Israeli prof offers insight into military and society

By Sarah Morrison

September 26, 2008

Professor Yoram Peri provided a comprehensive picture of Israeli politics, the military, and civil society Sept. 14 at Rutgers University.

Peri is the head of the Rothschild Caesarea School of Communication; the head of the Chaim Herzog Institute for Media, Politics, and Society; and professor of political sociology and communication at Tel-Aviv University. He is the former political adviser to Yitzhak Rabin and former editor-in-chief of the Israeli daily Davar. He is the author of several books, including "The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin" and "The Israeli Military and Israel's Palestinian Policy: From Oslo to the Al Aqsa Intifada".

Peri began his talk with a discussion on the elections within the Kadima party between Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz, which took place Sept. 17.

"It is a very important primary," Peri said, ahead of Livni's 431-vote victory over Mofaz. "The two major frontrunners are male and female, a military general and a woman. Unlike the American case, the issue of breaking the glass ceiling is not the case in Israel. Golda Meir already broke it. This is a very important clash which one should look into."

Peri cited military influence as the major difference between the two candidates. The two candidates, Peri said, stand on different ends of the two major Israeli issues: foreign affairs and security. These two issues have high military influence which factors into their positions.

"Mofaz (former defense minister and current minister of transportation) is a hardliner," Peri said. "Israel should not negotiate with the [Palestinian Authority]. He thinks that the IDF should invade Gaza and take over Gaza once again. This is the only way to solve the problem of Hamas. He thinks Israel and Syria should make peace, but can't give up the Golan. He also believes in getting into Iran."

However, he said, Livni will now take a different approach, if she is able to piece together a ruling coalition and form a stable government.

"Livni is taking the more conciliatory approach," Peri said. "She believes in diplomacy. She is the chief negotiator with Palestinian authorities. She thinks there should be negotiations. She didn't speak about Iran."

Peri let the audience judge for themselves whether the divide on the issues is a "gender issue. Public opinion polls in Israel show that women are less hard-liners, but when it comes to politicians, different rules apply."

From there, Peri went into a discussion about Israel's most unique political characteristic: the close relationship between the military and Knesset.

"Unlike any other democracy, the military is the major pull for public leadership," Peri said. "Out of the 120 members of Knesset in the last 30 years, 10 percent were high-ranking officers. More than 10 percent have been generals."

For a long time, Peri pointed out, it seemed like a politician needed to go through the army before joining politics. In fact, Peri said, the reason that Livni is so popular among Israelis is because she did not go through the army -- a refreshing change to many Israelis who don't want to live in war.

"Plenty of people think enough is enough, that there should be leadership from different avenues," Peri said.

Even though a lot of the leadership is made up of former military members, Peri said, "generals in uniform influence the decisions of the cabinet as well. It's very involved in the daily decision-making process in all fields of [politics]."

One of the biggest areas of military influence is Arab-Israeli relations. Peri focused on the peace process of the 90s and the second Intifada as two separate eras, where the military's involvement was very strong. During the peace process leading up to the Oslo Accords, the military was supportive and intimately involved in the peace process. The military even put forward plans to try to make peace with the Arab countries surrounding Israel. The military theorized that the greatest threat to Israel would come out of Iran and Iraq by the next decade.

However, once the second Intifada began in 2000, the military switched its position a full 180 degrees. "In a war, we should behave like a war," Peri commented on the military's mindset. "The military took a very harsh line on the Palestinians… [they] swung from the biggest people on peace to the biggest people on fighting a war, so much so that there were some points where the military executed policies that weren't acceptable by the government."

In the 10 years of peacemaking and the five years of war, Peri said, the military played a major part of the decision-making process. Although this is not the traditional path to take in democracies, it is crucial for Israel's survival because of its "unique situation."

"Israel is unique," Peri said. "Every decade, it has been involved in war. The people live under these conditions -- military issues are important, the budget for military is high, and the body that deals with questions of life and death, peace and war, is the military."

This, according to Peri, creates a unique democracy, where the military is not a government tool, but rather a paramount decision-maker in Israeli policy. Even though the divide in Kadima between Mofaz and Livni is practically even, "Israelis were tired of war," Peri said.

"Many began to think, ‘let's just make peace.' There were also changes in the Arab world since. There was now peace with Egypt and Jordan and the PA is willing to negotiate. In the 90s, people began to believe that people will move to a new period that strengthened civilian well-thinking and countered hardliners within the military."

Despite the change in ideology that the 1990s brought, the percentage of Israelis who trusted the military was in the 80 percent range, still a remarkably high approval rating.

"More Israelis wanted to live a normal way," Peri said.

Then the Intifada came. Israel found itself in yet another war, with many bitter Israelis blaming Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, for destroying any advancement in the peace process.

"He destroyed the hopes of many Israelis," Peri said.

"[Former Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon formed two schools of thought in 1967," Peri explained. "One was land for peace, and the other was peace for peace. When Sharon took over, he said that we will crush the Intifada and then negotiate. After two years, he realized that he can't negotiate. Sharon came up with a third way. Israel has no one to talk to, and the PA isn't trying for peace. However, the continuation of the occupation (of the Gaza Strip) is not positive from a security point of view. The defense of Israel doesn't depend on the thousands of Israelis soldiers in Gaza. He should withdraw knowing that he won't bring peace, but it'll enhance our security."

The result of Sharon's new school of thought was the controversial pullout from Gaza in August of 2005. Many politicians moved to this school of thought, knowing that giving back these territories will bring no peace. Israelis began to realize, however, that even after withdrawing from southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, "we were still being attacked," Peri said. "The third way proved to be wrong! So people moved again back to the original two schools of thought. More people than ever are willing to give back for peace, but more and more people say ‘not in our generation!' because there's nobody to talk with."

Peri concluded his speech with Mofaz and Livni's opinions, both perfect examples of the different schools of thought.

"Peace doesn't seem so close on the horizon; therefore, my generation thinks that we're not going to live to see peace," Peri said. "My generation is very depressed. The younger generation becomes apolitical. They look for other fields of activity and don't get political. [With this factor], Livni has a strong point. If Israel continues like this for another 20 years, both Palestinians and Israelis will be fed up with each other and will deal with the two-state solution. In the future, we need to live together in one state and hopefully we (Israelis) will remain the majority. The need to try any option possible to continue the peace process is vital. That is what Livni says."

However, Peri believes that is the American elections that will have the most importance to place international pressure between the two groups.

"What will determine at the end of the day, it is not the elections in Israel, but the elections here, because Washington will be the most important," Peri said.