Palestinian View of Israeli Moderates
The Jerusalem Post , 27 Oct. 1987

Irrespective of the political wisdom contained in the prescriptions advanced by those Palestinians calling for the Israeli annexation of the West Bank & Gaza Strip, one thing has become absolutely plain. The program of the Israeli "moderate camp" remains in Palestinian eyes every bit as maximalist as the Likud's. The Land, Yes; the inhabitants, No.

From the enclosure on this side of the barbered wire, Gad Ya'acobi's stance (Jerusalem Post, Oct 12), aimed primarily at highlighting the dimensions of the potential calamity, does not itself warrant the accolade "moderate". His pronouncements only serve to strengthen the conviction, held by the majority of Palestinians, that the Israeli "moderate camp" intends to hold on to the occupied territories and in engaged in mere window-dressing.

Implicit in Ya'cobi's argument is the reduction of the Palestine problem to the continued occupation of the West Bank & Gaza Strip. Thus, to him, the problems facing Israel are of recent origin: the unwelcome burden forced on the state as a result of the 1967 war.

It has now become fashionable to present the problem in demographic terms. History, however, did not start in 1967. The Israeli labour movement bore the main brunt of the Zionist effort to establish a Jewish state in Palestine from the early 1920's. The conquest of land, the conquest of labour, the building up of the pre-state structures of the Yishuv, and the establishment of the Hagana, were all labour enterprises, and their fruition was the establishment of the state in 1948.

Had the 1947 partition resolution been successfully implemented, the Jewish state would have had a Palestinian Arab majority. This was averted by the flight and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs.

For a long time, the Likud and their forerunners inhabited the political wilderness. Zionism was Labour Zionism. This is no longer true. The recent success of the Likud, their capture of a mass following, and their newly-earned respectability reflect a changing consensus regarding the fundamental tenets of Zionism itself. The demographic issue no longer seems a valid argument to many Israelis(it is debatable whether it ever was). Mr. Ya'acobi himself tells us that "there are no static states either in nature or in the human and political reality".

Even the least "smart" among the Palestinians have noted Aharon Yariv's revelations a few years back concerning contingency plans for the forced expulsion of a sizeable number of Palestinians, and have recently been following the debate about the "transfer" solution.

Israel, according to the "moderate camp" is faced with two options. To be a democratic state but cease to be a Jewish state, or to be a Jewish state and cease to be democratic.

The alternative facing Israel (if it does not want to lose its debatable democratic character) is, in Mr. Ya'acobi's own words, to become an "apartheid regime of discrimination". What does this actually mean as far as the 20-year occupation is concerned ? Mr.Ya'acobi states that "the future begins today, at this very moment." Surely "the future" already began in June 1967, possibly in May 1948, perhaps even earlier..

The "moderate camp" is Israel has not so far seen fit to enlighten us as to what "full peace", or even "peace", actually means. The most we can glean is that security arrangements for Israel are paramount.

We have had many kinds of "peace". The peace of the British Empire; the "peace" which resulted form "the war to end all wars"; Chamberlain's "peace in our time"' Hitler's "peace of the graveyards" in Europe under the heels of the Nazis; De Gaulle's "peace of the brave"; American "pacification" in Vietnam.

Closer home we have had "peace in the Galilee"; and Khomeini's (presumably) war for "heavenly peace".

The practical proposals conjured up by the "moderate" camp, which are all that is visible of the "peace" iceberg, seem to fall short even of the Allon Plan, with its emphasis on disposing of areas with high population -density.

Mr.Ya'acobi's projections, territorial, functional, interim and unilateral, are more modest, and do not envisage a meaningful withdrawal of the Israeli army. Their outcome will be to dispense with the inhabitants without ceding sovereignty over the occupied territories themselves.

Their practical aim is to provide a legal framework for an existing arrangement. Thus the autonomy scheme in association with Jordan can only serve to perpetuate the status quo. If this is seen as a satisfactory solution, in that it resolves the numbers game for Israel, for the Palestinians it is an illusory one.

The "moderate camp" cannot bring itself to see that there can be no lasting peace or security for anybody without recognition that the Palestinians have legitimate national rights which must be fulfilled. At the very heart stands the establishment of an independent state within the 1967 borders. A state like all other states, exercising full sovereignty in all matters, not only security, defence and foreign policy, but also street lighting and garbage collection.

After a conflict with the Palestinian national movement spanning nearly 70 years, the "moderate camp" in Israel is still searching for a "peace partner" on the other side of the Jordan. It was thus in the pre-state period, with Abdullah of Trans-Jordan as the favoured candidate, and it remains so today, with his grandson taking his place.

The "moderate camp" continues to cling to an original conception of Zionism that refused to come to terms with what was then commonly called "the Arab problem". Its policy today can only be perceived as one of groping for means to maintain the occupation of the land while circumventing the need for legal annexation. Meanwhile, the multi-faceted process of annexation continues.

The Palestinians have but one demand. It is a universal one. In the words of the late Martin Luther King, " We want Freedom..NOW".