by David M. Weinberg
Clever pundits like
David Remnick of The New Yorker and Ari Shavit of Haaretz have tried to
portray the current Israeli election campaign as a historic choice
between two competing narratives: the isolationist-nationalist Israeli
Right and the liberal-democratic-peace-seeking Israeli Left. They argue
that the alternatives are a dark rightward shift or a new opening toward
peace.
But these brainy
journalists are all-too-slick and only superficially sophisticated.
Their caricature of the Israeli Right, in particular, is invented. The
dichotomous moment they have summoned-forth is false, and their reading
of Israeli society and polity is terribly off-base. Very few Israelis
see things the way Remnick and Shavit do.
Israelis don't see
themselves as standing at a historic juncture. They don't believe that
Middle East circumstances are ripe for peace, and they don't expect
their prime minister to be making any dramatic diplomatic moves. That is
why Hatnuah Chairwoman Tzipi Livni's "I can bring the peace" messaging
hasn't taken hold during the current campaign.
As a result, Israelis
are not looking for revolutionary change. They are waiting-out the "Arab
Spring" and other storms in the surrounding areas, taking no
irresponsible risks and voting for steady hands at the helm of state.
Whether they vote for
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or not, they don't feel that Netanyahu
is going destroy Israel. They don't buy the doomsday scenarios painted
by Reminick or Shavit, nor by some Diaspora Jewish leaders like Eric
Yoffie of the Reform movement, or Daniel Sokatch of the New Israel Fund,
about Israel being taken over by right-wing religious fanatics,
forfeiting its democracy and losing its global friends.
In fact, what Israelis
expect is more of the same, and what they want to see is Netanyahu in
government with parties of both the Zionist Right and Left. They expect
another complicated coalition government, with built-in checks and
balances.
That is why the Israeli
electoral campaign has been mainly a popularity contest, driven by
personalities. Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich or Livni, Bibi or
Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett, former Foreign Minister
Avigdor Lieberman or Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid. The main question is:
Who can be trusted to manage the affairs of state at a time of
uncertainty without embarking on any wild initiatives or dangerous
adventures. Nothing more and nothing less. We're not making a grand
choice between good and evil, between peace and war, between liberalism
and fascism.
That's also why no
single issue emerged as a central elections campaign focus. Not peace
with the Palestinians; or relations with the United States. Not
employment figures; or social welfare matters. Not the draft of the
ultra-Orthodox; or issues of human rights and democracy. Not Iran.
They're all important
issues, and there are principled differences between the parties on
these matters. But circumstances have narrowed our choices on all these
issues. In practice, our politicians will have little leeway to make
revolutionary decisions. Realism will prevail, not eschatological
aspirations or radical ideologies.
So why the apocalyptic
analyses? Unfortunately, I sense that the Israeli and American-Jewish
ideological Left has gone stir-crazy with Netanyahu hatred. They can't
accept that the political Left’s twenty-year-long crusade for
Palestinian statehood has been proven bankrupt; they can’t stand that
Netanyahu is going to be reelected; and they are setting a trap in which
to bring him crashing down.
By positing that Israel
is at an apocalyptic crossroads, and that Israel is pigheadedly making
wrong and dangerous choices, the stage is set for "wiser" actors to
intervene "to save Israel in spite of itself."
This is the upshot of
Jeffrey Goldberg's celebrated Bloomberg News column, in which he
describes the lack of trust and frustration in the White House
concerning Netanyahu. Netanyahu just “doesn’t understand what Israel’s
best interests are,” Goldberg has Obama saying, and "his conduct will
drive Israel into grave international isolation."
With such isolation,
even from the U.S., Israel won’t survive, Goldberg (or Obama) opines.
"Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term threat to its existence."
Therefore, real friends have to step in to save Israel from itself, by
imposing a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — which is swift
establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian state. For Israel’s own
good, of course.
Like Peter Beinart
before him, Goldberg says that Obama himself is not going to pressure
Israel on this matter, and I think they are right. Instead, Obama has
outsourced the Palestinian issue to the Europeans. Europe is going to
take the lead in wedging Israel into a corner against its own
self-perceived interests, but in reality "for its own good," with Obama
"leading from behind."
This explains the
overwhelming European vote at the United Nations in November in favor of
upgrading the status of "Palestine," even though Washington was opposed
to the move, at least outwardly, and voted against it. Nevertheless,
Obama didn’t seem too upset with the Europeans for voting against Israel
and the U.S. Like I said, it's called outsourcing the pressure on
Israel to Europe.
The next European move
with Obama “leading from behind” will be an imposed internationalized
framework for Israeli-Palestinian talks with terms of reference, that
basically settle everything in advance, in favor of the Palestinians
(1967 lines, etc.)
The Palestinians will
be forgiven for their unwillingness to enter direct and unconditional
negotiations with Israel. Europe will dispense with insistence on that
venerable principle of the peace process. After all, they no longer
trust Israel to do what is in its own best interests (to withdraw), even
if there were direct talks. So best just get on with it and impose the
outlines of a "settlement" in indirect consultations or an international
forum.
And besides, the main point of the process will not be real negotiations or true peace, but the dethroning of Netanyahu.
David M. Weinberg
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3250
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment