Frank & Timme the World Facing Israel – Israel Facing the World

The World facing Israel – Israel facing the World Images and Politics

Alfred Wittstock (ed.)

Frank & Timme

Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Alfred Wittstock (ed.) The World facing Israel – Israel facing the World

Alfred Wittstock (ed.)

The World facing Israel – Israel facing the World

Images and Politics

Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Umschlaggestaltung: nach einer Idee von Lionel Wittstock LW

ISBN 978-3-86596-355-0

Das Werk einschließlich aller Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechts- gesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Herstellung durch das atelier eilenberger, Taucha bei Leipzig. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. www.frank-timme.de CONTENTS

KURT BECK ...... 7

JOACHIM MERTES ...... 9

ALFRED WITTSTOCK Foreword...... 13

FRANK-WALTER STEINMEIER Israel and the Middle East – A Personal and a Political View...... 17

YORAM MEITAL Perceptions of Peace: Israel, Egypt and Jordan...... 29

WALID KAZZIHA Egyptian Perceptions of Israel ...... 39

MOSHE MA’OZ The Israeli-Syrian Conflict: The Role of Strategic, Ideological and Psychological Factors ...... 45

RADWAN ZIADEH Do Images Change through Negotiations? – The Syrian-Israeli Experience...... 63

ITAMAR RABINOVICH Israel Faces the Palestinians...... 79

MANUEL HASSASSIAN The Intractable Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: Future Perspectives ...... 87

DAVID MENASHRI Iran, Political Islam and Israel...... 97

YUVAL FUCHS Russia through Israeli Eyes – Some Considerations...... 123

ROBERT O. FREEDMAN Russia, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict under Putin...... 131

ODED ERAN Israel and the US: Is it really that bad?...... 151

KENNETH W. STEIN US-Israeli Relations 1947–2010: The View from Washington ...... 159

MARIO SZNAJDER Israel and (in?) Latin America...... 177

CARLOS ESCUDÉ Israeli-Latin American Relations, 1948–2010...... 189

NAOMI CHAZAN Israel Facing Africa: Patterns and Perceptions ...... 209

JOSEPH AYEE Africa’s Perception of Israel ...... 225

YITZHAK SHICHOR My Heart Is in the West and I Am at the Ends of the East: Changing Israeli Perceptions of Asia ...... 239

Biographies...... 259

Bibliography ...... 265

6 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

KURT BECK

Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate

“The world facing Israel, Israel facing the world: Images and Politics” is the programmatic title of these proceedings. They are a collection of papers by internationally renowned academics from all over the world who came together in Mainz for a conference lasting several days in May 2010. I had gladly accepted to be the patron of this conference, which was opened in the plenary hall of the Landtag, the State Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate. The opening session of the conference focused on the German and Euro- pean perspective on Israel and the Middle East; different perspectives that also determine the respective political attitudes and activities. Germany’s former Foreign Secretary, Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, gave an extensive overview of this context in his opening statement1, in which he combined political experience and pragmatic action. This has been the line that we have traditionally been seeking to apply in Rhineland-Palatinate when it comes to our bilateral relations with Israel. Dialogue is the key element in the various projects and activities that we continue to develop. On numerous occasions, for example, our State Agency for Civic Education (Landeszentrale für politische Bildung) has brought together different communities from Israel and Rhineland- Palatinate. But we also devote particular attention to young people: under a joint exchange programme with the peace initiative Givat Haviva, a group of Jewish and Arab adolescents was able to come to Mainz and a group from

...... 1 Cf. in the present volume, pp. 17–28.

Rhineland-Palatinate returned the visit in Israel, offering both sides some first- hand experience. It is these encounters that I find particularly valuable, because they create a sense of solidarity with people living in a difficult political context and in a difficult time. In our friendship with Israel, we as Germans bear an additional responsibility to keep this solidarity alive across generations given our Nazi dictatorship past. It is only through dialogue that we can be successful in fending off anti-Semitic and racist incitements, and whenever necessary we will also speak up in sharp protest and combat any such occur- rences with all the power of a democratic society. The history of Israel will forever remain closely intertwined with our own. Any encounter with Israel therefore requires us to adhere to the principles of humanity and political reason. This is the background against which to inter- pret the title “Images and Politics”: different perspectives on Israel and on events in the Middle East will determine which positions and political action are taken with respect to Israel. The papers in these proceedings help to make these connections explicit, focusing on the different perceptions and perspectives of different states. It is these connections on many different levels, and not only the narrow focus on the regrettably still unresolved Middle East conflict, that offer a number of starting points that politicians and society in Germany and beyond ought to address. The hope for a politically negotiated resolution to the conflict based on the two-state solution is ample motivation for the dialogue to continue. Some of the people who are carried by that same hope everywhere in the world gave impressive testimony of it through their presence here in Mainz and by their scholarly contributions to these proceedings.

Kurt Beck Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate

8 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur

JOACHIM MERTES

President of the State Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate

Throughout the world, and that includes us in Germany, Israel is predominantly perceived only in terms of the conflict in the Middle East. It is the image of suffering and violence on both sides that stand in the full glare of global publicity and preoccupy politicians and the media to an extraordinary extent. Consequently, they come together to form an image of Israel that is mostly reduced to the conflict with the Palestinians. The political, economic and cultural relationships that Israel maintains with other states worldwide thus fade into the background. Germany’s relationship with Israel was, is and shall remain a special one. The fact that it is as it is today, is something of a miracle in view of the crimes that were perpetrated by the National Socialists against European Jews. And herein lies the reason for our special responsibility towards Israel, which in turn also has an impact on the German and European perception of Israel. We can – and today we gladly do – appreciate the fact not only that we cul- tivate close political, economic and cultural relationships with Israel, but also that a friendship has developed between our two states. This is also founded on the eight local authority twinning agreements that exist between cities and communities of Rhineland-Palatinate and Israel; for example, between the towns of Andernach and Dimona (which goes back to 1975) and between our state capital Mainz and Haifa, as well as between the cities’ two universities. Moreover, since 1993 the State Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate and the State itself have cultivated a close friendship with the Givat Haviva Foundation for Education and Peace, which supports dialogue and understanding between Jewish and Arab Israelis and between Israelis and Palestinians. The State has also provided financial support for this work since 1997. The past and present are of concern to us. In our remembrance work, we regularly hold events of our own that address subjects relevant to us in both historical and contemporary respects. For example, events are held – particu-

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 9 President of the State Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate larly on 27th January – to remember the victims of National Socialism. On the other hand, two years ago we took the opportunity to celebrate the 60th birthday of the State of Israel – a state that needed to stand its ground between justifying its existence and the threat to its existence. Issues relating to the modern Israel and the reception of Israeli visitors are also, of course, part and parcel of our programmes. Since it was founded by David Ben-Gurion in 1948, Israel has in fact had to assert its independence in a number of wars against surrounding Arab neigh- bour states. In spite of this constant threat, Israel has so far retained its Jewish and democratic character, which in terms of the Middle East makes it something special. If we are to understand the modern state of Israel, we are com- pelled to take a closer look at its eventful history and development through to the present day. When Israel was founded, some 650,000 Jewish people lived there. Today, more than seven million people live in the country. This tenfold increase in the population has led to a change in population structure. While most of the generation of founding fathers came from Europe, it was more Oriental Jews, from Morocco, Yemen, Iraq and Ethiopia, who arrived subsequent to the founding of the state. From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s and with the ending of the Cold War, over one million Jews emigrated from Russia to Israel, adding another tile to the population mosaic. A modern and pluralistic society has now developed from the formerly homogeneous Jewish population that was characterised by its European roots. This achievement in integration can indeed be considered overall to have been a success, even if so far not all of Israel’s population groups have benefited to the same extent from the huge integration efforts that have been made – this mainly applies to Arab Israelis. It is not only Israel’s social fabric that has experienced enormous change, however: so, too, has its economy. Israel has developed from an agrarian state into one of the key producers of high-tech products in the software development, genetic and bioengineering and information technology industries. A nation that can point to such an impressive ascendency has earned – indeed, necessitates – not only our greater understanding but also a closer look on the part of the world. Only a more distinct consideration will succeed in tearing apart prejudices and breaking down ingrained images and serve as the basis for the alignment of appropriate political action.

10 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Joachim Mertes

The volume you have before you is intended to contribute to that process. Academics from all over the world have supplied their analysis and points of view in order to provide an independent and considered image of Israel which is removed from the conflicts in the Middle East. As President, I took great pleasure at the opening in May 2010 of the international conference, “The World facing Israel – Israel facing the World: Images and Politics”. This continued the State Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate’s successful collaboration with the Israel Study Unit at the Department of Political Science at Johannes Gutenberg University, thereby making a further contribution to breaking down prejudice towards Israel and its people. Since 2000, the State Parliament has supported the Israel Study Unit and the Israel Student Working Group, which not only contribute to helping people engage with “modern Israel”, with its culture, and with its society and politics, but which, thankfully, also continue to pursue their commitment to imparting a more distinct awareness of Israel.

ALFRED WITTSTOCK

Foreword

If one takes polls as the basis both of how states are viewed and of the perception of their role in world affairs, Israel’s performance over the last two years has made for almost entirely negative reading. In 2010, for example, when people were asked about their views on the positive or negative influence of various states on world affairs, Israel ranked fourth most negative, behind Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Commissioned by the BBC World Service since 2005, this study is carried out in 28 countries and surveys the views of almost 30,000 people. A negative overall view of Israel was recorded in 24 countries, while a positive image was identified in a mere two states and opinion was divided in a further two. Among the European countries, the perception of Israel and its supposedly negative influence on world affairs was at a historical low in Germany, with 68%, whereas only 13% of those interviewed were of the opinion that Israel exerted a positive influence on world affairs.1 In contrast to the public point of view, which is shaped by emotion in a va- riety of ways, there does also exist a certain perception of Israel which is founded on rather more rational factors. From this angle Israel is considered, in addition to its role in the Middle East conflict, a significant actor in international politics, possessing diplomatic ties with 156 countries2, including a number of predominantly Muslim states. On the one hand, we have Israel’s significance and role in international politics, economy and culture, while on the other we see the emotionally charged, public image portrayed by the

...... 1 Cf. BBC World Service poll, April 2010: www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pipa/pdf/apr10/ BBCViews_Apr10_rpt.pdf – for individual values concerning Israel, cf. Ibid. p. 15. The poll took place between November 2009 and February 2010; particularly in the context of the military operations in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of 2009, poll results were at their lowest. For this cf. Forsa survey results (in German): www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/stern-umfrage-jeder-zweite- nennt-israel-aggressiv-651466.html. For further surveys in the context of the Middle East cf.: www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/index.php?nid=&id=&lb=brme 2 Cf. website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: www.mfa.gov.il

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 13 Foreword media, which is largely reduced to the Middle East conflict. These contrasting perceptions show that a detailed analysis is of vital importance; an analysis not only of Israel’s relations with the world’s states and regions, but also of those states’ and regions’ own stances towards, and perceptions of, Israel. This contrasting relationship and the various stances are influenced by a multitude of factors, and in turn by how these factors are received. These include, for example, the Shoah3 and its repercussions, the Middle East conflict4, diverse economic interests, shared or perhaps differing religious and cultural charac- teristics, perceptions of history and their interpretations, political partnerships and long or short-term relationships, to name but a few. Mentioned only fleetingly here, these components of images themselves form the very subject matter of the articles found in this volume. They may not find direct expression in the various article titles, yet they do crop up and are put into context. The influence they have changes with time, and here this is focused upon just as much as the manner in which they are interconnected. One thing does become clear: Israel is faced with a multitude of varying views concerning its conduct in international relations, and it needs to position itself in relation to these. This, in turn, is received in various different ways.5 The extent to which internationally composed images have an effect on political actions and decisions or a profound impact on public perception, is something which needs to be considered6, particularly within a conflict zone such as the Middle East, ...... 3 On remembering the Shoah and the political implications associated with this in the context of German-Israeli relations, cf. Steinmeier, Frank-Walter, pp. 17–28 in this volume. 4 This particularly concerns the remarks on the Palestinians (cf. Itamar Rabinovich, pp. 79–86; Manuel Hassassian, pp. 87–96) and on Israel’s neighbours Syria, Jordan and Egypt (cf. the articles by Moshe Ma’oz, pp. 45–61; Radwan Ziadeh, pp. 63–77; Yoram Meital, pp. 29–38 and Walid Kazziha, pp. 39–44). On the very specific history of Iran’s relationship with Israel and vice versa, cf. Bernard Houcarde, pp. 111–121 and David Menashri, pp. 97–109; on the constant features of USA-Israel relations cf. Oded Eran, pp. 151–157 and Kenneth Stein, pp. 159–175. 5 As an example for this, cf. the perception of Russia through Israeli eyes, Yuval Fuchs, pp. 117–123; on the change in mutual perceptions and the various interests of each cf. Robert O. Freedman, pp. 131–149. The complex manner in which perceptions and their influences on the level of political action are present is strongly emphasised by the networks of relationships and interests present between Latin America (cf. Mario Sznajder, pp. 177–188, Carlos Escudé, pp. 189–207) or Africa (Naomi Chazan, pp. 209–224, Joseph Ayee, pp. 225–237) and Israel, and vice versa. Chang- ing perspectives include Israel’s increasing perception of Asian countries, cf. Yitzhak Shichor, pp. 239–257. 6 On approaches concerning the interdependence of images and political action, and their potential interaction with political decision-makers and decisions, cf. Mark Schafer, “Images and Policy Preferences”, Political Psychology 18, no. 4 (1997), pp. 813–829; also Michele G. Alexander, Shana Levin, P.J. Henry, “Image Theory, Social Identity, and Social Dominance: Structural Char-

14 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Alfred Wittstock where completely different conflicts come into contact with one another. The fact that there are predominantly negative perceptions of Israel by parts of the world public, while at the same time there is a high level of global intercon- nectedness and cooperation in politics, economy and culture, suggests to start with that there is no connection between the two levels. But if this were true, then it would obstruct the path leading to a comprehensive discourse. In any case, these opposing, self-contained perceptions of Israeli action certainly make the Middle East conflict all the more volatile. The question of whether or not they contribute to the conflict’s insolubility in a manner one should not underestimate, remains unanswered. Each of the articles found in this volume attempts to analyse various perceptions of Israel from a different perspective, as well as the contexts in which these perceptions emerged and how their influence has changed over time. The fact that Israeli and non-Israeli perspectives are used to comment on the other’s view, is what constitutes the appeal of the articles and it is an attempt at encouraging discussion. Originally presented at an international conference held at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz in May 2010, which was officially opened at the State Parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate, they have been added to and amended for this print edition. The articles were written before the move- ments for democratization in Tunisia and Egypt are about to change in profound ways the Near and Middle East. The arrangement of the conference, its staging and the preparation of this volume would not have been possible were it not for the considerable support and help offered by numerous parties. A thank you goes to the patron of the congress, Minister President Kurt Beck, for his contributions and continuous support concerning Israel, as well as President of the State Parliament Joachim Mertes and his colleagues for hosting the opening ceremony in the Landtag, the State Parliament. Further thanks go to the president of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Prof. Dr. Georg Krausch, who promotes and lends his support to events organised by the Israel Study Unit at the Institute for Political Science. This also applies in

...... acteristics and Individual Motives Underlying International Images”, Political Psychology 26, no. 1 (2005), pp. 27–45; also cf. Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink, Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Interak- tion, Fremdwahrnehmung, Kulturtransfer, Stuttgart a.o., 2008², pp. 86–95; 173ff.

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 15 Foreword particular to Prof. Dr. Jürgen W. Falter of the Institute for Political Sciences. A thank you goes to him as well for the many years of support he has provided. Thanks equally to Rainer Henkel-von Klass, Director of the International Office at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. The university’s press office also deserves thanks for its extraordinary support. A sincere thank you goes to the sponsors of the whole project, each having helped contribute to its success in their own way: the German Research Foun- dation, the Rhineland-Palatinate State Ministry of Education, Science, Youth and Culture, the Center for Intercultural Studies at the University of Mainz, the Friends of the University, the General Students’ Community of the Johan- nes Gutenberg University of Mainz, furthermore the Hans Boeckler Founda- tion, the Heinrich Boell Foundation Rhineland-Palatinate, the State Agency for Civic Education of Rhineland-Palatinate, the Lotto Foundation Rhineland- Palatinate, Lufthansa Consulting Frankfurt, and the city of Mainz and its mayor, Jens Beutel. Lastly, a big thank you goes to the students of the Israel Study Unit at the Institute for Political Science. With their great perseverance, ideas and drive, they helped to develop this project and make it become a reality: Junes Arfaoui M.A., Marc Beer, Felix Eschwege, Franziska Eckard, Paul Harel, Maria Kopele- vich, Galina Kulstein, Linette Körfer, Lorenz Niewisch M.A., Onike Shorunke- Sawyerr, Lionel Wittstock. Furthermore, Martin Armbruster, Silvia Keiser M.A., Stephanie Plata M.A., Daniel Simons, Daniel Spretke, Fabian Walter and Felix Wächter M.A. all helped with preparing the publication. A special thank you also goes to Stefanie Henkenjohann and Stephan Zau- lich for their tireless help and critical reviewing of the entire manuscript. Anne-Kathrin D. Ende kindly assumed responsibility of the proofreading of articles in English. Finally, thank you to Frau Dr. Karin Timme of the publishing house Frank & Timme, for her supervision, critical remarks and constructive support of the publication.

Mainz, February 2011

FRANK-WALTER STEINMEIER

Israel and the Middle East – A Personal and a Political View

Standing here behind this desk, opening a conference of the Johannes Guten- berg-Universität Mainz, reminds of the fact that for quite some time, I intended to pursue a career in academia. As generally known I decided to take a different route. The perspective on Israel and the Middle East which I am about to offer you today is therefore the perspective of a politician and foreign policy pragmatist, not of a political scientist or a historian. And because you have, of course, already heard me talk a great deal about the situation in the Middle East over the past four years when I was Foreign Minister, I thought that today, I might approach the issue from a rather different and perhaps rather unusual angle. I have visited the region on many occasions. During one of my first visits, I met David Grossman, one of Israel’s foremost writers and well known in Europe too, where he is probably the best-known Israeli novelist besides Amos Oz. I already knew him quite well when I met him in a hotel in Jerusalem in 2006, where we had arranged to have coffee together. Of course, the timing of our meeting was not entirely random: it took place during the military conflict – I always avoid saying between Israel and Lebanon, because it was a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. We carried on from our previous conversations and talked about current political events and about the difficulties of justifying the prosecution of the war in Israel, which he also expressed doubts about. And as we parted, he said something to me which I will never forget. He said: “My friend, for the first time, I’m afraid.” And I asked him why, and what made him tell me this at the end of our conversion. He replied: “Because my son was called up fourteen days ago and he has been sent to the Lebanese front. I’m afraid and my wife is afraid, because the situation is so dangerous.” Then we went our separate ways in Jerusalem and I returned to Berlin the following day. And then the day after my return, I received a telegram from David Grossman

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 17 Israel and the Middle East in Jerusalem. It said: “My son Uri is dead”. The day after our conversation, Uri Grossman was killed while attempting to save the lives of his comrades. I want to tell you about another encounter as well – an encounter on the Palestinian side. Two years later, in 2008, I got to know a Palestinian Arab, Ismael Khatib from Jenin. In the past, you will often have heard it described in the news as a “hot- spot”. It was the scene of massive assaults on the Israeli security forces. How- ever, Jenin has made a good recovery over recent years. Anyone who has been there will have witnessed the improvements that have been made: civic life has been re-established, a Palestinian police force is now in charge of security in the town, and there has been some limited economic development. In 2005, three years before we met, Ismael Khatib also lost his son. It oc- curred during a clash with Israeli security forces. His son – his young son – was shot in the head. All the doctors could do was to declare him brain-dead. This Palestinian Arab, the young boy’s father, then took the decision to donate the organs of his dead son and give Israeli children the gift of life. This life story has now been turned into a film, entitled Heart of Jenin.1 I am mentioning these encounters because discussions about the Middle East are all too often characterised by well-rehearsed, routine speeches and by what I consider, in essence, entrenched opinions. What you are less likely to hear is any expression of doubt. And yet even experts have doubts – especially experts who are frequent visitors to the region. I have described just two of the numerous encounters that I have experienced in Israel, in Palestine and in neighbouring countries in recent years – just two of the countless encounters during many, many visits to Israel. The beauty of the country and the beauty of the wider region were not the reasons for my visits. It was crisis and conflict which brought me, as Germany’s For- eign Minister, back to the region again and again. So looking back on this experience which, for me, now lies in the past: anyone who visits the region frequently and has had the type of encounter that I have been privileged to have, anyone who has witnessed the suffering on both sides, in Israel and among the Palestinian Arabs, anyone who has genuinely attempted to grasp the historic dimension of this conflict, and who therefore

...... 1 Lior Geller, Markus Vetter (Directors), The Heart of Jenin, Israel/Germany, 2008.

18 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Frank-Walter Steinmeier understands how deeply this Arab-Israeli conflict has eaten into all the cracks and crevices of daily life over the decades, becomes very sceptical, over time and after all these years, about the very simplistic advice that is sometimes offered. They will probably also show a little more humility about their own ideas and the likely effectiveness of any suggestions that they themselves might occasionally venture to make. And yet despite this scepticism and despite the numerous disappointments that are part of one’s baggage when one leaves the region, and despite all the setbacks that have arisen in the efforts to achieve progress and peace in the region, and despite sometimes profound feelings of resignation which befall one, despite all this, if we take stock, it is clear that we have genuinely made progress. In this respect, we Germans do not have the option to turn away when the going gets tough. That has to do with what must still be described as the “special” relationship between ourselves and Israel and hence between ourselves and the region. Generally, I am not inclined to pathos. But even politicians cannot remain unmoved when we visit places which, even as children, we knew were the legendary sites of biblical events, when we visit places which are the meeting points of the world’s three major faiths which to this day give most of humanity meaning and purpose in their lives, and when we visit countries which have been the cradle of civilization for at least three thousand years. And of course, we are haunted by the conflicts which dominate this region, to which a solution has been painfully sought for so many years. I myself hadn’t kept count, but during my last visit to Israel at the end of January/early February, the Director of the King David Hotel came up to me and said: “Congratulations, Dr Steinmeier, this is your fifteenth visit to our hotel.” So I have it on good authority that I’ve now visited the region 15 times and during these visits, I have of course made a great many friends. Every time I visit, I have the impression that I am going back to a familiar place, and yet once I’m there, I find myself thinking: it’s all new, it’s a journey into the un- known, into a country which is still undiscovered in some ways, and a region which is still something of a closed book to us.

For many people who visit the region from Germany, especially Germans of my own generation, our responsibility for the region is clear. I myself accept this obligation for myself and my generation. I too feel that I have a responsibility to engage with this region both personally and politically – for I too belong to the generation of Germans who grew up and reached political maturity at a time when a painful process of reckoning with the crimes of National Socialism was under way, which also entailed a reckoning with our own parents’ and our fathers’ generation. For me, and I assume for most Germans, my first visit to Israel was an extremely moving experience. It was a journey to the place of refuge for hun- dreds of thousands of people of the Jewish faith fleeing from the terrors of Nazism. It was a journey to the place which offered sanctuary to many of those who, once Hitler’s reign of terror had ended, no longer had the strength or the courage to remain in their home country. Israel is the country – and this is also something which I have observed time and again – where the Shoah is still tangible and ever-present. There are still thousands of people living in Israel who survived the terrors of Nazism, who bear the scars on their own bodies, who spent years in concentration camps, who narrowly escaped death, and who lost family and friends. For anyone who has ever visited Yad Vashem and talked with survivors and lis- tened to their accounts of humiliation and death, expulsion and exile, the experience remains burned in their memory forever. As much as the Shoah is ever-present in the consciousness of the people of Israel, Israel today – and this is a misconception that we Germans sometimes fall prey to – Israel today certainly does not view itself purely in a victim’s role. On the contrary, there is a sometimes grim determination which is recognis- able and palpable throughout Israel, particularly among its political leaders. Due to the dynamics and the spirit which drove Israel’s founders in the early days, some of which is still present today, modern Israel seems to us to be full of contrasts and contradictions. It is a country where untouched desert exists alongside international centres of leading-edge technology. It is a country which, even after 60 years, is still emerging. It is a country with tremendous capacity for innovation, but which will defend the successes achieved during its early years as vigorously as it defends itself as the home of Judaism. And every one of us can sense that. You can feel it when you arrive at Israel’s bor-

20 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Frank-Walter Steinmeier ders. You sense that this country feels that its existence is under threat. You feel it as you walk through the airport. It is a country of abiding vigilance. A country where the military and a visible military presence are as much a part of daily life as the three-hour wait for the security checks for the flight back to Germany. That’s the first thing. The second thing that you get to know is the infinite longing for peace which also exists in Israel. This year, I attended the Herzliya Conference, now a well-established and internationally recognized event and the reason for my last visit in late Janu- ary/early February.2 From my own point of view, there was a particular reason for attending the Conference this year. It was not that I anticipated any significant change in the positions of those participating in the discussions. And yet although the Herzliya Conference is regarded as a particularly conservative type of event compared with others, it was the first event of its kind at which the speakers included not only Europeans, Americans and Israelis but also – and this was the surprise element – Dr. Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. He was scheduled to speak alongside Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak. My feeling, in attending this Conference, was that it was certainly a sign of progress that a Palestinian Prime Minister had been invited, but I fully ex- pected it to be a home win for the Israeli Defence Minister. What surprised me – and, at the same time, encouraged me to continue along the road of support- ing peace and good-neighbourly relations in the region – was the fact that what was, on paper, a conservative national security conference gave the most applause to the Palestinian Prime Minister at the end and after Barak and Fayyad had finished speaking. The participants sensed that prejudices towards the Palestinian side had broken down. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz3 reported the next day that Salam Fayyad had triumphed that evening. I did not like that at all: the discussion had in fact shown that no one can win if people try to resolve the situation through the old logic of confrontation; instead, a solution must be based on efforts to discover some common ground as a basis for going forward.

...... 2 10th Herzliya Conference, Israel, January 31 – February 3, 2010. 3 Ari Shavit, “Peace will be found in Damascus, not Ramallah”, Ha’aretz, February 4, 2010.

I believe that this did help us move forward, because what I noticed that day, for the first time in a long time, was a genuine and renewed interest on the part of Israel’s entire national security elite in trying again with the other side. It was a discussion in which there was a great willingness to listen. It was a discussion in which there was a great willingness to revive the debate about the desire to reach a settlement with the Palestinian side, and also a great willingness on the part of Israel’s entire national security community to move once again towards a position which had helped the country in the past – towards a truly robust realism which has always facilitated pragmatic solutions. Of course, I have noticed this longing for peace much more strongly among intellectuals, poets and writers in the past, although here too, I have observed the same contradictions which are so characteristic of Israel. In 2008, during our celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, we invited a number of contemporary Israeli authors to Germany. At four-weekly intervals, authors came to the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin and gave readings from their works to an increasingly large audience.4 These authors spanned Israel’s entire political spectrum, from the left to the conservative right. Many members of the audience who attended the readings regularly said to me afterwards: “You must carry on with the series; we have never learned as much about Israel as we have from these readings by Israeli authors.” The writers cast light on many different aspects of daily life in Israel, but together, they made it clear just how much Israel itself has to gain from recon- ciliation with the Palestinian Arabs. The incompleteness of present-day Israel was expressed just as much as the contradictions, antagonisms and anachro- nisms which so define Israel. This is a positive thing, in my own view, because if I cast a glance at some of the newspaper commentaries published over the last three years, I see that we sometimes oversimplify matters for ourselves where Israel is concerned. Let’s not forget that Israel is the only democracy in an otherwise extremely authori- tarian governance environment. It is a democracy which, like many others, has its deficits. But it is also a democracy which is located at the intersection be-

...... 4 Readings given by Boris Zaidmann, Assaf Gavron, Aliza Olmert, Katharina Hacker and Amos Oz, c.f. e.g. Neue Züricher Zeitung, December 17, 2008.

22 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Frank-Walter Steinmeier tween Occident and Orient and has to deal with cultural and above all social disparities between the Jewish majority and a growing Arab minority, a democracy which encompasses both the most devout religiosity but also great openness to the world. It is this that David Grossman, in one of his early essays5, described as the extreme piquancy of life in Israel – the clashing of very different traditions, and it is this – perhaps even more so today than for the generation who founded the State of Israel – that shapes the extreme intensity of daily life in Israel. What defines the essence of Israel, you see, is the willingness to genuinely embrace these conflicts in society. That too is something that I personally have observed in Israel. But what does this mean for politics? I haven’t given you an answer to that question yet. I have talked about the Shoah and the historic responsibility, and integral to that is that Israel’s right to exist is never negotiable under any circumstances. Early this year, on the Day of Remembrance for the Victims of National Socialism, the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, gave an impressive speech before the German Bundestag. I should like to quote from it briefly. He said: “Never again ignore blood- thirsty dictators, hiding behind demagogical masks, who utter murderous slo- gans.”6 To us Germans, this warning is an obligation. Anyone who calls into doubt Israel’s right to exist will meet our fierce resistance. But of course, defending Israel’s right to exist is not a unique selling point of Germany’s Middle East policy, as you know, even if we sometimes act as if it were. At European level, however – and I have very clear memories of the time when Germany held the EU Council Presidency and had the task of coordinat- ing European foreign policy – it has often been a struggle to achieve common positions among the Europeans. We must also acknowledge that the uncondi- tional recognition of Israel’s right to exist has, often enough, been something of a contentious issue within the European Union itself and I think Israel may have sensed that on occasion. The fact that the situation always depends to

...... 5 David Grossmann, Der Gelbe Wind. Die israelisch-palästinensische Tragödie, München: Kindler, 1988. 6 Shimon Peres, Speech at the German Bundestag, Berlin, January 27, 2010: www.bundestag.de/ kulturundgeschichte/geschichte/gastredner/peres/speech.html

© Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur 23 Israel and the Middle East some extent on who happens to hold the Presidency in Europe may even have caused some irritation. In some ways, this also determines the relationship between Israel and the European Union. Germany has a special responsibility here too. In my view – and I say this without wishing to sound presumptuous, but in the awareness of Germany’s historic responsibility – it is that here too, we Germans, acknowl- edging all the difficulties, must seek to bring the European countries together in relation to their policies towards the Middle East, and our sensors must be particularly finely tuned when it comes to the situation in Israel. Any devel- opments which play into the hands of someone who wants “Israel to be wiped off the map must be nipped in the bud”. What the experience of numerous visits has taught me, and the lesson I have learned from the many stories of the country and region, and what I ultimately found helpful for practical policy-making, is this: you learn to distance yourself from vocal and over-simplistic analyses. Given the complexity of the situation, unless you are genuinely prepared to study the region and its deep-rooted conflicts very carefully, you cannot possibly offer any advice that is appropriate and relevant to the region. Unless you are willing to consider all the factors which have a bearing on the situation – the interdependence of domestic and foreign policy interests, territorial, religious and historical aspects, the difficult issues of security on the one hand and the unresolved refugee issue on the other, the future of East Jerusalem and the ultimately no less difficult issues of sustainable access to resources such as water – unless you are willing to take note of all these aspects, you cannot help to bring peace to the region. I am certain of one thing, at any rate, and it is a message which I have occasionally passed on to one or another of my European colleagues: good will alone, no matter how much determination is expressed in the resolutions adopted so enthusiastically at European level, is not enough to move things forward in the region. We might even think – and perhaps this was Barack Obama’s somewhat painful experience at the start of his presidency – that the US President rather overestimated his personal influence and his own capacities, or indeed those of the United States as a whole, to steer what happens in the region. Certainly, looking at his envoys to the region and the fact that they returned home

24 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Frank-Walter Steinmeier empty-handed in the early days, one could say that he was forced to learn the hard way. In truth, though, I was – and still am – gratified that as a result of the political changeover in the United States, its attitude not just towards Israel and Palestine but towards the entire Middle East region has radically changed. I personally am very pleased that the mapping of the entire region in terms of black and white, which we had to contend with during the eight years of the Bush Administration, no longer guides US foreign policy, neither in the Mid- dle East region nor indeed in the United States’ relations with Russia, where we can currently observe some easing of tensions due to this more flexible approach. This perhaps gives some cause for hope that there could be a similar development in the Middle East as well. I say this, of course, mindful of one of the great speeches given by Obama at the start of his presidency, namely the Cairo speech7, which I believe most visibly demonstrated the change of phi- losophy underpinning US foreign policy. This was a speech which contained a clear commitment to the willingness to engage in dialogue and a clear commitment to an “outstretched hand” policy. This marks a real shift of perspective for everyone dealing with foreign policy who saw that mapping the world in black and white, as I mentioned before, simply took us further and further towards a dead end. So what has changed in US foreign policy? As I see it, US foreign policy is now a little less ideological and far more pragmatic. Today, once again, it is based on facts, so to speak. Let me explain what I mean by that, so there can be no misunderstandings. It is not a bad approach to foreign policy, to look at the facts and the available options based on those facts, and then develop policy initiatives on that basis. I believe that ultimately, there is no getting around the facts, even though this sometimes puts the foreign policy-maker in a tricky position. Earlier, I told you about Salam Fayyad’s and Ehud Barak’s appearance at the Herzliya Conference. But I haven’t told you anything about my own contribution to that event.

...... 7 Barack Obama, A New Beginning, Cairo, April 6, 2009: www.spiegel.de/international/world/ 0,1518,628538,00.html

I asked myself, of course, what kind of contribution the Germans could make. In fact, it’s not all that different from what the conflict parties in the region have to say in the current situation. Of course, I too have seen the brilliant start made by the US administration under President Obama getting bogged down in Middle Eastern sand, and of course I too have an obligation to suggest ways of getting the process moving again. And what happens sometimes is that you are asked a question by experienced foreign policy journalists, including Germans, and then in the question itself, the reporters say: “But please don’t tell me that what we need now are ‘proximity talks’” – in other words, preparatory meetings to get the negotiators representing Palestine and Israel back to the table again. Sometimes, it takes more courage to accept this pragmatic reality than to indulge in high-flown ambitions. So what I said at the Herzliya Conference was this:8 as the various efforts had reached a standstill, with both partners having withdrawn again, I did not see any other chance than to clarify in proxy talks what would be a sufficient basis of mutual trust to support all parties, on the Israeli and the Palestinian side, on their way back to negotiations. This is a long, hard and sadly often repeated attempt but I believe that there is currently no alternative, and indeed, this effort is now under way. And after Salam Fayyad’s visit to Berlin9, I believe it may even have some prospect of success. That is the major contribution which the United States must make. As we have seen, the US is not in a position to impose peace on command – but it is the only country which can encourage the two conflict parties in the region to move in a direction which will ultimately bring them both back to the table. This is how I see the United States’ role, which is not to say that the Europeans have no role to play. However, I would simply voice a word of caution, as I had occasion to do during my time as Foreign Minister, when I warned my Euro- pean colleagues that we tend to overestimate our own role in the region. We are not partners who can act with the same authority in the region as the United States. That certainly applies to the Israeli side, and I have no doubt that you will accept that comment without hesitation. However, based on my

...... 8 See www.youtube.com/user/HerzliyaConference. 9 Salam Fayyad visited Berlin on May 18, 2010.

26 © Frank & Timme Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur Frank-Walter Steinmeier experience in the talks on both sides, I would say that it applies to the Pales- tinians as well. They know very well that if there is anyone who can move things forward in the region, it is the Americans, and that if this develops into small steps towards the achievement of a two-state solution, then it will be the Americans who will take these steps together with the two conflict parties, Israel and Palestine. We Europeans can play an important and supportive role in this context. This is not always an easy role for us, as we are seeing once again at the mo- ment. Nonetheless, one of the most important roles, which tends to be under- estimated by the German public, was Germany’s participation in securing the ceasefire and peace after the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, for example. Do you recall the kind of debates that were conducted on this issue in Germany during the second half of 2006 and early 2007?10 There were many who took the view that the deployment of Germany’s Federal Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr, off the coast of Lebanon could not be countenanced and that we had no business engaging in this region due to the burden of our history and also because it was far too dangerous. I made no secret of my convictions at the time. I said: if we are serious about achieving stability and wish to take resolute steps towards peace in the region, then we cannot shirk our responsibilities. We must participate in securing the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel. So far, it has worked. Both sides want this participation to continue, and a decision on this issue will be taken in the German Bundestag in the next few days.11 And let me make just one comment as an aside: quite frankly, I don’t understand why one of the parties in the governing coalition finds itself apparently unable to comply with this request, which comes from both conflict parties. This is not the place to spread a mood of optimism. However, I will say this: we cannot shirk our responsibilities simply because the task facing us is a difficult one.

...... 10 Protocol of the plenary debates in the German Bundestag in 2006: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/ dip21/btp/16/16049.pdf#P.4799 11 Protocol of the plenary debates in the German Bundestag in 2010: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/ dip21/btp/17/17049.pdf#P.5030