What is the connection between Ehud Barak and Menahem Begin?
Begin had a clear strategic concept. He wanted to acquire the whole of Eretz-Israel.Therefore he saw — rightly, from his point of view — the Palestinian as the eternal enemy. Atthe utmost, he saw them as hewers of wood and drawers of water in Great Israel. “Autonomy for theinhabitants but not for the territories”, as he put it (taking his cue from his teacher andmaster Vladimir Jabotinsky, who demanded such a status for the Jews in Czarist Russia at thebeginning of the century.)
In order to defeat the Palestinian people and to eradicate it as a national entity, Beginplanned to cut it off from any possible support by the Arab states. Therefore he paid AnwarSadat a very heavy price: The return of the vast territories of Sinai and the dismantling of allIsraeli settlements there. The Town of Yamit, the jewel in the crown of settlement, was razedto the ground, a monument to Begin’s resoluteness.
I have no doubt that Begin was ready to do the same on the Syrian front. The borders ofEretz-Israel, as shown in the official emblem of Begin’s Irgun underground organization,included neither the Golan nor Sinai. They were the borders of the British mandate from theearly twenties. A peace agreement with Syria, after the peace agreement with Egypt (and theinformal peace agreement with King Hussein, which was there all the time) would have closedthe encirclement of the Palestinian people and left it defenseless at the mercy of Israel.
Why, then, didn’t Begin finish the job? Because Hafez al-Assad was not yet ready. The Cold Warwas at it’s height, Syria could count on the Sowiet Union. After the “treachery” of Sadat,Assad hoped to become the leader of the Arab world. And, first of all. the mental powers of Beginwere ebbing away. Arial Sharon, a man bereft of any serious strategic thinking, seduced Begininto invading Lebanon in order to destroy the PLO, and contrary to his promise, he compelledthe Syrian army to become involved in the war.
Barak is continuing Begin’s strategy. He is determined to do in the Golan what Begin did inSinai: To return the territory and to dismantle the settlements, in order to get the Syriansout of the conflict and to isolate the Palestinians completely.
However, there is an important difference between the two. Barak, like Begin, knows that thePalestinian problem is the heart of the Israeli-Arab conflict, but while Begin wanted toeradicate the national existence of the Palestinian people, Barak is ready to offer them aminimal solution. He has decided on a “permanent status” that gives the Palestinian amini-state, comprising some 15% of the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean,after tearing off the “settlement blocs” from the West Bank and annexing them to Israel. Theexterior borders of the Palestinian state will be controlled by Israel, as well as its economyand water resources. Jerusalem and the refugees are not to be discussed at all.
Barak wants to impose this “solution” as an offer the Palestinians can’t refuse. For thispurpose, the Palestinian s have to be completely isolated. To achieve this, he will accede topractically all Syrian demands. The price will be heavy, butfrom the point of view of Barak itwill be worthwhile. In return he hopes to achieve an end of the conflict as well as much betterpermanent borders for Israel.
Will this really bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Of course not. If weunderstands that, what should be our attitude towards this peace with Syria?
We were faced with the same problem some twenty years ago, when Begin signed his peaceagreement with Sadat. It was clearly a separate peace, part of Begin’s anti-Palestinianstrategy. Some of us in the Sheli peace party leadership, including General Matti Peled,Me’ir Pa’il’ Ya’acov Arnon and others, pondered this problem. We decided that a peaceactivist cannot object to any peace agreement, faulty as it may be. The most important pointfor us was that the agreement creates a powerful precedent of giving back territory anddismantling settlements. Therefore, as a member of the Knesset at the time, I voted forBegin’s agreement, while many in Begin’s own party voted against.
I believe that now, too, we must be in favor of the agreement with Syria, because of the samereasons. Of course, the Palestinians will not surrender and will demand for themselves thesame terms as the Syrians: A return to the pre-1967 borders and evacuation of all thesettlements.
Whoever wants a real peace and a real historical reconciliation will struggle for thissolution.