June 1995, Pages 8, 85

The Retreat From Oslo: Tactical Repositioning or Total Abandonment?—Three Views

An Israeli Peace Activist

Oslo Accord Contains Only Cosmetic Changes

An Interview with Roni Ben-Efrat
by Janet McMahon and Greg Noakes

Roni Ben-Efrat's work as a journalist and political activist has made her a familiar figure within the Israeli progressive movement—what she calls the "non-Zionist left." A native of Kfar Mordechai, Israel, Ben-Efrat is one of the founders of both Women in Black and the Women and Peace Coalition. She worked as the West Bank and Gaza correspondent for the now discontinued biweekly Derech-Hanitzotz, and soon after the 1987 outbreak of the intifada served nine months in an Israeli jail on charges of having illegal contacts with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Since her 1989 release, Ben-Efrat has been involved with Challenge magazine, a bimonthly Israeli-Palestinian political and cultural journal she helped create. Ben-Efrat also contributes regularly to As-Sanaye, a new Arabic-language monthly published in Jerusalem. She spoke to the Washington Report about the underlying dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process during a recent U.S. visit.

Ben-Efrat argues the Oslo peace accord can be analyzed only in light of major economic and political changes within Israel itself. "The old methods have collapsed and don't work anymore," she says. "If, in the year 2000, Israel wants to be a modern economic power that can really integrate into world markets, it has to change its terminology and its way of thinking. The standard bearers of this revolution are people like Haim Ramon and Yossi Beilin, who are closely affiliated with the Oslo process. They realized that a major change had to take place," according to Ben-Efrat. "The very firm occupation, the soldiers running after children in the streets, the Arab boycott, the problems Israel was having with Western European countries, the criticism that was being waged against Israel—it wasn't working."

Ben-Efrat says the economic changes championed by the new generation of Israeli politicians threaten to rock Israeli society. "Israel can't go on with the old system of subsidizing everything, of keeping large numbers of unproductive employees. [Yet] Israel cannot allow itself, because of its political problems, to have a large segment of the Israeli population unemployed and dissatisfied, demonstrating in the streets," she argues.

The solution to this conundrum for Israeli reformers lies with the American taxpayer. "I think the United States is willing to pay for internal Israeli stability," Ben-Efrat says. "Even if changes in the Israeli economy throw tens of thousands of people into the streets, they will still be paying because it benefits U.S. foreign policy to ensure Israeli stability and to continue Israeli superiority in the Middle East. It can't have Israel becoming a state like all other states in the Middle East."

American support for Israel's lagging economy has serious ramifications for Palestinian rights, Ben-Efrat notes. "Today, for example, it is the loan guarantees that are going to Israeli roads. If the U.S. money goes to roads inside Israel, then Israel can devote its own money to the West Bank and Gaza," the Israeli journalist says. "In the long run, the money is being poured into the occupied territories and building in Jerusalem....Israel is building thousands of flats all around Jerusalem, creating new facts, against official American policy. Unofficially, they are just closing their eyes."

U.S. political support is also an important ingredient in the Oslo process. "With enough American pressure on the Palestinians and the Arabs in general and with very little in the way of Israeli concessions, coupled with a complete change of terminology, [Israel] can gain quite a lot. That's what Oslo is all about," Ben-Efrat charges. "It's no mistake that it was people like Yossi Beilin who initiated the Oslo process and the Oslo thinking, which says we will not change the principal goals of Israel, but we will change the form. We will talk to the PLO, but as soon as we do that it will not be the same PLO.

"If you look at the Declaration of Principles—and it is very, very clear—it could not have developed into any kind of statehood," according to Ben-Efrat. "The DOP breaks the process into two stages. The first is the interim stage where everything is open and the Palestinians give away all of their cards, including recognition of Israel. The PLO didn't get any guarantees for the future on self-determination, for a state, for stopping the settlements, for Jerusalem—nothing. Israel just says, 'This is a test. If you cannot ensure our security, we have no obligation to go further to the final stage.'"

Ben-Efrat believes this minimalist stance is reinforced by Israeli electoral politics. "Israel is going into elections in 1996, and this is a very important element in policymaking. The government doesn't want to take any kind of radical steps which might enrage [Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin's constituency—a center-right constituency that was fed up with Likud but wanted a hard guy, not [Foreign Minister Shimon] Peres....While people like Beilin want to be a little more flexible, both Rabin and Peres are afraid of putting their cards on the table and showing what they have in mind, because they don't have anything in mind. They don't want any discussion of the final stage of negotiations."

Repeated Israeli attempts to foster a more pliant "alternative Palestinian leadership" in the occupied territories as a negotiating partner failed, so with the advent of the clandestine Oslo peace talks Tel Aviv finally turned to Yasser Arafat, who was weakened by the effects of the Gulf war. "This was a very cunning step, to get the person with the most prestige among his people to sign the death of the Palestinian national question," Ben-Efrat believes. "If Israel allows Arafat to have such a large police apparatus—some 12,000 men—it means they trust him. It means they are sure this is not going to turn against Israel."

Ben-Efrat says the effect of the PLO leadership's decisions at Oslo has been tremendous. "Imagine a whole liberation movement which has been betrayed by its main component....It's a major shock for a whole society. You have to readjust and realize that the person you idolized for so many years is now a kind of puppet in the hands of Israel. It is difficult to admit to yourself that this is what it has come to."

Yet Roni Ben-Efrat is "sure the Palestinians will find the instruments and means to overcome this, because I don't believe anyone can fool the ordinary people. The Palestinians were betrayed by their leadership, they were betrayed by the Israeli left, and they were betrayed by the international community....We realize that you don't build a liberation movement in one or two years, particularly with international conditions as they are. But I am sure that the fact Oslo has nothing to offer the Palestinians, the fact standards of living in the occupied territories are declining, etc., will enable the Palestinian opposition to get the message out."

Contrary to some analysts' arguments, the burgeoning Palestinian opposition is not monolithic, according to the Israeli journalist. "People are not aware that the Palestinian opposition is not just the Islamic groups, but also the left wing," she says. "There is a cadre of leadership within the leftist opposition."

Ben-Efrat questions Hamas' commitment to a unified Palestinian opposition, saying it "does not seem as if they will lead a serious opposition fight. I think Hamas is not serious about Palestinian independence; the two-state solution is not their ideology. They are talking about a state in all of Palestine....It's an extreme slogan, but they know it will never be realized on the ground. They are willing to settle for being the ones to rule in the entity that is going to spring out of the Oslo agreement," Ben-Efrat argues.

"All their military operations are aimed not at liberating Palestine, but to tell Israel, 'We are the ones you have to negotiate with. We're the ones who can mess you up seriously, who can get people to support Likud over Labor, so start negotiating with us and give us our fair share.' Secondly, they are telling Palestinians, 'Arafat has sold out; he is leading you nowhere. We are the ones who can bring you liberation.'"

Another Layer of Opposition

Ben-Efrat also sees "another layer of opposition: the Palestinian intellectuals such as Hanan Ashrawi and Haidar Abdel Shafi, who I believe are sitting on the fence. They are not taking the role they should be, knowing what they know about Oslo. They are critical of the Oslo process, but they are not willing to clash with either Israel or the Palestinian Authority."

Part of that reluctance may stem from the Palestinian National Authority's mounting crackdown against dissent within the Palestinian community, which Ben-Efrat says Israel and the U.S. have encouraged. "For the Israeli left, a dictatorial approach is okay. It's a double-standard situation," she says. "Anything done to Hamas is kosher and completely legitimate. Whenever Arafat is arresting them, they make a point of saying that Arafat is doing what he should be doing: supporting us and the peace process....The more Arafat violates human rights, the more credibility he is given. [U.S. Vice President] Al Gore said he was very pleased that Arafat was implementing military courts. I don't think any American would be supportive if Clinton established military courts to try people without a charge sheet or access to a lawyer, or without seeing the evidence against you. But if it's Palestinians, it's okay."

Roni Ben-Efrat says Palestinian organizations must be more outspoken as well. "When Middle East Watch came out with a critical report on human rights within the Palestinian Authority," she notes, "those Palestinian organizations connected with Fatah shut up about it, not criticizing Arafat at all. I think they will have to step down, because they will be irrelevant. Other [more independent] organizations are under attack. Any human rights organization that is courageous enough to criticize the Palestinian Authority will face a lot of trouble unless the international community and progressives around the world" acknowledge and actively support the need for such human rights monitoring and criticism.

Ben-Efrat concedes these are dark days for the Palestinian national movement. "After Oslo, Israel is off the hook. Israel is continuing the settlements and it's continuing to occupy Jerusalem. The closure is a basic violation of human rights. We have Jordanians and Egyptians who can come to Jerusalem and the Palestinians can't get in. We have two million people who cannot enter their capital. What kind of reconciliation are we talking about?" Ben-Efrat asks. "Looking at the struggle for Palestinian independence five or six years ago during the intifada, and looking at it today, I think the situation is much more desperate today."

Yet Roni Ben-Efrat is also convinced of the ultimate outcome of the Palestinians' struggle. "We have learned over the last decade that things can happen in such a dramatic way that no one can believe them. Who would think that the Soviet Union would collapse in one day?" she asks. "I wouldn't be so sure that things are irreversible. The Palestinians have a long history of struggle and suffering and sacrifice. They are not going to settle for a little Bantustan in Gaza and Jericho and for Arafat as a little dictator whose strings are pulled by Israel," she concludes. "That is not going to work."

Janet McMahon is the managing editor and Greg Noakes the news editor of the Washington Report.