The strange peace process between Israel and the Palestinians are continues unabated, and the actual facts on the ground are becoming increasingly immaterial. Instead of addressing the obstacles seriously there is quite a lot of idle talk about the "secular revolution", a convenient substitute for a real soul searching and serious national dabate. Some people seem to celebrate, rather prematurely, the supposed demise of religious coercion in Israel. They must be joking; nothing of the sort is happening, and some of the principal champions of religious freedom are also avid racists, driven until recently by pragmatic reasons to seek compromises with the orthodox. Now they can legitimitely give vent to one of the worst forms of racism (historically speaking), namely, Antisemitism. This constant distrarction enabled the PM Ehud Barak to get away with his tipsy-torvey behaviour, that annoyed even the
traditionally tolerant (towards Israel) Americans.
The Martin Indyk affair was yet another timely diversion from Barak’s rather narrow point of view. Indyk cuts a fairly curious figure, even for Bill Clinton’s bizzare administration. The English born Indyk grew up in Australia, to an avidly Zionist family, and he spent some time as a volunteer in a Kibbutz back in 1973. Before taking on an American citizenship, Indyk worked full time for the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, and was known for his Peace Now sympathies, which incurred the wrath of Likud leaders like Yitzhak Shamir and Binyamin Netanyahu. The Indyk affair and its implication are dealt with elsewhere in The MEI, but the very fact that such a man, with his backgroung and ideology, was appointed as US Ambassador here for the second time is highly significant.
Clinton is arguably the least anti-Palestinian of all the American presidents since 1948, but he is also the most ardent Zionist of them all. This intriguing posture has enabled him to flood his staff with moderate Zionists, and to entrust them with the challenging task of dealing with the Palestinians on a daily basis. The polite “ex-terrorists” of the PA complain from time to time, and officials like Indyk or even Dennis Ross are mildly resented but publically accepted. If the White House or the State Department had sent to Israel a pro-Palestinian activist as an honest broker, the outcry would have been shrill and effective. The interpretation of Indyk’s suspension over alleged security lapses was typical. Most newapapers insinuated, or stated blatantly, that Indyk was in trouble because of his Jewishness. Many Israelis suspect the State department of being too objective in its assessments of the Middle East, and more severe critics even accuse them of putting the US interests above those of Israel’s. This particular mentlity has tremendous influence on the relationship between Jerusalem and Washington. The Americans are always deemed to be guilty for spoiling us too much, and the ever-demanding collective brat is eternally insatiable.
And the so-called “peace process”? Very few people here really know what is going on, and some hacks, who have build whole careers on the dubious foundations that Barak shares his secrets with them, can no longer deliver the goods. Barak’s followers continue to spread rumours and shaky analyses in an attempt to describe him as the foremost peace-lover in the history of the Middle-East, and his generous concessions to the Palestinians are invariably extolled, sometimes by writers with impaccably dovish credentials. Shalom Yerushalmi of Maariv, a Peace Now symphathiser, is currently convinced that the Palestinians are squandering an historical opportunity to conclude a sound peace agreement with Israel. He does not conceal his deep disappointment of the ungrateful Yasser Arafat. Some of his colleagues are more vicious, and Arafat is often depcited as treacherous antisemite, who seeks to use the peace process as a springboard for the achievement of his real goal: the total destruction of Israel. The politico-cultural arena here is divided between the genuine believers of such theories, and the devious politicians who manipulate them for territorial acquisitions.
Barak reiterates as often as he can, that the real objective of his policies is to attain a Palestinian signiture on an official document, proclaiming the “final end of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians”. This may sound pretty commendable, but Barak’s price is quite hefty. He wants Arafat to grant him massive concessions on Jerusalem, to forgo the refugee problem, with the exception of token gestures, and to accept, at least de-facto, the presence of some 70 percent of the Jewish settlers in his mini would-be state.
Arafat is not in a position to give in so much to Barak. On 24 September a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority, Mr Nabi Abu Rudaineh, told the Jerusalem Post that the Jerusalem issue could not be delayed for much longer. The same, acording to the PA, applied to the refugees. Amid the reports that Clinton is softening his pressure once again, and Barak is procrastinating and refusing to meet Arafat, Rudaineh explained the PA’s point of view quite plainly: “…we must find a solution that is acceptable to the majority of the Palestinians, otherwise everything will explode”.
Barak, as usual, seems unperturbed. As far as he is concerned, at least publicly, it is now up to the Palestinians to meet his generosity with “a measure of flexibility”. He still boasts, with his customary arrogance, that he had given the Palestinians nothing in territorial terms, and actually “much less than
Bibi did”.
The Israeli public has grown tired of the constant flow of contradictory reports, at times on the same day. During the month of September 2000 Barak has announced twice that the talks are suspended, only to repent within 24 hours. The Barak zigzaging has become a familiar feature, almost like the weather forecast. On 24 September, 8 hours after snubbing Arafat in public and explaining in detail why a meeting with him is a complete waste of time, the PM has changed his mind once again. The normally reliable political correspondent of the Israeli commercial TV informed the indifferent viewers, that Barak would meet the Palestinian chief before the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashana) on 29 September. This is not necessarily final, and at any rate the meeting itself is not all that important. The frequent changes and fluctuations simply illustrate the attitude of the Israeli side to its Palestinian
Counterparts.
A Prime Minister without a mandate to make real decisions, devoid of parliamentary support and hated by most of his ministers, should be a little more modest and less arrogant, but Barak is convinced that he is the greatest Israeli statesman since David Ben-Gurion. There is no real evidence to support such pretension, but some of us, who know their history beyond the brainwashing of the state school system, may intimate to Barak, that even the Ben-Gurion myth is somewhat inflated. Not that he will take any notice in his present, almost delusionary, state of mind.
ירושלמי אדום 