Amb Ross: Israel’s “Excruciating Dilemmas” In Fighting Hamas

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, HOST: Well, now, it has been 30 years since President Clinton presided over one of the most historic handshakes in history. The Oslo Accords raised hopes for peace in the Middle East, but war, sadly, is once again ripping the region apart. Ambassador Dennis Ross played a key role in negotiating the Oslo Agreements. And he joins Michel Martin to reflect on why the promise of Israeli Palestinian peace remains unfulfilled, and what must be done to reimagine a better future for the region.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Ambassador Dennis Ross, thank you so much for speaking with us.

DENNIS ROSS, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR MIDDLE EAST TALKS AND DISTINGUISHED FELLOW; WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY: My pleasure. Good to be with you.

MARTIN: Especially at this very difficult moment. Thank you for sharing these insights with us. I wanted to start by saying that you’ve devoted your career to shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process. You served under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. And I hope the question isn’t too banal, but I just wanted to ask what your sort of first reaction was to the events of last week.

ROSS: Sure. I’ve worked on this issue for so long. I’ve seen terrible things before. I was very close to the sites of suicide bombings. I’ve seen everything and I’ve seen nothing like this. Because this was just a deliberate decision to kill as many people as you could, to draw no distinction in terms of age, to take grandmothers back to Gaza.

You know, it’s interesting. The area next to Gaza is made up of communities, some of which are people by those Israelis who are very much on the right side of the political spectrum, and some of the people have seen are very much on the left side of the political spectrum. These are people who actually deeply believe the in making peace with the Palestinians, even being prepared to make real concessions with the Palestinians.

Hamas came in there, they do no distinction. If you were pro-peace, they killed you. If you were against peace, they killed you. They asked no questions. They just wanted to kill Israelis. And I have to say, loudly speaking, I think they just wanted to kill Jews.

MARTIN: So, one of the reasons we called you is that you are one of the key negotiators of the 1993 Oslo Accords, and I just wanted to ask for people who don’t remember, perhaps were too young to remember, if you could just remind us of what was so significant about that agreement.

ROSS: I’m glad you asked that because this has always been an existential conflict. What I mean by that is you have two national movements, two national identities, and they’re competing for the same space. The significance of Oslo was that after an era of mutual rejection and mutual denial. You had the PLO, the National Liberation Movement of the Palestinian people, as they define themselves, and you had the Israelis, and Zionism is the National Liberation Movement of the Jewish people. You had the Israelis and the Palestinians after an era of mutual denial crossing that psychological threshold and recognizing each other. It meant they were taking an existential conflict and turning it into a political one. Existential conflicts you can’t resolve. Religious conflicts you can’t resolve. National conflicts you can resolve. Political conflicts you can resolve.

And so, the hope of Oslo was that you were transforming a conflict that could never be resolved into one that now could be resolved into that now was one we could solve.

MARTIN: And of course, you know, part of the reason this is important is I’m not sure people remember that, as you just said, this is both national movements, two different national movements with a claim on the same land, recognizing each other’s existence and then committing to a political process to sort it out. So, Hamas, you know —

ROSS: Right.

MARTIN: — they’ve never accepted the existence of the State of Israel. Do you have any thoughts about why that is?

ROSS: They have an ideology. They view — Hamas is — literally, it’s an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement, and their ideology is that all of Palestine was part of an Islamic trust. And as part of an Islamic trust, not one inch could be surrendered. And that is an ideology, a credo that they have lived with.

You know, people tend to forget every time we were making progress in the 1990s, every time we were making progress, we would get suicide bombings from Hamas. When I hear people say today, well, Hamas wouldn’t have done this if there was a peace process. On the contrary, when there was, they were the ones who did everything they could, literally, to kill it. And even now, clearly, one of the motivations was the prospect of Saudi Arabia. The king is — the custodian of the two holy moss (ph), most important Sunni Arab leader, most important Sunni Muslim leader in the world was prepared — it appeared was in the process of being prepared to make peace with the nation state of the Jewish people. So, you would be removing or at least diminishing the religious element of this conflict. And for Hamas, that was a fundamental threat.

MARTIN: OK. So, let’s wheel around to the other reason we called you, is that you had just published a new essay in “Foreign Affairs.” I would say I think it’s a fairly tough-minded statement for someone like yourself — especially for someone like yourself who’s been so invested and involved in the peace process. And in this, you say, the only way to achieve a lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians is a complete dismantling of Hamas. You say, decapitating Hamas’ leadership, destroying its military infrastructure, killing a large number of its fighters, and even occupying Gaza again are very real objectives. Why are you so convinced of that at this point?

ROSS: Well, there I was sort of laying out what were Israeli objectives now. I wasn’t saying this is exactly what I think the objective should be.

MARTIN: You would do?

ROSS: I’m saying, this is where Israel is coming from, because their paradigm of, in a sense, living and coexisting with Hamas since 2009, they came to realize that that was not a manageable cost. Now, having said that, the essence of what I was saying is that it is clear that Hamas cannot continue to be a threat towards Israel, number one. It’s also clear there is no possibility of creating reconstruction in Gaza so long as Hamas is in a position where at a time of his choosing it can blow everything up again.

So, I do take the view that Hamas has completely delegitimize itself by what it has done. It is not a partner in any way, shape or form, and I do think there has to be an outcome. I would like to see this kind of formula that I was saying. I’d like to see demilitarization of Gaza in return for massive reconstruction of Gaza. And I don’t see Hamas being in a position where it will ever go along with anything like that. So, I think at a minimum, Hamas has to be put in a position where its fundamental power has been dramatically eroded. You know, the idea that you can eradicate something like Hamas is something I think is beyond anybody’s capability, but you could dramatically weaken it to the point that it doesn’t have the kind of capability to disrupt everything else. And I think at a minimum, that has to be the outcome.

MARTIN: And so, this is a situation where the cost to Israel and the cost to the people of Gaza is going to be very high. You said that, you know, Hamas is completely delegitimized. We have no way of knowing how much legitimacy Hamas actually has among the people of Gaza because they haven’t had elections in 16 years. We also know that the population in Gaza is very young. I mean, the average Gazan is like 18 years old. 50 percent of the population are children. They have no voice in this.

And we also know that Hamas has a history of, I don’t know how else to put this, embedding itself in the civilian population, right? I mean, that would be accurate to say.

ROSS: Hundred percent. Hundred percent.

MARTIN: So, given that, how could this be accomplished without a massive loss of life among people who are perhaps, fair to say, themselves hostages in this land?

ROSS: Look, you are so right. And I — and it won’t surprise you, I have friends in Gaza right now. I have spoken to some of them in the last couple of days. My heart is literally breaking over what I see happening. And yet, I also know they’re being held hostage by Hamas. You know, one of the person that I was able to speak to was describing how — you know, she’s already lost members of her family. She said, we’re the ones who are vulnerable. Yes, the Israelis have basically directed us to seven areas in Gaza, but I have 90-year-old parents who are not movable.

You know, we’re exposed. All the Hamas leaders are deep underground. So, look, this is a way a terrible dire situation, you know. And yet, we face a reality where whatever we say, the Israelis are no longer going to live with this threat. And this is left to right, completely. It’s a complete consensus.

So, you know, this is a terrible reality. But in a sense, Israel is now facing its ISIS. When we thought ISIS when — you know, in Mosul and in Raqqa, you know, there are a lot of innocent people who were killed. You’re dealing with a threat that actually wants to invite the killing of innocence. And it forces you into these terrible excruciating dilemmas, where if you don’t take these steps, you have to continue to live with this group, which will continue to carry out outrages. And at some point, you have to try to find a way to deal with it. When I was a trust and what I was laying out in terms of the objectives, I said, the International Community should emphasize the unconditional release of all the hostages, and it should emphasize the demilitarization and offer reconstruction. I mean, I’m hoping that under some circumstances you might be able to bring this to an end so that the supreme price that we could be seeing pay, in fact, doesn’t materialize. You are quite right. Look, the price Palestinians will pay is terrible. The price the IDF will pay is also awful. So, it’s a — you know, it’s an awful situation, but we also know who’s responsible for it. Hamas is responsible for it.

MARTIN: Well, but do you — are you convinced that the world will see it that way? I mean, the fact is that there are a lot of people around the world who look at this, look at the — you could just see the destruction kind of whole neighborhoods wiped out. And you talked about the safe quarters that the Israelis are directing people to, but a lot of them saying, how can I get there? How does Israel maintain its moral authority and continue to use this level of overwhelming force?

ROSS: I think it’s hard. Look, it’s — I said they’re excruciating dilemma, but I think here are the things I would like to see happen. I would like to see the Israelis emphasize that, again, that there are these safe areas there. And I’d like to see the Israelis facilitate humanitarian assistance going into those areas. I want Israel to be able to put itself in a position where it says, we are fighting Hamas. We are not punishing Palestinians. I think this is the way they have to present. It’s the way I think that we should be talking about it. We have to frame this issue for what it is. You have to take on this group that has (INAUDIBLE) these unspeakable atrocities on the one hand, and will continue to do it if given an opportunity. And on the other hand, you also have to try to do this in a way that tries to do as much as you can to safeguard the lives of Palestinians who aren’t responsible for what Hamas does.

MARTIN: Do you think that the Israeli government is actually making that, or the Israeli leadership is actually making that distinction at the moment?

ROSS: I think that they’re in a situation where it’s really hard to make these kinds of distinctions. But I think there is some effort being made. And I think the more we talk about it, there’ll probably be some greater effort. Ultimately, it is in Israel’s interest to show fighting Hamas is one thing, dealing with the Palestinians as a people is something very different.

MARTIN: And what about the Biden administration? Do you think that the Biden administration is doing enough to make that — to convey the message that you have just delivered?

ROSS: Well, I think that the president, when he spilled everything out, if he said — he said, do it within the confines of international law. Now, it is true that international humanitarian law, as it relates to the use of force, forced, it is designed to achieve a very clear military objective will, in the end, unfortunately, also end up producing what will be civilian casualties, because that’s the nature of war. But I think the administration is trying to strike the balance, and it’s a hard balance to strike. That anyone who thinks there’s a simple answer here is ignoring it. For those who say, Israel has to stop. Well, then you’re just guaranteeing we’re going to see more of what Hamas does. Hamas

deliberately targets civilians. The Israelis don’t deliberately target civilians. There’s an important distinction here. We need to have an outcome where Hamas’ ability to do that basically doesn’t exist any longer.

MARTIN: So, let’s wheel it around and say, for the sake of discussion, that through whatever means that fighting is contained, that Hamas is dismantled, even at the grievous cost. And I realize that, you know, we’re using this very antiseptic language, but, you know, I am mindful as I hope, as I see that you are — that you tell me you are that for every person that we’re sort of talking about here, there is a mother who’s seen their child lying that — you know what I mean? There is some innocent person who had no opportunity to intervene in this, who will pay a very dear price. OK. So, let’s just establish that we know this.

But let’s just say for the sake of our conversation that his — that Hamas is dismantled. What happens? What should happen after that? Like, how does the region go forward after that?

ROSS: I think one of the things I wrote in that piece was, we need to be thinking about the day after right now. We can’t wait until the day after to be thinking about it. There needs to be an alternative administration in Gaza, maybe under some kind of international trusteeship. There needs to be a plan for reconstruction as part of that. There need to be elections held six to nine months later. There needs to be — in other words, it needs to

be a strategic plan for what is going to happen in Gaza afterwards, and that plan needs to ensure it can’t be rearmed, but it also needs to create kind of the equivalent of a marshal plan for Gaza.

One of the good things about Gaza from that standpoint is it is small. We’re talking about an area that is, you know, not much bigger than the greater New York area. So, the potential — and it’s — and you’re going to have so much destruction there that rebuilding the infrastructure and, in a sense, almost starting from a low ebb, you can make a big difference pretty quickly. And give Palestinians there a chance to breathe. So, that would be one thing.

The second thing is, I don’t write off the possibility that we will still see maybe several months down the road a Saudi Israeli breakthrough, in which case, part of that will also involve what is done for Palestinians in the West Bank as well, not only in terms of changing how they live, but also tangible steps that would ensure that two states remains an option for the future. You know, then you can change the trajectory. Then you can move in a way that becomes dramatically more hopeful.

I mean, what we can’t do is become so lost in what’s happening right now that we lose sight of anything that might happen over time. And look, I completely — you use the word grievous, and that there’s a poverty of language to capture what it means to see these losses. I mean, that’s what

makes it so hurtful because these are not just numbers, these are all individual human beings with families.

MARTIN: Do you think there is the political will in the United States to support, to show leadership even, in the kind of project that you’ve spoken of?

ROSS: Well, I hope so. Look, obviously we have our own political realities here. I do think that President Biden would want to come out of this with a potential to change the realities in the Middle East. We’ve gotten a reminder that every time we think we can ignore the Middle East, it reimposes itself on us.

And to think that the Middle East is disconnected from a larger global competition, we’re constantly reminded that it is not. So, you have an area that in — for another 30 years fossil fuels will still be important, you still have to manage a transition away from fossil fuels, the Middle East will be important from that standpoint. It’s important from a strategic geographic standpoint. It’s important from the standpoint that it generates these ideologies that are a threat to everyone. So, the more you remove yourself from the Middle East, the more you end up being sucked back in, but only under worse circumstances. Nothing would be worse than to have this event and then you do nothing in the aftermath of it.

MARTIN: Ambassador Dennis Ross, thank you so much for speaking with us.

ROSS: Thanks for having me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)