As Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon completes a
crushing victory of the Israeli elections, UCLA faculty and members
of the local community gathered to debate the implications of such
an outcome.
Steven Spiegel, a political science professor at UCLA, and
Leonard Fein, a writer and educator on contemporary Jewish life,
discussed the Israeli elections with about 30 community members and
students Wednesday evening at the UCLA Faculty Center.
The direction Sharon decides to take will play a large role in
how successful the Israeli state will be in the coming years.
“Israel has historically won the wars and lost the
peace,” said Spiegel.
Under the Israeli parliament system, the party with the most
seats names a prime minister, but parties must form coalitions to
gain a majority in the 120-seat parliament.
Sharon’s Likud party is projected to control 37 seats and
faces many different options when it comes to coalitions, from a
hardline right coalition to a more moderate unity government.
“This thing is so complicated and so speculative that it
could go off in a thousand different directions,” Fein
said.
Sharon has 42 days to form a majority coalition in the Israeli
parliament. Analysts believe that Sharon wants a unity government
with the left-wing Labor coalition. However, Labor leader Amram
Mitzna campaigned on a promise not to join Sharon.
But Spiegel speculates in the event of a war with Iraq, Labor
might ally with Likud in a show of Israeli unity, and
Sharon’s 42-day time frame would coincide with the range when
the United States might attack Iraq.
“Sharon is sleeping in, because in 50 days, he thinks the
United States will go to war, and he’ll get the government he
wants,” Spiegel said. “It almost seems at times that
Sharon’s campaign manager was George Bush.”
If the United States does not attack Iraq, Spiegel said the most
likely government will be a right-wing coalition with
ultra-orthodox parties.
Fein, a personal friend of Mitzna who toured with him during his
election campaign, said it was a shame Mitzna did not do better in
the election and won’t have as good a chance to express his
ideas.
“I was elated by him because he spoke some basic truths to
the voters,” Fein said.
Mitzna campaigned on a platform that emphasized prioritizing
domestic issues and opening peace talks with Palestinians. But his
lack of political experience alienated voters, and Labor suffered
its worse setback in history, holding only 19 seats.
Fein admits that Mitzna probably shot himself in the foot when
he suggested forming a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
“He’s got to be the only Israeli who believes
agreements can be trusted,” he said.
Israel is going into its 29th month of fighting with
Palestinians as the Palestinian uprising, or Intifada, rages
violently. Since September 2000, 2,071 Palestinians and 720
Israelis have been killed.
When he became prime minister in 2001, Sharon adopted a hardline
stance that Fein paraphrased as: “to make life so miserable
for Palestinians that more and more of them leave.”
The violence had a visible impact on voter turnout, and the 2003
Israeli elections had the lowest turnout in history. In a nation
where traditionally over 80 percent of the population votes, only
68.5 percent cast ballots this year.
Fein also attributes the low turnout to “widespread
disillusionment with the political system,” which Fein calls
“grotesquely inappropriate” in a modern state.
The discussion carried hopeful overtures of a comprehensive
peace plan, arguably one of the biggest ramifications which is
dependent on both Sharon and the coalition he will form.
“Attaining peace is going to be tough,” said Ross
Heihaus, a third-year biology student and co-vice president of
Bruins for Israel. “We just need to keep our eye on the
prize.”
Fein agreed, stressing that despite the bloodshed and the
violence that is sure to come, a peace plan is still possible.
“There are many possible scenarios, but the one I would
resist is a scenario of hopelessness,” he said.
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.