It seems every option has been tried and the results are still the same – Bibi, like Putin and Assad, is still here and we can’t get rid of him. We must qualify that comparison: Putin has absolute control of the media and liquidates the opposition, and Assad liquidates the Syrian people with bombs and starvation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, has to contend with a hostile press, but he still succeeds in charming his voters. The forces needed to defeat him simply do not exist in Israeli society. He enjoys the loyalty of the repressed, true, but the reason for his success is mostly the lack of an alternative. Bibi versus “Boujie” (Isaac Herzog) is really not a fair fight – that was clear enough even before they stepped into the ring.

When Netanyahu dissolved the Knesset, he aimed to neutralize two competitors within his coalition: Naftali Bennett (leader of the right-wing “Jewish Home” party) and Yair Lapid (leader of the centrist party, “There is a Future”). The operation was successful beyond all expectations, but the patient is still in ER. From the start, Bibi wanted a government whose members would not challenge his leadership – a kind of return to the unity government of 2009, which ran its full term with the Labor Party in partnership. But when you call for elections, you know only how things will begin – not how they’ll end. What began as an attempt to put Bennett and Lapid in their place led to the election’s big surprise – the partnership between Tzipi Livni and Herzog, who created a serious contender for government with their joint list, the “Zionist Camp.”

Bibi and the Likud

Netanyahu discovered another little thing: the Likud party members, whom he loathes so much that he avoids appearing in the party committees so as not to have anything to do with them, loathe him just as much. This is a deep-rooted, mutual aversion. Netanyahu’s true friends are the tycoons, while the powerful workers’ committees and the party functionaries are his foes. It was not by chance that he “let slip” the comparison between them and Hamas terrorists.

For a moment it seemed that an opportunity for change had come: the prospect of increased voter turnout among the Arabs; the squabbles in the outgoing government coalition, from Lieberman to Lapid; some generous assistance from the anti-Netanyahu Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot and the v15 movement, and – voila! – we can stop Bibi!

But when the threat became tangible and the opinion polls showed him sliding, Bibi called “Oy! Gewalt! The Leftists are coming!” to remind the Likud tribe of their traditional hatred for the Labor Party and their primordial fear of the Arabs. At the last moment he surged ahead. For the first time in his political career, Bibi finds himself in a position he has always tried to avoid like the plague: pure Right.

Political suicide

Events have their own dynamic. The more the Zionist Camp advanced in the polls, the more the polarization increased and the bigger the gamble. This time Netanyahu left no room for uncertainty. His declaration that there would never be a Palestinian state, and the call on Likud voters to rush to the ballot because the Arabs were “voting in droves,” were suicide from a policy point of view, but bought him political breathing space. As a result of Bibi’s left-bashing, his Likud base shouted against the idea of a unity government with the Zionist Camp, leaving him no choice but to go for a pure rightist government. Without a moderate partner, Bibi will have no fig leaf – and he is not used to this.

The White House is once more fuming and at a loss. Obama is supposed to support Israel while its government goes back on its commitment to a Palestinian state, and its prime minister relates to Israel’s Arab citizens as a fifth column whose participation in the elections is viewed as a threat. It reminds Obama of the dark days in the southern US when African Americans were unable to vote. In fact, the government has openly declared that it is leading the country into the unknown, and it is willing to run up against the entire world as it does so.

But these positions were not suddenly exposed in the last stages of the election race. They were not acts of despair from a man fearful of losing his seat. The “nation-state law” which blatantly discriminates against Arab citizens was the reason the government was dissolved, and the position of the prime minister – who denies the PA as a partner for peace – has long been known. It was Bibi who consistently told the public that if the occupied territories were to be “given” to the Palestinians, they would rapidly fall into the hands of Hamas and ISIS.

The feeble mumblings of the Zionist Camp on this issue demonstrated that there are no fundamental differences of opinion between the two sides. Herzog holds to the position of endless negotiation under US auspices without reaching an agreement, while Netanyahu views this as a dangerous tactic which leads to “creeping concessions”, as he called the Oslo Accords. In this sense the elections were like a referendum on the future of the territories. The people have spoken, and there’s no point going to Bibi to complain.

But we can and must complain to the Zionist Camp, Meretz, and the Joint (Arab) List, who did not address the fundamental issues and made do with the slogan “Anyone but Bibi” – which succeeded only in bringing Bibi back. If Herzog promises to solve the housing problem as his main objective, while ignoring the Occupation, why should we blame Netanyahu?

The ball’s in the Palestinian court

Israel has no alternative to the Right – so the ball is in the Palestinian’s court. If the Palestinians thought Herzog and the Zionist Left would save them from themselves and from the need to make decisions, the elections bring them up against tough choices.

It’s true that the PLO Central Committee (yes, the PLO is still alive, though not exactly kicking) has decided to suspend security cooperation with Israel, but the threat has already been proven ineffective, because this cooperation serves Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Fatah as a means of securing donor money and as protection against a Hamas takeover; everyone knows it will continue as long as the PA exists. The PA’s appeal to the International Court at The Hague may be a threat to Israel, but it does nothing to bring the Occupation to an end or dismantle the settlements.

The incoming government intends to step up construction in Area C and permit the Palestinians to manage their own affairs in the lands that remain in their hands. The PA lives off the funds from donor states and the taxes transferred by Israel, and it is clear to all that its leaders are not about to give up their privileges. Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip continues to bleed: some 100,000 new refugees passed a cold winter in the flattened neighborhoods, and there can be no doubt that the situation will soon explode once more. But the only thing the new government will be willing to do is to ease the siege a little.

In light of this, the PA can accuse Israel of being colonialist and racist, but this explanation for the election results is somewhat simplistic. It’s true that Israelis have learned to live with the Occupation as “shrapnel in the butt,” as Bennett put it two years ago – something that bothers us sometimes, but doesn’t prevent us leading a normal life. But the Palestinians must shoulder part of the blame for the election results, because they too have resigned themselves to their situation.

The more than twenty years in which funds have flowed to the PA and the NGOs close to it have bought Israel some quiet, while the extremism of Hamas has driven Israeli voters rightwards. Thus, between resigning themselves to the Occupation on the one hand and the empty threat of destroying Israel on the other, the Palestinians will allow Bibi to sail to victory in the future too.

Let there be no mistake: the International Court and Obama will not come to the Palestinians’ aid. Obama is willing to form an alliance with Iran at the expense of the Syrian people, who are undergoing terrors far greater than those of the Palestinians, so he will certainly resign himself to the occupation too. US-Israel relations are above any personal animosity between an Israeli prime minister and a US president. The Left in Israel has shown it is powerless, and the Israeli nation does not think of the future – it lives in the present.

Therefore a response to Bibi and the Israeli Right is up to the Palestinians. Now they must stop their de facto, tacit acceptance of the Occupation. If they manage to do this, they will force the Left and the Arab population of Israel to change their agenda and create a democratic, Jewish-Arab camp which prioritizes ending the Occupation and achieving peace. Only in this way will they succeed in challenging the Right, turning its current victory into a Pyrrhic one.

– Translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post It’s the Palestinians’ turn first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The central committee of the Daam Workers Party convened in the run-up to the general elections, following the unraveling of Benjamin Netanyahu’s third government. This document discusses the backdrop to this, the local and regional political forces which led to the crisis in which Israeli society and the Arab countries of the region find themselves, and the circumstances which led to Daam’s decision not to run in these elections.

The following is an abridged version of the Hebrew document.

Though the political parties competing this year appear to focus on social issues such as the cost of living and the housing problem, there can be no doubt that in practice Netanyahu’s government fell because of the political vacuum which followed the collapse of the talks with the Palestinians, and the attempt to change the status quo within Israel between Arabs and Jews – most notably with the “Nation-State Law” which undermines the rights of some 20 percent of the state’s citizens.

As usual, the political parties avoid the most burning issues facing Israeli society: the relationship between Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The policy of Israel’s Right conflates these two issues: it declares that it intends to solve the Palestinian problem by annulling the Oslo Accords and unilaterally creating a Palestinian autonomous region; and it aims to give an official and legal seal of approval to the long-standing but unofficial policy of racist discrimination and exclusion against Israel’s Arab citizens.

Lack of Palestinian unity: the Right’s most precious asset

The increasing power of the Israeli Right, particularly the settlers’ party Habayit Hayehudi, is to a large extent the direct result of Palestinian disunity and weakness: the mixed messages coming from the organizations struggling against each other for power in the Palestinian political arena are a decisive reason for the turn of Israel public’s rightward. The Palestinian Authority, which recognizes Israel, demands an end to the occupation but at the same time maintains consistent and close “security cooperation” with the Israeli security forces, despite internal opposition from Hamas. In contrast, Hamas, which does not recognize Israel and offers no political solution to the conflict, has chosen to fight the siege Israel has closed around Gaza through armed resistance, including firing rockets at Israel’s civilian population. The PA’s weakness vis-à-vis Hamas’ extremism grant credibility to the Right’s claim that occupation and settlement must continue in order to protect the West Bank from a takeover by Hamas, which aims to destroy Israel. Thus the Right benefits from both the schism between Jews and Arabs within Israel, and the disconnection between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Moreover, the internal Palestinian division reflects the battle raging in the Middle East between the main power blocs. These blocs are taking advantage of the chaos created by the Arab Spring in order to increase their circles of influence. Hamas in the Gaza Strip is supported by Qatar and Turkey, and faces a tight axis of common interests between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the PA and Israel. The rise of fundamentalism must also be noted, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda which directly affect political reality in Palestine, as well as the rightward trend among Israeli Jews.

Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip last July, illustrates how this vicious circle works. The backdrop to the war was the collapse of negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) in April as well as the events in Egypt following the renewed military takeover of the state and the end of the democratization process: Egypt’s General Sisi cut off Egyptian aid to Hamas and closed the tunnels between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, thus stopping the supply of basic goods to the Strip. This policy stifled the population. In light of the failure of negotiations, Hamas decided that the time was ripe to form a coalition with the PA in order to ensure at least minimal economic survival in the Strip. But Israel’s response to the Palestinian unity government was fast and violent, and the result was the opposite of what Hamas had intended. While relying on Qatar and Turkey as its main allies, Hamas was compelled to enter a prolonged war to stop the siege, but despite the enormous destruction and loss of life, it failed to achieve its basic objectives.

Even though it entered a unity government with Hamas before the war, behind the scenes the PA supported Israel and Sisi’s military regime in Egypt which aims to destroy Hamas. At the end of the war, the PA reneged on its commitments according to the unity government agreement, claiming that though Hamas indeed gave up its hold on the Gaza government, it did not give up its military control. Thus the PA refused to take responsibility for Gaza’s economy, for funding its political institutions and public services, or for paying the salaries of its civil servants.

A human catastrophe of the first order is unfolding in the Gaza Strip. In addition to the killing of some 2,000 Gazans, mainly civilians, the war laid ruin to the infrastructure. Some 20,000 homes were irreparably destroyed and some 100,000 people were left homeless. Donor countries agreed to budget five billion dollars for rebuilding Gaza, but only the PA is authorized to use those funds, and the PA refuses to do so because of its conflict with Hamas.

In the face of the internal Palestinian division and Israel’s adamant refusal to move towards any solution to the conflict, Abbas’ entire strategy is based on diplomatic moves in international forums. Most notable among these was his appeal to the UN Security Council with the aim of compelling Israel to commit to ending negotiations within two years and establishing a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders.

But while he turns to the International Court at The Hague and threatens to sue Israel for war crimes committed during Operation Protective Edge, during the war itself Abbas stood with the Egypt-Saudi-Israel coalition. A reality of Palestinian division and social collapse on one hand, and PA cooperation with the occupation on the other, gives the Israeli Right space to maneuver and validates its claim that “there is no partner” (for peace talks) on the Palestinian side which will fall to Hamas if Israel relinquishes control.

“The Zionist Camp” versus “the Jewish camp”

The stormy return of the slogan “Anyone but Bibi” (Netanyahu) as the central message of the opposition parties cannot hide the fact that almost all of these parties were partners in Netanyahu’s governments and acted as political fig-leaves for Israel’s rejectionist policy. Regarding the main political barriers to a political Israeli-Palestinian solution and the status of Israel’s Arab citizens, the Zionist Camp led by Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni has nothing new to offer. The Labor Party (one half of the Zionist Camp) sticks to its old policy based on negotiations without determining the content of any future agreement or setting a timeframe for ending the occupation. As for its approach to Israel’s Arabs, the kind of equality it advocates is symbolic and empty of any tangible content.

The Oslo Accords came to an end, in practice, with the intifada of the year 2000, when the Palestinians grasped the fraud they had been sold: though the Accords were a temporary general agreement whose purpose was to lead to a sovereign Palestinian state, from Yitzhak Rabin’s murder onwards, this temporary reality became permanent while the settlement project continued apace under all Israeli governments. The creation of the PA was merely part of this arrangement in which Israel recognizes a temporary Palestinian entity devoid of any tangible sovereignty, while the Palestinians remain dependent on Israel from an economic and military point of view. Thus the PA in the West Bank has become a governance mechanism operated by some 150,000 bureaucrats and security men whose wages are paid by donations from the West, while the settlements continue to dissect the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a sustainable, contiguous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Today the Right, and Netanyahu in particular, no longer even pays lip service to the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution. The Israeli Right openly declares its opposition to a Palestinian state as a solution to the conflict, and proposes perpetuating the existing situation through “Palestinian autonomy” under Israeli sovereignty. Unilaterally, the “settlement blocks” have become part of Israel in any future agreement.

The crisis over the “nation-state law” (which would anchor the idea of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people in Israel’s Basic Laws) which led to the early elections is merely formal. In practice, it was the Labor Party which established the discriminatory regime against the Arab population, and the Labor Party is responsible in the main for the situation Israel’s Arab citizens are in: high poverty rates, towns lacking basic infrastructure, youth with no future. There is a pressing need for an effective response to the discriminatory regime, which relies on the formulation “Jewish and democratic state” – a formulation which concisely expresses the essence of Israel’s Zionist Left. It is this pressing need that led the educated classes in Arab society to formulate an alternative political perspective based on the model of a “state for all its citizens.”

The “nation-state law” is the Right’s way of solving the internal contradiction of the “Jewish and democratic” state by legally prioritizing the Jewish component above the democratic component. In practice, the law would mean that when an Arab citizen faces discriminatory practices (such as unequal distribution of land), “Jewish interest” would take precedence over the principle of equality. The law thus grants legal authority for this kind of discrimination which stems from the definition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The Zionist Left’s protestations against the law stem from the very real fear that anchoring discriminatory practices in law will undermine Israel’s aspirations to belong to the club of democratic states. The law, if accepted, would cause an increase in international protest against Israel’s policies and even to expose Israel to sanctions. The Labor Party rejects the definition of Israel as a “state for all its citizens” – in other words, the Labor Party sticks to discriminatory policies wrapped in the doubtful cloak of “democracy.” And indeed, in this tragic and ongoing vicious circle which began with the catastrophic Oslo Accords, the structural discrimination in the existing regime has deepened the tension between Jews and Arabs, and thus only strengthens the extreme Right, increasing its power and credibility among Israel’s Jewish population.

The Arab Joint List

After the Oslo Accords were signed, and especially after Rabin’s murder, the Labor Party began sliding rightwards in an attempt to appease the settlers. One of the main claims against Rabin and his government concerned his alliance with the Arab parties to get the Knesset to vote in favor of the Accords. The Labor Party internalized the message and kept away from the Arab population, which unsurprisingly increased the polarization between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

The vacuum left by the Labor Party and the left-leaning Zionist parties was filled by new Arab parties which left the Arab political arena divided between three main currents: the Islamic current, the nationalist current represented by Tagamuh (Balad), and the communist current in Hadash. These parties have one thing in common – their adamant refusal to accept the “Jewish character” of the state and their adoption of the idea of a state of all its citizens. They are also united in their call for an end to the occupation in the territories and to the discrimination within Israel against its Arab citizens. And indeed, the Arab parties stand in opposition to the Israeli Right and are critical of the Labor Party and the Jewish Left which continues to team up with the Right, whether through government coalitions or support – active and passive – for war against the Palestinians.

But despite concord over political issues, there is significant disagreement among the Arab currents on an ideological level. For example, in Knesset discussions over the separation of church and state, or regarding civil marriage, the Islamic current frequently stands alongside the Jewish religious parties. As a rule, the Islamic Movement defines itself as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, supports Hamas, and aims for an Islamic state. In contrast, Tagamuh is a nationalist secular party which envisions “One Palestine,” and allies itself with regional players according to opportunistic considerations. In the past, Tagamuh supported Hezbollah as part of the “resistance”, and today (due to Hezbollah’s support for Syria’s Assad) the party is close to Qatar, where Tagamuh’s ideological leader Azmi Bishara has found sanctuary in return for his services as propagandist for Qatari interests in the region.

The ideological heart of Hadash is the Israeli Communist Party. It remains loyal to the two-state solution, but the party’s ideological orientation remains rooted in the Cold War. Anachronistic and intransigent readings of the regional political reality led Hadash to adopt absurd positions, such as its support of a dictator who massacres his own people, the “anti-imperialist” Assad, or of the Egyptian despot Sisi, who strives to crush the Muslim Brotherhood which was elected in a transparent democratic process to head the government.

The accord among Arab Knesset factions on basic points and in their opposition to the Jewish Right is not solid enough to create real unity between the parties. Their common hostility to Zionism, important though it is, cannot provide the answer to the most basic political question: what kind of society are we striving to create? Upon what political and ideological foundations will this society be based, and what will be its character?

More than anything, the aspiration to build a social-political force able to confront the occupation and the racist regime in Israel is dependent on the answers to these questions. These are the same questions that stood and still stand at the center of the political struggle over the essence of the Arab Spring: can democracy be applied to Arab societies? Can progress and modernity provide an answer to the poverty and backwardness in the Arab world, or must we turn to Sharia for an effective response to the disease of corrupt regimes? Does the democratic regime taking its first hesitant steps in Tunisia signal a way out of the cycle of violence of civil war in which most Arab states are mired, or is the Iranian theocratic model the answer? What is the role of the Gulf states in the conflict being waged between the different currents, and what should it be? Do Fatah and the PA offer a realistic option for Palestinians to free themselves from the occupation, or is Hamas the better option? How can we contend with the racism of Israeli society and politics when Arab society is so divided, crumbling and weak, and devoid of any economic or social resources for coping with the challenges it faces?

The answer to such questions differ from party to party, each with its own ideology, but on one thing they are almost identical: in neglecting their voters. Lacking party, social or cultural activities, Arab towns are facing a social crisis whose main characteristic is violence. This violence is sometimes expressed as “family honor” killings, sometimes as criminal violence, sometimes as violence between clans. This reality is an expression of the profound disintegration of Arab society.

The unification of the Arab parties holds very little hope for the real problems facing Arab citizens – problems which find no solution through parliamentary channels. An increase in the number of Arab Knesset members will not stop their exclusion from decision-making forums or from shaping policy. Moreover, the “Arab list” signals an ethnic – as opposed to ideological – identity as the central relevant characteristic of their political essence. It makes the logic of division between Jews and Arabs the decisive element in the democratic game, and thus reinforces efforts to prevent equality between Arabs and Jews – equality which requires that Jews and Arabs cooperate together against the Right.

Why we are not taking part in the elections

Since it was established in 1996, Daam took part in all the general elections. At that time, all the Arab parties were united in supporting the Zionist left in their support of the Oslo Accords and of Shimon Peres, the Labor Party’s candidate contending against Netanyahu. We believed it was extremely important to expose the dangers of the Oslo Accords and their principal architect. Thus Daam was established, after a decade of activity within the party framework of Hadash, to offer an alternative based on opposition to the mad concept of Oslo.

At the time, some people accused us of aiding Netanyahu. They said we had failed to understand, that the Oslo Accords must be seen as the first stage on the road to Palestinian statehood and the end of the occupation. But the language of the agreement already showed otherwise: the agreement was formulated to “domesticate” and “contain” the occupation, not to bring it to an end. The Accords were meant to determine the conditions for giving up on revolutionary change in Israeli society and for the defeat of the Palestinian struggle for freedom.

In the last elections, Daam failed to translate public interest in the party and the social protest movement into enough votes. In the current elections, this failure compelled us to try to join a broad coalition which would ensure we would get over the electoral threshold. Previous attempts to build such a coalition, such as during the municipal elections of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, did not lead to the hoped-for results. With the fading of the social protest movement and lacking a broad political framework – Jewish and Arab, democratic – we were compelled to admit that we have no partners for this road at the moment. In light of the raised electoral threshold, we reached the conclusion that we do not have the resources or the manpower required to run an effective election campaign.

Though we are not contending ourselves, and not recommending any other party, we are not calling for boycotting the elections. This document clarifies our position regarding the existing parties, whether those on the Zionist Left or the Arab parties, and notes the discrepancy between their position and ours, a discrepancy which means we are unable to join any of them.

The opposition parties competing amongst each other are not willing or courageous enough to face the settlers – and the settlers are the “storming brigades” of the occupation. Their task is to “clean” the occupied territory of Palestinians or to subdue them until they agree to live under a regime without civil rights and under insufferable conditions. But unless all the settlements are evacuated there can be no end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, regardless of whether the solution is one state or two. Ignoring this enormous barrier to a sustainable agreement with the Palestinians reflects futile efforts to escape from reality.

The Knesset is a central and important forum for facing the Right, however, dedicated as it may be, parliamentary work will achieve nothing unless it has public backing in the form of a movement that can sway the population and face the fascist Right. For this reason, we at Daam were always, and still are, dedicated firstly to work on the ground. So our decision not to take part in the elections is not purist, nor does it mean we are giving up on political activity. On the contrary: a wide Jewish-Arab front is a crucial political aim of the first order, and we will welcome any initiative, Jewish or Arab, which presents an alternative to the Right, as long as it is based on the demand for a truly democratic society, free of racism and occupation. Whatever the results of the coming elections, we have no doubt that Israel is galloping towards a social and political catastrophe. We hope that sooner or later, in light of the resounding failure of the Arab and Zionist parties to face the fascist Right, we new partners will emerge that will be ready to create a new democratic political framework.

And finally, we must address the retreat of democratic and liberating forces which appeared in the Arab Spring, and undoubtedly influenced the Israeli and Palestinian political arenas. The entrenchment of the regimes of Assad, Sisi and the corrupt Gulf emirates on one hand, and the rise of Jihadist fundamentalism on the other, give the impression that democracy cannot be applied in the Arab world. But as long as the despotic regimes continue to ground their rule in poverty, corruption and repression, Arab society will have no alternative except democracy. The rise of radical Islam merely replaces poverty with poverty, corruption with corruption, barbaric repression with even more barbaric repression.

Daam is the party of the Arab Spring, the party of worker solidarity, a revolutionary party whose success is not measured by whether it passes the electoral threshold, but by the creation of revolutionary change in Israeli society. Such change has become even more urgent, and necessitates a genuine change, a new political discourse. Despite the difficulties and setbacks, the future is in the hands of those who march with history. Those willing to march against the current at times of retreat will be able to build their strength and achieve their aims when the balance of forces changes.

The post Daam and the general elections first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

He spoke before Congress for 40 minutes, sweeping it off its feet. It was, without doubt, the speech of his lifetime, although according to Israeli pollsters it added merely one Knesset seat to his shrinking tally of votes. He did the unthinkable by by passing Barack Obama and turning directly to the American people from the congressional podium, pummeling their president with hard truths.

He showed daring and pluck, as if he himself were the American president, explaining with didactic patience the questions that stand at the basis of the agreement that is shaping up with Iran.

Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic minority, wept tears of frustration and rage and humiliation, while John Boehner, leader of the Republican majority, claimed that no current member of Congress could have done a better job than Netanyahu in showing why the agreement must be rejected. As for Obama, he said that Netanyahu had offered no new alternative, using this point as a blind to avoid hard truths in the speech that should not be ignored.

Obama’s weakness

Netanyahu focused on the fact that Iran has a dictatorial, theocratic regime whose goal is to spread the Shiite revolution. He pointed out that Iran already controls much of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He added that the prospective agreement will only last 10 years, and that after the lifting of the sanctions Iran will have legitimacy for going ahead with its nuclear program and exerting itself as a regional power. The agreement, he said, will grant the Ayatollahs a long stretch of time in which to entrench their regime.     

In relation to the White House, which seeks Iran’s help in fighting ISIS in Iraq, Netanyahu said: “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.” In this case, he memorably said, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

The power of the speech came mainly from the weakness of Obama, that is, from his wrong-headed policy in the Middle East, the roots of which can be seen especially in his approach (or lack thereof) to the Syrian conflict. His attitude toward the Assad regime has been, in effect, conciliatory. When his “red line” was crossed in the use of chemical weapons, he planned a massive bombardment of Assad’s military infrastructure but called it off at the last minute, instead making an agreement through Putin on the withdrawal of chemical weapons from Syria. This lack of support had the effect of debilitating the moderate liberal opposition, the Left, and the Muslim Brotherhood, so that the door was open for ISIS. Only after ISIS took over swathes of Iraq, captured Mosul, and established the “Islamic State,” did Obama take action. Even so, he has been careful not to harm Assad, for he needs the Iranians in order to restore the rule of the Iraqi Shiite government over the Sunni areas that ISIS conquered.

Obama’s desire for an agreement with Iran derives from strategic considerations; above all he does not want to send his soldiers back into Iraq. Iran has been transformed from a bitter enemy to a partner in the war against ISIS. The price is the fall of Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and Sana’a into Iran’s hands.

Bibi’s contribution to the regional chaos

Obama’s weakness is Netanyahu’s too. Since the Arab Spring, the Arab world has splintered, and the US is left without a firm Arab basis to lean on in its confrontation with Iran.

Israel and the benighted Sunni regimes—namely, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan, and Morocco—share a common hostility toward the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Americans saw the Arab Spring as a historical necessity which threw out the rotten regimes that had reduced their countries to destitution. The Americans were even ready to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood if it was willing to abide by the rules of democracy. Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, saw the fall of Mubarak in Egypt as a strategic catastrophe; they fumed at the White House when it cooperated with the elected Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. The latter was overthrown, as we know, in a military coup that was funded by the Saudis. The war against the Muslim Brotherhood became a cornerstone of Saudi foreign policy, which was seconded by Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. It was Saudi foreign policy that sparked civil wars not only in Egypt, but in Libya and Yemen as well, and it has spread throughout the region, bringing chaos.

Thus Saudi Arabia and Israel refused to adjust their policies to the deep changes signified by the Arab Spring. Their unwillingness to recognize the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood, while spreading the chaos into which ISIS would enter, compelled Obama to transform Iran into the strategic lynchpin of a new regional cooperation. Bibi’s contribution to this development should not be underestimated. The clash between the White House and the Israeli government is by no means limited to the prospective agreement with Iran; it began, we recall, over the Palestinian issue.

During Israel’s Operation Protective Edge against Gaza, the American Secretary of State John Kerry supported a Qatari-Turkish proposal for a cease fire, whereas the Israeli cabinet, vilifying Kerry, opted for the “Egyptian” proposal. This position lengthened the war by several long days, until Hamas surrendered. The Egyptians are seeking to strangle Hamas and Gaza without offering a solution to the people living in the Strip. Meanwhile General Sisi is becoming entangled in Sinai, he is trying without success to put together a military force to intervene in Libya, and conditions inside Egypt are deteriorating. Sisi is a worse dictator than Mubarak, and his fate will be no different.

Bibi can preach morality to Obama about appeasing Iran, but what about his own conciliatory approach toward the murderous dictatorship of General Sisi, or toward the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia? How exactly are the regimes of these three countries better than the one in Tehran? Netanyahu is using the chaos that he himself helped sow in the Middle East in order to get re-elected, claiming that with ISIS in the neighborhood there’s no point in making peace with the Palestinians.

The chaos serves the Israeli right wing, to be sure, but it severely damages American strategic interests in Libya, Yemen, and Iraq. Given the weakness of the leading Arab nations, Obama turns to the Iranians in order to stabilize the region and obviate the need for a new American conquest of Iraq. And so, irony of ironies, it turns out that Netanyahu contributed with his own hands to the agreement with Iran. Obama asks him correctly, “What is your alternative? What are you willing to offer so that Iran won’t spread its influence?” The answer is—nothing.

Signs of change

While Netanyahu shoots barbs at the American regime without offering a real alternative, the death of the Saudi king Abdullah and his replacement by Salman bin Abdulaziz have created an opportunity for a change in Saudi policy. There are rumors of warmer ties with Turkey. The Saudis, it is also rumored, now recognize that the Muslim Brothers are not the problem in the region, rather they are an essential part of the solution against both ISIS and Iran. General Sisi is losing altitude, and for the first time the Saudis are calling what happened in Egypt “a military coup.” This shows that they want to close ranks with the Americans on the issue.

And what about Bibi Netanyahu? He insists on running with his head against the wall. He collides with America, he collides with Turkey, he apparently balks at the new Saudi position, he erases Abu Mazen, and he remains faithful to General Sisi. Bibi, Sisi, and Assad stand against the world. That isolates Israel, of course, but Bibi seems to think it will help him get elected.

The prospective agreement with Iran is no solution to the chaos in the Middle East. Instead, because it will strengthen Iran, which exacerbates ethnic rifts, the agreement is likely to heighten the crisis that is working in favor of ISIS. It isn’t all that bad for Israel, but it is very bad indeed for the Iranian people, who have suffered oppression for 36 years. It is also very bad for the Iraqi people, because it will deepen the war between Shiites and Sunnis. It is very bad for the Syrians, because it will leave Assad in power. And it is very bad for the Yemenites, which have split into two countries, the pro-Iranian north and the pro-Saudi south.

Iran is the enemy of the Arab Spring, just as the Saudi kingdom is. Bibi, Sisi, Assad, Salman, and Khamenei—all are enemies of democracy and social justice. The agreement with Iran will not advance these causes either. The Iranian regime is responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians. The best alternative to the agreement, for those who love freedom, is to depose Assad in Syria. That would be a major blow to Iran and a boost for democracy in the Middle East—against the will of Bibi.

The post Bibi’s contribution to the “very bad” deal with Iran first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The parties have been registered, and the campaigns for the 17 March elections are running full throttle. “Bottlegate”, suspicions of foreign funding, and accusations of attempts at a putsch – these are the dominant issues in the press. The polls change daily, playing havoc with the manic depression of the parties struggling for survival. Yesterday Meretz was hopping with delight to the words “I want Meretz in government”, and today it has turned against the Zionist Camp (Labor with Yizhaq (Buji) Herzog and The Movement of Tzipi Livni) with a huge paid ad, announcing, “This week he acts like Bibi, tomorrow he’ll sit with Bibi in the government.” They’re referring to Herzog, of course, and this solves part of the dilemma – we won’t be voting for the Zionist Camp.

Meretz?

As leftwing voters, we only have one real choice – Meretz. But the party’s main message can be seen in its recent zigzagging – joining a government led by Yizhaq Herzog is no longer an option because, they say, he’s already “talking” with current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This merely strengthens the suspicion that Herzog’s Zionist Camp has lost the elections before they’ve begun, and their trump card – “Anyone but Bibi” – has been quietly replaced with “Maybe Bibi…” Meretz are not the only ones who think Bibi is the default choice. Avigdor Lieberman, who was willing to consider anything before the campaigns kicked off, is now saying he would never partner with the Left.

And the vacillations keep growing as fear spreads. After all, every vote to Meretz weakens the Zionist Camp, and strengthens Bibi, who is aiming to form the largest bloc. And leftwing intellectuals will tell us once again that the party isn’t important, it’s the coalition that counts, and this is of course true, but this claim works to Bibi’s benefit too, especially after Lieberman said his “natural” place is with the rightwing bloc. Thus every vote for Meretz reduces Herzog’s chances even more, because not only does he have no potential coalition, he’ll also be left with a withered party. In short, the Livni-Herzog combo which promised great things cannot ensure the removal of the Right, and without this, a vote to Meretz will continue to be a vote for the opposition, as it has been for years.

However, that’s not the main reason not to vote Meretz. The problem is that Meretz supported Bibi’s government in Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s assault on Gaza which claimed the lives of some 2,000 Palestinians and left some 100,000 homeless. Indeed, the Zionist Camp is actually wider than Labor and The Movement, the parties which came together to create it: it includes all the Zionist parties, of all shapes and sizes.

The joint Arab list?

So, it would be hard for us to vote Meretz, but luckily we have the joint Arab list, which is exactly what it says on the box: a list (party) uniting all the Arabs against all the Jews. The division is clear – all Jews are Zionists, and all Arabs are Arabs, regardless of religion or worldview. In light of increasing racism, it’s important to get as many Arab MKs into the Knesset as possible, but the question must be asked: is what is good for the Jewish Left also good for the Arab Left, or for the Arab citizen in general?

It’s true that every Arab in the Knesset is a poke in the eye of the racism embodied by Bibi, Naftali Bennett and Lieberman. But it’s also a poke in the eye of every Arab liberal who opposes the Islamic Movement and its agenda of religious extremism and repression of freedom of expression, which sees women as child-bearers and not as humans in their own right – just like the Orthodox Jewish communities. Or that same Arab liberal who is shocked by the horrors perpetrated by Assad’s murderous regime in Syria, or Sisi’s dictatorship in Egypt, seeing them as an attack on the spirit and image of Arab civilization, and is equally shocked when he learns that Hadash, leading partner in the joint Arab list, supports both Assad and Sisi.

And the indecision does not end here, because the Arab parties have long since lost their link with the people they are supposed to be representing. This link has developed instead with leading families and hamulas, as we see in the local elections. The average Israeli Arab has lost any sense of citizenship, and does not see the Knesset as a forum for changing his situation. He remains poor and excluded, tends towards political apathy, and grasps religion as an anchor offering certainty in the face of his uncertain world.

There’s no alternative

These claims may seem a little purist, since our vote is valuable, and we want to have some influence, and abstaining means strengthening Bibi – and this must not happen. And indeed, perhaps our vote will at least weaken him, even if we won’t be able to bring him down or even prevent him from joining the Zionist Camp in a coalition government.

However, what really keeps Bibi in power is the lack of an alternative able to take his place. The Right reaps the benefits of the deep divide between Jews and Arabs, and voting for Meretz or the joint Arab list only deepens this divide, strengthening Bibi even more than abstention would – because the crucial issue is not civil, religious or economic legislation, but the overall policy.

In light of the fact that most (Jewish) citizens have got used to the occupation and discrimination against Arabs, little remains except to talk about legislation, since the Knesset’s role is to legislate. Thus behind the backs of social-minded legislators who are proud of their work “for the benefit of voters”, the Right continues the occupation project, continues to refuse real peace negotiations, and continues the stranglehold on Gaza and the repression in the West Bank. Thus voting is tantamount to supporting the status quo: these are the same corrupt parties, the same tired personalities who jump from one party list to another, and the same old party platforms.

Not purist – revolutionary

This week Madrid saw one of the largest political demonstrations which launched the election campaign of the Podemos party, whose name is derived from the slogan which brought Obama to power – “Yes, we can.” Podemos leaders have no party affiliation. Until not long ago, they even opposed political parties, and it’s likely they didn’t vote in past elections. They were among the leaders of the renowned social protest in the Plaza del Sol in 2011, and dreamed of setting up a direct democracy as an alternative to the rotting parliamentary system.

In Tel Aviv’s Rothschild Boulevard they tried to imitate the Spanish, raising hands in discussion circles to indicate polite agreement instead of shouts and shoves, but here the resemblance ends. While the Israeli protest movement was afraid of confronting the government, the Spanish protest movement brought down the government – even the socialist government. It seems the youth of Spain failed to differentiate between Bibi and Herzog, between the rightwing Rajoy and the leftwing Zapatero – for these youth, both leaders represented the same old system.

However, wonder of wonders, these same Spanish protesters understood that if they really want to make a difference they need to get in government, and today they are the largest opposition party. Their slogan is “Either the Right or Podemos,” trampling over the socialist party. While former Student Union leader Itzik Shmuli joined the Labor Party, Pablo Iglesias set up a new party working against corruption and for social justice. While protest leader Stav Shafir buried the protest movement in parliamentary work, the Spanish youth continued the protest in the streets until they had formed their own party ready to run for government.

Israel is not Spain: the economic crisis which hit Spain so hard largely passed by Israel; the Basques and Catalans are not like the Palestinians; the autonomous regions are not under occupation; the political situation is very different indeed. Nonetheless, Spain, which taught us a thing or two about protest, is also teaching us an important political lesson: if you want to establish an alternative and change the status quo, you must see the established Left and Right as two sides of the same coin.

Those who don’t vote because there is no party which represents their worldview in its entirety are indeed “purists,” but those who don’t vote because they want to change the system are not purists but revolutionaries. Sorry – the term “revolutionary” doesn’t exist in Israel. It belongs in Russia, Spain or Cuba, perhaps Cairo, Damascus or even Teheran. But in order to put an end to the occupation, halt fascism and fight racism, we need no less than a revolution. Revolution is for revolutionaries – purists would do better to stay at home. Revolutionaries work daily organizing workers, supporting refugees, promoting Arab women, and working for establishing a Jewish-Arab party as a real and new alternative to the existing parties.

This article was translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post Israeli elections: Who to vote for? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.