When Israel dismantled the city of Yamit and completed its withdrawal according to the Camp David accords, the Left called upon Menachem Begin to withdraw from Judea, Samaria and Gaza and complete 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 - the man who had dismantled entire communities in the Sinai - as intransigent, because of his refusal to consider further territorial withdrawals and his support of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
To the Left, 'Land For Peace' became a proven policy, while to the right, it was a ruse meant to eliminate Israel in phases and would ultimately lead to further conflict in the future. The Right did not trust the PLO, nor did many on the Right trust the Egyptians, who took 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 Carter administration's condemnations of Israeli settlement policy to the Lebanon war several years later, which sought to deliver a crushing blow to the PLO, Israeli society was intensely divided.
Then came the intifada of the late 1980's and, with global assistance, Arafat was elevated to the role of statesman. When Yitzchak Rabin and PLO 'Chairman' Yasir 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, it was clear from the Palestinian Media and school textbooks that little had changed. However, the Left choose to look away and the Right, too, said little. In a recent interview with an American television network, former Prime Minister 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. However, Barak claimed, it is now clear to him that Arafat's intentions were simply to incite.
Months before the outbreak of the recent violence, as Israelis were watching Barak at Camp David, Palestinians were busy stockpiling weapons and raiding Israeli pharmacies for supplies. It is safe to say that they knew in advance that Israel would probably not accept their demands and that their struggle would leave the negotiating table and go back onto the violent streets. When the violence erupted, the Right once again raised the question, what had negotiations accomplished? The net result was more violence, the lynching of Israeli soldiers and the desecration of Joseph's tomb. What about the Left? "We have no choice, they are our partners, like it or not: We must have peace", they argued, while holding on to that dream, however elusive.
As for Ehud Barak, many on the right say his offers emboldened the Palestinians who demanded more from an Israel that already appeared weakened. Violence was the means to force their demands. Targeting civilians with acts of terror as a means of pressure has been employed many times. Just read the history of the Arab riots under the British Mandate of Palestine. Others argued, in defense of Barak, that his offers unmasked Arafat, his regime and their true goals. Maybe so, but it's of little consolation to the families of terror victims. The comeback of the Right was inevitable. Thus, the last election placed the once seemingly unelectable Ariel Sharon in the Prime Minister?s office.
Yet, just when one thinks the Right has won the day, think again, things can change rapidly. Should one expect the United States and the Western world, after years of attempting to broker an agreement, to simply walk away? Consider the possibility of massive international pressure forcing Arafat (or his replacement) to restore order and control the terror. Then it's back to the negotiating tables with Sharon (or his successor), who again, with US and international pressure will be forced to break bread with the leader of Fatah. Perhaps Arafat, seeing he has no United States support on the issue of refugees, will agree to drop that demand in return for ninety-nine or one hundred percent of the territories. What would Sharon do if the world backed Arafat at that moment?
The leaders of the Left and Peace Now would stand up and take their bows and proclaim that this is what they had been stating from the start. Full territorial withdrawal to the '67 borders and, finally, the once elusive peace would become reality. It would be, once again, their moment. After the deal was made and all the commotion was over and calm was restored, they would sit and bask in their victory on the beaches of Tel Aviv while engaging in self-platitudes about never giving up hope. The Right too might drop its guard and enjoy the new quiet from the Cafes on Jerusalem's Jaffa Road.
However, as the Israelis would live the care free lives which they have longed for, the Palestinians would not forget their vows of Palestine from the "River to the Sea" and would never lose the will to fight for it with a vengeance, catching the enemy in their slumber. With renewed bitter fighting, the nightmare would return, only now the foe would be stronger and even more determined. The situation would become as difficult as ever. At that point, Israel would have no buffer, only idle promises from the international community. Still, amidst the despair, there would be time for debate. The Right, although practically an equal party to Israel's policies, would rise again and declare their vindication and once again urge strength in the face of Arab threats and terrorism. The remnants of the Left would continue to seek Israeli culpability for the renewed hostilities.
One thing is for sure, few on either side would stand up and say, "we were wrong".
----------------------------
Larry Domnitch is a Teacher and Author who resides in Efrat.
To the Left, 'Land For Peace' became a proven policy, while to the right, it was a ruse meant to eliminate Israel in phases and would ultimately lead to further conflict in the future. The Right did not trust the PLO, nor did many on the Right trust the Egyptians, who took 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 Carter administration's condemnations of Israeli settlement policy to the Lebanon war several years later, which sought to deliver a crushing blow to the PLO, Israeli society was intensely divided.
Then came the intifada of the late 1980's and, with global assistance, Arafat was elevated to the role of statesman. When Yitzchak Rabin and PLO 'Chairman' Yasir 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, it was clear from the Palestinian Media and school textbooks that little had changed. However, the Left choose to look away and the Right, too, said little. In a recent interview with an American television network, former Prime Minister 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. However, Barak claimed, it is now clear to him that Arafat's intentions were simply to incite.
Months before the outbreak of the recent violence, as Israelis were watching Barak at Camp David, Palestinians were busy stockpiling weapons and raiding Israeli pharmacies for supplies. It is safe to say that they knew in advance that Israel would probably not accept their demands and that their struggle would leave the negotiating table and go back onto the violent streets. When the violence erupted, the Right once again raised the question, what had negotiations accomplished? The net result was more violence, the lynching of Israeli soldiers and the desecration of Joseph's tomb. What about the Left? "We have no choice, they are our partners, like it or not: We must have peace", they argued, while holding on to that dream, however elusive.
As for Ehud Barak, many on the right say his offers emboldened the Palestinians who demanded more from an Israel that already appeared weakened. Violence was the means to force their demands. Targeting civilians with acts of terror as a means of pressure has been employed many times. Just read the history of the Arab riots under the British Mandate of Palestine. Others argued, in defense of Barak, that his offers unmasked Arafat, his regime and their true goals. Maybe so, but it's of little consolation to the families of terror victims. The comeback of the Right was inevitable. Thus, the last election placed the once seemingly unelectable Ariel Sharon in the Prime Minister?s office.
Yet, just when one thinks the Right has won the day, think again, things can change rapidly. Should one expect the United States and the Western world, after years of attempting to broker an agreement, to simply walk away? Consider the possibility of massive international pressure forcing Arafat (or his replacement) to restore order and control the terror. Then it's back to the negotiating tables with Sharon (or his successor), who again, with US and international pressure will be forced to break bread with the leader of Fatah. Perhaps Arafat, seeing he has no United States support on the issue of refugees, will agree to drop that demand in return for ninety-nine or one hundred percent of the territories. What would Sharon do if the world backed Arafat at that moment?
The leaders of the Left and Peace Now would stand up and take their bows and proclaim that this is what they had been stating from the start. Full territorial withdrawal to the '67 borders and, finally, the once elusive peace would become reality. It would be, once again, their moment. After the deal was made and all the commotion was over and calm was restored, they would sit and bask in their victory on the beaches of Tel Aviv while engaging in self-platitudes about never giving up hope. The Right too might drop its guard and enjoy the new quiet from the Cafes on Jerusalem's Jaffa Road.
However, as the Israelis would live the care free lives which they have longed for, the Palestinians would not forget their vows of Palestine from the "River to the Sea" and would never lose the will to fight for it with a vengeance, catching the enemy in their slumber. With renewed bitter fighting, the nightmare would return, only now the foe would be stronger and even more determined. The situation would become as difficult as ever. At that point, Israel would have no buffer, only idle promises from the international community. Still, amidst the despair, there would be time for debate. The Right, although practically an equal party to Israel's policies, would rise again and declare their vindication and once again urge strength in the face of Arab threats and terrorism. The remnants of the Left would continue to seek Israeli culpability for the renewed hostilities.
One thing is for sure, few on either side would stand up and say, "we were wrong".
----------------------------
Larry Domnitch is a Teacher and Author who resides in Efrat.