An American friend has sent me an editorial from the New York Times that supports Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's missions of promoting the creation of a Palestinian state, an opening to Syria, and pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of West Bank settlements, bring down barriers to Palestinian movement on the West Bank, and halt the destruction of Palestinian homes built illegally in East Jerusalem. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06fri2.html?emc=eta1
My friend is worried that I do not recognize the strength of American sentiments in favor of these actions.
Not to fret. Israelis are aware of international opinion. My concern is that this friend and other Americans are isolated from Israeli opinion.
One should never exaggerate interpretations of an election. There are many reasons for individuals to vote in one way rather than another. Nonetheless, there was at least an element in Israelis' recent voting that rejected the widely-held and long failed promotion of a Palestinian state, and its associated concerns for Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Many Israelis feel that its governments have tried reasonable proposals, including settlement freezes, and efforts to make life easier for Palestinians. Many also feel that the Palestinian cause is hopeless as long as "moderate" leaders reject every Israeli gesture as inadequate, and other leaders encourage their followers to fire missiles at Israeli cities and do whatever else they can to kill Israeli civilians.
There is a component of "in your face" in the selection of Benyamin Netanyahu as the politician most likely to become the next prime minister. The message of "in your face" will be even stronger if he selects Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister.
Neither selection may be wise. "In your face" is not the conventional way to get along in politics. It is risky to upset the world's greatest power and Israel's most important friend. If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama find themselves uncomfortable with Israel's new leadership, imagine the reception in capitals of important countries whose populations are much less supportive of Israel than Americans.
All that being said, there are good reasons for American officials, and all those decent American Jews who want peace for Israel and its neighbors to pay some attention to the people selected by Israel's voters.
Americans and others say that they support a Jewish democracy. This is what the Israeli democracy has done. At least part of the reason is the failure of the mantras pursued for years by international liberals.
As always, failure has many parents. They include the ascendance of radical Islam, the oil wealth of Iran, the attractions of drugs that originate in Afghanistan, and the failure of Americans to deal with the hard core of radicalism whether in places like Afghanistan/Pakistan or the friendly state of Saudi Arabia. There is also the large bloc of Muslim votes in the United Nations, the pressure of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, the need of American officials to be "even handed" if they want to maintain world leadership, and the attractions of business to be done in Muslim countries for Germany, France, Britain, and Russia. One is tempted to look for opportunities missed by Israeli governments, and the constraints created by Jews living throughout the area that Palestinians aspire to be Judenrein.
The new Israeli government seems likely to bother the sentiments of those who think of themselves as decent and supportive of Israel not only in its cold shoulder to a Palestinian state, but in elements of internal politics. Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox parties are getting ready to exercise their weight. They did not grow as a result of the election, but a Likud government is likely to be more hospitable to their demands than one led by Kadima or Labor. This does not bode well for the desires of non-Orthodox religious Jews in Israel. Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews will be able to find their synagogues and rabbis throughout Israel, but disappointment seems likely for non-Orthodox rabbis who want all the rights they enjoy elsewhere, or women who want to perform at the Western Wall the rituals assigned to men by the Orthodox .
The future is by no means clear. Prime Minister Netanyahu will speak clearly, but may behave differently than he speaks. There is a serious land mine ticking within the his likely coalition. Lieberman's party depends heavily on the support of Russian immigrants, and they demand things that the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox resist. Civil marriage and the sale of pork are high on the agendas of both sides, one intensely positive and the other intensely negative.
Moderates like me prefer cool tempers, a quiet discussion of options, and a lack of emotional response when the votes fall in undesirable ways. "In your face" is not the style of politics we find comfortable. For us it may be a time to hunker down as American and European officials accuse their Israeli counterparts of faults ranging from shortsightedness to acting in bad faith, and non-Orthodox religious Jews proclaim violations of religious freedom.
There are several items on my hopeful agenda: that my American friend and his government will be wise enough to ponder the sources of the Israel's election results, and decide that pressuring Israel is not the only way to deal with madness among the Muslims in our region and elsewhere; that pragmatism will compete with bluster in Bibi's coalition; and that enough of this will happen to keep me optimistic.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il