Wednesday, December 21, 2005

The Death of the Israeli right

It was just over 5 years ago that commentators were saying that the Israeli left was dead, and that with the breakdown of the Camp David talks and the start of the intifada their position had proved untenable.

5 years since then it can be said with far greater confidence that the left is not dead (although signficantly weakened) but that it is the right that is dead. Whilst at the sociological level, the Israeli electorate has overwhelmingly supported territorial concessions this has not be reflected at the political level. Following the disengagement and the formation of a centrist party Kadimah, the right has been exposed for what it has always been - intellectually bankrupt.

Now with the Likud team consisting of Netanyahu, Landau, Shalom and Feiglin, free of any moderates who have now left, the hollowness of Likud has been exposed for what it is. What does the Likud party now stand for? Certainly, settlement expansion. Certainly, aggressive and excessive responses against Palestinians or other Arab countries (ala Iran). And certainly not territoral comprome. Bibi - of course phrases things differently - he talks of terrorism, Hamastan, reciprocity, legitimate self-defence. When all said and done - Bibi wouldn't give a crumb to the Palestinians - whether they were Finns or terrorists. He simply does not at the emotional or intellectual level accept that a viable Palestinian state should exist next to Israel. In other words, he rejects the international concensus concerning the resolution of the Israel/Pal. conflict. Bibi, more then anyone else is simply incapable of negotiating in good faith with the Palestinians - anyone intimately familiar with the Hebron and Wye accords know the shananagan's that Bibi played during these negotiations. Clinton it is well known despises Bibi.

And this is why Likud and the extreme right are intellectually bankrupt. They simply have no solution to the Palestinian problem beyond force, more force or more force. The Likud's leading visionary Vladamir Jabotinsky developed the concept of the "Iron Wall", which unfortunatey is horribly misunderstood by the Likud. Whereas for them the "Iron Wall" suggests that Israel must always be strong and that a militaristic response is the only deterrant against the Palestinians, what Jabotinsky really meant by the "Iron Wall" is that yes initially Israel in order to be recognised by the Arab world must be strong and ready to defend herself but fighting is not an end itself. For Jabotinsky, once the Arab world has accepted Israel's existence (not to be confused with the Palestinians accepting Israel's moral and historical legitimacy which the Arabs unfortunately do not accept) then the "iron wall" has achieved its goal - stage 2 is to embark on a process of conciliation and dialogue with its neighbours.

Likud have no response to the demographic problem, to the problems posed by the occupation of the Palestinians, to Palestinian independence, to the threat continuing occupation poses to Israel's standing in the world. Their course is a dangerous one. It is for this reason that the electorate will be leaving them in droves. With a strong leader like Sharon out of the picture and with extremists such as Moshe Feiglin getting a significant share of the primary votes, the road to Likud becoming a small party is a short one. Ironcially, Likud may now win votes from the extreme right - National Union, NRP - since their basic viewpoints are now not much different to Likud (they just have a more religious feel to them).

Whilst the left has started to recover over the shock of the intifada 5 years ago, the right will never recover. Like the Herut of old, Likud is returning to its roots - small and irrelevant to the Israeli political scene.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home