Democratic Palestine : 38 (ص 13)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 38 (ص 13)
- المحتوى
-
WW)
Israeli Government Crisis
2
Buying Time
As we go to press, Labor leader Shimon Peres has been granted two more weeks
to form a government. So the political maneuvers continue with both Labor and
Likud trying to draw the religious parties and other uncommitted factions to their
respective sides. Whatever the ouicome of this wheeling and dealing, it offers no
hope of enhancing the prospects for peace. If Labor is able to form a government,
their demagogy about wanting to further the peace process will appear in its true
light. Although Labor is more flexible than Likud about cooperating with US dip-
lomacy, it is not prepared to negotiate with the Palestinians on any issues of real
substance. Moreover, such a government would most probably be narrowly based
and thus reluctant to undertake any decisive moves in relation to the peace process.
The other possible outcomes of the current crisis - a new «national unity» govern-
ment, a Likud-led coalition or new elections - also hold out little hope of anything
new, especially since the Israeli electorate still appears almost equally divided be-
tween the two major blocs. The only certain result of the current crisis is that the
Zionist State can use it to buy time and distract attention from substantial issues,
chiefly the intifada and the Palestinian peace initiative. Meanwhile,
the Soviet
Jewish immigration continues, bolstering Israel's expansionist tendencies.
by Farida Al Asmar
The March 15th fall of the Shamir
government was the first time ever an
Israeli government has been toppled
by a no-confidence vote in the Knes-
set. It is also the first time an Israeli
government has fallen under the
impact of the Palestinian question. In
the last analysis, the intifada brought
on the crisis that precipitated the rift in
the coalition government between
Labor and Likud. This does not, how-
ever, mean that Labor and Likud have
taken significantly different positions
on the Palestinian cause or the
intifada. The no’s on which the coali-
tion government has been functioning
are still basically intact: No talks with
the PLO, no to a Palestinian state and
the rights of repatriation and self-
determination; Jerusalem’s status is
non-negotiable, etc.
The real reason Labor and Likud
could no longer govern jointly is that
they have different approaches -to coor-
dinating strategy and tactics with the
US, in the common crusade to abort
the intifada. Thus, it follows that the
current choice on the Israeli political
scene is not really a simple choice for
Or against peace, aS some are saying.
The crisis came to a head not over sub-
Democratic Palestine, March-April 1990
stantive issues concerning the peace
process, but over how to react to
Baker’s procedural proposals for start-
ing a _ Palestinian-Israeli dialogue.
Labor ministers resigned on March
13th, when Shamir rejected Peres’
demand for a cabinet vote on the
Baker plan, and sacked him. Shamir
refused the last-minute compromise
proposed by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,
spiritual mentor of the Shas(Torah
Guardians) party, that both govern-
ment parties accept the US proposals.
Instead, Shamir «bravely» walked the
plank to his government’s demise, con-
tinuing the game of buying time to
beat down the intifada, which has been
Israeli government policy since it
began.
The US and Jerusalem
During the first week of March,
President Bush and Secretary of State
Baker each issued statements that
made waves in Israel, even though
they did not radically depart from
long-standing US policy, or from the
obvious demands of furthering the
peace process as they understand it.
On March Ist, at a congressional hear-
ing, Baker made his support to $400
million in loan guarantees for housing
Soviet Jewish immigrants conditional
on Israel not spending this money on
settlements in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip, or to free other funds for
this purpose. At a March 3rd press
conference, Bush said: «We do not
believe there should be new settle-
ments in the West Bank or in East
Jerusalem» (International Herald Tri-
bune, March 10-11th), becoming the
first US president to speak publicly
against Israeli settlements in Jeru-
salem.
Within two weeks, both state-
ments had been modified in a way
more pleasing to Israel. On March
2nd, State Department spokeswoman
Margaret Tutwiler said that the US
would give the loan guarantees if Israel
provides assurances about the money’s
use similar to those provided in con-
nection with the US’s $3 billion in
annual aid, thus dropping Baker’s con-
dition about halting settlements. Bush,
for his part, responded to a letter from
Teddy Kolleck, the Israeli mayor of
Jerusalem, with assurances _ that
«Jerusalem must never again be a
divided city»(AP, March 15th), and
that negotiations on the final status of
the city would be at the later stages of
the peace process. There was no men-
tion of the problem of settlements. A
White House statement on March 9th,
said that Jews have the nght to live in
all parts of Jerusalem «in the context
of a negotiated settlement»(AP,April
Ist).
Nonetheless, the Likud began a
campaign to rally support for its obsti-
nate stand on the peace process by
propagating that the US had broken
faith on the issue of Jerusalem.
Throughout March, US _ newspapers
were saturated with columns written by
American Zionists decrying the Bush
Administration’s «pressure» on Israel.
This culminated in rather wild exagger-
ations like the contention of William
Safire in The New York Times that
«Bush has long resisted America’s spe-
cial relationship with Israel»(/nterna-
tional Herald Tribune, March 27th). It
also culminated in a US Senate resol-
ution that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital -»>
13 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 38
- تاريخ
- أبريل ١٩٩٠
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed