April 4, 1997

Dear Mr. President,

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Dr. Gershon Baskin, an American-Israeli living in Israel for the past 18 years. I am the founder and Israeli director of IPCRI - the only joint Israeli-Palestinian public think-tank in the world.

I just returned from a five-day conference on Peace Education which we held for Israeli and Palestinian teachers and school principals. The conference is part of a Peace Education project which we run and which is funded by USAID. The conference itself was a huge success and it is a miracle that it even took place given the political atmosphere here. We were fortunate to be able to take the 53 participants to Turkey for the conference which removed them from the pressures of the bad environment in Israel/Palestine. Many of the participants were under intense political pressure not to participate, but they did, despite the pressure. We worked for more than a week to secure permits for the Palestinians to travel and to reach the airport while the closure continues to be imposed on all Palestinians. The conference for us was a burst of light in a very dark room and we wanted to share this with you and thank you personally for the support of the US government. Without that support this conference and our Education for Peace would not exist.

The role of the US government in our project is symbolic of the role which you are presently called upon to take in order to bring the peace process back on track. I know that it is the position of your government that you cannot do the work for the sides - they must first be committed to it themselves. That policy is basically correct, however, at this time, the sides cannot do it for themselves. We are actors in a situation where we all know (more or less) what the final act is. We all know how this conflict will be resolved - the parameters are pretty clear to all of the actors, yet in our inability to get to the end there will undoubtedly be a tremendous amount of more suffering, bloodshed and loss of life. Our leaders seem incapable of climbing off the high ladders they have constructed and without creating a situation whereby each side will be able to show some payoff for their present policies, it seems that there will be continued escalation and increased suffering.

The present situation demands for a change in the role that the US government has played until now in the peace process. The following are some thoughts I have on what role the US could play and some suggestions of payoffs that Arafat and Netanyahu could take home.

The violence of the past weeks has been entirely predictable. Israel's security experts told the government to be prepared. It is clear that the direct responsibility for the terrorist bombings falls on Hamas and that the violent demonstrations have been orchestrated by the Palestinian Authority, but unilateral Israeli actions in Har Homa, in threatening the closing of Palestinian offices in Jerusalem and in determining the size of the redeployment, have been the reasons why the violence has returned. As a result of the violence and of the unilateral Israeli actions the calls of extremists for ceasing the process (on both sides) have significantly increased. If they succeed, they will be responsible for much more violence and much more bloodshed.

Those who say that this is not peace are correct. No, peace and terror cannot dwell together. The enemies of peace are many and the legacy of war, hatred and fear which both sides have experienced for so many years makes it difficult for us to adopt a mind set of peacemaking. We Israelis and Palestinian respond to each other in linguistics of animosity. We enlist our archives of suffering to strengthen our belief that we are right and the other side is wrong. We arrogantly approach each other with little real attempt to understand the needs and challenges facing the other. In the atmosphere of violence and fear it become almost impossible for people to go beyond the immediate internal political pressures. The atmosphere of animosity and distrust lessens opportunities for creative thinking and for taking bold acts which could change the situation.

We witnessed from our Education for Peace conference the importance of removing the participants from their natural environment. We saw the importance of creating an artificial and secure surrounding in order to allow people to go beyond their present deadlock. We also saw the importance of third party mediators who can act as neutrals by allowing the parties to see what the clouds of animosity prevent from being seen.

The United States must help Israel and the Palestinian to go beyond the immediate. We must be forced to begin to view each other as true partners in a very difficult process which can only succeed through cooperation. The only way for both sides to achieve peace and security is for us to develop a new strategic relationship based on mutuality and cooperation. Halting the peace process as we have seen means first an end to cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces. A breakdown of security cooperation will not "bring back security" to Israel or to the Palestinians. Israel's freedom to act within the areas of the Palestinian Authority (as it demands) will not increase Israel's security - quite the opposite. The placement of tanks outside of Palestinian cities will not serve as a real deterrent, it will only increase the power of the Palestinian opposition. Likewise, Palestinian violence will weaken the voices of peace inside of Israel. There must be an immediate halt of violence and a mutually called for de escalation.

The US must help the sides understand that only by reaching a joint strategic vision and translating that into effective and intensive strategic realities will Israel's (and the Palestinian's) security be significantly enhanced. Security will not be found in more deployment of troops or weapons. Security will not be enhanced for the Palestinian by breaking off security contacts. The sides will continue to move further away from their goals and aspirations by flexing their muscles rather than standing down and facing each other on a level playing field.

Despite all of its weaknesses and faults, it is with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority that Israel must find a modus vivendi.. Israel must understand that agreements without honor for the Palestinian will not survive. Arrogance is not the language of peacemaking. Reconciliation cannot be created by unilateral acts. Har Homa will not determine the fate of Jerusalem. How would Israel respond to unilateral Palestinian actions which we perceive as being in direct contravention of agreements and in disregard of the spirit of peacemaking? Likewise, Arafat must understand that he has no alternative to negotiating and talking with the government of Netanyahu. Violence will never serve his goals, internally or externally. Violence will only lead to increased suffering and more bloodshed on both sides.

What should be done now?

* Netanyahu and Arafat must meet face-to-face. * Both men must call for a cessation of all violence. * Both men must commit themselves to non-stop intensive negotiations on all outstanding issues - interim and well as final status. * Both sides must commit not to undertake any unilateral actions. * Both sides must understand that failure will bring about increased violence and suffering on both sides. * Israel must freeze all settlement activity , including Har Homa, until this issue is resolved in final status negotiations. * The Palestinian Authority must fight against violence. * The Palestinian Authority must destroy the infrastructure of the Hamas and Jihad military wings, even at the risk of disruption the internal national dialogue.

The primary task of any leader is to protect the lives of their citizens. Muscle flexing may help the ego but it will not protect human lives. Israel must use its strength as an asset in striving for peace. Israeli security is dependent not only on the strength of Israel's army and its power of deterrence, but also on the security of the Palestinian. Israel must begin to see that the best way to serve Israeli interests is by searching for solutions which create mutual interests. When we succeed in creating mutual interests we will also begin to feel the meaning of peace and security.

For Israel, the most important concern is security. For the Palestinian there is a need for national honor and dignity. The more the Palestinian feels secure with their national honor and dignity the more security Israel will have. Israel should not measure its national honor and dignity with respect to that of the Palestinian. Israel's main needs are to prevent terrorism. The Palestinian will only truly be partners in the fight against terrorism when that fight merges with their own national interests. Real security will exist when the Palestinian are independent players on a level playing field which will provide them with the political will to fight the enemies of peace - because they will have too much to lose. Both sides must learn that the joint and mutual interests are superior to the narrow and individual ones.

Time is of the essence. It is in Israel's interest to make more concessions in favor of a faster agreement rather than hold out for as long as possible until the Palestinian side collapses in compromise. These negotiations are going to be much more complex and difficult than any of the previous negotiations and therefore it is urgently important that several key principles are well understood by both sides:

* Palestinian must be seen a full and equal partner. * The final status talks must produce results which are final and not more interim measures. * The final agreement must create good neighborly relations which must be based on openness and cooperation and not closure and separation. * Israel must be interested in the development of the Palestinian economy and must take steps which will facilitate Palestinian economic growth. * The agreement must be quick and it must answer both Israel's need for real security and Palestinian's need for real national honor and dignity. * Israel must demand from the Palestinian and encourage them to adopt a more democratic regime. This is both in the interest of Israel and in the interest of the Palestinian people.

Adoption of these principles in negotiations along with an attitude of mutual respect are perhaps our only hope that our travels on the road to peace have not entered a final dead end.

As a concerned Israeli citizen, I call upon you to help steer our leaders away from the path which will lead us all to mutual disaster. In suspending talks with the Palestinian Authority, Israel is once again acting unilaterally in a way which will only produce additional suffering. For the Palestinian Authority to prove to the Israelis that they are "serious about fighting terrorism" means mass arrests in the Palestinian territories which will only help to drive a larger wedge between the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people. Surely there must be a better way. The support of the Palestinian public for actions against Israel is what has given the "green light" to terrorism. The Palestinian public must be able to see the benefits of compromise. Right now they have mostly seen Palestinian concessions as Israeli gains with little payoff for themselves. Palestinian must be able to see a vibrant democratic society emerging alongside of achieving national aspirations of increasing independence. Without these achievements, the Palestinian public will be steadily drawn back into a new intifada in order to increase the suffering on the Israeli side. This is a natural response of a weak party. The price they will pay will be heavy, yet from the view of the Palestinian public, their national dignity will be returned.

What is needed now is an intensification of the dialogue between the sides not a suspension. There is rising alienation to the peace process on both sides of the conflict. The Hamas bombing and the additional subsequent violence have succeeded in creating more despair. There is little reason to think that the Tel Aviv bombing will be a singular act. The Hamas was successful in confusing the security forces of both sides by changing the profile of the suicide bomber. This should be a signal to all that the Hamas underground infrastructure has succeeded in reestablishing itself and that its level of secrecy and penetration is deeper than ever. If the peace process remains in suspended animation, the public support of Hamas bombing will increase in the territories.

A possible way out of this mess requires an American intervention. I know that Ambassador Indyk remarked several weeks ago that the sides have grown too dependent on the US in this process. This is most unfortunate, however, we must recognize the reality and for the time being accept that there is little reason to believe that the sides will be able to rescue the process by themselves.

The US intervention must be utilized first to get the sides back to the table - at the highest level. Both leaders must be able to walk away from that table with some concrete achievements in their hands. Prime Minister Netanyahu must be able to tell the Israeli public and his cabinet that he is convinced that the Palestinian leadership is doing everything possible to fight against terror. Arafat must be able to walk away from the table with a renewed Israeli commitment to the Oslo process as well as a willingness to enter into intensive final status talks parallelly with the completion of the interim talks. Neither side should be allowed to back out of its commitments already undertaken.

It would be helpful if the US could propose some concrete solutions to some of the burning problems. For example:

* It seems impossible to imagine that the Palestinian will accept the proposed Israeli protocol on security arrangements in the Palestinian air and sea ports. Yet without a security protocol acceptable to Israel there will be no progress on the opening of the ports which is so vital for Arafat, both for his economy and as a symbol of Palestinian independence. A possible solution for this problem could involve an American presence which would fulfill the same role that Israel has carved out for itself in the security protocol. Israeli criteria for security in the ports manned by US personnel could be palatable enough for both sides to make it acceptable and workable. It is likely that the Israelis would accept the American presence if it was clear that a liaison mechanism exists between the US personnel and the Israeli security. There would have to be clear and understood procedures between the American personnel and the Palestinian as well with regard to levels of security clearance at the ports. The Palestinian do understand the Israeli concerns of security at the ports, but they cannot accept the high level Israeli presence which is currently part and parcel of the Israeli proposed protocol. The finances for these arrangements could be shared by Israel, the US and several other donor countries, in particular the EU.

* The issue of safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank must be settled. There must be free movement between these two territories which the agreements recognize of having physical integrity between them. The main stumbling block in the protocol between the sides seems to be an Israeli demand to have the right to arrest any Palestinian traveling between the two areas on the safe passage road. This demand removes the meaning of freedom of movement from the concept of safe passage. There must be a mechanism which would guarantee Israel's security needs as a result of the safe passage routes without compromising the very nature of the territorial integrity of the Palestinian Authority. One suggestion would be to establish clear criteria about who is allowed and who is not allowed to use the safe passage routes. Israel has been reluctant to commit itself to such criteria, or to provide the Palestinians with a list of those individuals who cannot travel freely inside of Israeli territory. This must be done in order to implement this part of the agreement. A longer term solution should be for the creation of a high-speed rail link between Gaza and the West Bank which would transport vehicles, containers, and passengers. The rail link would not have any stops inside of Israel proper. This initiative could be a joint venture of governments and the private sector. Israel should be called on to contribute to the costs because of the obvious security benefits that it would provide. The initiative must be launched and undertake by an outside party because the Israelis and Palestinian will take too long to work out all of the details by themselves.

* There must be a rail link between Gaza and the port of Ashdod. Israel has already spoken positively about this, yet nothing has been done to implement the project. This is a crucial step necessary for Palestinian economic development - even if the Port of Gaza is established. Most Palestinian exports and imports will continue to come via Israel simply for pure economic reasons.

* The issue of security must be completed and agreed upon between Israel and the PA with regard to the industrial park on the Israeli-Gaza border. This is the main aspect which is holding up the launching of this first park. Once again, Israel's reluctance to commit itself to the security regime which it demands and which is reasonable is bringing about a major delay in the construction of the industrial park. The park must be "closure proof". Guarantees must be provided so that goods will move in and out of the park regardless of any possible closure. Israel must agree to the use of sophisticated high tech surveillance equipment in providing security in and out of the parks rather than the expensive and inefficient means of "back-to-back" trucking. Without these measures there will continue to be little private sector investment in the Palestinian economy.

* The US should also be encouraged to use its influence with the sides so that the next re deployment is carried out following dialogue and understandings between the sides. While Secretary Christopher apparently agreed to allow Israel to be the sole party deciding on the scope of the re-deployments, this has clearly resulted in increased tensions and has not helped the peace process. There is no doubt that without some kind of dialogue on the further re-deployments little progress is likely at all. Perhaps the US could make some of its own suggestions to the sides after carefully listening to the needs and concerns of both parties.

* Additionally, it would be in the interest of peacemaking if the US began to make arrangements for a Camp David type summit with the leaders of both sides to launch the final status talks. The first issue which must be addressed by the sides is the conceptual framework of the final status. Without some kind of agreement on principles for final status there is little sense in dealing with the separate issues. The conceptual framework will determine the outcome of all the discussions on each of the separate issues. This crucial stage of the negotiations will determine if we are on the road to peace or not. Without the intensification of the dialogue and without the help of skilled mediators it is highly unlikely that Arafat and Netanyahu will reach any substantive agreements.

* The US must use its influence together with the other donor countries to insure that the Palestinian Authority is on the path of democracy and an open market economy. PA control of the economy is counter productive to economic growth. Monopolistic PA policies will strangle the private sector and delay or prevent economic development. Israel has been a full partner in the creation of a PA controlled monopolistic Palestinian economy. The USA must use its influence with both sides to put an end to these destructive policies. Likewise, the Palestinian Authority must become more democratic and must honor human rights. A non-democratic Palestine is not in the interest of Israel or the United States and it is certainly not in the interests of the Palestinian people. The US has used its influence in other parts of the world with regard to human rights and democracy. The Palestinian case should not be an exception to that policy.

We are right now in the most crucial stage of the entire peace process. During this period, each day is crucial and each week vital. In the past, a few weeks here and there didn't matter too much. With the chances high of increased violence and with the need of each leader to politic in his own community, the stakes are becoming higher each day. The urgency is real and your involvement at the highest level is crucial.

I hope that this letter has been useful and I look forward to hearing about your interventions.

Sincerely yours,

Gershon Baskin, Ph.D. Israeli Director