Leaders of the Labor Party and the Likud are standing fast against moves by some members of both parties to call early elections.
But the closing of ranks by the coalition leadership does not mean they have drawn closer on the basic political and ideological issues that divide them. Rather, it reflects their separate fears about how the prolonged and unabated violence in the administered territories would affect the mood of the electorate should they go to the polls in June instead of next November, when the Knesset elections are scheduled.
At the same time, there are important signs of some new thinking and a profound reappraisal in both parties, particularly among their hawkish elements, on how to deal with the new Palestinian leadership that could emerge from the present unrest and its effect on the larger peace process.
Calls for early elections have arisen periodically ever since the Labor-Likud unity coalition government was established in 1984. This week, Knesset member Haim Ramon of Labor, joined by his Likud colleague, Michael Eitan, introduced a motion for the early dissolution of the Knesset and elections in June. The right-wing opposition Tchiya Party has forwarded a similar proposal.
The coalition leaders rejected the idea.
Labor’s grounds to fear early elections are a reflection of recent public opinion polls, which have shown a sharp lurch to the right since rioting began in the territories Dec. 9.
RIGHT WING HARDENING
Right-wing, nationalist sentiments were hardened after Israel’s Arab community — 750,000 strong — staged a general strike on Dec. 21 in solidarity with their fellow Palestinians.
The strike was an unprecedented act by Israel’s normally quiescent Arab citizens, accompanied by several serious incidents of violence in the heart of Israel, which sent shock waves through the entire country.
According to experts, the Israeli reaction was a natural phenomenon reflecting a society that finds itself — in the persons of its soldiers — under hostile attack from within.
Likud leaders and planners, however, are by no means confident that the present mood of militancy will last even until June. They believe the initial reaction of patriotic outrage may soon give way to a sweeping sense of doubt and even despair, as more and more people conclude that the indefinite occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is impossible to sustain, or at least undesirable for the future of the country.
Laborites, for their part, believe that if the Dec. 21 explosion by the Israeli Arab population is to produce any break in the political deadlock that has paralyzed the government’s peace moves, that scenario must be given more time to unfold and to have an impact on the electorate.
A June election date, therefore, is considered much too early for any new sentiments to have coalesced.
Similarly, some Likud members feel the Israel Defense Force’s “iron fist” policy in the territories needs more time to be effective and restore order.
Accordingly, they prefer not to rush into an election campaign while the bullets and rocks are still flying. They hope that eventually the disturbances will be crushed and with it the attempt to dictate terms to Israel by force.
An example of new thinking emerging in the Labor Party was given by Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who has been faulted by many of his fellow Laborites for this seemingly ruthless suppression of the disturbances.
EMERGING LEADERSHIP
Addressing a caucus of the Labor Knesset faction this week, Rabin suggested the possibility that an authentic Palestinian leadership may emerge from the current violence, and he indicated Israel must be prepared to deal with such leaders.
Key leaders of Likud, meanwhile, are working quietly for possible overtures toward West Bank and Gazan leaders that could circumvent the deadlocked peace process. Premier Yitzhak Shamir is not active in the approach, but he has not vetoed it.
On the Labor side, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and his allies have redoubled their efforts to put together an international peace conference format acceptable to everyone, except Shamir, who is totally opposed to the idea. But if the Peres group succeeds, sufficient pressure could be brought to bear on Shamir to agree to the procedure.
Peres’ aides are discouraged by an apparent hardening of the Soviet position. The foreign minister’s policy adviser, Nimrod Novik, is scheduled to meet with Soviet officials in Switzerland next week. He is expected to argue forcibly that the time is ripe as never before for a break-through to peace negotiations.
Meanwhile, all three members of the “Prime Ministers Club” — Shamir, Peres and Rabin, who each have served as premier — are in firm agreement that nothing whatever can be achieved in the diplomatic arena until order is restored in the territories.
The Palestinians, buoyed by their success in rallying Western public opinion to their side, may well be disinclined to put away their stones and burning tires for vague hopes of diplomatic progress in the future.
Even moderate Palestinians are seeking meaningful concessions from Israel as a prepayment for an end to the violence. Former Mayor Rashad A-Shawa of Gaza said this week, “If Shamir would just give a hint that he is ready to negotiate, that would do more than anything to ease the situation.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
