“War is too important to be left to the generals,” said Georges Clemenceau, the French premierduring World War I. He knew what he was talking about, even if he did not know Shaul Mofaz and BugiYa’alon.
“Peace is too important to be left to the politicians,” one could say today in view of ourcurrent election campaign.
Since Barak’s announcement that he is resigning in order not to resign, strange things havebeen happening. They have a common denominator: Peace does not interest the politicians, butserves as a convenient election gimmick.
Peacemaker Netanyahu : Like a ghost he appeared from nowhere, created havoc and returned tonowhere. In the meantime he sprinkled cliches around himself, in which Peace figuredprominently. He will save Israel and bring Peace. What peace? Peace with whom? Peace how? Hedid not say. Then, suddenly, he went away, taking his Peace with him, to be recycled anothertime.
Peacemaker Sharon : In the middle of this tumult, facing the Netanyahu threat, Ariel Sharonplastered the country with the slogan “Only Sharon can bring Peace”. Sharon? Peace? Hard toimagine anyone less suited. His handful of admirers laud him as the man of experience.Experience indeed: The killing of civilians beyond the border by Unit 101; the Kibiamassacre, the wholesale slaughter in the Gaza strip, when every “terrorist” caught alive wasexecuted on the spot; the Lebanon war; the massacres of Sabra and Shatila. That’s lot ofexperience. But this vast experience does not include even one act of peace, not a singlespeech indicating a real interest in the subject. When Begin went to Camp David, he relied onWeitzman and Dayan, leaving to Sharon only the job of destroying the town of Yamit.
Peacemaker Peres : Let me inject a personal note: When it became apparent that new electionswere in store, I suggested on TV that a third candidate should be nominated. I repeated thatsuggestion in this column. The idea was political:
(1) To present a suitable candidate able to attract the votes of all the Arab and Jewish peacecamp voters,
- To make a second round necessary, and
System Message: INFO/1 (<string>, line 35)
Enumerated list start value not ordinal-1: “2” (ordinal 2)
(3) To throw our support behind the candidate who would adopt a clear policy for peace andequality.
When I made this suggestion, I was not thinking of Peres. I was thinking about a more humblecandidate, either Jewish or Arab, man or woman, to fulfil this function. Not as a gimmick, notas a trick, not as an ego-trip, but as a serious effort to consolidate and mobilize the power ofthe real peace camp.
And then, suddenly, Peres appeared on the scene. Deus ex machina, Peres out of the publicopinion polls. Peres does have peace credentials. He played a major role in the Oslo process.But please remember that in the meantime he has already served as Prime Minister withoutfurthering the cause of peace. Quite the contrary, he started a new war in Lebanon and killedthe Hamas “engineer”, with all the bloody consequences. And during the Camp David summit hetried to outflank Barak on the right, publicly criticizing his (virtual) concessionsconcerning Jerusalem and the settlements. Therefore, it seems that peace served him as agimmick in order to take revenge on Barak and to prove that he is not a serial loser.
Even during his desperate struggle to obtain the blessing of Meretz, Peres did not elaborateon his peace plan: not about Jerusalem, not about the Green Line, not about the settlements,not about the refugees. It was all a political and personal game.
At the height of the Peres-Barak controversy, they each pretended to be the leader of the”Peace Camp”. The way they use the term, it is an abstract, virtual body, neither Peace norCamp, much as the “Left” is not left, but rather a trade union of politicians exploiting thefear of the Right. Indeed, each of them boasts that he can defeat Sharon – as if the issue isdefeating Sharon, rather than making peace.
Peacemaker Barak: His main effort now is the new “peace process”. He has no chance at all ofwinning this election if he does not present to the electorate an agreement with thePalestinians. Only such an agreement will bring the hundreds of thousands of Arab and Jewishpeace-seekers to the ballot box, and without them he will lose. For him, peace is not aconsuming passion, but a means to an end – winning the elections.
Is this enough to achieve an agreement? Common sense says no. But one should not belittle theimmense determination of a politician to survive when faced with disaster. The Germanphilosopher Hegel spoke about the “cunning of reason”. Peace may use even a strangeinstrument like Barak. As they say in Yiddish: “If God wills, even a broomstick can shoot.”
That’s a faint hope – and blessed be the believer.