Long ago, Paul, the apostle, was on his way to Damascus from Jerusalem. When travelling through Ramallah, he fell off his horse and hit his head. Soon afterwards he became a Christian and the world has never been the same since. The contemporary journey Israel’s leaders must take towards Middle East peace, be it via Damascus or Riyadh and the rest of the Arab and Islamic world, also goes through Ramallah, or, allegorically, through the Palestinian domains. Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon will have the opportunity to follow the way that Paul took and make a lasting peace with the Palestinians this spring when one of them becomes the next prime minister of Israel.

However, Ehud Barak has become known as much more than a former hit squad leader and an arrogant ?peace’ negotiator since the Al-Aqsa Intifada began in late September. He is also recognised as the man who not only bombed Ramallah, Gaza, Bethlehem and Nablus, but the man that wants, at any price, to make a ?final’ peace accord, even if that means disregarding international law or United Nations resolutions. Barak, in the name of peace in Israel, wants to condemn the Palestinian nation to permanent exile and an existence in ghettos based on apartheid.

In recent years he has defended Serbia’s policies of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo

Ariel Sharon on the other hand, is the ?real’ hawk in Israel. He is best known for having overseen the infamous 1982 massacres of hundreds of Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila camps in Beirut, a preview of hell on earth. He is also a longtime advocate of an alternative homeland for the Palestinians in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and, while he is not running on a ?transfer’ platform, he is known for his ?vision’ that all Palestinians in Israel and the Palestinian Territories should be ?transferred’ to Jordan so they can create permanent homes there. In recent years he has defended Serbia’s policies of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo and recommended that Israel protect the Serb leader Slobodan Milosovitch from international assault.

Hoping for the success of either of these leaders is a farce for the Palestinians; an opinion poll conducted by the highly respected Jerusalem Media and Communications in late December indicates that 86 per cent Palestinians think both leaders are ?bad’. Only 6.6 per cent believed that Barak was better for the Palestinians than Sharon, while a surprising 4.1 per cent believed it would be better for the Palestinians if Sharon won at the polls.

For the Palestinians, the choice is between a rock and a hard place. Barak being the rock and Sharon, the hard place.

Ehud Barak ? the man that brought the rock back

There is no one Israeli senior politician who has aggravated the Palestinian leadership and public as much as Ehud Barak. Elected on a platform of peace, the Labor leader proved that his past, when he assassinated PLO leaders in their bedrooms, is indeed a part of his present.

Barak’s government carried out a series of political assassinations in order to quell the Intifada, blowing up cars and sending out hit squads to all corners of the West Bank and Gaza and killing over 20 second-tier leaders of the Palestinian uprising. In 1989 he personally oversaw the assassination of Abu Jihad, Khalil Al Wazir, the main supporter of the first Intifada, in the bedroom of his Tunis home.

In the name of peace Barak tried to push through a ?peace deal’ that would include the expropriation of 80 per cent of all settlements into the state of Israel and the parcelling up of Jerusalem into streets of ?territorial sovereignty’. He further claimed he was returning 95 per cent of the West Bank (which by definition includes Jerusalem), when in real terms he was offering to ?return’ just a little over 50 per cent.

His best was simply not good enough

Although it is generally perceived that Ehud Barak made the most ?generous’ offer to date to the Palestinians, it is still far off meeting the most minimal of Palestinian demands. His ?best’ was simply not good enough.

Since Barak has no ?personal’ relationship with the Palestinian people, unlike former Labour leader Shimon Peres, there are few among them that actually like or support him. But within Palestinian leadership circles, he remains the favourite candidate by far.

?There is no doubt that we don’t want Sharon and therefore we want Barak. We would prefer Peres, but we have no voting rights,? said Yasser Abed Rabbo, senior negotiator and Palestinian minister of information and culture.

Palestinian negotiators are worried that the entire basis of the peace discussion would change for the worse with the premership of Ariel Sharon who led Barak by a minimum of 20 points in the polls throughout the campaign.

For the leadership of the Intifada, which insists on full withdrawal by Israel, the arrival of the hawk would be better than the ?hawk disguised as a dove?, says Intifada leader Marwan Barghouti.

?We are not looking for a ?negotiated’ settlement, we are looking for a just peace and that we can only have with an honest man ? Barak is not an honest man,? he added.

?Arik’ Sharon ? a really hard place

Sharon’s very name sends shivers down Palestinian spines. Although his highest post in any government was as defence minister under Menachim Begin in 1982, he is perceived to be powerful and evil. Menachim Begin’s biographers, and the former prime minister himself, have often blamed the war against Lebanon and the 18-year occupation of that country on Sharon’s miscalculations. Even his own people have frequently written and depicted him as being bloodthirsty and brutal. A high court in Israel stated in a commission of inquiry that the Israeli army, under Sharon’s leadership, was accountable for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. Mr Sharon was dismissed from his post but never spent a day behind bars. He redeemed himself to the Israeli right wing when he became housing minister in the 1990s and encouraged land expropriations and the building of more Jewish settlements on occupied and expropriated lands.

There are many who believe the international community, the Arab world, and indeed any Palestinian leadership willing to accept less than full withdrawal from Arab lands occupied since 1967, would receive a brutal wake up call from a Sharon victory.

This will be the real face of Israel for all to see

? This will be the real face of Israel for all to see. Barak is still wearing the mask of a civilised leader in comparison to Sharon. We want to deal with the real face of Israel the one that tells us the truth and does not lie about its intentions,? said a senior Hamas activist in Ramallah.

There are many Palestinians who seek an ?honest showdown’ with the Israelis, as represented by Sharon. ?Even if there is an agreement we don’t like negotiated with Sharon ? at least it will be implemented. The agreements made with Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak have not been respected, because inside Israel if the right wing does not approve, there is no way of implementing anything,? said a senior analyst who believes the current Intifada will continue under Sharon until new lines are drawn according to military realities.

?The so-called left wing cannot implement anything, it is always the right wing that implements and carries through on its agreements. So why have this charade with the left? Have honesty with the right,? he added.

Meanwhile ?Arab’ Israeli voters are likely to boycott the Israeli elections all together. They despise Barak for allowing Israeli troops to open fire and kill 13 of their own Arab citizens, simply because they were Arab. ?When the Israeli Jews riot they get water cannons, when Israeli Arabs riot they get live ammunition, so why should we vote for Barak?? asked Sheik Ra’id Salah, the Mayor of Um Al Fahem, where about half of the 13 Arab Israelis were killed.

Voting for Sharon is not an option for Israeli Arabs. As in 1996 when Shimon Peres ran against Bibi Netanyahu, Arab Israelis will vote or not vote according to their principles, with the more ?dovish’ candidate likely to suffer as a result.

Copyright ? IC Publications Limited 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means or used for any business purpose without the written consent of the publisher. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is as accurate as possible, the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any consequences arising from its use.

Back to the top
Contents