By Ira Sharkansky
JERUSALEM–Israeli politics is currently more a muddle than usual.
Leaving aside the knotty problem of defining the “left,” two newspapers identified with the Israeli and American Jewish left have published reports that define the problem of the left. Ha’aretz headlined a survey of Israelis finding that about half the adult population identify themselves with the left and hold attitudes associated with the left, but are put off by left of center parties and politicians. A majority thinks that right of center parties are better at governing, especially in the field of national security, and express general satisfaction with the results. Most troubling for the left are the findings that young Israeli adults are more inclined than other age groups to negative attitudes about the left.
The New York Times published an op-ed piece by one of Israel’s leftist icons–who has assumed the titular position as head of an organization concerned to revitalize the left–that seems likely to worsen the sector’s standing in the public, and maybe even among Israelis who still are thinking of voting with a left-of-center party.
Avrum Burg began in the home of Yosef Burg, a leader of the National Religious Party that has emphasized settlement throughout the Land of Israel since 1967. Avrum is a story worthy of serious research. He remains religious, but early on entered the Labor Party and climbed to its leadership circle and served a term in the prestigious role as Chair of the Knesset. Then he resigned from the Knesset and moved further to the left, to the point where he went beyond Israeli conventions. In his latest New York Times op-ed, he begins by referring to Israel’s prime minister as “warmongering,” and continues:
“Israel today is a religious, capitalist state. Its religiosity is defined by the most extreme Orthodox interpretations. Its capitalism has erased much of the social solidarity of the past . . . With the elevation of religious solidarity over and above democratic authority, Israel has become more fundamentalist and less modern, more separatist and less open to the outside world . . . When a true Israeli democracy is established, our prime minister will go to Capitol Hill and win applause from both sides of the aisle. Every time the prime minister says “peace” the world will actually believe him, and when he talks about justice and equality people will feel that these are synonyms for Judaism and Israelis.”
It is not only the left that is in trouble.
Things are not rosy for the right. Polls are showing a significant drop in evaluations of Netanyahu, perhaps in frustration about his choice of continued rapport with ultra-Orthodox parties over a serious reform of Haredi exemptions from the draft and their economic benefits. However, a recent Saturday evening demonstration that was supposed to unite activists concerned to reform the draft laws along with welfare, taxes, and other issues under the umbrella of social justice attracted only 3,000 at the central site in Tel Aviv, and produced some pushing, shoving, and other low level violence between activists with different conceptions of social justice.
For some time now there has been tension among the various reform clusters. Last year’s demonstrations of hundreds of thousands included many upper-middle class, two-professional couples seeking an even better deal on affordable and desirable housing, as well as free child care. There were also poorer, less well educated, and more hard-up Israelis, along with some having a touch of anarchism and an inclination to violence. Prominent in the mix was an anti-Haredi sector, fueled by animosity to ultra-Orthodox economic benefits and their lack of a military obligation. Several individuals had acquired a standing as “protest leaders” and did not produce an agreement as to who would lead in what direction. Some exploited he marginal phenomenon of self-immolators, while others spoke against any kind of extremism. Politicians seeking leadership of the left, middle, or left-middle, competing with other leaders who wanted politics to be kept out of their movement.
Commentators see no alternative to Netanyahu. Despite a drop in public regard, he still has the support of enough parties in the Knesset to preserve his government, and there appears to be no party or figurehead capable of unseating him and Likud should an election occur in the near future. Shelly Yehimovitch, the leader of the reviving Labor Party, is flawed for lack of experience in the politically crucial field of defense and international affairs. Security is still the elephant in the living room, trumpeting loudly with an Iranian accent.
Cynics with a flair for the conspiratorial see Netanyahu ordering an attack on the elephant before the American election. Not only might that cause a vote-seeking Obama to come into the fray, but whatever he does might not be enough for Mitt Romney, and thereby help the campaign of the candidate widely seen as Netanyahu’s friend and favorite
One doesn’t have to be conspiratorial in order to appreciate the delicacy of the uncertain timetable associated with Iran’s nuclear program, its threat against Israel, and the American election.
Last week”s small and unruly demonstration makes a muddle of what had been seen as prominent issues of equality and social justice.
The uncertainty bears some resemblance to one of my evening meals in Oslo. The menu was unintelligible. The waitress described something that was not exactly soup, and not exactly a casserole. It contained fish (what else in Norway?), vegetables and spices. It was better than passable, and the wine was good. But it remained on the edge of my skills to eat what was nearly soup with a fork, and beyond my skills to recognize the ingredients or to know which contributed what part of the complex taste.
There were no unpleasant aftereffects later in the evening or the next day.
I wish the same for the muddle that is Israeli politics.
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University. He may be contacted at ira.sharkansky@sdjewishworld.com