Everybody knows who is a war criminal. For example, somebody who kills prisoners-of-war ormassacres a civilian population (or allows others to do this) is one.
The time has come to define who is a peace criminal: somebody who kills peace and thereby makeswar inevitable. Golda Meir, for example, in the early 70s, killed the chances for peace withEgypt and caused the Yom Kippur war, in which 2000 Israelis and countless others died.
Ehud Barak is a peace criminal. He brought about the failure of the Camp David summit and itsconsequences, primarily the present intifada, in which hundreds have already died. Thismight well lead to a general war, in which thousands will perish.
If there were an International Court for Peace Crimes, Ehud Barak would be indicted on twocounts:
Count 1: The accused pressured Arafat and Clinton into agreeing to the summit and broughtabout its failure by presenting to it an ultimatum of unacceptable proposals.
Count 2: The accused spread the lie that he had offered Arafat “everything he asked for” andthat Arafat rejected it. By spreading this lie, the accused destroyed the Israeli peace campwhich believed him, brought the extreme right to power, prepared the ground for a “nationalunity” based on the lie and almost obliterated any real opposition.
At the Barak trial, evidence will be produced to show that he proposed at Camp David the formalannexation of 10% of the West Bank area (“settlement blocs”) and informal annexation ofanother 10% (Jordan valley etc.), with the rest of the territory cut up into enclaves and cutoff from the neighboring countries (Egypt and Jordan); that he pretended to “give up” EastJerusalem but without giving the Palestinians full sovereignty there, and especially notover the compound of the mosques (“Temple Mount”); that he did not agree to any compromise onthe refugees; and that he demanded that the Palestinians declare this to be “the end of theconflict”.
Until now, Barak’s blind admirers have fervently denied these facts. But this week a witnessappeared who could decide the outcome of the trial. He is a neutral and objective eye-witness,whose integrity cannot be doubted by any judge: Robert Malley, personal assistant toPresident Clinton on the Middle East, who took part in all the Camp David deliberations. Hewill testify to the following facts, among others:
Before the summit, Barak reneged on his promise to transfer to the Palestinian Authority thevillage of Abu Dis and two other villages near Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that Clintonpersonally conveyed this promise to Arafat. Also, Barak refused to honor Israel’sobligations under the previous agreements: the third withdrawal from most of the West Bankareas, the release of Palestinian prisoners etc. Because of this, Clinton was furious withBarak on several occasions.
Before the summit, Barak continued to enlarge the settlements and build by-pass roads at afurious pace, thus destroying any vestige of Palestinian trust in his intentions.
Before and during the summit, the Palestinians not only gave up 78% of Mandatory Palestine,but also agreed to the annexation to Israel of “settlement blocs” and the Jewishneighborhoods built in occupied East Jerusalem. They also agreed to the principle that theRight of Return should be implemented without prejudicing the demographic and securityinterests of Israel. No other Arab government has ever agreed to similar concessions.
In exchange for the settlement blocs, Barak offered the Palestinians areas amounting to oneninth of the territory to be annexed, a ratio of 1 to 9, without specifying where.
During the course of the summit, Barak did not submit any proposal in writing nor specify thedetails of his oral proposals, and, most importantly, did not disclose either to Arafat oreven to Clinton his ideas for a final settlement. In return, Arafat, too, did not submit anyproposals, so that in practice there was no negotiation at all.
Clinton agreed with Arafat that Barak is “politically inept, frustrating and devoid ofpersonal warmth”, but believed, in spite of this, that Barak wanted peace. Arafat believedthat Barak did not want peace; he only wanted to convince the world that the Palestinians don’twant peace. As a matter of fact, since the summit Barak’s main boast has been that he “unmaskedArafat”.
Clinton broke his word to Arafat. Before the summit, he promised that if it fails, he would notblame the Palestinians. Only on this condition did Arafat agree to come to the conference,which took place without proper preparation. After the failure, Clinton put the sole blame onArafat, in order to help Barak in his reelection campaign.
When Barak’s admirers were compelled to admit that the story about “the generous Camp Davidoffers” is a legend, they fell back to another line: “True, at Camp David no reasonable offerswere made, but later, at the Taba meeting in January 2001, much more generous offers were made.These met all Palestinian demands, but were nevertheless rejected by them. At Taba theIsraeli negotiators also submitted a map that reduced further the areas that Barak wanted toannex.”
Here are some of the answers:
If Barak really wanted to make much more “generous” offers, why did he not make them at CampDavid, even when he realized that the summit was about to break down?
The failure of the summit caused the outbreak of the intifada, as we (and, it now appears, theAmericans, too) prophesied. From that moment on, the political reality on the Palestinianside changed completely, hundreds were killed, and it became much more difficult for Arafatto convince his public to halt the uprising without getting an important politicalachievement in advance.
The Taba proposals were never put to paper, and until this very moment it is not clear what wasproposed, who proposed what and on whose authority. Barak, of course, repudiated everythingthe next day.
In the meantime, the election campaign had started in Israel and all the polls showed thatBarak was about to be defeated by a landslide. How could Arafat make sweeping concessions to aman who, almost certainly, would lose power within two months? Especially since Barak did notreveal the proposals to his own public?
Arafat did not reject the Taba proposals, but declares even now that they must serve as a basisfor any future negotiations, while Barak himself proclaims that the Taba proposals are nulland void.
At the end of the trial, the question will remain: Did the accused, Barak, sincerely intend toreach a peace agreement, and only a mixture of arrogance, ignorance and political stupidityprevented him from achieving it (as Clinton believes, according to Malley), or did he, fromthe beginning, not have any such intention, but only intended to convince the world that hewanted peace while Arafat wants to throw the people of Israel into the sea?
It’s up to the judges to decide that.