The devil knows who put into Barak’s head the four words “end of the conflict”.
When he demanded to put the “end of the conflict” into the “frame-work agreement” (anotherBarak coinage), he put the refugee issue squarely onto the negotiating table. Since then it’sbeen lying there like a ticking bomb. It was self-evident that no Palestinian leader couldpossibly put his signature under “the end of the conflict” without a solution for the 3.7million Palestinian refugees, human beings dispersed throughout the region.
Let me remark here that this problem – like almost any human problem – is soluble. The solutionwill not satisfy either side completely, but both will be able to live with it. I shall set outsuch a proposal (“a moral, just, practical and agreed-upon solution”, I believe) in thiscolumn soon. But even this solution demands from both sides an immense amount of good-will, anunderstanding of the other side, an honest desire for reconciliation, sensitivity and tact.In short, the very qualities that are conspicuous by their absence in the overbearing andpatronizing statement of Amos Oz and Co., the mythological sages of the “Zionist left”, whichwas published last week in Haaretz (2.1.01), rejecting any compromise on this subject.
A dentist will not treat the roots of a tooth while it is in a state of acute inflammation. He willheal the inflammation first. This is even truer when treating a ‘tooth’ causing intense painto two peoples. First one has to treat the acute problems – Jerusalem, the Haramal-Sharif-Temple Mount, the settlements, security, the borders – before the right climatefor the solution of the refugee problem is created. And before the resolution of the refugeeproblem, nobody will announce “the end of the conflict”.
Ehud Barak, a person devoid of any understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian question,surrounded by generals and security-service types who understand even less, has raised the“end of the conflict” issue because it answers deep and basic anxieties of many Israelis and,therefore, goes down well with the Israeli public. Like a child lighting a match next to abarrel of gasoline, he did not understand the predictable results.
As to the matter itself: a declaration of the “end of the conflict” is meaningless. If the rootsof the conflict are not eradicated, the declaration is useless. If they are, it is not needed.
Let’s take, for example, the Franco-German conflict. At the end of World War I, in whichmillions died on both sides, the vanquished Germans were compelled at Versailles to sign apeace treaty declaring, in practice, the end of the conflict. The treaty tore great chunks ofterritory from Germany, imposed monstrous reparations on her and declared that she alonebore the blame for the war.
The Versailles treaty played a major role in the ascension of Adolf Hitler. In his hystericalvoice he cried out again and again against the “14 years of disgrace! 14 years of shame!” anddemanded to put the German “criminals of Versailles” on trial.
The result was World War II, which killed tens of millions. After that war, everybody was a lotwiser. They did not draft another treaty and did not announce “the end of the conflict”.Instead, they created a completely new reality – Europe was united, the economiesintertwined, the armies affiliated to Nato, the borders abolished in practice. Nowadays, aGerman can reside in France and a Frenchman in Germany without even the need of a passport. Thehundreds-of-years-old conflict had come to an end – without any declaration to that effect.
Another, even more poignant example: when the Germans agreed to pay Wiedergutmachung(reparations) to Israel, they did not demand an “end of the conflict” declaration. HadBen-Gurion and Sharett signed such a declaration, they would have been eaten alive. But theflow of the reparations created a climate which put an end of the conflict – and that less than 10years after the Holocaust!
If Ehud Barak had honestly sought to end the conflict, he would have approached the problemquite differently. Instead of haggling like a vendor at the bazaar, trying to get as much aspossible and pay as little as possible, he would have proposed an agreement designed to fulfilthe aspirations of the Palestinian people as far as possible. A free State of Palestine, anopen border between the two states, a joint capital in Jerusalem, “partnership” instead of“separation”, a flourishing Palestinian economy and the feeling that everybody getssomething out of the partnership – all these would have created a new atmosphere ofreconciliation and mutual acceptance, in which the refugee problem, too, would have found asolution acceptable to both sides.
That is the way to end a conflict. But for that one needs people who are not thinking about thenext war, but about the next peace.