Uri Avnery, 26.11.05
A POLITICAL earthquake is itself a rare event. When two
major political earthquakes follow each other in quick succession, this is
almost unheard of.
One such earthquake was the
election of Amir Peretz as leader of the Labor Party. The other is Sharon's
leaving the Likud and forming a new party.
Suddenly, the political
landscape has changed beyond recognition. Previously, there were two mountains.
Now there are three - and none of them stands where either of the two was
standing before.
The Likud has evolved
over the last 28 years into a center-right party. Its extreme nationalist views
have been diluted with opportunism and ever growing corruption. Its leadership
became intertwined with the ultra-rich, who dictated its economic policy, even
if most of its voters belonged to the underprivileged.
The Labor party has
become its own tombstone. It has turned into a pale copy of the Likud, a kind
of Likud 2. Its main gravedigger, Shimon Peres, was also its main
representative, while also acting as Sharon's chief propagandist throughout the
world.
This landscape does not
exist any more.
IN THE new landscape there are three mountains, facing
three different directions.
- THE LIKUD has reverted
to what it was before coming to power in 1977: a radical right-wing party. This
is the classic Herut party, which believes in the Greater Israel (called in
Hebrew "The Whole of Eretz YIsrael"), from the Mediterranean Sea to
the Jordan River (at least). It opposes any peace agreement with the
Palestinian people and wants to maintain the occupation, until circumstances
allow for the annexation of all the occupied territories. Since it also wants a
homogeneous Jewish state, this contains a hidden message: the Arabs must be
induced to leave the country. In right-wing parlance, this is called
"voluntary transfer". However, the party takes care not spell this
out openly.
The Likud may now
prattle about "social" matters, in order to compete with Peretz for
the "Eastern" (mostly North African) voters. But since the
unification of the Herut Party in the 1960s with the defunct Liberal Party, it
has served the interests of the very rich.
- THE SHARON PARTY (called Kadima,
"Forward") is built on a lie. Sharon has declared that the Road Map
is its sole political platform. But the Road Map was dead before it was born.
Sharon does not dream - and never intended - to carry out his part of the very
first phase of its realization: the elimination of the hundred new settlements
("outposts") that were set up after 2000, and the freeze of all
settlement activities.
Sharon does not make a
secret of his real intentions: to annex to Israel 58% of the West Bank,
including the ever-expanding "settlement blocs", as well as various
"security zones" (the extended Jordan valley and the roads between
the settlements) and Great-Great-Jerusalem, up to the Ma'aleh Adumim
settlement. Since there can be no Palestinian partner for such a
"solution", he plans to implement this by a unilateral diktat,
backed by force, without any dialogue with the Palestinians.
As far as Sharon is
concerned, social matters are a nuisance. He will, of course, publish some
social program in order to compete with Peretz and the Likud, but it really
does not interest him.
- THE LABOR PARTY of
Amir Peretz will concentrate on social-economic issues, hoping to attract the
masses of the Eastern public who have until now voted for the Likud and Shas
(the party of Orthodox Eastern Jews). The chances of victory lie here. Amir
Peretz supports a serious peace program: negotiations with the Palestinians and
the establishment of a Palestinian state, on the basis of the borders of 1967.
He will represent this in a social context: the money wasted on war, occupation
and the settlements is stolen from the poor and increases the gap between rich
and poor.
Peretz's advisors will
try to convince him to "become centralized" (there is a new Hebrew
word for this) and to dilute his peace message, in order to attract voters
"in the middle". If he does this, he will appear to lack
self-confidence, credibility and a clear program. But in any case, Peretz will
try to emphasize social issues and relegate peace-and-security issues to second
place.
ONE OF the main principles of military strategy is that
the side that chooses the battlefield has a better chance of winning the
battle, since his choice will reflect, of course, their particular
requirements. That is also true for the election battle.
Sharon is a victorious
general, and therefore he is interested in placing "Security" in the
centre of the election campaign. There he has a huge advantage over Peretz, who
was a mere captain in the maintenance corps. When there is danger to the
security of Israel, the people will trust Sharon, the Sabra (born in this
country) from Malal village, who radiates the aura of a military leader.
Peretz is a trade union
leader, a man born in Morocco who grew up in a small town of poor immigrants,
and so is interested in placing the social-economic issues in the center of the
elections. When hundreds of thousands live beneath the poverty line and see the
social gap as their main problem, they may treat security matters as of
secondary concern.
Peretz must get the
masses to internalize the formula "Peace = Reducing the Gap". That is
quite difficult. During my ten years in the Knesset, I made dozens of speeches
about this, and did not succeed. In public consciousness, there exists a kind
of mental block: when speaking about the economy, the national conflict is
ignored. When speaking about the national conflict, they don't want to hear
about the economy. Peretz must break through the partition and establish the
connection between the two. After so many sacrifices of blood and money, the
public may be ripe for this.
So the main battle will
be about the battlefield itself: whether Security or the Social Gap will be its
centerpiece. Peretz must stick to his agenda, even if all kinds of advisors and
media-people urge him to deviate from it and respond the attacks of his
opponents. And, of course, every "terrorist" attack will help Sharon
and the Likud. (Sharon-haters assert that he is quite capable of provoking such
attacks himself, by initiating military actions that demand retaliation.)
HOW DOES the new landscape differ from the old? Strangely
enough, many commentators ignore the most manifest and most decisive fact:
The whole system has
undergone a shift to the left.
The Likud nucleus is
stuck on the right, where it always was. But all the others have moved.
The Sharon-party, which
has split from the Likud, has given up its main article of faith: the Whole of
Eretz Yisrael. It advocates the partition of the country. Sharon himself has
established the precedent of removing settlements. However bad his political
program is: compared to the former position of himself and of the Likud, it is
much less rightist. He has not turned into "Labor 2", as his Likud
opponents assert, but he has moved leftward.
The election of Amir
Peretz constitutes a major movement of the Labor party to the real left.
This is true for the
solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as for the social problem.
Not only does Peretz bring with him a social-democratic agenda, he also compels
all the other parties to turn in this direction, or at least to pretend to.
Even Shas has suddenly
remembered that it is, after all, the party of the underprivileged Eastern
Jews. After several years on the extreme right, it is now recalling that its
sole leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, years ago came out in favor of giving back
territories for peace.
For years now an
abnormal situation has prevailed in Israel and driven social scientists crazy:
according to all public opinion polls, most of the public wants peace and is
prepared to make almost all the necessary concessions, but in the Knesset this
position has hardly been represented at all..
During all these years,
my optimism has irritated many people. I told everyone: this will not go on.
Some day, in a way that we cannot yet foresee, this abnormal state will right
itself. One way or another, the political scene will attune itself to public
opinion.
An earthquake causes
changes on the ground, but is itself caused by forces deep in the earth. This
is true in political life, too: the changes hidden in the depths of public
consciousness eventually result in changes that are visible to the eye. The
outcome is quick and sudden, but it results from a long, slow subterranean
process. I am proud of the role that I and my partners have had in this.
What will happen now?
That depends on many factors. On us, too.