Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Conflict in the Middle East: In Israel, Need for, Difficulty of Peace Grows as Violence Intensifies

Aired May 30, 2001 - 10:33   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
STEPHEN FRAZIER, CNN ANCHOR: So often these talks and events can blur back in Atlanta, so we're lucky that our Jerusalem bureau chief is here to talk a little bit more about this ongoing violence in the Middle East.

Mike Hanna, welcome. Thanks for joining us. Good to see you in person again. We're glad you're safe.

It does seem there has been a substantial uptick in the level of violence if not of the talks.

MIKE HANNA, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: There has, indeed, been, over the past week or so, a massive escalation in the intensity of the violence. At the moment, we do have a diplomatic initiative under way, a renewed one, with all parties trying to get some form of process to break the cycle of violence. That's the key issue, to break that ongoing cycle of violence, and after that, possibly you could move on to a next step, which is talking about a wider peace.

FRAZIER: Walk us through the relationships of the different actors here, because our special envoy, the United States' special envoy to the Middle East, William Burns, was told on Sunday by one Palestinian aid to President Arafat that Arafat should not be held responsible for the actions of militants, and I guess by that he meant Hamas, which so often takes responsibility for these actions. When they are, Israel responds by attacking Palestinian Authority installations. That seems to be apples and oranges.

HANNA: It is. Essentially, what goes to the heart of the problem is the two sides' different ideas about what is the reason for the violence. The Israelis maintain that the violence is being conducted by the Palestinian Authority through various security organizations, through militants such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Palestinians contend that the root of the violence is the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, and while that goes on, the violence grows.

So immediately, you've got a complete difference between each side as to what is the cause of the violence. Until they resolve that, or agree to differ, at least, it's very difficult to see how they can talk about bringing an end to the violence. That is exactly what ambassador William Burns is attempting to do, to find some formula, some point of agreement between the two parties, that will allow them to make the concessions necessary to create that slightly wider space in which you can start addressing the issue of violence on the ground.

To do that, you have to get your security chiefs involved -- which is happening at the moment. Whether it will lead to any concrete result on the ground, let's see in the next days ahead.

FRAZIER: It seems the prime minister, Sharon, seems to be politically stable right now and have the backing of most of his government. What about Arafat? Does he have as much support, and the freedom to act and the room to maneuver, as he might need?

HANNA: Once again, the position of both leaders is actually a little bit more tenuous than it might appear. Sharon has the complete backing, certainly in terms of his program, in terms of dealing with the violence as he sees it at present. However, politically, that is a coalition government, which, as with all coalition governments in Israel in the past, are vulnerable to particular issues. It is made up of so many disparate factors that there is always the possibility that you are going to have a fragmentation within the government -- not necessarily over the issue of the Palestinians, but over internal domestic issues, which we've tended to beget in this ongoing round of violence.

Yasser Arafat, once again, does appear have the support of the majority of Palestinians. Certainly, what he stands for in the eyes of many Palestinians has the support of the vast majority -- and that is to create an independent Palestinian state to be accorded the respect and the rights of a people living in their own state.

So each individual politician may have his problems in terms of holding together his support base, ultimately what each politician stands for with regard the Palestinian-Israeli peace process -- or non-peace process -- there is no question, it does appear, within their constituencies. There are signs on either side over particular issues, but in the wide essential basis, Sharon has the support of what he is doing, and Arafat has the support of what he is doing, or what each of them is not doing, as the case may be.

FRAZIER: I have seen president Arafat a couple of times in person, and he seems not well these days. What would happen if he were to pass from the scene? There doesn't seem to be a successor ready.

HANNA: That is a question that comes up every now and then. He does appear, in the times that I've seen him recently, actually in fairly good health.

FRAZIER: Coming back?

HANNA: But see -- once again, the Palestinian society is not a one-person force. It is a mass of people. There are some very able and very respected leaders in the Palestinian community, within the Palestinian territories. The issue of creating everything around a particular leader i don't think is helpful to any resolution of the situation. What we are talking about is not the individual personalities involved. We are talking about what the personalities want to see for their people.

And perhaps a reminder in all of this is that while the politicians talk and while those we heard at the beginning -- Saeb Erakat and the Israel prime minister -- continue to berate each other, behind all of that, there are hundreds of people who have died, there are hundreds of people who have been wounded in this conflict, many of them absolutely caught up in circumstances over which they have no control. It's very easy and very dangerous to fall into the main calling among the politicians and to avoid the issue, and what the issue is that people are out there dying, people out there are being wounded, people out there are being injured, and very many of those people are innocents. They are not involved apart from what they may want in their hearts and souls for their societies. But most of them are not throwing bombs or planting bombs, firing guns, or flying F-16 planes; most of them are ordinary people just like anywhere in the world, and they want ordinary things, and these are peace, stability, and respect.

FRAZIER: One final question. We have time for one more. That involves the United States engagement into that part of the world, because the administration of President Bush initially signaled it didn't want to get involved; now it appears it must.

HANNA: I think that all parties have made absolutely clear that it is imperative for the cycle of violence to be broken, first of all, and for any subsequent peace negotiations, U.S. involvement is not only important, it is utterly essential. While the Palestinians, in particular, welcome the involvement of the European Union, the United Nations, and other international parties -- and demand, in some cases, international monitors in the region -- the Israelis and the Palestinians agree completely that they need a broker, and a broker who not only has the respect of each party as a fair player, but a broker who has the muscle actually to force the other side into making those concessions that alone they appear unable to do.

There has to be some crowbar in all of this, not just sweet words. There has to be something in the process that is going to force each of the leaders to climb down from their tree a little bit, to make those painful concessions that they know they are going to have to make just to end the cycle of violence this. This is just the first little baby step. It's the step to end that cycle of violence.

After that, it's a different ball game. You're back into a peace negotiation process that is just as difficult, just as painful. But all of that is only in the future. All of that is only possible if the first step is made, and that is to end the cycle of violence, and you need a party muscular enough to persuade the leaders that it is in their best interest to create an arena in which the atmosphere is relatively calm, and in which the possibility of wider negotiations over all these issues can begin to take place.

FRAZIER: When you mention those two qualifications -- the disinterest, or the credibility, with both sides and the muscle -- you could look around a lot, but it sounds like there's one party, the United States, that could make that part happen.

HANNA: Very much so. It's been in the past, and it really is more now so than ever.

FRAZIER: Mike Hanna, thank you for joining us with those insights today. We're glad you're safe. Please be safe as you go back and take up your position, amid all the smoke, the flying missiles, and the bullets.

HANNA: Thank you very much, Stephen.`

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com