South Africa's Jews Uncertain Future:
With Mandela gone, crime, not politics, is causing many to consider leaving
By Leonard Fein
Maybe it's the heat. Just about everyone seems to be meandering off the deep end these days.
1. Of course, it's a familiar story with the PLO, which Abba Eban once described as a group that never misses a chance to lose an opportunity. Ehud Barak's proposal to postpone the implementation of Wye - specifically, of the third withdrawal called for by the agreement - was entirely reasonable, and the PLO could doubtless in return have received diverse significant concessions from the Israelis. Barak's immediate concern in raising the idea is the 15 or so settlements that will become isolated enclaves after the withdrawal, hence easy targets for anyone who seeks to subvert the final status negotiations through provoking violence. His longer-term concern, equally well-founded, is that it is a little crazy to proceed with such substantial withdrawal before deciding where the permanent boundaries are to be drawn. Since those boundaries will be set during the final status negotiations, and since Barak quite plainly means to move quickly to and through those negotiations, Arafat et al. could have and should have accepted the Barak proposal.
One understands their hesitation, given the Netanyahu experience. Nor can they be certain that the final status negotiations will issue in an acceptable agreement. So they may well be thinking that the withdrawal will at least be a bird in the hand. But this bird looks very much like an ostrich - flightless, its head in the sand - while, pushing the metaphor, off in the bush there wait both an eagle and a dove. Breaking out of the sterility of the past will not be easy - and cannot be accomplished unilaterally. Those of us who have pointed out that the Palestine Authority was not alone in violating the terms of the Oslo agreements, that Israel, too, was negligent (a softer word than is warranted) in its compliance, ought not pretend that the PA alone has cause for suspicion and concern.
2. Oh, Jerusalem. Oh, mantras. The current mantra, obviously, is that Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel. (Even assent to that formulation is inadequate for some people, who contend that it does not specify under whose sovereignty it is to be Israel's undivided capital. Under whose sovereignty? Israel's undivided capital under Icelandic sovereignty? Get serious.) From that premise, they leap to the conclusion that the American embassy should immediately be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The key word in the preceding sentence is, of course, "immediately." There is no reason to believe that Prime Minister Barak and his colleagues seek such a disruptive move, and every reason to believe they do not. Indeed, the issue is an issue principally on the agenda of some elements in the American Jewish community, including several that would be pleased were the peace process thereby derailed, others who simple don't know better, and not a few who panderingly figure that you can't go wrong taking the most militantly pro-Israel views. But it is not pro-Israel to call for actions that will unnecessarily complicate an already complicated process. The Jewish people managed for several millennia without an American embassy in Jerusalem, and the State of Israel was managed without such an embassy for 51 years. One or two more will not be an undue burden.
And then there's the mantra itself, which borders on the meaningless. Jerusalem is, after all, already divided, geographically and demographically. The precise nature of the political resolution the parties will come to remains to be determined. But it is unfortunate that the negotiators will be constrained by a formula that is as emotionally enticing as it is intellectually vapid.
3. Finally, we come to the late King Hassan II of Morocco. The much-mourned monarch was, indeed, distinguished by his efforts on behalf of peace between Israel and its neighbors. In that important respect, he was a visionary. (Nor does it detract to note that he benefited very substantially from his moderation towards Israel, which in return provided him with critical intelligence services.) But surely any assessment of a ruler's reign cannot rest entirely on a matter so peripheral to his own people's interests. And with regard to those interests, the record is hardly reassuring. Hassan was, bluntly, a despot. His manner of dealing with the opposition, with the economy, with human rights - the best that can be said of these is that he was not as bad as Sadam Hussein, perhaps not as bad as Syria's Assad.
I know, I know: We are not to speak ill of the dead. But there's a disconcerting lack of seriousness in a post-mortem assessment that is so radically incomplete as Hassan's death has provoked. It is as if Israel and one's relationship to it is all that matters - very roughly the equivalent of remembering Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu exclusively for his friendly relations with Israel. The ancient maps of the Middle East placed Jerusalem at the center of the world, but our cartographic skills have improved rather substantially since the Middle Ages.
Well, the summer heat will soon enough be over. Perhaps cooler days will enable somewhat cooler appraisals.
|
|