When we had a right-wing government, the Left was sure that all the
problems, especially those involving our relations with our
neighbors, would be solved if only there were a leftist government
in power. Peace would be at hand with Syria, as it is (or even
better than it is) with Egypt and Jordan.
Now, Barak has postured and posed for Syria since he took office,
praising the leader of a country that is on the United States' list
of states that support terror.
What does he have to show for it?
The Syrians broke off peace talks, launched vicious attacks in
their press on Israel and the Jews, accusing us of making up the
Holocaust for cynical purposes, and obviously have done nothing to
restrain the Hizbullah guerrillas in Lebanon. Moreover, their press
attacks sound much more sincere than the peace efforts of their
defense minister in the talks with the Israeli prime minister in
the U.S., where the Syrian refused to shake hands with the Israeli
leader and barely deigned to look at him.
Everything is back to where it was a year ago as far as our
relations with out neighbors are concerned. It matters not at all
that the government is now led by the Left while the Right was in
power a year ago.
The heaviest burden at this time is the situation in Lebanon.
Though many argue that there is a purpose in keeping the army in
Lebanon to serve as a buffer for Israel's northern communities,
given that they will be withdrawn later anyway, almost everyone
agrees that they may as well be withdrawn sooner. If it is good to
withdraw in July, then why not May? Why not as soon as possible?
Why put it off?
In approaching the situation in Lebanon and Syria, it is always
accepted without question that the goal is to reach a permanent
solution, and the only thing that remains is to choose the best
among the available solutions. Thus, a military option is ruled out
as impractical, leaving only a political and diplomatic solution as
possible. This reasoning shows, according to those who use it, the
urgency and necessity of reaching an agreement with Syria.
Though the presumption that a permanent solution is imperative is
apparently shared by U.S. President Clinton, it does not seem to be
granted by the Syrians. The Palestinians also seem to regard
agreements as temporary expedients that can be renegotiated at will
-- hardly the attitude of someone seeking a permanent and stable
situation.
Problems can always be dealt with, but they cannot always be
solved. Some problems can be eased but not removed. Those who seek
a solution to the quagmire of Lebanon may be chasing an illusion
that cannot be realized. The agreements signed with Egypt and
Jordan, though they minimized the points of friction, have never
led to the broad and friendly relations that would typify a stable,
long-term relationship.
Those who have internalized the "golus mentality" that considers
our current situation to be very far from our real desires, though
our desires are not achievable through our own efforts but only
through Divine intervention, are well- prepared to transfer this
attitude to the conflict in Lebanon: military and political
solutions are both unrealistic. The only solution possible is from
some unexpected and unforeseeable Divine engineering. In the
meantime, our job is to make ourselves as worthy as possible of
Divine help, and try to minimize casualties as much as possible in
both the short and the long terms.
