A Steadfast Ally of Israel Sees a Better Future for the Mideast

Even as a state assemblyman in the 1970s, Howard L. Berman was an influential supporter of Israel. The Panorama City Democrat authored a bill that made it an unlawful restraint of trade for firms doing business in California to participate in the Arab boycott of the Jewish state.

First elected to Congress in 1982, Berman immediately won a spot on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In that post he has been an important advocate for substantial foreign aid for Israel.

As a member of the Budget Committee since 1989, he has been the point man on foreign aid. His foreign policy clout was further enhanced when he became chairman of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on international operations in 1991. And he remains an active member of the pro-Israel caucus.

He spoke with Times reporter Alan C. Miller about the Mideast peace process.

Question: Is the Mideast peace process so far along now that nothing can derail it?

Answer: I’m an optimist, but I don’t think I’m in a fantasy world. Nothing in the Middle East is that predictable, so I would never want to say that nothing could derail it. But I think the foundation is in place and the momentum is there to create the real possibility of a comprehensive Middle East peace in our lifetime. I certainly never felt as hopeful about that until this time.

Q. What could derail it?

A. A civil war among the Palestinians could derail this process. An inability of the Palestinians, or an unwillingness by the Syrians, to prevent terrorism against Israeli targets could set it back. I don’t know that changes in leadership would set this back. Anwar Sadat, the late Egyptian leader, made the bold step and was assassinated, but the peace with Egypt continued. If Islamic extremists captured the governments of Israel’s neighbors, if President Hosni Mubarak’s government in Egypt toppled and was replaced by Islamic extremists--which I don’t think is likely but I guess is possible--if you essentially had agents of Iran taking over governments in the area surrounding Israel, that would bring all this to a halt.

Q. Many say that there cannot be true peace in the Mideast without an end to the hostilities between Israel and Syria. How would you rate prospects for such a treaty ?

A. Syria is the most serious security threat remaining to Israel. I rate it within the next year as better than 50-50. President Hafez Assad has nowhere else to go. His nose can be bent out of joint because the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, the PLO leader, reached this secret agreement with Israel. He can delay movement by refusing to crack down on the Syrian-supported terrorism in the Bekaa Valley in southern Lebanon. He can provide, at least for the moment, operational security for the radical Palestinians who oppose Arafat. But what is he going to gain from that in the long term? He wants the benefits of a positive relationship with the United States, and at some point I think that desire will move that process ahead.

Q. How far should the United States go in giving practical, hands-on help to the Palestinian self-governing authority?

A. If Arafat and the PLO are meeting the commitments that they made--opposing terrorism, seeking to squelch terrorism in the areas in which they have control, keeping faith with his commitments in the mutual recognition letter that he wrote to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel--then I think the United States should be active in helping. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been pawns in this struggle, living in the squalid conditions of refugee camps with no prospect for an improved life. It is very important for the Palestinians to see the prospects for a better life through peace and recognition of the state of Israel.

Q. So would you then support aid to the Palestinian self-governing authority?

A. The United States should be the coordinator of this and a participant. But the Europeans and the Gulf countries that we supported so strongly in the Gulf War--the Saudis, the Kuwaitis--and Japan should be coming to the table with very substantial participation here. And we should play a facilitating role. We can’t say, “You do it all, and we do nothing.” And I have some preference that these programs focus on improvements on the ground and not simply be a blank check for a leadership that, at this particular time, doesn’t have a demonstrated track record for spending funds wisely. There are a lot of non-government organizations that we can get to work in the field in Gaza improving housing, improving sewers, building roads, promoting economic development. . . . We’re not talking about huge amounts of American dollars.

Q. Should the United States provide intelligence information and other help to Yasser Arafat in the interest of keeping him alive?

A. Sure. I think we have a high interest at this point--as long as he is operating consistent with his commitments--in keeping him alive and in helping him and the Israelis and those who want to make the peace process go forward against the radical extremists.

Q. Is it realistic to expect that Jewish settlements will remain in the occupied territories under Palestinian self-rule?

A. Yes, it is realistic to expect that. A month ago I would have had my doubts as to whether it was realistic that the Israeli leadership would be willing to make an agreement with the Tunis-based PLO. And why it is any more unrealistic for there to be Jewish settlements in any of the areas where they now exist than it is to have Arabs now living in Israel is a mystery to me.

If this thing starts working, things that one could never contemplate become possible. Jews continuing to live on the West Bank is certainly one of those outcomes.

In fact, I’d bet on it. You’re not going to have 130,000 Israelis forcibly removed.

Q. Arafat has continued to maintain that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state? How do you anticipate that issue will be resolved?

A. Peacefully and through negotiations. I think there is nothing that Israel and its friends feel more strongly about than Jerusalem as the unified city and the capital of Israel.

Q. So, you do not foresee any circumstances under which Israel would relinquish control of East Jerusalem?

A. No. I see arrangements being made. I see many different ways to skin the cat here but I do not see Israel giving up sovereignty over East Jerusalem. There are ways to deal with holy sites.

There are even ways to deal with governance questions that are not inconsistent with Israel maintaining sovereignty over East Jerusalem. There are two things to say that are important about this.

First, the Arab residents of East Jerusalem are specifically allowed to participate in the elections to set up this transitional authority. Secondly, questions about the status of Jerusalem are not to be raised until the final status talks. In fact, this is an area where the agreement Rabin signed is more restrictive than the autonomy restrictions under Camp David.

There’s a tremendous brilliance to this Madrid-Oslo process, which is that the transition period becomes all-important because the Israeli people can see whether or not the Palestinians and their leaders are truly willing to do that which is consistent with fully accepting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland.

And the more the Israelis have confidence in the Palestinian acceptance of that and of forswearing violence, the wider range of possibilities exist for final status arrangements.

Q. What do you think the impact of peace--if it is sustained--will be on the Jewish community in the U.S., which has forged its ties to Israel and built its clout here on the basis of a perpetually imperiled Jewish state?

A. I reject the notion that the cohesion of the Jewish community in America is dependent on how bad things are for us. And that our unity only comes from a perception of being victims. And I think we can thrive and prosper even when our prayers are answered that Israeli security is solidified and that peace comes to the Middle East.

I don’t buy the notion that peace in the Middle East inevitably means bad things for us in the United States in terms of remaining a cohesive community.