Democratic Palestine : 28 (ص 24)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 28 (ص 24)
- المحتوى
-
Rumblings in the Zionist State
The Palestinian people’s heroic uprising has led to further polariza-
tion in the Zionist state. Labor-Likud friction has escalated, and
there are realignments among Israeli parties. New dissenting groups
have surfaced, as has discontent in the army. At the same time, polls
show a move toward the small parties of the extreme right, and it is
yet unclear which of the two major blocs in Israeli politics will come
out ahead in the event of elections.
CONCENSUS ON
REPRESSION
In terms of how to deal with Palesti-
nian unrest in the immediate situation,
the Israeli coalition government has
displayed a high degree of unity, fully
backing the army’s repression. On
December 24th, the cabinet approved
the methods used to suppress the upris-
ing, including shooting to kill, the
banning of the Palestinian press and
mass arrests hitting Palestinians as
young as ten years of age. In late
December, the inner cabinet met to
consider stronger measures to halt the
uprising, ordering the deportation of
nine Palestinians. Four of them were
deported on January 13th.
On January 17th, the whole cabinet
endorsed the brutal measures being
implemented by the occupation army,
which had escalated to include sealing
about 300,000 Palestinians in their
West Bank and Gaza Strip camps,
causing food shortages, and the policy
of «beating not bullets,» i.e., the
deliberate breaking of bones and other
forms of maiming.
As the government followed the
typical Zionist pattern of closing ranks
in the face of any real or supposed
threat, polls showed that this position
reflected public opinion. As reported
by the Israeli newspaper, Yediot
Aharanot, on December 25th, 96% of
the Israelis polled by the Dahev In-
stitution concurred with the army’s
measures. Later, Gallup conducted a
poll for Newsweek magazine, which
was printed in the Israeli daily Haaretz
on January 18th; 86% of those who
responded supported repressive means
to end the uprising; 81% supported the
expulsion policy; 40% thought the
measures being taken were lenient and
24
insufficient, while 46% judged them to
be sufficient.
There did seem to be some hesitancy
about restricting the press from the oc-
cupied territories, because the Zionist
leadership was loath to make the ob-
vious parallel between itself and the
apartheid regime in South Africa.
However, parts of the Gaza Strip were
declared off-limits to the press in
January, and the press was barred from
the West Bank in early March, after
worldwide viewing of the CBS film of
four Israeli soldiers brutally and
deliberately beating two tied Palesti-
nians in Nablus. Israeli Labor Minister
justified the ban with the absurd claim
that: «... the presence of the media
causes the riots.»
Labor’s convergence with Likud on
beating down the uprising with brute
force did have internal repercussions in
the party. Member of Knesset Abdul
Wahhab AI Darawsheh (a Palestinian
living under occupation since 1948)
withdrew from the Labor Party on
January 23rd, under the impact of the
huge Nazareth demonstration in
solidarity with the uprising. He charged
that Labor policies would never bring
peace or equality between Arab and
Jew in ‘Israel’ and further targeted
Rabin’s tough policy and the broad
support this enjoyed in the party’s
ranks. Darawsheh went on record with
his own position of recognizing the
PLO, and demanding Israeli
withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and
the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state.
Dovish forces in the Labor party
argued for a course other than that set
by Rabin, and articulated by Peres as
follows: «First of all, the fire in the oc-
cupied territories must be put out, using
as much force as necessary.» Such
people were pressured by the party not
to participate in Peace Now events.
After Rabin was received in a hostile
manrner by a group of fellow Laborites,
many of them Oriental Jewish activists,
Labor rightists held a meeting of their
own and threatened to cause a split in
the party «if the dovish rampage is not
stopped» (Israel and Palestine Political
Report, January 1988).
LABOR—LIKUD
COMPETITION
Differences did sharpen between the
Labor and Likud blocs on the means to
a political solution to the crisis caused
by the uprising. The two blocs traded
accusations as to the uprising’s causes.
Laborites accused the Likud of driving
the Palestinians to revolt by rejecting
means to a political solution, such as an
international conference. Likud and
other extreme rightists claimed that
Labor’s «defeatism» had encouraged
the Palestinians to revolt. To put this
war of words in perspective, let us look
at an example of Labor’s «defeatism»:
On December 26th, on Israeli army
radio, Defense Minister Rabin, lifelong - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 28
- تاريخ
- مارس ١٩٨٨
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed