[Peace-discuss] Israel panelists' positions

[C. G. Estabrook]

Frank Knowles requested biographical information and talk summaries from 
the four people whom he chose for the panel discussion, "The 
Confrontation of Israel With Its Neighbors."  They are appended.

David Green remarks, I think appropriately, as follows:

"I just think it's ridiculous that AWARE would sponsor a panel that 
limits itself to the local academic culture, and implicitly accepts the 
notion that Jews support Israel, and its critics aren't Jewish. I mean, 
yes, people realize that's not exactly how it works, but this set-up 
maintains the essential fiction. I think it's an unfortunate subtext for 
such an event, and will prevent it from being enlightening, apart from
whatever Cuno and Nasser have to say.

"It doesn't appear that any of these potential speakers is the least bit
bothered by massive and systematic human rights abuses by the U.S. and
Israel in the Middle East over a long period of time."

==========================

[1] Professor Kenneth Cuno

Biographical Information

Professor Kenneth Cuno teaches the history of the modern Middle East at 
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In addition to studying 
the history and cultures of the Middle East for some thirty years, his 
knowledge comes from living in Egypt for nearly ten years and additional 
time spent in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.

Position Summary

Approximately 40 years ago Israel became a strategic ally of the US. 
Since then our policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict has vacillated 
between two approaches, reflecting contrasting strategic visions in 
Washington: (1) trying to reconcile the Israeli alliance with our Arab 
alliances, by mediating the conflict and working toward a settlement; 
and (2) relying on Israel as an asset in our efforts to dominate the 
Middle East. The former was characteristic of the Nixon’s second term, 
Ford, Carter, Bush 41 and Clinton. The latter approach has been 
characteristic of Nixon’s first term, Reagan and Bush 43. The latter 
approach encourages Israeli irredentism, military adventurism and a hard 
line in general. It has consistently produced more conflict, not less. 
It’s bad for Israel, bad for the US and (if anyone cases) bad for the 
Arabs, especially the Palestinians.

[2] Professor Frederic Jaher

Biographical Information

Professor Jaher is an emeritus professor of History at the U
of I. His research and teaching has been in American social and 
intellectual history and he has written several books and articles on 
American Jewry. In addition he was a Fulbright professor of American 
civilization at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and has lived for 
extensive times in Israel, and has briefed a former local congressman, 
Champaign News-Gazette editor and others who went on trips to Israel.

Position Summary

My position will be, as I told you, that of a committed Zionist. I fell 
that Israel was right to confront Hezbollah and Hamas because both 
groups want to eliminate Israel and attacked her. This was an act of war 
not of terror, because in Gaza, Hamas was the govt. and in Lebanon, it 
was part of the govt. In Lebanon, Israel was also fighting
to uphold a UN resolution that Hezbollah disarm, which the Lebanese 
govt. did not implement. However, I do not think that Israel fought a 
good war, in that it relied too much on bombing and not enought on 
ground troops. The latter strategy would have reduced civilian 
casualties and would have more severely damaged Hezbollah. The peace 
agreement is imperfect, but I think Hezbollah and Lebanon have been 
damaged enough so that it will last for a couple of years, but Israel 
did not accomplish its war aims.

[3] Professor Jamal Nassar

Biographical Information

Jamal R. Nassar is chair and professor in the Department of Politics and 
Government at Illinois State University. Born in Jerusalem, Palestine, 
professor Nassar earned a B.A. from Jacksonville University in 1972, an 
M.A. from the University of South Florida in 1974 and a Ph.D. from the 
University of Cincinnati in 1978. Since joining the faculty at Illinois 
State in 1978, professor Nassar has established himself as a leading 
authority on the politics of the Middle East. His many publications 
include such books as Globalization and Terrorism: The Migration of 
Dreams and Nightmares, Intifada: Palestine at the Crossroads, The 
Palestine Liberation Organization: From Armed Struggle to the 
Declaration of Independence, Change Without Borders: The Third World at 
the End of the Twentieth Century, and Politics and Culture in the 
Developing World: The Impact of Globalization. Many of his articles, 
chapters and reviews have appeared in highly rated publications and have 
been translated to about a dozen other languages. Dr. Nassar has chaired 
a number of national and international conferences on the Middle East.
Between 1991 and 1995, he served as editor of Arab Studies Quarterly and 
he currently serves on its editorial board as he does on the boards of 
other distinguished journals on the Middle East region. Dr. Nassar 
shares his knowledge of the region's politics through speeches and 
interviews. He has addressed the United Nations as an expert on the 
Question of Palestine, and was consulted or has appeared as an expert 
witness on the area in highly visible court cases in the United States 
and Canada.

Position Summary

United States policy on Israel/Palestine has been a source of continued 
problems for our country. It contributes to the rise of anti-Americanism 
in the region and to the destabilization of friendly regimes in the 
area. No other conflict is as sensitive as this one. Our policies on it 
are one-sided and leave a perception of double standards that irritate 
the passions of peoples of the region. It is time for the U.S. to 
reassess its approach with an eye for its national interests rather than 
those of special interests. Israel cannot remain above the law with our 
blessing. We need to uphold international law equally to all states in 
that significant region of the world.

[4] Professor Michael Shapiro

Biographical Information

Michael Shapiro is Professor Emeritus of English at UIUC, where he
began teaching in 1967. While his primary speciality is Shakespeare, he
was cofounder of the Jewish studies program, and since 1996 has been
director of the Program in Jewish Culture and Society. The Program has
recently established the Israel Studies Project, which brings writers
and scholars to the UIUC campus for short residencies and as visiting
instructors. He has also been President of Temple Sinai and of the 
Jewish Federation of Urbana-Champaign. He lived in Israel during the 
1973 war.

Position Summary

I am a strong supporter of Israel. I was hopeful that Oslo would lead to 
peace with the Palestinians and a two state solution, which I have 
always supported, and while I feel Israel has made its share of 
mistakes, I feel the major responsibility for the failure of Oslo lies 
with Arafat. In the past I was known in the Jewish community as part of 
the dovish faction, but I have moved toward the right in recent years. 
For example, I feel that Israel was justified in attacking Hezbolloh, 
for the accumulation of weapons on its norther border was a major 
provocation and a potential threat. I am sure the Israeli army has made 
some errors, with tragic consequences for civlians, but I believe those 
errors were made in the course of what I regard as justified self-defense.

	###