Opinions on the Israeli Elections
February 12, 2009
Israel
(8 comments)
This past Tuesday, Israelis went to the polls to elect a new prime minister, and Tzipi Livni's moderate Kadima Party won a one-seat victory in the Israeli Parliament over Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line Likud Party. Kadima will get 28 seats in the 120-seat parliament and Likud 27, far less than the 61-seat majority needed to govern alone. The results set the stage for what could be weeks of coalition negotiations. Livni and Netanyahu are already hard at work trying to line up potential partners.
Subscribers to the Union's Ten Minutes of Torah received an editorial today written by The Editors of The Jewish Week, opining that the real losers of the elections are the Israeli people:
"The fact that so many voters were undecided up to the last minute was a reflection of frustration and anger among an electorate, burdened by a dysfunctional electoral system and a list of leading candidates who offered no fresh ideas on how to deal with the country's most pressing -- even existential -- problems. These include continuing rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza, the threat of the same from Hezbollah in Lebanon, the inability of the increasingly marginal Palestinian Authority to negotiate a meaningful conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the specter of Iran continuing its efforts to build a nuclear arsenal and make good on its pledge to eradicate the Jewish state.
That's not to mention domestic issues, from the economy to declining education to corruption in government.
The consensus is that whoever emerges as prime minister will have little chance of stepping up negotiations with a Palestinian Authority involved in a political, and sometimes armed, civil war with Hamas, an erstwhile partner that remains covenantally committed to the destruction of Israel and Jews everywhere." Read the full article on The Jewish Week's website.
Israel's electoral process may seem confusing for those who are not familiar with its complex procedures. A blog called "The Israel Situation" gives us a good breakdown of the process in "The Israel Election Process Explained", as does the blog "Israel Politik".
ARZA has also posted reactions from Reform Jews, a roundup of articles on the most recent developments, and links to the credible news sources from Israel on their home page including JTA's special coverage, Israel Votes 2009.
Included in the ARZA coverage is a piece by Rabbi Ira Youdovin, Chairman of ARZA's Rabbinic Council, who examines two issues that he feels are of interest to Reform congregations: Israel's pull to the right, and the moderate success of the Israel Beitenu party led by Avigdor Lieberman.
"... Lieberman's racist---and arguably fascist---positions are drawing attention. Even more significantly, they are being embraced by a growing number of Israelis, particularly the young. Fifteen seats may represent only 12.5% of the total vote cast and an increase of less than 3 percentage points over the last election. But any percentage above zero is disturbing, and any increase, however small, is alarming.
A member of my family castigates American Jewish leaders for not speaking out more forcefully against Lieberman's policies. Until now, our reticence might be justified on the grounds of non-interference in an election campaign. We know how agitated we get when Israelis try to tell us how to vote. It works both ways.
But now that the election is over, it's of critical importance that we send a clear message to both Livni and Netanyahu that, whatever else they may offer to entice Israel-Beiteinu, even the slightest compromise of the rights of Israel's Palestinian citizens is unacceptable, and will do serious damage to Israel's relations with the United States and most other nations of the world, and with our own North American Jewish community."
Comments
Post a comment
|
Although he may be, why is Lieberman’s proposal (as stated in the editorial) racist? While saying it is, the editorial doesn’t say why.
In the U.S., we have 4 of the 5 items the editorial implies Lieberman is racist for proposing. Yet, they are not considered racist at the slightest: a pledge, a flag, a national anthem, and – even though not currently used, because it hasn’t been needed – a military draft system is still on the books. We do not require a loyalty oath in order to vote.
So, what’s racist about Lieberman’s proposal as worded in the editorial (however distasteful he may or may not be to folks on these and other issues)?