Barak's version of Sharon
 

     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.

========
(Footnotes added)
(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', Mit'an,  July  2000,  available  at
IMC/Israel http://www.indymedia.org.il).

(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
have 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).