Less than a month has passed since Israel’s “government of change” was sworn in, and to bridge the gaps in the country’s most heterogeneous coalition ever, it has declared itself “anti-ideological.” Controversial issues between Right and Left are off the table, such as West Bank settlements, religion and state, and the composition of the Supreme Court. However, ideology is the bread and butter of Israel, and ideological issues cannot be kept from the morning news. The first of these was the fate of Eviatar, an illegal settler outpost erected on the lands of the Palestinian village of Beita; initially, when the new government took over, Eviatar was slated for evacuation and demolition.

At the same time, the Citizenship and Entry Law came up for its annual approval. This is a temporary order from 2003, the height of the second intifada. Eviatar and the Citizenship Law are both purely “ideological” issues. A right-wing party led by Naftali Bennett supports the establishment of new settlements and does not call them “illegal” even if built without permits. On the left side of the same coalition, Meretz denounces settlements, and it has been petitioning the courts against the Citizenship Law since 2006.

The commitment not to engage in ideology for unity’s sake has brought the coalition’s left side, Meretz for instance, to rotten compromises, dictated by the right-wing composition of the government and the Knesset. Although in the new coalition there exists a kind of balance between Right, Center, Left and the Islamic movement, the weight of the Right is decisive. Labor, Meretz and the Islamic Movement must make allowances for their right-wing partners, who have the right-wing Knesset opposition, led by Netanyahu, breathing down their ideological necks. This—even though that opposition refuses to recognize the government’s legitimacy, calls Bennett a traitor, and describes the coalition as a danger to Israel’s security.

Meretz, Labor and the Islamic Movement were forced to swallow the compromise reached by Bennett with the settlers in Eviatar, according to which the settlers will be voluntarily and temporarily evacuated from the outpost, their houses left intact, and the army will occupy the place until the status of the lands is clarified. What began in Netanyahu’s time as a demolition by agreement, became under Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked a new “legal-to-be” settlement for the first time in 20 years. This is an impressive achievement for the settlers and a scorching loss for the Left.

We did not manage to recover from the blow of Eviatar before the Citizenship and Entry Law fell on us. Under pretext of security, this law keeps citizenship from West Bank or Gazan Palestinians who marry Palestinian citizens of Israel. It discriminates against (Arab) Israeli citizens on ethnic grounds, with the justification that spouses from the territories might be terrorists. As noted, the law originated during the second intifada, when there were 45 cases in which residents of the Occupied Territories holding Israeli identity cards took part in hostilities. For 17 years, this discriminatory law was renewed without debate, although in recent years violence by Palestinians holding Israeli IDs has dwindled to zero. The number of families whose lives are hamstrung by the Citizenship Law today stands at 13,000.

Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid has openly declared that the problem is not security but demography. Lapid, architect of the new government, has thus confirmed the claim of the law’s initiators, who declared that marriage serves the Palestinians as a means of “exercising the right of return.” Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin, who wrote the majority opinion in the decision not to repeal the Citizenship Law, ruled that “Palestinian residents of the area are enemy nationals who constitute a risk group for the citizens of Israel, and therefore the state may enact a law prohibiting their entry into the country.” In so doing, Cheshin camouflaged this discriminatory law under the guise of a security need—instead of its real motive, demography.

Not only is Cheshin’s claim not backed by facts, but it doesn’t make sense. The Palestinian Authority (PA) maintains intimate relations with the State of Israel, primarily by the close security coordination between the parties, confounding the notion that it is an “enemy state.” Accordingly, its citizens cannot be considered enemy nationals. Moreover, the PA itself is an Israeli invention. Newborn Palestinians in PA territory are listed in the Israeli Population Registry and given an ID number, which appears in a green ID card issued by the PA. The card is identical to the blue Israeli identity card, but its color determines the civil status of those who carry it, or rather, their lack of status.

Furthermore, 150,000 “enemy nationals” enter Israel daily to work; the accepted currency in the PA is the Israeli shekel; Israel and the PA have a uniform customs arrangement; Israel controls all entries and exits into and out of the West Bank and Gaza; and Israel can shut off the electric power at will. In other words, Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza are Israelis for all intents and purposes, except that they lack civil rights. In the West Bank, they are subject to the Israeli Civil Administration, subordinate to the military commander, the supreme sovereign who determines everything; the Palestinian depends completely on his will.

In fact, Palestinians have no need to exercise the right of return through the back door. Those who are enabling that back-door return are precisely the half million Israeli settlers. By preventing a Palestinian state, they have, in effect, transformed the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean into a single political unit. The Citizenship Law was meant to reinforce the illusion of a Green Line separating the West Bank and Gaza from Israel. If this imaginary line ever existed, however, it has long been erased, despite the porous Separation Barrier.

While the Knesset clashes over the Citizenship and Entry Law, which affects 13,000 Palestinian families who pose no security or demographic threat, the “government of change” avoids discussing the fate of 5 million Palestinians of the territories whom it controls in all matters, from freedom of movement to family reunification. The use of legislation to keep Palestinian citizens of Israel from marrying and starting a family only reveals the contradiction in a state that defines itself as Jewish and democratic. The Citizenship and Entry Law violates the most basic human rights. It is no coincidence that it has not become a standing law, because it harms Israel’s image as a democracy. More importantly, this discriminatory legislation cannot stop the processes taking place before our eyes, which are creating a single political, economic, demographic and geographical reality between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

In recent weeks, Palestinians have been demonstrating against the PA for cancelling the parliamentary elections, and for the beating to death of social activist Nizar Banat by Palestinian security forces. These demonstrations should help the Israeli public, and the international public too, to understand the “enemy entity.” The PA is oppressing the people it is supposed to represent, a people that strives like all others for democracy, social justice and basic rights.

The participation of Meretz, the Labor Party and the Islamic Movement in the Bennett-Lapid government gives a boost to the Israeli Right, which is trying to halt political, demographic and geographical processes created by its own actions. The Right regards the Palestinian question as “shrapnel in Israel’s ass” (Bennett), a problem with no solution. It legislates racist laws to delay the end, while simultaneously settling on every hill and under every fig tree, abusing Palestinian farmers and shepherds, plundering their lands while the army stands idly by. As we get closer to the reality of one state, Israel will continue legislating racist laws, on the way to becoming a state that is indeed Jewish but certainly not democratic. This is now happening with the help of the Zionist Left, which by linking its fate to the right-wing parties is losing its right to exist.

The post Geography, Demography and Racism first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

At the time of writing (early March 2018), it is not clear whether Knesset elections are in the making, or whether Netanyahu will get a “pass” that promises him quiet until November 2019. This highly politicized drama dwarfs another drama taking place somewhere on the corner of Sheinkin and Rothschild, upscale streets in Tel Aviv. The question of elections for the Meretz leadership would not have had much impacton public consciousness had long-time leader Zahava Galon not dropped from the race. At the same time, her main challenger, Ilan Gilon, also decided to quit for reasons of health. Thus, Tamar Zandberg remains almost unchallenged. What began as a half-gimmick has turned into reality. Zandberg has announced her desire to participate in a center-left government, and she has indicated awillingness to sit in the same coalition with right-winger Avigdor Lieberman. Galon tweeted: “Zandberg is flushing ideology down the toilet.”

Indeed, she is doing just that.But it has become quite clear that most Meretz voters are ready for a horse-trade in ideology. The person who found herself down the toilet was Galon herself. Meretz members let her understand that ideology does not paygrocery bills. Zandberg decided that the best way to tackle Galon’s ideological “purity” and social-democratic platform was to sell an illusion:“Meretz headed by me will receive ten seats. I will be an important partner in a center-left government, and I see myself as a minister.”She thinks she will win on a promise to make Meretz great again. Of course, the difference between Trump and Zandberg is immeasurable. Trump, like Bibi, is a right-wing extremist, whereas Zandbergclaims to be a leftist and makes no apology. However, her willingness to sit with the likes of Lieberman shows that she has lost the ability to distinguish between leftand right.

Zandberg has abandoned ideology to sell an illusion. Her prescription for reviving Meretz is to forget about purity, stop talk of human rights and the occupation, roll up her sleeves and get 10 seats, i.e. not to sit in the opposition but in a chair at the government table. The illusion is not that Meretz cannot win 10 Knesset seats, but rather that such an achievement, at the price of principle, will render Meretz impotent in any government it joins. If Zandberg looks to the Right(and that is precisely what she is doing) she will notice that the seats she gains for Meretz are bled from the Labor Party. In other words, Labor may hemorrhage seats, but this will not alter the inter-bloc balance. Bibi, or whoever replaces him, will form the next government with “natural” partners in the rightist bloc.

Zandberg is hardly to blame. The strengthening of the extreme Right is not a uniquely Israeli phenomenon. Netanyahu’s friends seized power in Poland, Hungary, and Austria, and his good pal Trump sits in the White House. In order to beat the Right, one has to win over the “periphery,” a politically correct way of describing Likud’s Mizrahi electoral base. The formula is simple: fight Bibi on his own turf.It is naively believed that with Avi Gabbay at the head of Labor, and Buskila or Dabush (both Mizrahi from the periphery) near the top of Meretz, they will poach seats from the Right. But the numbers don’t add up. For most Mizrahis, anyone opposing the Likud is a traitor, a “fake” Mizrahi, a lover of Arabs, not really a Jew.

Attempts to cajole Mizrahi workers to vote”Meretz” are like trying to convince white coal miners in Kentucky to vote Democratic. Bibi is an Ashkenazi who gets his kicks from cigars and champagne, while Trump is a New York billionaire who gets them from women and power.Butboth are seen by the poor as “one of us,” anti-establishment, anti-elite, anti-fake-news and anti-law-enforcement. The anti-list goes on: Mexicans in the US, North Africans in France, Syrians in Germany, both Arabs and asylum seekers in Israel. This trend cannot be altered by gaining a seat as a minister in a left-center government, or by watering down messages and surrendering principles.

Concerning the rise of the Right, it is necessary to point out that we are not facing an “Israeli” phenomenon. Sheldon Adelson finances both Netanyahu and Trump, Channel 20 is a twin Fox News, and xenophobia, accompanied by neoliberal capitalism and excessive nationalism, is a global blight. What sets Israel apart from the rest of the world is its colonial character: A fifty-year occupation has turned the two-state solution into an outdated and impractical paradigm. In addition to the occupation, which effectively steersits political agenda, Israel is run by an old-fashioned neoliberal economic structure. It is based on monopolies that corrupt politics and prevent the kind of modernization that can only come about through highly digitized industry, infrastructure spending, and alternative energy.

In a recentKnesset speech, Netanyahu boasted of his achievements.But these are built on his cooperation with weak or bizarre leaders such as Trump, Abu Mazen, and General al-Sisi of Egypt. These, each in his respective reality, do not benefit from the support of core elements in society.Trump’s bizarre decisions, such as raising tariffs on steel and aluminum or denying climate change, have caused near panic in the global economy.

As for Zandberg’s low regard for ideology,the Israeli Left long ago abandoned any. It has no political and economic agenda to counter the revolution led by the Right, with Netanyahu in frontwhile Naphtali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked occupy his flanks. Zandberg and her friends have long been blind to the political map. The Right wins because it projects and maintains a virtual reality of security, economic stability, a strong alliance with Trump, and a sense of well-being(despite huge socioeconomic gaps). Bibi’s power consistsin his ability to market this illusion, which will soon explode in Israel’s face. Meanwhile, the opposition presents no revolutionary alternative. Its platform is based on peace with the settlement blocs, a “humane” capitalist economy, and a “Jewish and democratic” state – inherent contradictions that cannot be resolved.

A “Jewish and democratic” state is a smokescreen for religious nationalism, and “two states for two peoples” is a smokescreen for continuing the occupation. If you wish to be an alternative, you have to tell the Right: “You have destroyed the possibility of a two-state solution; you made the country Jewish but trampled democracy along the way. Therefore, we offer the one-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians as the only way to safeguard civil rights, to achieve real peace, and to maintain a lifestyle that is both democratic and secular. We challenge the neo-liberal economy by means of a modern, shared economy based on the democratization of the social network and alternative energy. Palestinians and Israelis can and should be partners in building a progressive, democratic and egalitarian society!”

The Right has always found support among those most affected by change. In our case, these are white workers in the UK or the US.But they cannot stop history. On the other hand, Israel’s continuation of the settlement enterprise, its refusal to compromise, its reliance on an alliance with Trump, his recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, all will bring about the demise of the Palestinian Authority.Zandberg, lacking an economic and political vision, envisionsten seats and a place at the cabinet table, but she does not see the future: Meretz is not a left-wing alternative, but a sham that leaves the right wing playing alone on the stage.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Tamar Zandberg of Meretz: The end of ideology 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.