Behind the Headlines: Israelis Opposed to Withdrawal Mount Public Relations Campaign

Another week, another sigh of relief from the far right of the Israeli political spectrum.

Despite a recent flurry of speculation, largely fueled by Israeli officials, the United States let it be known this week that a deal to revive the Israeli- Palestinian peace process is still not in sight.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even admitted that the speculation had been premature, all the while insisting that he was working hard to reach an agreement.

But despite their temporary relief, those who oppose any further withdrawal from the West Bank — an inevitable component of any deal — are not passively watching events unfold.

They still believe that an agreement is imminent, and they are doing their utmost to prevent it.

Their angst was no doubt further fueled with last week’s publication of details of the plan the United States is pressing Israel to accept.

The plan calls on Israel to pull back from an additional 13 percent of the West Bank in exchange for a series of Palestinian steps to crack down on terrorism. Israeli media reported last week that under the proposal, Israel would also have to curtail settlement activity.

Spearheaded by the Yesha Council, which represents settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and by political leaders who support the Greater Israel ideology, the anti-redeployment lobby has launched a massive, last-ditch effort to turn Israeli public opinion against an agreement with the Palestinians.

At a cost of millions, the Yesha Council has sent glossy pamphlets to 1 million households throughout Israel.

Published by the council’s research department, the pamphlet provides details about the water aquifer that lies beneath part of the West Bank, attempting to drive home the point that a transfer of land could affect Israel’s water supplies.

The pamphlet lists the settlements likely to be turned into isolated enclaves by an Israeli pullback. It also sets out the security reasons that explain, in the view of its authors, why such a withdrawal is dangerous.

In addition, the council is running hourlong flights up and down the West Bank, offering a bird’s eye view of the territory and the strategic considerations against Israeli withdrawal.

The flights were originally offered to members of the National Religious Party, whose votes could be pivotal when the time comes to decide whether to support the redeployment, but in practice anyone can go along.

The settlers and their supporters within Israel are also planning sit-down and hunger strikes at key locations in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in a further effort to rivet public and media attention to their campaign.

While they instinctively shy away from and vehemently criticize extremist propaganda against Netanyahu, the Yesha hard-liners and their supporters intend to give the premier a hard time when and if he moves into the final stages of the negotiations.

An example of such propaganda appeared this week in Jerusalem, where posters appeared depicting Netanyahu in Arab headdress and calling him “The Liar.”

Despite the vigor with which they are mounting their campaign, the Yesha forces are growing increasingly fearful.

While some of the more pragmatic among them have begun to talk of acquiescing to some withdrawal, the hard-core members are stating outright that they are against any further land concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

In a recent television appearance, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir proclaimed proudly that during his 10 years in office he had not given away a single inch of the Greater Land of Israel. That, for him, is the ultimate test of a legitimate Zionist policy.

But these hard-liners have a problem: They know from public opinion polls that their rejection of any pullback is not widely popular.

They know, too, that they may not be able to muster more than a handful of votes in the Knesset for their position — far fewer than the 17 original members of the Land of Israel bloc who pledged to defend Greater Israel and oppose the redeployment accord.

Moreover, the hard-liners are not confident of the support, in a moment-of- truth vote, of two elements without which their cause is politically doomed: the National Religious Party and Ariel Sharon, the national infrastructure minister.

The NRP, with its nine Knesset seats, has the power to topple Netanyahu if all of its legislators vote against a redeployment accord submitted by the premier.

But with each passing day, that prospect seems less likely.

Shaul Yahalom, until recently one of the party’s most volatile firebrands, has noticeably toned down his words since becoming transportation minister earlier this year.

He was quoted this week as saying the party would not walk out of the government over a redeployment as long as it did not hurt the settlements.

That leaves open the possibility for the NRP ministers to oppose the redeployment within the Cabinet, but for the party as a whole to later abstain in a Knesset vote, thereby signaling its tacit agreement to the deal.

Anticipating this possibility, some of the settlers and their supporters are already moving to form a new, rightist-religious party, to be named Tekuma, or Resurrection.

Israeli media reports this week indicated that Rabbi Avraham Shapira, formerly the Ashkenazi chief rabbi and a spiritual mentor of the NRP, had given his blessing to the new political initiative.

For his part, Sharon is even harder to read than the NRP.

His relations with the prime minister seem to blow hot and cold at rapid intervals.

Sharon has said repeatedly that to cede more than 9 percent of West Bank lands in a further redeployment would be dangerous for Israel.

Just the same, veteran Sharon watchers say the burly minister is likely to come around in the end and give the premier his vital support.

These two question marks leave the hard-lines in a difficult position. Without the NRP, they would not have the legislative numbers to bring Netanyahu down in a Knesset vote.

Without Sharon, they would not have the public leadership necessary to mount a sustained attack against a deal with the Palestinians.

Ironically, the chances of victory ultimately may depend not on debates among the hard-liners, but rather on differences among opposition members.

There was much rancor within the Labor Party this week over whether it should offer the prime minister its support in the Knesset on this issue should the far right seek to bring him down.

Party leader Ehud Barak put off the final decision until the redeployment deal becomes a reality.

But some Labor members made it clear that they would find it hard to raise their hands against progress in the peace process — despite the fact that it was Netanyahu who was making it happen.