A donkey looks at its rider with sad eyes and asks: “Is this journey really necessary?” This wasa poster distributed by the British Government of Palestine during World War 2, to stimulatethe saving of petrol.
I feel like this donkey when I ask the Prime Minister: Was all this fuss about the Wye agreementreally necessary? I know what we lost, but I do not know what we gained by it.
Barak lost something priceless. His election caused much joy and hope among thePalestinians, and the Arabs in general. It was like a whiff of fresh air. After three years ofsabotage and cheating by Netanyahu, here, they believed, is a new man who promises to movetowards peace.
During the last month, the hope was dashed and the joy disappeared. Barak looked more and morelike an improved model of Netanyahu. (Disappointed Israelis in Jerusalem displayed asticker with the poignant message “The same Kharah – only without Sarah”. Khara is theequivalent of “shit”.)
The peculiar style of Barak — composed of arm-twisting and ultimatums — has destroyed thetrust on the Palestinian side. The climate of confrontation has come back: One side has to loseso the other side can win. That’s not an atmosphere conducive to peace.
That’s the loss. So what’s the gain? It’s hard to see.
The Israeli withdrawal has been postponed for some weeks. What for? Only someone who does notreally want to fulfil this obligation, and is just waiting for some pretext to break it, such asan outbreak of desperation and violence, can want a postponement. Barak’s did not succeed totie the withdrawal to the permanent status negotiations. But he has said that before thewithdrawal will take place, he will see whether sufficient progress on the permanent statustrack has been made. This is an implied threat: If the Palestinians do not accept the Barakdiktat regarding the final settlement, even this tiny withdrawal will not take place.
Israel will release only 350 prisoners, instead of the 400 demanded by the Palestinians. Isthis good? Those right-wing Israelis who shout “they have blood on their hands” will shoutanyway. On the Palestinian side, the party has been spoiled. The release of the 300 prisoners(“freedom fighters” for all Palestinians, “terrorists” for most Israelis) will not beperceived by the Palestinians as an Israeli act of goodwill, but rather as an Israeli bowing topressure. The thought about the prisoners who continue to languish in prison will poison theatmosphere in spite of the agreement. Is this wise?
Barak has insisted on a timetable, according to which an agreement on the framework of thefinal settlement must be achieved until February 2000, and the final settlement untilSeptember. Where is the gain? The Palestinians, more than the Israelis, want a quicksolution. There is no need to push them. But no timetable will compel the Palestinians toaccept conditions against their will. As the Israeli poet Alterman once wrote (aboutourselves): “A people does not retreat from the trenches of its life”. Either we reach a faircompromise with which both peoples can live, or not.
According to the agreement, the Palestinians will not declare the creation of their statewithin one year. They would not have done so anyhow, as long as there is a chance of achieving anagreed solution. The Americans have promised that the Barak government will not set upsettlements, demolish houses, confiscate land and build by-pass roads. Barak could havepromised that even without the visit of the old lady.
It follows that the whole exercise was quite superfluous. Barak could have found a better wayto open the new page and to prove that things have changed. It is a pity that he has surroundedhimself with a group of former Mossad agents, Shabak officers and military governors. Thesepeople would not know what peace is if it had been handed to them on a platter.
Yet after all, one has to welcome this agreement. All in all, things are moving ahead, and everysuch movement is good. The Palestinians will get more territory. More prisoners are beingreleased. There is a clear obligation to stop the creeping expansion of the settlements. Andmost importantly: it is now perfectly clear that the permanent solution will lead to thesetting up of the State of Palestine side by side with the State of Israel, and there is areasonable chance that this will happen next year. Slowly byt steadily, the Arafat policypays off. The new sea-port and the opening of the safe passage will bring change in the dailylife of the Palestinian population..
On the Israeli side too, the agreement will bring blessings. The feeling that things are on themove will encourage the economy and increase foreign investments. The Americans will give abig baksheesh.
Now, tough negotiations will begin. Barak and his people will try to shackle the PalestinianState in the name of security and bind it with iron chains to the Israeli economy. They will tryto tear away big chunks of territory for “settlement blocs”.
But the same logic that was at work during the last few days will dominate the whole process. Theworld wants peace, most Palestinians want peace, most Israelis want peace, and, in the finaltest, even Barak wants peace. So it’s a pity to waste time.