No compromise in Israel
Christopher Walker
Jerusalem While shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange enjoyed an unseasonal boom following news that Menachem Begin had succeeded in forming his second coalition government, the outcome of three weeks of hectic and often undignified political horsetrading was received with private gloom in all the main Western embassies. For months before the 30 June election, foreign governments had been making little secret Of their wish to see the back of Mr Begin and his replacement by a more flexible Labour Prime minister, unburdened by the mystical Zionism so favoured by leading members of the Likud. Instead, they now face the prospect of a new Begin administration Which, both in personalities and policies, Shows every indication of being more unbending and less sensitive to world opinion than the government which has been in power since 1977. The most significant change is not the new faces, but the absence of all the strong Personalities who over the past four years have exercised a restraining hand on some aspects of Mr Begin's policy, particularly his attitudes towards the occupied territories and security in the Middle East. Gone is the influential figure of Moshe Dayan, humbled by a poor personal showing at the Polls and now unlikely to regain a cabinet Post; gone is Ezer Weizman, the most attractive of all Israeli politicians, who is still kicking his heels in his villa at Caeserea, looking after a tragically war-wounded son and reviewing various business and book Prospects; gone are Professor Yigael Yadin and Israel Katz, the last two remaining members of the now defunct Democratic Movement for Change, which in 1977 won 15 seats and provided a genuinely moderating, though not always effective, voice in cabinet discussions.
Some results of the change in the character of the Israeli government have already been seen in the Kavei Yesod (basic policy guidelines) laid down by the new administration, which may well have a more secure existence than its slender, one-seat Knesset Majority would indicate. Once again the government has declared its intention of Pressing Israel's claim to sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza after five years of Palestinian autonomy (if agreement is ever reached), and of refusing to tolerate a Palestinian state in those areas; on this Occasion there are no dissenting voices. May a similar declaration was made in May 1979, Dayan, Weizman, Yadin and Katz all voted against, and as a result the declarations were not pressed as part of Israel's autonomy proposal: they were designated instead as an internal Israeli document.
The fact that the Israelis will now be taking an even harder line on autonomy than before has further diminished the prospect of the deadlocked talks being successfully revived, although it is probable that the Americans will persuade both governments to go through the motions once more. The new Likud cabinet has a totally different concept of the meaning of Palestinian self-rule than that shared by leaders of the 1.2 million Palestinians living in the area under discussion, or by Egypt, which realises that it cannot be seen to be concurring in an agreement which would constitute little .more than a rubber stamp for the continued harsh military rule of the area. In the few weeks which have elapsed since the election, this has become noticeably more restrictive, with West Bank leaders now forbidden to maintain any contact with PLO representatives during trips abroad. The flow of Arab funds to the area channelled by the joint JordanianPLO committeee has also been halted.
A crucial date for the future of the flagging Camp David process is April next year, the month when Israelis are committed to handing back the remaining one third of the occupied Sinai to the Egyptians. Despite threats by thousands of right-wing Jewish settlers to resist the evacuation — by force if necessary — there is little doubt that it will go ahead, with the risk of provoking a considerable change in the public attitude of President Sadat. Although the Egyptian Ferdinand Mount and Auberon Waugh are on holiday leader is known to have been infuriated at being persuaded to attend the Ophira summit with Mr Begin only three days before the raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, he has deliberately restrained his response in order to give Israel no excuse for breaking the treaty before the all-important area of the Sinai desert has been restored.
As yet, there has been no sign of any effort by the new government to think ahead to what might happen after next April, with the whole of the Sinai handed back and no further progress achieved on the question of Palestinian autonomy. Inside Israel, warning noises are constantly being made by the extreme right-wing Tehiya Party, whose leaders, such as the outspoken Geula Cohen, remain convinced that once President Sadat has got back his land — and so fully restored Egyptian honour — he will inaugurate a fundamental change of approach towards Israel. Such a shift will be even more likely if the new Israeli government adopts a more hard-line approach on Middle East issues than the previous administration.
In addition to the central, if at times tedious, question of autonomy, the change in character of the government is also likely to open the way to more internationally unpopular Jewish settlement policies. The immediate focus will be Hebron, the burial place of the patriarchs and, in recent years, the front line in the struggle between Arabs and Jews in the occupied region. A decision by the previous cabinet to permit Jews to settle in the middle of the town occupied by 60,000 Palestinians was only delayed by Professor Yadin, who invoked the terms of his original coalition agreement. Now that he no longer has a cabinet seat, there will be no voice of caution on the siting of new settlements.
Apart from the recently revitalised Mr Begin, the new Israeli government is probably best symbolised for the outside world by the man who has at last achieved his ambition to become Defence Minister, Ariel `Arik' Sharon, who was the most consistent hawk in the previous cabinet. A former general who is on record as wanting to see the Jewish population of the occupied West Bank increased from 20,000 to 300,000, Mr Sharon has already proved himself an energetic minister with, according to one Israeli critic, 'about as much political subtlety as a bull in a china shop'.
His elevation to overall responsibility for Israel's security policy and military rule in the West Bank and Gaza has caused near panic among many liberal-minded Israelis, while inducing a mood of euphoria among such ultra-nationalist groups as Gush EmuMm (Block of the Faithful). To most European governments, nervously awaiting the outcome of Mr Begin's visit to Washington next month, it has sharply reinforced the conviction that the Reagan administration must start exercising a much greater restraining influence on Israel if any form of long-term stability is to be achieved in the Middle East.
Previous page
