Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich, President of Tel Aviv University, Briefing on the State of Israel

On May 7, 2002, NCJW hosted a teleconference with Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich, President of Tel Aviv University. The following is an edited excerpt from that conversation.

MARSHA ATKIND (NCJW NATIONAL PRESIDENT): We're meeting in a time of great turmoil and crisis for the State of Israel and, indeed, for Jews in many parts of the world. As American Jews, we are horrified to see and hear media accounts of suicide bombings in Israel and attacks on Synagogues and religious institutions around the world. But as difficult as it may be to imagine right now, life in Israel continues. And when the dust eventually settles, we need to remember that Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is creating a civil society in which women will play an equal part, and that's what makes Israel a country that makes us feel so very proud.

We're privileged to have with us today Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich, the President of Tel Aviv University, who headed the Israeli delegation at the peace talks with Syria (1992-1995) and was Israel's ambassador to the United States in 1993-96. NCJW is fortunate to enjoy a special relationship with Ambassador Rabinovich as we work together with Tel Aviv University to sponsor the NCJW Women and Gender Studies Program and the NCJW Women's Studies Forum. He has very generously agreed to brief us today on the situation in Israel, and its effect on life at the University as well.

AMB. RABINOVICH: Thank you. As you have indicated correctly, we do have a special relationship with NCJW. The program that we conduct together in Women and Gender Studies is immensely successful. It's one of the most successful new programs that we have on campus. Its success in residence has led to imitation by other universities in Israel, and so your decision to go ahead with us has had a multiple effect across the country, and we are delighted to be in the midst of this very productive relationship with this great organization.

What I would like to do in my initial presentation is to talk to you on two levels  to wear my professional hat as a "Middle East expert" and talk to you about the crisis and about the particular US role in this crisis, and then to wear my University president hat and tell you how life continues in a large, complex Israeli institution at this time of crisis.

As we all know, Prime Minister Sharon is today in Washington. The visit comes in the aftermath of Israel's painful, but successful, military operation over most of the West Bank. None of us relishes the prospect of Israeli tanks rolling into Palestinian cities and towns in the West Bank. In fact, many Israelis, even those who were doubtful about Palestinian intentions, were quite delighted to be out of these cities as a result of the Oslo process in the ‘90s. But unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority chose to conduct what I call a "war of attrition" against us for the last year and a half. And a few weeks ago, around Passover, this war of attrition reached its zenith when the mainstream of the Palestinians adopted the technique of suicide, or homicide, bombings and, like in Israel, it became almost impossible to conduct the normal life of a country with two or three homicide bombings in various parts of the country.

And so on these grounds alone, most Israelis have supported the operation. The peace accords, signed first in Norway and then on the White House lawn in the summer and early fall of 1993, created a framework for resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

And they were initially successful. The Palestinian Authority was tough. Israel withdrew from the densely populated areas and, as I indicated earlier, Israelis were delighted to be out of these areas, and a series of complementary agreements seemed to lead us towards resolution.

But then things went sour for a while. The process was revised under Ehud Barak, who in July 2000 conveyed the most far-reaching proposal that any Israeli prime minister ever laid on the table for the Palestinians, in effect offering them 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, breaking some of our taboos: offering to divide Jerusalem, to divide the old city, to divide sovereignty over Temple Mount, and to give up Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley. Even that was rejected by Yasser Arafat because Ehud Barak demanded, in return for all of these, a clear statement of finality and end of conflict, which Arafat refused to do.

He also converted the spontaneous September 2000 uprisings into what I called earlier a war of attrition again Israel. His mistaken assumption was that Israeli society would not be able to pay the toll of a sustained war. Indeed, he is draining the Israeli economy, and taxes us in many other ways, but Israeli society fortunately has proven to be much more resilient than the Palestinians, and maybe others, had assumed, and it's been in this conflict successfully and effectively for eighteen months now.

The close relationship with the United States is the keystone of our national security, and it's been very important that this situation has not spoiled our relations with the United States. Again, there was a little speculation as to how the impact of September 11th was played  would Israel not be presented as the cause of Arab and Muslim anger at the United States? But more than half a year has passed since then, and we know that the American public makes a very clear distinction. And the American public understands that first and foremost, the Saudis and Egyptians, who were on these four planes on September 11th, were there for reasons other than Israel. They resent the American policy in Iraq, and first and foremost they resent their own governments. These are revolutionaries who would like to topple the Egyptian government and the Saudi government, and who view the United States as the protector of these regimes, and this was a way of getting not only the US but also at their own governments.

The President, the National Security Advisor and other spokespersons for the administration have criticized Arafat's misconduct and indicated that he's not a suitable leader for the Palestinians at this time.

Now, as far as the actual content of the Prime Minister's visit, the idea is to put together a plan for political and diplomatic movement. We all realize that the reasonable military solution to such a conflict is not for Israel to re-conquer the West Bank and Gaza, and rule them directly. This is not what we have in mind, and this is not a solution in itself.

At the same time, we know that Arafat is not the right partner for putting an end to this conflict. We are looking at the possibility of the US and others exerting pressure to limit his actual power and to try to build up other more pragmatic individuals and elements in the Palestinian authority. We are looking at the possibility of an international conference to revise the peace process. And what the President and the administration want from Prime Minister Sharon is to hear that Israel is willing to participate in this political, diplomatic effort.

Let me now speak to the particular problems at Tel Aviv University. We are a very large institution. We have close to twenty-seven thousand students. With the faculty and the administrative employees, there are more than thirty thousand people who come to the Tel Aviv campus every day. First and foremost, we've had casualties. Students in the University were killed in the reserve service. That's the most painful. We've had members of the extended university family being wounded in some of the terrorist attacks.

Secondly, we've had more than two thousand students who are in active reserve service being called up, and their schoolwork has been disrupted. We have made arrangements for them not to lose any academic credit. Fortunately, we are very seasoned and trained in this, and we know how to cope with it.

Thirdly, we are hurting financially. Like the other large Israeli universities, we are a public institution, not a state university but a public university. Our budget is heavily subsidized by the government. The government budget, because of the crisis, has been cut down dramatically. We lost about 10% of the budget, and we are taking the university on a major diet so that we can keep afloat. The overseas program has been almost wiped out, down from about six hundred students to just over a hundred, and who knows what the prospects for next year are. People don't come to the academic conferences.

These are hardships. We cope with them, and as you heard, the University continues to function. Thirty thousand people have been turning up here every day even at the worst of times.



Q&A for "A Conversation with Itamar Rabinovich":

MS. ATKIND: Thank you very much, Ambassador Rabinovich. I wanted to ask: American Jews are very eager to help out in any way with Israel. What can we do to help?

AMB. RABINOVICH: I would say first of all try to come. The country is eager to have people come and visit. The tourism industry has been practically wiped out. Hotels are empty. It's a major component of the Israeli economy. I know that people have anxieties and reservations, but if you can overcome them, please come. That's very important.

Second, you have been immensely effective in serving as a lobby for support to Israel in your political system, and it's very important that you continue to do that. Tell your senators, representatives, the White House, how supportive you are of Israel. You know that they don't read every letter that comes in, but they count them. And they gauge public opinion also through the mail and through the telephone calls. Every American politician has the formula for that. And even something like writing a letter or making a phone call to the local office of your senator or representative is a very meaningful act.

Thirdly, sometimes you may have to demonstrate. Part of the program now, more in Europe than in the United States, are the Muslim and Arab communities that have mushroomed across the globe. They are the hard core of anti-Israeli demonstrators, which you now see. And it was very important that a very large demonstration took place in Washington not too long ago. I know that had great impact on decision-makers in Washington.

And finally, if you can help financially to whatever cause, to a hospital, to a university, particularly to causes that have to do with security or that have been affected by the crisis, it makes a difference. Our economy has been hit by the crisis and by the crisis of the high tech that was the engine of the Israeli economy in recent years. In the United States, you are beginning to see some signs of recovery. In Israel you don't, because without the horizon of political settlement, the interests are not going to come back to Israel, or we will have to suffer economically for at least another year and your help in this regard would be very significant.

GLORIA BROWN (PRESIDENT, Union County (NJ) Section): In my recent trip to Israel, the spokespeople from the Israeli Government did not seem to be strong spokespeople, and you had mentioned the fact that the media was not very effective. We also heard from speakers in the private sector and speakers from universities who were very effective in presenting the Israeli perspective. I'm wondering why the Israeli Government is not using such good speakers when they reach out to foreign media.

AMB. RABINOVICH: The point is very well taken. You know, I cannot speak for the Government. I can tell you that I try to exert my personal influence on the Government to do just that, and I can tell you that at every university we are investing a special effort in this regard. Later this month we are going to inaugurate the Chaim Weizmann Institute for Media and Politics that is going to deal mostly with this question. We've invited several very senior media people from the States to talk to the Israeli public about this.

And, secondly, we've built within that institute a workshop offering Israeli politicians, diplomats and other spokesmen an opportunity to learn from professionals how to speak on television. So, in our modest way, we try to help, but I totally agree with you that the Government could do a better job of selecting the available talent and sending it forward as a spokesman for the cause.

LYNN LYSS (HONORARY VICE PRESIDENT, St. Louis (MO) Section): We had high hopes about the Syrian president [Bashar al-Asad], who was educated in the US, and yet he seems almost more militant and anti-Israel than many others, even in the Arab world. I would be interested in your take on this.

AMB. RABINOVICH: One slight correction. He was trained in Britain. Now, he is a disappointment through and through. You know, he was not a designated successor. His older brother was, but he was killed in a car accident. [Al-Asad] was told by his father that he was to cease [his profession] and go into politics, and the conversion has not worked out that well. He is not certain of himself. He is not fully in control. He does not understand the severity or the gravity of "playing with matches" like he does in South Lebanon. He needs to be educated every so often about these issues, and he's a problem. And he has been taken to task by two US Secretaries of State -- by Madeleine Albright and by Colin Powell.

JILL SAVA (Saddleback (CA) Section): Hi. The last time I met you was here in LA at the World Affairs Council nine years ago. We were very optimistic that some peace might be achieved in Israel. Right now I am as pessimistic as can be, and I was just wondering what your take is on this. With all the hate coming out, is there a chance of peace yet?

AMB. RABINOVICH: Yes, we have to define what peace is to a full extent. Nine years ago, you know, that was ages ago and before Yitzak Rabin was assassinated and before many things changed. The early and mid-'90s were a time of achievement and hope. Unfortunately, circumstances changed, and we are now in a time of crisis. Now, I believe that since there is no military solution to this conflict. You know, this is not the United States defeating Japan. This is five and a quarter million Jews facing two hundred million Arabs, and we cannot dictate even if we win militarily.

So, there will have to be a political settlement, and you can see that the Arab States also worry about what is happening. They don't want to be dragged back into conflict with Israel. There are some difficult problems with the Saudi initiative, but it also reflects on the Saudis to put this conflict behind them and move on into the real problems that confront Saudi Arabia. Therefore, what we need to do now is not to look for a comprehensive final settlement, because it cannot be reached now. There is not a Palestinian leadership that is the right partner for such a settlement and, therefore, we should go for an interim settlement and try to heal the wounds. We build confidence, hopefully see a change of leadership on the Palestinian side, and in a few years down the road, hopefully go back to the quest for a definitive settlement.

MADELEINE BRECHER (NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, Greater Teaneck (NJ) Section): You spoke about how the university is affected by the current crisis, and I know that there are Israeli-Arabs affiliated with the University. We met several women last year on the NCJW mission. Are there repercussions in faculty and student life with regard to the Israeli/Arabs now?

AMB. RABINOVICH: I'm happy to say that there aren't. Soon after the violence broke out in September 2000, there were ugly clashes between violent demonstrators and the Israeli police, which resulted in the death of thirteen Arab citizens of the State of Israel. But inside the University there have been no repercussions. We have close to five hundred Arab students on campus. Tel-Aviv University runs a very interesting program in Jaffa called the Price-Brodie Initiative. Jaffa is a mixed city, a mixed part of Tel-Aviv where there is an Arab population living side by side with Jewish population. And with the help of the Price Foundation of San Diego, we run 53 different programs for the Jewish and Arab population of Jaffa. It was a success, and there have been no problems with running these programs.

So, inside Israel, the problem exists and the tension remains, but fortunately for a year and a half now since October 2000 there have been no indications of violence.

MARILYN SHASHOUA (PRESIDENT, Austin (TX) Section): I wanted you to be aware that there's peace support here in the US, even in small communities such as ours in Austin, Texas. We recently had a rally at the State Capitol that was very well attended and successful, and we are all behind you. With regards to public relations, one issue that seems to be a sticking point is the rationale for not allowing inspections in Jenin. Can you please comment on that?

AMB. RABINOVICH: Yes. First of all, thank you for the comment and for what you are doing in Austin and elsewhere.

Now, the inspection in Jenin, I think, at the end of the day was the right thing to do because first of all, we didn't like the mandate of the commission. Why just look at Jenin? Why not look at the suicide bombings? Why just inspect -- scrutinize the government of Israel and the IDF -- and say nothing about the Palestinian Authority, which we know – [although] we don't have the evidence -- actually orchestrated the suicide attacks across Israel. You cannot study Jenin correctly, except in the context of the terrorism and violence that led to it. So, I think the decision was to take some heat for not allowing them to come, rather than to bleed over time during the work and the aftermath of the publication of what might have been a very tainted report.

MS. ATKIND: Mr. Ambassador, what are your thoughts regarding the successor to Chairman Arafat? I know that you've said several times during this call that Arafat is not the right partner for peace. But what's coming down the road?

AMB. RABINOVICH: You know, there is no telling because we will not determine the successor. For the successor to be legitimate and effective, it will have to be somebody that would rise. I'm not saying elected, because we cannot expect a free election. But somebody who would rise from among the Palestinians, and would seem like an authentic choice -- not someone imposed by Israel or the US … the moment that happens, that person would not have any legitimacy.

Now, I can also say that there are several individuals among the Palestinian leadership who could be better national leaders than Arafat. He may still be in power for several years, and when he departs from the scene, the right person may not emerge. That may be the case when you deal with non-democratic societies.