[The following article appeared in the May 3 issue of Inprecor, a French-language fortnightly published in Paris. The translation is by Intercontinental Press.]
TEL AVIV — Although several Israeli cabinet ministers tried to the very end to link the final withdrawal from the Sinai to a series of new concessions by Egypt, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin has resigned himself to carrying out the withdrawal. On Sunday, April 25, the Egyptian flag will again fly over the whole Sinai Peninsula.
In geographic terms, Israel will revert to the small country it was before the June 1967 war. This will undoubtedly have implications on both the military level and in the psychology of the Israeli masses.
When the withdrawal from the Sinai is concluded, it will mark the end of much more than a stage in the implementation of the Camp David accords.
The problem that the leaders of the Zionist state face today is the question of how to reverse, or at least contain, the course of events, i.e., the deterioration of the overall relationship of forces against the state of Israel.
We must keep this point in mind in order to understand recent Israeli moves in the occupied territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip. and the Golan Heights, and to understand the Begin government's open desire to launch a new military adventure against Lebanon and Syria.
'Another 1948'?
In their own ways, both the annexation of the Golan Heights and the establishment of the "civilian" administration in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were designed to go beyond the point of no return in these territories, which Israel feels are a permanent part of the Jewish state.
It is not coincidental that references are being made to 1948, the year that saw the creation of the Jewish state in the course of a military victory over the Arab armies and the expulsion of several hundred thousand Palestinians.
Some Israeli leaders openly state that their dream is to carry out another 1948." They want to create a situation that makes it possible to break the Palestinian national movement — politically and militarily — and substantially reduce the number of Palestinians under Israeli rule. This — and not some fit of madness gripping Menachem Begin and his defense minister, Ariel Sharon - explains the extremely grave measures carried out in recent weeks by the Israeli authorities in the occupited territories.
The annexation of the Golan Heights was expected to be a simple formality. The Syrian population of the Golan Heights numbers only 13,000, and during the past 15 years under Israeli rule it has been characterized by seeming passivity.
Massive resistance in Golan Heights
Last autumn virtually the entire population of the Golan Heights refused to accept Israeli identity cards. This should have been a warning to the Israeli authorities. But in December 1981, under pressure from the Jewish settlements in the Golan, the Begin government tried to make the Arab inhabitants of the Golan Heights de facto citizens of the state of Israel.
Faced with the population's unanimous refusal, and having been convinced that administrative detention of 11 supposed ringleaders did not solve anything, the government decided to place the four villages involved under a state of siege, and to cut off telephone service, supplies, and medical services in order to break the general strike of the Arabs in the Golan Heights through hunger and military repression.
Despite the dozens of people wounded by gunfire, despite the decimation of livestock and the imprisonment of several dozen people, the government was unable to break the Arab population of the Golan Heights. Their unprecedented heroism is now forcing the government to back off.
Yehuda Har'el, a spokesman for the Committee of Jewish Settlements in the Golan Heights, had been the leader of the "Don't Lose the North" movement demanding the annexation of the Golan Heights. Har'el recently stated:
"I have stopped being an expert on Druse questions [the Arabs of the Golan Heights are members of the Druse religion]. It was completely mistaken. • • The day the Golan Law was adopted, I was certain that there would no longer be a Druse problem. I was wrong.
"I believed that the arrest of the four pro-Syrian leaders would suffice. There too. I was wrong. They launched a general strike. Then we told the government, 'no problem, let them carry on their general strike for two years. But this too was bad advice" (Ha'aretz, April 13, 1982).
Today, the Jewish settlements in the Golan Heights are organizing delegations and sending flowers to the Arab residents, who are continuing their strike with greater determination than ever. Despite the delegations, however, this same Yehuda Har'el says: "The Druse are, in my opinion, placing themselves in danger. If a war breaks out — and who could believe that there will not be a war — they will be right near the border. Any battalion chief could expel them."
Repression in West Bank
On the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, the population's virtually unanimous opposition to the November 1 introduction of civilian administration under Col. Menachem Milson has been met with even more violent repression.
The first phase of the new wave of repression included the removal from office of the mayors of Al Bira, Nablus, and Ramallah; the closing of Bir Zeit University and, in reality, Bethlehem University: the repeated closing of the Arab daily newspapers; censorship: and the arrest or house arrest of several dozen leaders.
This was followed by the establishment of a state of siege in several cities and refugee camps. Hundreds of alleged demonstrators were arrested, several dozen of whom have already been sentenced to heavy fines or prison. Dozens of people have been killed, either in the course of demonstrations or under circumstances that are still unclear.
For the first time, the army got orders to fire into crowds, and it has not hesitated to do so. Hundreds of people have been shot. All this is developing as if Gen. Ariel Sharon wanted to drive the Palestinian population into an uprising, which would then bring qualitatively new reprisals and lead to the expulsion, or at least the exodus, of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
A conscious political plan
The source of the bloody repression in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is thus a political plan that is as horrible as it is utopian. But the repression also is a reaction to the determination of the Palestinian population and the breadth of their mobilizations against the Begin government's new measures.
Day by day, new sectors of the Palestinian people join the struggle. The repression against the masses does not even distinguish between "extremists" and "moderates." Only the few dozen collaborators from the so-called Village Leagues are seen as worthy of confidence, and all the others are viewed as agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) or at least as under its pressure.
This explains why everyone, everywhere now heeds the strike calls. No municipality, not even Bethlehem or Gaza, has agreed to col-
Palestinians demonstrate in front of Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem after Zionist attack took two lives.
laborate with Menachem Milson's "civilian" administration. And those few people who still remained passive have thrown themselves into the battle after the criminal attack on the Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem.
The lack of fear is a striking feature. For the most part the demonstrators are young people, many born after the Israeli occupation began in June 1967. For them, the occupation is not some temporary aberration. Rather it is a reality that they have always known. When they pass through the army checkpoints they do not hide their hatred and when facing the troops they do not retreat.
Soldiers flee from children
Despite the censorship, the Israeli press has reported on dozens of cases in which the soldiers have had to flee from several dozen schoolchildren. Molotov-cocktail attacks against military patrols are increasing. The army can go into certain neighborhoods and many refugee camps only if it mobilizes large forces.
When Menachem Milson stated that this was not a war against the Palestinians but rather against the PLO, the Palestinian response was clear and massive: "We are all the PLO!"
Palestinian flags appear everywhere — on schools and mosques, in the windows of homes, and on walls. As soon as the occupation forces remove one, new flags appear somewhere else.
Even more remarkable is the heroic resistance of the 13,000 inhabitants of the Golan Heights. "We'd rather die than lose our honor" is a phrase heard through the Syrian Golan. This is not some theatrical slogan. The calm determination of the Golan inhabitants during more than two months of strike has forced the whole population of Israel to take seriously those who stated that "even if it takes several years, we will continue our struggle until the Israeli government accepts our demands."
Despite the arrest of numerous leaders, the total state of siege, many injuries, hunger, and illness, the population of the Golan remains completely solid.
•We are the Druse of the Golan Heights'
"If need be, we will establish a big kibbutz so that we can help one another to hold out," we were told two months ago by one of the leaders who is now in prison. Several days ago the strikers decided to authorize the farmers to cultivate their fields again. The farmers will give one-quarter of their harvest to the workers.
"I envy them," Rafiq Halabi stated recently. Halabi, a well-known Druse journalist on Israeli television and a reserve officer in the Israeli army, noted that "at least they have an identity, which I don't." (Quoted in Ha'aretz, April 13, 1982.)
In addition to honor and identity, the struggle also involves land. Right after the passage of the law annexing the Golan Heights, Israeli surveyors appeared on the Heights. A person from the ministry of the interior explained that "according to Israeli law now in effect, 90 percent of the land in the Golan Heights now belongs to the state of Israel."
Several days before the strike began, the prefect of the northern region, the infamous Israel Koenig.* went to meet the Golan nota-
*As the Ministry of the Interior's chief official in the Galilee region, Israel Koenig wrote a confidential report in 1976 on how to reduce the Arab population in the area. Among the measures he proposed were a rapid increase in Jewish settlements, a cut in state subsidies to Arab families, and a program to encourage Arab youth to study abroad while making it difficult for them to return.
bles, who asked him to reconsider the application of the new law. It is said that Koenig replied that he had not come to deal with them, but to explain their duty to them: "1 am Israel Koenig," he added, "and if you don't know me, ask the Arabs of Galilee."
The notables answered: "We are the Druse of the Golan Heights, and if you don't know us, ask the Turks, the French, the English, and the Syrians.
There is no longer anyone in Israel who still does not know who the Druse of the Golan are and what they are capable of. This has helped to change the whole Israeli population's attitude toward their struggle.
Protests in Israel
The Golan provocation detonated a wave of protest against the Begin-Sharon government's repressive policy, a wave that is still growing.
This policy has driven the Golan Druse, a population that was distinguished by its seeming integration into the Israeli occupation, to a general strike. It pushed the Druse in Israel - the least politicized segment of the Palestinian population — to solidarize with their brothers in the Golan Heights. It provided an example of organization, determination, and tactical intelligence for the population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The government's policy was too much, including for the Labor Party.
Day by day, new figures are joining the chorus of protests against the barbarous methods of repression used to break the population of the Golan Heights. Included are residents of northern Israel, who strongly resent the absence of Arab labor caused by the strike.
The latest example of the growing opposition to Menachem Begin's policy in the Golan Heights is the position taken by Haim Cohen, the most famous supreme court judge, now re-
Israeli troops on the Golan Heights: enforcing "the law of barbarians."
tired. Cohen stated that it was not Israeli law that was being applied in the Golan, but barbarian law and practices that trample on the most elementary human rights. The long response to this from the army spokesman and the crass attacks leveled against the former judge by Menachem Begin have only given greater attention to Haim Cohen's accusations. Begin's policy backfires
In the midst of the Golan crisis, the government decided to launch a repressive offensive against the Palestinian population and to take on, weapons in hand, more than a million people. The fact that in one month, this policy has led to more than 20 deaths and hundreds of injuries (it is impossible to know the exact figure) proves that the new Sharon-Milson strategy can only be carried out through bloody repression of the entire Palestinian population in the occupied territories.
This policy is not simply criminal. It also seems completely ineffective and counterproductive. Never before has the Palestinian population been so solid in its resistance. The collaborators have never been more isolated. The mobilization has never been more determined.
As the former head of the Israeli security services Avraham A 'haitouv noted, in the past "the ministers of defense succeeded in establishing a policy that could be called 'calming the situation'
•.. Obviously such a policy is in contradiction with the desire to impose a change in the system of domination in the territories. To impose, by its very definition, means to incite troubles.
After showing that the iron-fist policy has increased resistance, Avraham A 'haitouv concluded: "The situation can be calmed. The road is quite difficult, but there is only one path that can lead us to the goal: maneuver and patience. I fear that harsh methods take us further from that objective" (Ha'aretz, April 16, 1982).
These views reflect a sentiment shared by a large segment of the Israeli population and by numerous establishment circles. Moreover, the impact that the criminal policy in the occupied territories is having on Israeli society, and the future that that policy is leading to, has not escaped the notice of those who still dream of a Zionism that is "healthy in spirit and in capable hands."
In the past two months the newspaper Ha'aretz has become the mouthpiece for this overall criticism of the government's policy toward the occupied territories.
'Peace Now' takes a stand
Revelations about the crimes that the occupation forces commit daily are pushing more and more people to take a clear position against the government. This is why the Labor Party rejected the proposal to form a government of national unity. Acceptance of Begin's proposal would have caused a split in the Labor Party.
This is also why the Peace Now movement, which had disappeared from the political scene for several months and had refused to take a position on the problem of the occupied territories, finally decided to mobilize against the repression in the occupied territories.
Up to now the Peace Now movement had always intentionally limited itself to supporting the Camp David accords. It mobilized tens of thousands of people only to pressure the government so that the opportunity offered by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's initiative would not be allowed to slip away.
The Peace Now movement, which is close to the Labor Party and is led in part by members of Labor-affiliated kibbutzim, had previously refused to express even moderate opposition to the occupation. For that reason, the March 27 demonstration in Tel Aviv against repression in the occupied territories, called by Peace Now, was a qualitative turning point.
Three days later, the Palestinian population inside Israel expressed its solidarity with its brothers in the occupied territories. There had already been massive mobilizations in solidarity with the population of the Golan Heights, with even the participation of the Druse notables in Israel who are traditionally close to the regime. Then on March 30, between 70 and 80 percent of the Arab population of Israel heeded the call for a general strike. The strike call was made by the Committee for the Defense of the Land and the Committee of Arab Mayors of Israel.
Although less dramatic than the March 30, 1976, Day of the Land demonstration, the strike on March 30, 1982, was the most massive and united mobilization of the Palestinian population in Israel since 1948.
But resistance to the Begin-Sharon policy is not limited to the Palestinian population and moderate Zionists close to Peace Now. The Likud government also faces very broad opposition among the masses of Jewish people over the general framework of its policy - the attempt to provoke a new war in the Middle East.
Menachem Begin wanted a war before the end of the withdrawal from the Sinai. His own ministers leaked this to the press in order to cause difficulties for the government and prevent it from launching a bloody adventure.
But for Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, the match has only been postponed. There have been daily statements along these lines over the past two months.
Moshe Ahrens, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, spoke of "preventive war." Foreign Minister [Yitzhak] Shamir promised to "smash the terrorist organizations and their chiefs in their own bases." Ariel Sharon repeats every other day: "It is possible that we might launch an action."
The chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Rafael Eytan, stated: "Israel will take the initiative and, from Israel's point of view, there is no cease fire." Menachem Begin himself solemnly vowed that if a single Jew was killed, the war would take place.
Any incident, like the attack on the Israeli embassy in Paris or the infiltration of some combatants from Jordan, is seized upon and used to build up military strength on the border and create a war hysteria in Israel. The government is also quick to blow out of proportion any alleged guerrilla infiltrations. The aim of this exaggeration is to lend credence to Eytan's assertion that the cease-fire no longer exists.
No political consensus
For the moment, the Israeli government's hands are tied by several things. First is the U.S. veto against any military adventure, at least until the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Sinai is completed. But it is equally hindered by the absence of a national concensus on the question.
If a war were to break out, for the first time in the history of the Jewish state the Israeli people would not be united behind the government. Yoel Marcus, one of the most influential Israeli columnists, wrote: "The main reason that Israel was not once but twice so publicly at the brink of war stems from the fact that there is no direct or even indirect military threat and no military justification to get into a war. If there were a single reason to launch a war now, they would not be talking about it like this, but they would be discreetly preparing and would act by surprise.
"In the four wars we have fought," Marcus continued, "two were provoked by the Arabs, and two launched by Israel. But in none of the four cases was there any doubt, and certainly not in Israel, that no other choice existed."
And he added: "Now the situation is different. Not only the most moderate doves, but even the military specialists do not see the need for a large-scale military initiative. The heating up of the atmosphere is therefore artificial and its aim is to prepare the ground for an objective that is basically political. • From this flows the skepticism and the fears of a new war throughout the country, including among the ministers" Ha'aretz, April 13, 1982).
In the same article, Yoel Marcus wrote of a group of high officers and ministers around Gen. Ariel Sharon who are pushing for a test of strength. "This group," Marcus notes, "regrets having signed the cease fire [with the PLO]. which shackles the hands of Israel and gives some respectability to the terrorists. It is not coincidental that for the second time since Sharon became minister of defense - less than one year ago - Israel finds itself on the edge of a military move that has no apparent military justification, solely because Mr. Sharon thinks that destroying the PLO, wiping the PLO off the map, would be a miracle cure for the political dangers threatening Israel."
Begin pushes national unity
In this area the Israeli government is in the minority. It is increasingly rare to find people who think that any miracle cures exist, and rarer still to find people who think that a war can resolve anything.
This is shown by the petition circulated among the inhabitants of communities located near the northern border. The petition states that the Palestinians are respecting the ceasefire 100 percent, and that the signers see no reason for Israel to break the calm that reigns in the north.
Those signing the petition are the same people who less than one year ago acclaimed Menachem Begin's boast that he would dislodge the Syrian missiles in Lebanon in a few hours. The sentiment that the inhabitants of communities in northern Israel are expressing in an active and direct way is widely shared by the workers, even if they do not express themselves actively.
That is one of the reasons why Menachem Begin is so much in need of a government of national unity. And it is also why Shimon Peres of the Labor Party refuses to be drawn into one. Menachem Begin wants to create "national unity" from above in order to help crystallize "national unity" among the masses.
Repression and war
Shimon Peres, who is aware of the sentiments of the masses, wants to differentiate himself from Menachem Begin's adventurist policy, even though the actual differences between Labor and the Likud do not go to the roots of the problem but rather are questions of style. Peres does not want to state that he is ready to join the government until a war has already been declared, since then he could say that once the country is in danger there is no longer any place for publicly expressing differences.
The bloody repression in the occupied territories and the preparations for a military adventure against the PLO and Syria are two faces of a single policy. The utopian goal of that policy is to reverse the course of history and return the political situation to what it was in the 1950s and 1960s by destroying the Palestinian national reality, by breaking the political and military strength of the Arab states, and by renewing the faith of the Jewish population of Israel that Zionism will be eternally all-power-
The Zionist establishment and the Israeli bourgeoisie are not mistaken in their evaluation of the gravity of the crisis and in their search for radical solutions. But the Jewish masses of Israel are more clearsighted in their estimate of the real relationship of forces in the region. That is why they refuse to mobilize behind Menachem Begin's war drive and that is also the reason for the fear that the idea of a new war provokes among the majority of Israelis.
The fear of a new war and the refusal to again pay the price for a military adventure that cannot improve the situation of the Israeli masses, either their security or their living conditions, provides the objective basis for the emergence of a vast movement against the war.
As a recent resolution of the central commit-
As a recent resolution of the central commitee of the kevolutionary Communist League (the Israeli section of the Fourth International) explains, "the number one objective of progressive forces today is to do everything they can so that the sentiments of the working masses for peace are transformed into a mass movement against the war and the occupation. The already existing movements (still a minority and isolated from the working masses), which are mobilizing against the occupation and the warlike adventures, must do everything possible to address the broadest layers of the population and offer them a framework for resistance against the policy that, in the final analysis, binds all the Zionist parties against the interest of the workers. The forces of the left, Zionist and anti-Zionist, must do everything to orient the antiwar movement in this direction."
For the first time, Israel is not united against the enemy and goes to war when the bulk of its troops are dragging their feet. This is a radical turning point in the history of Zionism.
April 20. 1982