Israeli Election Results Imperil Peace Process

Week two, here we go! Thanks for reading last week’s article, and make sure you keep the pressure on the people in the State Senate and Assembly, telling them that no new taxes are acceptable!

The Israeli Knesset election votes are 99% in, and, folks, things do not bode well for the future peace process. Tzipi Livni’s centrist Kadima Party has won 28 seats, while Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud has won 27. Avigdor Lieberman’s far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party won the third most seats, fifteen in all, beating Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s Labor party, which took fourth place. Now, you might be confused as to what this means, as the Israeli system differs from our own. What it means is that Tzipi Livni won the right to be Prime Minister, but just barely. There is, however, a potential spoiler in these results. If Avigdor Lieberman were to ally with Likud and other conservative parties to form a coalition, then Netanyahu would win the Ministry.

To understand the threat that Likudnik Prime Minister would pose to the peace process, it is important to understand the history and policies of the Likud party, and Mr. Netanyahu, as well as those of Mr. Lieberman, who possesses the ability to make Netanyahu Prime Minister. The Likud party generally opposes Palestinian statehood, and supports settlements. The Yisrael Beiteinu party is even more extreme in its views. Its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, has stated that he’d require Arab citizens of Israel to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a “Jewish state”, and has expressed the belief that he considers Arab members of the Knesset to be “collaborators” with terrorists. And it is now that man who has the power to create a conservative coalition government.

Even the Kadima Party, which bills itself as “centrist” and “moderate”, and is the best hope for a two-state solution and the pursuit of peace, has some skeletons in its closet. Kadima was formed as a break-off group from the Likud party by Ariel Sharon. The split was largely driven by the Unilateral Disengagement Plan, under which all Israelis would evacuate Gaza and as well as four settlements in the West Bank. The anti-Disengagement faction remained in Likud, while the pro-Disengagement camp formed Kadima. While Kadima is better than Likud and Beiteinu as far as its willingness to work towards peace, its stated policies include:

-The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel. However, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, part of the Land of Israel must be given up to maintain a Jewish and democratic state. Israel shall remain a Jewish state and homeland. Jewish majority in Israel will be preserved by territorial concessions to Palestinians.

-Jerusalem and large settlement blocks in the West Bank will be kept under Israeli control.

That being said, Kadima’s position is a large improvement over when Golda Meir said in June 1969 “There was no such thing as Palestinians … They did not exist.”

Two key factors that must be accounted for are Gaza and Hamas. Israel needs to stop its blockade of Gaza. What kind of democracy is it when you say, “Okay, vote for whomever you want, but if you vote for the people we don’t like, we’ll starve all of you!” Second, Hamas is now a legitimate part of the Palestinian political scene. It’s here to stay, and, as NY Times Op-Ed Nicholas D. Kristof columnist wrote in his article “Gaza Boomerang”, Hamas is something of an Israeli-created monster; Israel allowed Hamas to grow, hoping that it would undermine Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. In Kristof’s opinion, the result has been an endless cycle of violence in which the actions of Palestinian extremists give justification for the actions of Israeli extremists, and so on, and so forth, with the civilian population, particularly the Palestinian civilians, bearing the brunt of the violence. The rhetoric of “never negotiate with terrorists” and the “Global War on Terrorism”-regardless of the terrorists’ allegiance, methods, objectives, or potential for damage-need to be set aside. Sure, “Hamas’ constitution calls for the destruction of Israel”; the American Constitution originally said that blacks could be enslaved, and that they counted as 3/5 a person. In his January 31^st Op Ed in the LA Times, Fawaz A. Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies and international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College, said that moderate elements in Hamas have been increasingly advocating a truce with Israel based on Islamic law. He says that they have proposed either tahdia (a minor truce) or hudna (a longer-term truce), and that, in addition to either truce being an acknowledgement of Israel’s legitimacy, that there is also precedent for hudna becoming permanent peace agreements. He even quotes Khaled Meshaal, the top Hamas leader and head of its political bureau based in Syria, as saying that, “‘We are realists,’ he said. And he acknowledged that there is ‘an entity called Israel.’” Clearly, Israel’s goal should be to reward the moderates in Hamas and bring Hamas into the political process, not alienate it and fuel the mad ramblings of the suicidal radicals in the organization.

The conflict in the Middle East is older than most UCSB students, and most of their parents as well. Israel has far greater power than Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad combined, but as long as it pursues inhumane practices and policies, such as their asymmetrical response in Gaza this Winter, it will continue to produce two future Hamas members for each one they kill. Israel has the power, and the responsibility, to break the cycle of violence, and yet, they have elected people dedicated to expansionism and aggression. Still, I hope, against all odds, and pray, for peace in the Holy Land.

Sources used for this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzipi_Livni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadima

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mideast-watch/2009/02/12/palestinians-give-thumbs-down-to-israeli-election-results.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_election

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7882406.stm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yisrael_Beiteinu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1cd265cf-3d9e-43d8-ae46-5b0ac0b2f8ea

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gerges31-2009jan31,0,4432297.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08kristof.html

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=30372

6 Responses to “Israeli Election Results Imperil Peace Process”

1. Wikipedia Delenda Est! says:

   February 16, 2009 at 5:32 pm

   Hey, don’t you know better than to use Wikipedia as a source? Even if the info you got from it was correct and legitimate, using it brings an article’s credibility into question, especially on a controversial subject like this one. What do they teach you folks at the Nexus?
2. Joni whelano says:

   February 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm

   Hey, I disagree with the above comment. This isn’t a research paper it’s an opinion piece. If it was used, cite it, that’s the point of showing your source.The source snobbery you recommend promotes dishonest writing. There’s nothing wrong with using Wikipedia in this type of article if you are familiar enough with the topic to discern the veracity of it. I notice you fail to point out any particular fact that you disagree with which leads me to believe you you have no knowledge of the topic yourself. If you can’t comment on the content, facts, opinion, then go blow yourself asswipe. Yes, that’s used as an example of what people do when they can’t argue intelligently.

   i
3. Wikipedia Delenda Est! says:

   February 20, 2009 at 9:05 pm

   As a TA, I see students using Wikipedia all too much in their work, so I take whatever opportunity I can to discourage any serious use of it. Having been involved in several Wikipedia pages myself, my criticism isn’t simple snobbery, it comes out of having seen how the sausage is made — and on anything even remotely controversial, it ain’t pretty.

   Do you really think that an opinion piece has no obligation to ensure factual correctness? Or that perception of credibility doesn’t matter if something is “opinion” instead of “research”? If you want your writing to be convincing, you need to reassure readers that you do indeed have your facts straight and that they come from good, reliable sources. Sure, it may not matter much for a blog entry, but why foster bad habits, especially if you would like to write professionally? The last thing we need is more careless journalists.

   As for not arguing against Vanderhorst’s points, I don’t because that’s not the purpose of my comment! Nowhere did I say that using Wikipedia makes her stance incorrect, just that it’s very unwise to use it, independent of the particular topic. Any aggravated tone is due purely to this being my pet peeve.
4. Joni whelano says:

   February 20, 2009 at 10:01 pm

   Exactly my point, and woe to the student who suffers at your bias and snobbery.
   You fail to point out the factual incorrectness, the”failed” research, and the points of this blog which are not convincing, while admitting that your criticism is based solely on your own personal bias. I bet if you checked your evaluations of your own students’ work, you would find the same omissions in your critiques and comments. Teacher heal thyself. Get to the heart of the matter and stop being a pussy about inconsequential things.
5. Wikipedia Delenda Est! says:

   February 21, 2009 at 1:22 pm

   “You fail to point out the factual incorrectness, the”failed” research, and the points of this blog which are not convincing, while admitting that your criticism is based solely on your own personal bias.”

   Did you even *read* my previous comment? I addressed the first part, and as for the second, simply because I didn’t go on at length about the flaws of Wikipedia doesn’t make it a matter of nothing but “bias”. If one of your complaints is that this is a major tangent to Vanderhorst’s article, my going in depth would only hijack the comments even more. I’ll do it, though, if you are genuinely interested and will actually listen instead of continuing to insult me and misrepresent what I say.

   Why is this such a touchy subject for you if it’s indeed “inconsequential”?
6. Lillie says:

   February 21, 2009 at 7:34 pm

   dude who fuckin cares if some of wikipedia was used. the majority of what was written was true so stop being a pain in the ass.

   your article was really well put and i learned a lot from it. i’m seriously impressed.