In recent decades the Middle East's strategic architecture has changed significantly with the rise in the regional influence of the non-Arab states of the Middle East: Iran, Turkey and Israel and the considerably reduced influence of the key Arab states, that used to be the prime movers in the Arab world: Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Secular nationalism is in apparent retreat as free elections in Turkey and the Palestinian Authority seem to indicate. What does this all mean for the Arab-Israeli peace process, and especially for the arrival at a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians? What does this mean for the chances of success of greater US and European involvement?

Synopsis

To Prof. Susser, the Middle East is dealing with a variety of key issues. He explains that the fallout of Iraq has led to widespread anxiety that the Middle East could shatter into a chaos of sectarian violence, beginning with a breakdown in Iraq. In addition, Prof. Susser notes the social economic decline in the Middle East which has caused emigration and, most importantly, a changing power dynamic in the region. Citing Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as previous regional superpowers, he believes that the current major players are Iran, Turkey, and Israel, all of which are non-Arab. Prof. Susser argues this power shift was accelerated by the fall of the USSR, as well as the presence of the US. He focuses particularly on the role of Iran, a country he feels is trying to establish a “crescent of influence.” Prof. Susser believes the Israel-Hezbollah war was the start of a new era of conflicts between Israel and Iran as they battle over the regional architecture that will shape the future of the Middle East. He argues that Lebanon is therefore a key battleground in the conflict.

Prof. Susser feels this conflict is a struggle against Iran and Shiite influence. One can notice the shift in dynamic in the region through the fact that other Arab states are now on the same side as Israel, whereas before no Arab state would side with the Israelis. Prof. Susser believes this is partly because there is a shifting power balance from Sunnis to Shiites in the Middle East, a radical change that goes against the traditional order of the region.

Prof. Susser moves on to focus to another potential radical change, a two state solution between Israel and Palestine as set out by the Annapolis conference in November 2007. He argues that it is most unlikely that the US will actually get the two sides to sign a final agreement resolving the conflict in the near future. At the same time, Prof. Susser reveals his belief that it is imperative that negotiations do not shoot to high. This “courts failure” and leads to disaster. In fact, Prof. Susser argues for “courting success.” He explains that this must be achieved through realistic goals such as a secure ceasefire, and that the Palestinians may be less reluctant in agreeing to interim solutions. Finally, Prof. Susser emphasizes that if an interim approach is unsuccessful and a permanent solution is not agreed upon, then Israel must not ignore the unattractive but perhaps necessary option of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Prof. Susser argues that although this may seem like a failure, the status quo works better for Arabs such as Hamas who seek to delegitimize Israel.

About the speaker

Professor Asher Susser, Director for External Affairs of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at TAU. Professor Susser holds a PhD in Modern Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University and he taught for over twenty-five years in the University's Department of Middle Eastern History and is presently a visiting Professor at Brandeis University. He has been a Fulbright Fellow, a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Chicago and Brandeis University and a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In 2006 Professor Susser was selected as TAU's Faculty of Humanities Outstanding Lecturer. In 1994 Professor Susser was the only Israeli academic to accompany Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to his historic meeting with King Hussein of Jordan for the signing of the Washington Declaration.

Presented by the Forum on Contemporary Europe.

The President of the Basque Autonomous Community will discuss his "Road Map to bring an end to the Basque Conflict," including his offer of a political agreement already made to Madrid, based on a rejection of violence and an embrace of democratic principles and a Basque society plebiscite.

Synopsis

In a visit marked by controversy and protesting, President Ibarretxe clearly delivers his view on how the Basque country can establish sustainable human development. President Ibarretxe quickly stresses, however, that two challenges stand in the way of this goal. The first is securing peace from the violence of ETA, and the second is attaining political normalization through agreement with Spain. Citing dialogue as key, he explains that this conflict, lasting since the 19th century, must be resolved through political and democratic means based on the principle of self-determination. President Ibarretxe sets out the history of the Basque people, possibly the oldest in Europe, while revealing its openness to universal art and culture, as well as the Basque region’s top level social welfare. The Basque country, which has been ranked third in the UN’s Human Development Index, places emphasis on identity and innovation in striving forward. President Ibarretxe explains that 30 years after the 1979 Basque statute of autonomy, a clear majority demand a new framework for relations with Spain.

Therefore, President Ibarretxe reveals the “roadmap” he has formulated for the Basque country to achieve political normalization, as he puts it. His approach begins with four preliminary considerations. The first consideration is that the problems of the violence of ETA should not be confused with the political conflict between the Basque government and Spain. Secondly, President Ibarretxe argues that a key prerequisite to any solution is that the violence of ETA ceases immediately regardless of the state of the political conflict. Thirdly, stressing the importance of a necessary maxim to be used as a point of reference in the struggle for justice, President Ibarretxe emphasizes the defense of human rights without exception as fundamental to success. The fourth consideration that President Ibarretxe puts forward is that the right to self-determination is central to adopting a solution.

However, President Ibarretxe’s “roadmap” also offers concrete action through five specific steps. The five-step process begins with an offer of a political agreement based on ethics and democracy to Spain, something which President Ibarretxe has already extended to the Spanish government. Subsequently, President Ibarretxe offers a plenary session of the Basque parliament to either ratify any agreement reached with the Spanish government and call for a popular vote for Basque society to ratify the agreement as well or call for a popular vote to break a deadlock in the negotiation process. After the popular vote, President Ibarretxe reveals further negotiations will follow to end the violence of ETA and establish a new framework for Basque political parties to work under. Finally, President Ibarretxe offers a referendum in 2010 for the Basque people to vote on the result of this process. In concluding his talk, President Ibarretxe calls for any steps forward to be centered around “dialogue, democratic respect, and the liberty to decide.”

President Ibarretxe kindly takes the time to answer numerous questions on a variety of challenging issues. This question-and-answer session, where the questions are asked in English and President Ibarretxe replies in Spanish, is included in the recording. Unfortunately however, the translation of President Ibarretxe's responses cannot really be heard.

Selma Leydesdorff will speak on the results of her interviews with the women who survived the worst massacre in Europe since World War II. She will discuss these women as individuals and as a group, explain why they are today labelled 'difficult' and what such a label means, and will take a closer look at the memory of the trauma of the genocide and the years of the violent siege of Srebrenica.

Professor Leydesdorff received a MA (1972) and Ph.D. (1987) in modern history from the University of Amsterdam. She has served as a member of the Women’s Studies Research Council at the University of Amsterdam (1985-88), a member of the National Science Committee (1985-91), Chair of the National Oral History Association (1986-96), Secretary of the International Oral History Association (1990-96), Secretary of l’Association de Development de l’Approche Biographique (1990-97), and she currently chairs the Commission on the History of Culture of Jews of the Dutch Royal Academy. She is also the principle editor of Memory and Narrative (Transaction Publishers Inc, 2005). She has been a visiting scholar at European University in Florence and at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and has held visiting professorships at Dickinson College, Anton de Kom University in Suriname, Sabanci University in Istanbul, Xiamen University in China, and most recently at New York University. Professor Leydesdorff is currently a fellow at the Remarque Institute at NYU.

Event Synopsis:

Dr. Leydesdorff recounts the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica in which 7,749 Muslims were killed by Bosnian Serb troops as Dutch peacekeeping forces stood by. Leydesdorff asserts that official inquiries ignored voices of the survivors - many of them women who had lost sons and husbands. Today, the survivors continue their campaign to have their stories heard, to find out what happened and why, to uncover information on victims yet to be identified, and to improve their economic conditions. They also believe the Dutch should apologize for failing to prevent the genocide.

Dr. Leydesdorff describes her own research project in which she interviewed women survivors. She conveys the chaos and despair resulting not just from the genocide of men and boys but of the simultaneous rape of women and girls by the Serbian soldiers. She explains why so many survivors have remained silent, and discusses the complexity of relationships between neighbors who once lived in peaceful coexistence but who now live with memories of betrayal and grief. 

Finally, Leydesdorff described ongoing efforts of the group, including monthly marches on Sarajevo and a funeral for hundreds of newly identified victims that was attended by 60,000 people.

The lecture will address the German occupation policy in the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia, in Slovenia, and Serbia; including the occupation zones into the German war economy; with the mass murdering by the SS, Gestapo and Wehrmacht of resistance groups; with the problem of collaboration in the ruling class and in the population; with the destruction of the Jews in the Protectorate and in Serbia; with the problem of the figures of the victims; with the preparations of revenge and expulsion, and with the consequences of the total war in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

Synopsis

Dividing his lecture clearly into twelve points, Prof. Suppan explains and analyzes the past century’s history of relations between German minorities, particularly in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and the region’s natives. Originally a primarily peaceful coexistence, Prof. Suppan discusses the fact that rivalries started to develop between the two communities in as early as the 1880s. Prof. Suppan adds that World War I also did much to increase ethnic tensions. Moreover, he sees the persecutions that took place from 1914 to 1918 to have really poisoned the relationship between Serbs and Germans. After World War I, Prof. Suppan reveals that the new states of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia further suffered in their relationship with Germany over issues such as border setbacks or minority rights. However, when the global economic crisis created mass unemployment, many turned to Hitler. Prof. Suppan argues this was significant to the annexation of both countries by Germany.

These annexations, as Prof. Suppan reveals, were not the result of consistent strategic planning but rather part of Hitler’s ideal of conquest. Prof. Suppan discusses the illegality of many Nazi occupation laws which led to calls for vengeance and retribution as the war neared its end. Prof. Suppan explains the result of the mass lawless displacement of Germans which turned into various settlement agreements. Even so, Prof. Suppan argues that the decrees and resolutions on the subject of the displacement of Germans should be seen as a political reaction to German occupation and led to a great death toll.

Prof. Suppan feels that overall the conflict was one of extreme bloodshed, citing the 40 million deaths that occurred from 1938 to 1948 throughout the entire region to reinforce his point. Moreover, Prof. Suppan engages in the debate on whether the conflict should be branded genocide or ethnocide. Prof. Suppan also argues that the former German settlements in Eastern Europe suffer to this day. He concludes by revealing that historical contradictions still exist between the various peoples. Prof. Suppan argues that to overcome this each side must have a deeper understanding of what they both suffered and perpetrated and must participate in the “spirit of European reconciliation.”

About the speaker

Arnold Suppan is professor of history at the University of Vienna and Chairman of the Historical Commission at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He is currently a visiting professor wtih the Forum on Contemporary Europe at Stanford University.