The Paradox of Israeli Politics : Government opposes majority readiness to accept peace-for-territory deal

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s governing coalition in Israel is losing the support of two small ultra-nationalist parties, defections that will leave it with only 59 votes in the 120-member Knesset and force critical national elections by midsummer. The withdrawal of the far-right parties weakens Shamir’s hold on power even as it boosts his government’s moral standing.

SOMETHING LOST: The departure of the Tehiya party, which has three seats in Parliament, and the Moledet, which has two, was motivated by their bitter opposition to the U.S.-sponsored peace process. What the two parties most fear is that Israel is close to opening discussions about autonomy for Palestinians living on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. The parties draw most of their support from Israeli settlers in these areas. Both view autonomy talks, which would provide for a measure of Palestinan self-rule pending a final agreement on the status of the territories, as a first step toward Palestinian statehood. Both parties favor annexation of the occupied territories, without, however, granting 1.7 million Palestinian inhabitants the rights of Israeli citizenship. Moledet favors the unconscionable step of expelling all Arabs living in the territories. Shamir is well-rid of such extremist allies.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the government--still hard-line--will shift its basic position on autonomy. Shamir and his colleagues have never made any secret of their view that Israel must have ultimate sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank. Any autonomy they may be ready to talk about would be severely limited. It would likely come nowhere near the idea, supported by Israel’s Labor bloc and the United States, that Israel should be prepared to negotiate an exchange of land occupied since the 1967 War for a secure peace within recognized national boundaries.

The coming elections will once again probably see no party emerge with a parliamentary majority. What the polls show right now is that Likud, dead set against any territorial compromise, will probably win a plurality, allowing it to form a coalition with small religious or right-wing parties.

SOMETHING GAINED: But what the polls also show is that a majority of Israelis, though they still oppose creation of a separate Palestinian state, would accept an exchange of territory for peace.

Will this paradox soon be clearly resolved? Explicitly or not, the election will represent a referendum on the peace process and the issue of territorial compromise. Israel, under whatever government, cannot afford to alienate Washington by withdrawing from that process. But a Likud newly restored to power could claim a popular mandate against making territorial compromises. This year’s election could well be one of the more decisive in Israel’s never-easy 45-year history.