APARTHEID WON'T BE HERE.
 

Hundred and twenty Palestinian intellectuals issued a message addressed
to the Israeli and Jewish public. "The majority of Palestinians,
including the undersigned, believed that the time was ripe for
concluding with the Israelis a historic agreement", they open, but
instead, "the historic settlement is becoming a settlement between
Israelis themselves, not a settlement with the Palestinians". That's
because at the present, the balance of power is in Israel's favor.
"It is clear that the Palestinian negotiator, whose hands are tied
by the overwhelming balance of power working against him, may be
coerced into accepting a humiliating and degrading settlement."

In an interview to Amira hass in Haaretz (13.3.00) some of the signers
add that we, the Israelis, always believe that we are omnipotent.
That's precisely how we felt at the eve of the Yom Kippur war in 1973.
But if we go on making ourself hated by the whole region, at the end
we will remain five million heroes against more than too hundred
million Arabs.

Our proportions in the Arab world are similar to those of the white
in South Africa.  Now it may seem to us possible to establish here
an Apartheid regime and imprison the Palestinians in their fenced
"states". But in the long run, our options are precisely as there:
join the region in peace, or perish. The Palestinian intellectuals
offer us the option that the black left has offered to the whites
in South Africa - join. "We extend our hand to you to make a real
and just peace, not the militarist peace of coercion, the generals
peace".

There are just two roads leading to peace: A Palestinian states in
the borders of 1967, whose capital is Jerusalem, or the road taken
in South Africa - a democratic state shared by both nations. A third
road does not exist. "the settlement the Israeli leadership is seeking
to impose on the Palestinian negotiator could not be a settlement
with the Palestinian people... We will neither support nor accept
it"

The writers of these words will be labelled here 'our enemies', because
they reject our peace proposals. Our columnists explain daily that
the art of negotiations requires toughness.  So it is obvious and
natural that we should try to squeeze out of the Palestinian empire
as many concessions as we can.

And squeezing has no limits. In 1995's Beilin-Abu Maazen plan for
the final settlement, it was agreed that Arafat will renounce, on
behalf of the Palestinians, any claim on Jerusalem, and the Palestinian
institutions will move to the village Abu-Dis, bordering with
Jerusalem.  In return, Arafat will be allowed to call Abu-Dis the
capital of the Palestinian state. When Arafat declares he will never
give up on Al-Kuds (Jerusalem), he means Abu-dis (1). Already since
1998, he was led to believe that Abu-Dis will be declared 'zone A'
(Palestinian self-administration), in the nearest "withdrawal".

But for Barak, this is not enough.  Abu-Dis was not included in the
last package. Now he demands that first Arafat will agree that Israel
will annex officially all areas of Israeli settlements surrounding
Jerusalem, and then, maybe, he will get Abu-Dis, and declare from
there the formation of the state of the Palestinian ghettoes (2).

Same thing with Syria.  For years it has been clear that as long as
we do not give up the Golan Heights and make peace with Syria, there
will be no quiet in the north.  But behind the eyewash concerning
Israel's readiness to concessions, the only official document - the
Shepherdstown document - clarifies that Israel does not agree to
evacuate the Golan settlements, or allow Syrian sovereignty of any
area in the Golan (3).  It appears that Barak seeks to impose on Asad
the same kind of "peace" he offers Arafat. And if Asad refuses, this
means he does not really want peace, and the Israeli army stands ready
for the battle.

Barak is the most dangerous prime minister in the history of Israel.
Already in 1982 he proposed to extend the Lebanon war to a total war
on Syria. Then he explained (in a memorandum to Sharon) that the best
way to do that is without sharing the plans with the government. Today
he is consulting only with the heads of the army and the security
services.  Never had the army as much grip on Israeli politics, as
in the times of Barak.

According to an extensive poll reported in 'Yediot' (March 10, 00),
60% of the Jewish Israelis are willing ot return all of the Golan
Height and evacuate all settlements for peace with Syria.  A similar
percentage supported in the polls evacuation of settlements in the
West Bank.  But this majority has no voice, since we do not have
intellectuals of the magnitude of the Palestinian intellectuals.
Faced with the apartheid regime established in the West Bank and Gaza,
our intellectuals are still thrilled and moved by "the historical
compromise" we brought about with the Palestinians. As for Syria,
what can we do, given that Asad has not yet managed to prove that
he really, but really, loves Amos Oz (4).
 

=======
(1) E.g. in 'Haaretz' 5.5.98 (Akiva Eldar) it is reported that "Yaser
Arafat accepts the idea that the capital of the Palestinian state
will be Abu-dis, neighboring Jerusalem, and sees the understandings
included in Beilin-Abu maazen agreement as a realistic option for
the final agreement with Israel".  "In a meeting with the Middle East
section of the foreign affairs council whose center is in New-York...
Arafat was asked if it is possible to reach an agreement with Israel
also on the question of Jerusalem. Arafat: 'Certainly, it is possible
to accept the idea of Abu-Dis, which belonged to Al-Kuds also under
Jordanian rule"
(2) Haaretz, March 10, 00.  Headline:  "Barak offers Arafat:  A state
in return to annexation of 10% of the West Bank"; Text:  Barak offers
"a limited agreement by which Israel will recognize a Palestinian
state declared in parts of the West Bank and Gaza.  In return, Israel
will annex 10% of the West Bank... (mainly the settlements surrounding
Jerusalem...)". "Barak assumes that if future negotiations will be
carried out between two sovereign states, the likelihood that they
will be accompanied by violent activity will be reduced."
(3) The full draft of the Shepherdstown document, leaked out by the
Israeli government, appeared in 'haaretz' and 'yediot' on 13.1.00.
More details can be found in Reinhart's "This ain't the road of peace",
January 16, ZNet (http://www.zmag.org).
(4) In an interview in Haaretz' weekend magazine (17.3.00), Amos Oz
explains that Asad shows no sensitivity to Israeli emotions - to "our
sense of isolation and humiliation".  "Asad is doing his best to
humiliate us, as if it is not the Golan he wants, but that Barak will
go out to him wearing underwear, with his hands up.." Hence Oz declares
that although he is in principle for peace with Syria, he will not
support it now.

======
Tanya Reinhart is a professor of linguistics and cultural studies
at Tel Aviv University.