Israeli Elections: How Liberal is Liberal? Posted by Gayle Meyers

Five days before Israel's parliamentary elections, polls are indicating another flip-flop.  This time, the good news goes to left-of-center Labor and its prime ministerial candidate, Amir Peretz.  Peretz is an unusual candidate for Israel's top job.  He joined the parliament after leading the Histadrut, the country's powerful labor federation, but he has never held a cabinet-level post.  His opponents have made much of his inexperience, suggesting that he is not prime ministerial material. Peretz addresses these charges directly in one of his campaign ads, in which he repeats the accusations leveled at him and shows that they could also have been leveled at Israel's legendary first prime minister, David Ben Gurion.  Lurking under the question question of experience is the question of whether Peretz, who comes from the country's disadvantaged Moroccan sector instead of its European-origin political elite. 

On national security issues, Labor's platform is one that mainstream Democrats can support, but it would not satisfy more pro-Palestinian segments of the progressive movement.

Here's what the party platform has to say about foreign affairs and national security:

"A political agreement is a national interest of the State of Israel. There is a close link between achieving peace and economic growth and social justice. The Labor party will strive to renew negotiations with the Palestinians while resolutely fighting terror and violence, completing the security fence within a year and maintaining Israel 's military advantage. In case of political deadlock, Israel will take independent steps to ensure its military and political interests.

Negotiations will be based on the following principles: two states for two nations, whose border will be determined in negotiations between the sides; the large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria will be added to the State of Israel; the isolated settlements that are not in the settlement blocs added to Israel will be dismantled; Jerusalem, with all its Jewish neighborhoods, will be Israel's eternal capital, and the sites holy to Judaism will remain under Israeli control; investment in the territories will stop and the conclusions of the Sasson report will be implemented immediately, including dismantling illegal outposts."

In the Israeli context, this is a very progressive approach.  Its emphasis on negotiations, with unilateral actions being viewed as a fallback position; its support of a Palestinian state; and its promise isolated settlements will be dismantled are all similar to proposals made by previous governments on the liberal side of the national consensus.  If its promise to stop investment in the territories of the West Bank and to dismantle illegal outposts immediately were fulfilled, that would be a radical step in the direction of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, in my view, one of the most menacing aspects about the  conflict today is that even the most progressive visions of the two sides are still far apart.  Labor's support for continued construction of a barrier between Palestinian and Israeli territories, its assumption that large settlement blocs will become part of Israel even though they are on the far side of the "Green Line" that marked the country's borders before the 1967 Six-Day War, and its insistence on Israeli control over all Jewish neighborhoods and holy sites in Jerusalem (though the word "control" may be a carefully worded wiggle away from the more definite "sovereignty") are all unacceptable to Palestinians. 

The liberal Palestinian view is that the barrier is unjust, that the Green Line should be Israel's border, and that the holy sites of Jerusalem should be under Arab  or Muslim control.

These differences came into sharp relief at Camp David in the summer of 2000, and while I sincerely hope for a return to negotiations, I believe that both publics must be educated about each other's dreams and prepared for the need to compromise.

Comments

[Lane Brody]

Bill Clinton in his book "My Life" goes into some detail regarding the peace process and holds a profoundly different view of events. After the failure of Camp David in the summer of 2000 it was crystal clear to him that Arafat was not prepared to negotiate anything.

On December 23rd he outlined a detailed proposal for final status which he presented to both sides. Barak's cabinet accepted it as a basis for negotiating final status. Arab leaders were impressed with the deal and urged Arafat to accept. Arafat was simply unwilling to do it, period.

Everyone, without exception, saw that deal as the best the Palestinians are ever going to get. Not being willing to deal with Barak brought in Sharon in Feb 2001.

It is just revisionist to talk about both sides need to compromise. What is needed is to prepare the Palestinan people to accept less than everything they've been told by their leaders they deserve and will get.

What is needed now is for Hamas to govern so perhaps once and for all the Palestinian people will understand that path is not going to get them much- except unilateral seperation by Israel under terms they will not like.

Blaming both sides for lack of peace is simply irrational- at least according to Bill Clinton and everyone else on the record who was involved in the process. This feel good both sides need to understand each mantra does not serve history, the process, or either side.

Lane

[libertarian soldier]

What is also needed is to tell the Israeli people that the any "final results" that come from an Israeli diktat will not be final, at all. The GOI is welcome to claim that Jerusalem will be Israeli, that the Palestinians will get no right of return, and that Israel will keep as much of the West Bank as Israel decides is necessary.
Oh, wait, they have been doing that for over three decades. And how well has that turned out for them?

[Lane Brody]

Everybody knows Jerusalem will be shared, that the goverment of each side will determine who gets to be in each country (right of return to Palestine decided by Palesitinians and to Israel by Israeli's) or simply put that there is no such right, and that Israel will withdraw from around 96% of the West Bank.

This is the part of the deal Bill Clinton came up with and presented to both sides.
Arafat got to deal with Rabin and later Barak and then Clinton gave his best shot. To say how's it going after 30 years is to miss the point that it takes two to tango.

This deal was voted on by the Barak Cabinet and accepted as the basis to negotiate final status and according to Bill Clinton the many Arab leaders he spoke to talk to Arafat were extremely pleased by the deal.

If Israel pulls out behind it's barrier and leaves what's left to Hamas when Hamas is certainly no peace partner it's difficult to see another logical course of action. As noted in this article even Labor says the wall will be expediated if there is nobody to make peace with.

Anyone is free to find fault with this policy but the facts of how and why we got to this point need to be seen objectively. In point of fact there is hardly any terrorism in Israel anymore for a variety of reasons and the Palestinian economy is shattered by people not being to work in Israel. The Israeli economy is one of the most advanced in the world. Frankly the past 30 years have gone rather well for Israel.

Arafat before he died is on the record as saying he should have taken the Clinton deal. He's right, he should have. The people who suffer most are his people and their suffering is quite real. So now it's time to see the peoples wisdom in action through the democratic process. At some point when the Palestinian people want peace they can have it- electing Hamas is not an expression of that desire.

Lane Brody

[J Thomas]

How precisely would israel benefit from a peace process?

Consider the american precedent. We made lots and lots of peace treaties with native american tribes. And we ignored them after we made them, we did whatever we wanted. Every now and then some collection of native american tribes would stage a futile revolt after we broke a treaty in ways they couldn't stand, and we'd move in and defeat them and sign a new treaty.

How would israel benefit by doing anything different? Palestinians have nothing to bargain with except nuisance terrorist attacks. That's more than the native americans had, but not much more. The only possible reason to have peace talks is to placate leftist israelis (who are a small fraction of the vote) and to placate whatever US administration currently wants middle-east peace. So go through the motions and blame the lack of progress on palestinians, and everything's fine.

If it should happen that some peace treaty is signed, as soon as it becomes inconvenient they can always claim the palestinians are breaking that treaty and do whatever they want, and impose a new treaty whenever they find palestinians willing to sign. That's what they did with the treaty before Clinton's, they just tore it up and said it was time to start over.

There is no reason for peace, and will not be unless somehow the palestinians become a credible threat. You don't make peace treaties except with nations that can wage war. You don't make peace treaties with cockroaches.

[kamil]

There are certain things in life related to smoking that simply cannot :)
parça kontör
parça kontör bayiliği
parça kontör bayilik

[cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold]

FF11 is very famous now. My friends like to play it and buy FFXI Gil. If you have money to buy FFXI gold, you will find it is very useful. Earning Final Fantasy XI gold is not so hard. Try your best and then you can get it. I buy FFXI Gil, just because I like it.

[buy runescape]

I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some runescape gold

[rf gold]

I hope i can get rf online gold in low price.
i buy rf money for you.

[12sky gold]

Once I played 12sky, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have twelve sky Gold. He gave me some 12sky gold.

[Sho Online Mun]

Do you know the Sho Online Mun, in here you can get the Sho Mun.

[shaiya gold]

Do you like playing the game where you need to use shaiya gold, when you do not have shaiya money,

[Chloe Handbags]

Do you like playing the game where you need to use shaiya gold, when you do not have shaiya money,

[replica Gucci Bracelet]

Do you like playing the game where you need to use shaiya gold, when you do not have shaiya money

[molded rubber products]

Plastic parts made by injection molding
printing in China
construction scaffolding

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[Egitim]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's swearing than before, especially a watch.Chat.
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Sohbet you must borrow it from friends you can get everything you want in this game Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at Chat
the surface of the watches viaload great any cool Exsohbet from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there Egitim Fourth, there were various signs of political conflict among shia. If they split 3 ways or 4 ways, the sunnis and the kurds could often be the Sohbet swing votes in the politics. If they felt they had political clout out of proportion to their numbers, they could settle in Sohbet and do politics and not feel oppressed.