For the best part of July we had to make do with dubious reports from Camp-David, and the more honest reporters have simply admitted, that they had no idea and no real leaks from the supposedly intense deliberations. The phoney ones were too obvious and easily detectable, so they failed to cause any real damage. There was of course a conspicuous factor of wishful thinking. Most Israeli media hacks and so-called experts are blatantly pro-Barak, and some of them proved to be really ludicrous. Take, for instance, the channel one (TV) most prominent commentator, Amnon Abramovitz. ON 21 July he went out of his way to explain to at least 777.000 Israelis, that the polls which indicated a 64 percent majority against any concessions on Jerusalem were actually encouraging and pro-peace. This was a fine piece of amazing sophistery, unparalled in any news media in the free world. The big national debate is continuously conducted between two equally out-of-touch camps. The open enemies of any settlement with the Palestinians, and the feeble supporters of barak, who insist on believing that
His totally unacceptable proposals constitute a dramatic breakthrough in the peace front.
The Zionist left is currently confused and in total disarray. Two of its leading lights, the philosophy professors Avishai Margalit and Menahem Brinker, urged the entire left to accept Barak’s red lines in the negotiations unconditionally. It is obvious that these intellectuals, founding members of the Peace Now movement and venerated gurus for many of its rank and file members, have decided to adopt Barak’s claims that Israel is offering tremendous concessions to the Palestinians in the Camp-David talks. If the ungratful Yassir Arafat rejects Barak’s generous proposals, the whole peace movement must turn against him. This sentiment has pervaded articles and oral commentries in the entire Israeli media during the negotiations at Camp-David. It is absolutely clear that most of the intellectuals behind the left zionist endeavour to control the streets against the settlers and their allies, are worried lest the dovish youth refuse to fight against the Palestinians, should the collapse of the peace process lead to an
armed conflict between the two people.
Brinker and his colleague Margalit caused a heated controversy and many hard-core leftists have protested against their conformist position. Israeli Arabs and Jewish leftists do not tend to believe in Barak, let alone accepting his negotiating posture without criticism. Hence the decision of the Arab-Jewish Hadash faction in the Knesset to vote for a no-confidence motion against the government, if Barak returns from Camp-David empty-handed. The other Arab factions have made similar pledges. Even the left Zionist Meretz is currently reconsidering its attitude to Barak. But the big test awaiting the left is truly formidable: if Arafat capitulates to joint pressure from Israel and the US, most Israeli leftists will adopt prof. Margalit unfortunate and totally erroneous formula, that “an Israeli leftist is not
in a position to be more Palestinian from Abu-Mazen”.
Margalit, in addition to his academic qualification, is a first class demagogue and a brilliant orator. Therefore, his ability to cause a real damage to the left is not to be underestimated. A serious prediction about the Zionist left in the aftermath of the rape of Palestine, signed and sealed by the hapless Arafat, must take into consideration a new, totally uncritical stance, and total mobilisation to fight against the vicious opposition of the secular and religious right. I suspect that even the more radical left, including the Arab parties and Hadash, will dedicate most of their human resources to combat the fascists in the streerts and in the Knesset. Only a tiny majority will support the Palestinian opposition against the PA.
The unwiilingness to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians will be dominant.
In general, the Israeli political arena can be analytically divided into five different categories: 1. The New Fundamental Expansionists, comprising the religious and secular right. 2. The Post Oslo Pragmatic Expansionists, who view the peace process as an unfortunate but very concrete reality, and seek to use it as a springboard for internationally accepted territorial and political achivements. This category includes many Mks and ordinary voters of Barak’s One Israel faction, Likud, Part of Shinui and part of the Centre Party. 3. The Post oslo Doves, who accept the necessity of going for radical territorial concessions in return for lasting peace and Arab recognition of the right of Israel to exist. Most Israelis in this category oppose any return of refugees whatsoever. The minority would consent to a token repatriation, under the more friendly term of unification of families for humanitariam reasons. 4 Pro-Arafat supporters of Oslo, namely, Jews and Arabs prepared to adopt any solution acceptable to the PA. This is a relatively wide category, but some people may espouse more radical position, if the Palestinian public refuse to go along with the possible outcome of the negotiations. 5. The Cosistent Left, both Jewish and Arabs, who will cling to more principled position, and strive to see justice done to the oppressed, diregarding Arafat’s policies.
In terms of real political clout, the pro-Palestinian sections, both moderate and radical, constitute the weaker groups. But coalitions in the Knesset as well as in the general public can vary, in accordance with the outcome of the talks. If Barak returns from the US empty-handed, the doves might be more open to cooperation with the hard-left, including the Arab parties, against a probable government of national unity with Likud as a major participant. On the otherhand, even a bad agreement (especially from a Palestinian viewpoint) secured by Barak, and bitterly attacked by the entire right (and some fifth columnist inside barak’s faction, such as Foreign Minister David Levy), will be supported, even halfhreatedly, by thousands of consitent pro-Palestinains, under the pretext of fighting against the antidemocratic right at all costs.
This is a fairly accurate description of the Israeli political culture before the news from Camp-David reaches us. Despite the inconvenience of the MEI presstime, it may help the readers to predict and understand the reaction in Israel for any conceiveable development resulting from Camp-David. Whatever happens, a political crisis is virtually unavoidable, and new general elections in the course of the year 2000 are almost a certainty.
ירושלמי אדום 