Israeli journalist offers students political insight
by Adam Goldstein
The Metropolitan
Hans Hallgren / The Metropolitan
Herb Keinon, diplomatic affairs correspondent for the Jerusalem Post,
spoke on “America, Israel and the Middle East: An Election Day Perspective”
Nov. 2 in Tivoli’s Multicultural Lounge. The event was presented
by the Golda Meir Center and the Department of Political Science.
On Nov. 2, the Metro Department of Political Science hosted an event
featuring Herb Keinon, the diplomatic affairs correspondent for the Jerusalem
Post. Keinon, who currently resides in Israel with his family, spoke
of the current atmosphere in a country ravaged by conflict, terror and
violence.
In an event entitled, “America, Israel and the Middle East: An
Election Day Perspective”, the Denver native covered contemporary
issues and fielded questions from students.
Q: During the Kerry campaign, he seemed to come out strongly
in defense of Israel; he defended the wall, he even used the wording that
Israel has a right to defend itself. You mentioned that Israelis can’t
be sure where he would stand if elected. What do you think it would’ve
taken to convince Israelis that Kerry would’ve taken a strong stance
in favor of Israel?
A: Kerry has a perfect voting record in the Senate on
Israel.
There was concern, because at the beginning of the campaign, he came
out against the fence. Then he flip-flopped a few months later.
The problem Israelis had with Kerry is that they don’t know Kerry;
they know Bush. Bush has given Sharon the leeway to deal with the problem
as he sees necessary.
It’s not that they have anything against Kerry. The feeling is there’s
not going to be a major difference, no matter who’s elected. But,
again, Bush is the guy who’s been good for Israel. What you know
is better than what you don’t know.
I know that Sharon came over in April, and Kerry wanted to meet him.
Sharon was in a very uncomfortable position. On the one hand, he needed
to meet the man who might be the President of the United States. On the
other hand, he needed Bush to give him these assurances.
Sharon has been very careful in not advocating one candidate or the other.
Q: So it’s safe to say that Sharon believes that Israel
has time on its side. Is it safe to say that Israelis believe him, that
time is on their side? Or do they believe that we are the verge of some
major conflict?
A: I’m not sure that the Israelis believe that
time is on their side, I don’t think Sharon thinks that time is
on their side.
I think that’s one of the reasons that we see disengagement. It’s
a demographic argument.
Demographically, if you pull out of Gaza, if you pull out of the West
Bank, time isn’t on your side.
I think that’s pushing Sharon to think in a new way.
Q: I was wondering what your position was on the UN. Considering
that the UN has come together against Israel, what do Israelis feel about
the UN? Are they opposed to it, generally?
A: Israel is very, very cynical of the UN.
If Tunisia would put forth a resolution tomorrow to the United Nations
General Assembly that said that the state of Israel should be dismantled,
that resolution would pass. You have a built-third world majority.
The assembly in South Africa a few months ago had incredibly damning
condemnation of Israel and this is the majority.
The Security Council, of course, is a different ball of wax. The Security
Council is very important, and there, Israel is affected, to a large extent,
by the US.
The conservative opposition to the UN in America is more ideologically
based; it’s not necessarily that the U.S. is getting burned by the
UN. Israel is consistently, time after time, burned by the UN.
Q: Do you think that the security wall is perpetrating hatred
by creating a cycle of violence?
A: The problem I have with the cycle analogy is that
in a cycle, one side stops and the other side starts.
Let’s say that Israel stopped following effective action against
terror, that they tore down the fence, that they wouldn’t engage
in targeted killings…Would the Palestinian terrorists stop?
There are experiences that say no, it wouldn’t. For that reason,
it’s not a cycle.
Yesterday, there was a 16 year old suicide bomber. When it comes to Israel,
you have to deal with the prospect of a sixteen year-old kid carrying
a bomb. How do you deal with it?
Unfortunately, now every sixteen-year-old kid that a soldier sees at
a roadblock is going to be a suspect. It’s tragic. It’s tremendously
tragic.
But on the other hand, I’m worried about my kids at home. I don’t
want my kids to be blown up by a 16 year-old.
So, it’s a typical moral dilemma. The sense of security is behind
everything. The actions that you see on the television are not motivated
by racism, by hatred for the Palestinians. The actions that you see are
motivated by a feeble attempt to defend ourselves. The argument about
the fence…you can tear down a fence, you can have a peace agreement.
But a human life can’t be rebuilt.
Q: The language that you use really seems slanted. What you’ve
referred to as a security fence, I’ve heard referred to as a “30
foot apartheid wall”. It sounds like you’re downplaying it.
A: As far as the fence is concerned, you’re right,
the language is very important. For that reason, I think the Palestinians
insert the idea of the wall, “The wall, the 30 foot barrier”
that you’re talking about, is 5% of the security fence…5%.
95% of it is not a wall. It’s barbed wire, but it’s not a
wall.
The idea, what the Palestinians try to do is take the image of the Berlin
Wall and transfer it over there.
The New York Times calls it a ‘barrier’, because
they don’t want to get into this issue.
|
