Dispatch from Camp David: Israel and Barak
Routed
By Paul Michael Wihbey, IASPS
Strategic Fellow
The following assessment is
based on observations conveyed by Arab media sources covering the Camp David
Summit on Friday July 21, 2000.
Yassir Arafat has dominated
the negotiations. He has been clearly in charge of his side's agenda, to the
extent of disregarding the advice of his closest aides. The Arab press has been
equally impressed with Arafat's strength pitted against the once tough military
man Ehud Barak. On the other hand, Barak has been manifestly weak, ineffectual
and unprepared. This was unexpected from the Israelis. They could not believe
the overall imbalance in the negotiating skills in favor of Arafat.
Arafat's negotiating position
included successful application of pressure points (i.e., threat of violence,
Islamic support, Saudi/Egypt support, popular mass demonstrations) to which
Barak did not have counters or even comparable pressure points of his own. As a
result, Barak's Red lines were overcome on all fronts---refugees, settlements,
territory and Jerusalem without any significant cost to Arafat. Fearing a
complete rout, it was Barak who attempted to terminate the Summit by issuing his
letter to Clinton blaming the Palestinians for the breakdown in the talks,
calling politicians in Israel, and declaring his desire to leave. Barak wanted
to escape from a trap of his own making. He recognized he was losing, losing
badly. But the Americans and the Palestinians countered his surprise move in
time and awaited Clinton's return to secure a settlement that would include
Arafat's objective of full sovereign Palestinian control over East Jerusalem.
Despite Barak's assertions to
the contrary, Arafat's steadfastness and Clinton's pressure stand a reasonable
chance (over 50%) to dismantle Barak's last defenses over Jerusalem. According
to these sources, the Americans and Palestinians are exchanging
"notes" to the detriment of the Israelis. If
true, this helps explain Arafat's dominance and why he has
centralized the Palestinian negotiating position in his person. In effect, his
agenda is actively sustained by the Americans so that a deal can be had and
accredited to President Clinton.
Because he failed to enter
negotiations with a national mandate, because he underestimated the "Mayor
of Jericho" (Arafat) and
because he has not brought his own set of pressure points, Barak is isolated and
vulnerable to the campaign of attrition that is now being waged on him, even by
some of his own ministers. (In a July 23 Jerusalem
Post report by Danna Harman and David Franklin, entitled "Barak
denies being pressured by Ben-Ami, Shahak on Jerusalem," senior members of
the Israeli delegation were said to be pressuring Barak to concede on the issue
of Jerusalem. "According to one source, [Internal Security Minister]
Ben-Ami and [Tourism Minister] Shahak were
of the opinion that Barak should make concessions on Jerusalem, urging that in
particular he agree to give the Palestinian authority sovereignty over sections
of the Old City. The officials claimed the ministers believed Barak was
'wrecking the chances' for a deal by being overly
stubborn in his position.").
The
Arab media fully comprehends the weakness of the Israeli position.
It is ironic but hardly surprising that their Israeli counterparts do
not.
