believe there must first of all be a period of separation, of a cold peace, without the outpouring of words, then building little by little neighbourly relations, polite, then friendly and finally fraternally. It is a question of time. That is not a problem for me, no more than the peace with Egypt, which is very satisfactory. Alexandre Lati: According to you, is peace with Egypt satisfactory? Elie Barnavi: Of course. As long as there is no war and whilst there is a minimum of cooperation on matters of security I believe that peace between the countries is very satisfactory. It has resisted some very difficult moments such as the invasion of the Lebanon and the two Intifadas. Egypt has just sent its ambassador back here and there is even a certain economic cooperation. Certainly it is not the kind of peace between France and Luxembourg, but it will come slowly. There is nevertheless a great difference at the same time historical, political and religious. It is also necessary to take into account the internal political situation in that country, where public opinions can attack the Israelis and Americans, whilst they leave the regime in place alone. All that is very complex, but it works very well as it is, since it is a strategic need. With Jordan it is hardly better, the Jordanians do not really accept peace with Israel and all the professional organisations boycott us. In is unpleasant but it is not a disaster. Peace has several meanings, the first simply, brutally and least exalting, is the absence of war. It is necessary to go through this first phase with the Arab countries as with the Palestinians. Then the transition between peace and nonwar and peace like cooperation can be more or less long. It is necessary to hope that it will be as short as possible. Once the Palestinian problem is solved, it can be hoped that very quickly, we can continue on to the next phases. But we Interview Elie Barnavi July05 9
should not try to making short cuts, which was the case in Oslo, where it was imagined that control mechanisms could be avoided, without saying where it lead to. There were huge errors and it is why the process failed. Evidently we say that Arafat was responsible. Certainly Arafat was not a very recommendable personality, but he was not the only person responsible for everything that happened, we also have our share of responsibility and I believe that the lack of realism in the expectations was a determining factor. Alexandre Lati: from the Palestinian side, after the death of Arafat, new mechanisms have evidently been put into place, notably those where elections have taken place in the large towns. It can be seen that the Hamas is well established and that the Fattah maintains its position, what do these results signify for you? Elie Barnavi: My greatest worry is the little effective power of Abou Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas). For the moment he does not seem capable of taking over the reins of power. It is extremely difficult for the Palestinian Authority to recover in its present state with infrastructures in ruins and a fractionated security system. The Fatah, the original party, is undermined by corruption to a degree that cannot be imagined. Opposite, the Hamas appears clean, uncorrupted and has a network of social aide, putting its Islamist programme into a holding position. In any case the Hamas has succeeded not only in imposing itself as the opposition party, but also as an alternative party. In this sense it constitutes a challenge for the Fatah. The positive element is that the entry of the Hamas in the political arena will obviously reduce its military and terrorist dimension, because it will be difficult to maintain both at the same time. It is even difficult for the Hezbollah. It can be seen, everywhere that the most part of these integrist movements evolve, little or more or less, towards political movements. Even the Hezbollah has said that it is a resistance movement because of the question concerning the farms at Chebaa. By the way I don t understand why we do not immediately quit these farms, which all the security chiefs agree are useless, but that is another story. In any case it is necessary to follow the process of politicisation of these movements, to see what will result. I do not believe that Mahmoud Abbas will be capable of liquidating manu miliataris the plans of the Hamas, and he cannot to do it. On the other hand if he succeeds in imposing cease fire on them, integrating them into the political system whilst maintaining the Fatah as the dominant party it would be a great step forward. Interview Elie Barnavi July05 10