 |
|
|
|
interview
 |
Can
the far right get it right
The
landslide victory for Prime Minister elect of Israel, Ariel
Sharon, signals a new era in politics for the Middle East.
Just before Israel went to the polls, MIRIAM DUNN asked Israeli
diplomat, Tibor Schlosser, who
was on a visit to Malta, whether the peace process was dead,
dying or just very badly damaged… |
Israeli diplomat Tibor Schlosser was in Malta recently for the relaunching
of the Malta-Israeli cultural society.But Mr Schlosser, who is counsellor
to the Embassy of Israel in Rome, which also has Malta under its
umbrella, was well aware that what I really wanted to ask him about
was the landslide election result predicted for Ariel Sharon's right-wing
Likud party.
Ever the diplomat, he makes it clear that his reaction to
any change at the helm in Israel will have to be phrased carefully.
But his answer is interesting nonetheless.
"The breakdown in talks has led to a lack of trust
between the two sides and this has made the Israeli population very
frustrated," he explains. "This is one of the reasons
that Prime Minister Ehud Barak has lost considerable support."
Mr Schlosser admits that if more progress had been made
following Camp David, Barak's chances of election victory might
have been greater, although he thinks the prime minister did his
utmost to move the peace process forward.
"If we had reached a framework agreement which defined
specific perimeters, the support might have been much greater for
Barak," he says. "But one thing is sure, following Camp
David, Barak showed he was willing to compromise and because this
was not mirrored by the other side, it seems he has sacrificed his
political career in a bid to reach peace."
Mr Schlosser also points out that the impasse in negotiations
has done nothing to benefit the Palestinians.
"By not reaching a compromise with Barak, the Palestinians
have, for now, missed the bus," he says. "They had a good
chance, but they dragged their feet. Yes, there has to be compromise,
but Barak showed he recognised this. Arafat needs to realise that
he cannot stick to his initial position if this provides no solution."
Mr Schlosser believes that Barak went much further than
any other prime minister to reach a compromise with the Palestinians,
but also stresses that the media image portrayed of right-winger,
Ariel Sharon, is not entirely accurate.
"Sharon has a bad image because of the Temple Mount
incident," he admits. "But even if his action could be
perceived as having been provocative, it was certainly not violent.
The riots there started one day after his visit, which gives food
for thought as to who started the trouble that has destroyed the
trust between the two sides."
He stresses that, contrary to certain reports, Sharon is
in favour of finding a solution to the problems in the Middle East.
"He is on record as having said this," he says.
"He may approach the negotiations in a different way, but I
am sure he will pursue them."
On the issue of media portrayal, Mr Schlosser believes that
Israelis were often presented as "the bad guys", until
the lynching of two of their soldiers at the Ramallah police station.
"Then people began thinking that maybe the situation
was not so straightforward," he says.
So what does he believe to be the main obstacles to peace
in the Middle East, I ask him.
"Unfortunately, there has been a very long period of
hatred and aggression between us. Too much blood has been spilled
on both sides and it is very hard to build a bridge over it,"
he says.
Mr Schlosser recalls the resolution of the United Nations
in November 1947, when it was decided to split the country into
two states.
"The Jews accepted this, but the Arab side didn't,
for whatever reason," he says. "For almost 50 years they
have been playing with the idea that they can destroy Israel through
force with the help of the Arab states. There were times when we
really felt our very existence to be under threat. We want to reach
peace, but not through suicide and we will avoid, at all costs,
any threat of becoming the 26th Arab state."
Mr Schlosser highlights the important breakthrough achieved
at Oslo in 1993.
"The great progress here was the chance it gave us
for mutual recognition," he says. "We recognised the right
to accept the PLO as representing the Palestinians and they recognised
Israel's right to exist."
But, he adds, since then, the PLO has returned to the territories,
today controlling 40 per cent of the land in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip.
"We are always being shown pictures of armed Israeli
soldiers looking imposing, but they are there because their presence
is in accordance with interim agreements signed by both sides,"
he says. "What has happened is that the Palestinian riots are
taking place in areas under Israeli control."
But doesn't he feel that the Palestinians are simply venting
their anger and frustration following years of living under occupation?
"This is a point that I totally agree with. Their situation
is a tragic one and it is feeding their emotions," he answers.
"But at the same time, the emotions have to be controlled because,
otherwise we are in grave danger of killing the child that has been
nurtured over seven years – the peace process."
And how does Mr Schlosser feel the change in US presidency
will affect the negotiations in the Middle East?
"Clinton played a key role in the Middle East talks,
partly because he was the outsider with the two sides, but also
because of the personal interest he took in the cause," he
replies. "There is no other person in the world outside of
the problem who has been so deeply involved as Clinton. He would
have loved to see the two sides reach an agreement - his work would
then have been finished in the Middle East."
Mr Schlosser points out that, although Clinton didn't manage
to get both sides to sign an agreement, he made a significant achievement
by getting them to recognise and deal with core problems.
"This is why our frustration is so great, because at
Camp David we all knew more or less what was offered and what was
accepted, but now we are caught up in all this mistrust again,"
he says. "And of course, any future talks involving the new
US administration will inevitably take time to get going."
And what role is there for Malta to play?
"Malta has a central role in the Mediterranean to play
in terms of geographical location, and also because it has very
good relations with all the parties involved in the peace process,"
he answers.
He also highlights the positive aspect of the reopening of the Malta
Israeli cultural society.
"This should also help Malta to get to know Israel
as it really is and not only through the image created in the media,"
he explains. "Malta has already played an important role in
bringing Israelis and people from Arab countries together on courses,
for example. These kind of moves are truly positive all round."
Miriam
Dunn interviewed Tibor Schlosser before the results of the elections
in Israel were known
|
|
|
