Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Lisa Beyer
Aired December 25, 2003 - 08:33 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.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: As this year draws to a close, a glimmer of hope has been kindled in the Middle East. It's true that 2003 saw horrific Palestinian suicide bombings and devastating Israeli reprisals, but suddenly there are high-level contacts between the warring factions. And then, there was that now non-sanctioned meeting in Geneva that even drew the attention of Secretary of State Colin Powell.
I'm joined by Lisa Beyer. She's the assistant managing editor for "TIME" magazine, who served for nine years as "TIME's" Jerusalem bureau chief. It's nice to see you, Lisa. Thanks for joining us. Happy holidays to you.
LISA BEYER, TIME MAGAZINE, ASST. MANAGING EDITOR: To you, too.
O'BRIEN: Let's begin by talking overall big picture about the Middle East. As we head out of 2003 into 2004, do you feel that there's more hope than maybe we started with?
BEYER: I think there is, yes. I think that the history of the last three years, since the new intifada was kicked off in the latter part of 2000, that we've basically seen a situation where the Israelis and the Palestinians are more interested in killing each other essentially than anything else.
The earlier hopes were progress along the lines of the Oslo Peace Accord, really came to an abrupt halt at that point. And as far as I could see, even if you had two leaders that were prepared to make concessions for peace...
O'BRIEN: Which there's not right now.
BEYER: Which there is not. And even if you had an administration that was particularly interested in trying to facilitate those sorts of negotiations, which we also do not have, that it still would have been quite -- well, I would say impossible to come to meaningful agreement because the two people were so furious with one another. They were just fed up with one another and didn't want to speak or didn't want to make any concessions for peace.
What I think I see now is a change in that climate. It seems to me that on both the Palestinian and the Israeli side, there is a growing feeling among ordinary people that enough is enough, that violence isn't solving anything, that it's got to come to a stop, and that the only alternative is to return to the negotiating table. O'BRIEN: Two things to talk about then. First, this recent speech, which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave, talks about unilateral measures and also about a timeline. Not a specific timeline, but a couple of months, he says.
BEYER: Right.
O'BRIEN: What did you take from that speech?
BEYER: Well, I think it's not an indication that Ariel Sharon has, you know, changed his stripes and is suddenly going to be moderate or conciliatory or particularly interested in a peace agreement. I don't think that that is his foremost interest.
I think that he's principally interested in not being to blame for a situation of continued violence. I think that he's under pressure, both from his own people to do something to make some sort of measure, even if it's not a particularly meaningful one. And he's under the same pressure, I think, from the White House.
But what I think is important about Sharon's so-called initiative is not so much the details of the initiative or the chances of him actually doing anything, it's that he felt compelled to do it.
And again, I think that he felt compelled to do it because the climate on a grassroots level has begun to change. And in Israel, there are ways to measure that. I mean, you had this episode where a number of Israeli air force pilots said that they would refuse to carry out orders to assassinate Palestinian leaders. You had the actual chief of the army saying publicly that he thought Israel's policy of continuing to bear down on the Palestinians and make their lives as miserable as possible was counterproductive and wrong. This is a -- these are very serious things in the Israeli context to have military officials taking on the prime minister's policy.
O'BRIEN: What about this unofficial Geneva summit, which Palestinian politicians and Israeli politicians, along with other world leaders and some celebrities thrown in there for good measure, all got together? Did that have any impact, do you think?
BEYER: I think that again, it was a reflection of a change in climate. Not so much that these individuals came to this agreement because the individuals who were involved with it are people who have been committed to the peace process from he start, although there were members of the delegations who were actual officials. There were members of the Likud party on the Israeli side. And there was even a cabinet minister and a deputy cabinet minister on the Palestinian side.
But more to the point, I think what's interesting about the Geneva Accord is two things. One is that this group of people demonstrated that the problem isn't that there's no solution to the problem. You can't really make a logical argument that these problems are intractable. I think that this group of people showed in coming to the finest detail of how to resolve a dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians, that if people of goodwill come together, they can reach a compromise. And I think everybody who studied the issue understands that the compromise that they reached here is more or less the only one that's possible. The Israelis can't hope for more. The Palestinians can't hope for more.
But the other thing is that there was, although a majorities in Israel and the Palestinian territories did not embrace this peace proposal, there were large constituencies that did. Again, showing that a good number of people in those communities are beginning to understand that they've got to return to the negotiations.
O'BRIEN: Lisa Beyer from "TIME" magazine, nice to see you. Happy holidays. Thanks for joining us.
BEYER: Same to you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 25, 2003 - 08:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: As this year draws to a close, a glimmer of hope has been kindled in the Middle East. It's true that 2003 saw horrific Palestinian suicide bombings and devastating Israeli reprisals, but suddenly there are high-level contacts between the warring factions. And then, there was that now non-sanctioned meeting in Geneva that even drew the attention of Secretary of State Colin Powell.
I'm joined by Lisa Beyer. She's the assistant managing editor for "TIME" magazine, who served for nine years as "TIME's" Jerusalem bureau chief. It's nice to see you, Lisa. Thanks for joining us. Happy holidays to you.
LISA BEYER, TIME MAGAZINE, ASST. MANAGING EDITOR: To you, too.
O'BRIEN: Let's begin by talking overall big picture about the Middle East. As we head out of 2003 into 2004, do you feel that there's more hope than maybe we started with?
BEYER: I think there is, yes. I think that the history of the last three years, since the new intifada was kicked off in the latter part of 2000, that we've basically seen a situation where the Israelis and the Palestinians are more interested in killing each other essentially than anything else.
The earlier hopes were progress along the lines of the Oslo Peace Accord, really came to an abrupt halt at that point. And as far as I could see, even if you had two leaders that were prepared to make concessions for peace...
O'BRIEN: Which there's not right now.
BEYER: Which there is not. And even if you had an administration that was particularly interested in trying to facilitate those sorts of negotiations, which we also do not have, that it still would have been quite -- well, I would say impossible to come to meaningful agreement because the two people were so furious with one another. They were just fed up with one another and didn't want to speak or didn't want to make any concessions for peace.
What I think I see now is a change in that climate. It seems to me that on both the Palestinian and the Israeli side, there is a growing feeling among ordinary people that enough is enough, that violence isn't solving anything, that it's got to come to a stop, and that the only alternative is to return to the negotiating table. O'BRIEN: Two things to talk about then. First, this recent speech, which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave, talks about unilateral measures and also about a timeline. Not a specific timeline, but a couple of months, he says.
BEYER: Right.
O'BRIEN: What did you take from that speech?
BEYER: Well, I think it's not an indication that Ariel Sharon has, you know, changed his stripes and is suddenly going to be moderate or conciliatory or particularly interested in a peace agreement. I don't think that that is his foremost interest.
I think that he's principally interested in not being to blame for a situation of continued violence. I think that he's under pressure, both from his own people to do something to make some sort of measure, even if it's not a particularly meaningful one. And he's under the same pressure, I think, from the White House.
But what I think is important about Sharon's so-called initiative is not so much the details of the initiative or the chances of him actually doing anything, it's that he felt compelled to do it.
And again, I think that he felt compelled to do it because the climate on a grassroots level has begun to change. And in Israel, there are ways to measure that. I mean, you had this episode where a number of Israeli air force pilots said that they would refuse to carry out orders to assassinate Palestinian leaders. You had the actual chief of the army saying publicly that he thought Israel's policy of continuing to bear down on the Palestinians and make their lives as miserable as possible was counterproductive and wrong. This is a -- these are very serious things in the Israeli context to have military officials taking on the prime minister's policy.
O'BRIEN: What about this unofficial Geneva summit, which Palestinian politicians and Israeli politicians, along with other world leaders and some celebrities thrown in there for good measure, all got together? Did that have any impact, do you think?
BEYER: I think that again, it was a reflection of a change in climate. Not so much that these individuals came to this agreement because the individuals who were involved with it are people who have been committed to the peace process from he start, although there were members of the delegations who were actual officials. There were members of the Likud party on the Israeli side. And there was even a cabinet minister and a deputy cabinet minister on the Palestinian side.
But more to the point, I think what's interesting about the Geneva Accord is two things. One is that this group of people demonstrated that the problem isn't that there's no solution to the problem. You can't really make a logical argument that these problems are intractable. I think that this group of people showed in coming to the finest detail of how to resolve a dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians, that if people of goodwill come together, they can reach a compromise. And I think everybody who studied the issue understands that the compromise that they reached here is more or less the only one that's possible. The Israelis can't hope for more. The Palestinians can't hope for more.
But the other thing is that there was, although a majorities in Israel and the Palestinian territories did not embrace this peace proposal, there were large constituencies that did. Again, showing that a good number of people in those communities are beginning to understand that they've got to return to the negotiations.
O'BRIEN: Lisa Beyer from "TIME" magazine, nice to see you. Happy holidays. Thanks for joining us.
BEYER: Same to you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
