 |
Larry Domnitch is the the author of, "The Cantonists: The Jewish Children's Army of the Tsar," recently released by Devora Publishing.
|
|
|
|
By Larry Domnitch
July 1, 2005
When Israel dismantled the Sinai city of Yamit in 1982 according to the Camp David accords, the Left called upon then Prime Minster Menachem Begin to compete the withdrawal from the territories of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and the process of land for peace. The withdrawal from the Sinai impressed upon the Left that peace was indeed in the hands of those willing to compromise. The New York Times and other major newspapers around the world were quick to label Begin who had dismantled entire Jewish communities in the Sinai as intransigent because of his refusal to consider further territorial withdrawals and for his support of West Bank settlements. To the Left, 'Land for Peace' became a proven policy, while to the Right it was a ruse meant to eliminate Israel in phases which would ultimately lead to future conflict.
The Right did not trust the PLO nor did the Right trust the Egyptians who received the Sinai and turned a cold shoulder to Israel. One's peace is another's absence of war. Each side had dug its trenches in the sand dividing the nation between 'hawk' and 'dove', deciding and voting on policies that would determine the very future of the nation. From the Jimmy Carter administrations' condemnation of Israel's West Bank settlement policy, to the Lebanon war of the early/mid 1980s, which sought to deal a crushing blow to the PLO, Israeli society was divided.
Then came the intifada of the late 1980s, and with international support, Yasser Arafat was elevated to the role of statesman. The Left largely welcomed the change. When former Israeli Premier Yitzchak Rabin and 'Chairman' Arafat eventually shook hands at the White House, the Left raised its head in vindication. It seemed to be their moment. The Right looked on in frustration.
After the principles of Oslo were signed in September 1993, it was clear from the Palestinian media and school textbooks that little had changed; the stated goal remained the elimination of Israel. However, the Left chose to look away and the Right too, said little. In an interview with an American television network, former Prime Minster Ehud Barak stated that the hope was that Arafat was allowing the dissemination of hateful, anti-Israel rhetoric with the agenda of outflanking his 'opponents'. Barak also subsequently claimed that it had become clear to him that Arafat's intentions were to incite.
Months before the latest 'Al-Aksa' intifada, as Israelis were viewing scenes of cordial smiles between Barak and Arafat at the Camp David summit with President Clinton, Palestinians were busy stockpiling weapons and raiding pharmacies for supplies. It is safe to say that they knew in advance that Israel would probably not accept their terms, and their struggle would leave the negotiating table and go back to the violent streets.
To the Right, the question again arose: what had negotiations accomplished? The net result was more violence, the public lynching of Israeli soldiers, and the desecration of Joseph's Tomb. The Left argued, "We have no choice, like it or not, they are our partners," while holding onto the dream of peace no matter how elusive. Remember the words of Shimon Peres following a suicide bombing that killed dozens? He said the "peace process must go on". As for Ehud Barak, many on the Right say his offers emboldened the Palestinians who demanded more concessions from a seemingly weakened and weary Israel.
Violence is a tactic for forcing demands. Violence targeting civilians as a means of pressure has been employed many times. Just read the history of the Arab riots under the British Mandate of Palestine. Some argued in defense of Barak that his offers unmasked Arafat, his regime, and their true intentions. Maybe so, but that's of little consolation to the families of terror victims. And, in the long run, the world will for the most part, forget what really happened.
The comeback of the Right was inevitable. The once seemingly unelectable Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister by an overwhelming majority in 2001.
But just when one thinks the Right was won think again, things can change -- yet again. Should one expect the United States and the Western World, after years of attempting to broker a deal, to simply walk away? Were years of summits, diplomatic missions to the Middle-East, 'quartets' of nations, and 'roadmaps' all for naught?
Consider this possibility: massive international pressure forces Mahmoud Abbas to enforce order and control the terror from all PLO factions. Then it's back to the negotiating table with Sharon and the Fatah leader. Perhaps, Abbas, seeing that he does not have United States support on the issues of the "refugees' right of return" will eventually agree to drop that demand for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 borders. What would Sharon do if the world demanded such concessions?
The leaders of the Left and Peace Now would stand up and take their bows. They would proclaim that this is what they stated from the start. Full territorial withdrawal to '49 and finally the elusive peace would become a reality. It would be, once again, their moment. After the deal was made, all the commotion ended, and calm was restored, they would sit back and bask in their victory on the beaches of Tel Aviv while engaging in self-platitudes about never giving up. The Right too might drop its guard and enjoy the serenity in the cafes on Jerusalem's Jaffa Road.
But as the Israelis live the worry-free lives for which they have longed, the Palestinians do not forget their vows of 'Palestine from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea'. Never losing their will to fight, they catch the enemy in their slumber. With renewed fighting, the nightmare would return, only now, the foe would be more determined and the situation would become more difficult to control. Now Israel would have no buffer, and little chance of tracking down the terrorists who now operate from their own safe havens once known as the 'occupied territories'. All Israel would have accomplished from the negotiations would be idle promises from the international community.
Still, amid the despair, there would be ample time for politics and debate. Sharon and his Likud followers would rise again and declare vindication and once again urge strength in the face of Arab terrorism. The remnants of the Left would continue to seek Israeli culpability for the renewed hostilities. "We bred their hatred!" they might proclaim while once again ignoring that the core of the conflict was never really about borders, but the existence of Israel itself.
But one thing is likely: few on either side would stand up and say, "We were wrong".
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
