Symposium: What are the costs of no peace?

Middle East Policy, Oct 1998 by Indyk, Martin S, Pelletreau, Robert H, Fandy, Mamoun, Lustick, Ian S

Q: Where in fact is the U.S. national interest? When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict the Europeans made the mess. Why do we assume that we have to resolve problems that are not of our making? On this one, in particular, we have so many constraints, some of which are self-imposed; others are a part of the conditions under which all of us work. Perhaps it is time to hand this one off to somebody who is much more "guilty. "

DR. LUSTICK: I'm not someone who finds it easy to use the notion of a national interest. I find it very difficult to identify it, independent of what conflicting groups in our society want their government to do overseas.

The problem is, as I've mentioned, that for reasons of history or accident, we have a very strong lobby on one side of a foreign-policy problem - a single-issue lobby. Inevitably, it distorts the whole machinery of American foreign policy abroad. I think we do have, in that sense, a national interest to reduce our involvement in areas where that effect takes place. Cuba and the Middle East are two places I mentioned. I don't think we can reduce our involvement by walking away, however. I think we have to play a role to resolve the problem. And I think it's within our grasp. I just think that it takes a tougher-minded kind of foreign policy than we sometimes have exhibited. Q: I'm astonished that nobody has mentioned the name Osama bin Laden. And it astonishes me also that we do nothing, apparently, to indicate that we are not a colony of Israel, when his whole appeal depends on demonstrating and reminding Muslims the world over that the United States is identified with Israel. If we do not develop a firm disagreement with Israel, we are going to suffer repeated casualties and deaths, including Foreign Service personnel.

AMB. FREEMAN: Perhaps I could begin by saying that Mr. Osama bin Laden is a renegade from his family and from Saudi Arabia; his family has disowned him, and the kingdom has certainly dissociated itself from him. Mr. bin Laden's principal point, in pursuing this campaign of violence against the United States, has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, in connection with the Iran-Iraq issue. No doubt the question of American relations with Israel adds to the emotional heat of his opposition and adds to his appeal in the region. But this is not his main point.

I'd make a second comment: foreign policy, contrary to what many on this Hill believe, is not necessarily cost-free or blood-free. The question is whether Americans believe sufficiently strongly in our interests and what we stand for to be willing to accept some pain in the process of pursuing it. I, for one, believe in what we're doing and in our interests.

Q: We've seen recently that the Central Intelligence Agency has taken a very active role in the bilateral security cooperation arrangements between the Israelis and the Palestinians. What do you see as the CIA's assessment of Palestinians ' performance in security cooperation? What does this say about their sincerity in the future, regarding their agreements with Israel?