Jewish
Frontier

If several years ago anyone would have predicted that a visit by a Polish Pope to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem would be one of the few moments of sanity enjoyed by the Jewish state at the outset of the third millennium, he would certainly have been committed. But that is exactly how thousands (perhaps millions) of Israelis felt watching the ceremony on their TV sets on Thursday, March 23, 2000.

The ceremony was serene, honorable and respectable. There were no embarrassing moments, such as that during the Mass held in Bethlehem, when the Pope had to stop speaking as the Muezzin called the Muslims to prayer. Though Pope John Paul II did not ask for the Catholic Church's forgiveness from the Jewish people, his words were generally well received. They were serene words of conciliation and of sanity.

Though the Pope is old and frail, he still cuts an impressive figure, and when one recalls the dissonances which have emerged in recent months from the mouths of some of Israel's own elders, such as President Ezer Weizman and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, one cannot but envy the Catholics for having John Paul II as a spiritual and, in some respects, a political leader.

Whether or not the visit will constitute a turning point in Jewish-Catholic relations is yet to be seen, and perhaps less important than the fact that it constituted a pause, a moment to collect one's thoughts and reflect. For a brief moment we were torn away from news about yet another police investigation of some public figure; the President of the State who in the past received large sums of money as a gift or as a commission, and failed to report the fact to the tax authorities; a Minister suspected of sexual harassment; a former Prime Minister suspected of taking a bribe and wrongfully keeping in his possession hundreds of gifts presented to him as a representative of the State; the publisher of a major newspaper suspected of trying to meddle with a police investigation in the most blatant manner (and possible of even ordering a murder), and several high ranking police officers suspected of cooperating with him. And we are waiting to hear whether investigations will be opened against our Prime Minister in connection with the financing of his election campaign; against a former Chief Rabbi who uttered words during a sermon against an acting Minister, that wouldn't shame a washerwoman in the market place; against 100 personalities — including several former Ministers and present-day MKs — who according to reports ordered phone-taps against their rivals... And will Arie Deri win his appeal, or will he serve his four year sentence? And will several Jewish murderers of Arabs be pardoned after serving ridiculously short "life" sentences? In addition, we still have not overcome the shock of one of our favorite singers — in many respects an ambassadress of Israeli ethnic singing — dying prematurely of AIDS, and all the question marks left around this sad event.

In the course of the moment of sanity that Pope John Paul II gave us, and observing his person, I reflected on the fact that the personality of leaders is as important as, if not more important than their actions (more on that below), and wondered whether what is happening in Israel in terms of criminal investigations against public figures reflects a general collapse of norms and morality.

On the latter question my answer to myself was negative. Sexual harassment has always been part of Israel's macho society. A well known woman author, who in the 1950s served as an officer in the IDF, once told me that one of her jobs during her military service was to care for the girls who had been sexually abused (actually, she used the words 'were raped') by one of Israel's great war heroes. The only difference is that back in the 1950s no one even thought that sexual harassment, or even rape by a person who is not a total stranger, is something to report about, let alone something that should lead to a criminal investigation.

Scandals related to bribery and misuse of power and authority are also nothing new in Israel. All one need do to prove this is to peruse through old issues of Ha'olam Hazeh, the yellow weekly published by former MK and peacenik Uri Avneri, or find some archival material about an esoteric group called "Shurat Hamitnadvim," established in 1951 to fight against social wrongs and political corruption in Israel. One of the central activists of the latter group was a lawyer by the name of Eliakim Ha'etzni. The difference between now and then is that back in the 1950s and 1960s Israel was still more Bolshevik than puritan, and Avneri was regarded as little more than a curiosity (even though in 1965 he managed to get a seat in the Knesset as a representative of the first ever protest party in Israel), while Ha'etzni and his friends are best remembered for their claim that Dr. Israel Kasztner (a Mapainik) had betrayed the Jews of Hungary during the Holocaust. (Kasztner was assassinated by an extreme Right-Winger in 1957, while Ha'etzni was elected to the Knesset in 1984 on behalf of the extreme Right Wing "Hatehiya" party).

So the difference between then and today is not that the Israeli society has become less normative and less moral, but that today the culprits — no matter how high and mighty — are brought to justice. If there is any hope for higher normative and moral standards it is certainly in a system where wrongdoing is brought out to the open rather than swept under the carpet.

But to return to the question of the personality and actions of leaders. Throughout the visit of the Pope at Yad Vashem, Prime Minister Ehud Barak behaved towards him as a caring son, helping him up to his feet when he had to get up from his seat, handing him his cane and helping him rekindle the eternal fire at the Ohel Yizkor (the hall of remembrance). Opposite the Pope's soft frailty and bent back, Barak looked upright, to the point of stiffness, strong and hard. The contrast also manifested itself in the Pope's white garment and hair and Barak's dark suit and hair. Yet, each in his own way seemed to be bearing the weight of the world on his back. In the case of Pope John Paul II the burden is spiritual — in the case of Barak it is political.

These days Barak carries a heavy political burden. When he formed his government back in June 1999, he seemed to have a solid majority behind him for any move he might seek to make, and his determination to achieve a rapid breakthrough in the peace process — especially with Syria — was both impressive and promising. Today, a year after Barak became Prime Minister, the picture looks less clear, and though it is difficult to observe any weakening in his confidence and determination in his facial expressions, he must be troubled inside.

The difficulties are especially great on the Syrian front, and as a result of these difficulties Barak has had to confront some pretty Kafkaesque problems on the internal front. One may describe the problem briefly as follows: Even though the parameters of the agreement with Syria are absolutely clear — the permanent border between Israel and Syria running somewhere between the International border and the June 4, 1967 border (the latter had Syria actually sitting along the North-Eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee), that part of the Golan Heights currently under Israeli control to be demilitarized, Israeli early warning systems on the Hermon, full diplomatic relations, open borders and normalization in the relations between the two states — President Asad kept stalling.

Asad's stalling has had several consequences. The first is that in the absence of an agreement with Syria, the IDF withdrew unilaterally from Southern Lebanon in June 2000, in keeping with Barak's promise. However, though the withdrawal from Lebanon enjoys a very broad consensus in Israel, everyone knows that a unilateral withdrawal without any sort of agreement with Syria or with Lebanon (and an agreement with Lebanon is impossible without an agreement with Syria!) is far more dangerous than a withdrawal within the framework of an agreement.

The second is that the long delay in any progress being made in the negotiations with Syria, has given the opposition to a withdrawal from the Golan Heights in Israel, the opportunity to campaign for their position, while those who agree to an Israeli withdrawal in return for a good agreement with Syria cannot campaign, because there is still no agreement with Syria. This has resulted in a gradual erosion in Israeli public opinion, and according to the most recent opinion polls, a majority of the public objects to an Israeli withdrawal from the whole of the Golan, under any circumstances.

But that is not the only headache Barak has with regards to the agreement with Syria. In order to get the agreement approved by the Knesset, where he requires the votes of 61 of the 120 MKs, he needs the 17 Shas MKs, or at least most of them, to vote in favor. Shas's record of voting for peace agreements is pretty ambivalent, and in the past its MKs avoided voting in favor, preferring to simply stay away. That was good enough before a law was passed last year requiring an absolute majority in the Knesset for any agreement involving the relinquishment of territory under Israeli sovereignty. Now it is not. Though Shas has not directly conditioned its voting in favor of an agreement with Syria on any payoffs, its voting pattern in recent months indicates that Barak cannot depend on it to support his government unless payoffs are made.

Currently the payoffs Shas seems to be demanding involve making its Deputy Minister of Education responsible for the whole haredi system of education in the Ministry, and the reopening of the coalition agreement regarding its own education system — El-Hama'ayan — which is still on the verge of bankruptcy. Minister of Education, Yossi Sarid from Meretz, prefers his party to leave the Government altogether (though not the Coalition itself, in the first instance), than continue to act (in his own words) as "paymaster general" to Shas. Since Meretz, with its 10 MKs will support any peace agreement, whether or not it is in the Government, Barak seems inclined to make the required payoff to Shas, at the expense of Meretz, and pray that in return Shas will vote in favor of the agreement with Syria — if and when it is signed.

However, that is not the end of it. Within the framework of the constant clashes between Shas and Meretz, the spiritual leader of Shas, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, made an extremely harsh statement against Yossi Sarid, which many interpret as incitement to violence, and even murder. In the near future the State Attorney will have to decide whether to open an investigation against the Rabbi, which could lead to criminal charges being brought against him. Should the State Attorney decide to open an investigation, Shas might well decide to leave the Government, and there is even the danger of violence breaking out. Add to this the fact that the Supreme Court is soon to announce its decision regarding Arie Deri's appeal against his four year prison sentence, and the situation looks pretty grim.

What is the way out of this mess? Some say it is early elections. But no one wants elections at the moment — not least of all the Likud, that has a serious leadership problem. In the Likud the situation is further complicated by the fact that its current Chairman, Ariel Sharon, just lost his wife, and no one will dare challenge his leadership under the circumstances, and the fact that amongst the 100 personalities on the list of those who ordered phone taps, there is at least one Likud leader. Binyamin Netanyahu, who some say is planning to run for the premiership in the next election, either at the head of the Likud or as an independent candidate, is also not interested in early elections, before it is decided whether he is to stand trial following his protracted investigation.

Ehud Barak is certainly not interested in elections at the moment, since he hasn't yet managed to deliver on any of his pre-elections promises (neither on the political level nor on the economic level). In addition, Labor's very serious financial difficulties, and constant clashes between Ehud Barak and the Party's Secretary General MK Ra'anan Cohen regarding the party's future, make early elections an extremely unattractive prospect.

All this makes Barak's apparent calm and composure all the more admirable, but he is certainly not to be envied — at least not at the moment. Perhaps in several months time the situation will change for the better. But if things get worse — the person to watch in the Labor Party is Haim Ramon. For the time being Ramon, who serves as Minister in the Prime Minister's Office (the Pope's successful visit in Israel was, to a certain extent, of his doing), is serving Barak faithfully and loyally — a fact that has earned him quite a bit of scorn amongst commentators and satirists. But Ramon, who didn't contest the Labor Party leadership back in 1997, is an ambitious man, and one to be reckoned with.

For the time being the only senior Laborites to openly express opposition to Barak are MK Ra'anan Cohen and MK Uzi Baram, who is still feeling vindictive because he was not given a portfolio in Barak's government. Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg, who was also not given a ministerial post by Barak, is currently keeping his own criticism of the Prime Minister under wraps — at least in public. However, the general feeling in Labor circles is that Barak hasn't yet spent all his credit, and the general hope is that in the final resort, the credit will be well deserved.