Yamin Israel is often asked why it does not form an
alliance with nationalist elements of the Likud.
After all, doesn’t the Likud represent “the trunk of
the nation.” as one prominent Likud member has
emphasized?” Hasn’t Yamin Israel always sought to
form a united front of nationalist groups? Aren’t
Likud hawks like Moshe Arens tried-and-true
nationalists?
These questions reminded me of an article I wrote in
1989, “Cops and Coddlers.” It was during the first
Intifada, when Yitzhak Shamir headed a national
unity government. A slightly shortened version of
the article follows:
On 6 February 1989, Prime Minister Shamir declared,
“The time has come for the world to finally
understand that Eretz Yisrael can only belong to the
State of Israel. Anything else is inconceivable.”
Four days later, Shamir’s statement was contradicted
by his Foreign Minister, Moshe Arens: “Just what
part of the territories Israel would retreat from
... and just where the secure boundaries for Israel
are, that’s a subject for interpretation; it bears
directly on the permanent settlement.”
The question arises: Is Shamir being undermined by
his lieutenants, or is this a game of “hard cop/soft
cop” vis-à-vis Washington and the Palestinian
Arabs? Consider the following reports:
18 January 1989.
Briefing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee, Mr. Arens said: “Israel ought not cleave
to all its former positions on the Middle East
dispute” (Jerusalem
Post).
19 January 1989. “[The radical leftwing] Mapam
Party’s central committee yesterday praised Moshe
Arens for his moderate statements, terming them ‘the
beginning of recognition of the national aspirations
of the Palestinians.’ Mapam’s Yair Tsaban told
The
Jerusalem Post,
‘today, when I look for a ray of hope I find it with
Shamir and Arens.’”
20 January 1989 “When the Foreign Minister, Moshe
Arens, came out against cleaving to ‘all our past
positions’, and spoke approvingly of respect for
‘Palestinian aspirations’, it was assumed that he
was speaking for the premier, too” (Editorial,
Jerusalem Post).
3 February 1989. “Pressed to say whether he had any
doubt about who should be the sovereign in the area,
Arens said: ‘I think this is the end of our press
conference.’ ... ‘Would you go beyond Camp David?’ a
reporter asked. ‘That’s enough’ the foreign
minister said” (The
Nation). [To his credit, Mr. Arens had
voted against the 1978 Camp David Agreement.]
10 February 1989. Interviewed by
The
Jerusalem Post,
Foreign Minister Arens said: “Any country might
contribute to the peace process, if it has goodwill,
if it’s truly interested in the stability of the
area and if, in addition to that, it has something
to contribute... I think the Soviet Union falls into
that category.”
3 March 89. “Likud MK Ehud Olmert, the cabinet
minister responsible for Arab affairs, told the
Knesset that there had been 150 terrorist and
hostile acts committed in Israel during the previous
three months that could be attributed to Israeli
Arabs” (Jerusalem
Post). [If Israeli Arabs engage in
terrorism, why should Arens encourage the myth of
peace with Palestinian Arabs?]
13 March 89. Foreign Minister Arens stated recently
that “we must accommodate the Palestinian’s
legitimate (national)
rights,” otherwise “Zionism’s insistence on a Jewish
state in Eretz Yisrael is immoral” (The
Nation, emphasis added)
30 May 1989. “Calling on the U.S. not to give the
Arabs false hopes, Foreign Minister Moshe Arens
yesterday assured the Knesset that there would be no
return to the 1967 borders, no Palestinian state, no
transfer of Jews and no crimping of the rights of
Jews to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel and
live there within safe borders” (Jerusalem
Post).
Obviously, these press reports cannot but confuse
public opinion in Israel and erode public support
for Jewish retention of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
If Shamir’s Foreign Minister, a reputed hawk, can
equivocate about the ultimate status of Judea,
Samaria, and Gaza, what can be expected of Defense
Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who unequivocally advocates
“territory for peace”? [On Rabin, consider the
following reports]:
30 January 1989. “Rabin’s decision to release
prominent Palestinian leader Faisal Husseini could
play an important role in furthering [Labor’s own
peace] initiative. It is felt that [Husseini’s]
intimate ties with the PLO and his key role in the
intifada—the reasons why he has been kept in
administrative detention—make him a valuable
potential partner” (Jerusalem
Post). [Juxtapose what he said of the
Soviet Union.]
31 January 1989. “The Defense Ministry ... freed
Faisal Husseini, whom Rabin had branded one of the
most dangerous PLO operatives in the West Bank” (The
Nation).
Compare Rabin’s sensitivity to the Arab cause with
his callousness toward the Jewish cause. Thus, on 2
February 1989, Rabin declared. “Anyone not prepared
to endure stone throwing should not live in the
territories” (The
Nation).
Finally, consider this remarkable report of 15 June
1989 [which, presumably, was cleared with Foreign
Minister Moshe Arens]. Yossi Ben-Aharon,
Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office,
said that “[the government] is not afraid of
Palestinian self-determination ... and that the [Shamir]
peace initiative can provide them with ‘nine out of
ten parts’ of self-determination” (Jerusalem
Post).
But having given the Palestinian Arabs “nine out of
ten parts” of self-determination, is it not obvious
that the cops and coddlers now ruling Israel will
then be in no position to press for Jewish
sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza? This
being so, Mr. Shamir’s statement, that “The time has
come for the world to finally understand that Eretz
Yisrael can only belong to the State of Israel” is a
piece of braggadocio.
The above 1989 article conveys why
Yamin Israel
is not enthusiastic about nationalists like Mr.
Arens. By the way, interviewed by The
Jewish Journal
on 21 April 2006, Mr. Arens opposed the idea of
making members of the Knesset individually
accountable to the people in constituency
elections. Israel’s system of government, he said,
has “functioned very well.” Indeed, it has, having
rendered the people of this nation powerless. So
much for Likud nationalists and the so-called “
trunk of the nation.”
Time to put these trunkated“nationalists” to the
test of
institutional nationalism.
heir
rights and jeopardizing the security of the entire State of Israel
for all time. 
ner
of Israel.