Anna AZARI: It takes an optimist to be realist, but it looks like the time is not ripe

The latest news from the Middle East is that, after the Sharm el Sheikh summit in Egypt between Israeli Premier Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat, the situation has not shown any radical changes. Despite the truce, unrest continues, and the atmosphere remains tense. The Western media regard the truce as frustrated. Israel and the Palestinian Authority tend to accuse each other of kindling the fire of conflict. Simultaneously, Israeli delegates declare they still hope the negotiating process (started almost eight years ago in Oslo, on the land for peace principle) will resume. Anna Azari, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Israel to Ukraine, visited The Day and said, among other things, that her fellow countrymen still strive for peace. Even though certain compromises proposed by Barak at the Camp David summit, particularly his Jerusalem initiative, are no longer possible, as new rules of the game will apply. October 20 reports quote the Israeli Premier as saying that, unless the wave of violence subsides, Israel will regard it as Arafat’s decision to discontinue peace negotiations.

The Day : After signing the truce in Egypt we hear reports that the accords are being violated. An Internet commentary even reads that the participants in the conflict seem to need another war to again negotiate peace. So what next?

Anna Azari: I don’t see many candidates for such a war. It’s the last thing Israel needs. It does not show any desire, nationalist or political, to conquer new territories, as evidenced by eight years of talks, when Israel would surrender real power in real places after each negotiating stage. Another example is the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon several months ago.

And I think that the leading Arab states, among them Egypt, do not need another war either.

It could be needed by Arafat in the first place. I do not quite understand what he really wants or how he intends to get it. Or whether he actually wants to achieve his stated objectives — I mean his idea of a Palestinian state. A month ago or so, he could reach his goal after Camp David. He did not, probably for purely psychological reasons; a leader that has spent most of his life in opposition cannot afford to become the eminence gris of a state that would most likely turn out corrupt. Another possibility is that he, as the leader of a terrorist group, is determined to achieve peace by waging a victorious war. There is no doubt that this war would not be victorious from the military point of view. We cannot fight the Palestinians at the state level. There are two countries most likely interested in another war in the Middle East. One is Iraq, for this would allow it to victoriously re-enter the Arab world, and Saddam Hussein has ordered troops toward Israel. And it is Iran, for this would help it restore its former influence in the Islamic world. Getting back to the first part of the question, I don’t know what will happen after Sharm el Sheikh. There is no written agreement and we will shortly see just how effective that declaration is. The first 24 hours were no good, and a residential district in Jerusalem came under enemy fire. We will see what happens next.

The Day: How prepared do you think the opposition is to use the peace process problems and is it actually using them in its struggle against Ehud Barak?

A. A.: I think the opposition is not using this possibility of another war or the existing tensions. Regardless of the status of Barak-Sharon talks about the creation of another government, the current government’s response to Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was not used against Sharon’s party, Likud. The government is supported by former Premier Benjamin Netanyahu after losing the elections to Ehud Barak. In other words, the Israelis play no political games under national threat.

The Day: Does the peace process has any time limits? If and when resumed, will it be the same as before?

A. A.: My compatriots and I care little if it is formally the same as when commenced in Oslo or whether it receives another name. I am sure there will be new rules of the game. There are many questions that were raised when negotiating the final agreement on the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. Some cannot be even discussed after the past several weeks. For example, the Palestinian demand that the refugees be allowed back to Israel. This subject is finally closed.

We think that the Palestinians buried Clinton too early, although no one expects the next US President to exert as much effort as Clinton. Nor will the Israeli stand be affected by dates: January 20, when the new resident of the White House takes over, or the Arab summit, or Israeli Parliament session that can be convened any day now. The only thing that can affect it is what actually happens in the territories.

The Day: Who could actually pressure Arafat?

A. A.: Considering that he was the one who started the PR warfare, such pressure could be expected from Europe and the United States as the side for which he worked; Western media on the one hand and what I describe as non-radical Arab countries: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. If he has no real support from them in his war effort, he might return to the negotiating table.

The Day: What do you think of Ukraine’s policy in the Middle East?

A. A.: It is practical enough. Ukraine tries to remain on good terms with all Middle East countries, and this is a correct approach. Your Foreign Ministry’s response to the situation in the Middle East has been a balanced one. Incidentally, Ukraine played a positive role in the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.

The Day: Could Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount be a planned provocation?

A. A.: I think the Arab side waited for the slightest opportunity to stage organized unrest. As a politician, Sharon declared we would never surrender Jerusalem. Yet when on the Temple Mount, September 28, nothing actually happened. The next day, it started by Palestinians hurling stones at the Jews praying by the Wailing Wall and clashes followed, although most serious unrest was registered outside Jerusalem. I think we may have made one mistake; we did not realize that any act on the part of any Israeli politician would be used as an excuse. I am sure that it would have happened anyway, because the Palestinians began building up tensions two weeks before unrest broke out.

The Day: The current situation seems to have rallied Israeli society even closer together. What will happen afterward? The Jews and Arabs are doomed to living in close neighborhood anyway.

A. A.: I’d rather Israeli society remained more dynamic, democratic, and argumentative while seeking to achieve peace, than having to say closely rallied under any kind of siege.

I think the Palestinians will eventually realize that neither they, nor the Israelis will have any alternative but return to the negotiations. One Israeli premier once said, in Israel, being a realist takes an optimist. One day we will have to get back to such optimism, but it looks like the time is not ripe, not now.