FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Beilin Syndrome

by URI AVNERY

MEPHISTO, the demon who bought the soul of Faust in Goethe’s monumental drama, describes himself as “a part of that force which always wants the bad and always creates the good.”

Yossi Beilin, who resigned this week as chairman of the Meretz party, is Mephisto’s opposite: he always wants the good and all too often creates the bad.

* * *

THE “SETTLEMENT BLOCS” provide a glaring example. It was Beilin who invented this term a dozen years ago. It was included in the unofficial understanding that became known as the “Beilin-Abu-Mazen agreement”.

The intention was good. Beilin believed that if most settlers were concentrated in several limited areas near the Green Line, the settlers as a whole would agree to a withdrawal from the rest of the West Bank.

The actual result was disastrous. The government and the settlers jumped at the opportunity. The permit of the “Zionist peace movement” was displayed like a Kosher certificate on the wall of a butcher shop selling pork chops. The settlement blocs were enlarged at a frantic pace and became veritable towns, like Ma’aleh Adumim, the Etzion Bloc and Modi’in Illit.

For dozens of years, the United States had insisted that all the settlements violate international law. But the approval granted to the “settlement blocs” enabled President George W. Bush to change this stance and approve Israeli “population centers” in the occupied territories. Haim Ramon, who in the past had been Beilin’s partner in the group of “eight doves” within the Labor Party, went even further: he initiated the “Separation Wall”, which in practice annexes the “settlement blocs” to Israel.

But Beilin’s brilliant idea did not in the least diminish the opposition of the settlers to a withdrawal from the rest of the West Bank. On the contrary: they continue to prevent by force the dismantling of the settlement outposts, even a single tiny one. Nothing good came out of this idea. The result was totally bad.

* * *

ONE CAN GO ON enumerating Beilin’s brilliant ideas. As in the song of the former master comedian (and current orthodox rabbi) Uri Zohar: “The Jewish head is inventing patents for us.” In Israel’s political and diplomatic arena, there is no head more fertile than Beilin’s.

I don’t know what exact role Beilin played in the invention of the patents displayed at the 2000 Camp David conference. For example: the idea that Israel should demand sovereignty over the Temple Mount, but only below the surface. It did not appease the Israeli Right, but it terrified the Palestinians, who feared that Israel was intending to undermine the Islamic holy shrines until they collapsed, thus making it possible to replace them with the Third Jewish Temple. The next step was Ariel Sharon’s “visit” to this sensitive site, which triggered the outbreak of the second intifada.

After the 2006 elections, Beilin had another brilliant idea: to invite Avigdor Liberman to a well publicized friendly breakfast. The intention was no doubt good (even if I can’t fathom what it was) but the result was calamitous: it gave Liberman a “leftist” Kosher certificate which enabled Ehud Olmert to include him in his government.

After that, Meretz announced that it would not, under any circumstances, sit in a government that included Liberman. But one cannot return Rosemary’s baby to the womb of its mother. Liberman stays in the government, Meretz remains outside. Now Olmert explains to the Americans that he cannot dismantle even one settlement outpost, nor negotiate about the “core issues” of the conflict, because Liberman would then bring the government coalition crashing down.

Indeed, Beilin is very generous in dispensing Kosher certificates to extreme rightists. On the eve of one of the annual mass meetings of the “Zionist Left” in commemoration of Yitzhak Rabin, he announced that he was prepared to appear together with the leader of the most extreme Right, General Effi Eytam. Fortunately for him, nothing came of this.

There must be some connection between these ideas and his stand at critical junctures. For example: his support for Ariel Sharon’s Separation Plan, without making it conditional on reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. The result: the Gaza Strip turned into the “biggest prison on earth”.

Worse: the determined support of Beilin for the Second Lebanon War during its first and most critical stage. In the course of the war, he proposed attacking Syria, too. Only in the fourth week, after a dozen stormy anti-war demonstrations, did Beilin start to voice any criticism and have Meretz organize a demonstration of its own.

* * *

IN THE other pan of the scales lie two of Beilin’s major positive contributions: to the Oslo Declaration of Principles and the Geneva initiative.

His input to Oslo was certainly significant. But he did not prevent two black holes in the agreement: the omission of the crucial words “Palestinian state” and the absence of an unequivocal ban on the continuation of settlement activity.

These two faults have buried the agreement. The negotiations for a permanent peace agreement, which were to be concluded in 1999, did not even start. The settlements were being enlarged rapidly while everybody was talking about peace.

The Geneva Initiative, on the other side, was entirely a creation of Beilin. It could have crowned his career. Its inauguration became an international event. The Great of the Earth gave it their blessing. It seemed that it would give a decisive push to the peace process.

This did not happen. Ariel Sharon brushed it from the table with the back of his hand: he announced the Separation Plan and diverted national and international attention away from Geneva.

That need not have been the end of the initiative. There could have been a sustained campaign in Israel and throughout the world, preaching it from every pulpit, putting it on the agenda again and again. But then Beilin made the greatest mistake of his life: he ran for the chairmanship of Meretz – and won.

* * *

THE ERROR was clear from the first moment: there is a basic contradiction between being a party chairman and being the Prophet of Geneva, a person totally identified with the initiative and its main advocate at home and abroad.

When the Initiator of Geneva became the leader of Meretz, he crippled the initiative by turning it into the platform of one small party. And, on the other hand, he turned Meretz into a one-issue party entirely devoted to the promotion of the initiative. Both the initiative and the party lost.

A smart person like Beilin should have understood that. But I suspect that he has two souls struggling for mastery: the soul of an ideas-man and the soul of a party operative. He is not satisfied with being only one.

The mistake carried a high price. This week, Beilin was compelled to announce his resignation from the Meretz chairmanship.

There is something mysterious in the character of this party: it devours its leaders, one after another. First its founding mother, Shulamit Aloni, was practically kicked out. The man who did this, Yossi Sarid, was compelled to resign in his turn, when the party shrank from 12 to 6 Knesset seats, turning from a medium into a small party. After the last elections, under Beilin, it was down to 5.

Under his leadership, the Meretz faction was a strange bird: neither a real opposition party nor a member of the coalition. Beilin grew up in the establishment, and even when he is formally in opposition he thinks and acts like a member of the establishment. Not only did Meretz, under his leadership, support Sharon’s Separation Plan and Olmert’s Lebanon war, but even since then Beilin has been openly flirting with the Prime Minister. Just when the great majority in the country has reached the conclusion that Olmert is unfit for his job, Beilin gives him a Kosher certificate.

He says that he believes that Olmert sincerely wants peace. He quotes with approval the sayings of the New Olmert: “My father was wrong and Ben-Gurion was right” (Olmert’s father was an Irgun stalwart), and also “Israel is lost” if it does not implement the Two-State solution. Nice-sounding sentences – only Olmert moves in the very opposite direction, avoiding serious peace negotiations and waging war in Gaza. Now the Meretz people seem to have had enough.

When a party kicks its leader out, it is always a sad event. But this is not the first time it has happened to Beilin, and that invites some serious questions.

He grew up from early youth in the Labor Party and was one of the promising foster-children of Shimon Peres. As Deputy Foreign Minister he had the opportunity to give full scope to his untiring creativity. But then Ehud Barak came to power, with his uncanny ability to put the wrong person in the wrong position. Beilin was appointed Minister of Justice, a job that paralyzed his special talents.

On the eve of the next elections, the Labor Party banished Beilin to a hopeless place on its election list. In fury and frustration, he left the party, slammed the door behind him and joined Meretz. Now he has been practically pushed out of there.

Unlike Shulamit Aloni and Yossi Sarid, Beilin has no intention of “going home”. His fertile brain is already hatching new plans. In recent interviews he prophesies a fundamental change in the political landscape and the creation of a new political force including members from Kadima, Labor and Meretz. Presumably he imagines that this party would be headed by Olmert, and that Beilin would play a central role. It would be fighting against Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak.

An interesting idea, but its chances are close to nil.

* * *

BEILIN’S PROBLEMS go beyond his personal story. They symbolize the tragedy of the camp which calls itself the “Zionist Left”. Probably the appellation itself already contains the problem.

This camp was born a hundred years ago, and it seems that it never once engaged in real self-criticism. In his last interview, Beilin uses all the terminology of the Zionist establishment. Like everybody else he calls the Palestinian fighters in the Gaza strip “terrorists”. In his scale of values, “it is important that a boy attains the rank of an outstanding soldier”. And, of course, “If Israel ceases to be a Jewish state, I will have no more interest in it.”

With such views, the Zionist peace camp cannot become a political fighting force, engage in a real opposition struggle, bring about change in the country. And that is more than just one of Yossi Beilin’s personal problems.

URI AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

 

 

URI AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
December 03, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Dave Lindorff
Is Trump’s Idea To Fix the ‘Rigged System’ by Appointing Crooks Who’ve Played It?
Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Patrick Cockburn
Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Michael Hudson – Steve Keen
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
Russell Mokhiber
Sanders Single Payer and Death by Democrat
Roger Harris
The Triumph of Trump and the Specter of Fascism
Steve Horn
Donald Trump’s Swamp: Meet Ten Potential Energy and Climate Cabinet Picks and the Pickers
Louis Proyect
Deepening Contradictions: Identity Politics and Steelworkers
Ralph Nader
Trump and His Betraying Makeover
Stephen Kimber
The Media’s Abysmal Coverage of Castro’s Death
Dan Bacher
WSPA: The West’s Most Powerful Corporate Lobbying Group
Nile Bowie
Will Trump backpedal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Ron Ridenour
Fidel’s Death Brings Forth Great and Sad Memories
Missy Comley Beattie
By Invitation Only
Fred Gardner
Sword of Damocles: Pot Partisans Fear Trump’s DOJ
Renee Parsons
Obama and Propornot
Dean Baker
Cash and Carrier: Trump and Pence Put on a Show
Jack Rasmus
Taming Trump: From Faux Left to Faux Right Populism
Ron Jacobs
Selling Racism—A Lesson From Pretoria
Julian Vigo
The Hijos of Buenos Aires:  When Identity is Political
Matthew Vernon Whalan
Obama’s Legacy
Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano
By Way of Prologue: On How We Arrived at the Watchtower and What We Saw from There
Aidan O'Brien
Fidel and Spain: A Tale of Right and Wrong
Carol Dansereau
Stop Groveling! How to Thwart Trump and Save the World
Kim Nicolini
Moonlight, The Movie
Evan Jones
Behind GE’s Takeover of Alstom Energy
James A Haught
White Evangelicals are Fading, Powerful, Baffling
Barbara Moroncini
Protests and Their Others
Christopher Brauchli
Parallel Lives: Trump and Temer
Joseph Natoli
The Winds at Their Backs
Cesar Chelala
Poverty is Not Only an Ignored Word
David Swanson
75 Years of Pearl Harbor Lies
Alex Jensen
The Great Deceleration
Nyla Ali Khan
When Faith is the Legacy of One’s Upbringing
Gilbert Mercier
Trump Win: Paradigm Shift or Status Quo?
Stephen Martin
From ‘Too Big to Fail’ to ‘Too Big to Lie’: the End Game of Corporatist Globalization.
Charles R. Larson
Review: Emma Jane Kirby’s “The Optician of Lampedusa”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail