Yoaz Hendel
by Yoaz Hendel
The outcome of this coming week’s Israeli election is already known. The right will again prevail; the left will, once again, be in the minority.
Since 1977, the year the left’s dominance in Israel was overturned, there has been an ideological and numerical balance between the two political camps. The conservative right has fervently believed in Israel’s rights to the biblical territory that was occupied as a result of the country’s war of self-defence in 1967. The left has always believed in the need for compromise on the territories. The question of a Palestinian state has become the key issue embodying the conflict between two political views.
The forthcoming elections are significantly different from all the previous ones. The projected victory of the right, according to the polls, is not the result of the satisfaction of the voters with Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister, but primarily a result of the perceived reality of Israel and the Middle East. The cumulative effect of both internal and regional changes has led most Israelis to be sceptical about the possibility of achieving peace in the region.
The first significant crisis of the peace process came with the beginning of the second intifada in 2000. While Ehud Barak, then Israel’s prime minister, negotiated with the PLO chairman, Yasser Arafat, Israelis were killed in a wave of terrorist attacks. Behind the terrorist organisations stood Arafat’s own people.
The more the Israeli left persisted in embracing the slogans of Peace Now in the face of these acts of terror, the more the public distanced itself from the left. As a result, the right once again came to power, led by Ariel Sharon. During this period, the reign of terror was successfully suppressed by the military.
Then came a major strategic turning point in the Israeli political map. In 2005 Sharon, one of the original proponents and builders of the settlements, carried out Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, fulfilling one of the left’s long-held dreams.
The disengagement from Gaza, which involved moving Jews from their homes, caused national trauma.
The vast majority of the Israeli public accepted Sharon’s justification for disengaging from Gaza. The public also accepted his argument that following the disengagement it would be possible to cut relations with the Strip, and thereby benefit from relative calm. Israelis were attracted to the idea that “they are there and we are here”.
The reality was different. Hamas came to power and Gaza became a permanent terrorist threat. Most Israelis were forced to conclude that there is a serious flaw with the idea of “land for peace”.
Despite this, four years ago, the Israeli elections ended with an even balance between the political camps. And, remarkably, when Netanyahu successfully formed a coalition and became prime minister, he belied the international perception of him as a rightwing conservative – and despite the Gaza experience, declared his support for the two-state solution. The two-state vision originated with the Israeli left, with the right arguing that a Palestinian state would rapidly transform into a state of terror.
The Guardian
by Yoaz Hendel
The outcome of this coming week’s Israeli election is already known. The right will again prevail; the left will, once again, be in the minority.
Since 1977, the year the left’s dominance in Israel was overturned, there has been an ideological and numerical balance between the two political camps. The conservative right has fervently believed in Israel’s rights to the biblical territory that was occupied as a result of the country’s war of self-defence in 1967. The left has always believed in the need for compromise on the territories. The question of a Palestinian state has become the key issue embodying the conflict between two political views.
The forthcoming elections are significantly different from all the previous ones. The projected victory of the right, according to the polls, is not the result of the satisfaction of the voters with Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister, but primarily a result of the perceived reality of Israel and the Middle East. The cumulative effect of both internal and regional changes has led most Israelis to be sceptical about the possibility of achieving peace in the region.
The first significant crisis of the peace process came with the beginning of the second intifada in 2000. While Ehud Barak, then Israel’s prime minister, negotiated with the PLO chairman, Yasser Arafat, Israelis were killed in a wave of terrorist attacks. Behind the terrorist organisations stood Arafat’s own people.
The more the Israeli left persisted in embracing the slogans of Peace Now in the face of these acts of terror, the more the public distanced itself from the left. As a result, the right once again came to power, led by Ariel Sharon. During this period, the reign of terror was successfully suppressed by the military.
Then came a major strategic turning point in the Israeli political map. In 2005 Sharon, one of the original proponents and builders of the settlements, carried out Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, fulfilling one of the left’s long-held dreams.
The disengagement from Gaza, which involved moving Jews from their homes, caused national trauma.
The vast majority of the Israeli public accepted Sharon’s justification for disengaging from Gaza. The public also accepted his argument that following the disengagement it would be possible to cut relations with the Strip, and thereby benefit from relative calm. Israelis were attracted to the idea that “they are there and we are here”.
The reality was different. Hamas came to power and Gaza became a permanent terrorist threat. Most Israelis were forced to conclude that there is a serious flaw with the idea of “land for peace”.
Despite this, four years ago, the Israeli elections ended with an even balance between the political camps. And, remarkably, when Netanyahu successfully formed a coalition and became prime minister, he belied the international perception of him as a rightwing conservative – and despite the Gaza experience, declared his support for the two-state solution. The two-state vision originated with the Israeli left, with the right arguing that a Palestinian state would rapidly transform into a state of terror.
The Guardian
