May 3, 2006 -- A roundtable discussion on the impact of recent Israeli and Palestinians elections was held at Stern College for Women and was moderated by YU alumnus Leon Charney, author, television and radio host, and former Presidential adviser.

The program was sponsored by the Dr. Marcia Robbins-Wilf Scholar-in-Residence Program at Stern College and was videotaped for national broadcast on Sunday, May 7 at 4 pm on WNYE Channel 25, on the “Leon Charney Report.” Please check your local listings for PBS affiliates outside New York City. The Schottenstein Cultural Center was filled to near-capacity with YU students, faculty and administrators, and members of the public.

The panelists were four respected policy makers and scholars. Ambassador Dennis Ross, former special envoy to the Middle East and currently a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland; Avraham Sela, senior lecturer in the department of International Relations at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; and Bryan Daves, assistant professor of political science, Stern College.

The Middle East experts agreed that the elections have shut the door on a period of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. They disagreed, however, on the wisdom of ending negotiations. There was also consensus that with the Kadima party in power, Israeli diplomatic and security strategy will center on unilateral moves and, that with Hamas in power, any chances of meaningful negotiations are unlikely.

“Ariel Sharon had settled on the concept of separation since the Palestinians refused to be partners in peace negotiations,” said Ambassador Ross. “The election of Hamas proved that separation was the right path.”

Professor Daves concurred but took his position a step further. “Ehud Olmert will continue Sharon’s policies and Israel will decide for itself what its boundaries will be.” Prof. Sela, author of an authoritative book on Hamas, The Palestinian Hamas, agreed for different reasons. “The issue of the demographic realities in Israel, particularly in Jerusalem, was the critical factor behind disengagement.”

The panelists disagreed, however, as to whether a unilateral strategy by Israel and a rejectionist strategy by Hamas, would, in the long term, lead to greater security for Israel and peace in the region.

“I would take any statements by Hamas about willingness to negotiate with Israel, or willingness to accept a two-state solution, with a grain of salt,” said Ambassador Ross. “The international community has to maintain pressure on Hamas to force it to change its stance.”

The international community is in a position to apply pressure on Hamas because of its desperate financial straits due to the enormous debts incurred by the PLO with local banks. The ambassador posited that NGO’s and human rights organizations could possibly fund Hamas if human assistance to the Palestinians could be re-defined.

“A mechanism could be created to underwrite specific projects,” said Ambassador Ross, “but Hamas must fail because of their own inability to govern not because of US policy.” Prof. Sela supported this view. “Hamas will not recognize Israel. Israel and the international community need to create conditions that force them to create a responsible governing body.”

Prof. Telhami stated that Hamas is the perfect non-partner. “Hamas’ intransigence makes it easier for Israel to employ a unilateral policy but, ultimately, that will not settle the problems on the ground.”

Looking to the future, the panelists agreed that the best that could be hoped for would be a state of non-belligerence between Israel and Hamas. In order for that to happen, Hamas would have to take action to establish calm and to restrain other terrorist groups. They concluded that without sustained engagement by the international community, even this state of non-belligerence might not be possible.