Answers to Tough Questions

1. Why is Jerusalem so important to Israeli and Palestinians?

Jerusalem has been the center of Jewish religious life, prayer, ritual, literature and culture since King David established the city as the capital of the Jewish state, over 3,000 years ago, and has maintained a continuous Jewish presence until it was divided in 1948. From then until 1967, Jordan denied Jews access to their holy sites in the eastern sector -- including the Western Wall -- in violation of the Armistice Agreement. The 58 synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were systematically destroyed and vandalized and Jewish cemeteries were desecrated.

When Jerusalem was reunited under Israel's sovereignty in 1967, the Palestinians presented their claim that all of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, be the capital of an independent Palestinian state. This, despite the fact that in 1967, Israel passed the Protection of Holy Places Law, which guarantees the sanctity of all holy sites and makes it a punishable offense to desecrate or deny freedom of access to them.
http://www.jewishagency-ed.org/jerusalem/united.html

2. When I watch CNN, why does it look like Israeli soldiers are always shooting Palestinian children?

Without getting into a discussion of media manipulation through selective camera angling and video-editing techniques, broadcast media's bottom line is immediacy. CNN, for example, will serve its up-to-the-minute reports in small, easy-to-swallow bites while print media offers in-depth reporting and analyses (not always objective and occasionally influenced by the journalist's own source). Often, TV news will air the same surface-skimming footage over and over again -- for example, rock-throwing children -- usually only a small part of the bigger picture - gun-toting Palestinians hiding behind them. Don't confuse repetition of a story with insightful analysis. It's that first impression that becomes the lasting image.
http://world.std.com/~camera/

3. What does Bin Laden have to do with Israel?

Nothing and everything.
While it may be convenient to say that Bin Laden's stand is anti-Israel, and that the path of least resistance for the United States would be to withdraw support from Israel, linking Bin Laden's war to the Palestinian's is ludicrous at best and counter-productive at worst. It's clear that Bin Laden is fighting anyone who stands against Islam as he sees it, whether it's Israel, the United States or his own native Saudi Arabia. Withdrawing support from Israel will not stop Bin Laden, it will only secure another beachhead for his anti-democratic jihad.

4. How will the situation in the United States after September 2001 affect Israel?

On the one hand, the United States can now see up close what terrorism does and can appreciate the need for a preemptive approach to fighting this insidious evil. This heightened sense of rage and hardening of American resolve has already helped the United States government appreciate Israel's position in this conflict. On the other hand, we should not be comfortable in thinking the United States will always remember. The only constant in government and public opinion is that both are apt to change - and very quickly.

5. What happened at Camp David?

In July, 2001, President Clinton decided to make a major effort to achieve a structured process towards peace while still in office. He invited Yassir Arafat and Ehud Barak for a conference in Camp David.

The atmosphere was tense. Yassir Arafat had been reluctant to participate. However, the teams eventually bridged most of the pre-final issues.

Barak offered major territorial concessions, including sovereignty over Jerusalem's Old City, and family reunification, in an effort to resolve the crucial issues. Arafat, however, remained intransigent on the Jerusalem and the Refugee issue but offered no counter-proposal.

When the talks broke down Clinton made it clear that they had failed because of Arafat's uncompromising position.

6. What are the Tenet and Mitchell proposals?

The Mitchell Report was produced in April, 2001 by an international fact-finding commission, led by US senator Mitchell, The commission was charged with investigating the causes of the September, 2000 Intifada - and to recommend how to return Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table.

The Report's recommendations recommended both parties implement confidence-building measures, including, first and foremost, an unconditional and immediate halt to the violence. It specifically set out extensive anti-terror measures to be taken by the PA. The Report did not consider Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount nor claim that Israeli settlements caused the outbreak of the violence.

Despite the Mitchell Commission report, the "Intifada" was continuing, and there were no negotiations under way. US President Bush sent George Tenet to the Middle East to hammer out a working paper to bridge the deteriorating situation. It was published on June 14th 2001.

The Tenet Plan calls for:

• A commitment to the Mitchell plan
• PA commitment to apprehending terrorists, confiscation of arms and other pre-emptive anti-terror actions;
• Israel commitment to release non-terrorist Palestinian prisoners, putting a halt to pro-active security operations in PA controlled areas, investigation of deaths caused to innocent victims and development of non-violent demonstration response mechanisms.
• There were also to be "no demonstration" and "buffer" zones.

Once security cooperation resumed, and after a 7-day cessation of terrorist activities against Israel, IDF would re-deploy its forces, and internal and border crossings would be reopened.
http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/index.html

7. Why is Peres in a 'national unity government' with right-wing political rivals?

Shimon Peres has not abandoned the peace process for which he worked so hard and for so long. He knows, however, that it is easier to work within the government than not. Israel's democratic governmental structures allows rival parties to band together for the purpose of creating a broader agenda. We can only presume that Mr. Peres' sees his role as leavening the mix so that he can see at least part of his efforts pay off.

8. How can American Jewry help Israel?

American Jewry can best help by being informed and by getting involved. A good starting point would be the Jewish Agency's web site on Hasbara
http://www.jewishagency-ed.org/hasbara/index.html

9. Is the situation now a result of Israeli's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon?

This is not a yes or no question. Certainly, it seems that there is no connection. On the other hand, it is possible that, seeing how terrorism played a part in wearing away the resolve of the Israelis on the Lebanese front, Palestinian terrorists now believe that these kinds of actions against Israel do bring results.

10. When, why and where were the settlements established and what is their impact on the Peace Process?

Settlements have been an integral part of the Yishuv and independent Israel's return to Eretz Yisrael. The Etzion bloc, for example, was purchased in 1929 and there had long been a Jewish community in Hebron.

The Six Day War in 1967 brought new areas of land under Israeli jurisdiction. Moreover, because the "West Bank" of the Jordan River has no status under International Law (since it was unilaterally annexed by Jordan together with Jerusalem, in 1949), many families wanted to return to these areas. On this basis, Israel claims that settlements are legal and that the best term is therefore "disputed territories". An entire movement (later Gush Emunim - Bloc of the Faithful) emerged in support for a return to historical and Biblical areas of Israel.

The Oslo Accords divide the territories the territories, into three categories:
(A) PA controlled areas
(B) Israeli security-controlled areas with PA civil control
(C) Israeli controlled areas
(see maps at http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/books/maps.htm . )

Since 1993, Israel has ceded territory, including some close to some of the settlements, creating pockets of Israeli civilians deep inside PA-controlled territory. Thus, the settlements are both a diplomatic and security issue. Israel was not obliged to dismantle settlements before the final status arrangements of the Israel-Palestinian track of the Peace. Therefore, despite persistent demands from the PA and the international media who portray settlements as a cause of, or provocation to, violence and conflict, the Israeli government seems to view this as unrelated to the essence of the conflict, and as a red herring in the rhetoric.