Although I had lived in Egypt and traveled widely throughout the Middle East on five previous occasions, in many ways my visit to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza in late April as part of a fact-gathering delegation was my most difficult. The deteriorating situation and the qualitative changes in the occupied territories are related directly to the implementation of the policies of the Begin government, which have served to increase the level of tension and provoke violent confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Within a few weeks after I returned to the United States, Israel launched its full-scale invasion into southern Lebanon. This massive push to Beirut has been devastating in human and economic terms for all people in the region. In addition, many have argued that, contrary to Begin's stated aim of peace, this invasion has undermined significantly the probability of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian people.
It is not surprising, therefore, to find that many people are quite pessimistic regarding the future of this troubled part of the world. On the other hand, there are positive and encouraging signs of hope even now when the prospects for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appear particularly dim. Perhaps the most heartening development is the burgeoning peace movement within Israel. By raising serious moral and political questions in a public forum, this movement is helping create a climate in which change can occur.
The peace movement is growing in a country deeply divided along political, ethnic, and religious lines. Most analysts interpreted Begin's election victory in 1977 as a fluke. In retrospect, we can see how demographics have played an important role in the clear shift to the Right which thrust Begin into office. Unlike those of the first 25 years of the state of Israel, the majority of Israeli Jews today are not of Ashkenazi descent, that is, from the USSR, Europe, and the West. Rather, most Israelis are from the Oriental and Sephardi divisions of the diaspora, from Africa, Middle Eastern countries, and the East.
Two important factors help explain the demographic shift in recent years. First, the birth rates among the Oriental and Sephardi Jews are considerably higher than the Ashkenazi community. Secondly, during much of the 1970s and early '80s, the rate of emigration has exceeded the rate of immigration in Israel. And the overwhelming majority of those leaving Israel are Ashkenazi Jews moving to Europe and the U.S.
Politically, the Oriental and Sephardi Jews have tended to be much more traditional and nationalist than the more secular, liberal, socialist European immigrants. These different perspectives reflect a fundamental disagreement about the very purpose and character of the Jewish state. Begin's Herut party and the Likud coalition draw their strength almost exclusively from this more conservative segment of the society.
In addition, many domestic and foreign policy issues elicit vigorous debates between religious and non-religious Jews. One cannot generalize about the political positions growing out of a religious orientation. Some, like the Gush Emunim ("Block of the Faithful"), have vigorously led the settlement process, claiming that the West Bank is Judea and Samaria—part of the land God promised to Israel. For them, this divine inheritance overrides the fact that some 800,000 Palestinian Muslims and Christians have lived on this land for centuries and themselves express a deep desire for self-determination.
Other religious Jews take the position that it is illegitimate to have any association with the state of Israel on the grounds that the true Israel cannot be re-established until the Messiah comes. Still others, like those in Oz VeShalom ("Religious Zionists for Strength and Peace"), stress that the Jewish state must be faithful to Jewish values and Torah principles--above all, peace and justice. They argue that the national soul of Israel is corrupted when the state attempts to use military force and occupation to provide security.
The violent conflicts in the occupied territories and the war in Lebanon have served to focus and intensify these differences. And the various peace groups have become increasingly vocal both within and outside of Israel.
The largest and best known group is Peace Now. Formed by a handful of reserve army officers in the weeks after President Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem in 1977, Peace Now grew rapidly, especially among young, well-educated Israelis. From the beginning, Peace Now opposed the continuing military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and their 1.3 million Palestinians. It openly opposed Begin's policies, which were interpreted as leading toward de facto annexation. The group's slogan, "We want peace, not a piece of land," fueled a movement which, by September of 1978, was able to attract more than 100,000 people to the largest demonstration in Israeli history.
Peace Now, being a movement and not a political party, virtually disappeared in 1981 as the activists focused their energies on working for various parties in the national election. The movement reappeared this spring, however, in response to the upward spiral of violence and confrontation in the territories. In late March, the revived Peace Now organized a rally to protest publicly Begin's policies in the territories. The gathering in Tel Aviv exceeded all expectations when more than 30,000 Israelis participated in the peace rally.
In the aftermath of both the 1967 and 1973 wars, protests and antiwar activities took place. Never before, however, had Israelis openly protested a war while it was in progress. The confirmation that this movement has a substantial following came on July 3, when an estimated 100,000 people rallied against the Lebanon war in response to a call from Peace Now and other groups.
For many peace activists in Israel, however, Peace Now remains too middle-of-the-road. Its critics note that Peace Now has opposed Begin's policies and called for a negotiated settlement but that the movement has failed to take a clear position both on the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and on the goal of the negotiations (a two-state solution, or a confederation, for example).
Since June, approximately 20 new groups have formed in opposition to the war in Lebanon. The two most notable are the Committee Against the War in Lebanon and Soldiers Against Silence. The latter of these is focusing on the need for freedom of information and the organization of teach-ins on the war and on Israeli actions. The Committee Against the War in Lebanon attracted more than 20,000 to a rally on June 26. This is a striking figure given the radical position of the group:
We oppose the Israeli war in Lebanon because it is an aggressive war aimed at the elimination of the Palestinian problem by military might. This use of sheer brutal force is totally alien to our Zionist and Israeli traditions....At this critical moment in our history, it is crucial for all well-meaning people--within and without Israel--to consolidate their forces and press our Government to withdraw its military presence from Lebanon and begin immediate negotiations with the acknowledged representatives of the Palestinian people.
Support for these new groups comes from soldiers returning from Lebanon, bereaved parents, and a variety of people who have been active in different peace organizations prior to the war. The foci of these peace groups reflect a range of concerns in the area of civil and human rights, particularly as these relate to policies associated with the 15-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza district. The occupation, and now the war in Lebanon, have fragmented Israeli society not only in terms of what is acceptable in moral and religious terms, but also in terms of what will produce long-term security for Israel.
Two important movements have their origins in academic circles. Forum is a well-known group of some 90 professors at Tel Aviv University who meet openly each week to discuss peace issues. Forum members often publish in the Hebrew press, and they are among the most active of the new groups formed in opposition to the war in Lebanon.
The Committee in Solidarity with Beir Zeit University formed in 1980 after the leading university in the West Bank was shut down. In addition to taking part in many demonstrations with Palestinians, this past spring the committee published a lengthy, detailed "Report on the Condition of Universities in the Occupied Territories." The report received widespread attention in the Israeli press. Israelis, who cherish their democratic tradition of free expression, were horrified at the iron-fisted, often arbitrary, policies of the military government.
The Israel Council for Israel/Palestinian Peace has been actively engaged in direct dialogue with PLO officials for the past two years. Most recently, Uri Avnery, the former Israeli parliament member who heads the council, met with Yasser Arafat on July 3, during the seige of west Beirut. This effort to break through the psychological and emotional barriers and talk face to face has received considerable attention in the Israeli and U.S. media.
In addition to these groups, many other small groups, political parties, and publications have been actively involved in peacemaking. The cumulative effect of these efforts remains to be seen.
I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of Israelis genuinely desire peace. At the same time, Israelis all across the political spectrum have an equally heartfelt desire for security. It is at the point of how to achieve security that the fragmentation occurs. The more conservative Begin supporters have tended to see security in terms of land and superior military might. Some, it seems, have become intoxicated by the decisive military successes since 1967.
Those who fall more generally into the "dove" camp are also concerned about security for themselves and their children. Increasingly, however, a growing number of Israelis--educators, lawyers, homemakers, soldiers--are expressing the physical and moral pain they feel as a result of the military occupation and the war in Lebanon. This phenomenon alone may not be enough to sway public opinion away from Begin's policies. But a second factor is the deep concern over the ways in which these policies are eroding the moral fabric and compromising the Jewish values upon which Israel was founded.
The peace movement within Israel correctly recognizes that the future of the Palestinian people is inextricably linked with the future of the state of Israel. The nonviolent resolution of this longstanding conflict can provide peace and security for all people in the region. In addition, it may be the first major step in changing Israel from a militant nation-state armed to the teeth to the democratic socialist nation envisioned by its founders.
Charles Kimball was a Southern Baptist minister and director of interfaith activities for the Fellowship of Reconciliation when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!