|
From Ami Isseroff, Rehovot, Israel:
Israeli elections can be confusing for outsiders - and for Israelis
alike. In reality, it is very simple. There are two candidates for Prime
Minister and one issue. A profusion of candidates, parties and issues have
sprouted like mushrooms after the rain. The candidates all tell us that
they are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the good of their country,
but everyone understands what is behind this: egos and a defective election
law. In reality, there may be only two candidates for Prime Minister: Likud
party incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu and challenger Ehud Barak of the Labor
Party. All of the rest are 'spoilers' who will be eliminated after the
first round, if no candidate gets over 40% of the vote. Polls show Barak
and Netanyahu leading in the first round, but neither have the requisite
40%. The closest runner-up to Barak on the left is retired Chief of Staff
Amnon Lipkin Shahak, who might get 20% of the vote. Barak will win the
run-off according to the polls, but then, Labor has always won the polls
and often lost the elections.
Netanyahu is a known quantity and needn't be discussed. Barak, for
better or for worse, can be taken as the direct ideological heir of Yitzhak
Rabin. He got off to a stumbling start, and was not helped by heckling
from disappointed supporters of ex-Prime Minister Peres, but Barak is beginning
to find his way. Shahak bills himself as a centrist, though some of his
views seem to be left of Barak's. Shahak is a born politician, handsome,
glib, and gifted with the ability to convince everyone that he is on their
side. His performance in interviews is impressive. Unlike Barak, Shahak
never hesitates. He is never flustered by the most embarrassing questions.
On the other hand, he almost never takes a position either. Smile flashing,
eyes twinkling, he says, "That is an important question that will have
to be decided," or "We must all decide together" and so on. In the U.S.
or Great Britain, backed by a major party, a candidate like that would
go far. Israelis, however, have always favored outspoken politicians: Ben-Gurion,
Begin and Rabin are but a few examples. Israelis left and right are sick
of the glib Netanyahu who tries to be all things to all (Jewish) Israelis,
and are hardly likely to replace him with another plastic politico. A politician
should be known by the company he keeps. Shahak's company thus far, the
actual and potential members of his centrist camp, are mostly recycled
Likud members, and Shahak has not ruled out cooperation with the Likud
in a coalition. It is difficult to envision ex-Likud member Dan Meridor
supporting the somewhat radical peace program at which Shahak has hinted.
But then, Shahak has never said outright that he supports a Palestinian
state. He just said that the conclusions were obvious after President Clinton's
visit to Gaza. He never quite said that he supports withdrawal from all
of the Golan Heights. He just gave a long dissertation on what Rabin's
policy was, and intimated that he would continue the same policy.
There are also a plethora of issues: religious coercion, economy, women's
rights, immigrants' rights, rights of Arabs, traffic safety... But in reality
there is only one issue, the one nobody talks about. The religious coercion
issue has been with us for fifty years, and it will not be solved without
restructuring the Israeli political system, and perhaps without a radical
change in Israeli society. Every attempt at reform has only made it worse.
The Democratic Change party ('Dahsh') campaigned on this issue in 1977.
With Dahsh eating into Labor support, the Likud ousted the Labor government
and installed Menahem Begin as Prime Minister. The coalition, with Dahsh
in it, then proceeded to institutionalize religious coercion in new and
better ways. Likewise, there have been umpteen special interest parties
since the founding of the State of Israel, and most of them have either
failed to win significant support, or failed to do very much for their
constituencies.
So what is the one issue? It is not, as right-wing candidate Benjamin
Begin (son of Menahem Begin) would have it, 'Greater Israel' versus continuing
the peace process. "Greater Israel" has not been a realistic option since
the U.S. threw its weight behind the peace process. The important bulldozer
in our area is not the one used by Israel to demolish 'illegal' Palestinian
homes. The important bulldozer is US Foreign policy, and right now Benjamin
Begin and his settler friends happen to be in the way of that bulldozer.
The question is not whether Israel will give back the territories. The
question is whether we will do it in a good spirit, and get peace in return,
or whether we will do it reluctantly and after prodding or even threats
of sanctions by the US and UN, get nothing in return and lose the support
of the U.S. as well.
No major candidate can discuss this issue openly. It would be very
unpopular to say that Israel, like most other countries, is at the mercy
of the United States. It is even more unpopular to mention the words 'withdrawal'
and 'concessions.' So the question is alluded to in euphemisms and oblique
references: "Tough decisions" really means "Withdrawal from settlements."
"Security" means keeping settlements. "Long term strategic interests" means
vital U.S. support against Iraq, Iran and other potentially dangerous enemies
- without it, Israel cannot survive.
Benjamin Netanyahu, who originally promised to tear up the Oslo accords,
saw the light after a brief conversation with Clinton in 1996, when the
U.S. President made it clear what would happen if Israel reneged on its
commitments. Netanyahu then promised that he would implement Oslo, but
that he would do it better than the Labor party. He has in fact, done much
worse, as illustrated by the Hebron agreement and the Wye River accords.
Israel has made territorial concessions and gotten nothing in return -
not even good will. Israel is now signed on an agreement that it has failed
to implement, and the United States is the guarantor of that agreement.
It is no longer a question of the vague and debatable working of the Oslo
accords, but of concrete commitments that Israel has failed to keep. But
even Netanyahu does not dare to promise his right-wing supporters that
there will be no further redeployments. Even he must understand that sooner
or later Israel must live up to its commitments or face the wrath of the
U.S. Defying the U.S. and waving the "Greater Israel" flag is good domestic
politics, but it is not a realistic strategy.
Peace is not popular in Israel. Israelis still remember the terrorist
bombings of 1996, and are constantly reminded of extremist Palestinian
Arab aspirations by PNA speeches and propaganda meant for internal consumption.
So no candidate can come out for peace even if they are for it, not if
they want to win the election. Yossi Sarid of the Meretz party tried to
do this in 1996. He said (I am paraphrasing) "Let's tell the truth about
what is going to happen. There is going to be a Palestinian state, and
Israel is going to withdraw from the West Bank." Honesty may be the best
policy, but that election spot helped the Labor party lose the elections.
No wonder then, that wiser candidates talk about 'unity,' the economy,
rights for different groups etc. - anything except the real issue.
|
