Support Barak?
To My Friends in the Peace Movement
By Jeff Halper
Mon, 10 Jul 2000
I wish the division in Israeli society between those who support
the peace process and those who don't was so simple. It isn't.
While I certainly support a GENUINE peace process, I cannot in
good conscience join the Peace Now "Support Barak" activities. My
hesitation in giving Barak an open check during the up-coming
Summit was only reinforced when I heard the man on the 9 o'clock
news tonight.
Barak said very clearly what his vision of peace is -- and its a
vision he has repeated since before the elections. Perhaps the
worst is his opening statement: Barak vision is "separation" --
"us here; them there." I don't know if he speaks for Peace Now
and others from the center to the left, but I find the notion of
"separating" ourselves from the Palestinians as repugnant, racist
and, when mixed with the power Israel will have over the
Palestinian state, simply the Afrikaan's word for "separation" --
Apartheid. With a million Palestinian living in Israel and
400,000 Israelis living across the Green Line, where the hell is
"here" and "there?" Are we really going to have a "peace" based
on Barak's proposals of walls, canals, bridges, tunnels and Erez-
type checkpoints, such as he is building between Bethlehem and
Jerusalem at this moment? Is this what "peace" means to Peace
Now?
Barak then went on to demolish his own absurd notion of "here"
and "there" when he stated his second negotiating position:
Israeli annexation of "settlement blocs" -- a new concept simply
linking dozens of settlements through loose "master plans," thus
giving them new legitimacy. These blocs will contain by Barak's
own admission some 80% of the West Bank settler population (he
also stated that he expects the settlers to support the "peace
agreement" he will bring home). Israel will control the entire
central West Bank from Ariel in the northwest, Shilo in the
north-center and the Jordan Valley in the northeast through
"Greater Jerusalem" extending from Modi'in through Ma'aleh Adumim
until the Jordan River, and including in the south the massive
area of Efrat, the Etzion Bloc, Beitar Illit and down to Kiryat
Arba. Even if the Palestinians get 85-90% of the West Bank
(sounds generous, doesn't it?), they will have nothing but four
bantustans separated by Israeli settlements, highways, industrial
parks and checkpoints -- the northern West Bank enclave, the
souther West Bank enclave, East Jerusalem and Gaza. In short, we
are "here" AND we are "there" -- and we control the entirety.
Barak then went on to reiterate that Jerusalem will remain under
Israeli sovereignty and will never again be divided. But what's
"Jerusalem?" What Israel calls "East Jerusalem" is a complete
fiction. Jordanian East Jerusalem -- the Old City, Sheikh Jarrah,
Wadi Joz and the Mount of Olives -- was only 6 sq. kms. in size.
Israel unilaterally annexed another 64 sq. kms. from the West
Bank (92% of "East Jerusalem") and now claims that Wallejeh,
Sawarehreh and Kufr Akab are part of our "historic, sacred and
indivisible" city. Even we of the "peace camp" have internalized
an annexation that no one else in the world (including the U.S.)
recognizes. The practicality of dismantling them aside, why don't
we insist on viewing Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Ramot, Rekhes
Shuafat, Pisgat Ze'ev, Neveh Ya'akov, East Talpiot and Gilo as
settlements -- just as we do Moskovich's Ras el-Amud project and
Har Homa? The bottom line is that Barak, Peace Now and many of
the rest of us in the "peace camp" accept annexation and
settlement no less than do the "anti-peace" camp of the right.
Why should we send Barak off with a mandate to "keep" all of
Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty instead of sharing the city
and letting the Palestinians partake of its holiness and
historicity as well, as their capital as well as ours?
Barak's fourth stated position should be reputiated by any
Israeli moved by justice and the desire for peace and
reconciliation. Not only will Israel steadfastly refuse to let
Palestinian refugees back into the country, but Barak disclaims
ANY Israeli "responsibility, accountability or sense of guilt" in
creating the refugee situation. This, despite well-documented
policies, acts and campaigns to remove Palestinians from their
lands and homes in 1948, the willful destruction of more than 400
villages so that their inhabitants (including "present absentees"
could not return), and laws ensuring not only that the refugees
could not return but that their property would revert to Jewish
ownership. Israel's moral position should be the right of return,
and then the details worked out in negotiations. How can we, the
moral ones, the peace-lovers, send Barak to Washington knowing
our responsibility in ending 50+ years of misery for millions of
people?
Can we in good conscience join the Peace Now bandwagon knowing
that Barak's positions foreclose any possibility of a viable
Palestinian state? Can we support a vision of "peace" based on
separation, control and in the end even Apartheid? Can we go
along with empty and downright WRONG slogans about Jerusalem and
the refugee issue? Can we disassociate -- like Barak can -- from
our historical responsibilities?
I, for one, cannot participate in Peace Now's uncritical "Support
Barak" campaign. I understand the need to support the beseiged
"peace camp," but I do not consider Barak's vision of peace to be
anything close to the vision of a just, viable and lasting peace
that will bring true reconciliation to our region. It is, in my
humble opinion, merely a more sophisticated version of Likud's
annexation, only the Palestinians are confined to a few
impoverished bantustans instead of living under outright
occupation. I fear both for the failure of the Summit and for
Barak's success in imposing his version of peace.
