“I love humanity, it’s people I can’t stand!” declares the hero of an American comic strip. Theattitude of a part of the Israeli left is rather similar: “I love the Palestinians, it’s ArafatI cant stand.”
Some of the most important commentators, defined as “leftist”, are joining forces in a wildattack on the Palestinian president. It’s all his fault. He prevents an agreement. He is notready for the “hard decisions” (American version). He is not ready for the “historiccompromises” (Israeli version). This is “foolish obstinacy”, an unforgivable sabotage ofBarak heroic efforts.
The attacks are so similar, that one could suspect that one and the same person is writing all ofthem. And this is indeed not far from the truth: all of them are inspired by the Prime Minister’soffice.
Barak himself explained the matter to me in a visual way. “We and the Palestinians must meet onthe way. Not at the exact middle, they must get more than half. But they too must give.” His handsclarified the meaning: The left hand approached the right, and stopped near-by. Meaning:Israel will give up most of the Left Bank, the Palestinians will give up a part of it.
That’s logical, isn’t it? We give up much, they give up a little. So how does this obstinateperson, Arafat, dare to reject such a generous offer? He deserves every denunciation.Especially when the commentators – and, I am afraid, Barak too – lack any understanding of thePalestinians’ feelings.
I suggest a simple exercise. Take a sheet of paper. Fold it in the middle. That’s the UNresolution of 1947 – half the country (plus) for the Jewish state, half (minus) to the Arabstate. Now fold it the folded paper again. That’s the situation after the 1948 war: theterritory earmarked for the Arab state is cut again nearly in half. Half is conquered byIsrael, half remains to the Arabs. This half is conquered by Israel in 1967. Now fold again:this is the Barak compromise. A great part of the West Bank will remain under Israeli control invarious ways (outright annexation of “settlement blocs”, by-pass roads, 99 years rent,continued “security control” etc.), a little more then half will go to the Palestinian state.
Now open the paper and see what remains for the Palestinians after the last folding: an eighthsof the land. Something like 13% (thirteen per cent!) of the land between the Jordan river andthe sea.
This is the abysmal difference between the Israeli and the Palestinian perception. TheIsraelis say: “Let bygones be bygones. 88% of the land is already in our hands. So let’scompromise about the 22% which remain.” The Palestinians say: “By accepting the Green Line,we give up 88% of our homeland. That is the compromise.”
Can such an abyss be bridged? Perhaps there is a possibility of an agreed swap of territories(as Barak offers the Syrians, but refuses to offer to the Palestinians). Anyhow, the State ofPalestine must consist of a continuous territory, and not be an archipelago of enclaves, eachsurrounded by Israeli territory, connected to each other (in the best case) by bridgeshovering above Israeli roads. Between Gaza and the West Bank there must be really safepassages. There can be no Israeli control of the border crossings between Palestine, Jordanand Egypt, nor over the seaport and airport.
Furthermore, no Palestinian leader will ever give up East Jerusalem. Such surrender wouldnot only seal his physical fate, it would besmirch his memory in history. Abu-Dis will never bea substitute for al-Kuds. Perhaps there is a possibility of a temporary compromise: the Haramal-Sharif (Temple Mount) will belong to the State of Palestine, the Arab quarters will beadministratively connected with it.
No Palestinian leader will ever sign a document declaring that the conflict has come to an end,without solving the refugee problem. Even if Barak would take Antoine Lahad and appoint himPresident of Palestine, he would not be able to sign such a declaration. It’s simplyimpossible to make peace with three million Palestinians, and to leave four million outsidethe agreement. A creative solution, accepted by the refugees themselves, is needed.
These, then, are the parameters of a compromise. True, there is no symmetry. The Palestinianshave next to nothing to give. The goods are all in our hands. But we do not talk about a businesstransaction, but about the historic reconciliation between two peoples, putting an end to a118-years long conflict. What looks to Israelis like Arafat’s “foolish obstinacy” is, inreality, the most moderate possible Palestinian attitude.