ROBERT WISTRICH
465
Robert Wistrich: I
do think that there is a lot of diplomacy going on be–
hind the scenes regarding the Vatican's extensive interests in Jerusalem. I
believe you're right that Israel has every reason to look for claimants to
the future of the Old City ofJerusalem, other than the PLO. Jordan ap–
peared as one possible alternative, and Israel did what it could to
strengthen King Hussein's position.
It
does not appear to have succeeded.
The Vatican might conceivably and inadvertently salvage some Israeli
chestnuts for its own reasons. I hear the Pope is intending to visit the
Holy Land sometime around the year 2000. Whether this has any con–
nection with what you're suggesting, his visit, if it takes place, would be
timed for the new rni11enium.
This reminds me that we often forget to mention the fate of Arab
Christians in the Holy Land. I am not talking about Christian Arabs un–
der Israeli rule but about their condition under the domination of Islam
today. With the takeover by the Palestinian Authority of growing parts of
the West Bank, there have been disagreeable consequences for the stead–
ily diminishing Christian Arab minority. Anyone who knows Bethlehem
would not have been surprised that there was less than universal enthusi–
asm in the city when the PLO took over.
In
fact, the future does not look
bright for Christians anywhere in the Middle East. No doubt this is
something of which the Vatican is aware, though it has traditionally
sought an accommodation with Islam. With regard to the status ofJeru–
salem, I am not sure that Israel has been entirely wise to have delayed
resolving the question to the very end of the negotiations. The rationale,
of course, is that since this is the thorniest issue of all, you leave it until
the very end. But one could also argue that by so doing, once the final
negotiations over its status come about, Israel will have already played
most of its major cards. Thus it will have a weaker bargaining position
than might otherwise have been the case. Israel may be very tempted, in
order to finally close the deal, to make imprudent concessions that it
would otherwise not have made or had to make.
Question:
I have two comments. First, I don't see what is wrong with a
politics of fear. I think the world would have been better off if it had
adopted such a politics. Carthage would have been much better off if it
had pursued a policy of fear towards Rome. The United States would
have been better off if there had been a policy of fear toward Korea.
In
the most important example in our century, if Neville Chamberlain had
pursued a policy of fear, we might have been spared or have had a better
chance of minimizing a war in which probably a hundred and fifty
mil–
lion people were killed.
