EDITORIAL When Palestinian Rocks Shattered my Windows Notes from Jerusalem on the Paralysis of the Israeli Peace Movement Michael Lerner this road alongside the walls of the Old City, turn- ing up through a few blocks of East Jerusalem as the fastest way to get to the Hebrew University, but to- day I stopped to ask an Israeli policeman if this was still the best way to go. ?Yes, straight ahead,? he had told me. A few blocks later the barrage of rocks began, thrown by what appeared to be a few dozen Palestinian youths. When the glass of my car window shattered all over me I was lucky not to have been cut. But luck was not on my mind as I stepped on the gas and Sped away, shaken, confused as to which way to go to safety, and not yet sure that I was alright. A few minutes later I found an Israeli army patrol that led me to the Jerusalem police. 0 one at the police sta? tion had the slightest interest in going back to that cor? ner opposite the Rockefeller Museum where my car had been attacked. ?Happens all the time,? I was told. There was a standardized form for Palestinian attacks in cars, which I dutifully brought from the police to my car rental company, who in turn replaced the shattered window without charge. Conventional wisdom in the early 19805 was that a neo-conservative was simply a liberal who had been mugged. I shared the feeling of anger and upset at the sudden, terrifying indignity of violent assault. But I had no political conversion. Rocks may not bring freedom for Palestinians?hut neither have their pleas to Shamir to negotiate. When Yasir Arafat said he would come to Jerusalem, Shamir announced that he would be arrested the moment he deplaned at Ben Gurion airport. Daily reports of jailings and torture of Palestinian activists add to their frustrations. Had I been born a Palestinian, I could easily imagine myself being tempted to join that crowd of rock-throwing teenagers. I can?t pretend I wasn?t scared. I had always driven *?kt But rocks are not the solution. The Israeli population must be won over. The Israelis I meet are often sensi- tive, intelligent, and caring. Even those who do not side with the peace movement often talk about the compli- cated nature of the problem, and of the absence on the Palestinian side of anyone who shows sensitivity to the fears of Israelis. I confront several Palestinian activists on this ques- tion. Why don?t they understand that Palestinian sup- port for Saddam Hussein, and the image (however blown out of proportion) of Palestinians standing on the rooftops cheering as Scudslanded on Tel Aviv, have done incalculable damage to the possibilities for peace? Surely they must understand that Israelis need to hear a Palestinian voice that condemns all this, and that un- equivocally distances itself from Saddam and all that he stands for. Yes, they assure me, they do understand. So why not say so publicly? Don't they understand how much it would help the Israeli peace movement to have this voice as a prominent factor in public debate? Yes, they do understand. But do I understand that ev- ery Palestinian moderate who might take such a stand gets harassed, beaten, and jailed by the Israeli police? But surely this is not enough to account for the si- lence. You wouldn?t let the police silence you on other matters vital to the survival of your national liberation movement. A strong Palestinian voice of rationality would make a tremendous impact on Israeli politics? why not speak out? And then, the sad answer: we can?t speak out, because there are others who would kill us. There is no tradition of free Speech or minority dissent in Palestinian society. If the PLO in Tunis decides to change its line, fine. But otherwise, for any individual to take a stand that abso- lutely defies the PLO line?a stand that would look to fellow Palestinians as pandering to Israelis and playing to their concerns?is to sign her own death warrant. An Israeli friend intercedes: Don?t even suggest such a thing to these people. We need them to be alive so that they can play a leading role when a Palestinian state eventu- ally is created. Sure, I reSpond. But what will keep them from being killed even after such a state is created? If Palestinian so- ciety does not tolerate dissent, why will that change once they obtain freedom? There will be problems, Palestinian activists concede. But it will be different?because the violence imposed as:- 1-- on us by the Occupation will no longer be there, and hence the justification for unanimity in face of external Oppression will be gone. It?s precisely the process of obtaining a Palestinian state?through the sustained political struggle that is empowering an entire popula- tion?that helps create a Palestinian constituency who will not be willing to accept undemocratic practices once we have the power. But, I counter, that is just what worries me. If the pro- cess is undemocratic now, what reason do we have to think it will be more democratic later? Have you ever tried to create democracy under a mil- itary occupation? they respond. We get arrested and thrown into jail, precisely when we try to show moder- ation or caring for the Israelis. And none of what we say gets reported on the Israeli television, and little even in the Israeli newspapers. Under these conditions, you can?t expect us to be saying what Israelis need to hear. hamir?s tactics seem to be working. Following the logic of Zeno?s paradox, Shamir has managed to divide the space between any two points into an infinite number of pieces. Each move forward is divided in two so that the ultimate end is never reached. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Baker seems to be locked into a strategy that is almost certainly a non- starter. Whatever hOOpla and media hype may accom- pany the opening of the international conference Baker still hopes to engineer, the most likely long-term conse- quence will be a continuing stalemate. We should take Shamir at his word when he promises his Israeli sup- porters that such a conference will never lead to an ex- change Of land for peace. Baker and the State Department crew believe that once the conference starts, it will generate an unst0p- pable dynamic toward peace. I doubt it. Shamir and the Israeli Right will portray themselves as having made the major compromise just by showing up at the confer- ence?and will expect in return that the US. will reward Israeli participation by refusing to apply any pressure for substantive compromises- Unlike Camp David, which was preceded by Sadat?s Jerusalem visit and a sudden switch in Israeli public Opinion, an inter- national conference under the present circumstances will yield little. The only thing that could change this prospect would be for the US. to put forward a substantive vision of a Middle East peace solution. New lime Hines State De- partment correspondent Thomas Friedman argued this same case in an article in April probably aimed at catch- ing the attention of Baker: if the US. is to generate sup- port for a peace process in Israel it must offer some specific picture of what peace could look like and ex- 6 TIKKUN VOL. 6, No. 4 actly what its role would be in guaranteeing and sus- taining that peace. Shamir knows that this is true?which is precisely why he has insisted that the US. play an entirely neutral role in any conference with himself and the Palestinians and that the US. agree from the outset that it will not put forward its own plan. Shamir is an expert at deadening public debate, squelching hOpe, and generating mass cynicism in Is- rael. After the Gulf War, many in Israel expected that there would soon be a major breakthrough in the stale? mated peace process. By focusing the entire discussion on the logistics of setting up a conference, rather than the conference?s possible outcomes, Baker has played into Shamir?s hands perfectly. One important result has been that the Israeli public has lost all interest in the daily reports of this or that nuance in the negotiations over the conference?s logistics, and hence does not feel betrayed or even upset when Shamir blocks forward mo- tion. In the US, Baker's efforts get plenty of attention? they represent one of the only positive initiatives of US. foreign policy. But in Israel the media do not make a big deal of the Baker trips?so increasingly the public pays little attention to their progress. If Baker?s efforts fail, Shamir will not pay too heavy a political price. But if they succeed in creating an international conference, we are likely to face a long period in which Shamir will be attempting to obstruct any positive outcome that might emerge from such a conference. irtually all the peeple I meet in the peace camp in Israel tell me that they can?t imagine changing the current deadlock unless the US. brings external pressure to bear. So imagine my surprise when I hear that a group of Knesset doves visiting the US. in May are vociferoust denying the charge raised against them by Israeli rightists that the doves are try- ing to legitimate US. pressure on Israel. The word ?pressure? is itself ambiguous, because it can mean anything from political lecturing to economic bchott. Those who argue for America to use moral sua- sion obviously haven?t been watching Israeli politics over the past years. Over and over again the US. has made statements calling for Israel to bring an end to set- tlements, has repudiated Israel?s annexation ofJerusalem and the Golan, and has asked for adherence to UN Res- olution 242, which calls for an exchange of land for peace. All of these statements, however, mean abso- lutely nothing in Israel. In fact, their impact is worse than nothing?they create a backlash of support for the g0vernment, which can play on the fierce pride and sense of independence that has traditionally character- ized the mass of Israeli society. It is now all the easier for the Right to build on this backlash since U.S. credibility?at an all-time high during the Gulf War?has taken a nosedive in the face of its betrayal of the Kurds. But if political backlash is to be avoided, wouldn?t any suggestion of economic pressure be worse? Not neces? sarily, according to some peace movement activists. The worst thing, they argue, would be a little bit of economic pressure. This would reinforce the ?we are once again being betrayed? that dominates Israeli con- sciousness. But a lot of economic pressure might have very different consequences. The peace movement has long argued that Israel?s intransigence on the Territories will eventually have bad consequences. These warnings have seemed empty to the Israeli public as long as the Reagan and Bush administrations have accompanied their moral warnings to Israel with increases in aid and military support. If, instead, there was a real and imme- diate possibility that the Israeli standard of living might seriously decline because of the Occupation, many sec- tors of Israeli society who today believe they can have [70th financial security and the Occupied Territories would be shaken, and would likely force the government to change course. Where symbolic cuts would create backlash, massive economic pressure could produce positive results, these Israelis argue. Whatever the general validity of this position, I?m not yet ready to support this kind of approach. When I see the economic difficulties facing Israelis today, and when I realize that the brunt of cuts in US. aid would most likely fall on the poor, I?m very reluctant to support any program of aid cuts. But economic pressure can take other forms. Lately I?ve been ?oating a different idea? pressure through incentive. My Specific proposal is this: Let the US. publicly promise Israel that it will give 10 billion dollars of aid per year for five years. This aid would be aimed at helping Israel absorb and settle Rus- sian and Ethiopian immigrants, and would be contin- gent upon Israel meeting two conditions: it must begin direct negotiations with Palesrinian representatives (chosen in free elections in which members of the PLO are allowed to run) before the first year; and it must con? clude an agreement for a demilitarized Palestinian state by the end of the second year of the aid. Some peeple might argue that the incentive program itself is unfair to Israel?after all, why should the plight of Soviet immigrants be held hostage to Israeli moves on the Palestinian front? But the answer is simple: the US. has its own problems with poverty and homelessness, and Americans have every right to wonder why massive escalations in aid should go to Israel before these inter- nal problems are solved. On the other hand, it might rea- sonably be argued that the stabilization of the Middle East that would arise out of the resolution of the Arab?Israeli conflict might allow for important cuts in US. spending in the short run, and preclude the need for US. military intervention in the long run. This kind of an expenditure might actually be a net savings for the U.S., if Israel were willing to accept this kind of linkage. Incentives of this sort could have a massive impact on Israeli politics. The Russian immigrants are expected to vote for the Right. But if the hard-line policies of the Growing up in the shadow of {be inrifada: A Palestinian teenager throwing stones in Nabiur. EDITORIAL 7 Right were understood to be the reason why monies for jobs and housing were not available, the peace move- ment would have a new basis of appeal in the next elec- tions. A peace movement that adamantly supported continuation of the current levels of aid, but that also endorsed the notion of incentives, would have a good position from which to argue. But for US. supporters of the Israeli peace movement, calling for any such incentives, or any other form of eco- nOmic pressure, is very hazardous. Many elements of the Jewish establishment have labeled us ?traitors? and ?self-hating Jews? for Our willingness to support the Is- raeli peace movement?s Calls for negotiations with the PLO to establish a demilitarized Palestinian state. Our response has traditionally been that we were merely ar- ticulating here what many Israelis have been saying pub- licly in Israel. But if we were to call for economic pressure on Israel?something that Tile/ear: has never done and which we are not doing in this editorial?we would be in the position of pushing for a policy that leading Israeli doves have carefully eschewed, a position that would greatly increase our own political vulnera- hility. Yet what makes this so complicated is that many of these doves are privately telling us that they see no so- lution, no possibility of forward movement in Israeli politics, until this kind of economic pressure is forth- coming?and at a level that is dramatic enough to make it credible. I understand the dilemma of many of the elected Knesset doves. They want to change Israeli policy. But they also want to ensure their own short-term political viability (a reaSOnable and not unprincipled desire). I feel a deepened respect for those South Africans who supported sanctionshonly now do I fully understand the tremendous pressures they must have faced in making that choice. Looking back now at the powerful impact of sanctions in changing South African govern- mental policy, it?s easy to forget how only a few years ago the right-wingers were telling us that de Klerk would never yield to sanctions, and how political moderates in the US. and South Africa warned us that nothing but backlash and further suffering would ensue. ut is economic pressure the only way that the peace movement could change Israel?s internal politics? Not so, according to many Sephardic and Mizrachi activists with whom I am meeting. Their criticism runs along these lines: "If these Knes- set members and Peace Now people were willing to send fewer delegations to New York and Los Angeles and more to the poor sections of Tel Aviv or the settlement towns, they might have a much bigger impact. The prob- 8 VOL. 6, No. 4 lem is that they feel more comfortable dealing with New York liberals and wealthy Hollywood stars than dealing with those of us Israelis who are not fancy Ashkenazim. Peace Now [Shalom Achshav] has a big name in the clone a great marketing job there and has plenty of money to back it up. But in Israel, Peace Now has largely discredited itself, precisely because of its elitist manner and its alienation from the Sephardic majority.? This charge, I think, is partly unfair. Shalom Achshav has given some attention recently to outreach efforts aimed at the Sephardim. And some of the anger at Shalom Achshav is the historical legacy of a generalized anger at the way Ashkenazim treated the Sephardim when the Ashkenazim first arrived in Israel some forty years ago. But Sephardic critics feel that hiring a few people to do part-time outreach in settlement towns is not a strat- egy capable of undoing the damage of decades in which the Left was perceived as hostile or indifferent to Sephardic interests. To do that, the peace forces would have to come to agreement on an economic program that paid attention to the problems of the poon And that, it turns out, might be very complicated for some of the well-to-do elites who currently play a major role in the peace movement. To understand the problem, consider the differences in the economic perspectives of the peace parties. Ma- pam, deeply rooted in the socialist Kibbutz Artzi move- ment, has been a major supporter of bot/?2 peace and justice. Recognizing that the major task of the moment is to strengthen the faltering peace camp, Mapam mem- bers have been calling for a united ?Peace Party? for the next elecrion. But who are their possible allies? Ratz, the Citizens Rights Movement, has distinguished itself through its courageous work on behalf of the Palestini- ans. Yet apart from MK Ron Cohen, whose populist views have made him a much-admired figure among the Sephardim, Ratz is often associated with economic poli- cies that appeal more to the upper middle class than to Israeli workers. This is even more true of the dovish Shinui party of Amnon Rubenstein, which is led by well- known free-marketeers. An alliance with these dovish parties would allow activists to articulate a peace per- Spective far more coherent than anything?that Mapam could achieve in an alliance with Labon But it would also be a peace party that reinforced the wideSpread im- pression within Sephardic circles that the peace camp cares little about the economic oppression that many Oriental Jews suffer. Americans who remember that the movement against the war in Vietnam was led by two separate major anti- war coalitions (one devored exclusively to the single is- sue of opposing the war, and the orher a National Coalition for Peace and Justice) may wonder why the Sephardim have not yet set up a Peace and Justice Now movement as a pOpular alternative to Peace Now. But in the 11.5., the multi?issue coalition was financed primar- ily by church groups. Israel has no comparable sources of funding. The New Israel Fund strictly eschews sup- port for political organizations; and more traditional funders would never consider aiding a Sephardic-led peace movement. 30 the Sephardic leaders who might have played a major role in attracting peOpie to the peace camp can do little more than work on the sidelines, h0p- ing to offset the damage done to peace consciousness that arises from the association of the peace message with Ashkenazic leaders who seem insensitive to the problems of Oriental Jews. ?It?s not the message, but the messenger that is the problem,? say many Oriental Jews. This observation is borne out in Israeli Opinion polls, which indicate con- siderable support for the peace perspective, but also re- veal that Israelis remain deeply alienated from the peace movement, and little inclined to trust it. It?s the same dy- namic that has bedeviled Left movements around the world. Few are willing to face the implications of this as- tounding reality: that though they have been very suc- cessful at communicating their message, they?ve been unable to win power because the peOple don?t like them and don?t trusr them. Part of the reason for that distrust is that many peo- ple feel that the Left doesn?t understand them and does- n?t respect the way they have chosen to live. Nowhere is this more clear than in Israel, where Sephardic Jews have often clung tenaciously to their religious and national heritage as a way to protect themselves from the cultural elitism of AshkenazicJews. Many Sephardim experience the aggressive antireligious secularism of the Left as yet one more Ashkenazic attempt to invalidate the culture and traditions they brought with them from the Arab lands from which they fled. Not that the Left has no reason to be antireligious. Indeed, most Israelis have been angered by the oppressive imposition of religious restrictions by legal fiat at the behesr of the ultra-Orthodox parties. How- ever, the Left has been unable to clearly distinguish be- tween a justified assault on the religious establishment on the one hand, and contempt for Jewish religious tra- dition on the other. Similarly, the Left has suffered from an inability to distinguish between the right wing?s chau- vinistic appropriation of nationalist symbols and the deeper and potentially liberatory meanings those sym- bols hold for the peOple as a whole. As a result, the Left has deveIOped a culture that appears to outsiders to be insensitive to the national heritage of the Jewish people. Ironically, the Israeli Left makes the same mistake Baker and Sbamir: Will ecorromr'c pressure move them? here in its attitude toward religion and Jewish national? ism that others make in their attitude toward left?wing ideas. The form of reasoning that leads leftists to dismiss Judaism and Jewish nationalism as fundamentally reac- tionary (?Just look at what those Gush Emunim people are doing!?) is identical to the reasoning that has led many people to dismiss all socialist ideals because East- ern European totalitarians used the language of social- ism to justify their Oppressive regimes. (?Since that?s what revolution always leads to, we?d better just recon- cile ourselves to the flaws of capitalism?) The Israeli Left might have been considerably more successful had it been able to develop a politics that built on the libera- tory possibilities within theJewish historical experience. But it's always easy to preach about what someone should have done. The fact is that the liberal and pro- gressive forces in the US. and throughout the Western wOrld face very similar problems, and for very similar reasons. Part of the reason that the Left can?t make the appropriate practical leaps in its politics is because it is stuck, as much in the U.S., Britain, and France as in Is- rael, with an ideological framework that fails to seriously address the human need for transcendence and mean- ing. Thus the Left simply has no place to understand the deep human yearnings to be part of loving relationships embodied in spiritually sensitive communities devoted to a larger ethical vision of human life on earth. Facing the rocks of Jerusalem, one is reminded of the Jewish vision articulated through the PrOphets of a new world that could embody such communities of meaning and ethical purpose. If we do not articulate such a vi- sion?or worse, if we allow such a vision to be appro- priated by the Right for nefarious purposes?the Left will be unable to gra3p the opportunities within its reach. And meanwhile, I am faced with an Israel that Oppresses Arabs, leftists who Oppose this oppression but who ren- der themselves impotent and largely irrelevant, and Arab kids throwing rocks through my car window. Cl EDITORIAL 9