Imprimir

Jerusalem – «I am not an easy negotiator, but my word is my word, and my red lines are clear». So pronounced Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon to top Palestinian negotiator Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) right after Sharon’s dramatic election victory.

In a nutshell, this is what the recent elections were all about: red lines. With their resounding Yes to Sharon, Israeli voters sent an unequivocal message to the world: We do, after all, have our limits.

The specific parameters are well-known:

• No Palestinian right of return.
• No division of Jerusalem.
• No abandonment of the strategic Jordan Valley.
• No negotiations under fire.

These issues were consensual in Israeli society just a short while ago; Oslo changed all that. Take for instance Jerusalem. In 70 CE, the Jewish people lost its beloved capital to Roman Emperor Titus.

As commentator Sarah Honig once observed, it took him four legions of the formidable Roman army to capture Jerusalem; yet 2,000 years later, the leader of the sovereign Jewish state was ready to give Israel’s capital away to Yasser Arafat — for the sake of a dubious peace agreement — without a fight. That leader, Ehud Barak, did so with such amazing irresponsibility that he elicited the only logical response any mature people with even a little remaining historical perspective and national pride could have produced: an unequivocal rejection of that leadership. On Election Day, Barak was brought down in shame as Israelis showed themselves to be in favor of real peace, and in opposition to Oslo’s false promises.

The Labor Party shares a different interpretation of the vote. With vintage arrogance, for example, Shimon Peres said that had he been given the chance, he could have defeated Sharon (Peres has never won a single electoral contest). Other Laborites claim that, in fact, Barak the prime minister, not the peace-camp platform, lost on Election Day.

Myths die hard. Predictably, the Israeli Left seems unable to admit that it has been wrong all along since 1993. Oslo was built on a fundamentally wrong conception – that the Arab- Israeli conflict is about territorial rather than existential disagreement; thus the formula «Land for Peace.»

But as Barak’s magnanimous offers at Camp David later would prove, no amount of Israeli concessions can ever satisfy the PLO. Columnist Charles Krauthammer put it this way: The Palestinians do not want their own state; they want their neighbor’s state. What is there to talk about when Israel still doesn’t appear on a single official map issued by the Palestinian Authority?

Will things change? If the initial Palestinian reaction to Sharon’s victory is any indication, there is not much room for optimism. Their welcome message to the new prime minister included the following: a kind letter from Arafat, a bombing in Jerusalem, a Sharon-effigy burning ceremony in Sidon, mortar-shelling of settlements and this statement from Fatah: «If the Israelis think that Sharon will bring them security, we say loudly that Israel will never have security.» As if all this evidence of goodwill weren’t enough, the official Voice of Palestine called for a «Day of Rage,» which was obediently heeded. Days ago, a Palestinian bus driver deliberatedly overran 20 Israelis, killing eight. Arafat dismissed this deed as a car accident.

At a basic level, the Palestinian leadership now faces two elementary options:

• They can start to exhibit some degree of realism, reasonableness and a modicum of flexibility, which together may pave the way for the «historical reconciliation» that everyone longs for.
• Or they can stick steadfastly to their Utopian position, maintain their al-Aqsa intifada in the territories and keep shooting at Israeli civilians while pronouncing the word peace to the Western media, United Nations officials and European diplomats.

If the Palestinians choose Option 2, they should recall that their intransigence with Barak brought them Sharon, a man Arafat feared would «deal with us in a crude military manner.»

By choosing the path of violence, Arafat and his henchmen should bear in mind that they risk finding themselves, once again, sailing back to Tunis. Only this time, Sharon will be waving bon voyage from Gaza instead of Lebanon. In sum: «Mr. Chairman, everything is in your hands.»

Julián Schvindlerman is a political analyst and journalist in Jerusalem.