06.01.2013

The Israeli Elections: The Left in Search of Identity

 

All the polls taken in Israel ahead of the upcoming Knesset elections indicate a static situation, so far as the division between right and left is concerned. The only significant changes are inside the two main blocks, that of the current coalition and that of the opposition. So far as the coalition is concerned, this blog already relayed the meteoric rise of Naftali Bnnett and his Jewish Home party at the expense of Likud. Altogether, the parties comprising the current Netanyahu coalition maintain their 65-68 seats, as opposed to the 52-55 seats held by the current opposition parties. A dramatic, and as yet unforeseen, change should take place for this electoral map to turn around, dethrone Netanyahu and bring in a new leader for Israel. Never say never, particularly in reference to Israeli politics, and to what happens in a country which prides itself with having never a dull moment, yet this is a dull campaign, henceforth the expectation for a last-minute upheaval may most likely remain an expectation, not a reality. Right and left in Israel are terms which do not correspond with the accepted European and to a large extent also American definitions of right and left, nor in regard to the class divisions, nor concerning attitudes towards socioeconomic issues. Every American reader equates support for Obamacare with the left, but in Israel, it was a Likud, a right-wing government, which instituted a state-run health insurance legislation. American readers also automatically put unions and their membership in the left-wing column, but in Israel it is different. One of the main power brokers of the Likud party, MK Haim Katz, is also the chairman of the union of the Israel Aircraft Industries, the largest public industrial employer in Israel; and this is just one, though prominent, example. Grover Norquist would be terrified to find out that in Likud, whose leader PM Netanyahu likes to compare himself to conservative Republicans, there are many who openly call for more taxation, particularly on the rich, as a way of paying for the welfare state that they want Israel to be.So, in order to have a better sense of the otherwise confusing world of Israeli politics, we can go by one definition of left versus right, and this is the attitude towards the conflict with the Palestinians, the notion of a two-state solution and the attitude towards settlements. Here, too, the picture is somewhat murky and unclear. There are five parties competing for about 40 seats, as about 10-12 go to the three Arab parties. The fact that the Arab-Israeli vote goes mainly to Arab parties, and less and less to center and center-left Jewish parties, is one of the ringing failures of parties in Israel which claim to present an inclusive political platform, one that could provide a political home for many Israeli Arabs. Those who want to combine support for Palestinian national aspirations with a drive to better their lot in the State of Israel, with its built-in Jewish majority and character. There are Arab candidates in the parties of the center and left, but these people seem to have no troops behind them. This is just one of the failures of the center and left, in terms of broadening their electoral base. Three other big blocks of voters continue to be firmly in the right-wing column, and out of reach for the center and left; Sepharadic voters, Jews from the former Soviet Union, and religious voters. These three blocks constitute the backbone of the right-wing coalition, and they continue to be impregnable to the Israeli left. This is not good news to the five parties of the center and left, better news to Netanyahu, but still potentially troubling for him, because the current polls show him losing ground to the right-wing religious parties, something which will greatly curtail his freedom of action after the elections. Here there is a potential opportunity for the center left, but one which is being sadly wasted. The Labor leader, Shelly Yechimovitz, who competes with Bennett for the no. two slot after Likud is committed not to join a coalition led by Netanyahu, and so is the marginal Meretz party. The movement of former FM Livni, Yesh Atid we have a future of Yair Lapid and what is left of the Kadima party under Shaul Mofaz are ready to join Netanyahu, but without the religious right wing. Confused? You ought to be, and so are many Israeli voters who otherwise would have liked to vote against Netanyahu, but feel that under current circumstances their vote will be to no avail. One of them is Yuval Diskin, a former head of the General Security Service and a fierce critic of Netanyahu from the left, who called for likeminded people to abstain from voting altogether. Clearly, sweet music to the ears of Netanyahu and Lieberman. With the center and left so fragmented over their priorities, unable to find the minimal workable common denominator, Netanyahu cruises ever more easily towards another term. So, on January 23rd the all too familiar ritual of soul-searching and self-blame, so familiar to the Israeli center and left, is expected to commence in full force.

Israel's Election (and Settlements) Are Killing the Two-State Solution

 

Israel's upcoming Jan. 22 parliamentary election had been expected to be a status quo affair leading to an easy victory for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead, it's turned into a race to the extreme right that is threatening to kill the two-state solution. And Washington seems oblivious. The latest polls still show Netanyahu emerging as the next prime minister, but in a weakened position atop a coalition filled with politicians adamantly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. This new configuration will narrow Netanyahu's freedom of action and ability to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, moderates President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have both lost popular support to Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence. How much longer can the moderates hang on, absent some progress toward a Palestinian state, before the Islamic winds blowing through the Arab world sweep them away?It's a major headache for President Obama, who no longer has the luxury of non-engagement in the Middle East. Without swift, firm and decisive action to reignite a meaningful peace process and to push for a swift deal, the two-state option may disappear forever, leaving Israelis and Palestinians alike facing a future of endless conflict in a region already racked with instability. Obama has been hanging back during the Israeli election campaign and until he can put together his national security team for his second term. But the need is now urgent. He needs to rally his Quartet partners -- the EU, the UN and Russia -- and put together a concrete plan and timetable for a solution. Obama should consider an early trip to the Middle East to get things back on track. Whatever tactics he adopts, the president urgently needs to use political capital and diplomatic muscle to get the parties back to the table and then make the no doubt difficult concessions necessary for a deal because the alternatives are truly frightening.The parameters of such a plan remain clear: an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines with some small land swaps; secure borders for Israel; an equitable deal on Jerusalem and, of course, statehood for the Palestinians.We're now past the point of apportioning blame for a diplomatic deadlock that is almost two-and-a-half years long. Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around but the overriding fact is that Israeli settlements are fast eating away at possibility of ever establishing a Palestinian state and Israel's lurch to the political right is accelerating that process. New Israeli plans to build in the East Jerusalem settlement of Givat Hamatos would cut Bethlehem off from Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, while proposed new settlements in an area known as EI east of Jerusalem would drive a massive wedge between the north and south of the West Bank.Israeli politicians have been indulging in what can only be described as a settlement frenzy. As Netanyahu's Likud-Beitenu block has slipped back in the polls, the story of the election has been the meteoric rise of the extreme right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) Party whose leader, Naftali Bennett, advocates the immediate annexation of 60 percent of the West Bank. Bennett looks like he is emerging as the leader of the third and possibly even the second largest party in the new Knesset with up to 18 seats, the same as is projected for the opposition Labor Party which once dominated Israeli politics. Netanyahu's own ranks now include figures like Moshe Feiglin, a firebrand who wants to rebuild a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount where the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques now stand the third holiest site in Islam. He was arrested there this week trying to pray, a deliberately inflammatory act. Past attempts to encroach on what Muslims call the "Noble Sanctuary" have been met by outrage and violent resistance. In September 2000, a visit to the site by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon surrounded by hundreds of riot police was the spark that ignited what became known as the Second Intifada which, in the next five years, took the lives of an estimated 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. Feiglin also found time to address a "one-state solution" conference in Jerusalem where he outlined a plan to pay Palestinian families $500,000 each to emigrate. Because of the low birth rates in Western nations, they will welcome immigrants who "know how to build," he said. This is the same man who told The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg nine years ago: "You can't teach a monkey to speak and you can't teach an Arab to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches. "Several other Likud parliamentarians attending the conference, including Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, who said Israel should move toward the gradual or total annexation of the West Bank while scrapping the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993, which still provide the framework for an eventual peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.Last week, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who is No. 3 on Netanyahu's election slate, said "two states for two peoples was never part of Likud's election platform." Knesset Member Tzipi Hotovely, No. 15 on the list, said Netanyahu had only adopted the policy to "placate the world." Without vigorous U.S. leadership at the highest level, we may soon be looking at a Middle East in which both sides are governed by extremists who reject the other's right to exist on the land. That's not a future anyone should want to see.

Ten New Year's Resolutions for U.S. Policy Towards Latin America

 

U.S. policy towards our Latin American neighbors is, as usual, in need of a few New Year's resolutions. Here goes:Ban assault weapons. Three months before the murders of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, 110 victims of violence and advocates from Mexico traveled across the United States calling on us to take action to stop the violence that has claimed over 100,000 lives in Mexico during the last six years. They asked us to ban the assault weapons that arm Mexico's brutal cartels. Some 70 percent of assault weapons and other firearms used by criminal gangs in Mexico come from the United States. The United States should reinstate and tighten the assault weapon ban and enforce the ban on the import of assault weapons into our country, which are then smuggled into Mexico. Do it for Newtown. Do it for Aurora. Do it for Mexico's mothers and fathers who have lost their children to senseless violence. Deliver comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats and Republicans alike should heed the message delivered by the Latino vote in 2012 and provide a path to citizenship for the eleven million people living in the shadows in the United States and build a flexible, sensible legal immigration system for the future. This historic step would help families and the economy in the United States and Latin America, and would do more to improve U.S.-Latin American relations than any other single action. And right now, the Obama administration should protect the rights of migrants and border communities by stopping deportation practices that send migrants back to dangerous areas to be preyed upon by cartels, and by ensuring U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents are held accountable for abuses. Support peace in Colombia, with justice. In 2013, there's a real chance to end the longest-running conflict in the Americas. The Obama administration sensibly backs Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos' negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. But we should also be listening to the voices of families of the disappeared and kidnapped, and the mothers of children murdered by Colombia's army, who are calling for justice along with peace. There must be accountability and truth for the murder, torture, forced displacement and rape perpetrated by all actors: the paramilitaries, the guerrillas and the country's own armed forces. The sad truth is that the Santos administration is moving backwards in accountability for army abuses. Without full truth and a strong measure of justice, there cannot be a lasting peace.Try this on for size: a rational policy towards Cuba. The United States should launch a serious dialogue that aims at lifting the failed, 50-year embargo. We know this won't happen overnight. For starters, we should end the travel ban that divides us from our neighbors just off the Florida coast. The Obama administration should also take Cuba off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism; there is no earthly reason it belongs there in 2013. The accusation of giving shelter to Colombia's guerrillas was one of the few rationales for Cuba's inclusion; now Cuba is lauded by Colombia's government for hosting peace negotiations. If we support peace in Colombia, how can we not recognize Cuba's contribution?End the militarized approach to drugs. Latin American presidents of all political persuasions are telling us: we must rethink the "War on Drugs," which has brought suffering without results. For starters, we should stop the tactics that cause the most harm while doing the least good: counternarcotics campaigns that bring Latin American armies into the streets; aerial spraying, which destroys food as well as drug crops. And we should focus on the public health approaches here and abroad that do the most good and the least harm: providing treatment when and where addicts need it; evidence-based prevention campaigns; youth employment and building resilient communities.Focus on aid that helps people, not guns and military aid. As we face another battle on budget cuts, why not put military aid to Latin America on the chopping block. There's no war anywhere in the region, if Colombia's peace talks succeed. Focus on aid that actually helps people: disaster assistance, including reconstruction aid for Haiti; aid for health care, education, micro-loans, improving justice systems, and community development. Ensure that aid programs are consulted with the people they intend to benefit.Speak up for human rights. While the United States isn't perfect, as our Latin American friends readily tell us, our government should speak up for human rights in this hemisphere. But do it fairly. When a left-wing government restricts freedom of the press, the United States should speak against this. When governments the U.S. favors  like Colombia and Mexico fail to prosecute human rights abuses committed by their militaries, the United States should press for justice, including by suspending military aid when needed. Decisively support human rights in Honduras. Honduras is in crisis. Since the June 2009 coup in Honduras, human rights protections, never strong, have been severely weakened. Human rights defenders, LGBT community members, leaders in poor farming communities, and opposition activists have been threatened and killed, in crimes for which there is no justice. Military, police and private security guards are unaccountable. The United States should suspend military and police aid to Honduras while using aid and tough diplomacy to help Honduras strengthen the failing justice system. Support the Inter-American human rights system. To its credit, the Obama administration has actively supported the Inter-American human rights system, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which many Latin American governments of left, right and center have recently sought to weaken. 2013 will be an important year to join with civil society groups across the Americas to ensure reforms strengthen, not weaken, this system's role as the last recourse for victims who fail to attain justice in their countries. Finally, clean up our own act. The United States' voice on human rights will be stronger, of course, if our government sticks to human rights principles in its own actions. Drone strikes that kill civilians, rendition, indefinite detention and complete lack of due process for terror suspects weaken U.S. credibility in Latin America as well as in other regions of the world. Now, if we could keep these resolutions, 2013 would be a banner year for U.S.-Latin American relations.