Wednesday, January 17, 2001

 by Jodi Millen-Beamer

 The choice between Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon in the upcoming Israeli elections is causing a great deal of frustration and confusion for many Israelis of the peace camp.  The current buzz phrase being used to describe the options is, "a choice between the plague and cholera."  While medically speaking no one would want either, politically speaking cholera seems the better choice.  Although politically speaking, people are resentful at having these as the only options.

 The Israeli peace camp is not easily definable.  Generally speaking, the peace camp is comprised of radical-left to centre-left Israelis, meaning the camp members’ ideology differs significantly.  The Peace Coalition – a formal body – should not be confused with the general peace camp.  Peace Coalition is an umbrella organization of approximately 18 radical to center-left organizations, is practical in purpose and according to the Coalition’s spokesperson Didi Remez, “represents the ‘left’ when the ‘left’ can unite.”

 The Peace Coalition was formed in January 1999 when the peace talks between Israel and Syria intensified; when the talks became deadlocked, the Coalition went into a period of dormancy.  It was reactivated during the Camp David Accords and again in December 2000 when the Coalition anticipated a breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.

 While amongst peace campers a “definitely-not-Sharon” mentality seems to be prevailing, it does not necessarily indicate that an “absolutely-Barak” declaration is right behind it.  The peace camp is comprised of many Zionist leftists who, while traditionally lenient on the major issues of settlements and Jerusalem, cannot give way to the issue of the Palestinian right of return.  While not all of Zionist left is stringent on the issue, for most the possibility of Jews being outnumbered by Palestinians in Israel is one step too far.

 To make this position clear, a paid advertisement initiated by Israeli authors David Grossman and Amos Oz and signed by Israeli politicians and intellectuals of the left, was taken out in the Tuesday, January 2 edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.  It stated: “We want to clarify that we shall never
be able to agree to the return of the refugees to within the borders if Israel.” 

 In her article “Unhappy Peace Campers” that also ran in Ha’aretz on Friday, January 5, Lily Galili wrote: “Almost as a single body, the Zionist left is united in its opposition to the right of return…declared ‘leftists’ have said that if the agreement falls over the issue of sovereignty over the Temple Mount, there is reason to continue…If, however, the agreement falls over the issue of the right of return, the entire peace camp will crash at once.”

 However, since Yasser Arafat (with the support and encouragement of the Arab states) has pushed the issue to the forefront of the negotiations and Barak has not been clear about his willingness or unwillingness to entertain the issue, the possibility of Barak as prime minister leaves many leftists unsupportive of him as the left-wing option.

 Barak’s maneuvers as Israel’s negotiator for peace have also caused many of the peace camp to lose trust in him.  One active and informed Israeli peace activist says that the loss of confidence in Barak has occurred for two main reasons.  First, Barak claimed ownership of the peace process and consequently, must deal with the outcomes as his responsibility.  He made critical mistakes: one of the most notable was to gamble in the peace negotiations and lose.  According to this peace activist: “Barak pushed it into an all or nothing situation and now we have nothing.” 

 The second reason is not simply that the peace agenda failed, but rather, did it have to fail? For the ideological left, it is integral that the failure be investigated so that the agenda can be rebuilt correctly and not make the same mistakes.  Some of the questions that need to be probed, says the peace activist, are: Why under Barak, was there a continuation of settlement expansion at the same rate as there was under Benjamin Netanyahu?  If Barak is for peace, then why were operations handled in the way they were at the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada (i.e., techniques that were necessary only for a military operation)?

 The peace campers remember that it was Barak who said that he should be judged by his results.  Now the results are in and they show that Barak has failed.  However, the leftists do not agree with the equation of Barak failed and the chances for peace have failed.  For them, the fact that Barak failed, means that Barak failed; the chances for peace are still alive.  The subsequent choice is disengagement from Barak, even if the election period is too critical a time to do so. 

 With the lack of confidence in Barak, there is talk amongst the peace campers about casting blank ballots or not voting at all.  The exact numbers of how many plan to take this course are unclear.  Remez, also spokesperson for Peace Now, could only say that the numbers are “very speculative.”  However, he said, “one can say with a good deal of security that the Israeli left has not rallied behind Barak as they did in the previous election.  He has lost the ideological left.”

 Galili ended her Ha’aretz article with the statement: “Another small crack in the left, where there are already people who are hoping that Ariel Sharon will get elected to reunify the crumbling camp.”  When asked about this later, Galili said she had gotten the feeling from the leftists she had spoke to that “Barak confuses them.”  The example she gave was of Barak returning from Camp David and suddenly Jerusalem was on the agenda; the peace camp was caught off guard.  In her article, Galili reports that the Palestinian right of return issue arising as an ultimatum has had the same effect. When asked about the Sharon win comment specifically, Galili said what she believed the peace campers were trying to say was, “at least under Sharon we can reorganize.”

 There can be no question that with Sharon as prime minister, the peace camp will not be forced to compromise on the Palestinian right of return.  With Barak as prime minister once again, however, both the Peace Coalition and the peace camp in general will need to reorganize their agendas while they disengage themselves from Barak as the political left-wing option.  Though at that point Barak may realize that he will need to do some reorganizing of his own.  For if he does not represent the leftist peace camp, then whom will he – the self-proclaimed successor to Rabin - be representing?