metro

GREAT
SUMMER
LEARNING
OPPORTUNITIES!

Witness To History

A conversation with Ambassador Ross.

Jackie Headapohl

Managing Editor

1111111,01101
11lor
11111.
11111k
1111111i

Ai
dill
III

IIPBB••

DL- ly with

11175t7v id So lo

■ pmg

10 a.m.

AI

immi

IP (Brunch & Learn):

■■

mm
.7The Last 1,000 Years of
I Jewish Philosophy"

11

111":30 p.m.1111111

NEI "The Whole OM.

Nib
Ai Jewish Histor y ill
in
Hour" i
r

■■

r

Viiclulc-1
L..
l ■ fill1L-SL
TuLttitiavti. 1111
IIP";
,
; IIII
rp
e.
6..

10-11:30 a.m.:
"Judaism & the
Roots of Islam"

• Session 1: Judaism in
Pre-Muslim Arabia

• Session 2: Torah Stories
in the Koran

• Session 3: Jewish Life
in the Muslim World

Information/Tickets:
248.661.1900 or
theberman.org

Jewish Community Center
D. Dan & Betty Kahn Building
Eugene & Marcia Applebaum
Jewish Community Campus
6600 W. Maple Road
West Bloomfield, MI 48322

ASAJE

►

]."eisi

THE CENTE

(Th

FedEdAMI

we

Del ve A 1 I le% h F71

n

Jewish Federation

OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT

AIN.. .1 Or Jew(611EduCatiOn

1922780

24 June 5 • 2014

A

mbassador Dennis Ross — a
Middle East adviser to Presidents
Ronald Reagan, George H.W.
Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama —
has been named the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy's inaugural William
Davidson Distinguished Fellow.
The three-year fellowship, announced
in January, was made possible through
a $1.2-million grant to the institute by
the Detroit-based William Davidson
Foundation.
As the Davidson Distinguished Fellow,
Ross' research will focus on such critical
issues in the Middle East as the challenge
of Iran's nuclear program, the Israeli-
Palestinian peace process and shaping the
U.S.-Israel relationship.
In 2000, Ross assisted President Bill
Clinton when he tried, unsuccessfully, to
reach a peace agreement between Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian
Authority head Yasser Arafat. Most recent-
ly, Ross was an adviser to Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton on the Persian Gulf and
Southwest Asia in the first Obama admin-
istration.
Ross was in Detroit in late May to meet
the board of directors of the Davidson
Foundation. While here, he sat down with
the Jewish News to answer some questions.

Q: What do you see as the best-case
scenario when it comes to peace between
Israelis and Palestinians?

For those that say this is the last moment
for a two-state solution, I say to them, "Did
I miss something? Are the Israelis going
someplace? Are the Palestinians going
someplace?" As long as they're both going
to be there, there isn't another outcome that
doesn't provide for two states for two people.
But if we can't achieve that right now,
then what do we do? If formal agreements
are too hard to do, and I think right now
that may be the case, then the answer isn't
to try to push for formal agreements, and
the answer isn't to say let them stew in their
own juices and walk away. The answer is
to focus on practical steps that can prevent
a deterioration and that may allow you to
change the circumstances so what you can't
achieve today you can achieve over time.
If the prime minister of Israel says he
will not allow Israel to become a binational
state, then he can adopt positions that
would broker parallel steps.
Here's an example of what I mean.
Maybe the Israelis could open up Area C in
the West Bank.
Area A is where the Palestinians retain
civil and security responsibility. Today it's
about 18.2 percent of the West Bank. Area
B is an area in which Palestinians have civil

and law and order responsibility, but not
responsibility for terror; that's about 27.1
percent. Area C is where Israelis retain all
responsibility and that's 60.1 percent of the
West Bank.
The Israelis could change the designa-
tion, so that more of C becomes like B or,
if they didn't want to do something that
formal, they could simply say that they
were going to allow the Palestinians to
build or to do planning and zoning in Area
C, or they would allow the Palestinians to
own rock quarries in Area C because stone
masonry is a big industry for Palestinians,
and all the rock quarries in the West Bank
are in Area C.
Israelis could tell us they were will-
ing to do that, and we could talk to the
Palestinians and say if the Israelis do that
— which is of value to you and doesn't
require formal agreements — will you
agree to forego all actions at international
conventions and organizations?
You could have a quiet set of under-
standings that either side could revoke if
the other broke the rules.
The point is: Something like that would
prevent deterioration and create further
stakes in cooperation. And you create a dif-
ferent set of realities that could be positive
for the future.

Q: What are your thoughts about the
planned unification of Hamas and the
Palestinian Authority? [Note: The two
entities did reach an agreement on June
1, after this interview.]

This is at least the fourth reconciliation
agreement, so whether or not it will actu-
ally materialize remains to be seen. If it
does, I think the key thing to watch for is
not whether there's a technocratic govern-
ment that has no Hamas members in it.
The key will be: Is Hamas allowed to
become part of the PLO without having to
adopt the conditions of the PLO — a two-
state outcome, a renunciation of violence
and recognition of Israel's right to exist?
If Hamas is allowed to become part of
the PLO without having to meet those con-
ditions, that would be quite inconsistent
with trying to reconcile one's commitment
to two states.
As to timing, why not come to Secretary
of State John Kerry before you agree to this.
To surprise the U.S. was, frankly, unaccept-
able.

Ambassador Dennis Ross

international engagement, and Secretary
Clinton is the same. To define her, she
thinks this is the wrong time to think about
retrenching.

Q: Do you think it's possible that Iran
will give up its nuclear arms program?

Of course, they claim they don't have a
nuclear arms program. If you ask me, "Is it
possible for them to make adjustments in
their behavior?" Then yes, it's possible.
Let's recall that the Iranians said they
wouldn't negotiate on their program unless
we lifted all sanctions and recognized their
right to enrich. We didn't meet those two
conditions, but we did raise the pressure.
We intensified the sanctions, and they
came to the table.
I said it's possible, but I don't know if
there's going to be an agreement. I think
the gaps that exist are real conceptual gaps,
but I think if the Iranians understand that
the price will remain high, the potential for
an agreement is there.
Agreements should be of mutual benefit
to both sides. Iranians having a peaceful
nuclear program can be legitimate, but we
have to know, giving their past behavior,
that it's a peaceful program and it can't be
converted quickly or easily into a weapons
program. We have to have a sufficient
gap in time to ensure that they don't have
breakout capability that we couldn't detect
or do something about. There would have
to be a very far-reaching transparency on
their program.
It means their program has to be rolled
back in terms of numbers of centrifuges, in
terms of shipping out the enriched material
they have on hand. They can keep some,
but certainly less than one bomb's worth.
It needs to be transparent enough that we
have the confidence that they're not trying
to break out or sneak out. And we need to
know what their previous activities were in
terms of weaponization — not to punish
them, but so we know where to look, and
what needs to be verified and checked.

Q: You've worked with both Bill and
Hillary Clinton. How would you describe
Mrs. Clinton in terms of her potential
presidential run?

Q: You advocate the concept of "smart
power" — a combination of diplomacy
and military threat. Also, you've said
that the Obama Administration has not
demonstrated sufficient hard power.
Explain.

They're very close to each other in terms
of attitude, instinct and orientation. They
each have a deep commitment to American
engagement in the world.
President Clinton was a deep believer in

What I was calling for was for the U.S. to be
competitive. We need to show more consis-
tently a readiness to compete. If we do that,
we're more likely to affect things the way
we'd like to see them.