Israeli-Palestinian Dialogue: Pitfalls and Promises—the Jewish Side from the Gulf Crisis to the 1992 Elections

Israeli-Palestinian Dialogue ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN DIALOGUE: PITFALLS AND PROMISES-THE JEWISH SIDE FROM THE GULF CRISIS TO THE 1992 ELECTIONS1 by Peter Demant Peter Demant, a historian at the Harry S Truman Research Institute for the Advancement ofPeace (Hebrew University of]erusalem), is currently completing a research project on Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and unofficial contacts. Previously he wrote a dissertation on Israeli settlement policies in the occupied territories, 1967-1977. Dr. Demant is also director of the "Pathways into Reconciliation" project at the IsraeliPalestine Center for Reearch and Information in Jerusalem. Introduction 1 Israelis and Palestinians have gotten to know each other mainly in conflictual ways. Yet, throughout the, bitter history of their protracted struggle over the same territory, some individuals and groups have always tried to reach out to the other side. Of such "contacts with the enemy" there have been many, and they run the whole gamut from one-time exploratory talks to complete long-term cooperative ventures. For the purpose of this paper we will consider as "dialogues" any meetings broadly falling between these two parameters. Dialogues can be classified lpaper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Israel Studies, Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 1992. The research project under the auspices of The Harry S Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University ofJerusalem, has been supported by a grant from the Center for Absorption in Science, Immigrant Absorption Ministry, State of Israel. 2 SHOFAR Winter 1994 Vol. 12, No.2 along a number of lines: according to participants, geographical scope, political color, etc. Many, however, do not have (at least explicitly) a political dimension. A useful subdivision may be one according to scope or aim of the talks. As such one may recognize three types of meetings: Type 1, aimed at creating better understanding between the participants themselves-often in the hope that improved community relations may radiate to society at large. In this category are many "grassroots" meetings between Israeli Jews and Arabs, often restricted to a local public. Not a few register a dislike for "big politics," e.g., the experiment in commonJewish-Arab living at Neve Shalom;\Vahat aI-Salam. Occupied territories Palestinians' "house meetings" (buggei bayit) may be said to fall into this category. Type 2, aimed at influencing public opinion. The point of departure of such dialogues is invariably the centrality of the Palestinian question in' the Israeli-Arab conflict. These groups are explicitly political in nature. They believe that peace should come about through direct negotiations between the Israeli government and the PiO. Many extraparliamentary groups without direct access to decision-makers have intended to bring about broad recognition of Palestinian right of self-determination and a shift in Israel's rejection of the PLO by changing negative public attitudes vis-a-vis the Palestinians-generally by a combination of direct public political activity (demonstrations, polemics), political education, and working within established political parties. In a number of cases, direct contacts and coordination with Palestinian counterparts has been integral to their work. Dai la-Kibbusb ("Away with the Occupation"), Peace Now, the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East (ICPME), women's network Resbet, etc. belong to this group. Type 3. Finally, a number of politicians and public personalities have been trying to prepare for or stimulate official Israeli-PiO political negotiations by laying the necessary grourdwork of contacts, explaining one side to the other, acting as go-betweens,consuIting between the two sides, etc. These activities may be subsumed under the generic concept of prenegotiation. By their very nature, such activities lend themselves less to institutionalization and are often done sub rosa. Unofficial intermediaries such as former MK Uri Avnery, Yossi Beilin from iabour (currently Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs), former Likkud politician Moshe Amirav, the Israeli Arab physician Ahmad Tibi (recently appointed Arafat's special Israeli-Palestinian Dialogue 3 adviser), among others, have contributed to the ultimate realization of official Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Madrid 1991. Obviously the border between these groups is rather vague and plastic, and shifts have occurred. By the later 1980s, Israeli-Palestinian dialogues had moved from semi-clandestine one-time adventures to a permanent framework of communication. The...