One of the lessons of the massive protest which followed
Sharon's war in Lebanon appeared to be that it is no longer possible to
drag the Israeli people into wars of choice. But Barak has managed where
Sharon failed - He convinced at least the center third of the Israelis
that peace with the Arab world is impossible and the next war will be a
no-choice war over Israel's mere existence. The one who is able to carry
out Sharon's vision is Barak.
Barak's election campaign focuses on the horrors of
Sharon. Now, those who vote Sharon will know exactly who they vote for.
But who would the Barak voters vote for? Is it for Dr. Jekyll who, as we
repeatedly hear, is the most far reaching Israeli prime minister ever, in
his willingness for concessions for peace? Or is it for Mr. Hyde who has
recently instructed the Israeli army to "shake out the dust from
every corner to complete preparations" for war, and sent his special
units to assassinate Palestinian political leaders?
Never before has the Israeli society received so many
conflicting signals at one and the same week or day. This is one of the
reasons for the feeling of confusion and despair that so many Israelis
experience.
How can these conflicting messages be explained? A
prevailing account in the Israeli media is in terms of psychological
incidence: Barak is a complicated and difficult person, non-
communicative, and slightly unstable. Hence there is a certain degree of
arbitrariness in his actions and words. (Miraculously, this account is
supposed to help us vote for him.)
But when crucial decisions are to be based on what appears
to be conflicting data, it is helpful to search beyond just the incidence
account and look for an explanation that may reconcile the apparent
contradictions.
Sharon's 'vision' is that one should never give up the
state's lebensraum lands: 'We won't ever leave the Golan Heights' and in
the West Bank and Gaza strip, the Palestinian inhabitants should be
restricted to secluded autonomous enclaves, an arrangement that leaves
about 50% of the land free for Israel's use. (In other words, the current
situation in the territories, which was created over the years in
cooperation between Labor and Sharon, should be preserved as is, though in
Sharon's present plan, the name 'Palestinian state' would be allowed for
the enclaves, replacing his original 'autonomy'.)
Barak - Sharon's disciple and former subordinate - was
raised on this vision. But he also understood that this can no longer be
achieved in Sharon's way. One of the lessons of Sharon's war in Lebanon
was that it is no longer possible to drag the Israeli people into wars of
choice. The unprecedented protest at the time, which continued in the
years of the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, made it clear that
the Israeli society is tired of wars. Did Barak decide to renounce
Sharon's vision, or did he decide that another way needs to be found to
fulfill it? We have no way to know what Barak decided, but we can
certainly examine what he actually did.
At the beginning of his cadence, Barak announced a
sweeping initiative of peace with Syria. The text surrounding this
initiative happened to be identical to what we hear today: No Israeli
leader has ever offered such radical concessions as Barak did: withdrawal
from all the Golan Heights! Evacuation of all settlements!. There was only
one issue left - the Kineret coast, which is the heart and the essence of
the Israeli being. Assad, who was given everything already, was not
willing to yield even on this one single issue. That's how it is with
Arabs - explained the text -Whatever you give them, they always want more.
Hence, we won't leave the Golan Heights, and we must be prepared for the
option of a no-choice war with Syria.
Now this text repeats with the Palestinians: No one has
offered as many concessions as Barak: 90-95% of the territories! Division
of Jerusalem! Future evacuation of settlements that will not be annexed!.
But, again, after we gave Arafat everything, he is not willing even to
contribute the gesture of publicly renouncing the Palestinian claim on the
Haram el-Sharif-Temple Mount site, and the right of return. Hence we have
no choice but fencing the Palestinians in their enclaves, properly
separating them from us, freezing the land situation as is (with some
necessary 'security expansions' of the Israeli areas). And there is no
choice but to shake the dust and be prepared for a comprehensive war over
the holy sites of Judaism.
This is Barak's text, which accompanies us day and night,
like a mantra, and shapes the collective perception of reality: Barak's
generosity versus Arab rejectionism. But in fact, there is nothing further
than reality.
In the case of Syria, the official documentation of the
negotiations, in the Shepherdstown document, directly falsifies the claims
concerning Barak's concessions. Israel insisted that only military forces
will be moved, but not civilians. That is, not a single settlement will be
evacuated (Haaretz, 13.1.00). Contrary to the public perception of the
events, Barak has not offered anything like returning the Golan Heights to
Syrian sovereignty. (1)
In the case of the Palestinians, there is just no formal
documentation whatsoever of what Barak actually offered, and certainly no
list or designated dates for dismantling even a single tiny settlement,
say the 400 settlers of Hebron who are ruining the life of a whole city.
The only data is the text on Barak's generosity.(2) In practice, Barak has
not offered the Palestinians anything that Sharon wouldn't, but, as with
Syria, he managed to create the impression that the Palestinians would not
settle for anything.
It is scary to observe how successful this text is: Those
who believe the lies about Barak's concessions despair of the chance of
Peace. Since 1993 there was a constant majority of 60% in the polls for
'lands for peace', including dismantling of settlements. (As for the Golan
Heights - in 1999, 60% of the Jewish Israelis supported dismantling of ALL
settlements). Now the support for peace with concessions dropped in the
polls to 30%, on both the Syrian and the Palestinian front. Barak has
managed where Sharon failed - He convinced at least the middle third of
the Israelis that peace with the Arab world is impossible, and the next
war will be a no-choice war over our mere existence.
Barak and Sharon want the same thing. The only difference
is that for Sharon, it would be harder to fulfill his wish. As much as he
will talk about peace, no one will believe him, in Israel or in the world,
that his war is a no-choice war. The one who is able to carry out Sharon's
vision is Barak.
Notes
1) For a detailed survey of the negotiations with Syria
and the Shepherdstown document, see Reinhart and Katriel 'How Barak failed the peace with Syria'
(2) E.g. Aluf Benn reports that "According to a
diplomatic source, the Barak government has not formulated a plan to
evacuate isolated settlements in the framework of a unilateral separation
or an agreement with the Palestinians. "There is no list of
settlements intended for evacuation," the source said, adding that
only general models regarding the future of the settlements had been
discussed: they will remain, will be moved into the blocs or will be
evacuated. The meanings of the various alternatives have been examined,
but no map or evacuation plan has been drafted. "No one dealt with a
plan for physical evacuation and no one will take a chance on dealing with
it. We dealt only with blocs that will be annexed to Israel" the
senior source said." (Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz, Jan 15).
* Tanya Reinhart is a professor
in Tel Aviv University
