The Last-Ditch Fight of the Israelis Against Palestinian Independence

By Frank Collins

The independence of Palestine was proclaimed on Nov. 15, 1989, and so far it has been recognized, in one form or another, by over 70 countries. American independence was declared on July 4, 1776, but the British continued to fight the Americans until the defeat of General Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781. And the Israelis are continuing to fight the Palestinians with no end in sight. The Israeli tactics in their battles against the stone-throwing Palestinians, however, are more stupid than the battle tactics of the British in America.

The killing of unarmed women and small children has alienated world sympathy to the extent that Israel is now almost completely isolated. If the objective of the Israelis is to force the Palestinians into unconditional surrender, their tactics are self-defeating. The brutalities of the Israeli army and the settlers have united the Palestinians as never before in their history. To my personal observation, Palestinian determination to carry on has progressively broadened and deepened in the 14 months of the uprising. The possibility of an abject surrender is nil and every killing only strengthens Palestinian resolve to continue the intifadah until the bitter occupation ends.

Israeli Consensus is Critical

Why, then, do the Israelis continue on a course so counterproductive to their own interests? The answer must be sought in the Israeli political economy and the consensus of the Israeli public as to the future of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and within Israel itself. It is the strength of this consensus that encourages the Israelis in general to be so contemptuous of world opinion, including that of Americans and even that of American Jews.

To the outside world, the Israelis may appear as an aggregation of quarreling factions incapable of uniting around any political dogma. This is partially true. At first sight, this small society is beset by irreconcilable schisms: Ashkenazis against Oriental Jews, the religious against the secular, and one ethnic subgroup against another ethnic subgroup. Yet there is a strange unity of opinion concerning the status of the Palestinians and their future.

As the British thought that they owned the 13 American colonies, most Israelis think that they own not only Israel, but the occupied territories as well. They see the intifadah as a challenge to their right to the land given them by God—land they consider Jewish from ancient times—land won by Jewish blood shed in 1967.

Zionism Excludes Non-Jews

The cornerstone of Zionism is the Jewish state, and it is implicit in Zionism that the home of the Jews is not to be shared with non-Jews, despite the language to the contrary in Israel's Declaration of Independence. This exclusivity was originally fostered by the anti-Semitism of the societies of most of the countries of the world, and was solidified by the holocaust.

The presence of the Palestinians, who made up two-thirds of the population of the British mandate in 1948, has been a persisting embarrassment, a contradiction of the principles of Zionism. This is the central dilemma facing the Israelis and there is little disagreement among them that the Palestinian presence is their most intractable problem. Their actions must be understood in this light.

Arabs comprise 18 percent of the population of Israel. If the inhabitants of the occupied territories are added, the Arab proportion soars to 37.5 percent. The proportion of Arabs is steadily growing because of their higher birthrate and the lack of substantial Jewish immigration. The Arab population is predicted to rise from the present 37.5 percent to 44.5 percent by the end of this century. This has been termed the "demographic time bomb" by the Israelis. It accounts for the support by some Israelis of an independent Palestine, or other form of separation of the occupied territories.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, along with most of the Likud, vehemently opposes giving up "one centimeter of the land of Israel," and considers the idea of a Palestine in the occupied territories anathema. His interpretation of the Camp David agreement is of "autonomy" for the Palestinian-populated areas of the occupied territories, with neither sovereignty nor Israeli troop withdrawal.

Elections under these conditions would mean elections of Palestinian local officials and councils without representation in the national government. In short, they would legitimize the creation of "bantustans," populated by second-class citizens, subject to Israeli army control. They would facilitate expanding the Jewish settlements program in the occupied territories.

These are the real roots of Israeli rejectionism, of any policies that would move toward a diplomatic settlement with the Palestinians. They are masked, however, by security arguments to the effect that a new Palestine in any form would provide a foothold from which to conquer Israel and "drive the Jews into the sea." Thus, Israelis argue, there is no alternative but to crush the intifadah using any and all means available.

The truth, of course, is that a diplomatic settlement of the question of Palestine would promote peaceful relations between Israel and its neighbors by removing the main cause for conflict.

Frank Collins is a free-lance writer who divides his time between Washington, DC, and Jerusalem.