Cook’s Tour

"Bibi Netanyahu should send the British Foreign Secretary a bouquet of flowers as a token of thanks: nothing unites the Israeli people behind its Prime Minister like an arrogant British diplomat making a pro-Palestinian demonstration in the heart of Jerusalem." (Yosef Lapid, "Ma'ariv" March 19).

Lapid’s comment reflects what most writers had to say about British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s meeting with Palestinian representatives at Jerusalem’s controversial new neighbourhood of Har Homa. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the incident a provocation, and cancelled dinner with his British guest. Dan Margalit ("Ha'aretz" March 19) wondered how the British would like it if an Israeli minister were to meet Irish nationalists in Belfast.

Backfire

Margalit thinks that Cook’s gesture could achieve the opposite of its declared purpose. By reinstating Har Homa in the headlines, he made it harder for Netanyahu to resist calls for accelerated development of the site. However, Margalit went on to argue that, by preempting what it sees as threatening Western initiatives on the peace-process, the Israel government has created a diplomatic vacuum which such incidents rush to fill, and meanwhile, the real threat is on the Palestinian front. "In the distant past, Netanyahu didn’t want to meet Yasser Arafat. Now he entreats him, and is met with refusals... For the time being, he is keeping Washington and London at bay, but violence in the Territories will lead him to request their intervention. It would be worth giving this some thought before it’s too late," Margalit concluded.

Akiva Eldar ("Ha'aretz" March 19) reminds us that 40% of Israel’s exports go to the European Union, of which Britain currently holds the presidency. The US, which demands from the Europeans sanctions on Iran and Iraq, would find it hard to stop European sanctions against Israel. Indeed, says Eldar, if President Clinton gets cold feet about coming out with his peace plan, he might not mind if the Europeans do the dirty work.

Labour fights shy

In political terms, the big loser, according to Meron Benvenisti ("Ha'aretz" March 19) is the Labour Party. Its leader, Ehud Barak, avoided meeting Cook, and Yossi Beilin warned against "opening up the Jerusalem issue, on which there is consensus." Labour dare not let Jerusalem become an issue, says Benvenisti, because the Har Homa project was originally an initiative of the Labour-Meretz government.

Another Dimension

Religious Jews in Israel are generally identified with right-wing politics. Figures from three public opinion surveys published in "Ha'aretz" (March 11) showed that respondents views were more hawkish the more religious they were, and all three arrived at the same figure for ultra-orthodox Jews in favour of territorial compromise in the peace process - zero. Ultra-orthodoxy, which is opposed to Zionism, is also, it turns out, the sector that trusts the Arabs least, "Ha'aretz" found.

However, the picture is not uniform. Meimad (Dimension), a centre-left religious Zionist movement recently decided to compete as a political party in the next Knesset elections. Its previous electoral foray, in 1988, brought no seats, but the new electoral system, with the split party/prime-minister vote, could provide its opportunity.

A different face of Judaism

Rabbi Yehuda Amital, leader of the movement, told "Ma'ariv’s" Menahem Rahat (February 25): "A new party like this could be a rallying point for tens of thousands of Jews who are not observant but who wish to see a different face of the Jewish religion," including "a moral attitude to the stranger in our midst." Another Meimad leader, Rabbi Michael Melchior, told Rahat that surveys showing that 63% of Israelis see religious-secular tensions as the greatest threat the country faces meant a new social contract between the two groups needed to be forged. Meimad, he said, would act entirely in the democratic arena, and would not be guided behind the scenes by religious authorities.

Though new National Religious Party leader Rabbi Yitzhak Levy called on Meimad not to split the religious-Zionist camp, Rabbi Amital said he saw no place for his movement in a party that had become more and more extreme both on the political and the religious fronts.

A paradox

While some may feel this is the kind of mood music Israel needs, Emuna Alon ("Yediot Aharonot" February 25) points out a paradox. If Meimad believes its slogan that "no-one has a monopoly on Jewish tradition", it has no place setting up a party "to compete with other religious parties precisely over this monopoly." The logical conclusion of its arguments is that "Meimad members... should undertake political activity not as religious flag-bearers, but simply as citizens for whom the country’s future is dear to their hearts."

Gershom Gorenberg ("Ha'aretz" March 3) has similar reservations, from the point of view of the voter. Meimad, he points out, wishes to attract the kind of religious person who rejects the whole idea of religious political parties.

Avirama Golan ("Ha'aretz" March 4) put the issue to Meimad leading light Professor Avi Ravitzky, tipped as possible party leader. Ravitzky responded that he would gladly forego a religious party structure, but the existence of the other five religious parties left no choice. "Meimad proposes revitalising religious Zionism. Its aim is not political, but cultural, educational, and religious.. but it seems the most effective way forward is a political party."

Elitism

National Religious Party MK Eliyahu Gabbai, writing "Ma'ariv" (March 11) queried Meimad’s credentials as a party, given its leadership’s homogeneous make-up, which includes no representatives of the under-privileged. "Show me a single social initiative the movement has come up with," he wrote. Yair Sheleg ("Ha'aretz" March 10) also warned of elitism. "[Meimad] must avoid the image of a party that chiefly wishes to prove how enlightened it is... at the expense of dealing with substantial issues, including criticism of the secular world when necessary."

Despite the criticism, Gershom Gorenberg is prepared to justify Meimad as a political enterprise. The mainstream political parties on the left, he says have become bastions of militant secularism, in which religious people with moderate political views feel unwelcome. "A great deal depends on the platform Meimad presents, but this time round, an appeal to vote for it could fall on more attentive ears."

Published by Israel's Business Arena March 19, 1998

Responses to Press Cuttings are welcome. Please send comments to davidg@globes.co.il

The above figures are based on a survey carried out by the Israel Advertising Association in November 1996. The survey covered a sample of 2,500 people representing a cross-section of the population of Israel.

Recent Editions:

• Hate Thy Neighbor (February 12)
  Tension between Israel’s ultra-orthodox community and the secular majority.

• Nobody Loves Us (February 5, 1998)
  Does the Iraq crisis prove the Middle East is as bad a neighborhood as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says it is, or that Israel should try harder to fit in?

• Scud Poker (January 29, 1998)
  How anxious should Israelis be about Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological arsenal, as sabers are once again rattled in the Gulf? Plus: Monica Lewinsky and the culture of lies.

• Change Your Partners (January 22,1998)
  Did Netanyahu emerge from his summit with President Clinton as a smooth dancing statesman, or as a scrambling politician putting off the choice between his coalition and his country’s greatest ally?

• The Man They Love to Hate (January 15, 1998)
  Press hostility towards the Prime Minister - a sign of loss of touch with reality, or of healthy instinct? Plus: Interesting times in Haifa and Tel Aviv.

• Levy Leaves (January 8, 1998)
  The significance of David Levy's resignation as Minister of Foreign Affairs

• Barak Burner (December 25, 1997)
  Why has Labour Leader Ehud Barak not set the political scene alight? Plus: For and against Hannuka.