January 16, 2004

"In Israel: Courageous, but Confused"

From Jerusalem, Israel: This land of beauty and courage knows no solution to its problems. America’s military victory in Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein raise serious questions for thinking Israelis. I have spoken to many—men and women in the street, members of the IDF, people in the highest echelons of government. Some say this is the best opportunity Israel will ever have for peace, while those to the right passionately argue for the annexation of Samaria, Judea and Gaza.

The advocates of peace see a disheveled Arab world. Libya’s Ghadafi promises to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and has even permitted his son to spend two hours with an Israeli official (a true fact, which was, unfortunately, leaked prematurely). Syria’s Bashar Assad pleads for negotiations with Israel. The Iranian Ayatollahs accepted American aid after the earthquake which killed more than twenty thousand people, and  although it rejected Israel’s offer of assistance, it did so politely. Now, more than ever, Israel’s voices for peace plead that the time is propitious for negotiations.

Matan Vilnai, a Labor Party leader and former Minister of Science and a retired IDF General spoke at a meeting of rabbis in Israel. He bitterly complained about the government’s refusal to negotiate with Palestinian leaders, but in the very same breath, castigated Sharon for permitting Arafat the use of a telephone and having the freedom to meet with any and all visitors. The question remains: who can Sharon, or any other leader, talk with on the Palestinian side? The incumbent Palestinian Prime Minister made it clear that Arafat, and Arafat alone, decides for his people. But Vilnai tells Israel it must speak to Arafat’s people, a contradiction and a silly party line.

Israel’s political right has now found a new target for its anger, and believe it or not, it is the father of West Bank and Gaza settlements: the heroic symbol of Israeli strength and courage, Ariel Sharon. Sharon is prepared to give away land for a peace agreement. Failing to arrive at an agreement, Sharon says Israel will unilaterally withdraw from the other side of the
incomplete wall of separation.

Sharon’s opposition argues that doing so would reward terrorism. They compare Sharon's threat to Barak’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon, a tragic mistake that convinced Arafat and his gang that Israel is vulnerable to terror.

Political lines are, in my opinion, about to be redrawn. Those on the right of Sharon will bolt from Likud and join with the other right-wing parties, and those to the left of Shimon Peres will align themselves with Meretz. This will leave Likud and Labor with a strong majority in the Knesset. A merger of these two parties is likely. Labor is bereft of leaders. Peres, Labor’s Party head, is an octogenarian and after him, there is no one. Sharon apparently designated Ehud Olmert to succeed him, and Benjamin Netanyahu will be left hanging. If Netanyahu joins the right, he will have little support; if he sticks with Sharon, he will play third fiddler after Olmert and Sylvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister.

George W. Bush holds the key to Israel’s political future. James Baker, Bush Sr.’s crony, has become the new major player on the Middle East chessboard. This former Secretary of State saved the presidency for the younger Bush. He has been assigned to the Middle East with his mission to end the insurgency in Iraq, mollify the Arabs, and put an end to the Middle East conflict.

Friends of Israel will surely remember his hostility towards the Jewish Sate in the years of Bush Sr.’s presidency, when Baker brought Israel to its knees. This man’s famous comment about Jews not voting for Republicans reveals a pathological enmity.

With Bush once more dependent on Baker, Israel may be subjected to enormous pressure to negotiate a deal with the Palestinians. Will Bush concur with Baker’s revision of his policy in the Middle East, or will he continue to submit to the will of the Republican religious right, which is unswerving in its demand for Israeli control of every inch of Eretz Yisrael?

There is an election coming, many argue, and Bush will not dare offend the Bible Christians who constitute the religious right. These fundamentalist Christians vote almost as a block with the majority that supports Bush. Where can these religious voters go if Bush reverses his policies regarding Israel? They will certainly not vote for Howard Dean, the apparent Democratic nominee.

“Don’t take Bush for granted,” I have told many Israeli leaders. Many of the unanswerable questions I have raised will soon be answered. It is a mistake for Israel and its supporters to make any decisions now. Wait and see before acting rashly. I will have more to share in my next column.

Shabbat Shalom