And a word from a former PM on "realities on the ground" or,
The making of the Third Intifada.
Dividing the Land
Secrets and lies
By Ari Shavit
I went to see Ehud Barak not because he has returned to politics. Not because he is running again for chairman of the Labor Party. And not because his comeback faltered and then recovered, and now his comeback has encountered a major challenge from Amir Peretz. The reason I went to Ehud Barak is that for the past year and a half he has been trying to tell us that the disengagement plan is flawed - but we haven't been listening.
Ehud Barak is someone worth listening to. It's not certain that it's worth raising funds for his campaign, or that it's worth laying your body on the barbed-wire fence for him. Nor is it certain that it's worth supporting his renewed run for prime minister. But it is worth listening to him. There are few Israelis who see the historical situation in which we find ourselves with the same cruel clarity as Ehud Barak.
These days he is in Akirov Tower in north Tel Aviv. No longer a kibbutznik-warrior from Kochav Yair but a smug millionaire from a luxury high-rise. However, despite the doorman at the resplendent entrance and despite the aura of glory of the upper crust, the apartment itself is quite modest. In one corner of the living room stands a black grand piano. In another corner are two exercise bicycles: high for Ehud, low for Nili Priel, his companion.
Advertisement
Nili is very delicate. After a brief courtesy chat and after serving the coffee and the petits fours she slips out quietly, donning an elegant wide-brimmed straw hat. Barak himself shows up late, of course. Despite the efforts of his devoted assistant Dana, 10 A.M. is still hard for him. His eyes are still shrunk into their sockets and his voice is still sleep-stunned as he sits himself down in his Stanford executive chair and begins to say his piece. But within minutes his own words thrust him into wakefulness. His words enthrall and persuade him. And the more he is persuaded, the more enthusiastic he becomes. And grows passionate. He deeply enjoys the rational structure he has just built.
Ehud Barak, the disengagement plan is rapidly approaching. In the past you were critical of it. Have you changed your mind?
"The disengagement plan is an important step in the right direction. But it is a partial and hesitant step. One has to support it but also to understand that it will not bring deliverance. Disengagement is the first page in a book that will have a great many chapters, some of them very rough."
For months we have all been asking ourselves what will happen on the day after the withdrawal. Let me ask you the same question.
"On the day after the withdrawal we are liable to see the realization of some of the assessments that [outgoing Chief of Staff Moshe] `Bogey' Ya'alon and [just-retired Shin Bet security service chief] Avi Dichter described to us. I very much hope that we will find in [Palestinian leader] Abu Mazen a person who will muster the strength to dismantle the terrorist infrastructures and to conduct negotiations. But it is possible that we will see Hamas become even more powerful. It is possible that within a few months we will see terrorism resurgent in Judea and Samaria. Maybe in Gaza, too. That terrorism is liable to reach into Israel."
If so, if the right wing is correct, why do you not make your voice heard in warning? Why should you not stand at the gate and declare explicitly that we are on the brink of disaster?
"I think [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon deserves credit for the decision he made to act contrary to what he did his whole life. After all, the disengagement plan is actually Sharon's admission of his life's error. It is better to advance in the right direction than to sit on our bottoms and do nothing. But it has to be said honestly that the right-wingers are speaking the truth. Some of the forecasts of [Likud MK] Uzi Landau have come true. The Palestinians will interpret the act of disengagement as a victory. They will say that Sharon capitulated.
"After all, just three years ago he said that [the Gaza Strip settlements] Netzarim and Kfar Darom are like [Kibbutz] Negba and Tel Aviv. And what happened since then? Terrorism. Therefore, they will say, we have to go on using terrorism. We have to perpetrate terrorism in the West Bank and from the West Bank. The violence has to be renewed at a higher level. Because in the end, despite all his pronouncements, Sharon understands only the language of force. Sharon surrendered to terrorism."
Do you hold Sharon in high regard? Do you see in him qualities that you do not have?
"Sharon is an excellent tactician but he has no strategy."
And you are the exact opposite: 100 in strategy, 0 in tactics.
"Maybe. I don't think so, but there is an opinion to that effect. I will not be my own commentator."
Let us go back to Sharon. What is his outstanding quality as a statesman?
"Biting off more than he can chew. He's got big eyes but they lack all ability to see reality as it is. That's the reason for this whole shortcut. That's why every possible mistake is made before reaching the right conclusion, which could have been seen from the outset."
Give me an example, please.
"Take the Lebanon War. To enter Lebanon for 72 hours to deal the terrorists a blow is legitimate. To flex one's muscles at the Syrians once every 20 years is legitimate. But Sharon's grand plan was a fantasy. And just as is the case now, there was no discussion then on the goals of the move, either. The press was silent then, as it is now. But the people of Israel went into an adventure that cost the lives of 650 of our sons without any serious thought. Without a systematic strategy."
Another example.
"Take the original sin of the settlements. Have you ever asked yourself where they came from? At Camp David, [prime minister Menachem] Begin not only returned all of Sinai. He also recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The whole world understands that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people include the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination means a state. Along came Begin and tried to undo the result of a document he himself had signed. That is why he sent [interior minister Yosef] Burg to mire the autonomy talks and sent Sharon to build `many Elon Morehs' [meaning many settlements].
"Sharon's plan was to scatter so many settlements at so many places in Judea and Samaria that a Palestinian state would never be able to be established. But the plan was an act of folly. Far from strengthening the large settlement blocs, which are truly essential, Sharon's isolated settlements weakened them. Those isolated settlements are a classic case of biting off more than one can chew. It's as I told you: There is no strategy. There is no true reading of the map. The tactics are amazing but they lead to a dead end."
And the disengagement plan - does it lead to a dead end as well?
"What will happen after the disengagement is that Abu Mazen will try to extract more Israeli concessions and to isolate Sharon. The Palestinians will say they are ready for immediate negotiations on the final-status settlement and that Sharon is refusing. To get out of that trap, Sharon will offer a few more settlements: maybe the Jordan Rift Valley settlements, maybe four or seven or ten isolated settlements. But that will not be enough for the Palestinians. So, after a time things will get bogged down. The violence will resume.
"The violence will not lead the world to be on our side, but the opposite. At a certain stage we'll lose the support of the international community. Initially the United States will support us, but in time its support will also be eroded. Israel will find itself isolated. Internal cracks will appear within Israeli society. And only then, when there will be no choice, Israel will do what it should have done from the beginning. Having no alternative, Israel will do what it could have done by thinking ahead."
What should Israel do? If Ehud Barak were prime minister, what would Israel do?
"Five things. First, complete the separation fence in an emergency national project lasting a few months. After that, evacuate the isolated settlements to the east of the fence within the framework of a comprehensive evacuation plan to be implemented within two-three years. Concurrently, Israel wages an all-out war against terrorism across the fence, too. In parallel, Israel keeps the door open for the renewal of the political process. Israel proposes to the international community to give itself a mandate over the Palestinian territories to assist the Palestinian Authority in preparing itself for the establishment of a Palestinian state."
The main thing for you is the fence. You attribute vast importance to the fence, but aren't you exaggerating?
"I want to take you back three years. Three years ago, it would have been possible to build the fence along the present route not only with American support, but also with American funding. If we had built the fence then, it would have included Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim and any other area essential to Israel. If we had built the fence then, we would still have the NIS 35 billion that we wasted on nothing in those three years. If we had built the fence then, we would not have buried the hundreds of people who were killed in those years.
"That is Sharon. That is exactly what I said to you about Sharon. Biting off more than he can chew. Not doing at the right time what has to be done and then doing it late and badly and at a terrible price. In my estimation, Sharon has already lost Ariel-Kedumim. He is about to lose Ma'aleh Adumim as well. And NIS 35 billion went down the tubes. Hundreds of people were buried."
You don't sound like yourself; you sound angry.
"I don't understand it. I just don't understand. The country's citizens don't know: 60 percent of the fence has not been built. And when terrorists strike again in Be'er Sheva and Kiryat Gat and Ashkelon and Tel Aviv, what will we tell ourselves? What honest answer will we give ourselves? After all, within a few months suicide bombers are liable to infiltrate Israel's cities through the sections that have not been built. What will we say then? What will the government say? Therefore I say now that a national emergency plan has to be implemented immediately. The fence has to be built 24 hours a day. It has to be built even at the price of a clash with the Europeans and even with the Americans. By Sukkot, the fence has to be built."
That's a very gloomy forecast. Aren't you being overly pessimistic?
"Israel is a very strong country. It is the strongest country within a radius of 1,500 kilometers from Jerusalem. And I believe that within 10 years, it can be in the forefront of the world's leading countries. If we carry out a full disengagement and arrive at clear borders, there will be a tremendous outburst of all the energy that is stored up here.
"But for that to happen we have to behave like a mature nation that decides what it wants and takes a sober view of the prevailing reality. That is not the situation at present. Sharon is behaving as though we are an inferior nation that is incapable of coping with reality and incapable of making the right decision before making all the mistakes. So he is leading us in circles. He says the Arabs do not accept Israel's existence, and that is true. He says it is imperative to deal with the terror infrastructures, and that is also true. But he says that the facts on the ground will decide the reality, and that is not true. His own actions prove that it's not true. He says he obtained a commitment from the Americans to support the large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria remaining in Israeli territory. That is not true. It is factually not the case. It is a deliberate misleading of the public."
Are you saying that Ariel Sharon is deceiving the Israeli public?
"A campaign is under way here whose gist is to mislead the nation about substantive issues in order to prevent it from asking what the quid pro quo for the disengagement is. Sharon's claim that he made painful decisions in Gaza and in return obtained an unprecedented achievement in Judea and Samaria is not correct. Such a claim could not be made in a country with a viable opposition and a vigilant press. After all, it is obvious that the U.S. administration is against the Ariel-Kedumim bloc and against Ma'aleh Adumim and is even against Efrat [in the Gush Etzion bloc]. But Sharon will not admit that. Sharon is not telling the people the truth. He is treating us all as though we are infantile and incapable of debating our own fate."
You cite a certain factual argument concerning the value of the Bush declaration. But going beyond that, what do you see as the stumbling block in Sharon's overall conception?
"The problem is that Sharon is trying to leap over the abyss in two jumps. It won't work. He is again biting off more than he can chew and so he will not chew anything. The truth is that there's no chance that the border of the country will pass east of the fence line. In the best case, we'll be able to hold the fence line. But Sharon is not capable of admitting this. He does not have the courage to go to the settlers in the isolated settlements and tell them the truth. He does not have the courage to admit that it was folly to establish the isolated settlements. And because of that, because he does not dare speak the truth about the isolated settlements, he is also losing the big blocs. Because he did not do what was true and consistent he is leading us into self-deception. He's saying that there is a quid pro quo even though there is not. Check it out for yourself: there is no quid pro quo, only manipulation."
Those are very harsh allegations.
"It is not my allegations that are harsh. The situation is harsh. But because there is no viable opposition and because the media are remaining mute, people are not talking about the situation as it really is. There is no true reporting and there is no true debate and there is no true discourse. Everything is being kept under wraps. Everything is being kept in a state of fogginess."
But maybe the fog is positive. We learned from Kissinger that ambiguity can be creative.
"Sometimes fogginess is justified. If it is intended to play out options and alternatives for Israel's benefit, that's fine. But Sharon's fog is different. Sharon's fogginess is intended to avoid speaking the truth and to avoid having to cope with the truth. It's like the fence. Why doesn't Sharon close the fence? Because the moment it's closed, there will be a line. And when there is a line, it will be clear what's inside the line and what's outside the line. And it will be clear that what's beyond the line will not remain. So as not to arrive at that, Sharon is not closing the fence. As such, he is making Israel pay a political, security and economic price. So his ambiguity is not creative; it is destructive. He is preventing us from defining things. He is preventing us from asking honestly where we are headed."
Then I will ask again: Where are we headed?
"The disengagement plan is a fragmented and partial unilateral move with no quid pro quo. But on the day after disengagement, Sharon will not hook up with Shimon Peres and Haim Ramon and create a `big bang.' He won't go to the left. On the contrary. He'll go to the right and say that the Gaza game is finished. I think I won, you think I lost. Fine. But let's talk about the next game. Let's join ranks. We'll protect Judea and Samaria against the lapdogs of the left who would give everything.
"What will happen then is that Sharon will truly find himself within the realization of the prophecies made by the Shin Bet and the IDF. Sharon is deceiving the public in Israel, but not the Palestinians. The Palestinians know that he did not get anything substantive from Bush. It is clear to them that he got no quid pro quo but capitulated to terrorism. Therefore they will go back to terrorism. There will be another round. We will bury hundreds of people in a third intifada."
And where will the third intifada lead?
"We'll find ourselves in a situation in which entire companies of troops protect constantly dwindling groups of settlers in the various Elon Morehs. But then it will be clear to everyone that the fate of the [Samaria] settlements of Bracha, Yitzhar and Tapuah will be no different from that of [the Gaza settlements] Morag and Ganei Tal. Therefore the mothers will ask what we are doing there. The mothers will ask why their sons are being killed.
"Only then, with Europe against us and America not with us and internal unity crumbling, will Sharon get it. Suddenly he will see the light. He will see what anyone with eyes in his head can see now. But then, after hundreds have been killed and billions of shekels lost and after an internal rift, we will no longer succeed in preserving all the large settlement blocs inside Israel. At the end of the great shortcut, we'll find ourselves withdrawing to a line that is worse than the line to which we could withdraw now. We will find ourselves on a line that is very close to the Green Line."
The conversation with Ehud Barak is the first in a series of articles that will accompany the disengagement process over the next half a year. The series title, "Dividing the Land," is also the title of Ari Shavit's book, which is scheduled for publication next month (in Hebrew) by Keter Books. |
