Yoav Peled
Friday May 24, 2002
The Guardian
Astute observers of Israeli politics have been wondering, ever since
Ehud Barak was elected prime minister in 1999, whether his "peace
offensive" was a real effort to achieve peace with Israel's neighbours
or only an attempt to "expose" the Arabs' intention of destroying
Israel.
The debate intensified when the failure of the Camp David II summit
in the summer of 2000 was almost universally interpreted as a
rejection by Yasser Arafat of Barak's "generous" offer to end Israel's
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and enable the Palestinians to
establish an independent state.
An interview Barak recently gave to Benny Morris - a convert to the
cause of the Israeli rightwing - which was published in the New York
Review of Books (and reprinted in this newspaper yesterday) allows a
glimpse into some of his underlying assumptions.
The controversy over what actually transpired at Camp David is well
known by now, and Barak's version of events is disputed (yet again) in
the same issue of the New York Review by Robert Malley and Hussein
Agha. What is more revealing is Barak's view of the people with whom
he was purportedly trying to reach a peace agreement.
"Repeatedly during [the] interview," Morris reports, Barak spoke of
the Palestinians as products of a culture "in which to tell a lie ...
creates no dissonance. They don't suffer from the problem of telling
lies that exists in Judaeo-Christian culture. Truth is seen as an
irrelevant category. There is only that which serves your purpose and
that which doesn't." Curiously, Morris, who did more than anybody to
dispel official Israeli lies about the war of 1948, does not record
his own reaction to these racist stereotypes.
Polite western society no longer tolerates such characterisations
of entire cultures, although I suspect things may have changed, at
least in the US, since September 11. But in Israel the public
denigration of Arab culture was historically acceptable, since, like
all colonial movements, Zionism had to dehumanise the indigenous
inhabitants of its country of settlement in order to legitimise their
displacement. Thus, as many studies have shown, depictions of the
Arabs as conniving, dishonest, lazy, treacherous and murderous were
commonplace in Israeli school textbooks, as in much of Israeli
literature in general.
For the past two decades, however, Israeli society has been going
through a profound and wide-ranging process of liberalisation. A great
deal of effort was invested, by the upper-middle strata of Jewish
Israeli society (the people who voted for Barak in 1999), in the
struggle against the mutual stereotyping of Jews and Palestinians.
A whole industry of "dialogue and coexistence" groups sprouted up.
As a result, generalisations such as the ones used by Barak were
delegitimised to the point where it became difficult, in classroom
situations for example, to make any general statement about a
particular group in society. Tragically, all of this was halted by the
breakdown of the peace process and the onset of the second intifada.
The question, then, is whether Barak's statements reflect a genuine
frustration over the Palestinians' response to his peace efforts; are
an effort to cater to changing public opinion; or whether he held this
view of the Palestinians all along.
As chief of staff of the Israeli Defence Force, he opposed the Oslo
accords, and as minister of the interior in Yitzhak Rabin's cabinet he
abstained in the crucial vote on the Oslo II agreement. When he took
office as prime minister he reneged on the commitments undertaken by
his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, in the Wye Plantation agreement,
to further withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory. And
throughout his tenure as prime minister he refused to abide by any
clause of the Oslo agreements that mandated further Israeli
"concessions" to the Palestinians. This behaviour is perfectly
understandable if the Palestinians are all pathological liars and
agreements signed by them are not to be trusted.
During Barak's year and a half in office as prime minister, he kept
warning that Israel was like a ship heading towards certain collision
with an iceberg, and that his peace efforts were crucial for avoiding
a catastrophe. Unfortunately, what is revealed in the Morris interview
is that the captain of the ship may have been blinded by prejudice, so
that instead of avoiding the iceberg he sailed full steam ahead right
into it.
Yoav Peled teaches political science at Tel Aviv University. He is
co-author, with Gershon Shafir, of Being Israeli: The Dynamics of
Multiple Citizenship (CUP).