Haaretz, Wednesday, August 08, 2001 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=61433&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y The covenant of thugs By Gideon Samet Conventional wisdom has it that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat can't stop being the "thug" that former prime minister Ehud Barak described this week in the New York Times. Nor can Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stop being a thug in the eyes of the leaders on the other side. Even if both men were to make the move that now seems further away than ever and were to coordinate a cease-fire, dialogue between them would lead nowhere. Conclusion: We are doomed to a very long period, perhaps years, of living by the sword. Is this heaven-decreed? It wasn't for worthy leaders like Begin, Rabin (with Peres), Sadat, Hussein. All the defeatist theories are worthless when remembering the depths of mutual revulsion from which these leaders climbed to take themselves and their public's opinion to the first agreements between their peoples. Those who accompanied Begin on his first visit to Cairo at the end of 1979 will never forget how, with a nod from Sadat, the Egyptian street changed. From the porches around the plaza, where the previously defamed Israeli leader's convoy arrived, thousands rose to applaud and chant "Begin Begin," as if it were Zion Square in Jerusalem. One can only imagine the applause Sharon would hear, even in today's atmosphere, if he were to declare there had been progress in the negotiations with the Palestinians. Even Barak, who now curses Arafat, had the majority behind him when he conducted detailed talks toward the end of his pitiful administration. There are a variety of versions about what happened during those final few months. Some of them, coming from within a sympathetic American administration (and from the pro-Israel New York Times), blame our side for a large portion of the failure. But Israeli patriots would be making a big mistake if they were to adopt the conclusion that is currently sweeping large swaths of public opinion - that there's no chance to revive the negotiations. The first movements toward important changes in relations between nations have always been the decisions of their leaders. Such decisions facilitated an escape from desperate situations that appeared everlasting. Arafat is no easy customer. Nonetheless, many Israelis who are hardening their positions are invited to consider the question of what would the Sharon government offer the Palestinians if - miracle of miracles - the negotiations were to resume. It sometimes appears as if the continuing violence serves the strategy of the Israeli leader. Every political novice knows that Sharon can't give up anything close to the necessary minimum. But - and this is being said with caution - there's room for a lot of skepticism about his desire to do so. The manner in which Sharon presents the obstacle on the way to renewed dialogue is, therefore, a huge deception. Shimon Peres believes that it's possible to break the deadlock with immediate political contacts, even under fire. He's right. Sharon's opposed. The Israeli leader is demanding an absolute cease-fire. But, in fact, he doesn't want one. He's not interested in negotiations because he knows well that the moment talks begin, his stubborn rejectionism will be exposed. Is there really nothing to discuss with Arafat? Perhaps there isn't, yet it's worth checking. But what about Sharon? What outline of a general agreement will the Palestinians be able to talk with him about for more than one serious session? Dragging a suffering people into a long-lasting military confrontation based on a myth that there's no one to talk to is terrible make-believe. This is why you won't hear such a claim from the crafty Sharon. He'd rather declare his willingness to talk, but not before his impossible condition of absolute quiet is met. Only when Sharon stops using this diplomatic ploy will it be possible to find out whether there really isn't any choice but to forever live by the sword. It's too bad Arafat doesn't put the prime minister to such a test by dramatically reducing the level of violence. It's a covenant between thugs. Tragically, only when more blood has flowed and outside pressure has forced the two to sit down together, will it become clear who has done more to deceive his enemy - and his own people.
