It is time to revise the conventional description of divisions in Israeli politics.
Observers have defined divisions between the major parties as left and right. The left is concerned with social welfare domestically, and inclined to seek a compromise with Palestinians and other Arabs. The right is assertive in behalf of Israel's defense, with borders beyond those of 1967. The right has been less unified than the left on domestic policy. Some of its leaders support free enterprise and a minimum of government involvement in the economy. However, many Israelis who vote for right wing parties are poor, and welcome the social benefits that some right wing politicians offer. Politicians of the major parties to the left and right are mostly secular, although numerous voters, especially on the right, who are religious to some degree.
About 20 percent of Israelis support Jewish religious parties. Each of the three parties in this sector--National Religious/Religious Zionists, Ashkenazi and Sephardi ultra-Orthodox--differ somewhat in their security and domestic agendas. Religious Zionists are clearest in their concern for territory in the Land of Israel. The ultra-Orthodox parties have wavered on this issue. Altogether the religious parties won 25 seats in the 2006 election.
Three parties have appealed largely to Israel's Arab minority, and together get about 10 seats in the Knesset. The major parties have included Druze and other Arabs among their Knesset candidates, and have attracted some voters from those communities.
Rather than "left" and "right" for the parties that compete for 85 to 90 seats in the Knesset, the more accurate terms are "secure" and "fearful." "Secure" applies to the left of the spectrum, as well as much of the center identified with Kadima. "Fearful" corresponds with the right of the conventional description. Despite their overlaps, "secure" and "fearful" are both more descriptive than "left" and "right."
The emphasis in these categories is on the issue of national defense, and attitudes toward Palestinians and other Arabs . This election has occurred under the influence of rocket attacks, a military operation in Gaza, and frustrating efforts at seeking peace with Palestinians. The classic conflict between socialism and free enterprise has lessened in recent years. Free enterprise had vitality longer than socialism, but has had a bad time with recent problems that originated in the loose regulations of financial institutions in the United States.
On the secure side are those who are confident about Israel's future and are willing to take some chances in the hope of achieving an explicit peace agreement. On the other side those who are fearful and put the emphasis on rejecting territorial compromise.
A sizable proportion of both groups are pessimistic about reaching peace with Palestinians, Syrians, or Lebanese. A major source of frustration is the insistence of even moderate Palestinians on their traditional narrative of assigning Israel full responsibility for their suffering, demands for the 1967 borders or something close to them, plus an unwavering demand for the rights of refugees from the distant past (and their descendants) to return home. Other sources of frustration are the intense animosity toward Israel of Hamas and other Islamic extremists, and the split in Palestinian politics, often violent, that precludes any unified posture with which Israel can negotiate.
Nonetheless, the secure among the Israelis are willing to pursue negotiations. Their rhetoric gives peace a chance, even if they are not optimistic. They see the need to cooperate with hopeful sentiments in the international community, or with the need of other countries to appease the weight of Muslim countries in the world economy (i.e., as sources of energy), and their votes in the United Nations.
In other words, the secure among Israelis are willing to do what is necessary to protect the country's place among the important countries of the world, and what that means for access to trade, science, culture, sport, tourism, and other good things.
Some of those among the secure are optimistic about the chances of a formal peace, and work diligently at formulating one proposal after another. Some view themselves as players in a political theater that serves the optimistic among Israelis, plus Americans and Europeans who insist on continuing a peace process despite its futility.
Even those among the secure who are serious about pursuing peace are not fools. The chances they take are measured. They quarrel about when to desist and when to fight. They invest heavily in the military as the core element of national defense. They view the IDF as the element that allows risks in political negotiations, and a willingness to compromise on territory.
Those who are concerned that secure Israelis are timid or reckless should take another look at those pictures from Gaza, and recognize that a leader in the operation was a defense minister from the Labor Party, the most peace-oriented of the major players.
The fearful express a concern that Israel is not absolutely secure. They focus on every attack as if it threatens the nation's future. They emphasize the Holocaust and other dismal episodes in Jewish history. Their blood pressure rises at every adverse vote in the United Nations, and less than optimal writings or broadcasts. They speak against territorial compromise. They view "dividing Jerusalem" as national betrayal, sure to make Israel vulnerable. They are unwilling to trade Arab neighborhoods that Jews do not visit for the sake of Palestinian concessions. They claim that such a deal would increase substantially the danger to Israelis, while they overlook densely populated areas already under Palestinian control that abut Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem to the north, east, and south.
Some of the fearful express intense antagonism to Arabs. Avigdor Lieberman has attracted support among Russian speaking and other Israelis with his assertions that Israeli Arabs are not loyal, and should lose their citizenship.
We know enough about politics to be careful in judging rhetoric. At times the secure act in ways that some view as fearful. And at times those who speak as the fearful are flexible in practice. In the present campaign, Benyamin Netanyahu (Bibi) has appealed to the fearful. Among distortions cited by opponents are his claims that he never made overtures to the Syrians about withdrawing from the Golan, and never supported the withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Gaza.
Even if Bibi does become prime minister, he is likely to go along with the concern of western democracies that Israel seek peace with the Palestinians. He has shown in the past that when push comes to shove (and the American can shove hard), he demonstrates pragmatism, and not a great deal of concern for the difference between what he has said and what he does.
Bibi may roar like a lion but behave like a mouse. Nevertheless, Netanyahu's rhetoric along with Lieberman's, and the voters they attract, as contrasted with the rhetoric and the voters of Livni and Barak, justifies the labels of fearful and secure.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Dept of Political Science
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax: +972-2-582-9144