Interview With David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee

I want to share with you the text from a very interesting interview that I feel provides some insight into the current political and diplomatic situations Israel faces. This is the English-language version of an interview with David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, published in yesterday's l'Unita, one of Italy's most prominent daily newspapers (and identified politically with the left-of-center).

"It's not true that we Jews do not support those who seek peace"

by Umberto De Giovannangeli

November 14, 2006

David Harris is the director of the American Jewish Committee, the prestigious American Jewish organization that this year celebrates its centennial anniversary. Harris addresses the questions raised by Minister of Foreign Affairs Massimo D'Alema in his interview with l'Unita.

In a recent interview published by l'Unità, the Italian Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema complained that the moderate voices coming from Israel, such as that of David Grossman, have received little support from world Jewry. Do you agree with this statement?

I have great respect for David Grossman's writings and humanism. A number of left-of-center Jewish groups have endorsed his political views. While I fully share his desire for peace, I understand the Israeli mainstream, whose views are more complicated. In poll after poll, they support peace and the compromises necessary to achieve a settlement. But, at the same time, they are fearful of Iranian and Arab intentions, believing that their ultimate goal is Israel's destruction. In particular, Israelis yearn for a credible Palestinian partner, but don't see one today. Israel has sought peace with its neighbors from its establishment in 1948. The record speaks for itself. After all, Israel was founded to create the tranquility and security for the Jewish people that was too often missing in Diaspora communities, whether in Europe or the Islamic world. But wanting peace and attaining peace are not the same…

In your view, what should be done to give a renewed sense of hope and possibility for peace?

Attaining peace means have a negotiating partner who grasps the essential nature of mutual recognition and mutual compromise. Tragically, that's been missing on the Palestinian side. In the meantime, Israel has no choice in our view but to exercise its right of self-defense. To be sure, it is a situation made more difficult by the cynical use of civilians as human shields on the Palestinian side. Tragically, at times, there will be human errors in conflicts, but Israel's policy is to avoid deliberately targeting civilians - exactly the opposite of the strategy employed by both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Contrary to Foreign Minister D'Alema's assertion, Israel does not see force as a substitute for diplomacy. But in the absence of any serious diplomatic possibilities, and in the face of daily rocket attacks and threats of violence from the Gaza Strip - an area Israel withdrew from in 2005 and thereby gave local residents their first chance in history for self-government-what choice does Israel have today? What would other countries, including Italy, do if faced with an average of three rockets per day launched by Islamic terrorist groups at population centers, as Israel currently experiences from Gaza?

The observations made by the Foreign Minister touch a sensitive issue -- relations between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. My question to you is: Is the role of world Jewry limited to defending -- always and in all cases -- the actions of Israel or is there room for criticism?

Of course there is room for criticism. Being in the Jewish world, I hear and see it every day. In Israel, the vibrant press and often raucous Knesset debates reflect the wide diversity of views. That diversity can also be found in other Jewish communities. As we often joke, "if there are two Jews, there are three opinions."

That said, I also see a great deal of unfounded criticism of Israel in the larger world, whether at the UN, in the media or intellectual circles. That criticism is often reflexive, devoid of reality and context, and often driven by double standards. Whereas Israel is attacked for every alleged misdeed, other truly egregious human rights situations around the world are ignored or rationalized. That is why the American Jewish Committee (AJC) devotes so much effort to fostering greater understanding of Israel's difficult security environment, its small and therefore vulnerable size (only one-fourteenth the size of Italy), its quest for peace, and its robust democratic culture.

Do you believe that the Palestinians have a right to live in an independent state side by side with Israel? And if yes, how should this pathway to peace be actualized?

Absolutely. We have long supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are going away. The political answer is obvious and very much along the lines of the Clinton-Barak plan of 2000. But there has been one key element missing. In the past seven years alone, three successive Israeli prime ministers -- Barak, Sharon and now Olmert -- have publicly expressed support for a two-state solution, but have not found a partner on the other side.

Arafat never really believed in a political solution and an end to the conflict, but rather in getting what he could from the Israelis and then extending the conflict. He never prepared his people for peace and the reality of compromise. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth, which at least the current Hamas leadership doesn't do. They make clear that Israel should be destroyed and replaced by an Islamic state.

When the Palestinian people wake up to the realization that they have been ill served by their leaders, who have led them down a blind alley, then peace will become a distinct possibility. I for one refuse to abandon hope. How many people, for example, foresaw a peace treaty between Israel and its most implacable foe, Egypt, yet it has been a reality for nearly three decades? Yes, miracles are possible, but it takes Arab leaders with the courage and vision of an Anwar Sadat or King Hussein to make them happen, together with their Israeli counterparts.

I would now like to turn to the American scene, starting from the midterm elections. Can the success of the Democrats bring about a change in U.S. politics and in the attitude of the White House towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I foresee change on some key issues when the new Congress begins in January. Policy on Iraq will be reviewed, the agenda of political conservatives on such issues as abortion, church-state relations, stem-cell research and gun control are likely to be stalled, and energy innovation and conservation will receive greater attention. But both major parties share a deep commitment to the US-Israel relationship, reflecting strong American public opinion in this regard. And both parties understand that at a time when Iran is flexing its muscles, Hezbollah is rearming despite the good intentions of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and Hamas is receiving a flow of weapons across the Egyptian border, this is precisely the time to reaffirm the US-Israel link.

At the same time, as both countries have a profound stake in exploring opportunities for better conflict management, if not conflict resolution, in the region, they will be looking carefully for new openings. One such opening could be the growing realization in parts of the Arab world that the real threat to the region comes not from Israel but from Iran and its proxies. That could lead to some changed strategic calculations and benefit peace prospects. Only time will tell if the political vision and courage are there among Arab leaders. I very much hope they are. And not only for Israel's sake.