Behind the Headlines: the Intifada May Not Yet Be Dead, but Its Outward Signs Have Receded

The local wholesale market was bustling with people. It was business as usual, and the single border policeman posted at the entrance seemed visibly relaxed.

Was this the West Bank? What happened to the intifada?

During a full day of traveling around the territory, through the Judean mountains, past the Dehaishe and el-Aroub refugee camps, the towns of Halhoul and Hebron, not a single rock was thrown at a car with Israeli license plates.

It was as if the calender had reversed itself, flipped back 31 months to before the intifada began.

But appearances can be deceiving. The restaurants and souvenir shops are still empty. The proprietors wait vainly for tour buses that do not come.

In the market, Arabs regard Israeli settlers, soldiers and an occasional journalist with suspicion, fear, indifference, hatred. There are few smiles. The intifada lives on in their hearts.

Otherwise, though, it seems to have run out of steam.

There has been less violence committed by Palestinians against Israelis in recent weeks, though internal Palestinian terrorism was responsible for at least five Arab deaths in the first two weeks of July.

Since the beginning of June, no Palestinian has been killed by Israelis in the Gaza Strip — though 12 were wounded there, along with one Israeli soldier, in a violent clash last weekend.

East Jerusalem, which has known violence in recent weeks, also seems to have calmed down.

DESPAIR AND ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS

Security specialists have different explanations for the de-escalation, and probably no single one is correct.

A factor often cited is the feeling of despair among the local population in the absence of any progress toward a political solution. While despair can lead to revolt, it can also result in apathy, a feeling that no amount of protest is going to achieve substantive results.

Moreover, as universities are being reopened gradually in the West Bank, Palestinians do not want to give the authorities any excuse to close them down again.

There is also the ongoing economic hardship of the intifada, which makes life more difficult than ever for Palestinians in the territories.

And then there is the more visible Israeli military presence that has been deployed along the main highways to deter stone-throwers.

The policy, instituted by Israel’s new defense minister, Moshe Arens, is aimed at using the military in the territories for defensive purposes, rather than operations that tend to provoke more violence.

Palestinians had expected the Likud-led government to try to stamp out the intifada by instituting tougher military tactics and more punitive measures.

But in the first weeks of Arens’ tenure, mostly defensive measures have been taken. There are more roadblocks, more army posts and settlers are being reimbursed by the government for the cost of making their cars more resistant to rocks and gasoline bombs.

Much to the disappointment of Jewish settlers, Arens has established a policy of smiles toward the Palestinian population.

Moreover, his is becoming a familiar face.

Last week he visited Dura, a town south of Hebron, where he promised farmers help in exporting their agricultural produce to Jordan. Israel refuses to buy West Bank crops to protect its own farmers.

The visit was Arens’ fifth to the territories since he took office a month ago, an average of more than one visit a week. He makes it a point to meet with the local Arab leadership, apparently in search of a potential alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Arens does not thrust himself on the Arab population. He refrains from entering into political debates to avoid hearing the worn-out slogan that the PLO is their “sole legitimate representative.”

Observers believe Arens views the intifada through the eyes of a foreign minister, which he was before he became defense minister.

The Knesset member who voted against the peace treaty with Egypt more than 10 years ago has since learned to appreciate the benefits of political dialogue.

Arens is now believed to share the view that the intifada cannot be ended by military means. More than anything else, he seems to want to prove to the world, especially the Americans, that a Likud-led government does not necessarily mean a harsher policy toward the Arab population.

Daoud Kuttab, a well-known Palestinian journalist, provided an interesting comparison of the policies of Arens and his Labor Party predecessor.

Labor, he said, believes the final settlement must involve territorial compromise. Therefore, when Yitzhak Rabin was defense minister, he felt Israel must approach that stage from a position of strength.

Likud, on the other hand, refuses to consider territorial concessions; so it can afford to be “nice” to the Palestinians on less important issues, Kuttab said.