Special to the JTA Labor Mk Discusses His Party’s Views on Autonomy

The big question for Israel was not what type of autonomy the Palestinians required, but what the final status of the administered territories would be in a few years’ time. This approach was put forward by Gen. Haim Barlev, visiting South Africa as the guest of Habonim on the occasion of its 50th jubilee. Israel’s former Chief of Staff and Minister of Trade, Industry and Development in the former Labor-led government, is currently Secretary General of the Labor Alignment. Barlev gave a polished performance at Johannesburg’s Witwatersrand University campus where he addressed a meeting held under the combined auspices of Poalei Zion and Truat Aliyah.

While his party shared the national consensus in Israel that there should be no Palestinian state, no divided Jerusalem, and no return to the pre-1967 frontiers, there is a wide gap with the Likud government on the question of the West Bank, Barlev said. His personal view was that the only solution lay in compromise, where none of the three sides involved–Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians — got 100 percent of what they wanted but none of them would go empty-handed.

COMPROMISE AND WISDOM

In Barlev’s view, Israel should retain a strip along the Jordan River for security purposes but withdraw from the rest of the administered territories which should, however, be demilitarized. Thus the Palestinians would be free of Israeli rule, though they would not obtain a sovereign state which neither Jordan nor Israel desired. Jordan, though it would not receive all the territory it controlled on the West Bank prior to 1967 and since 1948, would however regain control over its fellow Palestinians. Such a compromise solution, observed Barlev, had a for better chance of success than a return to the status quo ante of 1967, or a binational state, or outright annexation.

Barlev also had his own ideas about Jewish settlements on the West Bank. While not disputing the matter of historic Jewish rights, he did dispute the political and military wisdom of such settlement. By settling Jews on often remote spots on the West Bank, Israel was inviting the opposition of the entire world; the issue was dividing the Jewish people inside Israel itself; and the settlements didn’t contribute to Israel’s security. Indeed, they were “sitting ducks” for attacks such as that in Hebron. Also they were costly, and settlement efforts ought rather to be directed at Galilee where the Arab population has reached 48 percent.

LABOR’S ELECTION PROSPECTS

Wryly conceding that his ideas had little chance of implementation while his party was out of office, Barlev in a subsequent interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, said that it was the hope and aim of the Israel Labor Party to be re-elected with an absolute majority. This would obviate the need for dealing with coalition partners. The question wasn’t whether Labor would win; the question was by how big a margin, he observed. Barlev did not expect a general election prior to the November 1981 date when the present government’s term expires. Meanwhile, he pointed out, his party’s ties with other Social Democratic parties abroad through the Socialist international was the envy of the Likud, since this association was a major channel for getting Israel’s side of the story across in Europe and elsewhere.

MIXED ECONOMY

In the interview, Barlev referred to Israel’s mixed economic system. As was the case in many countries, Israel had a private and a public sector. Yet Israel had a unique feature in the form of Histadrut, a body which not only dealt with trade union matters but acted as a development agency. it was not a governmental organization, nor was it a merely profit-motivated business. The Histadrut, Barlev said, was prepared to enter development areas where the prospect for profit was little or nothing. While he welcomed the existence of the private sector and its role in investment, Barlev said that in the case of the Histodrut’s development activities, profit was not the only motive in rebuilding the Jewish homeland.

While in opposition, the Labor Party has had more time to reappraise its policies and the problems facing Israel, said Barlev. He noted that Israel was by no means unique in the world of developing states in the matter of bureaucracy. Israel had only recently started with the university-level business administration and public administration courses, something he welcomed. A developing country did not usually have a surfeit of trained civil servants. Indeed, said Barlev, some of the best public servants he had come across in Israel hailed from the era of the British Mandate and even from the Ottoman period.

UNLIKE SOUTH AFRICA

He had been asked about cases in Israel where, in order to avoid communal friction, situations had evolved in certain areas where Arabs preferred to live in their own villages and Jews in theirs. Barlev observed that while he was not familiar with the South African situation, he felt that there was no comparison. In Israel, where there was equality before the law, both Arabs and Jews had the vote and sat in the same Knesset, he said.

The joint meeting of the Poalei Zion-Truat Aliyah accorded Barlev a hearty welcome. In his opening remarks, Mockie Friedman, vice chairman of the SA Zionist Federation and chairman of the Labor Zionist movement in South Africa, outlined Barlev’s outstanding career. He noted the crucial role Barlev played in Israel’s wars, and not least in the vital area of morale, from 1948 through 1973.