(The Arabic original was posted before)
Link
Comment: Those who believed the recent general election in Israel was likely to herald significant progress in the "peace process" were deluding themselves.
Israel's latest elections affirm yet again that the right is the dominant force in Israeli politics and society.
This has been the case since Menachem Begin's Likud came to power in 1977, with the political coming-of-age of the Mizrahi population and its alienation from the Labor Party and its project.
Since then, the Zionist labour movement has been in decline, its task of establishing the state, driving out or subduing the Palestinians and "repatriating" the Jewish Diaspora largely completed in 1967.
After this, with the occupation of Gaza, Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, the agenda shifted to issues related to settlements, and the relationship between religion and nationalism - issues that the right was able to address in a way more suited to Israel's new expansionist reality.
Of course it was the Zionist labour movement which played the prominent role in founding the Zionist polity, leading five wars against the Arabs up to the founding of the state in 1948.
But since its defeat in 1977, the Labor Party has finished ahead of Likud in only two general elections, in 1992 and 1999. The right and the National Religious camp has generally continued to command the majority.
There looked to be a good chance that Labor could win this year, thanks to Netanyahu's personality and lack of credibility, even among his domestic and foreign allies, and his focus on security issues and the marginalisation of the Palestine question.
But he was able to put the Palestine question on the agenda of right-wing voters by suggesting a government led by his rival Herzog might agree to a Palestinian state.
By doing so, Netanyahu attracted votes from parties further to the right than his own, from people who wanted to make sure Likud remained the dominant party. Netanyahu also managed to rally the right-wing vote by appealing to the instinctive racism of some Jewish voters, telling them the Arabs were "voting in droves".
This has been the case since Menachem Begin's Likud came to power in 1977, with the political coming-of-age of the Mizrahi population and its alienation from the Labor Party and its project.
Since then, the Zionist labour movement has been in decline, its task of establishing the state, driving out or subduing the Palestinians and "repatriating" the Jewish Diaspora largely completed in 1967.
After this, with the occupation of Gaza, Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, the agenda shifted to issues related to settlements, and the relationship between religion and nationalism - issues that the right was able to address in a way more suited to Israel's new expansionist reality.
Of course it was the Zionist labour movement which played the prominent role in founding the Zionist polity, leading five wars against the Arabs up to the founding of the state in 1948.
But since its defeat in 1977, the Labor Party has finished ahead of Likud in only two general elections, in 1992 and 1999. The right and the National Religious camp has generally continued to command the majority.
There looked to be a good chance that Labor could win this year, thanks to Netanyahu's personality and lack of credibility, even among his domestic and foreign allies, and his focus on security issues and the marginalisation of the Palestine question.
But he was able to put the Palestine question on the agenda of right-wing voters by suggesting a government led by his rival Herzog might agree to a Palestinian state.
By doing so, Netanyahu attracted votes from parties further to the right than his own, from people who wanted to make sure Likud remained the dominant party. Netanyahu also managed to rally the right-wing vote by appealing to the instinctive racism of some Jewish voters, telling them the Arabs were "voting in droves".
 | Netanyahu also managed to rally the right-wing vote by appealing to the instinctive racism of some Jewish voters. |
In overall terms, no votes moved between the rival camps. Rather, votes moved within the right-wing camp itself, from the smaller parties to Likud.
It is not entirely clear what form the next government will take, whether it will have a narrow base limited to the right and the religious parties, or whether it will be broad-based with the rival camp represented in cabinet.
But what is quite clear is that the Arabs who bet on the Israeli elections to tip the balance of power in their favour wagered in vain. The idea is as disconnected from Israeli reality as it is connected to the dismal state of Palestinian and Arab affairs.
So much for wishful thinking
This new-found Palestinian interest in Israeli politics is not a question of knowing one's enemy in order to fight it, or the better to outmanoeuvre it during negotiations.
In reality it is a question of not fighting one's enemy, now that negotiations appear to be forever stalled. Those who bet on Israeli elections are the same people who stopped betting on resistance (peaceful and otherwise) - though they have recently realised without any doubt the undeniable absence of any Israeli will either to reach a permanent solution or even agree on a frame of reference for negotiations.
So much for wishful thinking and the belief that the Israeli elections would rescue the "peace process".
Far from it, the Israeli electorate gave Netanyahu a mandate to be even more intransigent and to pursue more aggressive policies on occupation and settlement.
For the Israelis are never likely even to consider offering "concessions" in the absence of any pressure to do so. And no kind of pressure, Arab or otherwise, is being brought to bear on Israel at the moment. Instead, it is the Palestinians who are coming under Israeli and Arab pressure, especially in Gaza.
| The Israeli electorate gave Netanyahu a mandate to be even more intransigent and to pursue more aggressive policies. |
Ultimately, the Israeli elections are not a way out for those who have no strategy. The Israelis will not vote for the sake of the Palestinians or the Arabs.
Balancing national rights with the national cause
Regarding the Joint Arab List, the positive impact it had was that it spared the Arabs inside Israel from an electoral battle that they had previously fought in every election - against one another, not for power, but for opposition seats in the Knesset.
The best they can do is improve the representation of the civil and national issues of their people, and maintain their Arab Palestinian identity against the two colonialist factions in parliament - the Zionist right and the Zionist left.
But the worst they can do is try to gain the Zionist parties' approval by identifying with Israel, separating civil issues from national issues and engaging in theatrics and staged provocations whose limits are set in advance.
In Israel, the question of equality for Arabs is not on the agenda.
The issue of equality for Arab citizens, as the indigenous population, cannot be separated from the national cause. It cannot be addressed without renouncing the Zionist identity of the state.
Equality for Arabs in Israel is impossible, because it is the antithesis of the state's definition of itself and its functions. Therefore, engaging in the Israeli political game on the basis of accepting this reality equates to self-denial.
In the mid-1990s, the national movement came up with an equation that balanced the notions of citizenship and collective national rights for the Arabs within the Green Line and the Palestinian national cause.
On the basis of this equation, the movement developed a discourse that has since revolutionised many concepts. Unity among the Arab parties should not be an occasion to marginalise this idea, but rather, the idea should be turned into a central discourse.
The guarantee would be to build the bases and institutions of the Palestinian national movement within the Green Line and educate young people on the basis of these principles.
Dr Azmi Bishara is a Palestinian academic and writer.
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of al-Araby al-Jadeed, its editorial board or staff.
This is an edited translation from our Arabic edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment