By Roni Ben Efrat
A glow has returned to the cheeks of the Labour Party and the left wing in Israel. All (almost) rage with righteous indignation over the collapse of the Oslo agreements. Front-line groups such as Yesh Gvul and Women in Black, which went into retirement four years ago, emerge from their cubbyholes.
In 1992 they folded up the banners saving "Stop the Occupation!" The idea was to give Rabin a chance. He would bring about their dream: "Two states for two peoples!" Now here they are again.
Yesh Gvul has renewed its meetings. It has come up with a statement, signed by 200 so far: "We, members of the army reserve, announce that we can no longer bear the burden of participation in and responsibility for the moral and political deterioration. We proclaim that we shall not take part in the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, nor shall we take part in the guarding of Jewish settlements."
Blasts from Israel's leading cultural lights appear daily in the newspapers. Peace Now and Meretz, supported by the Arab parties, have set up a kind of "war room", from which they direct a campaign of demonstrations and assemblies across from the prime minister's house and in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square.
These people who pour into the streets today are the very ones who saw their world collapse when Netanyahu defeated Peres. Not that the elections alone did the trick. If the new prime minister had continued the peace process, fulfilling Oslo II, then the left would have continued to behave, no doubt, as a loyal camp.
For these are the same people who undertook talks of reconciliation with the Jewish settlers after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. And when they lost the elections, their most important priority was "to heal the rift in the people" by opening up a dialogue with the national-religious camp.
What then has brought them at last back into the streets? The apparent collapse of Oslo. But why in the world is the Israeli left supporting Oslo?
Referring to the recent fire-fights, Israeli poet and writer Yitzhak La'or had this to say: "The Israelis — including the left — were surprised by the events in the Occupied Territories. Their astonishment provides an excellent lesson in what was called, until last week, 'the spirit of Oslo'. What that spirit meant to them may be put like this: 'Thank God we're done with the Palestinians!' The 'peaceniks', for the most part, have no idea what the life of Palestinians is like under occupation or at the feet of the Jewish settlements. To them, therefore, the Oslo accords meant the freeing of their consciences from the burden called 'rule over another people'. As if those accords do not include Israeli rule over another people!" (Ha'aretz, 1.10.96.)
Baruch Kimmerling, professor of political sociology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, wrote the same day in Yediot Aharonot: "The former Labour-Meretz government bears responsibility for the 'Bosniazation' of the relations between ourselves and the Palestinians, not less — and maybe even more — than the amateurish, nationalist-religious government of Netanyahu. The opening of the Hasmonean tunnel (by Netanyahu) was perhaps a political folly, but it was a national crime (on the part of the former government) to leave in place isolated pockets like Joseph's Tomb, Gush Katif, or the 400 Jewish families in the midst of Hebron. The establishment of armed Palestinian militias, on the assumption that they would replace us like subcontractors in the dirty work of repressing Hamas along with the rest of the opposition movements — and on the further assumption that those guns would not be turned against us or against the Palestinian Authority — was a fundamental error.
"The Labour-Meretz government wanted to have its cake and eat it too. It wanted to keep all the settlements and maintain direct or indirect control over all the territory; it wanted to use the Palestinians to rule the Palestinians; it wanted the Arabs to recognise all our rights over the land in exchange for municipal administration! They would get 'full autonomy' (Area A) over 5% of their territory, the most densely populated enclaves in the world, and in that they were supposed to see the fulfilment of their desires; we would take from them all the water resources, their land reserves, and the right of the return of their exiles, and they in turn would be forever grateful. In such fashion the peace government was planning to build a new and flourishing Middle East."
In contrast with La'or and Kimmerling, two isolated intellectuals, the peace camp — or more accurately, the Oslo camp — keeps calling blindly to get the process back on track, the very track which led to the bloodbath at the end of September.
The peace camp, as well as sectors of the Israeli Arab elite, have fallen prey to the optical illusion created by Peres & Co — namely, that it is possible to make peace with a people's leaders while ignoring the people. Peres & Co thought that they could bring Arafat in as an ally without considering the Palestinian people, which has not known a single day of relief since Oslo was signed.
But what should the left do? Isn't Oslo the only game in town? Isn't it, sad to say, the best the Palestinians can get? Shouldn't the left be helping them to get at least that?
Once upon a time, when the left was really an opposition, it insisted on the creation of a viable Palestinian state. The Oslo agreement undermines the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. It cantonises the autonomous enclaves, surrounds them with Jewish settlements and allows them no control over their natural resources. It provides no basis for independent economic development — and meanwhile Israel continues to strangle the Territories with closure.
Having thus provided a recipe for dissatisfaction and opposition, Israel generously afforded Arafat the means to suppress the same. That is, Oslo prescribed the police state which has resulted. It is quite consistent, therefore, that Israel, including the left, has politely averted its eyes from the violations of human rights perpetuated by the PA.
Once upon a time, the left insisted on the dismantling of the settlements. The Oslo agreement leaves the settlements intact.
Once upon a time, the left insisted on the Palestinians' right to determine the future of occupied East Jerusalem. The Oslo agreement leaves the Palestinians with no leverage on the issue of Jerusalem.
Once upon a time, the left insisted on the Palestinians' right to open their doors to the millions in exile. The Oslo agreement makes no provision for the exiles, who will continue to live in refugee camps, citizens of nothing.
It is therefore the duty of the left to come out unequivocally against the Oslo agreement. They should be out on the streets indeed — and should have been since Oslo was signed — crying the agreement down. It is the only game in town only if the left plays no other.
What is the alternative to Oslo? An end to the occupation, the dismantling of settlements and the creation of a viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. It is not the function of an opposition to decide in advance what the ceiling is — "how much the Palestinians can hope to get". It is the function of an opposition to call things by their right names.
The aims of four years ago did not seem impossible then. What right does the left have to judge them impossible now? But even supposing for a moment that those goals are impossible, this relieves no-one from the duty of working toward them. Oslo does not lead toward them.
The left has a duty to undermine the support for Oslo within Israel itself, preparing the ground for the changes which must take place, whether sooner or later, if the two peoples are ever to find peace.
[Translated from the Hebrew by Stephen Langfur. Abridged from Challenge.]