On the one hand, Israel’s military victory and the expansion of its boundaries brought about the glorification of the army and of all things military. The 1967 Six Day War bore paradoxical results. ![]() The belligerent mood of most Arab states, as well as the polarization of the international arena by the Cold War and the power contest between the United States and the Soviet Union, only strengthened the basic assumptions regarding issues of war and peace. Another assumption that loomed large was that the Arab-Israel conflict could be resolved only by force and military might (Ben-Eliezer 1995). Peace would be achieved only in an almost utopian future (Kimmerling 1993). Therefore-the argument went-there was not much Israel could do to advance peace rather, it had to mobilize most of its resources to ensure its survival. The predominant element in their attitude was the view that, since Israel is surrounded by non-democratic, hostile states that wish to destroy it, only the establishment of democratic regimes in the surrounding Arab countries could bring about a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israel conflict. From 1948 to 1978, political space was closed to peace initiatives, while the political elite displayed a unified opinion regarding the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. ![]() Until then, peace activities were limited to organizations such as the Communist party and Matzpen, whose agendas were anathema to the general Jewish-Israeli public. Though Israel has been involved in a state of protracted conflict and in a cycle of wars since its establishment in 1948, a massive peace movement emerged only in 1978.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |