Independent Media Center, Israel
Barak's Version of Sharon
By Tanya Reinhart
Friday 19 Jan 2001, Yediot
Aharonot, Jan 16, 2001
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).
Source:
http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/display.php3?article_id=2193
