Six days that shook the world

America's involvement in the Six-Day War was not what Israel expected. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of what's going on now.

The whole situation reminds me a lot of what's going on now.

In what way?

It's the same Arafat, the same al-Fatah, trying to drag the Arab world into some type of conflict with Israel. And it succeeds. You have the U.N. in an adversarial relationship with Israel. You have the United States involved, today, in a military entanglement in the East -- albeit with Islam rather than the entanglement in Vietnam in 1967. Those two prior commitments have hindered American involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As John Doe Israeli, do you believe that Arafat is a partner for peace?

Arafat's a problem. What I really think is that it's not a question of Arafat and Sharon. There's been this tendency to try to personalize this conflict.

Why don't you think that fits?

It's completely off base. This is a fight between two peoples. Sharon reflects the Israeli people right now, not because we love him, but because he's doing what the people want. He's doing what he was elected to do. Arafat reflects the Palestinians as well. There has to be a change on the Palestinian side. This is not to say that everything we do is so nice or hunky-dory, but there has to be change on the Palestinian side that they're willing to live with us. Arafat reflects the unwillingness to live with us. He's a problem.

With each suicide bombing, do Israelis still believe Sharon's offensive is helping the situation?

In 1967, Israelis left their tractors to go off and fight because they were convinced that Israel faced a threat to its existence. In 2002, Israelis left their computer terminals to do exactly the same thing. The mobilization was so successful beyond anybody's imagination; they ran out of guns and uniforms. Five thousand people volunteered for reserve service. It's a different type of threat -- not of destruction of cities, but a destruction of society. In many ways, a more dire threat. There was almost no opposition to Sharon because it wasn't Sharon doing it. The country made this decision to go to war. Sharon enjoys 85 percent approval rates, not because we love him, but because he represents a policy line that we can't take issue with right now. The minute there is a viable peace alternative, then you're going to have demonstrations in Israel from the right and the left. You don't have that now.

How do Israelis feel about Bush and his involvement so far?

Ambivalent to good. The good part is that when Bush is Manichean -- when he's saying that there are good guys and bad guys and you're with us or against us -- Israelis like it because we obviously see ourselves as "with us." When the issues get gray and muddled, then Bush seems to lose direction, in the Israeli perception.

What's become muddled? [The Americans] want to have a war with Iraq. They can't have a war with Iraq unless there's a modicum of stability in the Arab world. They need the Saudis, they need the Kuwaitis, and in order to get the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, they have to pressure Israel. There's no other way they can do this other than pressuring Israel. And we don't like it.

What do you wish that the U.S. would do? Do you want Bush to be very involved?

I want him to be very involved. Hmmm. No one's ever asked me that question ...

Do you think we made a mistake being so hands off at first?

No, not necessarily. Clinton had taken it to a ridiculous extreme. I mean, Arafat had visited the White House more often than any other foreign leader. It's good to keep people a little hungry, don't you think?

I'd like Bush to understand our predicament. To understand that as a democratic society, we cannot be bombed and not respond. The society will not countenance it. Bush has displayed a tremendous amount of understanding with that. I want him to understand -- and I sound like a broken record -- that imposing a state on the Palestinians now before they are ready to assume that state in a situation of mutual recognition and coexistence would be a mistake. And in fact that stop-gap measure will end up being the source of far greater controversy in the future. I'm absolutely convinced of this. And I'm saying this as someone who genuinely wants a solution to the Palestinian problem. They have to be ready for it.

For nine years now, since the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have had significant amounts of autonomy, a lot of the trappings of sovereignty. There has been, in the Palestinian camp, absolutely no discussion of what their society is going to look like, what kind of government they want to have. They're so consumed with being victims and the things that are done to them that they never sit down to discuss what they're about.

Do you think Israel has done everything they can to help them along in that way?

No. To the contrary, we've done tremendous things against it. First, we brought in Arafat. We brought in a dictator. We impose this corrupt regime on them that took hundreds of millions of dollars that were given to the Palestinians for development and siphoned it off into Swiss bank accounts somewhere. You go to Gaza and you see where all the military leaders live. Arafat has 17 different militias -- they live in these huge villas and the rest of the people live in hovels. And we bear a lot of responsibility. We did it. We did it because we wanted to bring in a thug who would stop Hamas. That's what Oslo was about.

But was there an alternative at the time?

We tried. Back in the period of the Oslo-Madrid peace conference, we tried to get local Palestinians to assume responsibility. They were afraid, they wouldn't do it, etc. So disappointing. And the settlements don't help anything. But they're not the issue.

You really don't think they're the issue?

The Palestinians say that it's not the issue.

Do you think that's because their hatred and frustration has developed into something else at this point?

No. I can't say that Camp David was full of hatred. They were getting along quite well. It came down to the fundamental issue of mutual existence and legitimacy. That is what links 1967 to today.

• View blog reactions