Israel's reaction to the overwhelming evidence of Arab intent to use the peace process as a means to destroy the truncated state is outright denial or sluggish indifference. Barak briefly emerged from his comatose state when Mubarak went to Lebanon to express solidarity with Hizbollah, but swiftly lapsed back. Israeli mass media, dedicated almost as one man to the peace process, fail to report what the Arab world says or when they feel they cannot ignore some manifestation, feel free to censor it. For example, al-Shara's speech was reprinted almost in its entirety in Ha'aretz -- but it left out the crucial line quoted above. The line actually drew a reaction from Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy who declared in a February 23 speech to the Knesset: "I was extremely saddened to read the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq Al-Shara regarding the principle of stages...I simply could not believe it. I maintain that peace is reached via recognition that it serves both sides. It is not something that you do as a tactic. To make an end to war and continue in another struggle...what lunatic would go for such a process?" Given that Israel is going

Barak briefly emerged from his comatose state when Mubarak went to Lebanon to express solidarity with Hizbollah, but swiftly lapsed back.

Today's Jews relive the illusions of the 1930s without the excuses of the 1930s. Then it was difficult to imagine Germany, which German Jews continued to think of as the land of Goethe and Schiller, actually carrying out a world-wide systematic campaign of murdering Jews, despite Hitler's ferocious anti-Semitism. After all, only two decades earlier Germany had been a champion of Jews, its intervention responsible for halting Turkish persecution of Jews in Palestine during World War I. Indeed, German troops were viewed by Jews as liberators when they defeated the Imperial Russian Army in Poland, the Ukraine, and throughout the entire Eastern Front.

But Jews can have no such difficulty imagining how the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hafez Assad, and Yassir Arafat will behave toward them should they gain the upper hand. Their record in dealing with fellow-Arabs who interfere with their plans is only too well-documented.

In the 1930s, Jews had only one viable option: flight. Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky criss-crossed the most vulnerable sections of eastern Europe, begging Jews to leave while there was still time, but pitifully few seized that opportunity while it existed. By the late 1930s, when vast numbers were desperate to flee, the British slammed shut the gates of Palestine and other nations were scarcely better disposed to accept Jews. Today, Israel still has a strong army, the best equipped and trained in the region. That gives it the option to deter aggression and to fight should deterrence fail.

Yet ever since the Oslo agreement was signed, Israel acts as if it were defenseless, with no option but to submit to whatever demands the Arabs put on the table, no option but to ignore the violations of whatever agreements its so-called peace partners sign, however egregious those violations may be. For example, on February 29, Israel's Foreign Minister David Levy met with Peter Mandelson, England's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Levy embarked on a long list of Arafat's failures to comply with his agreements with Israel: he cited incitement in the schools, burning of Israeli flags and pictures of Barak in government -sponsored demonstrations, and negotiating ploys designed to damage Israel. His conclusion? Despite the "difficulties," Israel will continue with the peace process and is determined to do so "since we believe there is no alternative." Yet Mandelson's very presence was a reminder that alternatives exist. The peace process in northern Ireland had recently broken down because the IRA refused to turn in its arms, as agreed, and the Protestant side had insisted on compliance.

Why does Israel see "no alternative"? Why is there no alternative to giving up the strategically vital Golan Heights, when Levy himself admits the policy is "lunacy?" Why must Israel continue to turn over territory to Arafat, when the transformation in attitudes and behavior that were assumed to follow Oslo never happened? Many reasons have been offered. Foreign pressure is too great. The public is tired of war. The dangers to a tiny state in an age of missiles are overwhelming. Israel's political system encourages irresponsible leadership. In their war-weariness, the Jews have fallen back on the age-old diaspora pattern of self-blame and accomodation.

But perhaps most fundamental is the loss of attachment to Jewish religion and history. The generation of the founders, most of whom rejected Jewish ritual practice, had nonetheless been steeped in it as children and felt strongly tied to Jewish history and fate, which they were determined to "normalize" by creating a national homeland in the ancient land of the Jews. But ironically, normalization has brought detachment from Judaism and Jews. The average Israeli is not sure why he lives where he does, and indeed polls have shown a great many would be happy to relocate elsewhere. A major fault line in the much-discussed religious-secular hostilities in Israel involves the attitude toward defending the state. To be sure, attitudes toward the state vary within the religious sector, but it is no accident that the national religious have become the outstanding element in elite combat units of the armed forces, replacing kib-

Outpost               - 4 -               March 2000