Middle East: Correspondents in Jerusalem and Gaza

To watch coverage of the forum, select the link below:

  56k  

---

The Israeli army has been carrying out an order given by the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to intensify attacks on Palestinian targets.

The attacks are in retaliation for an ambush at a checkpoint in the West Bank town of Ramallah, which left six Israeli soldiers dead.

Guerrilla attacks such as this are a worrying new development in the Middle East conflict, and have led to renewed calls for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza.

International bodies, including the UN, are calling for an end to the cycle of reciprocal violence.

The Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, has told the Israeli Prime Minister in a filmed conversation that peace is vital before negotiations can resume.

Can the cycle of violence be stopped? What should the international community be doing?

Paul Reynolds put your questions to BBC Correspondents James Reynolds in Jerusalem and Kylie Morris in Gaza in a live forum.

---

The topics discussed in this forum were:

Buffer zones

West Bank and Gaza strip

Suicide bombings

Media coverage

Positive aspects

The UN's role

America's role

Buffer zones

Paul Reynolds:
Jo, London: How efficient do you think these buffer zones are going to be?

James Reynolds:
We don't know at the moment because Ariel Sharon didn't make it clear in last night's speech and even his speech when journalists asked him about it he was very, very vague. So the only thing we can rely on now is tips from sources. Some reports on Israeli radio stations suggest that the buffer zone will be contrived of trenches and fences along a line near the West Bank - from the north right down to the south in Hebron. It seems to be based on an old military plan, a plan also discussed under the days of Ehud Barak and what it does is brings the idea of separation right the fore of Israeli politics.

Paul Reynolds:
Kylie, isn't there a fence already around Gaza? What's been the experience there?

Kylie Morris:
There is a fence in the north of the Gaza strip which adjoins three settlements. It's not a particularly secure fence - it's more an idea of a fence than a fence in some ways. It's not completely secure, it's a wire mesh fence. Certainly it's not been successful in the past in keeping people who would get into those settlements out. There have been a number of infiltrations - a number of Israelis and a number of Palestinians trying to infiltrate killed in that process.

Down the eastern side of the Gaza Strip in the last two weeks, Israeli bulldozers and tanks have been busy clearing about a 1 kilometre wide strip. I don't know whether we call that a buffer zone. It's not being constantly patrolled - there aren't Israeli soldiers constantly inside that zone. However, now it's much easier for their soldiers to go into that zone to mount an incursion than it may have been in the past.

An interesting thing to me in what Ariel Sharon said was his discussion of perhaps putting obstructions inside the buffer zone. Now whether that means that these buffer zones then are patrolled by posts that are set up in the middle of the zones or whether it indeed means a fence or some kind of a wall - of course we'll have to wait and see.

It is dangerous to get too excited about this too early. Israeli forces - at least in the Gaza strip - have always had the capacity to mount incursions and have always come in when they have felt the need to do that because they felt under threat. Now the buffer zone is perhaps a formalising of that. But I think in practice we already have that kind of scenario on the ground.

Return to the top of the page

---

West Bank and Gaza strip

Paul Reynolds:
Ahmed Khamassi, Belfast, UK: I wish to ask the BBC correspondent in Jerusalem whether he believes that the West Bank and Gaza strip are the areas allocated by Israelis to Palestinians for their own state? If so, why doesn't Israel comply with international law, or it is the only state allowed to avoid international order?

James Reynolds:
In terms of international law, a lot of Israelis and a lot of people say you have got to go back to the UN resolutions - in particular the most famous number in the Middle East - 242 - the UN resolution signed in 1967 which both parties agree is the start of the conflict. Yes, it does give in theory the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians but it's written in very specific language. I have it here - it says - it expects withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. Israel says that there is an absence of the word "the" from the territories suggest that it can have some parts of the West Bank and Gaza for itself.

Israel says this hasn't been implemented, this resolution which is the basis of everything because one of the articles said that there has to be a termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for the acknowledgement of sovereignty - Israel said that hasn't happened.

Return to the top of the page

---

Suicide bombings

Paul Reynolds:
Simone, London, UK: Does the correspondent in Gaza believe that Arafat has the power to stop the Palestinian suicide bombers?

Kylie Morris:
I think he does if he can offer some kind of a political payoff to the militant groups. I think we have seen periods - albeit short periods of time, where Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been encouraged to desist from mounting operations inside Israel proper. Now often that has come about as a result of negotiations between the Palestinian authority and Yasser Arafat and his security officials and Hamas and Jihad. Certainly that has happened in times where there has been some optimism of some movement toward a political settlement. When that optimism dissipates then I think we see a rise in the number of suicide bombings inside Israel proper and I think that's very hard for Yasser Arafat to convince his people that he should control.

Paul Reynolds:
Steven Mason, Manchester, England: Can the violence be stopped whilst Yasser Arafat knowingly encourages terror, allows weapons to pass through his areas sent by Iran and supports its use as a tactic to gain his ultimate aim, the destruction of Israel?

Kylie Morris:
I don't think that Yasser Arafat would say that his ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel. The whole point of Oslo, which he is a signatory to, was the existence of two states - Israel and Palestine. I think also you have to remember that Yasser Arafat is a person who leads from behind - that's how he's often described by commentators. Perhaps he was in the past a visionary, in the sense of guerrilla tactics, but he is certainly not a visionary in terms of being able to realise this political dream. He is someone who seems to manage after the fact. I am not sure it is right to see him at the forefront of every militant attack.

Paul Reynolds:
David Fleming, England: Doesn't the blame for the recent escalation in violence lie almost entirely on the shoulders of Sharon? His troops kill more civilians in the Gaza strip and the West Bank than suicide bombers and militants do in Israel.

James Reynolds:
There are so many sides to this story. I think if one asked that to any Palestinian you would get an absolute yes on that. They believe that Ariel Sharon's war - as they see it - against them is completely unjust. If you speak to Israelis, it will probably be a bit more mixed. There is a growing body of Israeli moderates who believe that what Ariel Sharon is doing is not working and is counter productive and that his strikes against Palestinian targets merely encourage more Palestinian attacks and they don't prevent Palestinian attacks. But there is another body of opinion in Israel which believes that if Israel is hit, it must hit back very hard. We saw in the last few days when soldiers were killed, calls among many in Israel for more attacks.

Paul Reynolds:
Joy Wolfe, Manchester, UK: What is Israel expected to do in the face of suicide bombings, drive-by killings and ambushes which in the main are directed at innocent civilians, mainly young people and children? Surely no Prime Minister can be expected to stand by while his people are being brutally targeted by those who seem to place little value on human life.

James Reynolds:
There are several trains of thought in Israel about this. There are some - the hardliners - who say that if Israel is hit, it must obviously hit back and they say that there is nothing more to discuss, it's as simple as that. But there are others who have different views. I was speaking to people from something called the Council for Peace and Security earlier this week. They said that Palestinians would continue to attack, would continue to use suicide bombings and so what they suggested was a unilateral Israeli withdrawal to the borders of the West Bank in order to create better security for Israel and basically to get out of the West Bank. So there are several trains of thought in Israel about this.

Return to the top of the page

---

Media coverage

Paul Reynolds:
Daniel Needlestone, Birmingham, UK: Most of the news from this area that we see on the BBC in the UK is about conflict, killing and tragedy. Do you ever worry that by reporting on all of the "bad" news you are helping inflame the situation? Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are increasingly prominent worldwide and reporting on people dying only increases peoples prejudice about these two groups.

Kylie Morris:
A very interesting question - I'm going to take it personally because I'm a journalist. I don't think that by being here and reporting bad events we are encouraging extreme views. I think part of being a journalist, for me at least, is bearing witness to something. So part of my job is each day to report on what is going on here. Certainly there are lot of things going on here as well people being killed, as well as militancy and I think we do our best from the BBC's perspective to cover as wide a range of subjects as we can. But at the same time, I don't think reporting the truth is a harmful thing, I think it's important.

James Reynolds:
I'd like to agree totally with Kylie - Kylie you've said exactly what I believe there. If we didn't report what was happening, it would be absolutely awful. If there were attacks day after day from one side or the other, and we decided for some reason that we didn't cover it, that would be an absolutely awful situation. Reporting what's happening on the ground, being here, challenging the politicians and then telling the world about it and not just settling on the facts - driving out to places and finding out what's really going on - I think that's helpful in terms of finding out the truth of the situation.

Return to the top of the page

---

Positive aspects

Paul Reynolds:
Darren Gelder, London, UK: It is very easy for us in the UK to criticise the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. What do you think both leaderships have done right in the last 2 years to make an end to this conflict nearer?

James Reynolds:
That's probably one of the hardest questions I've had to think about. Two years ago, peace seemed a lot closer than it does now, so that implies that in the last two years not much has been done. It really depends from what perspective you're looking at it from. You could point to several Palestinian moderates and several Israeli moderates and see the efforts that they are undergoing. But we're a long way from peace. The two sides, last year, said that they would obey the Mitchell Plan - a plan designed to return to peace talks - perhaps that was a hopeful sign. We've seen a handful ceasefires, perhaps that was hopeful in terms of ending the conflict. But in terms of great steps - I just find it very difficult at the moment.

Kylie Morris:
From the Palestinian perspective - just because I am here - perhaps people would say that Yasser Arafat has done well to maintain what unity has been maintained among the various political factions here in the Palestinian territories and that the whole thing hasn't fallen apart and dissolved into civil war. But overall I think both leaders have shown a horrifying preparedness to use their people as instruments in a very violent game.

Return to the top of the page

---

The UN's role

Paul Reynolds:
Duncan, UK: If this type of events were happening anywhere else in the world, everyone would be up in arms. If it happened in Eastern Europe, Nato would be in there quick as a flash. Doesn't the UN needs to be sent in to the West Bank to stop them shooting at one another?

Kylie Morris:
The UN is here is various forms - mainly in terms of humanitarian assistance. Certainly Kofi Annan has his own envoy here who moves between both sides trying to come up with political solutions. If we're talking about peacekeepers - peacekeepers have to be invited in and they haven't been invited in. The Palestinians of course are pushing for international observers and have been for some time and I'm sure that they would welcome the UN in that role. But that's not an invitation that's been extended by both sides. I do think ultimately it's better if both sides can work it out without a third party intervention - that hasn't happened so far but I'd imagine that if the peace can be made between the two sides then there's more a chance of it to stick.

James Reynolds:
There have been attempts over the last 12 months or so - there was a vote in the UN Security Council on 27th March last year - a lot of countries called for direct UN intervention but the resolution was vetoed by the United States which holds many of the cards here because the US position is very much along the lines of what Kylie was telling us just now that both sides have to invite in international monitors or an international intervention force. If one side objects, no outside intervention can happen. So far Israel objects - it says that it had a UN presence in the north, in the border along with Lebanon and it hasn't worked. The Mitchell Plan, says that it hopes that third party monitors could come in but only if both sides want to but Israel still says no.

Return to the top of the page

---

America's role

Paul Reynolds:
Saad, Sydney, Australia: Isn't it time to ask the American people to start questioning their government about how their unparalleled support, military, financial and economic, to Israel (without which it cannot survive) is being used?

James Reynolds:
That's something which the Americans have to do themselves - I think that's something that any taxpayer has to do - looking at the way that his or her money is spent in whatever way. I think that any taxpayer has to look at what their government does anywhere in the world.

In terms of the US relationship with Israel, it's been a very long relationship started when Harry Truman decided to support the establishment of the partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel. Bill Clinton was a very pro-Israeli president, talking sometimes in terms of religious and spiritual terms about the importance of Israel. George W Bush has teamed up with Ariel Sharon, it seems, in the war against terror. But I think it's incumbent on anyone whose money goes abroad via their government to look at what their government is doing to see if it's doing it well or doing it badly.

Paul Reynolds:
Do you see any change or diminution or increase in American support for Israel under President Bush?

James Reynolds:
What I've seen is a post-September 11th phenomenon because before September 11th, George W Bush did his best to stay as far away from this conflict as possible seeing that 8 years of Bill Clinton's daily involvement in effect did nothing. But since September 11th he has got his war on terror and do you remember his phrase - "your with us or your against us". Ariel Sharon says he is with the United States. Israel has teamed with the United States in this international coalition against terror - that, to me, seems to be something that's happening in the US/Israel relationship.

Return to the top of the page

---