By Amos Oz, an Israeli novelist and a founder of the Peace Now movement (THE GUARDIAN, 30/03/06):
Israeli voters have delivered a moderate centre-left coalition, headed by Ehud Olmert. This signifies a major change in Israeli society, perhaps even a shift in the Israeli psyche. Last August, when Ariel Sharon evacuated settlers from Gaza, he did so against the majority in his own party and despite violent resistance. The dovish left provided the political leverage for Sharon's historic move.In Tuesday's vote, most Israelis - for the first time since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 - indicated their readiness to give up 90% of the occupied territories, including sections of Jerusalem. Their readiness - not their happiness. What they held for years to be unthinkable, even suicidal, for Israel, they have now sadly endorsed.
The reasons are probably not the left's ethical preachings, but several harsh slaps of reality: violent uprisings in the occupied territories; a sense of international isolation; and the realisation that the demographic balance might change in favour of the Palestinians. There may be an even deeper reason: Israelis have gradually changed their priorities, from territorial appetites to materialistic-hedonistic appetites, from militancy to pragmatism, from selfish nationalism to interdependence.Why, then, did this campaign seem so low-key, even melancholy? And why the poor turnout? Perhaps because none of the parties could offer simple answers to Israel's most pressing problems: the lack of peace and the proliferation of poverty. Until 20 to 30 years ago, Israel was one of the most egalitarian societies in the democratic world; now it has one of the widest gaps between rich and poor. Israelis know it will be closed only by a long and painful process of amendment. The same renunciation of hopes for a swift solution applies to the issues of war and peace; Olmert's party speaks not of peace but of a unilateral disengagement. For those of us who still believe in peace, this is a saddening second best, if not a last resort.
The rise of Hamas, unwilling to recognise Israel's right to exist, brought upon the Israeli peace movement a crisis. We in the peace movement maintained that the end of occupation had to be the beginning of peace, but what the Olmert government seems to hold out is not "land for peace" but "land for time" - as Hamas ambitions clearly go beyond reclaiming Gaza and the West Bank. Hence the sadness among moderate Israelis.
Is there anything the new centre-left Israeli government can do for peace, as long as Hamas does not want any peace with Israel? It can "take the issue upstairs" - talk to the bully's parents, as it were. In our case, the bully's family is the Arab League, which in 2000 adopted a peace plan. This envisages Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 and a solution for the refugees of 1948 in return for a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and all Arab League states. Obviously, the peace camp in Israel does not expect the new government simply to sign up to this. But why wouldn't it open negotiations with an Arab League delegation (in effect Egypt and Saudi Arabia) along the plan's general lines? Let us not forget that almost every Arab government is as concerned by the rise of Hamas - as threatened by it - as Israel.
It is not unthinkable that a deal between the pragmatic Israeli and Arab governments can be reached - and then brought before the Palestinians for a referendum. Considering the fact that no more than 41% of the Palestinian voters actually endorsed Hamas, and that most still tell surveys they are ready for a two-state solution, there is a good chance that an agreement could be adopted by a Palestinian majority.
Instead of Israeli disengagement - bound to leave many issues open and bleeding - we can work with Egypt and Saudi Arabia for a lasting peace.