The Jerusalem Report Magazine: Columnists : Columnists Article

Click for Contents

Click here to subscribe to The Jerusalem Report

P.O. Box 1805,Jerusalem 91017
Tel. 972-2-531-5440,
Fax: 972-2-537-9489
Advertising Fax:
972-2-531-5425,
Email Editorial: [email protected]
Subscriptions: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.jrep.com

Hirsh Goodman: A Quiet Earthquake

I was recently at a meeting in Washington attended by Palestinians and Israelis, including ministers from both sides. Naturally the "fence," or "wall" or "barrier" came up -- the Israelis being almost universally for it, the Palestinians being absolutely against it. Some Israelis disagreed over the route the "fence" is taking; the Palestinians said they would not oppose the "wall" if it were on the 1967 border, but they asked how that would bring safety to the hundreds of thousands of Israelis not on the Israeli side, or stop rockets and mortars from being fired onto adjacent Israeli settlements, towns and villages. The Israelis argued that even if it stopped only 90 percent of suicide bombers it was a worthwhile investment, since they had zero hope in the Palestinians ever being able -- or willing -- to control terror themselves.

The Palestinians decried the inhumanity of cutting children off from their schools, farmers from their fields and dividing families; the Israelis replied that a child being cut off from school is a pity, but a child being blown up in a bus is an irreversible tragedy.

What was most interesting about the discussion was not the argument over terminology (less than 5 percent of the 200 kilometers built so far of the barrier is actual wall), or even over the pros and cons of the barrier itself, but that sitting there, around a table in Washington, key Likud members were making the case for dividing Eretz Yisrael.

This was a few days before Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Trade and Industry Ehud Olmert dropped his bombshell calling for a sizeable unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, and two weeks before Sharon's "disengagement" speech which, ultimately, means pretty much the same thing. Even Limor Livnat, the education minister, an arch-nationalist who would require all Israeli kids to salute the flag and sing "Hatikvah" every morning, has spoken in the media of the need to give up territory and unilaterally redraw Israel's borders. Naturally she would draw no map or name specific settlements, but the principle was there. She too has come to the conclusion that Israel can no longer hold onto it all and survive as a Jewish democracy.

Something very profound has happened in the Likud. Finally, the understanding has dawned that it is either all the territory or a Jewish democratic state. To have both is impossible. Given that they believe the Palestinians, with their current leadership, are not capable of reaching an honorable settlement and keeping it, and that they believe it will take generations until the Palestinians come up with a leadership one can deal with if they ever do, many of the mainstream Likud leaders are now acknowledging that Israel has to do what it has to do to survive, and the sooner the better. The only points of argument among them are how deep that withdrawal should be, whether an eastern fence is necessary to bolster this endlessly discussed western one, whether Ariel, Betar Elit and other large settlement towns should be included inside the fence or not, and whether Israel should unilaterally withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip settlements or just from Netzarim.

They may also differ on how much an American administration would tolerate unilateral behavior and are wary of the International Court of Justice�s proceedings on the legality of the fence, but those are all details. In principle, the mainstream Likud leadership has finally come to the conclusion that just as having both sides of the Jordan was an unattainable dream, so keeping Israel a Western democratic Jewish liberal country and remaining an occupier are incompatible.

The big difference between those in the Likud who have come round to this way of thinking and those who continue to insist that Israel holds onto it all is one key word: democracy. Unlike the right-wing nationalists, the National Religious Party, the ultra-Orthodox and even a large hawkish chunk of the Likud itself, Limor Livnat, Olmert, Sharon and others, like Dan Meridor and Roni Milo before them, want Israel to be a democratic Jewish state and not an apartheid state dominated by a Jewish minority. They deeply believe in Israel's historic right to Judea and Samaria, and have done everything in their power to try to retain it. But for them, apparently, at the end of the day, the priority is that Israel be a Western democratic country with liberal values, not a pariah state withering away under international sanctions and consuming itself from within.

Or, to paraphrase what I heard from one senior Likud member around that table in Washington recently: "Soon, you, the Palestinians, will stop demanding a state and demand the vote instead. Would Israel be able to resist the cry of �One man, one vote� and survive democratically? I think not and that is why we have decided that it will be us, the Jewish majority, who will define the nature of the Jewish state and not you, and therefore the need for unilateralism. Simple."

Simple it is not and unilateralism is far from being an ideal solution. It cannot replace a negotiated settlement and should be seen as a temporary measure. But still, where the unilateral line will be drawn will, ultimately, be a political question, and something politically profound has happened in Israel. New battle lines have been drawn -- not between those who want to give territory up and those who want, for whatever reason, to keep it, but between those who want to see Israel safe and democratic, and those who see Israel living by the sword in perpetuity and sacrificing democracy, if need be.