Shifting opinions in the "New Israeli Center"

[Pangloss]

Interesting column by Thomas Friedman in the Wednesday New York Times. He's mainly talking about how moderate Israelis have come to recognize that the settlers are not their friends.

 

But he draws a fascinating parallel with the Arab-Muslim world that I have not read before -- he suggests that the path that Sharon and moderate Israelis are taking, in terms of trying to reign-in the settlers (and the radical right of Israeli politics) is exactly the approach that the Arab-Muslim world needs to take with regard to Islamic terrorism.

 

What an excellent suggestion. Of course, the Palestinian Authority has been trying to do this for some time now, but an important point here would be that the PA doesn't always or often have the widespread support of the Palestinian people. Israeli moderates, on the other hand, seem to comprise the majority of the Israeli people. And they are not happy with the settlers, who are looking more like the classic, textbook definition of "terrorist" every day.

 

Anyway, here's a link to the column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ex=1278907200&en=5313c56e20689384&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

Unfortunately registration is required, but here's an interesting quote to whet your appetite. (Registration is free, is not email-confirmed, and if you read the politics subforum of SFN on a regular basis, well worth the ten seconds it takes to set it up.)

 

What is playing out in Israel today is a huge drama in which this resurgent Israeli center, having awakened to just what a danger the extremist settlers pose for Israel's future, is finally confronting them. And the settlers, like long-indulged children who are finally being spanked, are becoming unhinged. This is a dangerous time because the settlers, who do not really respect the authority of the Israeli state, will try anything.

 

"This Gaza withdrawal is the revolt of the Israeli majority against being taken hostage any longer by the settler minority," said the Israeli writer Ari Shavit. "And that is why these settlers go berserk - because they have gotten so used to controlling our destiny, no matter who was in power. Now, for the first time, there is a clear message: 'Enough is enough.' "

 

Fascinating stuff.

[Skye]

Well it's not as though Islamic countries normally agree to hosting armed extremists with their own ideas on how things should be run. These groups are usually treated as threats to their power, which they usually are. Terrorists are violent groups who want to dictate how nations are run, they attract the ire of many regimes and they wouldn't exist if they weren't able to stick up for themselves in a scrap.

 

The regimes that do host them willingly are usually weak, and are either unable to do anything about it or rely on them. The PA is a good example, even if they wanted to forcefully disarm terrorist groups there's no way they can.

 

But remember that the Israeli right has influenced the governments policies, so it has rarely needed to act independently. Of course when it has it has been spectacular, eg. Rabin being assassinated. The Gaza pull out is a fairly significant step, but it's pretty painless compared to anything to do with the West Bank. And it has been an monumental effort for Sharon just to get this far. The problem now is continuing, because if it stops at Gaza, I imagine the Palestinian terrorists will get back into action. Gaza isn't really a viable state alone. If it continues though, it will enrage the Israeli right and perhaps form a schizm between it and the government.

[Pangloss]

I think this is really more about people than governments, but yes, that seems to be the gist of it. Another good resource on this, by the way, is Frontline's recent episode about West Bank settlers, entitled "Israel's Next War?", which is available entirely online at this URL. That program is highly recommended.

 

I think the key here is that the reason Sharon's position on settlers has changed is because of the change in public opinion amongst his people. That's an amazing thing, really -- Sharon arguably instigated the intefada, and his name has been synonymous with the right side of Israeli politics for decades, but now he leads the way toward a peace that actually involves the Israelis giving something up. Phrases involving "cows", "flight" and human hindquarters don't even begin to cover it.

[Skye]

I'm not really sure the mainstream public opinion has changed so much, rather that Sharon has shifted his position. Before there was support for a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians, now there is support for a Sharon's more ad hoc arrangement. Either way the majority of Israelis just want the situation resolved, without giving too much up of course. I may be wrong though.