Tanya Reinhart,
Yediot,  Mar 30 , 2000

MAKING PEACE WOULD MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE

So nothing is going to come out of this peace. Only three months
ago it looked so feasible: to bring the soldiers back home, to stop
renovating shelters in the Galilee, to forget about the northern
border, and afterwards, peace like with Egypt - including, if you
wish, visiting the unseen Syrian landscapes. But that's not what
will happen.

There are two narratives about what happened in the Clinton-Assad
summit in Geneva. Ours - the only one heard in Israel (and on CNN) -
is that Assad just doesn't want peace. "The masks have been unveiled",
said Barak, "the Syrian position is not ripe for the decisions
which are necessary in order to reach a peace treaty". Assad is
insisting on those 500 meters in order to humiliate us and derail
the process.

The second narrative can be witnessed in Robert Fisk's report in the
British "Independent": "The two men held three hours of talks,
through interpreters, at the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva, with
the Syrian leader patiently explaining he was not going to fall
into the same 'peace' trap as the Palestine Liberation Organization
leader Yasser Arafat. He will not make peace with Israel before
guaranteeing the return of all of the occupied Golan, captured by
Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Mr Arafat signed a peace
settlement then failed to gain a majority of the occupied West Bank
or a capital in Jerusalem."

In this narrative, the dispute is not over the 500 meters at all
("it was conveyed on behalf of Assad that he is willing to compromise
on the withdrawal line, and even to full Israeli control over the
whole of the Kineret coast, while continuing to negotiate water
rights"). The dispute is over the model of the peace. There are two
models in our history: in the Egyptian model, all stages of the
withdrawal and guarantees were finalized before the treaty was signed
(the later discussions concerned the autonomy for the Palestinians).
The withdrawal was set to spread over three years, and only after 2/3
of Sinai was evacuated, embassies were set up. The Taba issue remained.
Both sides held it precious, and the Israelis used to spend their
vacations on its shores. That's why the decision regarding it was left
for the end.

In the Arafat model, the Oslo agreement was signed with almost nothing
agreed upon, besides Israeli declarations of principle about willingness
for a withdrawal. Seven years later, it turns out that the Palestinians
have halted the Intifadah, but Arafat didn't get anything of what was
promised to him in the west bank. What was realized was the autonomy
plan which the Palestinians always rejected.

Assad is saying that he will agree to a Sadat style peace, and not to
an Arafat style one. Barak is demanding that he will first sign, open
embassies and fight the Hizbollah. And then, if we will be satisfied,
we will withdraw. This is the Arafat model. Barak does not agree to
the Sadat model.

So there is no peace. But without peace, Lebanon is the Israeli Vietnam,
and life in the northern towns is hell. But it's ok, there is an
answer: 'unilateral withdrawal'. The US is threatening Syria that it is
supporting this plan, and has already begun to pressure Arab leaders to
support it as well. It is a little hard to understand why one needs
to threaten anyone to agree to an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon - what
everybody in the region has been demanding all along. But "unilateral
withdrawal" is the code name for a plan which Sharon has already
proposed three years ago: we will withdraw unilaterally while
creating some kind of provocation (such as, not fully withdraw)
and then, with the first missile, we will go on a total war. The world
will be on our side, because we have withdrawn. Since our soldiers are
no longer there, it would now be possible to burn the earth from the air.

Barak and others have mentioned this "Kosovo plan" several times. This
is what is being prepared in the north. And if it will prove necessary,
"we will also attack Syrian targets".

Barak and Sharon are counting on the fact that Assad is currently weak,
and his army is not what it used to be. So this time there will be no
missiles and no sealed rooms. Maybe they are right, but who wants to
check? And if they will succeed this time, how long will it last?
Making peace by the Sadat model would make much more sense. There is
still time to stop this summer's war.