The election results show the Kadima party finishing first, but there is nothing pointing to a just and peaceful solution to the key issues.
EVERY election in Israel is described as historic, every change of Prime Minister or Defence Minister is trumpeted as having vital consequences for the future of the Jewish state. It is rather like raising a child with a potentially fatal disease. Yet, for once, the voting public did not rise to the occasion - voter turnout on March 28 was just over 62 per cent, which in Israel is quite low. There seemed to be a yawn in the air, possibly because no major terrorist attacks had taken place for some time, or because the leading candidate for the premiership, Ehud Olmert, was quite devoid of that mysterious quality called charisma.
Interesting elements were contributed to the race not by the leading party, Kadima, formed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon shortly before his dramatic departure from the arena. They were contributed, first, by the Labour Party, which underwent an interesting change, and secondly, by the sudden rise of an `old folks' party, led by Rafael Eitan, aka `Stinky Rafi', a former Mossad operative with a colourful past. Nobody expected Eitan's list to win more than a couple of seats in the 120-seat Knesset - it won seven.
Kadima is celebrating its overnight transformation from a novelty to a leading party. Such sudden emergence is not new to Israel - in 1977 a centrist party named `Dash' sprang into being before the elections and won 15 seats. The Western media loved it and assured their readers that it was going to be the leading force in Israeli politics. It barely survived the following elections and before long vanished in the mists. It is not impossible that Kadima will do the same. The still amorphous party was described by The New York Times as `centre-left' and by a local pundit as `Likud-Lite', and indeed the faceless Olmert has already announced that no party will be rejected as a potential member of the coalition he must cobble together to form the government.
Kadima sprang from Ariel Sharon's brow like Athena from Zeus'. It enabled him to leave behind those elements in Likud that raged against his decision to evacuate the Gaza Strip, settlements and all. That decision was an unavoidable move from every point of view - military, economic, political - but he spun it into two narratives. One, as a canny move that would enable Israel to secure its hold on the West Bank with its 250,000 settlers, while shedding the costly and unpleasant burden of protecting the 8,000 settlers in the terribly over-populated Gaza Strip; two, as a bait to attract the more dovish elements in Israel (`We're trading land for peace!'), but chiefly for the benefit of the United States administration. And indeed, it enabled President George W. Bush to dub him "a man of peace" who was going the extra mile for the sake of moderation. The demonstrations by settlers and protests by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists helped to advance this image.
Another novelty was the rebirth of Labour under the vigorous trade union leader Amir Peretz. The fact that he was born in Morocco and grew up in a neglected immigrant town impressed people more, for better or worse, than his credentials as a union organiser and genuine socialist. The departure of the old politico Shimon Peres - who joined Kadima - also helped to revive the party, and doubtless won Peretz votes from the Eastern-origin, under-privileged masses who had always detested Labour. These developments led several commentators, among them the veteran Left maverick Uri Avneri, to hail the results as indicating that Israelis were growing saner and concentrating on social issues rather than on The Conflict. The analysis is sound, if partial. The success of the pensioners' list and the fact that several of the bigger parties - including the ultra-orthodox ones and even the Russian list - focussed on social issues seem to bear it out.
A somewhat deeper analysis reveals that there is now a wall-to-wall consensus among all the political parties that Israel must separate itself from the Palestinians. The dovish elements call it the `two-state solution', and some even genuinely favour the idea of a Palestinian state beside Israel, though most would demand that it be virtually disarmed. Others have less amiable intentions, envisioning a few helpless bantustans decorated with a Palestinian flag and some tinpot institutions. But it is generally agreed that one way or another the Palestinian population must be kept out of sight and reach. That is why there is so little opposition in Israel against the `separation fence' - that is, the gigantic concrete wall snaking in and out of the West Bank. Human-rights and leftist groups protest against its use as a device for grabbing more land from Palestinians, and some even argue that it should follow the `Green Line' - that is, the international boundary pre-1967. A few even call for the removal of all or most of the settlements and `bringing Israel back to herself'. On the other hand, many in the Far Right advocate driving out (`transferring') the Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens (about 20 per cent of the population), and declaring Jordan to be Palestine, but they are regarded as extremist and, what is worse, unrealistic: "The world, or America, will not stand for it," they are told.
But when you sift all the elements in the new Knesset you find the common-denominator: the conviction that Israel must be `the state of the Jewish people', with as few Arabs as possible, and with little or no contact with the Palestinian people. Any suggestion that the country as a whole - Palestine, as it was known, between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea - could be a single state for all its inhabitants is dismissed out of hand. Different parties reject it with different arguments, but the bottom line is the same: Israel is a Jewish state, albeit a democratic one (square that circle, if you will!), and unless we separate ourselves from the Arab masses it will mean the end of the Zionist project. The new term bandied about is `hitkansut', which can mean `gathering' or `withdrawal' - the English term, for export, is `convergence' - but its actual meaning is `circle the wagons'!
There is, of course, one group of Israeli citizens who are not of the same mind - they are the Arab minority, which despite its impressive birth rate has been kept down to the same 20 per cent of the population by a vigorous pro-immigration policy (for Jews only, of course). The Arabs of Israel, though partially assimilated and not inclined to envy their brethren in the Arab states, do not want to be physically separated from their cohorts in the West Bank and Gaza. They are the one group in the country that would like to discard the principle of separation in favour of a single state of all its inhabitants. However, not even an Arab, or mainly Arab, party can campaign on such a platform, because the law does not allow it. One of the `Basic Laws' - the judicial preparation for an eventual Israeli constitution - states explicitly that "a party may not compete in the general elections for the Knesset if its aims or its acts oppose, openly or implicitly, the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people". This law has been reiterated in several Supreme Court decisions and carved in stone as far as the Israeli public is concerned (and, one might add, its supporters overseas).
Thus even the Arab nationalist party Balad must pay lip-service to the Zionist credo of separation. Its leader, MK Azmi Bishara, regularly visits Damascus and confers with President Bashar-al Assad and members of his administration, to the fury of many in Israel. There have been repeated attempts to incriminate him and disqualify him as a Member of Knesset. But even he cannot afford to come out in public against the principle of separation.
Like everyone else, he must accept that Russians, Mexicans, Ethiopians and Latin Americans can immigrate to Israel and become privileged citizens on the spot - provided they are of the Jewish faith or of Jewish origin - while the Palestinian people are excluded by a variety of means. Nothing in the recent elections suggests that this picture may change in the foreseeable future.
Yael Lotan is a writer and peace activist based in Tel Aviv.
