Theater of the absurd

By Yoel Marcus
 

It is still unclear whether this is a scene that has been taken from the theater of the absurd or from some comedy skit about the rigors of daily life. At any event, the Arab League's mystifying decision to oppose a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon strikes me as good material for the kind of comedy routine that Israel's celebrated trio of comics, the Hagashash Hahiver, love to entertain their audiences with.Syria is acting like a homeowner who is trying to evict a tenant who is shielded by the Tenant Protection Law. For dozens of years, the owner has been hounding this tenant - cutting off the electricity, water and heat, sending intimidating thugs, piling garbage on the tenant's doorstep. Then, one fine day, the tenant, who is fed up with this ill treatment, tells the owner, "OK, you win. I'm leaving, and I'm not asking for any compensation for your behavior. All I want is to just get out of here." The owner suddenly goes berserk: "What do you mean? You're leaving without first asking my permission? Who the hell do you think you are anyway, denying me the right to throw you out? I'll be the one to decide when you will leave here - even if you decide to stay, against my express wishes, for another 30 years!"

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, accompanying his prime minister, Lionel Jospin, on a visit to the Middle East, has noted that both Syria's President Hafez Assad and Foreign Minister Farouk Shara told him that they had serious doubts as to whether Prime Minister Ehud Barak really intends to leave Lebanon, even in the absence of a signed agreement with Damascus. These doubts gradually became suspicions, which, in turn, developed into vigorous opposition to a unilateral withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces troops from Lebanon.

"A unilateral withdrawal," Shara has declared, "is akin to committing suicide." The president of Lebanon has stated, "A unilateral withdrawal minus a Syrian-Israeli agreement could lead to war." In a lead editorial, the official Syrian government newspaper, Tishrin, writes, "A unilateral withdrawal is nothing but an Israeli trick to defuse the anger of the Arab world and to accelerate the process leading to the normalization of relations between Syria and Israel." Could somebody out there tell me what is so wrong with Israel being ready to leave Lebanon for the sake of peace and in order to accelerate the process leading to the normalization of relations with Syria? Is that a capital crime?

Jospin, who heard such declarations first-hand, expressed his surprise to Barak: "Does it make any sense that an Arab state should actually oppose the implementation of a United Nations resolution calling for the withdrawal of forces from the territory of another Arab state?"

On the face of things, Assad is acting like the owner in the above skit. What nerve on the part of the Israeli occupier, to plan on leaving Lebanon and to deny Syria the satisfaction of having driven the IDF out of there!

If this situation were not so mystifying, it would be downright comical and would have the audience rolling in the aisles.

Our presence in Lebanon during the first few years there was the ace up our sleeve regarding Syria. The moment the enemy was replaced and Hezbollah took over where the Palestinians had left off, the ace up the sleeve was transferred to Syria. Syria now started proclaiming, "Only we can guarantee peace and quiet in the region, although peace can be restored only after Israel has withdrawn to the June 4, 1967 borders."

Barak's decision to pull out of Lebanon by July 7, with or without a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement, has returned the ace up the sleeve to Israel's hands. The possibility of a withdrawal from Lebanon, plus peace, plus a withdrawal from the Golan Heights, is both a tempting option for Assad and a lever that can be used to pressure him.

Assad, who loves the status quo and who is highly introverted, is suddenly faced with the pressure of a constantly changing reality and a timetable that is too tight for his taste.

There is a possibility that Assad, the celebrated Lion of Damascus, is actually petrified with fear. Why? First of all, because of the shadow of the decision passed at the 1998 Ta'if Conference that called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon. If we withdraw, Syria might be next.

Second, he is afraid that Hezbollah and Iran could combine forces in order to undermine Syrian interests in Lebanon, even forcing Syria to leave.

Third, he fears that he might not be able to prevent Hezbollah from using the Lebanese border to launch attacks deep into Israeli territory.

At the same time, he fears another scenario: With Hezbollah turning its attention to internal Lebanese politics, Palestinian terrorists, operating from positions along the border, could rear their ugly heads.

Fourth, in each of these scenarios or in all of them combined, there would be a tough Israeli response. Thus Assad understands, even more clearly than the members of the Four Mothers movement, that sooner or later Syria might find itself embroiled in a war with Israel, although Assad is neither interested in a confrontation on the battlefield nor is he even prepared for one - from either the military or the economic standpoint.

There are those who might admire the far-sighted wisdom of Barak, who is twisting Assad in a pincer operation to force him to sign a peace agreement with us. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to feel such admiration. The question for which there is no answer, however, is simply this: Will Assad play the role that Barak has assigned him for the final act of this play? In the meantime, we find ourselves in the theater of the absurd.
 

© copyright 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved