BY RAMI HADAD
Contrary to the impression created by the international news media, Ariel Sharon did not win the February 6 Israeli prime ministerial election by a landslide. In fact, he won just 37% of the eligible vote — the lowest of any of his predecessors.
The election was handed to the Likud leader on a silver platter by his so-called opponent, Labour's Ehud Barak.
One and a half years earlier, Barak won by a real landslide. Hundreds of thousands of people who normally would not have bothered to vote turned out to vote for him. In most Arab villages, Barak won more than 95% of the vote.
Israelis were sick of the previous prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. They wanted a real peace process. Barak promised better economic conditions and best of all "an end to the conflict." Israeli Arabs were eager to vote for somebody who promised to emulate Yitzhak Rabin (before he was assassinated Rabin removed some of the worst forms of anti-Arab discrimination. He also held regular consultations with the Arab members of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.)
Barak
Instead of organising peace, Barak led Israel to war with the Palestinians. His proudest boast was that, unlike his predecessors, he didn't hand back even one square millimetre of land to the Palestinians. He enlarged the Israeli settlements in occupied territories, more Palestinian land was confiscated, more homes were demolished and more trees uprooted. Barak speeded the process of cutting the Palestinian territories into pieces with "by-pass" roads.
Much has been made by the capitalist media of the fact that Barak went further than any other Israeli leader. That only shows how little other Israeli leaders have offered. As Israeli peace movement leader Uri Avneri put it: "Even if this were true, it would mean very little. If one marathon runner (Netanyahu) falls down after one kilometre and another (Barak) falls down after three, the difference between them is not really important. What is important is that neither of them got even near the finishing line."
Barak conducted negotiations with the Palestinians in which he tried to dictate a "peace" that amounted to capitulation. He was not satisfied with the fact that by accepting the Green Line, the Palestinians have already given up 78% of their historic homeland.
Instead, he demanded the annexation of "settlement blocs" pretending that they amounted only to 3% of the territory. In fact, more then 20% would remain under Israel's control. Barak wanted to coerce the Palestinians into accepting a "state" cut off from all its neighbours and composed enclaves isolated from each other, and each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.
When the situation was already ripe for an explosion, Barak allowed Sharon to "visit" (with 1000 armed cops and soldiers) the Haram al Sharif religious site on the anniversary of the 1982 massacre in Sabra and Shatilla — the massacre that was overseen by Sharon.
When the Intifada broke out, Barak, as defence minister, sent snipers with high-powered rifles to shoot at the Palestinians. In cold blood and from a safe distance, they shot hundreds of unarmed demonstrators, adults and children alike. This war crime was accompanied by a policy of blockading each village and town separately, bringing them to the verge of starvation. Barak initiated a policy of Mafia-style "liquidations" of Palestinian opponents, extending a policy started by Sharon in the Gaza strip 20 years ago.
Arabs Respond
One incident, which typified Barak, went unreported in both the Israeli and world press. When a Hamas bomb blew up a bus in Hadera, Barak went to visit the injured in hospital. He visited and spoke to them all except a severely burnt 18-months-old girl and her father. The reason? They were Israeli Arabs.
Barak remained silent when his police killed 13 Arab citizens during demonstrations in support of the latest intifada. Barak refused to punish those responsible and did not apologise for the murders till the last day before the elections.
The families of the 13 Israeli Arabs called for, organised and led a boycott of the elections. This started the chain reaction that brought down Barak.
The initial idea among the Palestinians who live in Israel was to stand an alternative candidate. Similarly, a call went out in the Jewish anti-war movement for a third candidate. The idea was that a peace candidate would force a second round in the elections and mobilise a large number of people for the anti-war cause.
The name touted most often was that of former Meretz leader Shulamit Aloni. Meretz is the most left-wing of the Zionist parties and many peace activists have put their hopes in it — only to be disappointed time after time.
While far from being an ideal candidate, Aloni has been forthright in her support for a just peace. She supports a total Israeli troop withdrawal from all the occupied territories, a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem and the removal of all Israeli settlements.
Meretz was unwilling to endorse her or anyone else. Undemocratic Israeli laws required the signatures of 10 members of parliament for a nomination in the prime ministerial election. The same undemocratic requirement meant that to get an Arab candidate, a unanimous agreement by all Arab parties was needed. The parties couldn't agree on a candidate.
Members of the Israeli peace movement spent the weeks before the elections debating whether they should cast a blank ballot or choose Barak as the lesser evil. In the end, the massive boycott by Israeli Arabs helped them make up their minds. Without the Arabs, Barak was no choice. Left Israelis decided to vote with their feet and went to the beaches and parks, anywhere but the polling booth.
As a result, Barak's vote plummeted from 1.79 million 20 months earlier, to just over 1 million. However, Likud's rose by just 295,603 to 1.7 million.
Ruling class
For Israel's capitalist class, Sharon's election is far from being good news. Their aim is to integrate Israel into the larger economy of the Middle East. They know that for this to happen they need a peace agreement with the Palestinians. At the same time, they don't want to make concessions.
The intifada is bad news for tourism and it scares away customers for Israel's high-tech industries. Israel's exports have faced increased consumer resistance, not only in the Arab world but also in Europe. The Tel Aviv stock exchange has been falling since the beginning of the intifada. It received its only fillip upwards when a rumour that Sharon was to lose the election spread like wildfire in Israel. Reflecting the capitalists' preference for labour's soft-cop approach, the highest votes for Barak were in the very well-off localities.
What scares the ruling class even more than Sharon are Sharon's parliamentary allies. Among the fanatic nationalists, messianic Zionists and ultra-orthodox clerics, Sharon is a moderate. Counted as a potential minister for internal security is Rehavaham "Gandhi" Zeevi of the extremist Moledet (homeland) Party. His policy is to "transfer" all Arabs out of historic Palestine. Another ministerial candidate, Avigdor Lieberman, has suggested that Israel should blow up the Aswan Dam in Egypt and unleash a missile bombardment of Tehran in response to the intifada.
This is why the pressure is on for a national unity government. The Labour Party can provide a much better image for Israel abroad. When Barak announced his retirement on election night panic set in. Without him, Labour might not join the government.
However, these parliamentary manoeuvres will only have the slightest impact on either the Palestinians or the peace movement. With 20% of Israelis to the left of Meretz and Peace Now, the movement is poised for the battles ahead.