| | Being Well-Prepared for the Worst-which Might Come:
Reflections on Resilience from the Herzliya Conference A Weekly Briefing on Israeli and Middle Eastern Affairs
January 23, 2006 Dr. Eran Lerman
Director Israel/Middle East Office The Herzliya Conference on the "Balance of Israel's National Strength and Security"-the full official name of this annual conference, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, among others-has by now become a household word in Israel. It became widely known in December 2001 because of the concluding speech delivered by the prime minister-and on later occasions, when Ariel Sharon announced major aspects of his strategic plans. (This year, it will be Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who will use this opportunity to outline, on Tuesday, the main outlines of the Kadima Party's electoral platform and action plan for 2006.) Other key politicians from the major political parties have used it to announce where they stand on the relevant national security issues; and on a broad range of interconnected questions, from global demographic and economic dynamics to the role of education in fostering national cohesion, the Herzliya Conference has become a unique forum for a core group of thoughtful men and women to look afresh at the world and Israel's place in it. As this year's conference began to unfold, two very different but complementary messages came to the fore early on: There was good news and bad news. The good news was that Israeli society had proven it can take it. The bad news was there may be a lot more to take. The minister of defense, Lt.-General Shaul Mofaz; the national security adviser, Major General Giora Eiland; and the new chief of staff of the IDF, Lt.-General Danny Halutz, each from different perspectives, warned against complacency. True, the wave of unrestrained terror that some had feared after the Disengagement did not come to pass, despite the occasional attacks by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the steady drip of rockets from Gaza (which so far have caused almost no damage and only a few minor injuries). But three interlocking developments now threaten to bring about an escalation, perhaps even a quick descent toward a general conflagration: 1. The Palestinian elections, which probably should have been postponed until President Mahmoud Abbas had a chance to put his own house in order; but various considerations, among them perhaps, the urgent U.S. need for public events indicating democratization, drove the decision to hold them as planned on January 25. The elections now seem likely to empower Hamas, perhaps even put them in charge of the next government-forcing Abbas, in all likelihood, to resign from his post. Should that happen, breakdown in the peace process is all but inevitable, unless the terrorist organization suddenly sheds all that we know about it and, as the cynical Israeli expression goes, "joins the Zionist movement." A much more likely outcome-perhaps only after the Israeli elections, but more likely, in time to influence their results-would be the return of Hamas terror networks to the field after months of tahdi'ah (calm). Given the free rein they have been given in the Gaza Strip, they would have the means to pursue a prolonged campaign. 2. The growing tension over the future of the Syrian regime, which has made every mistake in the book-and then some-and may soon face serious official UN charges of complicity in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri. Like a peevish child, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad countered by accusing Israel of murdering Yasir Arafat and calling for a "counter" investigation of his own. It is not such outbursts that worry Israel; rather, it is the prospect that he may seek to turn the Hariri issue into an extension of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 3. All this, against the background of the visit to Damascus of Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-a summit, so to speak, of the "Axis of Evil" in action. (Ahmadinejad used the opportunity to meet with the leaders of Hamas and PIJ, Khaled Mash'al and Ramadan Shallah, and urged them to keep up the campaign of "resistance," i.e., the murder of Jews.) The two presidents are indeed driven by a similar urge: namely, to turn, in the minds of their own people and of the world, the Syrian and the Iranian questions-both of which have to do with blatant, grave breaches of international law and treaty obligations-into one more struggle over the "Israeli" question, and more specifically, the question of Israel's right to exist. We need not oblige them; their problem is with the international community, and not only with Israel. But we can expect them to redouble their efforts to focus on us. Back to the good news. Two academic teams, from Haifa University and the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, which presented at the conference a detailed statistical analysis of Israel's sources of strength and national resilience, were almost unanimous: Israeli society, under the pressure of the last violent period, has shown remarkable durability. It has not bent or broken. On the other hand, it is not showing, as yet, signs of what is known as "post-traumatic growth." The key statistics on dimensions such as cohesion, patriotism, and, most importantly, optimism about the future are quite steady over time. Social tensions over distributive justice may be rising; trust in the political system, as such, is steadily falling; and the studies had not yet registered the outburst of warmth toward the ailing Sharon, or an appreciation of the smooth transition of power to Olmert. Meanwhile, the economy is doing well by any standard, ranging from a growth rate of nearly 5 percent last year to a declining level of unemployment. The loyalty of Israelis is largely secure, and in a very encouraging and convincing set of data, there is strong evidence that Israeli Arabs are showing ever-growing identification with the State of Israel, even while their political representatives drift in the opposite direction. Among the Jewish majority, the poor are showing signs of frustration, but overall, as we heard from General Halutz, young people continue to volunteer in great numbers for dangerous IDF assignments. Addressing the range of challenges, including the lengthening shadow of the Iranian nuclear effort, he used an ancient Hebrew expression: lo alman yisrael , the people of Israel is not bereft (literally, a widower). The short-term ride with the Palestinians may well be rough, made even rougher by the unpredictable dynamics of their elections and ours, but we can stay the course. | |
No comments:
Post a Comment