Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 29 January 2003 — Page 17

January 29. 2003 NAT 9

His new book, Longitudes & Attitudes, compellingly explores the post-Sep-tember 11 world. The single issue that claims the passion of the man, who h arguably the world's most famous columnist, is the fate of Israel, which Friedman says defines his very essence. Q. How is 2003 going to be different as a result or the continuing impact of 9/ 11? A. 1 don't do predictions, but what I worry about is the trend emerging from the Mombasa attack last November. This is a shift in strategy bv Al Qaeda to increasingly focus attacks on Israel, on Jews, and on America to create the impression of one large enemy all rolled into one. What worries me is what this can mean for the wider war on terrorism. The Al Qaeda people understand that focusing on Israel, America, and Jews is a lot more popular in the Arab Muslim street than focusing on America alone, much less on Saudi Arabia or Egypt. When you focus on Israel more than on America alone, you have a chance to foster splits with the anti-Al Qaeda alliance. While the Europeans would never condone terror attacks by Al Qaeda against Israelis or Jews, those attacks also don't prompt the full-throated opposition that attacks on Americans do. They draw the reaction of, "Well, of course we condemn the attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets, but if they did something more about the Palestinian issue, these attacks would not happen." It is that sense that focusing on Israel and Jews can weaken the anti-Al Qaeda response. Q. As long as you're not making predictions, has President Bush locked up his second term? A. President Bush deserves a lot of credit for the firm, tough-minded way he responded to the events of 9/11. Now we're beyond that and fighting a wider war on terrorism involving possibly Iraq and many other fronts. Terrorism is a multidimensional threat from many different societies, countries, and forces. To deal with it effectively you need a multilateral, multidimensional response. When you're just going after [Osama] bin Laden in Afghanistan, that was a one-dimen-sional response, a black-and-white thing. And Bush was very good at it. He understood that there was no gray. Q. Is he just as adept at stage two? A. I think his ability to manage a broader, more complex war remains to be seen. It's really complicated. Many people say the Iraqi card will divert from the war on terrorism, and so it depends how you view the Iraqi card. I think President Bush gets an A on his response to 9/11. And he gets an Incomplete on the longer-term war against Al Qaeda, Iraq, and radical, violent terrorist movements. Q. Do you see the Democrats finding a candidate able to match Bush's strong sense of popular sentiment? A. A candidate in America has to persuade people that in their gut they feel, "Okay, this guy knows what world we're living in, a really dangerous world." Once I connect with you that way, I can take you anywhere. I can take you into some very dovish, nuanced policies, for instance. That's leadership; that was [Yitzhak] Rabin. Israelis trusted that this guy knew what world we're living in and would not be afraid to pull the trigger, but he wasn't limited only to that world and imagined a better one. That's the challenge for any Democrat trying to challenge President Bush - to convey to Americans that you know what world you're living in just as much as Bush does, but you're not content with it. You also have a vision to create a different world for your kids. Q. Who's the most impressive leader you've interviewed? A. Ernesto Zedillo, president of Mexico during its economic crisis, one of the most impressive people I've ever met on the world stage. He pulled his country through an incredibly difficult economic crisis which lapsed into a political crisis. He left the presidency with his reputation intact, something many Mexican presidents before him failed to do. I'm also a big fan of Joschka Fischer, the foreign minister of Germany. He's a smart, thoughtful, sensitive person. I'm also an admirer from afar of Tony Blair, although I don't really know him. Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan is a very impressive guy with a really tough job. And certainly Yitzhak Rabin would be on that list. Q. One of your interviews turned into the Saudi peace plan. Was it fun making news for once, not reporting it? A. I saw myself as just doing my job, which was quoting what Crown Prince Abdullah said. The reason it made a big splash was not only because he said it but, more important, because he took it to the Arab League and got it adopted at their summit. Whatever I might think of Saudi Arabia - and I've been critical in many ways of things Saudi Arabia has done since 9/11-1 can say that in terms of this peace proposal Abdullah behaved with a lot of integrity. He told me what he was going to say, he said it, and then he did what he said he was going to do with it. They

fiddled with the language a little at the Arab League, but basically he saw it through. Q. Have events in the region overtaken this initiative? A. It's [still] very relevant. But Abdullah’s peace plan was predicated on an Israeli-Palestinian deal. The plan says that if Israel and the Palestinians have a deal that is satisfactory to both sides, then the Arab world will do X, Y and Z in terms of embracing Israel, opening trade, diplomatic relations, and tourism. But the peace deal on which it was predicated is so sick right now that it would be fruitless to talk about the Saudi initiative. They should reaffirm it, doing more to sell it than they've been doing. But one thing they haven't done is to disavow it. Q. What would it take for you to say, "Peace might just have a chance between Israel and the Palestinians"? A. The Oslo agreement was built on the logic of Israelis and Palestinians implementing a mutually self-enforcing agreement. It was based on healthy steps, each step producing more confidence, [which] would produce the trust that would make a deal possible. The Palestinian uprising of the last two years and its violence has blown away all of that cement and trust necessary for a deal. Q. You see no hope in sight? A. You're trying to build a wall between you and your neighbor. He was supposed to bring some cement, you were supposed to bring some cement. Now the cement's all gone, but you need a wall more than ever. I believe, therefore, that a third party is going to have to provide the cement of trust needed to build the wall that would separate the two communities. I also believe the party that eventually will be called on by both sides to do that is NATO. The only logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for a U.S.-led NATO force to occupy the West Bank, Gaza, and the Arab areas of East Jerusalem, roughly along the lines envisaged by the Clinton plan. For NATO to be invited by the two parties and to serve as an international trustee, overseeing the development of a Palestinian state and providing a permanent presence on the border separating Israel from the Palestinians. Q. Is Yasser Arafat able to reform, or does he have to go? A. One of the things that sustains Arafat is the ongoing conflict with Israel, his ability to say, "Look, we can't deal with all these other issues of collecting the garbage and transparency and what not, we have to fight the Israelis." You have to create a context where a really free and fair election can happen under an international trustee. You're not going to get Palestinian democracy out of an Israeli occupation. But I do believe, or hope for the sake of the Palestinians, that the\ 're able to develop a better leadership. It wouldn't bother me whether Arafat comes or goes, but I don't think better leadership is the decisive factor. Are Israelis reads to give up more territory just because Arafat's there or not there? I don't really believe so. It's not just one man. Palestinians have got to develop a responsible authoritv. [This is] something that can only happen over time under a kind of international supervision, not under an Israeli occupation. Q. Can you explain your view on the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria? Why are you hypercritical of them when they are clearly not the root cause of the conflict? A. My view is very simple. I believe that settlers are in fact a movement for a binational state. By the year 2010, by every serious population study, there will be more Palestinian Arabs living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean than there will be Jews. The settlers aspire to see Israel either de facto or de jure annex the territories. That means an Israel that will have a majority of Palestinian Christians and Muslims and not Jews. In my dictionary that's a binational state. I have no doubt what Palestinians will then do. They will stop calling for an independent state, they will simply call for one man, one vote. If you think it's difficult to defend Israel's cause on the world stage, let alone on American college campuses today, imagine when your kid is at the University of Michigan and he has to defend Israel, making the argument against one man, one vote. Q. You are an involved American Jew. How do Arab leaders react to that? A. I can't tell you what they whisper when 1 go out the door but, frankly, people treat me as Tom Friedman, columnist, not Tom Friedman, bar mitzvah boy from Minneapolis. I'm very up-front about my views and about who I am, about what I believe in. There should be a Jewish state, that's a good thing. That state will never be secure until and unless there's a Palestinian state next to it. I've always had a centrist, Rabin-type view of the world. I've grown up with this generation of Arab leaders and journalists. I've gotten to know many of them personally. They know I'm not the least bit hesitant to criticize them or Israel if I think they're Continued on page 74