Letter from Jerusalem

by

David A. Harris

Executive Director, American Jewish Committee

February 16, 2001

            Election day, February 6, seemed to generate more attention outside Israel than inside. Perhaps it was the certainty of a Sharon victory, as the polls had consistently shown him leading Barak in the weeks leading up to the election. The only question was the margin of victory. Or perhaps it was widespread despondency about the choice of candidates, neither of whom sparked much enthusiasm or optimism about the future. Or perhaps it was the overarching realization that peace was clearly not around the corner but rather the likelihood of continued terrorism and street battles, if not a larger conflict.

            Nonetheless, the electoral results were striking and reveal that voters were largely uneasy about questions of national security and personal safety. In effect, to borrow a line from the film Network, voters were saying: “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.” Under the circumstances, they were not prepared to renew Barak’s mandate, believing that he had shown political clumsiness and naïveté, alternating between tough talk directed at the Palestinian Authority and a willingness to continue negotiations with the Palestinians at almost any price.

            Sharon was the beneficiary of this dramatic loss of confidence in Barak, even though in the past he has been seen as a polarizing figure in Israeli domestic politics. Voters hope, by dint of his tough image, that he can persuade the Palestinians to end the violence or, alternatively, at least make them pay a higher price should the violence continue.

            Interestingly, many voters stayed home, most notably Israeli Arabs but others as well. As my most informed Israeli source—my long-time taxi driver—told me, he and his family could not bring themselves to vote. Eighteen months ago, they voted for Barak, believing he combined an unsurpassed military record with statesmanship. Today they felt too disillusioned by his “zigzag” leadership to give him a second chance. (More evidence of Barak’s inconsistent nature came after he resigned from politics in the wake of his electoral defeat only to return ten days later and enter talks with Sharon on a unity government and cabinet post.) Yet, the prospect of Sharon was no more appealing. He had no new political ideas, they believed, and would only further isolate Israel internationally.

            But the biggest question of all among Israelis focused less on the election, and the subsequent discussions about the possible creation of a national unity government, and more on future relations with the Palestinians.

            In essence, a decisive majority of Israelis have concluded that there is no peace partner with whom to conduct further talks. That view may well change; public opinion, whether in Israel or the United States, can be very fickle. But, for the time being, this is the prevailing opinion and it has cast a pall over the nation. After all, it means the prospect of continued struggle, with all its implications, rather than the chance even for a chilly peace.

            In a recent Dilbert comic strip, the main character announces: “The secret to happiness is self-delusion.”

            For those many Israelis who had allowed themselves to believe since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 that an historic corner had been turned and some form of accommodation with the Palestinians was in the making, it turns out their optimism may have been a form of self-delusion.

            They didn’t quite grasp the force of the so-called “right of return” issue for the Palestinians or the Palestinian agenda in Jerusalem, not to mention the depths of hatred toward Israel or the preparations for the use of armed violence to help achieve their goals. They understood that Arafat was not the most trustworthy negotiating partner but still were caught by surprise by the vehemence of his rhetoric—for example, calling Israel “fascist” during his appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January or, more recently, referring to the deliberate killing of eight Israelis in a Tel Aviv suburb as nothing more than a “bus accident.”

            For the moment, the Israeli peace camp is in shambles. What’s left of it is on the defensive, although it is only a matter of time before its adherents begin to rally around an anti-Sharon platform, even in the face of a national unity government, and start to rebuild their strength. They will argue forcefully that there is simply no alternative to the quest for peace and Sharon cannot be trusted to pursue it.

            And while the Israeli right is at the moment in the ascendancy, my guess is that it won’t last forever. Sharon has publicly stated that he will not negotiate with the Palestinians as long as violence continues. The Palestinians, despite the horrendous economic situation in which they find themselves, are unlikely to stop the violence, both because they do not want to reward Sharon and because they sense Israeli vulnerability.

            If the violence then continues, Sharon will either have to renege on his pledge and proceed with talks or else stand firm. Either way, he will find himself facing enormously difficult, indeed unpalatable, policy options, and risk losing some domestic support.* Moreover, he will seek to rule over what could turn out to be a rather unruly governing coalition, encompassing diametrically opposing political views, form hawkish to dovish.

            Time, the Palestinians believe today, is on their side.

            Israel is growing soft, as evidenced, the Palestinians say, by the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon because today’s Israel cannot “stomach” casualties. Iran and especially Iraq are expressing loud support and banging the war drums; Palestinians have one of the highest birthrates in the world; Israeli Arabs are beginning to raise their voices and flex their muscles; and Sharon, despised by the Western media and many European leaders, is unlikely to win many friends for Israel.* Therefore, the tide is turning in the Palestinians’ favor, or so they contend.

            But their analysis must also take into account other factors. Israel remains the strongest military power in the region, not to mention a first-world economic force. The U.S., the world’s leading superpower, remains Israel’s closest ally. Sharon has proven time and again that he doesn’t bend or break very easily. A national unity government in Israel will mean greater internal cohesion, at least for a while. Independent reports suggest that the Palestinian areas are close to anarchy and that living conditions are steadily declining. And several key Arab countries have shown little desire until now to be drawn into a wider regional conflict by Palestinian provocations.

            In other words, we can expect a very difficult, and probably inconclusive, period ahead for Israel.

            And over the long term, the tensions and fault lines in the Jewish state will not disappear. To the contrary, they are only likely to grow. The nation’s political and social circuitry is overcharged.

            In the year 2000, according to one outgoing cabinet minister, 30 percent of all births within the 1967 Green Line were to Israeli Arab families, while 24 percent were to haredi (ultrareligious) Jewish families. This trend is likely to continue in the years ahead. It is even more pronounced in Jerusalem.

            An Israeli official has revealed that more than half of all olim (new immigrants) in the past year are not Jewish, according to Halakha (Jewish law), adding to already sizable numbers of newcomers from the Former Soviet Union who are not Jewish. Despite increased numbers enrolled in conversion classes, the conclusion is inescapable.

            In an effort to decrease the number of Palestinian workers in Israel, more Poles, Romanians, Chinese, Thai, and other foreign workers have been encouraged to come. Today their numbers are considerable, as many as 200,000. It is possible that many will stay, as was the case in Western Europe, and build families, further affecting the population balance.

            Israeli Arabs, approximately 18 percent of the population and, as noted, growing in number, are becoming increasingly vocal in demanding equal rights and an equal share of the national budget. Moreover, many do not hide their larger political agenda, which is to transform Israel from a Jewish state to a “democratic state of all its citizens.” At what point might Israeli Arabs demand some form of cultural autonomy, perhaps even political autonomy, and with what results?

            Needless to say, the religious-secular divide in Israel shows no sign of easing, which creates a largely intractable problem between two (actually more) very different notions of Jewish identity and statehood.

            And the list of pressing domestic challenges goes on and includes striking gaps between rich and poor,* the future of settlements in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, lingering ethnic resentments among Sephardic Jews toward the Ashkenazim, scarce water resources in an area where 9 million now live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and a peculiar electoral system that, to put it mildly, is not the envy of the world insofar as it creates a sure-fire formula for political paralysis.

            Externally, the situation is also complicated, both in the short and longer term.

            The new Bush administration is still getting its feet wet and defining its international policy. Some signs have been encouraging, others less so. It is only a matter of time before the administration will be seriously tested in the Middle East, whether by Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or Yassir Arafat, and then we shall have a better sense of its worldview and policy orientation. Given the U.S. and British air strikes against Iraq last week, the first such test by Saddam Hussein and his allies might not be far off, with an assumption that other challenges will follow.

            Iran, despite its continued domination by religious extremists, is gradually re-entering the community of nations; so, too, Iraq, with France, China, and Russia leading the way. Even Qadhafi’s Libya is rapidly shedding its rogue image and attracting commercial attention from Western countries, reportedly including the United States.

            At the same time, the Middle East is headed toward a new generation of weapons. Iran and Iraq in particular are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the reasons to deliver them. Syria has short-range missiles and chemical warheads. Egypt, a country with which Israel has had a valuable peace accord for over two decades, has embarked on a significant military modernization program, which has raised eyebrows in Israeli defense circles. And terrorist groups in the region undoubtedly will also seek to put their hands on new weaponry. In other words, an already volatile strategic environment is likely to grow only more so for Israel, absent dramatic and, in the near term, unlikely developments on the peace front.

            The Europeans will not give Sharon a long honeymoon, even if Shimon Peres, who is highly regarded in European capitals, becomes the new foreign minister. While the European Union has little direct impact on the course of events in the Middle East, it is not without influence in the region or at the United Nations, where we can expect to see a stepped-up attempt to vilify and isolate Israel.

            And the threat of terrorism, as we have witnessed these past five months, cannot be ignored or minimized. The targets have been Jews and Jewish institutions. France, home to the largest Jewish community in Europe, has experienced the bulk of incidents. Israeli and Jewish facilities are very conscious of the menace.

            Visits to these facilities provide a sobering reminder of the dangers: Jewish schools hidden behind concrete perimeter walls, synagogues protected by police officers with submachine guns, embassies that resemble prisons, and prominent Israeli and Jewish officials unable to travel anywhere without a retinue of security personnel.

            In sum, the agenda is daunting, but then again, what’s new? At any given moment in the history of the Jewish people or the life of Israel, logical analysis would always have said that the odds were against us. Yet somehow, through a combination of faith, resolve, and wits, we have always defied the odds, not simply surviving but in recent years flourishing.

            The State of Israel has managed in its fifty-three-year history to develop into a remarkably strong and prosperous nation, despite wars, terrorism, economic boycotts, the absence of natural resources, and attempts at diplomatic isolation, and Israelis have shown time and again their determination to meet the challenges of building and defending their nation.

            And the Jewish people in the Diaspora have understood and embraced the need to support Israel. That support has been indispensable in the past; it remains so now.

            The American Jewish Committee has been there throughout. I dare say that there is no other organization in the world today outside Israel’s borders that has taken upon itself such a far-reaching program to assist Israel in the political and diplomatic worlds—regular meetings with top government leaders on five continents, daily efforts at the United Nations, missions to Israel for influential Americans, ongoing discussions with other religious and ethnic communities, and considerable media activity, including frequent advertisements, op-eds, and letters to the editor in leading newspapers around the world.

            It is abundantly clear that the going won’t get any easier in the months ahead, but then again when in Jewish history has it ever been easy?

            The seventeenth century French author La Rochefoucauld once said: “Few things are impossible in themselves; it is not so much the means we lack as perseverance to make them succeed.”

            In general, he’s right, but there can be no doubt that Israel and the Jewish people, including of course AJC, continue to have the perseverance to succeed, and we shall.