 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Jan. - 3 Feb. 1999 Issue No. 414 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Jan. - 3 Feb. 1999 Issue No. 414
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Focus Economy Opinion Culture Features Living Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Watch and wait
By Gamil Mattar *An American newspaper columnist wrote recently that the forthcoming elections will change Israel. Although he did not specify exactly how Israel will change, I still believe he is correct. It will be extremely important in the coming weeks to listen carefully to everything that is being said in Israel. This task is no longer as difficult as it once was, particularly now that the Palestinian Authority is interacting with the Israeli government on many levels and the Israeli Arabs have made important, if not radical, breakthroughs within the Israeli political structure. More importantly, most Arab governments have lifted the ban on access to information about Israel -- that is, beyond the customary propaganda tracts of which the bombast and terror-mongering were one of the reasons for our defeat.
I recall that once, when I was returning to Egypt after a lengthy stay abroad, the censors at customs confiscated all the books I had that contained the words "Israel" and "revolution", including two books entitled The Scientific Revolution and Oriental Jews in Israel. Anyway, that chapter is closed and I hope it stays that way. Now, thankfully, we have the freedom and the ability to keep track of events in Israel, from the Arab perspective. No longer are the means of monitoring events in Israel the sole preserve of Arab intelligence and foreign ministry agencies. In fact, these agencies stand to benefit now that Arab intellectuals and political analysts are better equipped to think with them and, in particular, to contribute to the prognosis of the changes the elections will bring about in Israel.
A good many intellectuals, however, already assume that Israel after the elections will be exactly as it was before. Some assert that the elections are simply a ploy to obstruct the peace process until yet more settlements can be built. This is actually credible, but not for the reasons they cite. Others believe that the elections are purely ornamental, intended solely to reaffirm Israel's reputed trappings of democracy. Again, the contention is admissible -- from intellectuals who work in societies that have never held free political elections, or in societies where elections have their own logic, which has no bearings whatsoever on democracy or participation in the process of government. In fact, the majority of Arab political observers have a very clear conception of democracy as it is practiced in the West, and are as adept in their analyses of British, French or American elections as their Western counterparts.
I have three reasons for urging my fellow writers and journalists to follow the Israeli elections closely. I read recently that this is the year that will determine the outcome of the peace process; issues like the redeployment of Israeli forces and the freezing of settlement construction, if they are to be settled in the final status negotiations, will require a strong Israeli leader at the head of a strong Israeli government, whether dominated by a single party or a national coalition. I see no indication, on the other hand, that the peace process has arrived anywhere near a point of resolution. The coming year will bring heightened tension, of that we can be sure. But I do not believe it will reach a degree that will threaten the cohesiveness of Israeli political forces and the aims that unite them.
Israeli intellectuals have always said that the only difference between political parties in Israel is the extent to which each is willing to give precedence to pragmatism over ideology at a given period of time. Otherwise, all the parties are unanimous in their dedication to the ultimate Zionist goal of establishing a greater Israel. The parties also agree that the course they must follow is arduous, and strewn with the thorns of war and peace negotiations, all of which are costly and burdensome. That is why, over the years, both the Israeli left and right have dealt with the Arabs in the same way: waging war, entering into negotiations and conceding territory they had occupied and intended to annex to Israel. In this respect, there is no difference between the right and left in Israel. It was the right which signed Camp David and took part in the Madrid peace conference, while the left signed the Oslo Accords -- the same accords that so infuriated the right it was able to galvanise a consensus and win the following round of elections. It did so, however, only to sign the Hebron agreement and then the Wye Plantation Memorandum.
The issue in Israeli elections, thus, is not one of war versus peace, but, again, the extent to which pragmatism can hold sway over ideology. Already this polarity has marked the electoral campaign. As fear in Israel over failing to fulfil the Zionist dream is stronger than ever, we can expect political discourse on both the right and the left to drift increasingly rightward, toward a specific and unequivocal commitment to restrict the margin of pragmatism and ensure the salvation of the Israeli dream. In other words, the primary thrust of the political candidates will be to reassure Israelis that what they "gave" the Arabs in concession to the pressures of realism -- i.e., the pressure of the international community, Arab popular anger, attacks carried out by freedom fighters, the growing tide of religious extremism in the Arab world and the Iranian factor -- can be retrieved in the shortest possible time and at the least possible human cost.
The second reason we should concern ourselves with the Israeli elections is that these are the first such elections to witness a free-for-all among military men vying for the position of prime minister. This phenomenon does not portend the advent of a military regime of the type all too familiar to the Arab world, Africa and Turkey. Israel is different. It is a militarist society in that every ordinary citizen, with the exception of a few hundred or so belonging to certain religious sects who are exempt from military service, is a soldier. The primary allegiance of every engineer, doctor, thief, government official or street sweeper is to the military establishment in which they must serve for part of every year until they reach the age of 55 or 60. While no army officer has the right to undertake a political career until he or she retires, Israeli army officers retire young.
So what are the implications of the fact that three nominees for the leadership of the state of Israel are retired officers: Barak, Shahak and Mordechai? It can hardly be a coincidence. Israel is passing through a very odd phase. In addition to undergoing structural economic transformations, Israeli society also suffers from increasingly sharp cleavages between religious and secular Jews and between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. Other issues have brought to the fore one of the most serious conundrums facing Israeli society: the redefinition of Israeli identity. When the breaches between political parties begin to yawn so starkly and when relations between and within the parties deteriorate so drastically as to hint at social disintegration, the only institution historically and ideologically charged with ensuring harmony between the diverse elements must logically begin to worry. The army is the only such institution, because the religious establishment in Israel is both divided within itself and a driving force in fostering social divisions, while the political establishment is in disarray. The military establishment, through the former army officers now running for political office, is on the ascendant.
Further increasing the importance of these elections is the fact that the US appears intent on encouraging them by declaring its preference for one of these candidates: the current minister of defence, Yitzhak Mordechai. This preference reveals a certain long-range perspicacity. It means that the US is aware that Israel, contrary to Europe, is drifting toward the right, that the social situation in Israel inspires no hope, the Israeli military establishment is troubled and the Israeli electorate will cast their votes for the candidate they feel can ward off the danger of sectarian division, not merely terrorist attacks .
The Russian factor is the third reason why it is important to keep close tabs on the Israeli elections. Arab analysts have not paid sufficient attention to this variable. Israel, according to most of its intellectuals' analyses, is heading towards "Russification". In other words, the ideas, orientations and Zionism of the Jewish immigrants from Russia are gaining preeminence. There are approximately a million Israelis of Russian origin and the majority of these are of voting age. The Russian Jews are a set apart. They are culturally, historically, religiously and intellectually different from both Oriental Jews and the first wave of Russian Jews who emigrated from Europe in the first half of the century. They are, for the most part, extremely ambitious, arrogant and often racist. The first task of any government formed after the elections will be to mobilise the energies of Israel to absorb another million Russian Jews and to control the most serious demographic transformation and perhaps culture clash in the history of the state.
But the preceding are not the only reasons why Arab observers should keep close watch on the pronouncements of Israeli politicians. Developments in the US over the next few weeks are certain to have profound effects on this region and on the elections in particular. Circumstances in the US today are quite unique, what with a president who is being judged for his competency, a political establishment that has lost its credibility, and a military establishment that has chosen the Arab world as the testing ground for its new weapons and the military technology of the coming century. This is the only part of the globe where the US military establishment can easily convince its officers and soldiers to bombard cities and factories repeatedly without pangs of conscience. The US pilot's message, scrawled on the missiles that were soon to strike Iraqi targets, succinctly epitomised the anti-Islamic culture with which the US military establishment is being inculcated.
*The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
