Preoccupied with U.N. weapons inspections and torn by protests
and troop deployments, much of U.S. attention has been focused on
Iraq. But just to the east of Saddam Hussein, the region’s
only democracy is preparing for elections ““ elections that
could have huge ramifications for peace in the Middle East.
Israel, the United States’ longstanding ally, is preparing
to hold general elections for its parliament (the Knesset) on Jan.
28. The two largest political parties ““ and their leaders
““ represent two very different paths for Israel’s
future.
On the right is Ariel Sharon, Israel’s current prime
minister and leader of the Likud Party. Sharon’s tactics for
dealing with the Palestinians and their leader, Yasser Arafat, have
prompted reports of increased Israeli security, as well as
complaints from human rights groups.
On the left is Amram Mitzna, leader of the Labor (Avodah) Party.
Labor represents the leftist alternative to Likud, favoring
negotiations with the Palestinians and allowing for the possibility
of a sovereign Palestinian state.
The choice facing Israeli citizens in the polls is important to
any comprehensive peace plan, and it has penetrated as far as the
UCLA campus, half a world away.
“In ’92, everybody was Labor,” said David
Hakimfar, a third-year history student and a member of Bruins for
Israel, who said he would vote for Likud. “But, because of
the reaction of the Palestinian Authority, a much more hardline
stance had to be taken.”
Israel has been embroiled in a two-year Palestinian uprising, or
Intifada, which has sent waves of suicide bombers into Israel,
resulting in Israeli Defense Force retaliation.
“It would be tough to find a left person anywhere because
their methods do not work anymore,” Hakimfar said.
“You can’t be soft because (Palestinian terrorists)
are animals that we deal with. They don’t respect
life.”
Gabe Ross, a fourth-year political science student and president
of the Hillel student board, said he sides with the Labor Party and
would vote for Mitzna.
“I think he represents the Clinton ideas, which I still
think the majority of the Israeli public supports,” he said,
referring to the 2000 Camp David accords, perhaps the closest
Israeli and Palestinians have ever been to a peace agreement.
Ross says Sharon “represents a willingness to feel
tough,” not necessarily the best choice for Israelis.
It is Sharon’s tough stance that has earned him the
support of many Israelis, though. His reaction to the Palestinian
uprising has been focused toward security and preventing future
attacks ““ a modus operandi which includes ordering Israeli
Defense Force soldiers to conduct mass arrests and assassinations
of those involved in planning terrorist attacks.
“Sharon has to keep doing that until the Palestinian
Authority reform goes through,” said Avishai Shraga, a
fourth-year computer science student and the co-vice president of
BFI.
Shraga said Arafat is “the biggest impediment to
peace” and that the Palestinian government is being run by
“mobsters.”
“Likud puts security before negotiations, which I think is
a good idea,” he said.
Shraga emphasized that Bruins for Israel presents no official
stance on either party and merely supports Israeli democracy.
The Israeli democracy is different from that of the United
States. The Knesset consists of 120 seats held by numerous parties
from across the political spectrum. Citizens vote to give a party a
certain number of seats. The party that controls a majority chooses
a prime minister.
Because it is difficult for one party to gain a majority by
itself, parties have to form coalitions. When Sharon became prime
minister in February 2001, his power was based on an alliance
between the Likud and Labor Parties.
On Oct. 30, 2002, the Labor Party, sick of Sharon’s
aggressive leadership, walked out on him and dissolved his majority
control of the Knesset.
Despite the disgruntled political left, analysts predict that
Likud will still “win” the elections and have the best
chance of controlling the Knesset.
Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller of UCLA Hillel said the apparent
majority of Likud supporters at UCLA reflects the popular opinion
in Israel.
“The people are so scared and confused. The person who
said, “˜I’m going to protect you,’ is the person
you vote for.”
Seidler-Feller said that the conflict blinds Israelis to
domestic problems. Under Sharon’s tenure as prime minister,
inflation and unemployment have risen and the economy has
regressed.
Gabriel Piterberg, a history professor at UCLA and an Israeli
citizen, called Israel’s predicament an “elective
lunacy.”
“Why vote for someone who has disastrous political
standards?” he asked.
Piterberg said that the importance of the Israeli elections is
what will happen afterward ““ whether or not Labor will join
Sharon in a united government or walk out on him again.
Professor Steven Spiegel, a political science professor at UCLA
specializing in Mideast politics, says it is the up-and-coming
moderate Shinui (Change) Party, that could have the biggest impact
on the elections ““ especially if Shinui, Labor and Likud form
a coalition.
Spiegel predicts that a Shinui- Labor-Likud coalition would be
the most moderate outcome of the elections.
And why should U.S. citizens care about the Israeli elections?
Besides citing a “moral obligation,” Piterberg also
says that he believes the United States is investing $10 million a
day in Israel.
“The United States, whether it likes it or not, is deeply
involved, and to a large extent, it has kept the Israeli occupation
of the Palestinian territories going,” he said.