New Israeli Elections Offer Little Hope of Change in Israeli Policy

By Rachelle Marshall

In an old story about the Spanish Inquisition, a prisoner condemned to be burned at the stake is allowed to escape from his cell only to be recaptured just as he reaches the prison gates. The title of the story, Torture by Hope, applies equally well to the ordeal of the Palestinians, who since 1993 have repeatedly been offered a glimmer of hope only to see it snuffed out.

The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was hailed as a peacemaker when he signed the Oslo agreement but delayed implementing that agreement until he was assassinated by an Israeli extremist. His successor, Shimon Peres, took office as a strong supporter of Oslo, but instead of hastening its fulfillment launched an assault on Lebanon that drove hundreds of thousands of Lebanese from their homes and left hundreds of civilians dead, including 91 refugees who were killed when Israeli artillery shelled a U.N. base. By approving the assassination of a Palestinian militant, after a year-long absence of violence, Peres provoked a series of suicide bombings to which he responded by sealing off the West Bank and Gaza. The border closings continue to this day, with devastating effects on the Palestinian economy.

Binyamin Netanyahu raised no hopes among Palestinians when he was elected prime minister in 1996, but he soon dismayed even pessimists with his provocative actions and open hostility to Arafat. Under pressure from the Clinton administration, he reluctantly signed the Wye agreement last fall, pledging to withdraw Israeli troops from 13 percent of West Bank territory, allow completion of the Gaza airport and free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, and free 750 prisoners. But like the Hebron agreement Netanyahu signed in 1997, Wye proved to be a mirage.

Israel’s first (and last) troop withdrawal in November gave the Palestinians control over Jenin, but because neighboring villages are surrounded by Israeli-held areas, the city is virtually isolated. Palestinians must still go through time-consuming checkpoints between the villages and Jenin, and take roundabout routes from Jenin to Tulkarem and Nablus.The much-heralded Gaza International Airport also turned out to be less than promised. With total control over security, Israeli authorities have delayed landings and takeoffs and can close the airport at will. Border restrictions make it difficult for West Bank Palestinians to get to Gaza and most Gazans can’t afford to fly.

Palestinians suffered a greater disappointment when Israel released 250 prisoners in accordance with the Wye agreement but freed mostly petty criminals, not the political activists Palestinian negotiators had expected. During the protests that erupted throughout the West Bank Israeli soldiers confronted stone-throwers with lethal gunfire and by mid-January had killed at least six Palestinians, including a 13-year-old boy, and wounded hundreds of others. Citing the protests as a reason, Israel cancelled the next scheduled prisoner release mandated by Wye.

In order to further placate right-wing members of the government who continued to oppose the Wye agreement, Netanyahu used the beating of an Israeli soldier by angry demonstrators as an excuse to call off the second troop withdrawal scheduled for December, claiming the Palestinians were not living up to their side of the agreement. (The State Department asserted this was not true.) Netanyahu then imposed new conditions on Yasser Arafat that he knew could not be met. He announced a freeze on further troop withdrawals until the Palestinians stop all violence and incitement to violence, accept Israel’s decisions on prisoner releases, and refrain from declaring an independent state or making any claim to East Jerusalem.

Since Netanyahu has made a habit of going back on his word, his action came as no surprise. A far greater blow to the Palestinians’ hopes followed President Clinton’s Dec. 14 visit to Gaza, the first visit to Palestinian territory by an American president. Clinton looked on as the Palestine National Council voted for a second time to eliminate anti-Israel portions of their national charter, then responded with a speech that came close to endorsing a Palestinian state.

He first reminded Israelis that most Palestinians have yet to realize any benefits from Oslo. “For too many of them,” he said, “lives are hard, jobs are scarce, prospects are uncertain, and personal grief is great.” He listed separation of families, restrictions on movement, land confiscations, and home demolitions as outstanding grievances. Finally, he referred to the Palestinians’ “holy ground,” saying the Palestinians “now have a chance to determine their own destiny on their own land.”

An editorial in the Jordan Times exulted: “Clinton’s words finally articulated the inevitable, a Palestinian state on Palestinian national land.” A shopkeeper in Gaza with a picture of a Hamas leader on his wall told a reporter, “He’s talking about our suffering and he really means it.”

But only a few days later those who had jubilantly waved American flags as Clinton arrived in Gaza were burning the same flags. On Dec. 16, the day after he returned to Washington, Clinton authorized a four-day air assault on Iraq that rained 700,000 pounds of explosives on that already ravaged country. The round-the-clock bombing apparently did little damage to Saddam Hussain’s alleged weapons factories but intensified the suffering of Iraqi citizens already weakened by nine years of sanctions. Two U.N. agencies, UNICEF and the World Food Program, reported that the attacks flattened an agricultural school, damaged a dozen other schools, and destroyed a warehouse filled with 2,600 tons of rice. Bombs also hit a water system near Baghdad, cutting off water to 300,000 people.

The attack crushed hopes that the United States had at last abandoned its policy of punishing Arab countries for violating U.N. mandates while Israel flouts them repeatedly yet continues to receive billions in U.S. aid. A Jerusalem Times editorial said, “We feel betrayed,” and charged Clinton with “[using] his visit to the region to justify his onslaught on the Iraqi people.”

After failing to persuade Netanyahu to fulfill Israel’s obligations under the Wye agreement, Clinton and other U.S. officials have been silent on the issue. There was not a murmur from Washington when immediately after Clinton’s visit the Israelis scheduled new elections and suspended all action on Wye. With right-wing members of the Knesset furious at Netanyahu for signing the agreement, Labor angry that he was refusing to implement it, and members of all parties distrusting him (“The problem is one of a terrible character,” a writer for Ma’ariv commented), Netanyahu was threatened with a vote of no confidence. Consquently he agreed to dissolve the government and hold elections on May 17, with a runoff on June 1. There will be no troop withdrawals or prisoner releases until after a new government is formed.

Netanyahu has been challenged by at least three prominent Israelis, in addition to Labor Party leader Ehud Barak. Moshe Arens, a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States, will run against him in the Likud primary on Jan. 25. The winner will face Barak and recently retired general Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who is running as head of a new centrist party. Supporting Lipkin-Shahak is Dan Meridor, Netanyahu’s former finance minister. Netanyahu is being challenged from the right by Ze’ev (Benny) Begin, son of Menachem Begin, who has bitterly opposed every peace agreement with the Palestinians and, in announcing his candidacy, referred to them as “hoodlums.” Yitzhak Mordechai, who recently was dismissed as defense minister, is expected either to run himself or support Lipkin-Shahak.

Under Israel’s new electoral system voters will choose a prime minister and members of the Knesset on two separate ballots, which means the head of the winning party will not automatically be the prime minister. Many voters will consequently feel free to cast a second ballot for one of the multitude of single-issue parties that are now being formed. Israeli political observers predict the new system will make the Knesset even more fractious, with each small splinter group competing for favors on behalf of its own constituents at the expense of the nation as a whole. Peace with the Palestinians is not likely to be at the top of their agendas.

“How can we survive the next months?”

As of mid-January, polls showed Lipkin-Shahak well ahead of Netanyahu, possibly because he is still the equivalent of “none of the above.” He favors resuming negotiations with Syria but is vague on what if any concessions he would make on withdrawal from the Golan Heights or the return of land to the Palestinians. He says he does not oppose a Palestinian state but has ruled out any compromise on Jerusalem.

His main asset is that unlike Netanyahu he has a reputation for integrity and civility. So far Lipkin-Shahak’s emphasis has been on healing the social ills and divisions that plague Israeli society, such as the bitter division among Jews on the question of whether Orthodox Jews should have exclusive control over Jewish institutions and rituals, and the rising crime rates. (According to a recent report by David Weinberg of Bar-Ilan University, in 1998 there were 20,000 cases of domestic violence, 50,000 car thefts, 10,000 assaults, 192 murders, and more than 700 rapes.)

The politically inexperienced Lipkin-Shahak faces a brass-knuckle campaigner in Netanyahu. The Likud Party’s opening shots included accusing his opponents of being in league with the Palestinians, and casting doubt on Barak’s courage as a military commander. Three weeks into the contest, the office of a Washington pollster working for Barak had been burgled twice, and the files on Barak’s campaign strategy were stolen. Three more offices associated with the Barak campaign also were burgled in Israel.

When Lipkin-Shahak tried to make his first speech in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu’s supporters pelted him with rotten tomatoes and chicken parts. Despite Lipkin-Shahak’s current popularity, he is not certain to win the election.

Arens would be a formidable opponent if he should beat Netanyahu in the Likud primary, and so would Netanyahu, since in a runoff vote right-wing Israelis would have no other choice but to unite behind his candidacy.

Because Netanyahu is making the danger of a Palestinian state a central issue in his campaign, Arafat is under pressure from the Labor Party and its supporters to delay his promised declaration of statehood until after the elections. Rep. Tom Lantos, a congressman from northern California, even traveled to Ramallah in January to warn Palestinians not to declare statehood before the elections because if they do “all of your advantages and gains will go down the drain.” Lantos, who co-sponsored a resolution in 1997 favoring Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, did not say what gains he had in mind.

Arafat is under equally strong pressure from Fatah members and other Palestinians to proceed with the announcement as scheduled. They argue that May 4 is the date designated by the Oslo agreement as the end of the interim period and as such is “a historic and significant day.”

Meanwhile, Palestinians have more immediate concerns. Although Israel has put the peace process into deep freeze, it is expanding settlements faster than ever. Peace Now reported in mid-December that 1,420 new units were begun on the West Bank in the first half of 1998, and construction will soon start on 1,051 more. As the Palestinians see their land confiscated and their homes torn down to make way for Israeli settlers, their towns choked off by new roads and army checkpoints, and their men and boys languishing in prison, tension is increasing. It is made worse by the Palestinian Authority’s disregard for human rights. Under pressure from Israel and the United States to crack down on terrorism, PA police are jailing hundreds of Palestinians without trial and imposing heavy-handed censorship on journalists.

By offering nothing but insults in response to Palestinian compliance with the peace accords, Israel is providing credibility to militants who call for armed struggle as the only way to end Israeli occupation. Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, charges Netanyahu with “turning the Palestinians into enemies as a theme in his election campaign” and thereby “creating a pressure cooker on the ground.” The problem, Erekat says, “is how can we survive the next months?”

Unfortunately, the Palestinians’ ordeal may last even longer. With Lipkin-Shahak still an unknown quantity and the question of who is a Jew the predominant issue among Israelis, results of the next election are unpredictable. Regardless of the outcome, today as in the past the Palestinians’ best hope for the future lies nowhere else but in a commitment to democracy and their own ability to endure.

Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. A member of the International Jewish Peace Union, she writes frequently on the Middle East.