In a Land Under Siege, Quiet Talk of What’s Ahead : Israel: Past assumptions have shattered; a new peace must be built, and that will take political courage all around.

It’s not often that one can grab hold of a plausible scenario that culminates in peace between Israel and its neighbors. Yet paradoxically, even as Palestinians cheer the Iraqi Scuds aimed towards Tel Aviv, and even as the Israeli government arrests Palestinian moderates and welcomes to its highest councils an ex-general who seeks to “transfer” (read: expel) the Palestinians from the occupied territories, a quiet reassessment of Israel’s prospects has begun in its academic centers and in its sealed rooms. Here are its principal elements:

-- Israelis are afraid in a new way. Earlier threats, however sinister, were familiar: army against army, a relatively identifiable battlefield, and the occasional random act of terrorism. But now, even though the Scuds are “dumb,” downtown Tel Aviv is at risk. What happens when the next generation of Scuds comes on line? And the one after that, smarter still?

--Israelis are dependent in a new way. Now that the world has entered the era of arcade-game wars, the high morale and superb training of Israel’s soldiers is of declining importance. Israel may retain its technological superiority for a time, but odds are that its enemies will again be supplied by nations with even more sophisticated technologies and vastly greater resources. Sooner or later, the antidote will arrive too late for the poison. And even if it comes in time, few Israelis can calmly contemplate a future in which each new hostile advance must be met by still newer American countermeasures.

--Israelis are hopeful in a new way. America’s credibility has soared in Israel. Iraq’s terrifying Scud assaults are without precedent, but so is America’s prompt deployment of Patriot batteries and crews. Along with providing relief, it establishes the seriousness of America’s commitment to Israel’s safety. For now, at least, this is an America liberated from its post-Vietnam paralysis.

--Israelis are realistic in a new way. It is by now virtually impossible for any serious Israeli to imagine a Palestinian community that, denied independence, will interact amicably with Israel or be satisfied with mere “autonomy.” The center has therefore dropped out of the political equation: You are either for removing the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza (“transfer”), or you are for giving up territory (“land for peace”).

--Israelis are comforted in a new way. Nothing has so damaged the Israeli psyche in recent years as Israel’s sense of aloneness; this is the theme of popular songs and personal neuroses alike. The current approbation Israel enjoys is situation-specific, to be sure, but its healing effects suggest new possibilities for the future.

--Israel is preoccupied in a new way. The mass immigration of Soviet Jews is a stunning evocation of the nation’s organizing purpose, the “ingathering of the exiles.” This, rather than conflict, is what Israel wants to focus on. But the immigration will strain the nation’s capacity; cost estimates for the absorption of so many people run as high as $80 billion. Israel is in desperate need of its own peace dividend.

History powerfully suggests that if a window of opportunity appears, Israel, the Palestinians and the other interested parties will not be wise enough to force it open. Too many Palestinians remain seized by their fantasy of an Israel defeated. Too many Israelis remain committed to taking advantage, perhaps even fomenting, the kind of chaos on the ground that will “induce” masses of Palestinians to flee. Washington, pressed by its allies to organize an international conference, may be sidetracked into that sterile exercise rather than pursuing more promising diplomacy.

But imagine that when the war is over, the United States can persuade one or more of the Arab states--Saudi Arabia comes immediately to mind--to normalize its relations with Israel, contingent on Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Imagine that the United States is prepared to insist that a new Palestinian state be demilitarized, and that Washington would enter into a defense treaty with Israel and provide guarantees for the borrowing that Israel’s absorption of the Soviet Jews requires.

Such a package would almost surely force Israel’s current government to call new elections, to frame the issue of peace so explicitly. How would the voters respond? Very few think any longer that there is safety in continuing to “muddle through”; but neither are they committed to “transfer.” Israelis are committed to a resolution of the conflict, and the party that understands the new conditions and the changed perceptions may ride that understanding to victory.