Oslo architect still hopeful for peace

Pundak, who lives in Tel Aviv with his wife and two children, is director general of Peres Center for Peace, whose aim is to create tools and projects that would allow the peoples of the region to work together in building peace through socioeconomic and other means of cooperation.

1. You have repeatedly said that without an understanding with the Arab world over Jerusalem, there will be no peace. Has anything changed since Arafat's death?

Many things have changed since Arafat's death, but not specifically Jerusalem. We've embarked on a new era, there's optimism in the air and it seems as though peace talks are within closer reach.

But the question of Jerusalem can't be solved without first reaching a permanent status agreement, which must include issues such as territories, borders, settlements and refugees.

Jerusalem is a symbol of the Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab and Jewish-Muslim conflict and dialogue, which must be resolved in a just way. A just solution would lead the entire Muslim and Arab worlds to recognize and accept Israel, and eventually lead to normalization. Any peace agreement would always be threatened without first reaching a final status agreement.

2. More than 200,000 Palestinians currently live in Jerusalem, which makes up about 10 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank. They hold Israeli ID’s but don't accept our sovereignty. What is your solution to this dilemma?

To solve this dilemma Israel must first enter negotiations beginning with disengagement from Gaza and later in negotiations on a permanent status agreement. Negotiations for a permanent status agreement may take time, but the terms must be delineated in advance, explaining the proposed solution to the parties involved. In this regard, it must be clear from the start that Arab and Palestinian-populated areas in eastern Jerusalem would eventually become part of the Palestinian state. Once we outline the solution, we would be alleviating skepticism and friction. Only then would the anomaly of Israeli ID holders denying Israeli sovereignty come to an end. They will eventually become full Palestinian citizens.

3. You have written that the opportunity for peace did in fact exist at Camp David but it was missed due to various reasons. Can you sum up the main reasons for its failure?

All three parties contributed to the failure of Camp David; Israel, the Palestinians and the U.S administration. The last phase of the negotiations on the final status agreement was managed in a somewhat amateurish way. The Americans couldn't see the real picture and tried to push for an expedited process. And although the Palestinians were ready to sign a permanent status agreement in 2000, they were split internally. Israel, led by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, mishandled the process, which culminated in the failure of the talks. Unfortunately for us, I must admit that the main reason for the failure was the way Israel handled the negotiations. I believe we missed a real opportunity for reaching an agreement.

Barak made many mistakes; he mishandled negotiations with the Palestinians as well as with the Syrians. He wasn't able to enter a dialogue with Israeli society, and he battled with his own party and other sectors. He clearly demonstrated a lack of leadership skills and an inability to serve as prime minister. I admire Barak on the personal level, I think he is an extraordinarily talented person with an analytical mind. The question is not whether he could lead the Labor Party to victory, but whether he can lead a government and a country. I think not, and that's why I regret he has decided to return to the political arena.

I don't think that Sharon's change can be termed "leftist." He has simply reevaluated the situation. He has come to understand the current Zionist need, and it doesn’t make any difference whether it comes from the left or the right. The current need is to leave Gaza, reach an agreement with the Palestinians and try to attain a peace agreement with the Arab world.

Territorial issues have always been at the basis of the pragmatic Zionist ideal. First Prime Minister (David Ben-Gurion) would have preferred a greater Israel, but he understood that Zionism demands that he remain within smaller borders - that's why he agreed to the borders of 1947. The same applied to Rabin and others. Although Sharon has become more of a realist than he was, it's still not enough for reaching an agreement.

I don't think Sharon is aware of Israel's broader needs, which calls for withdrawal according to the guidelines set out in the Geneva Initiative. This is what should guide every leader from both sides of the political spectrum. It's not a question of a left or right government; it's a question of whether an elected leader can lead this initiative. If Histadrut chairman Amir Peretz, for example is elected to lead the Labor Party, I believe he would be able implement the concessions required to reach a permanent status agreement.

For years I have been involved in the art world. I am a member of the museum's board of directors and a member of the exhibition and acquisition committee. I have written texts and catalogues on contemporary art. You could say that I am self taught when it comes to contemporary plastic art. In the 1980s a Tel Aviv gallery even hosted a photo exhibition of mine. I spend a lot of my free time on art.

I worked for Israel's intelligence establishment until 1986, and on completing my doctorate I spent a year as a journalist on Israel's Ha'aretz daily. During that time I covered IDF and security issues. I wasn't a military journalist, but I covered the development of the IDF and the defense establishment, including the military industries. I also conducted extensive research on the War of Independence for my Ph.D. The Hebrew Encyclopedia was seeking writers with a tendency and understanding towards military matters. I interviewed several senior officers including three former chiefs of staff. The defense establishment has always been a source of interest to me.