Arafat is dead – Oslo is Back

Four years after the Oslo process shattered in a tremendous crash, a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon has gone back to its fundamental premises, as if there has been no Intifada, as if we haven’t suffered more than 1,000 dead, as if Israeli society had not matured since. In other words, nothing was learned.

The fundamental premise of the Oslo accords was that Arafat would come here to lead the Palestinians and to combat terror, mainly that of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. Arafat came, but he never had any intention of fighting terror. Barring one incident, Arafat took pains to cooperate with terror.

Arafat is dead, and Abu Mazen, the successor, goes so far as to air statements that the armed Intifada was a mistake and that the Palestinians should have made do with a “non-violent” Intifada. Senior government officials speak optimistically about how Abu Mazen, once he is elected, will combat terrorism. Has anyone seen Abu Mazen in the region lately? He’s got elections in another three weeks in the territories, but he’s fled to the Persian Gulf and the Arab countries (and to the Palestinian eternity, the refugees and the return). Since he remembers his last attempt to come out against the Intifada, which culminated in his disgraceful ouster from office, he is probably the last person who is going to combat terrorism.

The second premise of the Oslo accords was that the supposedly pro-Israel leadership would win legitimacy by means of the elections. The elections in early 1996 indeed conferred more legitimacy on Arafat in his own people’s eyes, but that never translated itself into pro-Israel policy.

In the Oslo days, people said we need to engage in negotiations with the Palestinian side as if there is no terror. And, indeed, negotiations were held while suicide bombers were blowing themselves up; only later did Israel realize that there was a Palestinian method to this madness. It was Ariel Sharon who said that no negotiations would be held until all terrorism stopped. But now the negotiations are being resumed, this time using backchannels, there is a sense of a new era dawning, but terror is still running rampant, mainly in the Gaza Strip. The Oslo logic called for IDF activity to be restricted and for Israel to shut its eyes to clear processes of Palestinian military preparations. And now, once again, the IDF is hesitant to crush the ever-worsening armed activity in the Gaza Strip, in the eschatological hope that the Palestinian elections will bring it to an end. In the meantime, Palestinians in the field are energetically preparing themselves for the days of disengagement, to strike with renewed ranks at the IDF and to portray the withdrawal as an act of flight, with all the impact that will have on the future of the Palestinian armed struggle.

And finally, the idea of a new Middle East is back in the arena: economic development will, by necessity, produce positive political changes. That theory was proven bankrupt in the 1990s, and it is just as unrealistic today. It was just this week that Israel gave Egypt an economic lifesaver in the form of a free trade agreement with the United States-which is hardly likely to be of any benefit to Israel. More than 90% of the fruit of this agreement will be picked by Egypt, which still has not explained why three-quarters of the foreign aid it receives from the United States is used for the acquisition of weaponry and military equipment. That amassment of military might is aimed only against Israel. It forces Israel to double its military equipment acquisitions from the United States, at the expense of welfare and society.

Sharon has proven himself to be Peres’s twin when it comes to all the eschatological beliefs of the Oslo process about Palestinian democracy, a Palestinian war on terror and regional economic development. Perhaps that is the logic of having Peres join the government and play a key role.