Israel's dangerous game THE ISRAELI Prime Minister Ariel Sharon raised the bar in the Mideast conflict this week by sending troops into the Palestinian town of Beit Jala. It is not the first time the army has entered Palestinian-run areas. But this time, it signalled that rather than carrying out a hit-and-run operation, it would remain indefinitely. Only hours before this move, the Israelis assassinated a radical Palestinian leader, the latest in a series of pinpoint operations against what the Israelis consider radical Palestinians. Just what Israel hopes to accomplish with this strategy of military escalation is unclear. Its frustration with the aborted peace process is clear, as is its exhaustion by recent terrorist attacks. But it seems to be simply reacting to events. And the risk Israel runs is that it will leave itself worse off than before. To begin with, Ariel Sharon is making demands of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, which just about everyone concedes are impossible to meet. In effect, he is insisting that the Palestinians end their aggression before the Israelis end theirs. This game of one-upmanship cannot be won. Even if Mr. Arafat could bring a complete end to the violence, he surely would not. For if he did so, virtually all Palestinians would see him as caving into the Israelis. His already fragile political base would then crumble. So Mr. Arafat finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place. He takes some measures to try and placate the Israelis, but not so many as to anger his own population, who suffer daily the weight of Israeli occupation and harassment. But, as this does not suffice to please Mr. Sharon, and as radicalised Palestinians remain at liberty to attack Israelis, Mr. Sharon steps up the pressure. Thus, Mr. Arafat appears to have decided his best option is to win the battle for international public opinion. For now, at least, he appears to be succeeding. Until recently, the conventional wisdom was that the Palestinians could win sympathy for their cause in Europe and the Third World, but would fail where it mattered most, in the USA. That appears to be changing. This week, the American government issued a public statement criticising Israel's use of pinpoint assassinations. That a conservative American administration would take issue with its Mideast ally so openly may testify to the shift that is taking place in American public opinion. Part of what is going on reflects demographic changes in Israel. Jamaicans sometimes comment that Ameri-cans come more quickly to the rescue of people who look like themselves. So it goes for people who sound like themselves. By this is meant not people who speak with the same accent, although the ability of Israel to produce spokesmen with American accents throughout its history has surely not hurt its cause among Americans. Rather, Israelis were long seen as culturally similar to Westerners. Founded in no small part by European Ashkenazic Jews, Israel's democracy was seen as a Western country in an oriental region. Moreover, given the importance of fundamentalist Christianity in the USA, the well-being of the Jewish people's Biblical homeland was dear to the heart of many Americans. However, as Israel has grown, the relative importance of its Ashkenazi population has diminished. Instead, Sephardic Jews from Africa and the Middle East, whose families tend to be much larger, have become increasingly dominant in the country's politics. This has fuelled the rise of the Likud Party, which produced Mr. Sharon, and the gradual decline of the party that led Israel to Independence in 1948, the Labour Party. Culturally, Sephardic Jews are less oriented towards the West. As such, they are less attached to the American Jewish community, not to mention American public opinion. At the same time, the Palestinians have in recent years produced able spokespersons who have been able to touch sympathetic chords in the USA. In line with his political constituency's orientation, Mr. Sharon may be inclined to put Israeli concerns ahead of American demands. But he does so at his own peril. When all is said and done, if Israel alienates its crucial backer, however mildly, the damage Mr. Sharon does his country may be irreversible. He has the weaponry to win the battle, but the victory may prove pyrrhic. John Rapley is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
|
