Analysis: Land of Prophets' hazy future

TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 31 (UPI) -- This summer's withdrawal and the subsequent shake up in the country's political parties are the two most important events that occurred in Israel in 2005 and whose effects will be seen in the coming years.

The withdrawal, or disengagement, that was completed in September saw Israel evacuate thousands of Gaza Strip settlers, destroy their homes and leave the area completely, ending a 38-year occupation. In the northern West Bank, Israel evacuated four settlements that were somewhat out of the way but the precedent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has set is extremely important.

For decades Israelis considered settlements to be key elements in determining their borders. There, where they have effective control, is where Israel will rule.

When they established the settlements in the Gaza Strip's sand dunes they thought of creating a Jewish buffer between Egypt and the rest of the Arab world on the one hand and the Gazans on the other. Thus there would be no continuous Arab entity right up the Mediterranean coast, to 35 miles south of Tel Aviv.

In previous years, a court ordered the government to evacuate a West Bank settlement and in 1982 Israel evacuated towns and villages in the Sinai prior to its return to Egypt.

This time the government initiated the withdrawal and from areas in historical Palestine. Two of the evacuated West Bank settlements were a few minutes drive from the ruins of the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel.

The settlers, who fought the move, were defeated. They dreamt of mobilizing masses throughout the country to block roads, but did not get even close to doing that.

"Seventy percent of the Israelis want to end the conflict and they don't care how," Tel Aviv University Political Science Professor Gideon Doron told United Press International.

The precedent of a withdrawal and of a move to share this land with a Palestinian state has thus been established.

The second major development is the political shake up, a realignment of the big political parties.

Israel's political system was divided along 19th century ideologies, said Doron. There was the Labor Party founded on socialist ideologies and the Likud that followed liberal ideas of the late 19th century.

That line-up did not answer the problems that concern Israelis now, mainly the issues of security and territories.

Terror is not a matter of socialism or liberalism and since parties were divided, internally, over these issues the proposed solutions cut across party lines, noted Doron.

The disengagement prompted the shake up. Part of Sharon's former Likud Party supported him but the other was dead against him. He could not govern properly and his last attempt to address a riotous Likud Central Committee meeting in Tel Aviv ended in a fiasco when someone tampered with his microphone. Sharon tapped it, repeatedly, to see if any sound got through. It was silent. Finally he walked out, for good.

His new party, Kadima (forward), attracted Likud doves as well as several Labor Party members. Its platform shows considerable similarity to the dovish ideas Labor had presented in the previous elections.

Most Israelis are in the political center but have lacked a resilient centrist party. The center parties they had were often one-time shots. Kadima entered that niche. Labor has turned more socialist under Amir Peretz who is focusing on social-economic issues and the Likud, headed by Binyamin Netanyahu, is hawkish.

On the Palestinian side, President Mahmoud Abbas is completing his first year in office, apparently with not much to boast about. The economy is poor, people complain of corruption, poverty is rampant and there is not much law and order. The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group noted Friday the number of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians has risen from 44 in 2004 to 98 this year.

Now Abbas wants Palestinians to reelect his secular, nationalist Fatah Party in the Jan. 25 elections to the Legislative Council and beat the Islamic Hamas.

Kadima is likely to win the Israeli Knesset elections. It has a fairly steady support enough for about 38 seats in the 120-member Knesset. Labor has been steadily losing support and is down to 21 seats followed by the Likud that has gained slightly but according to Friday's poll in Yediot Aharonot would have 14 mandates if elections were held now. Two dovish parties will probably get about five mandates each. If that is the picture also on March 28, when the Knesset elections are held, Sharon should have no difficulties forming a dovish government.

But what can he do with it? If Fatah wins the Palestinian elections, emerge as the dominant power, have more legitimacy to enforce law and order, Sharon could have a partner for peace.

And if not? If Hamas becomes a dominant power?

At the moment, both Hamas and Israel are making tough statements.

Addressing a colloquium in Gaza this week, a Hamas leader Mahmoud Az Zahar insisted Palestine extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. All security coordination with Israel would end if his party succeeds in the elections. Economic coordination with Israel is also a dangerous step, the Maan news agency quoted him as saying.

In Israel, the spokesman for the Coordinator of Activities in the (Palestinian) territories, Shlomo Dror said: "We're not going to talk to Hamas and they won't talk to us. There are very clear instructions not to talk to them and we're not." Hamas has won local elections in several cities and in Nablus is staffing offices with people "whom we'd happily put in jail," Dror added. Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki predicted that if Hamas wins the elections it would veto agreements with Israel.

However other observers suggested that once in power Hamas might become more moderate and that some elements there might be ready to come to terms with Israel.

Some Israelis are clearly thinking of a dialogue with it. The former head of the Shabak security agency, Avi Dichter, who this week joined Kadima and might be Israel's next defense or public security minister told the Maariv newspaper he did not oppose talks with Hamas, providing it abrogates its charter that calls for Israel's destruction.

The situation could however turn ugly if the elections are postponed, cancelled, or if gunmen disrupt it as they have disrupted Fatah primaries. That could lead to wide-scale clashes that would not only hurt Palestinians but also Israel as some militants might try to provoke it.

Sharon might eventually think of another unilateral withdrawal, or disengagement, this time in the West Bank. At the moment, he rejects the idea but the security barrier Israel is building in and around the West Bank might appeal to him as an interim border until a credible agreement can be reached.