A Glimmer of Hope?

A week ago, to those expecting significant political change in Israel following the upcoming general elections on January 28th, I would have suggested not holding their breath. Then, there was little chance that the elections would change anything. One would ask why, considering the high degree of dissatisfaction among the Israeli public towards the political system, political parties and politicians. With such disappointment, one would expect the electorate to lash out, to actively seek change, to try and pull itself out of the political mire caused by Netanyahu, Barak and Sharon. After all, the Israeli economy is on a disaster course (10.5% unemployment, growing poverty, projected negative growth, rising inflation together with a deepening recession), over the past two years the Israeli army sunk to unprecedented levels of brutality towards the Palestinian people, radical parties on the right are gaining strength, particularly those whose platform calls for the “transfer” of Palestinians. One would expect these elections to deal with these and many other utterly crucial issues facing the Israeli public. But before the campaign has even started, it is clear that for the most part, the parties, particularly the larger ones, will try to refrain from dealing with the key issues in a clear and coherent way, seeking rather to blur their stances on these issues.

The only glimmer of hope comes from an unexpected source–the Labour party and its newly elected leader Amram Mitzna. Mitzna gained a landslide victory over Binyamin (Fouad) Ben Eliezer, former party leader and Minister of Defense under the national unity government. Mitzna presented a fairly radical position during his campaign (highlighted by the repeated promise to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinians), and gained a great deal of support for his positions. Members of the Labour party clearly signaled to its leadership that they have no interest in becoming a warmed over version of the Likud, as was the case under Ben Eliezer. An interesting trend can be found in the Likud: there is clear support among the members of the party for a Palestinian state. In a recent non partisan poll, 44.8% (7.3% undecided) of the registered party members of the Likud responded positively when asked “If Ariel Sharon is elected, would you support his intention to reach an agreement with Palestinians, including Palestinian statehood and ‘painful’ compromise?” [The intention here is to the dismantling of settlements–MD]. (Ha’aretz Daily, 21 November 2002, p. 4a.). Internal Likud polls leaked to the public note that 70% of the party members are not against Palestinian statehood (Ha’aretz Daily, 22 November 2002, p. 2b).

The patterns that are emerging from the daily polls in Israel are quite clear. Parties that address the main issues in a concrete way will be strengthened after the votes are counted. Parties like Moledet (running together with other far right parties), where the main component of its platform is the “transfer” of the Palestinians is expected to gain many seats. Why? Not because the Israeli people as such are particularly cruel, but rather because they are offering a solution that purports to solve many of the problems in Israel today, as despicable and unacceptable as it may be. The same can be said of the party Shinui whose platform is virulently anti religious. In a country where public debate has been all but choked by the power of a constructed “consensus”, it is the role of the parties to introduce clear ideas, innovations and solutions to the public. Parties that fail to do so will be considerably weakened, while those that offer viable alternatives will be strengthened.

In an attempt to appeal to the “center” and to those that are yet undecided, campaign experts will likely advise both the Likud and Labour to blur the issues, to present a centrist position. Parties on the political left are facing a challenge–to present a brave and innovative platform in the space of two months. They need to make clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the situation in Israel today is a direct result of the 35-year-old Occupation. These parties must convince the Israeli public that continued Israeli presence in the Occupied Territories, the continued expansion of the settlements and the brutal actions of the army and the settlers will eventually destroy the country. This is not an easy or popular message to get out, but it is the truth. It is Mitzna’s task to rise to this challenge and to provide brave and courageous leadership for the left. If he rises to this challenge, there is a chance, albeit slight, that Mitzna can become Israel’s next prime minister. Having stated that he is willing to form a coalition with the Arab parties in the Knesset if elected, Mitzna will enjoy both public and political support for courageous decisions. Of course, a series of bombings and attacks prior to the elections will play into the hands of the right, particularly Netanyahu (described as the “prince of hatred and darkness” by a senior Likud member), who has made a career dancing on the blood of innocent people.

Lately, there have been calls from the far left to boycott the elections or to cast a blank ballot. The goal of this strategy is clear–to contribute to the rise of a far right government whose radical actions will finally convince the public as a whole to support the left. Palestinian Israelis, disappointed with the Arab parties’ ability to bring about significant change of their 2nd class status as citizens, are also calling for a boycott of the elections. While one can understand the call for a boycott of the elections–a call borne out of the despair of the public on the far left–it is clearly mistaken and misguided, particularly when there is the chance of alternative leadership. It is also dangerous and irresponsible to leave the leadership of the country in the hands of the radical right.

A few short weeks ago, the results of the upcoming elections were fairly clear–Sharon as Prime Minister and a paraplegic unity government. With the election of Mitzna this has changed, or at the very least, there is a potential for change. If the parties on the left, led by Labour under Mitzna fail to rise to this challenge they will be contributing directly to the downward spiral of Israel. If they fail to present a crystal clear message and programme to the Israeli public they will be betraying their leadership role–it is the leadership that is expected to point to the path, not to blur it. It is the leadership that is expected to help shape public opinion rather than be guided blindly by it.

MICHAEL DAHAN is an Israeli American political scientist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at mdahan@attglobal.net.


More articles by:

Weekend Edition
February 22, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Timothy M. Gill
Why is the Venezuelan Government Rejecting U.S. Food Supplies?
John Pilger
The War on Venezuela is Built on Lies
Andrew Levine
Ilhan Omar Owes No Apologies, Apologies Are Owed Her
Jeffrey St. Clair
That Magic Feeling: the Strange Mystique of Bernie Sanders
David Rosen
Will Venezuela Crisis Split Democrats?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
Curtain Call: A Response to Edward Curtin
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump’s National Emergency Is The Exact Same As Barack Obama’s National Emergency
Paul Street
Buried Alive: The Story of Chicago Police State Racism
Rob Seimetz
Imagined Communities and Omitting Carbon Emissions: Shifting the Discussion On Climate Change
Ramzy Baroud
Russian Mediation: The Critical Messages of the Hamas-Fatah Talks in Moscow
Michael Welton
Dreaming Their Sweet Dreams: a Peace to End Peace
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming’s Monster Awakens
Huma Yasin
Chris Christie Spins a Story, Once Again
Ron Jacobs
Twenty-First Century Indian Wars
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Venezuela: a Long History of Hostility
Lance Olsen
Climate and Money: a Tale of Two Accounts
Louis Proyect
El Chapo and the Path Taken
Fred Gardner
The Rise of Kamala Harris
John W. Whitehead
Rule by Fiat: National Crises, Fake Emergencies and Other Dangerous Presidential Powers
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Biomass is Not “Green”: an Interview With Josh Schlossberg
John Feffer
Answering Attacks on the Green New Deal
W. T. Whitney
US Racism and Imperialism Fuel Turbulence in Haiti
Kim Ives
How Trump’s Attacks on Venezuela Sparked a Revolution in Haiti
Mike Ferner
What War Films Never Show You
Lawrence Wittner
Should the U.S. Government Abide by the International Law It Has Created and Claims to Uphold?
James Graham
A Slow Motion Striptease in France
Dave Lindorff
Could Sanders 2.0 Win It All, Getting the Democratic Nomination and Defeating Trump?
Jill Richardson
Take It From Me, Addiction Doesn’t Start at the Border
Yves Engler
Canada and the Venezuela Coup Attempt
Tracey L. Rogers
We Need a New Standard for When Politicians Should Step Down
Gary Leupp
The Sounds of Silence
Dan Bacher
Appeals Court Rejects Big Oil’s Lawsuit Against L.A. Youth Groups, City of Los Angeles
Robert Koehler
Are You White, Black or Human?
Ralph Nader
What are Torts? They’re Everywhere!
Sarah Schulz
Immigrants Aren’t the Emergency, Naked Capitalism Is
James Campbell
In the Arctic Refuge, a Life Force Hangs in the Balance
Matthew Stevenson
Pacific Odyssey: Corregidor’s Iconography of Empire
Jonah Raskin
The Muckraking Novelist Dashiell Hammett: A Red Literary Harvest
Kim C. Domenico
Revolutionary Art and the Redemption of the Local
Paul Buhle
Life and Crime in Blue Collar Rhode Island
Eugene Schulman
Nicky Reid
Zionists are the Most Precious Snowflakes
Jim Goodman
The Green New Deal Outlines the Change Society Needs
David Yearsley
The Political Lyre
Cesar Chelala
The Blue Angel and JFK: One Night in Camelot