Israel at the crossroads – we seem to voice this truism at every election. This
time, though, it seems to be truer than ever because in four years, we could
either be far worse off, or much better off. One scenario is impossible: the
continuation of our illusionary status quo. And much worse off could mean
doomsday, given the current and (probably next) government’s policies and
worldviews, the challenges we are facing and the strengthening of the religious
extreme Right.
For the first time since our independence, our very
democratic foundations are endangered by a multitude of factions and by the
prevailing reactionary set of nationalistic and xenophobic views of our leader
and shakers.
It has become politically correct to express racist views
against Arabs, to curtail freedom of speech, to delegitimize the High Court of
Justice, to back nationalistic positions on the use of power in order to crush
our neighbors; reconquering Gaza has suddenly been raised by Bibi’s alter-ego,
Yvette Liberman. We are also undergoing a socioeconomic crisis, with growing
gaps between haves and have-nots, center and periphery, those who enjoy good
education and health services, and those who don’t.
If one seeks
affordable housing, one is better off as a settler, or as a Shas
supporter.
Corruption is rampant among our leaders, whether in or out of
prison.
There is also moral corruption as we are still an occupying power
in the West Bank, with over 3 million Palestinians under our control. This
strengthens the extremist Hamas and reduces the clout and hope of moderates,
thereby undermining our daily and national security. We prefer settlement
construction over good relations with the international community – E1 over EU.
We are isolated in the world, risking sanctions. In short, we have become a more
theocratic, bellicose, capitalistic, nationalistic island.
If this
process is allowed to continue by a leadership blind to a changing world and
deaf to the voices of reason and morality, four years from now, we will find
ourselves in a much deeper crisis, threatening our very being as a Jewish,
democratic state.
The alternative is the adherence to the liberal,
progressive values of democracy with a strong and independent judicial system,
respect for human rights, full equality among all citizens, social justice and
economic growth, a viable process of peacemaking and participating in an
international coalition for regional stability and opposition to Iranian nuclear
ambitions. In short, more secure, more prosperous, more free and a respected
member of the family of nations. This is what is at stake with these elections:
a clear cut choice, not between leaders, but between values related to the
basics of modern Zionism – again in between social democracy and
revisionism.
The agenda of Likud Beytenu and its nationalistic and
religious allies is clear and united. It is an agenda of crude force. Its basic
premise is that the Arabs are a monolithic lot with an overwhelming, incurable
hatred for Israel and for Jews, and who as individuals do not deserve equal
rights, and as a collective should be deterred or fought with strength; that
Palestine is actually Judea and Samaria; that settlements are not an obstacle to
peace, but rather a redemption; that the Arab Spring is a winter of extreme
Islamism, all monolithically following Tehran, be they Sunnis, Shi’as, or
moderate liberal Tahrir demonstrators; that the region is full of dangers and no
opportunities; that the whole world is blind to these realities, due to a
mixture of anti-Semitism and Western naiveté; that only we understand reality;
and that in such a region and world, we have to depend only on our
sword.
The leader of the all-too loyal opposition, Shelly Yacimovich,
claims with great confidence that the prime minister would like the elections to
be held on an agenda of foreign policy and security policy. Yet what Bibi &
Co. are offering is not a policy agenda, but rather an extreme-right-wing view
of Israel, the region and the world, deeply entrenched in a philosophy of
extreme nationalism and religious beliefs – a kind of Israeli
fundamentalism.
What is the alternative? The center-left is divided on
this – between Yacimovich’s view of a socioeconomic agenda, leading to economic
stability and social justice, and Tzipi Livni’s view of the vitality of a peace
and security policy transformation in order to rescue the democratic Jewish
nature of Israel. The leader of today’s Labor definitely has a point – Israel’s
socioeconomic reality is in a deep crisis. We are among the most unjust
societies in the OECD club in the distribution of wealth between haves and have
nots, we suffer from a large deficit, in need of severe across-theboard budget
cuts, that after the elections will necessitate making important choices as to
our national socioeconomic priorities, also in relation to education, health and
other social services.
Politically, it may be the right ticket to run on,
as Israelis fear for their socioeconomic well-being and security, and that is
especially true for the right-leaning periphery. So far Labor has entirely
failed to place these issues on the national and election agenda, and is
terrified to speak out on the peace and security agenda.
On the other
side, Tzipi Livni and the “Movement” Party, though perhaps too little and too
late, have opted, with her two ex-Labor leader running-mates Amram Mitzna and
Amir Peretz, for the predominance of a peace and security agenda.
They
claim, with great justification, that if Israel does not have a proactive peace
policy, leading to a viable peace process with the Palestinians under President
Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), we will reach the point of no return in a contrary
process leading to a binational state, where we will wake up one day to discover
that we have become a minority in our own country, forcing us to choose between
Arab rule and apartheid – the end of the Zionist dream.
Time is indeed
running out, due to the continuation of a dangerous settlement expansion, the
strengthening of Hamas and the weakening of Fatah, even in the West Bank, all
thanks to the myopic policies of the outgoing government.
The need to
stabilize our economy and to move toward greater social justice is inherently
linked and dependent on a real peace process with the Palestinians, as such a
process will in time affect our national socioeconomic priorities, from
excessive defense expenditure in the West Bank and massive investments in
settlement construction, to necessary social needs in sovereign Israel. Such a
process will also improve our relations with the world, which will affect trade
and investments in our hi-tech industry and in tourism in Israel.
If
Shelly is saying “It’s the economy, stupid...,” Tzipi answers “It’s peace,” and
she is actually the clever one. A viable peace process with Abu Mazen could
start within 24 hours if the next government would freeze all settlement
construction beyond the Green Line for several months.
This would open
the door for the second Obama administration to engage with us on the peace
process and on our security needs. This would strengthen Fatah and weaken Hamas.
It also would allow for anti-terrorism cooperation, as proposed by our defense
establishment, and eventually lead to a more friendly and pro-Western
Palestinian state.
A process leading to a Palestinian state will happen
in one way or another, as there is a wall-to-wall global consensus on it. The
critical question for us is, should it be imposed on us by the international
community and the United States, or should it be a function of an Israeli policy
initiative. It makes all the difference in the world; if the Arab world learns
that they can have a deal on Palestine despite Israeli policies, we will pay the
price for peace, without reaping its regional and international
fruits.
What is needed after January 22 is an Israeli (not Arab, not
American) peace initiative proposing direct negotiations, with a settlement
freeze, with anti-terrorism cooperation, on the basis of the Obama and Clinton
visions.
This would reflect strength, not weakness. An Israeli peace
initiative leading to a viable peace process and eventually to a two-state
solution is the key to our national security, to our socioeconomic development,
to maintaining our moral high-ground, to rescuing our liberal democracy, to a
Jewish democracy, to our participation in the family of nations, to
strengthening our strategic alliance with the United States, to maintaining our
defense and technological edges and to preventing Iran from becoming
nuclear.
The best suited person to run such a policy, among the existing
candidates, is Tzipi Livni as prime minister, or at least as foreign minister in
a Netanyahu government, as Bibi is unable or unwilling by himself to opt for
peace. If he is indeed reelected, he will have to choose between Naftali Bennett
of Bayit Yehudi and Tzipi Livni as a key partner.
The key issue indeed is
peace, in both the narrow and the deeper sense. As the expansionist, anti-peace
settlement policies and racist, anti-democratic tendencies lead to a
fundamentalist Israel, real peace policies with our neighbors, based on Jewish
and universal values of equality and mutual respect, lead to a liberal,
democratic Israel.
This is the choice that pertains to our very soul and
character, and this is what the debate should be about in the coming 30
days.
The writer is president of the Peres Center for Peace and served as
Israel’s chief negotiator for the Oslo Accords.
|