Oh, how we wish it were possible to eliminate these dangerous weapons from the Mideast! No one desires that more than us here in America. But sadly, now is not the time. However, whenever the time comes, perhaps as early as within the next two thousand years, you better believe the U.S. will be leading the charge.
'Yes, but not now' By Doron Rosenblum
Like a gloriously feathered bird that spreads its huge, multicolored wings, Israel spews forth plumes of stalling: it's the same artistic masterwork, sometimes bordering on genius. It covers decades, generations. Israel's leaders have always placed this art on a pedestal, taken pride in their contribution to it and competed with one another for top marks in the ability to delay - delay for its own sake - any process: to cause time itself to hover in the air like a ball on the nose of a seal. The point of departure is that "time is on our side," especially when we do nothing, and that there is no point pursuing opportunities, as it's preferable to wait for the Arabs to miss them. The underlying logic is: Why shake things up, as long as there is no total catastrophe? Why defy fate? Say thank you, Jews, for the fact that we are alive at all.
Our tradition has always taken a forgiving, sometimes winking, attitude toward delay and deferral: from the "SHT" and "PET" ("Shabbat today," "Pesach today") pretexts, by means of which our forefathers avoided worshiping King Ahasuerus, to "every delay is for the good," and the dire warnings against hastening the end. And who are the paragons of leadership in this sphere if not Yitzhak Shamir and Golda Meir - giants who told the passing moment to stop dead in its tracks.
Yet all this was perhaps no more than a prologue. It's possible that only now we are entering the true golden age of stalling. Because Ariel Sharon, unlike his predecessors, is not huffing and puffing in order to stay in the same spot while the Earth keeps spinning on its axis. For the great master of deception, craftiness and indirection, stalling is pure pleasure and game: for him, deferral, delay and torpedoing are a dynamic challenge, endlessly fascinating and amusing.
Strengthened from outside by an enemy who, like him, has wracked up decades of winking, bluff and sleight of hand; free of internal public pressure to do something; backed by the inertia addicts known as "senior defense figures," Sharon has achieved in the craft of stalling what Beethoven attained in his late piano sonatas: pure art, unvarnished creativity that eludes an attempt at definition and analysis. Humbly and reverently, we can only point to a few virtuoso chords, without purporting to decrypt them completely.
`We're not talking about a serious proposal'
The recent Syrian proposal to enter into negotiations was rebuffed like the rapid return of a racket ball on the beach, in a single pauseless follow-through. Bringing into play the same instinctive gut response, in the past two and a half years, Sharon has rebuffed the Egyptian-Jordanian plan, the Saudi plan, the road map, the Dan Meridor plans, the initiative of Ephraim Halevy, the hudna idea, the cease-fire proposal and all the ideas and proposals in between: the missions of Zini, Powell, Bush ... So what's a Syrian initiative for us? This reflex action - to kill any movement - characterizes all the right-wing governments since Menachem Begin, and not only them; but in the period of Sharon - the supreme stand-up comic, possessor of a subtle, almost private sense of humor - this conditioned reflex has assumed a comic, almost baroque twist. Sharon's shtick is to say that all the advocates of the initiatives and the plans, including those he himself appointed, are "not serious."
Meaning: not serious like him. No more than pranksters, a bunch of clowns. Because if they were serious, they would behave according to his plan, which is: not to present a plan at all. And besides, the lack of seriousness of every one of these plans is obvious from the fact that not one of them says anything about "thickening" the settlements.
`Typical Syrian maneuver'
We readied ourselves for "painful concessions" - truly painful - and we also declared solemnly that this time we would not let any historic opportunity slip by. And what did we get in return? A "typical Syrian maneuver" (as sources in the Prime Minister's Bureau put it) calling for peace in return for the Golan Heights. Something like the typical Egyptian maneuver that called for peace in return for all of Sinai. Or the typical Palestinian ploy, which called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. But no - they aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes. Our hand outstretched in peace will rebuff this scheme once again, by means of a typical Israeli maneuver.
`Yes, but without prior conditions'
Again the Syrian craftily announced his readiness to sit and talk "without prior conditions." But what a pity that by taking this step he violated the terms of the dialogue. Because the first condition as far as we are concerned is that there must be no prior conditions for dialogue. Whereas the Syrians did not declare in advance that they were renouncing our withdrawal to the 1967 lines unconditionally. In other words, a condition exists. So what a pity. Really. The only thing left to do is cluck our tongue. And no, don't call us; we'll call you.
On this subject, it is instructive to quote the great Zen master of stalling, Yitzhak Shamir, who on the eve of the Madrid Conference asserted his adherence to the principles of not one inch of land, unwillingness to talk to the Palestinians and his readiness "to sit and talk." Asked what there was to talk about, in the absence of readiness to talk about borders, pullbacks, changes, Palestinians or concessions, Shamir replied, with a large flourish of his arm, "We will sit and talk about everything in the world! Everything in the world!"
`OK, then, in another month'
Following the outright rejection of the Syrian proposal, the prime minister and his foreign minister stated that, nevertheless, Israel would discuss it "in the coming period." And after further thought added, "in another month."
Why "in another month," exactly? Perhaps because in the Jewish tradition "in another month" is the ordained time in which, as the old story goes, either the feudal lord or the dog will die, and if not, the Jew won't feel so good. Another possibility, which arises from a glance at the calendar, is that the Shavuot holiday falls "in another month," and then it will be possible to delay everything until "after the holidays."
`Yes, but not peace for generations'
American and European mediators visit these parts and talk with us about negotiating processes aimed at peace. Sharon, for his part, nods his head enthusiastically. He says "yes" to every American move and talks about "painful concessions" in interviews. But who among the clients takes note of the fine print, in which every concession, even of one outpost, is conditional, from Sharon's point of view, on "true peace" or "peace for generations"? It sounds logical. But how will we know whether the peace is really "for generations"? Simple: We'll wait a few generations, and only then, when we're sure that the wool is not being pulled over our eyes, will it be possible to start talking.
`Fine, but the other side is not yet ripe for this'
The desire for painful concessions - including the ceding of Elkana and Shilo - seethes within us like the juice of a ripe peach; what a pity, then, that the other side is not yet ripe enough to receive them. Nu, fine. So maybe some other time, eh?
`Definitely, but we can't work in two channels simultaneously'
A week ago, when all the other excuses ran out rapidly, "the defense establishment and the close surroundings of Mofaz" whipped out one of the most beloved classics of the art of stalling: "Israel is not in a position to conduct two political campaigns in parallel, and therefore this is not the time for a peace initiative vis-a-vis Syria." "In parallel," meaning at the same time that the "political campaign with the Palestinians" is under way, even if it has been delayed for all the reasons cited above.
Our declared inability "to work in two channels" should not be construed as an admission that we are as clumsy as President Gerald Ford, of whom the foul-mouthed Texan president, Lyndon Johnson, said that he couldn't fart and chew gum at the same time. On the contrary! We don't want to work in two tracks simultaneously precisely because we are so interested in focusing on each negotiation separately; or, more accurately, on the reasons for deferring it.
The "two-channel pretext" is thus the "Toccata and Fugue" of the art of stalling: a summit that is a challenge for every virtuoso. And who better illustrated this than Ehud Barak? Only someone with a well-developed sense of counterpoint was capable of juggling time itself so spectacularly: to wreck the negotiations with the Palestinians on the pretext that they were interfering with the negotiations with the Syrians, and to wreck the negotiations with the Syrians on the pretext that they were interfering with the negotiations with the Palestinians; and thus to drop all the balls at once but take a bow and expect a thunderous ovation.
But that's nothing compared to the virtuosity of Ariel Sharon. Only a juggler like him is capable of leaving all the balls in the air without having thrown even one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030517/0dbc27d6/attachment.htm>