Nerves

By Ami Isseroff

In the Middle East, this was not a good week for those with weak nerves. The Israeli government lost a  preliminary vote in with the Knesset (Parliament) voted for new elections. This could bring about the fall of the government if approved in subsequent readings over the next months. Middle Eastern politics is often full of sound and fury, but the tale, though not meaningless, may signify something other than what appears on the surface. Some pro-Arab sources were certain that the vote in the Israeli Knesset was a trick or manipulation by the Israeli government, while others were convinced that it was the death knell of the peace process.

In reality, the majority of 61 in the preliminary vote was not a Zionist conspiracy nor did it signify the certain death of the peace process. The ultra-orthodox Shas party, a coalition partner that holds the key to coalition, was unhappy because they wanted more money for their network of nursery schools. That was the main trigger for the vote of no confidence. It is probable that they have no intention of bringing down the government, since they would lose votes in a new election. The National Religious Party (NRP) and the Yisrael B'aliya (Russian Immigrants) Party of Anatoly Sharansky voted against the government because of rumored concessions offered the Palestinians in Jerusalem. Both the NRP and Sharansky are not only unhappy at the prospect of concessions, but irritated by the fact that Barak has kept them in the dark about details of the negotiations.

From outside the coalition, the tiny party of Histadrut Labor Union head Amir Peretz cast its two votes against the government because they are unhappy about proposed tax reforms and are planning a general strike June 11. The Shinui (Change) party of cable-TV magnate Joseph ("Tommy") Lapid joined the vote because they want to bring down the government and force Barak to take them into the government instead of the Shas Party. Lapid is opposed to concessions to the ultra-orthodox and refused to join a government that included Shas. At the same time, the inclination of Israelis toward the peace process was not helped by news that the Palestinians had rejected Israeli offers in the negotiations or the fact that Palestinian National Authority "police" opened fire on Israeli troops during demonstrations instigated by the PNA.

Faced with pressures at home, PM Barak would not agree to a summit conference with Yasser Arafat proposed by U.S. Secretary of State Albright, and it seems that Yasser Arafat did not agree either. It was believed purpose of such a conference would be to wring concessions from both sides in order to bring about an agreement before President Clinton leaves office. Israel is rumored to have offered the Palestinians a choice between two plans for final settlement. In one plan, Israel would withdraw from about 72% of the occupied territories, which would then form the territory of a Palestinian state. This was the basis of reports by Israeli TV and the newspaper Ma'ariv. In another plan, Israel would withdraw from 66% of the territory and another 14% would be under joint administration. This was the basis of reports in the French newspaper Le Monde. According to yet a third rumor, circulated in a letter of protest by Anatoly Sharansky, Israel offered the Palestinians autonomy within Arab sections of Jerusalem as well. In any case, the Israeli government believe that they could not make any more concessions and still get the agreement to pass a referendum, while the PNA is under great pressure not to make a final status agreement does not recognize the rights of the refugees and Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem.

If there are elections in Israel, and PM Barak and his One Israel (formerly Labor) party lose those elections, Ariel Sharon and the Likud party would come to power, lessening the possibility of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Sharon has in the past been identified with the least compromising elements in Israeli politics. Sources close to the former Defense Minister claim that he is less uncompromising than his public persona would have us believe. However, like former PM Bibi Nethanyahu, It is unlikely that he would be able to persuade his right-wing followers to accept any settlement that the Palestinians might consider fair.

At the end of the week, there occurred another event which has upset the plans and views of all the pundits, though it was expected. The death of Syrian President Hafez El-Assad on Saturday has very likely introduced a profound change in Middle Eastern politics, and the consequences of this event may not be completely appreciated for some time. Most likely, it will freeze the prospects for peace between Israel and Syria at least until the new government is stabilized. Pundits speculated however, that the fact that Bishara El-Assad, Hafez El-Assad's son has been approved to succeed him, indicates that key figures in the Syrian army approve of the general course of action that has been followed recently, which includes the possibility of peace with Israel and economic reform.

If we want peace, we, the hapless inhabitants of the Middle East, whose future may depend on such non-sequitors as nursery schools for ultra-orthodox children, tax reform controversies in Israel and power struggles in Syria, must arm ourselves with nerves of steel and make our voices heard for peace. We must face the reality, that the window of opportunity opened in 1992 may be closing as hearts harden on both sides. Once more, the "realists" and the extremists may lead us into another round of senseless wars. On both sides there are those who have invested their whole lives and careers in continuation of the conflict. This small and vocal minority has everything to lose by peace. The rest of us have everything to lose by war.