Dayan as Tragedy, Bibi as farce
By Gershom Gorenberg
December 3, 2008
Haaretz
When Benjamin Netanyahu speaks about "economic peace," his new, brilliant diplomatic platform, which will postpone any diplomatic moves far into the unforeseeable future, I see his face shrink, his chin sharpen, a patch cover his eye. Moshe Dayan is speaking, just as he spoke in a cabinet meeting 40 years ago, in early December 1968.
The Eshkol government met then to discuss Dayan's proposal for a policy on the occupied territories. Dayan's plan had three pillars: large-scale settlement on the West Bank mountain ridge, permanent Israeli rule of the territories without Israeli citizenship for the Arab residents, and economic integration of the territories with Israel. Arabs would work in Israel, Hebron would get its electricity from the Israeli grid, and Israel would raise the standard of living of the residents of the territories. As a result, Dayan argued, they would become dependent on Israel, maybe even grateful to it.
The official cabinet minutes are still classified, but a partial record from a reliable source exists. Dayan's words reveal his worldview with shocking clarity. "We want to keep this population calm. Let them work, let them study," he said - and then added that when he visited the one-time German colony of Togo in Africa, "I was impressed by the memories they still have of German rule before World War I. [The Germans] left orchards and culture."
Straightforwardly, Dayan sought to establish a colonial regime, supposedly benevolent. Israel would rule; the natives would work, study and be happy with their lot. For Dayan, the independence of his own people was a necessity of life, like food or air. But his proposal treated the Palestinians practically as different species: They would be satisfied with economic improvements and wouldn't seek political expression as individuals or a collective.
In that debate and in others, the cabinet rejected Dayan's proposals. His dedicated opponent, finance minister Pinchas Sapir, warned during a later discussion in the Labor Party that the arrangement proposed by Dayan would put Israel in a class with "countries whose names I don't even want to say in the same breath."
Yet Dayan and others who came after him managed to carry out his intent to a large degree. The Palestinians became laborers in Israel. Their material standard of living rose. Settlements were established on the mountain ridge, breaking the territorial contiguity of the Arab population, as Dayan wanted.
And like the fatal conceit that Egypt would never attack Israel, the conceit that the Palestinians would remain calm eventually collapsed. The difference between the two was that Dayan was no longer among the living when the first intifada erupted, proving that an increase in jobs and a decrease in infant mortality do not erase the affront of living without rights, ruled by another nation.
Though the occupation continued, Israel was forced to recognize the Palestinians as a nation and enter a diplomatic process with them. This isn't the place to analyze the impasse that this process has reached. Each side deserves a piece of the blame. Meanwhile, Israel has dug in deeper in the territories. Settlements have blossomed, and with them bypass roads, the security fence and the roadblocks - out there, in places that long ago became far away from the lives of most Israelis.
Now comes Netanyahu, gleefully proclaiming that there's no chance of a political agreement with the Palestinians any time soon, just as Dayan declared with satisfaction in the fall of 1968 that "no peace with the king of Jordan is in sight." So, Netanyahu says, he'll seek "economic peace." The free market will flourish in the territories and the Palestinians will be able "to put food on their table."
Netanyahu is careful not to say that we will stay forever in the territories. Economic peace, he says, will be "a corridor leading to the possibility of political peace" sometime in the future. That is, when the Palestinians enjoy the fruits of the free market, when they buy more flat-screen TVs and shares on the stock market, they'll moderate their political demands so much that they'll be able to accept what Netanyahu offers.
Netanyahu doesn't say a word about what he'll offer. We may safely assume that while he pursues economic peace, the settlements will expand, houses will replace mobile homes in the outposts, and the probability of withdrawal will approach zero. Netanyahu is really offering the Palestinians a free-market economy within shrinking enclaves dependent on Israel's good will.
Netanyahu's platform is a con game twice over. Palestinians will not abandon their demand for independence because of economic growth. And given the absolute lack of free movement in the territories, even a colonial economy can't grow there. The question is what will happen first: a new violent confrontation, or an international economic boycott of the sort that already defeated one of the countries that Pinchas Sapir didn't want to mention in the same breath as Israel. Still, there's a difference between Dayan and Netanyahu: Dayan didn't learn from the experience of other nations. Netanyahu wants to recycle the failure of his own nation. Perhaps that's the difference between tragedy and farce.
Gershom Gorenberg is the author of "The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977." He blogs at southjerusalem.com.
 |
 |
 |
|
||