Widening Rift Between Hawks, Doves on End-of-war Diplomacy, Temple Mount Issue and Illegal Jewish Se

The Labor Alignment’s second round of debate on “end-of-war” diplomacy in the Knesset last night produced a widened rift between “hawks” and “doves.” The government’s policies and party leadership were sharply criticized by former Foreign Minister Abba Eban and former Histadrut Secretary General Yitzhak Ben Aharon among others. Transport Minister Gad Yaacobi was the government’s chief defender.

The most explosive issues were Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and illegal Jewish settlement on the West Bank–subjects currently being debated in the UN Security Council–which sparked the recent wave of riots and demonstrations on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. (See P. 3 for UN debate.)

Ben Aharon contended that these disturbances were brought on by a “series” of “Jewish nationalistic and religious provocations.” He said the weakness of the Labor Party and the Labor Alignment encouraged these provocations. He referred specifically to what he called the government’s “surrender” to the Gush Emunim group which was allowed to establish a makeshift settlement at Kadum in the Samaria region.

Yaacobi retorted that Ben Aharon’s charges were “wrong and unjust” and without “factual basis.” He observed that demonstrations had occurred in the administered territories long before these issues came up and that it was simply “not true” that Jews sparked the disturbances.

Yaacobi and Ben Aharon also argued over the government’s plan to requisition land in Galilee for Jewish settlement, the latter claiming that it was unwise. The plan calls for displacing a certain number of Arabs who would be offered compensatory land. Yaacobi said the program was planned “with great care and consideration.” Ben Aharon said the Labor Party failed to “draw a clear line” between itself and such militant groups as the Gush Emunim and Likud.

Housing Minister Avraham Ofer, a Cabinet “dove,” said the Labor Alignment should emphasize that the basic element of the Arab-Israeli conflict was the existence of two states, a Jewish State “and an Arab state to the East.” He did not clarify whether he meant by the latter the Kingdom of Jordan or a Palestinian state.

CHARGES BY EBAN

Eban, the final speaker, charged that Israel did itself great damage by conceding for the first time since 1948 that a legal state of war existed with the Arabs. It lent legitimacy to the Arab blockades, boycott and other measures which they could claim were privileges conferred by the state of war, he said.

Eban was apparently implying that by assenting to an American initiative to explore Arab attitudes toward discussing an end of the state of war, the Israeli government had acknowledged that a state of war existed. This was something Israel’s friends never countenanced, the former Foreign. Minister said. But he predicted that the “end-of-war” diplomacy would founder on Arab obduracy and was therefore no more realistic than full peace proposals.

He said that the settlement at Kadum and the Temple Mount prayer issue indicated that groups of citizens were taking the law into their own hands and creating fait accomplish while “anarchy prevails.” Eban said that as long as the Gush Emunim squatters were allowed to remain at Kadum, the government’s authority was severely compromised. “The settlers must be shifted to a site which the government has decided must be settled and where the group can be no less pioneers,” he declared.

Eban also said that Israel should encourage U.S.-Egyptian rapprochement while maintaining a balance of forces in the area. The Israeli public cannot expect to enjoy “a monopoly of ties with the U.S.,” Eban said.