Even though Israel has not given away one single inch of the West Bank, even though no real negotiations have yet begun over the West Bank, it is a fact that much of the ultra-hardline criticism here of the Camp David agreements focuses on the West Bank rather than on the Sinai which is to be completely evacuated.
Geula Cohen, the Herut firebrand who has been in the forefront of attacks on Premier Menachem Begin scarcely mentions the Sinai in her speeches and articles. Neither Sharm el-Sheikh nor the Rafah salient settlements figure in her criticism of the Camp David accords. Her condemnation of Begin is for his “betrayal of Eretz Israel.”
Nor do any of Begin’s protestations that he has not betrayed Eretz Israel, that his claim to sovereignty over the West Bank is still valid, that no settlements will ever be removed from there, that, on the contrary, new ones will be built–none of this seems to affect Ms. Cohen and her allies in the slightest.
THE CRITICS ARE CONSISTENT
Cohen herself, and certain critics of Begin in the Labor camp, have, in fact, been entirely consistent. Last January, when the Premier first presented his plan for autonomy on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Cohen and the others warned that the plan “sowed the seeds of a Palestinian state.”
Now, with the “precedent” of the Sinai withdrawal to cite in argument, the ultra hardline opposition is redoubling its asserting that Begin, determined to avoid a “repartition” of the West Bank, has in fact triggered a process that will result in the whole of the area becoming, one day, an independent Palestinian state. The autonomy, they contend, will develop a momentum of its own. The process is probably irreversible.
Begin himself, asked about this in a Rosh Hashanah interview with Maariv, declared “There will never be a Palestinian state under any conditions. As a Jew, “he said, “I can say I shall always be proud that a Jewish government proposed autonomy for the inhabitants of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza. A Palestinian state however shall not arise. Under no condition shall it arise. We are responsible for that. The Israel army in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza will be responsible for that….”
AUTONOMY, NOT PALESTINIAN STATE
But what would happen, the interviewer persisted, if the autonomous council one day proclaimed an independent state? Begin cut him short.”….If it proclaims a state it will be in breach of the law and of the agreements–and we will not stand for it.
“Therefore this fear should be removed from the hearts of Israeli citizens…. We have not proposed an autonomy from which will grow an independent state, which would be a mortal danger for the very existence of the Jewish State and would cause constant bloodshed and eventual all-out war in difficult conditions for Israel….
“We proposed autonomy, not a state. The difference is vast….A state has a parliament, a government, an army, diplomatic relations with other states, and other characteristics. The inhabitants of Judaea, Samaria and Gaza cannot have these things– because if they had them, they would determine not only their own fate, but also our fate–they would determine us for murder, bloodshed and violence. We will never agree to this. Never.”
THE ‘NATIONAL CONSENSUS’
The Premier was voicing these assurances to a public that has been taught for a decade and more that a separate Palestinian state would be a disaster for Israel to be avoided at any cost. And that teaching is still very much a part of the “national consensus.” Indeed, an opinion poll commissioned by Yediot Achronot and published earlier this month showed that 90 percent of Israelis were totally opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.
But at the same time–and this is a potentially vital development following Camp David–the scepticism regarding Begin’s promise that such a state will “never” arise is not confined to his relatively few hawkish opponents. Fully 50 percent of the public, that same poll showed, believe that a Palestinian state will in fact evolve on the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the Camp David accords.
To perceive the full significance of these figures, a third result of the same poll must be introduced: some 80 percent of those asked professed themselves supportive of the Camp David accords. In other words, a majority of those who believed the accords will result in a Palestinian state nevertheless declared that they backed the accords. What, then, of the “national consensus” opposing a separate Palestinian state at all costs?
In part, of course, the answer must be that polls are notoriously unscientific and therefore not worthy of such portentous political analysis. So much depends on how the questions are phrased. If the pollsters had asked “Do you want peace if the price is a Palestinian state?” the number of positive replies might have been less than 50 percent. But, having noted the precarious nature of poll-analysis, one can scarcely avoid noting, nevertheless, that the “national consensus” seems to be wearing thin.
REALITY RAVAGES OPINIONS
Indeed a dispassionate look at the past II months shows that “consensus” has not stood up well to the ravages of reality, to the buffeting of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s peace initiative. Whole chunks of it have fallen by the wayside. First, there was Sharm el-Sheikh. For 10 years the “national consensus” dictated that Israel would not leave the strategic spot ever again. But in December, Premier Begin ceded it to Egypt–and hardly a whimper was raised in protest.
The Rafah salient, with its solidly established Jewish settlements, was another pillar of the “national consensus.” Indeed, Begin himself referred to it as such only weeks before Camp David. But that pillar, too, has fallen almost soundlessly–for the tumult in the Knesset recently was, as we have seen, more over fears for the West Bank than over the fate of Rafah and its settlements.
Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, who some years ago said he would prefer Sharm el-Sheikh without peace than peace without Sharm el-Sheikh, today concedes that the new situation has caused him to change his mind and to recommend giving up the area for the chance of peace. The ultra-hardliners, however, have not shifted with the circumstances. The positions they adopted in advance of peace still pertain today, now that peace is at hand.
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.
