because of the policies of the World Bank will face more hardship. The Indian Pakistan socialists condemn "atomic of South Asia have been defending trade budget by 14%. The Pakistan govern- fanaticism" Statement issued on June 5 by the leaders of
* Israel unians and did make an agreement with them. And it was more and more sharply attacked by the right wing as there were incidents of violence, violent language, and so on. We then certainly felt that there were two major camps and that we belonged to one of them, while conscious of the fact that we constituted the radical wing of • What were those two camps? How did you define them?
Our camp was that of those willing to go forward. A significant step ahead was made which to an extent was constituted by the extension of self-government from Gaza and Jericho to all the main cities of the West Bank. This step was highly contested by a very well-organised Far Right, which used demagogy and so on.
There was another aspect which further radicalised the situation: the willingness of Rabin to rely on Arab members of the Knesset for his parliamentary majority. I think this is very important, although this is not often raised. This in fact was a much more radical act than the Oslo agreement itself. Because it confronted the basic question of the nature of the State of
Since 1948, there had been a guideline laid out by Ben Gurion and adhered to by all his successors, to the effect that Arabs are officially citizens of Israel with the right to vote. But in fact they should not be allowed to have a real share in decision making in Israel. There were all kinds of devises to make sure this line was respected. One of the basic devices is an official Israeli government policy which was never put into writing, to the effect that there should always be what is called a Jewish majority. In other words, a government should not only have a parliamentary majority among all members of the Knesset, but it should also have a majority among the Jewish members.
Even in Ben Gurion's time, there were very subservient Arab parties which we can qualify as exclusively puppet parties blindly serving the interests of the governing party. But Ben Gurion was not willing to include these subservient parties as a decisive part of his parliamentary majority. He always wanted to have a majority without them. Because the principal behind it was a Jewish state where power should be in the hands of the of Jews; the real decisions should be made by Jews. • It sounds very much like the original founding Zionist ideology. Does Gush Shalom identify itself as Zionist, non-Zionist, or anti-Zionist?
No. Gush Shalom has deliberately refrained from including any reference to Zionism in its programme. In order to include both Zionist and non-Zionists who are in favour of peace. Anybody who accepts Gush Shalom's ideas is welcome.
Many of the things that are taken as Zionist axioms throughout Israel's 24 International Viewpoint #303 existence - and even before the creation of the state - are now put more and more into question, especially among intellectuals in Israel. There are quite a lot of intellectuals who identify themselves
Zionists", whatever that means. And quite a lot of people are criticising some basic ideas which have been shared in common in Israel up until now. They identify themselves as Zionists and, moreover, they say they're trying to restore the real, pure Zionism as it should have been at the time of the founding fathers.
I see this as an attitude which is developing towards Zionism in Israel, which is in many ways comparable to the attitudes on socialism in the Gorbatchev years in the USSR. In both cases you have an ideology which was until then untouchable, and which is just now being called into question. People are starting to dig into history and look into things which until now have been suppressed. Very many people are saying that what they are doing is to renew the official ideology and restore its virginity and true content. • Gush Shalom puts forth the two-state solution. However in the Israeli Left there is also support for some other scenarios, namely a bi-national state and a secular, democratic state for all citizens within Israel. Are some members of Gush Shalom promoting these
No, not members of Gush Shalom as such. There is the Hebron Solidarity Committee - which is in fact a very misleading name because it started as a committee not dealing especially with Hebron, but pursuing ideological activities promoting the idea of one state and so on.
We sometimes work with them on specific issues. When we work together, we have to be very careful with the formulation of slogans and so on, because they would not agree to any slogan in favour of the Oslo process. But we are willing to co-
Some of them have been not-exactlymembers of Gush Shalom but there was a time when there were in West (Israeli) Jerusalem Left groups who were undecided. Their activists came regularly to our demonstrations and for a certain time there was a kind of division or clarification. Some of them ended up in Gush Shalom and others ended up in the Hebron Solidarity Committee. But still we have a good working relationship with them, as we do
I would first like to complete my comments on Rabin with a point which is not often appreciated. When he was Prime Minister between 74 and 77 and adhered without question to this idea of the idea of the "Jewish Majority" - and when he once again occupied the Prime Minister's office in 92, he certainly wanted to have a Jewish majority. But what happened was that gradually, for different reasons (due both to the peace process and to other factors) he lost several Knesset members who supported him at the outset.
In August 95 when he had to obtain an agreement with the Knesset he found himself in a situation where he had to choose
Either to pursue it with the support of at least four Arab Knesset members, or to give up the whole agreement and the whole peace process. When he was confronted with this choice, he chose to go ahead. This was a unique act in the history of Israel. It was the first - and the last time, so far - that the Prime Minister was willing to let Arabs take a part in a very important political decision.
And that was the direct reason why he was murdered. The murderer, Yigal Amir, said it explicitly in court. He said: "I did not kill him because he gave up territory, although I'm against giving up territory. I killed him because he got the support of Arabs and therefore became illegible to govern the country." And that was in fact the whole campaign against him.
It was not only the attitude of the man who pulled the trigger. The whole campaign of the right wing against Rabin centralised on this "sin". That by relying on Arabs for his majority, his government was illegitimate and it therefore became legitimate to oppose the government with violent means. In the last interview which Rabin gave on television three days before his death, he was asked as what he thought of this criticism: that is was illegitimate to let such an important decision be made with Arab votes. Rabin answered that anybody who would say such a thing is a racist. • There is anti-Arab racism in large sectors of Israeli society. Do you see this as the major obstacle at this point in achieving a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Not necessarily. Because an interesting element is that this racism is not consis-
The settlers and the Far Right in Israel are at least consistent. When you hear them talking about the Netanyahu government (and a potential 13% withdrawal from the West Bank), they say quite explicitly that they are against it, but they would not take as extreme measures against it as they would have taken if Rabin would have done it, because the Netanyahu government is a Jewish government that has a Jewish majority. • Aside from the settlers, and their fanatical right-wing or religious ultraorthodox supporters, what about average Israeli citizens? Do they see working with Arab parliamentarians -or with Arabs in general - as being something objectionable?
Quite a lot of people in Israeli society do object to letting Arabs share in the decision-making process, because they object to Arabs being equal citizens to Israelis. So this is a question which has to be resolved... even if we make a more o
less satisfactory arrangement with the Palestinians on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.
There is a quite possible scenario that Israel would give up these territories and make peace with the Palestinians, but it would still continue with quite discriminatory practices towards its own Arab-Palestinian citizens. • Are there any Palestinian members of Gush Shalom, or do you regroup exclusively Jewish activists?
We do have Arab members, who are welcome. But we are mainly active in the Jewish population centres of Israel. Most