«Peace is getting further away» is the comment by Father Nandino Capovilla, national coordinator of Pax Christi (the international Catholic peace movement), after the outcome of the elections in Israel. «The fall in support for Netanyahu is the news that has attracted the most attention in the press, but for me the essential thing is the censorship which the parties – all of them – have exercised on the key question, the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The social question, however, has returned to the forefront. The new Knesset (the Israeli parliament) will have to come to terms with the protest tents in Tel Aviv, because the social situation is extremely bad. These tents, however, are not representative of the Israeli left, which on the contrary has been reduced to a tiny minority. But aside from all this, what strikes me most is that people have talked and still talk about elections as if Israel was a normal state when in fact there is a military occupation and apartheid. We hope that now he is in his second mandate Obama will be freer to put pressure on the Israeli government. With Palestine now becoming a member of the UN as an observer state, it is no longer possible not to see that the world is sending signals; and that there is an urgent need to restart the peace process».
We reflect on this with journalist and historian Paola Caridi, international political analyst. In the light of the Israeli elections which have just ended, what does this recognition of Palestine mean?
«It is important from the symbolic point of view, in other respects it changes nothing. Israeli settlements are on the increase; the real revelation of these elections is that not just Netanyahu but also Lapid are saying that Jerusalem is Israeli and that therefore they can build where they want. Besides, the split between the Palestinians remains unresolved, arising as it does from a matter of fact: Gaza is physically separated from the West Bank, and for that reason a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is a long way off. However, this is the first official recognition by the international community of the existence of Palestine as a state, so it serves to raise the question. And also, the threat of charges in the International Criminal Court for any offences committed by Israel during the interminable conflict is a useful way for the Palestinian authority to frighten the Israelis and put pressure on them. The problem is, who has broken the rules? Was it the Palestinians with their terrorist attacks, or was it the Israelis in contravening the Oslo agreements by building the settlements? And should anyone who does not follow the rules be punished? There are already UN reports on the Israeli operation which suggested the possibility of a charge of war crimes. Israel has been condemned for the wall, but nothing has changed, the wall is still there».
In the election campaign there has been no mention of the two-state solution.
«It is no longer a matter of territory so much as of identity. Especially on the youthful fringes, the idea of a state of Palestine with the 1967 borders is out of the question. These days people are talking about transnational identity, because it does not just involve West Bank, but also Gaza, East Jerusalem, the refugee camps, the diaspora, the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship and so on. It is more complicated now. How is it to be handled? Take the idea of a single state. What rights would the Palestinians have? ‘The same rights as any citizen’ is the answer that comes to mind, but if that is what happened, Israel would lose its Jewish identity. So, rights for everyone, but protected differently. This would be possible in an ideal world. What is certain is that Oslo is dead, and the dreaded two-state solution as it had been proposed is now no longer feasible. This leaves the question wide open. The journalists themselves, the intellectuals, politicians and diplomats were stuck for such a long time on discussing whether it was possible to move a wall a few centimetres further forward. Now all that has been overtaken by the situation on the ground. The positive thing is that finally we can begin talking about serious things, in other words the future of the two peoples».
In the election campaign, however, the economic question has been a leading factor. Is anyone having a debate about the exorbitant military cost of security, or is the problem just high rents?
«A few thousand people are protesting about military spending, but they are a tiny minority, I would describe them as the classical pacifist front. The vast majority of the population hopefully notices that even the politicians are gambling a little on security, but this is such a sensitive subject that it’s not talked about. The common opinion is that Israel is surrounded and has to defend itself. These are real fears, but we need to bear in mind also that this is a population that does not know its neighbours. In Jerusalem Israelis and Palestinians are forced to come face to face, but in the case of Tel Aviv, for example, or other cities, the Palestinians are unknown. The result of this is that the problem of an alternative to military spending is not even raised. And this spending forms part of a self-contained sector of the economy. Since the Camp David agreements, both Israel and Egypt live on an enormous subsidy from the United States dedicated to military spending, the cost of which, moreover, is also borne by Italy. That does not mean that there are not people in the tent movement who are against this military expenditure, but this is not a matter of a pacifist left, so strong that it led to the centrist victory, it is a protest movement arising out of deprivation. It has been accused of not being concerned with peace with the Palestinians. I believe that today the serious problem for Israeli society is to reflect about itself, about its identity, about what type of development it wants; once that is decided, Israel will be able to make peace with its neighbours».
To judge from the headlines in some of the newspapers, this is the “most religious Knesset in history”.
And there was I thinking that the ultra-orthodox in Israel were out of favour and that the population was moving more towards secularism.
«This fundamental mistake is quite common. It arises from the image of Israel abroad. In Europe, the glossy magazines – thanks partly to the marketing of the Israeli tourist office – put about the idea of a secular, non-religious society. In the photos the Tel Aviv beaches look the same as the beaches of San Francisco. In reality, what is happening is precisely the opposite. In the ten years in which I have been living in Israel, many secular quarters have gone orthodox. But there is no need to attribute everything to the ultra-orthodox, who are only a part of the religious dimension of society, which is much more fragmented than that. There is, for example, a sector which can be described as neither secular nor orthodox, but very devoted to certain religious rules. The women keep their head covered, and modesty is the central point of their dress. Lapid himself has had to ‘tone down’ his secularism, and chose as number two on his slate Rabbi Shai Piron, who expresses a type of orthodox religiosity. Unfortunately, the press tends to simplify things. We have an image of Israel as a sort of annex of the West, but Israel is Middle Eastern; it refuses to think of itself as part of the East and insists on considering itself European (especially the Russian Jews). But the dynamics are those of the Middle East, with a strong tendency towards strict observance, as occurs in countries with a Muslim majority, and also with the majority of the Palestinians living in Israel».
For what reasons?
«It could be said that the ultra-orthodox have more children, but it is not just a question of demographics. It is the recent immigrants, newly converted, who are most driven towards orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is linked to political radicalisation. They are people from Jewish communities, often American or French; back home they are secular then, after thinking about their faith, they decide to go and live in Israel. A person who chooses the West Bank settlements is often the product of these dynamics: a young person not practising his religion who has rediscovered the faith, undergone a conversion and sets out to colonise what he thinks of as Israeli soil but which is now Palestine. For this reason he is specially angry towards the Palestinians, and expresses this anger in attacks, burning cars, stonings and beatings».
© 2013 – Romina Gobbo
published on La Voce dei Berici – 3 february 2013
Script and Click 
Lascia un commento