For Middle East, 'no chance of sharing Jerusalem'

By Jane Gao

Despite a two-day emergency summit in Egypt on Tues., Oct. 16, which resulted in a cease-fire agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, violence between the Middle Eastern factions rages on. On Thurs., Oct. 19, one Palestinian and one Israeli settler were shot dead, marking the 20th straight day of violence. Thus far, the death count has exceeded 100 people; most of the dead are Palestinians.

The Herald sat down with Charles Hill, Distinguished Fellow of Yale International Security Studies and Diplomat-in-Residence, to make sense of the most recent cycle of violence and discuss its implications. Hill was the Assistant U.N. Secretary General from 1992 to 1996, and for the past 12 years, he has been deeply involved with drafting a secret, adjunct plan to bring lasting peace to the troubled region.

DAVID SILVERMAN/NEWSMAKERS A group of Palestinians hurl stones at Israeli troops during violent clashes on Mon., Oct. 16.

Yale Herald: What caused this most recent cycle of violence?

Charles Hill: The primary goal of this cycle was to throw international opinion against Israel. International opinion was beginning to turn on Yasser Arafat because the world was beginning to realize that he has rejected an Israeli surrender. After Camp David, Clinton was very angry with Arafat. So in order to shift that balance back, Arafat launched this cycle of violence. And he got what he wanted. You have a U.N. resolution condemning Israel.

YH: When will this cycle die down?

CH: It already has. Arafat wouldn't have agreed to go to a meeting to put a capstone on this so-called cease-fire if his own people hadn't exhausted themselves in bloodshed.

YH: Is that all the Egypt summit was, a capstone?

CH: Yes, it's nothing but a symbolic stamp to show that this round of violence has come to an end. But it's a good thing because people see that something is being done, even if what's happening isn't going to change anything.

YH: Why didn't Arafat accept the concessions made by Ehud Barak at Camp David?

CH: I think there are two reasons why he can't accept victory. One is his psychology. Arafat is afraid of bringing this thing to a conclusion. He doesn't want to take responsibility. He's sort of the Jesse Jackson of the Arab world. Every time he gets close to taking a position or being in a position of responsibility, he turns away from it. The other reason is the radicalization of the Palestinian people. Arafat—by his own rhetoric—stirred them up. They've become more extreme, more radical than he is. So Arafat is afraid of his own people.

YH: Is the peace process finished?

CH: I can see no way of continuing it. The whole purpose of the past three decades of the peace process has now been played out. Israel has given up everything it can possibly give. They have given up all their positions, and what's left would be giving up little things around the edges that would amount to an unconditional surrender, which I don't see Arafat accepting.

YH: When did the efforts of the past 30 years unravel?

CH: It began with the Oslo Accords in 1993, which were negotiated by Shimon Peres. That agreement provided for Israel to make periodic turnovers of land, with the idea that the Palestinians would give increased assurances toward peace. But while Israel made the turnovers, the Palestinians didn't do anything.

YH: How did you reach this conclusion?

CH: Well, Arafat has done nothing for years except complain that the turnovers of land haven't been fast enough. Moreover, [the Palestinians] have threatened violence time and time again. This has worked beautifully for them: by doing nothing, they have been able to get concession after concession from Israel.

YH: Why has this pattern continued for seven long years?

CH: Israeli and American diplomacy are deeply flawed. I would give the Clinton adminstration a grade of D-minus for the way they've conducted American diplomacy. The way that diplomacy has been conducted throughout the 1990s—primarily by the United States, but also by Israel—is that when we make an agreement, we fulfill our obligations. But when it comes to the other side fulfilling their obligations, we don't hold them accountable.

YH: Do you believe that an everlasting peace could be reached eventually? For example, can Jerusalem actually be shared?

CH: Yes, it's certainly possible to share it, if you have people with any sense of moderation and a willingness to make progress. But there are radicals on both sides that would not do that. The radicals are not in charge on either side. But it's the influence coming from the Hezbollah and Hamas that's preventing the Palestinian authorities from making a compromise. So under present conditions, there is no chance of sharing Jerusalem.

Back to News...