Mitzna and prospects for peace
Israeli Arabs must support new Israeli Labour Party leader Amram Mitzna in January's elections if only to frustrate Sharon, writes Hassan Nafaa*
For several months the Iraqi crisis has headed the international agenda, and it is likely to remain there for the next weeks, if not months, if the United States continues to insist on handling the Iraqi issue in its own way. So far there has been nothing to indicate that Washington does not remain determined to topple the regime in Baghdad, regardless of the legitimacy of the means it uses towards that end and the costs of achieving it.
The US Administration now holds Israel's interests foremost in mind, at least when determining its Middle East policies. Indeed, Washington has come to equate Israeli interests with its own, to the extent, according to some analysts, of generating a regional climate conducive to suppressing the Palestinian Intifada. According to these analysts, marginalising those forces that reject peace on Israeli terms was one of Washington's prime motives for escalating the crisis with Iraq. Certainly, Israel of all nations has been the most ardent supporter of military action against Iraq, and it has been openly prodding Washington in that direction.
This does not mean that Tel Aviv will necessarily toe the line on Washington's strategy towards Iraq. By all indications, Washington has yet to agree with Tel Aviv over the role it envisions for Israel in the event of war. Washington wants Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to do his utmost to restore calm in the occupied territories, and in the event of military operations it will want Israel to exercise all possible restraint should Baghdad undertake provocative action against Israel.
Sharon counters that the current regional and international situation is radically different to that which prevailed at the time of the Gulf War, and, therefore, that Israel has no intention of abiding by the rules of behaviour it adopted in the conflict a decade ago. Rather, he has insisted that Israel will keep its options open and act in the manner it feels best serves its interests, adding simply that the scale and complexity of these interests are such as to compel any Israeli prime minister, regardless of the circumstances, to refrain from acting in a manner that would obstruct US plans in the region.
In spite of such assurances, lukewarm as they are, some observers have not excluded the possibility that Sharon will take advantage of a US war against Iraq to embark on a military adventure of his own targeting Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, with the aim of eliminating these resistance movements. Some have suggested that Israel may go so far as to commence a process of mass transfer of Palestinians from the West Bank to Lebanon, Gaza and perhaps to Sinai. The US is aware of the dangerous repercussions that such actions would have and fears that Sharon's impetuousness will propel the situation in the region so far out of control as to precipitate a full-scale regional war, or, at the very least, cast suspicion upon its "war against terrorism" and plans for war against Iraq. Washington, therefore, is far from confident about Sharon's intentions and has been trying to work out a detailed agreement with him, so far without success.
Naturally, against this background, the forthcoming Israeli elections acquire crucial importance in terms of their potential impact on developments in the region. If the Israeli right, led by Sharon, obtains a clear victory, which at present appears the most likely outcome, and should this victory coincide with the outbreak of a US war against Iraq, the region as a whole will be propelled towards conflagration. This is why the sudden election of Amram Mitzna as Israeli Labour Party leader and his bold vision for reviving the peace process offer the first glimmer of light in the otherwise oppressive darkness.
Some might argue that Mitzna's proposals still fall short of what is necessary to realise a comprehensive settlement -- he has not, for example, acknowledged that the 1967 borders should constitute one of the bases of a settlement. While this is true, the Labour candidate has nevertheless committed himself to two important principles. First, if voted into power he has said that he will resume elections immediately and unconditionally with the legitimately elected Palestinian Authority (PA). Second, he has pledged that the Labour Party under his leadership will not enter into a national unity government headed by the Likud leader unless that leader radically alters his position towards the peace process and agrees to the immediate and unconditional resumption of negotiations with the PA.
While such pledges alone cannot guarantee successful negotiations, they are, I believe, sufficient to alter a course that appears to be rushing headlong to disaster. Such a hope, however, begs several questions that are difficult to answer at present. Does Mitzna stand a chance of becoming Israeli prime minister as a result of the January elections? Can the Arabs do anything to enhance his electoral prospects? Is it, in fact, in the Arabs' interests to help promote this new figure in the Israeli political arena, or should the disappointment we encountered with Barak dissuade us from this course?
At present, most predictions hold that the Israeli elections will give Likud sufficient margin to enable Sharon to form a government on his own. Nevertheless, Sharon would still rather form an expanded national unity government with Labour, and without the extremist religious parties, so as to be able to maintain a liberal façade abroad while pressing ahead with an ultra-right, racist platform at home, one that will mobilise the energies of Jewish state and society towards realising the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel. Giving weight to this analysis are the steadily increasing power of the Israeli right since 1977, Sharon's flare for exploiting Palestinian suicide operations in order to rally other Israeli political forces towards his own ends, and his success at presenting himself as a representative of the Israeli moderate right.
Still, there are a number of reasons why the forthcoming elections may take us by surprise. Suffering from a mounting sense of insecurity, the Israeli people are feeling increasingly frustrated at the inability of their current government to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians militarily. Simultaneously, politics in Israel have long lacked a leadership with an original message capable of inspiring hope in the possibility of restoring calm and arriving at an acceptable peace settlement. Mitzna, therefore, may succeed in projecting himself as the person to fill that need. Like the silent majority in Israel, he appears to realise that a military solution is impossible and that the time has come to take the bold steps needed towards an inevitable political solution.
That Sharon beat Netanyahu to the leadership of Likud should work in Mitzna's favour. Sharon is the symbol of something old that has failed, while Mitzna represents something new that is worth a try. While Sharon's popularity is still high, Mitzna should be able to chip away at that through a rhetoric focusing on the prime minister's dismal failure to deliver on his promises, especially with regard to security. It is therefore not impossible for Labour, even if stripped of its most important left-wing figures, to attract enough votes from the moderate right to be able not only to preserve its present seats in the Knesset but also to increase them. Here is where the Arab vote comes into play.
The Arabs of 1948 hardly need advice -- the people of Mecca do not need to be told where their mountain trails lie, as the saying goes -- and their national allegiances are above suspicion. This, however, should not obviate attempts on the part of others to address a crucial and sensitive issue. I believe that it is imperative for the Palestinians and the Arabs to exert all possible pressure to promote the electoral prospects of Mitzna, or at least to weaken the Israeli right as to generate a situation in which Labour acts on its pledge to boycott a coalition led by Sharon.
To achieve this goal, every Arab eligible to vote in the Israeli elections must do so. The Arab vote should, firstly, seek to ensure that the Arab parties obtain the greatest possible number of Knesset seats. Secondly, it should put its weight behind the Israeli left, including the Labour Party, in those constituencies where there are either no Arab candidates or where candidates from left-wing parties more supportive of Arab rights are fielding themselves as alternatives.
Is there a need to reiterate that Arab rights can only be restored by relying on our own capacities? I do not think so. However, developing these capacities requires a sustained effort to rally the various Palestinian factions around an effective strategy for resistance and to formulate an Arab framework conducive to the implementation of that strategy. However, this requirement should not prevent us from pursuing all possible political avenues towards the realisation of our aims in the meantime. Sapping the ability of the enemy to inflict harm on us is no less important than developing our autonomous capacities.
* The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 19 - 25 December 2002 (Issue No. 617)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/617/op1.htm