Living with the Conflict

"The Conflict" is a good provider. It gives sustenance to a multitude of think-tanks, university faculties and research institutes. Many, analysts, commentators and journalists depend on it for their livelihood. So why bother to end it?

Cynicism aside, it seems we are getting nowhere. All the routes and road maps are leading us to a virtual cul de sac . It's no wonder some observers say the time has come to consider a different approach

Author, journalist and TV compere Yair Lapid believes the Conflict is here to stay. Well maybe this revelation is not groundbreaking news. He is not the first person to advocate that we learn to live with it.

When he was interviewed recently on a Channel 2 TV programme, National Security Adviser Uzi Arad said that an interim agreement with the Palestinians cannot be ruled out.

"It is unclear whether we have a partner for a permanent agreement," said Arad,

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon claims it is time for Israel to write off attempts to reach a final-status peace agreement with the Palestinians and instead seek a long-term interim agreement. Ayalon's comments echoed statements made by Israel Beiteinu leader, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman during a speech to the UN General Assembly at the end of September.

New York Times' Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner observed that the United States is far more interested in getting peace talks under way than the two sides involved in the conflict:

"In many ways, the United States feels a greater urgency and drive for the peace talks than do the Palestinians and Israelis themselves. Here, neither side believes the other is serious about real compromise and each actively cultivates a sense of historic victimisation. Washington, by contrast, deeply believes that ending this conflict is the key to unlocking its own regional strategic dilemmas."

The construction freeze, originally proposed by President Obama has only served to complicate matters and delay the negotiations. Last year Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas negotiated without a construction freeze. Some say they were only a hair's breadth away from achieving an agreement. Nevertheless, a miss is as good as a mile.

Now the US is proposing a new deal. The Economist explains it using its inimitable economy of words, “Israel will agree to a 90-day re-freeze in return for a generous package of military and diplomatic goodies from America. These include an additional 20 F-35 stealth fighters, worth $3 billion, to be added at America's expense to the original 20 ordered by Israel. America has pledged, too, to stiffen its backing for Israel at the United Nations and to work for tougher international economic sanctions against Iran.

What happens on the 91st day? The Americans are committed not to seek another extension. They say that they hope that by then the two parties will have agreed on the borders of the future Palestinian state, so that further argument over the settlements will be unnecessary. “

In another lead article The Economist describes what it believes the nature of the prime minister’s ideological dilemma - “When Mr Netanyahu tries to make his coalition partners agree to a freeze by using imprecise wording, he wants to defer the day when this fundamental ideological conflict in his cabinet is laid bare, between pragmatists who are reconciled to an independent Palestine and the ideologues who still want a Greater Israel. He also means to defer the day when he must himself decide which camp he belongs to.”

So far Netanyahu hasn’t managed to gain the support of his unruly coalition government for proposed package deal.

Lapid ignores the American proposal and explains where we went wrong in our dealings with the Palestinians. Instead he examines Israel's left and right wing parties' mistaken assumptions. Taking the Left to task for its naïveté he claims the Palestinians show little enthusiasm for the peace process. First and foremost they want to achieve their national and religious aspirations. They are less concerned about building a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In fact they would prefer to build it on the ruins of the Jewish state.

"The unpleasant truth is that they don’t want us here; they wouldn't want us here even if they stood to gain from our presence."

In his criticism of the Israeli right wing parties Lapid says, "The Right is wrong because in the 21st Century national struggles cannot end in victory or defeat, for the simple reason that they cannot end at all. The old, conservative and absolute world where the winner takes all has gone.

Today every minor flare-up is recorded electronically and relayed live-time to millions of viewers all over the world.

The Right’s mistake is especially grave because it refuses to understand that we live in an era where the weak party has no less power than the stronger adversary. The media and global terrorism – two forces that feed each other – changed the rules of the game. The harder we hit the Palestinians, the stronger they become and the support for them grows."

The commonly expressed opinion held by some of our right-wing politicians that Israel can ignore Washington, the notion that we can go it alone, annoys Lapid. "The idea that if need be we can manage without US patronage is no more than empty arrogance. Six months without the Americans will turn the Middle East’s strongest army into a warehouse of rusty spare parts.

None of these facts is especially pleasant, and its only natural that we prefer to turn a blind eye to unpleasant facts, and especially ones that contradict our worldview. The Left’s tendency to disregard the true nature of the Palestinian struggle and its real motives is reckless. Likewise, the Right's irresponsible tendency to disregard the fact that perpetuating the existing situation would lead to the demise of the Jewish state."

Well, says Lapid it's time to face reality.

"Both sides, each for its own reasons, insist on ignoring the fact that the conflict is here to stay. It has no absolute solution – neither through peace nor through war. The Palestinians are not about to disappear, as the Right hopes, and they won't turn into easy-to-live-with Scandinavians, as the Left hopes. The only thing we can do – and must do – is to find a way to manage the conflict as best we can."

Therefore, says Lapid it's time to separate the question of establishing a Palestinian state from the question of peace.

He says Israel must work towards the establishment of a Palestinian state not because it would bring peace, but rather, because it would be much easier to manage the conflict vis-à-vis such state.

The establishment of a Palestinian state would take the world off our backs, curb the process of turning us into a pariah state, enable us to maintain our security with fewer restraints, lift the burden of controlling three million Palestinians, and enable us to manage the negotiations on our final-status borders and the settlements’ future with the Palestinians, rather than negotiating with ourselves.

In Lapid's scenario the problem of the settlers in the West Bank/Judea & Samaria is resolved as follows:

"Instead of being the disruptive element, the settlers will turn into what they really are: Israeli citizens whom someone wants to expel from their homes."

Furthermore, he says we should call the Palestinians’ bluff:

"Twice in the past the Palestinians threatened to declare a state unilaterally, and twice we responded as if we were bitten by a snake. Instead, had Israel said 'please inform us of the ceremony’s date and we’ll be the first state in the world to send an ambassador to Ramallah,' what would have happened?

In practical terms, very little would have happened. As it is, the Palestinian Authority has a flag, weapons for security purposes and the right to manage its affairs across Areas A and B of the West Bank. If they wish to call this area 'Palestine' they can do so.

In diplomatic terms, the Palestinians would shift at once from being the world’s victimised child to being a state – another state – that has a border conflict with one of its neighbours. Similar conflicts exist in many countries, and they are all equally boring. With their very declaration of statehood they would lose their main weapon – the fact that they are being perceived as the victim.”

Lapid admits that the disadvantage of his proposal is that it would deprive us of a genuine peace, “but we don’t have genuine peace now either. It’s also true that terrorism won’t disappear, yet terror won’t disappear whether we secure an agreement or not. There will always be enough madmen here who will want to ignite the region, yet if a Palestinian state is established, it would have to take responsibility for its own madmen at least. Should it fail to restrain them, no Goldstone would be able to complain should the IDF respond in full force.”

Since Yair Lapid published his article in Yediot Ahronot last week the news media and the public have either ignored it or dismissed it as a test balloon flown in advance of launching a campaign to enter politics.

Have a good weekend

Beni 25^th of November, 2010.

Mending Wall

With the passage of time I become more and more a creature of habit.

For example, every day I invariably stop at exactly the same place on my way to work to view the valley and the mountain. The valley of course is the Jezreel Valley and the mountain none other than Mount Gilboa.

Later on in the day I open the shutters of our living room in order to see the valley and the mountain again.

The Security Fence

We all have our personal landscape or landscapes. Some are faded childhood visions while others like my valley and mountain scene tend to become interwoven in the fabric of our lives.

I think the mountain is the more dominant of the two. It looms above and closes the valley to the south. Legends and history cohabit the mountain in a strange symbiosis.

The casual visitor, unfamiliar with the past may dismiss this unremarkable highpoint as just another hill. Not quite what Emily Dickinson meant when she wrote:

The Mountains—grow unnoticed—
Their Purple figures rise
Without attempt—Exhaustion—
Assistance—or Applause—

We on the other hand know different.

The poet Avraham Shlonsky immortalised the Gilboa in a poem born of personal experience during the settlement of the valley. He invests its peaks with memory:

They remember the whiteness of our tents

That spread across the valley like doves

They remember the altars of our nights

Consumed by the flames of our songs.

The late Shlomo Rosenberg I mentioned a few weeks ago kept small stock of nostalgia. And although he lagged behind the ever changing kibbutz he never longed for the “good old days.” He described the valley and the mountain in sombre shades. In his panorama the bare slopes of the mountain formed a melancholic backdrop to the already uninviting landscape. It was the veritable visitation of David’s curse – “Ye mountains of Gilboa, Let there be no dew nor rain upon you, neither fields of offerings.” 2 Samuel. 1:21

Not all the pioneers who pitched their tents by Gideon's Spring had the mental and physical stamina needed to continue. Some found the challenge too much to bear.

Another poet, Moshe Tabenkin wrote pointedly of their despair:

Dreams like people

Will die one day,

Prematurely.

With no sin or for no reason.

Dreams too are murdered

With the sword of disappointment,

In the fury of betrayal,

By the blade of criminal forgetfulness.

And dreams too will die by their

Own hands.

Rosenberg lived to see the valley and the mountain transformed. The swamp was drained and replaced by a patchwork of orchards, cultivated fields, citrus groves and fishponds. Trees were planted on the slopes of the Gilboa lifting the curse.

In “Innocents Abroad” Mark Twain describes a scene similar to Rosenberg’s landscape of the early twenties before the transformation.

“Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be
the prince…..Every outline is harsh, every feature is distinct, there is no perspective--distance works no enchantment here. It is a hopeless, dreary, heart-broken land.”

In the fifty years that elapsed between Mark Twain’s visit and the pitching of the first tents by Gideon’s spring nothing changed. In the decade that followed the swamp was drained, land reclaimed and new communities dotted the landscape.

Last week I participated in a tour along a section of our security fence. Starting by the banks of the River Jordan near the place where Christian pilgrims come to be baptised. The site is conveniently arranged, far more convenient than the place further south generally thought to have been used by John the Baptist . We continued to Naharayim near Ashdot Yaakov where our guide David Shatner, a person well versed in security, water resources and borders provided a lot of relevant background material. Shatner has participated in the Israeli teams negotiating with both the Jordanians and Palestinians.

In this arid region some observers have predicted wars will be fought over the control of water sources. In fact The United Nations Human Development Report, classified the Middle East as the world's most water-stressed region.

David Shatner cited one case where a dispute over water rights was resolved amicably. The Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty of 1994 is an example of successful negotiations based on flexibility, readiness to give and take and the need to purposely leave matters not yet ripe for discussion, vaguely phrased. Admittedly the issues at stake were less complicated than the issues facing Israel and the Palestinians today, nevertheless flexibility on both sides facilitated relatively smooth negotiations.

Fearing a negative response from the public the first use of recycled water from effluent sources wasn’t widely publicised

By the end of the twentieth century nearly half our irrigation water came from recycled waste sources.

At that time Israel was still the only country to recycle waste water extensively. Global warming means our neighbours will increasingly need to do the same.

The need to innovate and develop efficient purification technologies has lead to new marketable products in this field. Today Israel’s exports of water-saving technologies total $1.5 billion a year.

Later the same morning we arrived at a viewpoint near Kibbutz Meirav close to the “green line”, the security fence and a short distance from Jelabun a Palestinian village in the West Bank/Samaria. I will mention Jelabun again when I write about Hannukah . Further to the west we could see Faqua another West Bank village. We in the Jezreel Valley have a long reckoning with both these villages.

“Good fences make good neighbours,” wrote Robert Frost.

I don’t know how good our neighbours in Jelabun and Faqua are today. In the past they spawned a few nasty terrorists.

Although 98% of the security fence is fence and not wall, the anti-wall activists refer only to the wall. In his poem “Mending Wall” Frost begins:

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” His neighbour mending the wall quotes his father’s adage about good fences. Frost considers the pros and cons of distancing himself from his neighbour as follows:

“Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall.”

Not all of the fence was erected precisely along the “green line.” Some of its inroads defy reason and are difficult to explain especially because they always diverge inside the West Bank/Samaria. Admittedly, not much but often causing great inconvenience.

Whether we love it or not the wall/fence is remarkably effective.

I recall taking an English friend to see the fence from the same viewpoint near Kibbutz Meirav. He seemed a little disappointed. “It’s no more than a cattle fence,” he said “how on earth can that keep anything out?”

While he was talking we noticed a few shepherds from Jelabun grazing their flock near the fence. Apparently they were too close for the comfort of the people at the observation post situated several kilometres away. Within minutes an IDF patrol vehicle arrived and ordered them back across an invisible line demarcating the safety limit. My guest changed his mind.

The fence is not impenetrable; however its highly effective surveillance system also serves to deter would be infiltrators.

For the most I view Mount Gilboa from across the valley at Ein Harod and when I drive along the scenic route that traverses the mountain I stop mainly to look at the valley. Only on rare occasions do I face the other way in the direction of Jelabun and Faqua.

Further west we stopped near a village called Barta. Barta is an anomaly.

Due to a mapping error that occurred a little after the 1949 mixed armistice agreement Barta was inadvertently divided by the “green line.” Only an agreement with the Palestinians can extricate Barta from its state of limbo.

The village is a gap in the fence and will remain that way till an agreement is reached. Robert Frost’s wall mending neighbour could help us here..

We completed the tour near Katzir overlooking Um el Fahm an urban sprawl that began as a hamlet of charcoal burners in the thirteenth century and is now a city.

The tour like many Israeli tours didn’t follow a pattern of a passive receptive audience and a knowledgeable guide imparting information.

A tour along the security fence was bound to be controversial especially at places where we faced Arab populations.

Shatner had no intention of avoiding the Wadi Ara dilemma. Wisely he confronted it head on presenting it in historical perspective. The Leiberman proposal to move the green line north of Wadi Ara was aired along with previous proposals to divest ourselves of some of our Arab minorities.

So far they are no more than theoretical chessboard exercises.

This week a survey of countries facing terrorist threats ranked Israel in 14^th place. I don’t know if this is good or bad. One thing is certain, the security fence makes living here safer.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 18^th of November, 2010.

Bo

There's a little black dog that chases my shadow on the path as I walk to work. Unable to identify his owner I call him Bo, in deference to the "First Dog." He also reminded me of another dog and a piece I wrote last July entitled "The dog could die."

I wrote about the predicament of the legendry Polish rabbi who had a year to teach the nobleman's dog to speak. If the rabbi failed the nobleman promised to kill him and evict his community.

The rabbi’s reasoned response when his congregants admonished him for promising to teach the dog to speak was , "Look he gave me a whole year, a lot can happen in a year. The dog could die, the nobleman could die, I could die... and who knows maybe the dog will learn to speak."

The Hebrew equivalent of “The dog could die” is an expression often used in contemporary speech to describe a delaying tactic. Bo

Prime Minister Netanyahu denies using delaying tactics and blames the Palestinians instead

Bo's résumé describes him as a neutered male Portuguese Water Dog.

I was tempted to make an analogy between Bo's doctored state and his master's sorry situation after the mid-term elections.

The Economist begs the question, "Can Israel now say boo to America?" hinting that the President manacled by a Republican majority in Congress will find it harder to apply pressure on Israel. "Barack Obama’s mid-term setback at home does not mean he will give up his search for peace in the holy land. But it won’t make it any easier. " Argues the paper's correspondent in Israel and reports that, "There is a widespread feeling in Jerusalem that Barack Obama lacks the gut sympathy for Israel that his immediate predecessors possessed. The American president, some Israeli hawks may be thinking, will now have to get off Israel’s pecked back. As for the Palestinians and their Arab friends, they almost universally fear that Israel has seen off Mr Obama and that he may be tempted to deflect his attention elsewhere, especially at home. In other words, the prospects for a peace deal, already dim, seem to have faded even further."

Dov Weisglass a former aid to Arik Sharon quoted Thomas Friedman's unusually harsh critique of the Israeli government over its policy on the Palestinian issue. The column Weisglass referred to appeared in the New York Times early last month. Among other things, he likened Israel to a “spoiled child.” One NYT reader commented that Israel is not only acting like a spoiled child, but one who ran away from home yet keeps using the family’s credit card.

Later on, Friedman was interviewed on Israel’s Channel 2. "Meet the Press" programme Weisglass describes how listening and watching him provoked truly deep concern. In the interview, he explained that the Israeli government’s conduct on the Palestinian front increasingly erodes Israel’s status in the US: Support for Israel is declining among US government circles, the general public, and the Jewish community, especially among young people.

Friedman says, "Americans don’t understand what Israel wants or where it’s heading, and are questioning its desire for peace.

Weisglass himself is familiar with both the U.S political scene and the administration. He is well acquainted with a number of American journalists and accredits Thomas Friedman with similar attributes regarding Israel,

"He is completely aware of the complexity and difficulties inherent in securing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. However, he is pleading with Israel to at least try. He feels deep concern for the resilience of Israel-US relations;; he keeps warning about the deterioration of the critical ties between Israel and its one and only friend in the world. "

Some cabinet ministers and their spokespersons were quick to cast aspersions on Friedman, hinting that he is a self-hating Jew and the NYT has known left-wing sympathies.

Weisglass rushed to his defence, "Friedman's words are doubly difficult because they were uttered by a lover; a person who does not hide his deep, unalterable sympathy for the State of Israel."

"Listen to Friedman," implores Weisglass, " Be warned: Friedman should be taken seriously; very seriously. Not only because he is an important and influential man, but mostly because of his connections, knowledge, understanding, and vast experience. He maintains direct ties with decision-makers, shows rare familiarity with developments in Israel, in the region, and in

the US. "

A New York Times editorial echoed Friedman's annoyance with Netanyahu's back –pedalling on the peace process. Using his coalition partners reluctance to compromise is no excuse for inaction. "Enough game-playing. Mr. Netanyahu should accept Mr. Obama’s offer and be ready to form a new governing coalition if some current members bolt. Arab states need to do more to nudge Mr. Abbas back to the table and give him the political support he will need to stay there. "

Just the same The Economist is optimistic, "The stalemate can still be broken, even if the chance of an early and durable deal remains remote. The main reason for this guarded optimism is that many seasoned watchers in Jerusalem expect Mr Netanyahu to resume the freeze on settlement building, excluding, as before, the area on the rim of East Jerusalem, which Palestinians foresee as their future capital. It could last at least another few months."

Affirmative action on the peace process involving comprises could precipitate a government crisis. Referring to initiative on Netanyahu's part The Economist says, " it might enrage some bits of his ruling coalition; were Mr. Netanyahu later to make concessions over borders or the sharing of Jerusalem, his government might collapse… Mr Obama’s people have long hoped that a centrist Israeli party, Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni, would join a reshaped and more peace-minded coalition less vulnerable to the demands of the right. "

Well that's easier said than done. Ditching his right-wing partners in favour of a coalition government comprised of Kadima, Labour and Likud would undermine his claim to lead the new government.

From his point of view the present no-win, no-lose situation is infinitely preferable.

Oded Eran, Director of the Israel Institute for National Security Studies wrote in a recent issue of INSS Insight "Yes, the Congress Can, but Not Everything." Not quite a lame duck argues Eran, after all, “Not every foreign policy initiative is subject to legislation. Nonetheless, Congress has ways of expressing its opinion in decisions not requiring legislation, reflecting the 'sense of Congress.' Moreover, even with a majority in both houses, every president must engage with Congress. A Congress that is militant and confrontational is liable to paralyze the president, even one who seeks dialogue and agreement."

Israelis have no time for verbal gymnastics. They prefer clear-cut yes or no answers. Eran doesn't help them much when he continues in a similar vein –

"Should the President want to signal to Israel that he is irritated by its conduct in the negotiations with the Palestinians, he will be able to do so, as did President Ford and President George H. Bush. In 1975, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was obstinate in the negotiations on interim arrangements following the Yom Kippur War, President Ford stopped the transfer of weapons to Israel as part of what he called a “reassessment.” In 1991-92, President Bush blocked American loan guarantees to Israel because of differences with the Shamir-led government over the settlements. Congress was unable to intervene in either situation. The administration could, should it so desire, avoid a public declaration about not providing Israel with weapons and simply drag its feet, using pretexts of a technical or administrative nature – though the political message behind them would be amply clear to everyone."

Oded Eran maps out an interesting progression- "If the proposal by Republican Representative Eric Cantor to separate general legislation on American foreign aid from the aid to Israel (a move that carries some negative aspects from Israel’s perspective) is passed, it is liable to work against the administration. Foreign aid legislation is not popular in the United States or in Congress, and the fact that Israel appears at the top of the list of countries receiving aid helps the administration gain approval for assistance to other nations and organizations. The separation proposed by Cantor would complicate the administration's foreign aid policy.

In order to advance certain issues, President Obama will have to try to reach understandings with the Republicans in both houses. Therefore, one may assume that he will try to avoid confrontations on issues that are not at the heart of his agenda. Even if peace in the Middle East is a top priority for the administration, it is doubtful that President Obama wishes to invite a head-on confrontation with Israel that would strain his relations with Congress, especially since support for him is already at an all time low."

He concludes, "The Israeli government would be wise to avoid a situation in which it posits itself as a player in the confrontation between the President and Congress and involved in US domestic ideological disputes. An attempt to arrive at understandings with the administration was and remains preferable to conflict, despite the knowledge that in Congress there is a great deal of support – perhaps even decisive – to block initiatives that are liable to damage Israel or run counter to its political and security agendas."

Dan Ephron presented another aspect of the same topic in an article he wrote for Newsweek. He quoted Jonathan Rynhold, an expert on Israel-U.S. relations at the BESA Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. - “Yes, a Republican Congress will raise the domestic political cost of confronting Israel, but there are plenty of ways to pressure Israel without Congress.

In fact, in some ways Obama might now be more inclined to confront Israel. The Republican House majority could well narrow his scope for major domestic achievements, making him hungrier for foreign-policy successes. There’s no bigger one than advancing peace in the Middle East."

Confused? Don't worry so am I.

Let's just accept Eran's bottom line: "U.S. policy won’t change much as far as Israel is concerned. Netanyahu might be toasting the results of the election now. But when the dust clears, he can expect renewed pressure to resume the settlement freeze in the West Bank and get serious in talks with the Palestinians."

I didn’t see Bo on the path to work this morning. Maybe he went to bury a bone.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 11^th of November, 2010.

The Ploughman

My morning routine begins just before dawn with a constitutional walk that takes me as far as the perimeter of the neighbouring Kibbutz. Usually I take the path that leads up the hill past the exercising yard by the stable and continue along the road that skirts the dairy and ends by the kibbutz industrial park ( just two factories) before crossing the road. Across the road is the field, that same field I have written about before.

I mention the path because it too is part of this week's narrative.

For many years Shlomo Rosenberg, one of our "old-timers," handled odd maintenance jobs and the upkeep of paths around the kibbutz. The paths, mainly much-travelled pedestrian tracks are short-cuts between a number of points inside the kibbutz. Once they were unpaved tracks covered with crushed stone, slaked and packed to form a hard surface.

Rosenberg, as he was known to everyone, replete with pick shovel and wheelbarrow was usually found somewhere along one of the paths repairing eroded edges and filling in potholes. Sometime after his ninetieth birthday, age got the better of him. He moved to our senior citizens centre where he died a few years later. Now Rozenberg's paths are paved with concrete and few remember the dusty crushed stone tracks that preceded them

He was a living legend, someone from another era who never managed to keep apace with the ever changing kibbutz community. Content to live a simple austere life, he seemed awkwardly out of place and time as Ein Harod progressed and became more affluent.

As I walked past the field this morning the furrows I saw in the early morning light, turned by a massive John Deere moldboard plough, brought to mind another field ploughed almost a hundred years ago.

I've mentioned the "long field," before, just the same if you remember it don't page down, bear with me and read it again.

In October or November 1911 a number of plough teams were ploughing a field. The field was the longest field in the country; it stretched for one kilometre close to the south bank of the river Jordan. It was part of an experimental land allotment allocated to thirteen people who had formed a collective settlement called Degania. The horse drawn ploughs were turning perfectly straight furrows in the soil. Work had started shortly after dawn and continued with a short break for a simple lunch till dusk. One of the ploughmen was a newcomer to Degania. In those days there were no reception committees and people wandered in and out almost at will. They stayed as long as they worked or were asked to leave.

Earlier the same year the Degania settlers had harvested their first crop of wheat. The yield was good and it left them with a small profit. Had the crop failed the group would have disbanded and the collective settlement later called the kibbutz may have never come into being.

Late in the afternoon the newcomer reined in his horse, pulled out a leather tobacco pouch, took a pinch of tobacco and rolled a cigarette. He lit the cigarette and smoked it, then returned to his work. Unknown to him he had broken a cardinal rule, a basic tenet of the group’s work ethic and the unscheduled break had been seen by everyone in the field.

At the end of the day when everyone had gathered in the dining room for the evening meal the group was silent. There was no mention of the cigarette but the offender could sense the unspoken censure. The next morning before dawn, while the members of the group were still sleeping, the newcomer gathered his belongings and left.

The story of the long field was told to me by one of the ploughmen – the late Shlomo Rosenberg. Rosenberg left Degania and joined Ein Harod shortly after it was founded in 1921.

The nameless ploughman, Rosenberg and everyone else in the field including the horses have gone the way of all flesh. The ploughshares are museum pieces scattered around the country. Only the field remains the same, tilled year in year out since time immemorial.

The Degania group was formed to solve the problem of a deadlock crisis and for the past hundred years there has always been a crisis of one kind or another in the kibbutz movement. Many times the Kibbutz appeared to be on the brink of total collapse. Despite all the crises this collective settlement form has survived.

It is remarkably resilient and so far has defied all the predictions of its demise. Does it possess the moral fibre to ride out the crisis that is plaguing it now?

Let's "rewind" to 1911 and the anonymous ploughman who unwittingly broke a cardinal rule. The rigid work ethic that damned him as a slacker has long been jettisoned along with other outmoded "principles." Admittedly the stigma attached to anyone who didn't pull his weight, to every under-performer, served to deter potential shirkers. I mention this topic because it is a pivotal point in the ongoing debate concerning the kibbutz community's social fabric.

In an article that appeared earlier this year in the Jewish daily Forward the author provided a sobering survey of the hundred year old experiment that hadn't yet failed. Referring to the fanfares and fireworks of the centennial celebrations he said, "The celebrations are tinged with melancholy, though. The institution of the kibbutz has survived its first century, but the hope of pioneering a new and better model of human society has not. Over the past quarter-century, most of Israel’s 270 kibbutzim have abandoned the founders’ socialist credo, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” and replaced it with the new “privatized” kibbutz. Today’s kibbutz boasts differential salaries, shuttered dining halls, individual home ownership, private bank accounts and investment portfolios and, of course, richer and poorer kibbutzniks. Only about 80 kibbutzim, less than one-third, still preserve the old egalitarianism."

The crisis that caused the present division in the kibbutz communities can be traced to the attempts made by the kibbutz federations and their affiliated member kibbutz communities to resolve their financial debts.

Although an understanding of the root causes of the debt crisis is important . and relevant to any analysis of the kibbutz today, I want to avoid dealing with it mainly because it’s a side issue, a time consuming digression .

Initially many of the kibbutzim heavily in debt embarked on extensive privatisation including a differential salaries payment system.

In an effort to cut costs they privatised almost everything that was formerly supplied by the kibbutz without payment.

The privatisation of water, electricity, food and a number of services has been accepted almost universally in most kibbutz communities. Kibbutz members receive allowances for all the items privatised so paying for them hasn’t impoverished the kibbutz member. He/she is thriftier. Indeed the axiom “waste not want not “ is applicable to this situation.

The real bone of contention is the differential wage system.

The people in favour of a differential wage system claim that members who work harder fill more responsible positions and generally contribute more to the community deserve more than a token recognition. The wage disparity in many kibbutz communities that have adopted a differential wage system now places them on a par with the general society. They have created a nouveau-riche economical elitist class within a close-knit social entity – the kibbutz. Provision for pensions in cases where the kibbutz neglected to pay into pension funds is now paid for mainly by the people who earn more. They pay proportionately more to support the kibbutz social and cultural infrastructure. Therefore it’s not surprising to find growing discontent, a reluctance among the better salaried members to support the senior citizen sector, members with special requirements as well as services and facilities they consider to be superfluous, simply a waste of money.

A random glance at neighbouring communities in the Jezreel Valley reveals that many of the privatised kibbutz communities have closed their communal dining rooms, laundries, cut back on cultural activities and generally have become more introspective. There is less communal sensitivity and concern.

The move from the traditional collective society to a highly privatised community occurred gradually. Initially the kibbutz communities adversely affected by the economic crisis of two to three decades ago were the first to “pare the fat.” By and large they managed to survive, some recovered well.

However, the social fabric that was once the hallmark of the kibbutz society has frayed a lot.

Currently an internal struggle is taking place in many of the remaining collective kibbutz communities. The situation is almost identical in every case.

The members who stand most to gain economically from a transition to a differential wage system are trying to convince their fellow members to support them in their efforts to bring about the change. Understandably they tend to trade the term differential for something more innocuous, less threatening. Therefore they define the change as a renewal, a revitalisation of the kibbutz community. So far I haven been able to identify any organised l body promoting and supporting the proposed change.

The other camp, the people trying to preserve the traditional collective kibbutz community, are well organised. They publish at least two weeklies and one monthly. They run seminars and hold meetings to promote their cause. Surprisingly many of them would stand to gain if the kibbutz were to adopt a differential wage system.

The privatisation of a collective community is irreversible. At least it appears to be so far.

The people who advocate the change to privatisation emphasize individual responsibility for livelihood. Their slogan “no more free meals” hinges on a claim that the traditional kibbutz supports to many freewheelers, work-shirkers and under-performers. The new system, they claim, will eliminate the work-dodgers.

The hapless ploughman at Degania was no slacker. He was the victim of an over zealous dedication to the work ethic.

Ill-equipped with no more than hearsay and random observation at my disposal I have tried to identify our own under-performers.

My conclusions are as follows:

1. There is always room for improvement

2. Not everyone branded a slacker is really doing less than required .

3. The phenomenon is marginal and common to every society. It certainly doesn’t warrant changing the community in order to correct it..

In the meantime we manage to coexist well. So far Ein Harod Ihud has rejected a proposal to change the system. We remain a collective kibbutz community.

Degania Aleph on the other hand has privatised.

Have a good weekend

Beni 4^th of November, 2010.