Unsettling Thoughts

Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat refused to condemn the terrorist murders of Harel Ben-Nun and Shlomo Libman at Yitzhar last week. He left the task to one of his ministers, who explained that his boss drew a distinction between Israelis and settlers. Yitzhar is a settlement on the West Bank.

Those who find such a distinction outrageous have to face the fact that it exists in the minds of many Israelis too. "Israeli public opinion is divided into two highly charged camps," wrote Nahum Barnea ("Yediot Aharonot" August 7). "One camp sees any Jew who is killed as an innocent victim of Arab murderousness. The other sees the settlers as a separate nation, alien and strange."

Hava Pinhas-Cohen ("Ma'ariv" August 13) said that the Yitzhar terrorists were seeking to widen this split, which she blamed on a degeneration in Israeli society. Israel, according to Pinhas-Cohen, is "post-ideological", a society that "defines the normalisation Zionism sought for the Jewish people in personal, material terms... incapable of dealing with historic questions." It therefore puts Judea and Samaria out of its mind.

Arrogance

Eitan Haber ("Yediot Aharonot" August 9) on the other hand, sees the settlers themselves as responsible for their alienation from the mass of Israeli society. "The cause is the arrogance many settlers radiate, the conceit that shines from their eyes even when they say nothing... implying "I’m a better Jew and a better Zionist than you." Even the settlers’ supporters on the right, according to Haber, find this off-putting. "People from Likud or Tsomet didn’t make it to the wind-swept hillside to bury the victims of terror. I very much doubt they even felt any grief."

Tel Aviv University law professor Daniel Friedman ("Yediot Aharonot" August 11) sees lack of enthusiasm for new settlement as having practical causes. Rather than degeneration, he sees changing times and changing priorities. "The settlers believe they are defending Tel Aviv and Naharia, but the opposite is the truth. They need thousands of soldiers to guard them, and massive economic investment. They prevent other investments, which could strengthen Israel’s economy and security. They also reduce the chances of reaching an accommodation with countries like Iran, whose hostility to Israel represents a severe threat."

Choice

The settlers’ claims to be Israel’s guarantee of security as well as ideological authenticity has come under examination in relation to a number issues recently. Zeev Schiff ("Ha'aretz" August 7), commenting on proposals to include part of the Judean desert in the territory handed over in the much delayed next West Bank pullback, pointed out that this region has been regarded as vital to Israel’s security interests since the West Bank was conquered in the 1967 Six Day War. Schiff quoted prominent Israeli strategist Yigal Alon as saying that an Israeli hold on the desert area and the Jordan valley would preempt any Arab military threat.

Now, however, the government is considering relinquishing this area in order not to have to withdraw from settlements. According to Schiff, this is a clear choice between ideology and security.

Nuclear test

Another matter over which Israel has been feeling pressure is nuclear weapons. Israel this week informed the UN nuclear disarmament committee in Geneva that she would not oppose negotiations being opened over a treaty to end the production of fissile nuclear materials. Knesset member Efraim Sneh (Labour), writing in "Ha'aretz" (August 13) expressed adamant opposition to Israel signing such a treaty. The vagueness of Israel’s nuclear posture has been a mainstay of her security, argued Sneh, and allowing international inspection of her nuclear facilities would mean the end of this deterrent.

According to Sneh, the government was forced into making concessions in this area because of its obstinacy over settlements. "It would be typical of [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] to sacrifice [Israel’s nuclear reactor] Dimona on the altar of Yitzhar and Itamar... Excessive stubbornness is liable to entail excessive concessions. This generation will pay the price of the former. The price of the latter will be paid by the next."

Meir Steiglitz ("Yediot Aharonot" August 13) attacked Sneh for exaggerating the risks associated with the contemplated treaty. According to Steiglitz, had she opposed negotiations, Israel would either have become an international pariah, or would have been dragged into them kicking and screaming. "The treaty," wrote Steiglitz, "is a central element in the human race’s attempt to deal with the nuclear threat... Israel’s supreme national interest lies in the prevention of a nuclear Middle East.. opponents of the treaty are security obsessed types who fail to understand that the ability to navigate in changing conditions is no less important than the size and strength of the ship."

Reuven Pedohtzur ("Ha'aretz" August 13) points out that the proposed treaty does not require countries to give up their existing nuclear materials. Signing the treaty could be a confidence building measure between Israel and other countries in the region, while "her deterrent image will not be impaired. On the contrary. If Israel can preserve her existing potential, this would mean the end of the vagueness, while at the same time she would receive an international stamp of approval for the nuclear hegemony she enjoys." Israel should liaise closely with the US, says Pedohtzur, to ensure this outcome.

This however, according to Zeev Schiff ("Ha'aretz" August 11), is precisely the present government’s weak point. "A decision over such a sensitive issue makes close consultation at the highest level - between the Prime Minister and the US President - imperative. So it was in the past. The trouble is that the special intimacy that prevailed between Rabin, Peres, and most of their predecessors, and the President of the US, no longer exists. This is part of the price Israel pays for the President’s loss of faith in the Prime Minister."

Published by Israel's Business Arena on August 13, 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:

• Diversion (July 16)
  A sensational treason trial drowns out the week's real news - US withdrawal from the peace process. Plus: Pollution in Israel's waters, a year after the Maccabiah bridge disaster.

• Worse to Come (July 9)
  The siege of Gush Katif brought into sharp focus the dangerous state of relations between Israel and the Palestinians.

• Who'll Laugh Last? (June 25)
  Why is the proposal for a referendum over the next pullback from the Territories no longer a joke?

• Arab Dreams, Jewish Nightmares (June 18)
  Responses to an Arab member of Knesset who speaks his mind. /UL>