THE past fortnight has seen the beginnings of three path-breaking events that could lead to a dramatic transition in the Middle East. The first is the new policy of President Barack Obama toward the region, which includes an end-game for the United States in Iraq because of the economic crisis and, for the first time in years, diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria. The second is the emergence of hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm in Israel, who has a long record of resisting any move for just peace with the Arabs. And the third is the long-awaited reconciliation between the Palestinian rivals Hamas and Fatah, which is essential for any realistic Arab move for a two-state solution of Israel and Palestine coexisting in peace. For insights into these developments, Saudi Gazette/Okaz interviewed Mid-east expert Richard W. Murphy, who is currently on a visit to Saudi Arabia. Murphy is the Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. His past experience includes: career ambassador at the US Foreign Service, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (83-89), US ambassador to Mauritania (71-74), Syria (74-78), the Philippines (78-81), and Saudi Arabia (81-83). He holds honorary doctorates from New England College and Baltimore Hebrew University. Murphy agrees that while the economic crisis in the US has impacted Washington's foreign policy choices, there will be no change in America's support for Israel's security. However, he does not think that the Obama administration sees “supporting Israel's security and being active in trying to make peace can be mutually exclusive.” He also suspects that Hamas maybe ready for peace negotiations with Israel “as long as they are serious negotiations.” But more significantly – and despite the Israeli settlers' determination to make sure that the two-state solution never occurs – Murphy sees the stirrings of change in American public perception of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which “will have its impact on their representatives in the House of Representatives, in the United States Senate, and on the White House.” Excerpts: Q: How do you see President Barack Obama's new Middle East policy of engaging Iran and Syria in talks? What do you think will be its impact on America's traditional allies in the region? Richard Murphy: Well, time will tell. Let me just say that the way the President began, the fact that on the very second day of his term he made the trip from the White House to the State Department, the appointment of Senator Mitchell as envoy to the Middle East, along with Richard Holbrooke going to work on the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation, gave both sets of issues a prominence early on. You couldn't do it any earlier than President Obama has done, which I don't recall any previous administration doing. Now I say that, recognizing that symbolism, and we'll see what the substance develops into. But the fact is Senator Mitchell was on the plane 48 hours later to his first trip in which I believe he saw King Abdullah among others on his first trip to the region and he did work on the issue towards the latter part of the Clinton administration. So he's familiar with the problems, and he has had an unusual success in another set of issues, namely the Irish and, being Irish myself, I can tell you that there were those that at one point in history said that the Arab-Israeli situation will be solved before that of Northern Ireland. So, he's a man of great patience and I think the President made a wonderful choice in picking him. Now you asked about how to reconcile out friendships in the region, traditional friendships such as the one I worked on over the years with Saudi Arabia, with President Obama's interest in improving relations with Iran and Syria, two regimes with which we've had limited or no relations over the last several years. We've not had an embassy in Tehran since 1979. Our ambassador was withdrawn from Syria five years ago immediately following the assassination of the (former) Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri. So there's a lot of troubled history, bad history with both sets of relations with Washington, and what he said he wants to see what the possibilities are of improving them – certainly not at the expense of traditional allies in the region. Q: What do you think of Iran's increasing influence in the region, which arguably extends across Iraq and reaches up to the Palestinian territories? Murphy: You are assuming that the Iraqis won't control their own future by the way you present it. I don't think that any of us should make that assumption. First of all, the President's decision to get out of Iraq – he's carrying out a pledge he made in the (election) campaign. He was very critical of the way we got into Iraq and he was very public in his criticism of the Bush administration policies. Now he is the chief policy maker and apparently the way he presented the issue of withdrawing our troops, just yesterday, got a favorable reaction from both the Republicans and the Democrats, which is a good beginning, made easier perhaps by the fact that the level of violence is down and that the Iraqis themselves have made it plain they'd like to see an end to the American military presence. The main parties in the United States for the moment are supporting it in the plan to get the combat forces out next year – mid-year – and get all forces out by the end of 2011. That's popular. This is not a popular war in the United States, and I don't need to tell you about the reactions in the region to the war. It's been a period of strained relations between Washington and many leaders in the region, not only our adversaries but on the part of our friends. Q: What is your take on the agreements reached between the Palestinian factions Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Do you think it will be intact? How will it impact on the peace process overall? Murphy: Well, correct me if I'm wrong. I've not seen anything released yet about the details of that agreement. There seems to be an agreement in principle between Fatah and Hamas, and Egypt invited some eight other smaller parties to attend that session, but beyond that agreement to get together, I'm not sure what it consists of yet. Now they've started some gestures, moves of releasing prisoners – that's a very positive step seen by both Fatah and Hamas. Q: Do you support the release of Marwan Barghouti from jail in Israel? Murphy: (after clarifying that he is speaking as a private citizen, who started studying Arabic as far back as 1959) I do not know the man. I understand he is extremely popular with the younger generation for the stance that he took both before he was put into prison by the Israelis and in any statement he has made from prison. So his release, if it takes place is to be received very positively, I think, throughout the Palestinian community. He is a Fatah member, so the question is bound to be, what's his attitude towards Hamas? I do not know. I think he is a man that stands for reconciliation between all Palestinians, and on that, I think, he's absolutely right because we are not going to see any progress in terms of advancing towards a peaceful solution if the Palestinians are as divided as they have been these recent years. Q: How do you see the future of Hamas now? Murphy: I disagreed with the policy of boycotting Hamas, which was made explicit back in Washington in 2006 after the elections when Hamas did much better than had been anticipated. For me those elections confirmed that Hamas is a voice in the Palestinian community. It represents a body of opinion that has to be present in any negotiation. My impression is that Hamas is an organization which has broadly challenged Fatah for following a policy of peaceful negotiations, in that sense that Israel only respects those that are willing to resist and use violence, and yet that same party has had spokesmen in the past who had given some indications or hints that they would be prepared to accept former agreements and getting into an area that I've never spoken to Hamas myself so I could be on the wrong track here. But I think that Hamas has some differences in opinion in its leadership ranks about how to accept what was negotiated in the past by the PLO, by the Palestinian Authority, and I hope that in the process of getting together that it finds a way to indicate that it's ready for negotiations as long as they are serious negotiations. While discussing the Palestinians, I would like to add that the (Saudi Arabian) King's efforts on this score in the past in trying to bring the factions together were excellent and very admirable. I read His Majesty's statement in the press today about his hopes and his pleasure at the new efforts at reconciliation and I'm sure he's going to be encouraged to be playing an active part on this very, very critical issue. Q: Do you think the Arab peace process is the way to go for eventual peace? Murphy: I think it's an outline as we had at the end of the Clinton administration an outline on the principles and some substance of what would make an eventual agreement. His Majesty's proposal when it was announced seven years ago at the Beirut summit was neglected by Washington and scorned at that point by Israel, and I think both have come perhaps to regret their initial reactions. Q: Given the severity of the global economic crisis, do you think America has had to make some very hard choices regarding its foreign policies? Murphy: Well, take the example of Iraq. The Iraq expenditure both in blood and American funds has been far greater than was anticipated when the invasion took place in 2003. And in this time of economic crisis, and it is a serious crisis in the States as it is worldwide now, the administration certainly is looking for ways to save money where it can. I think our policy on Iraq as formulated by President Obama is combining both a principle that we cannot dictate a solution in foreign policy simply by the use of military force; so that's a principle and it is a way of getting out as soon as we can. And a heavy budget expenditure is on the rack, hundreds of billions of dollars already. That is welcome news to the White House and the American public. So Iraq is a good example of the influence of foreign policy choices that have been impacted by the economic crisis. Q: What about Israel? Are we going to see more of the same? Blatant US support no matter what Israel does? Murphy: Well I think any political leader in the United States, no matter where he stands in his respective party, is going to reaffirm our support for Israeli security. That's just one of the givens in our foreign policy. That's not going to change. What I'm hoping to witness, and I'm sure you are as well, is that that there will be a greater activity, more energy displayed, both from the White House and from the administration as a whole, of all the issues, of what it will take to get to a peace settlement of justice between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Those issues were given a low ranking by the former administration which was focused so intensely and virtually exclusively on Iraq, and lately on Afghanistan, that we abandoned the field. And the passage of time has deepened the hatreds, have improved the weaponry on everybody's part, homemade as they may be as missiles, those that were sent from Gaza against Israeli territory. The fact is that Hamas apparently got a hold of some Katyushas, and the technology will only improve in the hands of resistance so long as there is not some serious addressing of the political problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Do not expect to hear any weakening of the American resolve to do what we can to ensure Israel's security. But I don't think this administration sees supporting Israel's security and being active in trying to make peace can be mutually exclusive. Q: What in your view could possibly go wrong in this approach to this region? Murphy: What is increasingly recognized in the United States and more publically addressed within Israel by a number of the political factions and the Israeli media is the threat to any (political) settlement being created by this appetite for increasing the settlements on the West Bank. In 1967, I was in Jordan at the end of the 6-day war. I think most of us had a too-easy assumption that within a year or two the Arab side would find its way away from the position adopted in Khartoum of no negotiations, no reconciliation with Israel, that there would be a serious approach to negotiations. It took longer than that. It took another war in 1973. But the point is that when the 6-day war ended there was not a single Israeli settler on the West Bank or on the Golan Heights. Today they are upwards of 300,000 -- and the new programs announced or discovered constantly these days of new efforts to expand the activity. Now,that issue needs much more direct attention and activity by the Israeli political leadership if there is going to be a settlement along the lines of two states. Q: Do you think the new Israeli leadership has the political will to negotiate for a two-state solution? Murphy: The new leadership has not taken office. Is it going to be an entirely right-wing coalition under Benjamin Netanyahu? That seems to be the way it's going but …… coalition building has often turned out to be dysfunctional when they are faced with an issue such as settlements. No Israeli leader will accept it. If I'm not mistaken, Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister has tried to block settlement activity ever since 1967. Rabin interrupted the development of settlements but even that was for a limited period. The settlers basically hold all Israeli politicians in contempt because they operate on the conviction that they are doing the Lord's will and they are the only ones that can interpret his will correctly. So go ahead and settle the West Bank to the point that people will stop talking about a two-state solution. Now I say that issue is getting much more attention in the American media. If you follow our TV, our popular magazines such as Time and Newsweek, during the Gaza crisis I noticed a feature article in Time with the headline screaming, ‘Why Israel cannot win,' That was written in a way you would not have seen in the American media in earlier periods. And on CBS television, the very popular '60 Minutes' program in January conducted a segment on the West Bank where they featured the commentaries of an Israeli woman mayor of a settlement community and she just said we will do everything possible to make sure that the two-state solution never occurs. That is not a new position for the settlers but it's getting more attention by the American people and by other international editors. Q: If that happens, that American public change in perception, will that help the peace process? Murphy: I certainly believe so. Yes, I think an American public that is more aware of both sides of the issue will have its impact on their representatives in the House of Representatives, in the United States Senate, and on the White House. The foreign policy that will be conducted is going to be the President's foreign policy but in our country he operates with an eye on the American public and the Congress. So, he has to be affected. I would say the more awareness, the better. Q: Do you think Netanyahu can help bring peace to the region, especially since he's a right-winger? Murphy: The easy answer is that, remember it was the right wing in America in the person of President Nixon that opened our relationship with the communists in China that nobody except some very far out liberal Democrats were willing to contemplate at that point in history. What Netanyahu will do is going to depend not just on the ideas he brings to office but on the climate that he finds himself operating in, first in his own country, in the region and in the international relationships he wants to preserve. No Israeli prime minister wants a head-on confrontation with Washington – that has always been a consideration in Israel. But what he will do when he becomes prime minister, we are going to have to stay tuned as we say. Senator Mitchell is known for a very firm, very polite approach in handling controversial issues but he's an intensely pragmatic man and his line of questioning is, I predict, going to be, ‘Well that's explained in this capital and that capital what your policies are. We don't seem to be getting any closer to negotiations that is promising a peaceful settlement, so, you got any more ideas?' And then forming, pushing, nudging for new ideas. Q: Will Iran be at the table of any eventual peace settlement? Murphy: Whether Iran would be at the table with Arabs and Israelis I think would be a very different matter. But an improved American relationship with Iran, when we are talking directly to them about our strategy and making clear we've not been basing our policy on Iran on overthrow of their regime, I think that is going to have its impact on the Iranian approach to the region as a whole.
