Political Theme: This Land Is Israel’s : Likud’s West Bank Tours Send a Message to Voters

ELKANA, Israeli-Occupied West Bank — Little old ladies in sensible hats scrambled up mildly sloping hills to pick olives while enthusiastic youths in political T-shirts made a game of slapping campaign stickers on the backs of unsuspecting reporters.

They had come to this arid West Bank outpost as if on a family outing, and in a sense, they were. The women and teen-agers traveled by bus into this Arab territory occupied by Israel as part of the electoral campaign of Israel’s right-wing Likud Bloc, which is the slight favorite to win general elections scheduled for Nov. 1.

Beyond the usual cheers for Likud and current Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, the gay caravan through the turbulent West Bank was designed to send a heavier political message: This land, occupied since 1967, belongs to Israel, and a trip over its rolling hills and sharp ravines is no more special than a drive through, say, Tel Aviv.

Such caravans, to be repeated for thousands of potential voters during the campaign, are called “On the Road: Operation Life.”

Never mind that just 7 miles to the northwest, Israeli soldiers were heading into the market town of Qalqiliya as if entering a foreign and hostile land, breaking up gangs of Arab youths leading an uprising there. Never mind that the occupied West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip on the Mediterranean have been, for most of nine months, the scene of rock-throwing attacks on soldiers and civilians alike.

Explained Roni Milo, a Likud member of the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament: “If the national camp of Likud wins, the Arabs will know they have absolutely no chance of getting us out of here, and they’ll stop throwing stones and Molotov cocktails.”

Likud activist Henri Noach, using the biblical names for the West Bank area, described the purpose of the trip as “first of all, to sensitize the population to the centrality of Judea and Samaria to our national heritage--also its strategic importance.”

A Hard-Line Stand

The future of the occupied lands and the handling of the Arab uprising are the main issues of what is expected to be a hard-fought election campaign just now getting into high gear. Likud is counting on the appeal of a basic hard-line stand on both issues to defeat its main rival, Shimon Peres, the foreign minister and alternate prime minister, and the centrist Labor Alignment that he leads.

Shamir and Likud reject withdrawal from any part of the land and treat the Arab uprising as a law-and-order problem. Peres and Labor are willing to trade land for peace with the Arabs and view the uprising as proof that the occupation is a dead end.

Many observers in Israel believe that Likud will win a plurality of the 120 seats in the Knesset and then form a majority coalition to govern. Since 1984, Likud and Labor have shared power in a so-called national unity government; Shamir and Peres rotated in the lead post of prime minister, with Shamir now finishing his two-year stint.

“The game is over. The only question left is whether Likud will again share government with Labor or not,” said a staunch Labor supporter and journalist.

Despite this outlook, Likud faces numerous problems on the way to the ballot box. One is party unity, which Peres does not have to worry about.

Although led by Shamir, its bantam-sized and unabashedly colorless leader, the bloc is in effect a beehive of contending personalities all trying to push it to one side or another. On the question of the occupied land alone, there are leaders who favor eventually giving some of it back to the Arabs, some who favor annexing some or all of it outright and some who are simply unclear in their positions.

The party also suffers from a rivalry between descendants of European Jews in leadership positions and officials representing Middle Eastern and North African Jews who have been Likud’s most numerous supporters.

Shamir, 72, is in a sense a compromise candidate, both tough enough and hazy enough to be acceptable to all. He rejects any notion of a Palestinian state abutting Israel, even if the Palestine Liberation Organization should agree to recognize Israel’s statehood and abandon terrorism. He clings to a formula in the 1978 Camp David accords that he once rejected as the solution to the West Bank and Gaza crisis.

The accords speak of a transitional “autonomy” for the Palestinians. In Shamir’s interpretation, autonomy means cultural and social rights for non-Israeli inhabitants while Israel reigns over the land itself.

“No one within Likud thinks that we should withdraw to the 1967 borders or negotiate with the PLO,” Shamir recently told an Israeli newspaper interviewer. “In this sense, there are no breaches in the Likud wall.”

Shamir has a long and controversial career. During the fight for Israeli independence, he belonged to the Stern Gang, an underground terrorist group. Two aging members of that group recently admitted to having murdered a U.N. representative who, in 1948, tried to settle the Arab-Jewish dispute through a partition of what had been Palestine.

When Prime Minister Menachem Begin, then Likud’s leader, brought the Camp David peace treaty with Egypt to the Knesset for ratification, Shamir spoke against it and abstained in the vote.

After the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in Beirut refugee camps by Lebanese Christian militia members allied with Israel, Shamir was criticized by Israeli investigators of the killings because, as foreign minister, he failed to act on information he received that the massacre was under way.

Shamir asserts that the Palestinian uprising will collapse once the Arabs see that his government will never withdraw.

“One way or another, (the uprising) will have to stop, which means that order will be restored everywhere,” he said recently.

He also seems content that the world outside Israel is taking less and less interest in the uprising.

“People (in the West) get used to it,” Shamir told an Israeli reporter. “It appears less and less on their television screens.”

Sometimes, his associates go further, suggesting that a Likud government will quickly end the unrest through a severe crackdown. Yitzhak Modai, a minister without portfolio and member of Likud, predicted that the Arab rebellion would end a week after a Likud victory.

Ariel Sharon, the flamboyant minister of industry and a rival of Shamir for the leadership of Likud, has suggested that most of the occupied territories be annexed and that autonomy be dropped from Likud’s lexicon.

Because it has long been difficult for any party to win a clear majority of Knesset seats in an election, Likud is trying gingerly to reach out both to the hard-line edge of the electorate and the undecided moderate side.

For the hard-liners, Likud presents itself as the law-and-order party in contrast to mild-mannered Labor. “Everyone knows what we are speaking of: security, peace and the most effective ways of attaining and strengthening these,” Shamir said.

Last month, Shamir intervened to speed the return of weapons to West Bank Jewish settlers that the army had confiscated when it became apparent that some were being used for purposes other than self-defense. Some military officials have grown uneasy with the Dodge City flavor of vigilante groups, but Shamir insisted that settlers cannot be denied the right to defend themselves against Arab marauders.

It is not clear that Likud will be able attract voters of the far right. During one tour stop at an Israeli settlement on the West Bank, at least one host resident thought that Likud should openly pledge to annex the territories. Israeli settlements have been built throughout the West Bank as a way of establishing a de facto claim to the land.

“We think the area should be annexed. We hope that Likud will do it after the election,” said Yaacov Teshel, a chemist and resident of the Kedumim settlement. Teshel described his home as standing on land that has been “liberated.”

Teshel presented a film on the history of the settlement movement on behalf of Likud, but his ideas more closely resembled the platform of the Tehiya party, whose members broke off from Likud.

Expanding the Waistline

To the undecided moderate vote, and to counter Labor’s assertion that Likud is extremist, Likud presents itself as the party best equipped to attend to the country’s obsessive security concerns. Likud reminds these voters that the occupied land expands Israel’s geographical waistline and presumably makes it harder for foreign armies to reach the country’s main Mediterranean population centers.

“To voters floating between Labor and Likud, we say, ‘What will Israel be if we go back to the borders of 1967?’ ” said Michael Dekel, a Likud politician and deputy defense minister.

Likud officials further suggest that only a strong Likud government with Israel’s security at heart can take on the task of talking peace with Arabs. While calling Labor’s willingness to trade land for peace a trap, Likud official Dan Meridor, a member of yet a younger generation in the Likud camp, recently argued that “even those who are prepared for territorial compromise must figure who will represent Israel better in negotiations with the Arabs.”

The ‘Can Do Party’

A Likud advertisement in the pro-Labor Jerusalem Post emphasized the theme. On pages decorated with doves, Likud called itself the “Can Do Party” and argued: “Peace can only be achieved from a position of strength. Weakness and vacillation will not bring peace.”

The details of just how much a Likud government would offer for peace are unknown. Party leaders say it would be unwise to telegraph a negotiating stand before talks begin.

During Operation Life, at least, land-for-peace does not seem an option. The olive fanciers among the entourage were asked by an Israeli newspaper why they felt they could pick the fruit with impunity, and they answered: “We were told we could pick the olives. They are ours, the land of Israel’s.”