The war cabinet
ISRAELI STATE in 1967-73. The question of what alternative has polarized Israeli society and its ruling class. On the one side are those who, aware of the price of a military solution for Israel, in terms of unforeseeable military risks, international isolation and internal turmoil, are looking for a way of
THE STATE OF ISRAEL has finally got a government. After two and a half months of institutional crises, the deputies have just given their blessing to a coalition of rightwing, extreme rightwing and fundamentalist parties in which even Yitzhak
Shamir looks like a moderate. Even though Ariel Sharon is not the defence minister and the leader of the Transfer Party,
Rehavam Zeevi, has been turned down as minister for the police, this governmental coalition is the most intransigent that the State of Israel has ever known.
MICHEL WARSHAWSKY
S
IDE BY SIDE in the government are supporters of a Greater
Israel, the leaders of the Gush
Emunim colonists, the authors of the Lebanon war and the Sabra and
Chatilla massacres and rabbis who dream of a theocratic state run according to the laws of the Torah.
For Shamir to reach the point where he could announce that he had gathered in the 61 deputies needed to form a parliamentary majority, all manner of coatturing, treachery, desertion and corruption, both of individuals and parties, was needed. A wing of the Likud had maneuvered for a new government of national union in order to try to rebuild a consensus among the Israeli public and stem
Israelithe erosion of
American relations.
But
Sharon and David Levy have succeeded in imposing a government of the extreme right, which is their sole chance to get themselves in line for the succession to Shamir.
The crisis that put an end to the government of national union was certainly extended by the maneuvering of the small parties and prolonged by the profoundly corrupt mentality of the Israeli political class. But the underlying causes go much deeper. The
Palestinian uprising that has been going on in the occupied territories has unfrozen the situation as it has existed, if not since 1967, at least
Camp
David since the
Accords of 1978. The Lebanese War, in 1982, failed to attain its objective of chang ing the status quo. The relation of forces between Israel and the Arab world, and specifically between Israel and the Palestinian national movement, did not fundamentally change, despite the latter's military defeat.
The Palestinian uprising on the West Bank and in Gaza has rendered inoperative the old methods by which the Israeli army has dominated the occupied territories. It has made it necessary for Israeli society and the international community to find an alternative to the type of occupation imposed by the relation of forces disengaging via Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Compromise formulas fall to the ground
On the other side are those who, refusing to surrender what they consider to be part of the fatherland, are ready to take any risk, including full-scale military confrontation in the region. All the intermediate formulas, aimed at keeping up a façade of unity and above all of gaining time, have fallen to the ground under the impact of the intifada. The ultimatum of American secretary of state Baker five months ago was an attempt to force the Israeli government to choose between negotiation and a military adventure.
"This is a government of war" affirmed the chief of the Labour opposition during the vote on the new government. We may prefer the more nuanced terms of Egypt's
President Mubarak: "If you do not move towards peace, war becomes inevitable, and this government seems to have turned its back on the peace process in the region."
At first sight the military option looks like something dreamt up by some of the retired generals, who are unable to read the international political map and believe that everything be can reduced to a an exchange of shots on the battlefield. The thaw between the great powers, and the policy of a political solution imposed by these on local conflicts, powers seems to rule out the military option for the Israeli government. However
• things are more complicated than that. In fact a certain convergence can be found between the policy of General Ariel Sharon, the new government's strong man, and the ideas of the
American administration. For
Sharon, war is the necessary means for a new redistribution of the cards and in particular for the "liquidation of the Palestinian question." The two things that might make the government hesitate - the question of American support and the deep divisions within
Israeli public opinion — do not worry Sharon.
In his eyes, the strategic importance of Israel for that the latter will always in 3 that the latter will always in
July 2; 1990 • #188 International Viewpoint
ISRAELI STATE the end be obliged to support Israeli initiatives, and, whatever happens, will not put real pressure on the Jewish state. As for the Israeli public, Sharon remains persuaded, even after the Lebanon war, that only a victorious war can cement the national Sacred Union, and that the next war will be the greatest victory in modern military history.
Can such an option be made to relate in any way to the option of a negotiated compromise defended by the American administration? Yes, if one remembers that in the Middle East war and peace are not necessarily opposed. In 1973, desperate to achieve "cold" negotiations between Israel and the Arab states, Henry Kissinger allowed the temperature to rise and regarded a limited and controllable military conflict, in which the need for American support would allow Washington to pose as referee and impose a negotiated solution, with favour. The October 1973 war was an indispensable element in the strategy which finally led to the Israeli-Egyptian peace.
War a real option for American imperialism
Certainly there are big risks, and the military balance of forces makes any attempt to have a "limited and controllable war" very difficult. But this is, nonetheless, a real option for American imperialism. What the Israelis cannot be persuaded to do in peace, they may accept more easily as the outcome of an armed conflict.
This is without doubt what James Baker wanted to be understood when he said to the Israeli leaders last week: "When you are serious about peace, call us". Thus; if Shamir and Sharon want to play at war they will sooner or later be obliged to telephone the White House, if only to get arms supplies.
Some commentators believe that, precisely because the government has the stamp of the extreme right, it may be more capable than a Labour government of taking measures favourable to a reduction in tension in the occupied territories or even opening negotiations with the Palestinians. The invitation to a top UN functionary to come to the occupied territories as an observer would thus be the first concession of the new government. There is talk of the imminent reopening of the universities in the occupied territories.
But it is unlikely that this will go further. Without speaking of the intransigeance of Shamir and Sharon, the present government is too dependent on the votes of the far right parties to oppose, for example, the setting up of new colonies in the occupied territories or new repressive 4 to "liquidate once and for all" the intifada. measures aimed, as Shamir has promised, International Viewpoint #188 • July 2, 1990
LUNATIC! Shamir is not De Gaulle, but a prime minister who is tied hand and foot by the diverse social and political forces on which his government depends. This necessarily means, as the unprecedented mobilizations after the Rishon Le Zion massacres showed, an escalation of the intifada and new problems in relations between Israel and the American administration.
Mirage of negotiations with
Palestinians
During the last 15 months public opinion, both at home and abroad, has been focussed on the mirage of imminent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and the specialists have been passionately debating such delicacies as Mubarak's ten points, Baker's five points, or the status of Palestinians in Jerusalem who have a secondary residence in Jericho.
The formation of the new government, however, should allow a more realistic look at the real situation. There is a popular uprising that nothing so far has been able to suppress, and there is the desire of the Israeli authorities to employ means that will allow them not only to close what they consider a disagreeable interlude, but perhaps also to get the Palestinian people back to their pre-1967 situation — as an atomized population of refugees without a political framework or
The Palestinian national leadership, whether in the occupied territories or in has understood this, and has appealed to international public opinion to centre its attention on the protection of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories, including through the sending of international military forces.
The well-founded nature of such a demand has not escaped the Israeli authorities. After 23 years of claiming that the Geneva Convention did not apply on the West Bank or Gaza, since these were not really occupied territories, they have taken to hiding behind that same convention to insist that they alone are responsible for the protection of the inhabitants of these areas.
The European peace movements and the NonGovernmental Organizations have just decided to take up the demand for international protection and are preparing an international campaign for the autumn where international protection and economic sanctions will be raised together. As Ciara Ingrao, one of the leaders of the Italian peace movement, which has taken the initiative for the international mobilization "1990 — Time for Peace" affirmed during a recent meeting with Israeli
"In 1989 we centred our campaign on peace and on the need for negotiations with the PLO. Today, unfortunately, it is not negotiations that are on the agenda but the right to life of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. It is necessary to communicate this urgency to international public opinion, and this autumn centre our campaign around the duty of the international community to protect Palestinian men and women against the real danger of
Peace Now and civil
The peace movement in Israel remains divided on this question. Peace Now has refused to take up any demand that would imply foreign interference in what, even in the eyes of the majority of Israeli pacifists, remains the private preserve of Israeli sovereignty. What is, on the other hand, now being seriously discussed by the currents near to Peace Now, including in the media, is the perspective of a step ping up of civil disobedience — including refusal to serve in the occupied territories — faced with a government that has little legitimacy in the eyes of 50% of the Israeli population. A massive refusal to serve in the occupied territories would without doubt be the best protection that the Israeli peace movement could offer to the Palestinians. But such a decision will not be quickly taken, and everything will be done by the government to prevent such a development, including a new military
The race is now on between the Israeli government on the one hand and the Palestinian people on the other. The spread of the intifada in the Arab world, and in particular in Jordan, is pushing the Arab leaderships to demand a negotiated solution before it is too late. By deepening their struggle, the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza are not only forwarding their own national liberation - they are also restricting the room for bellicose maneuvres by the new government. The key that can close the road to war lies in the hands of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories. *