The Weathercocks Are Turning

The Weathercocks Are Turning
Uri Avneri
06/12/03

It is not yet a tidal wave. But it is more then a ripple. It is a
wave
in the process of formation.

During the last few months a realignment of Israeli public opinion
has
started to become noticeable. It has several causes: public tiredness of
the
endless cycle of bloodshed, the perception that there is no military
solution, the worsening of the economic crisis, the untiring activity of
the
radical peace movements.

The list of the accumulating symptoms is getting longer: the
movement
of the young men who refuse army service in the occupied territories,
the
revolt of the airforce pilots, the Ayalon-Nusseibeh initiative, the
statement of the four former Secret Service chiefs, the criticism voiced
by
the Chief-of-Staff, and, this week, the public attack of the reserve
officers on the continued existence of the Netzarim settlement in the
Gaza
Strip.

The Geneva initiative gave this change a great boost in Israel, as
well
as an impressive echo abroad. The participation of international
personalities in the solemn ceremony in Switzerland lent it status and
prestige. The decision of the US Secretary of State and the General
Secretary of the United Nations to receive the leaders of this
initiative
was a gesture of public support for the peace movement. (So was the warm

personal message conveyed by the President of Germany, Johannes Rau, to
the
ceremony in which a Peace Prize was awarded to Sari Nusseibeh and me.)

When the wind changes, the weathercocks start to move. That is
happening these days. The most sensitive ones, like Yoel Markus in
"Haaretz", already began attacking Sharon some months ago. Now this is
becoming a fashion in the media. The very same commentators who served
for
three years as propagandists for the government and the army high
command,
have suddenly discovered that everything done during the last three
years
was, after all, a terrible mistake.

In the wake of the pundits come the politicians. The Labor Party
functionaries, who are mounting a venomous attack on Beilin and Co.,
have
themselves published a peace program not very different from the Geneva
document (not that anybody paid much attention.) But the most
interesting
phenomenon is the public conversion of Ehud Olmert, the former mayor of
Jerusalem.

Those who have followed Olmert's career for a long time see him as
the
epitome of the political opportunist. He wants to be the Likud chairman
after Sharon, whom he is loyally serving now. His main competitor,
Binyamin
Netanyahu, is following an extreme nationalist line. Olmert, who has
done
the same in the past, has suddenly changed the color of his skin. This
week
he has let loose a surprising attack both on the Greater Israel idea and
on
the settlers, and come out for "unilateral withdrawal", arguing that the

continued occupation will turn Israel, God forbid, into a bi-national
state.
He did not go into details about Israel's future borders.

Clearly, the sensitive nose of Olmert has picked up the change in
public opinion. But the Likud candidate for Prime Minister is nominated
by
the 3000-odd members of the Likud Central Committee, a notoriously
extreme
right-wing body that has turned down even Sharon's so-called moderate
proposals. Olmert, so it seems, believes that even this body is going to

change.

Sharon himself has not changed. To him, the old adage about the
leopard's spots still applies. But he, too, finds it necessary to repeat

again and again that he is for "painful concessions", hinting that he is

ready for "unilateral withdrawal" (from where? where to?) and talking
about
a meeting with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu-Ala (what for?). This

does not prevent him from driving forward the building of the monstrous
Wall
that is cutting the Palestinian territory into ribbons.

The Palestinians, for their part, are very much aware of the
importance
of the change in Israeli public opinion. Abu-Ala's efforts to organize a

truce are designed to help this process. They, too, understand that a
suicide bomber who causes massive slaughter in an Israeli town may well
undo
the tenuous steps towards change.

The direction of Palestinian policy is very important. I remember
an
event 31 years ago: in Bologna, Italy, the first large public
Israeli-Arab
conference took place after years of preparations. I was asked to make
the
opening speech for the Israeli side. I said: the Vietnam war is being
won in
American public opinion, the Algerian war was won in French public
opinion,
the Palestinian war will be won in Israeli public opinion.

Before making the speech, I showed it to the senior Arab
representative, the Egyptian leftist leader Khaled Mohei-al-Din, one of
the
"Free Officers" who made the 1952 revolution. He agreed with me. But
after
delivering it, I was approached by an angry Palestinian who protested:
"Your
Israeli arrogance knows no limits! Do you think that what's happening in

Israel is more important than the Palestinian struggle?" I told him that
it
goes without saying that but for the valiant struggle of the Vietnamese
and
the Algerians, American and French public opinion would not have
changed.

Two years later, Palestinian leaders appeared who voiced the same
opinion. Sa'id Hamami, the PLO leader who started the first secret
contacts
with us, told his colleagues: "If the whole world recognizes us and
Israel
does not, what have we gained?" Issam Sartawi went even further, asking
Yasser Arafat to concentrate entirely on changing Israeli public
opinion,
subordinating all other efforts to this supreme aim.

Arafat understood that the changing of Israeli public opinion is an

important objective, but did not accept it as the single most important
one.
We have talked about this many times. It now seems that he recognizes
the
importance of this effort more than ever, as shown by the blessing he
gave
to the Palestinian delegation in Geneva.

There remains the question: if the change of public opinion in
Israel
does indeed gather momentum and become a big wave - how will it manifest

itself in political terms? In other words, how will it change the
political
set-up and achieve a majority in the Knesset?

Not a single person in Israel is able to answer this question now.

Yossi Beilin is trying to create a party that will unite his
followers
with the Meretz party. This may turn out to be a serious political
mistake.

Meretz was hit hard at the last elections, losing half its strength
and
receiving only some 5% of the vote. It is considered an elitist
Ashkenazi
(Israeli of European origin) party, far removed from vital sections like
the
oriental Jews, the Russian immigrants, the religious and even the Arab
citizens. Beilin, himself a member of the Ashkenazi elite, will not
change
this public image.

If the Geneva Initiative becomes the banner of one party on the
margin
of the political scene, it will be condemned to political irrelevance.
Beilin himself will descend to the status of chief of a small party - if
he
wins the competition for the party's leadership, which is not at all
certain. Perhaps it would be better for him to retain the lofty status
of
the bearer of a national message, free from factional interests.

The central problem is the Labor party. Its reaction to the Geneva
initiative showed it in all its shabbiness. From the pathetic Shimon
Peres
to the shrill Dalia Itzik, not to mention Ehud Barak with his personal
psychological problems, they attacked Beilin, their former comrade, whom

they had pushed out of the party on the eve of the last elections.

Yet without the Labor party, the Left will not become a dominant
political force, in a position to win the next elections. The creation
of a
viable substitute would take many years, and Beilin's new party will not

achieve this in the foreseeable future. But in the entire Labor Party,
one
cannot, with the best will in the world, perceive a plausible candidate
for
Prime Minister.

That may give the Likud another chance. It is not impossible that
Sharon will again deceive the public, as he did at the last two
elections,
when he presented himself as the man of peace and security. He will
speak
about "painful concessions" and show photos with Abu-Ala. It is also
possible that another Likud candidate devoid of principles, such as
Netanyahu or Olmert, will come up with a vague peace message.
Either way: if the Israeli Left fails to create a dominant
political
force, the change in public opinion may remain without results, a
powerful
wind that does not blow into any sail, steam without a locomotive.
-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST