 |  | 
Barak Thwarts the Will of Israel's People
Why I'm sitting out this pointless election.
BY BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
Wall Street Journal - Op-Ed 29/12/2000
In recent days Ehud Barak has once again offered Yasser Arafat
generous
territorial concessions, hoping that a deal will bolster his chances
in the
upcoming prime ministerial election. But at best that election will
return
him to the same predicament he faced when he resigned two weeks
ago--mired
in an endless struggle for political survival with a parliament that
does
not support his policies.
Knowing full well that the Israeli people would elect a
right-of-center
Knesset and hoping that a law permitting only sitting members of
Knesset to
run in special elections for prime minister would block my return,
Prime
Minister Barak cynically resigned his office and then used all his
power to
thwart any attempt to disband Israel's parliament.
If I learned anything from my three years in office, it is that the
prime
minister cannot act alone. Achieving his objectives requires the
support of
a strong and stable government, backed by a parliament that reflects
the
will of the Israeli people. That's why, though the Knesset did pass an
amendment that would allow me to run for the premiership, I withdrew
my
candidacy. I will not stand as a candidate in elections that won't
give
Israel a new Knesset--that offer the winner the title of prime
minister,
but
deny him the tools to effectively lead the country.
Sadly, these pointless elections come at a time when the people of
Israel
do
want real change. Yesterday's bus bombing in Tel Aviv was just the
latest
example that our current policies are not working. Indeed, since the
recent
Palestinian violence began nearly three months ago, my country has
undergone
a profound transformation. For 30 years, many Israelis convinced
themselves
that the obstacle to peace came not from without, but from
within--that
what
stymied peace was not our enemies' intent to destroy us, but our own
reluctance to compromise.
Today, many of those who hoped that we could end the conflict by
giving up
the lands liberated in the Six Day War now realize that what our
neighbors
want is far more than our return to the pre-1967 borders--something
Mr.
Barak is essentially offering again, and that Mr. Arafat already
rejected
at
Camp David last summer. The Palestinian grievance is not with the
borders
of
the Israel but with its very existence.
The events of the last few months have revealed this truth to all who
are
not totally blinded by ideology. The Barak government was prepared to
sacrifice the Jordan Valley, which gives Israel the strategic depth it
needs
to defend its eastern frontier. It was prepared to open the Pandora's
box
of
a Palestinian "right of return" that could flood Israel with millions
of
refugees. And it was prepared to divide a Jerusalem that is the very
heart
and soul of the Jewish people. The response was an intifada of rocks,
bullets, bombs and lynchings.
While many view this sequence of events as a great paradox that defies
logic, it is all too logical. When Israel negotiates from a position
of>strength, our Arab neighbors are willing to compromise. When we
negotiate
from weakness, they harden their positions. When we tolerate terror,
we are
terrorized. When we fight terror, we are more secure.
Imagine what would have happened if Mr. Arafat agreed to the
concessions
Mr.
Barak was and is still prepared to make. Those who believe that we
would
have ended the conflict have never watched Palestinian television,
listened
to Palestinian radio or read Palestinian newspapers--all controlled by
Mr.
Arafat and mobilized by him to incite hatred against the Jews and
their
state.
When I became prime minister four years ago, I took over a peace
process
that was marked by similar one-sided concessions and Palestinian
terror.
But
by insisting on the principle of reciprocity, my government
drastically
reduced Palestinian terrorism and restored a sense of security to the
people
of Israel. While I made mistakes as prime minister, on the questions
that
are most important to the future of our country, I believe that my
policies
were the right ones. Today, according to polls, a clear majority of
Israelis
agree.
They realize that there is no utopian solution to the problems we
face;
that
a peace process based on wishful thinking and blind faith will only
lead to
more violence, more terrorism and even war; that we must concentrate
our
efforts in the next few years on achieving a "cold peace," with
measured
agreements anchored in security. Based firmly on the principles of
reciprocity and deterrence, such a peace can bring a large measure of
quiet
to this nation until our enemies realize that the Jewish state will
not
buckle under their pressure.
The people of Israel also realize that in their quest to live in true
peace
with their neighbors, they stand on the right side of history. The
forces
of
globalization and liberalization that are spreading across the globe
have
made Israel stronger and more prosperous with each passing year. And
just
as
they have swept away dictatorships across the world, these same forces
will
sweep away the brutal dictators that are tyrannizing our region. When
that
day comes, when more nations in the Middle East are governed by
ballots and
not bullets, then hope for a warmer and more permanent peace will
spring
anew.
Unfortunately, the coming election does not offer the Israeli public a
real
choice. But I have no doubt that such a choice will soon be given to
them.
When that day comes, I will again consider a return to public life.
Not
simply to be called "Mr. Prime Minister," but to act like one--to
restore
Israel's security and lead our nation toward a peace that reflects the
realities of today and the possibilities of tomorrow.
|
|