Obama's Israeli Triumph

US President Barack Obama has concluded his trip to Israel after an intensive few days in the Holy Land.  Prior to this visit, Obama was perceived by a majority of the Israeli public as being unsympathetic and unhelpful to Israel's cause in the international community.  Some believe that a US president with the Muslim heritage that Obama has, can never be good for Israel.  Expectations that Obama's visit to Israel would dramatically change his attitude towards Israel were extremely low.

Now that he has been and gone, and we have had the chance to view the course of the visit's events in hindsight (albeit a very close hindsight), I believe that Obama has almost managed to pull off the impossible.  It was a very different Obama who was in Israel from the one who has spent the past four years taking neutral positions on matters which affect Israel.  From the moment that he stepped onto the tarmac at Ben Gurion airport and said in Hebrew that he was happy to be back in Israel, Obama seemed not to put a foot wrong.  He managed to say all the right things to help reverse the negative sentiments towards him.  He paid tribute to Israeli technology and military strength when inspecting the Iron Dome battery at the airport.  He reiterated his intention to continue to fund this program, despite the budget cuts in the US.  He paid tribute to Israeli fallen heroes during his visit to the Mount Herzl cemetery, and paid his tribute to the six million at Yad Vashem.  He met with Israeli students to relate his view of the future to them, and to listen to the things that they had to say.

On the pressing issue of Iran, the US president was eager to reiterate the points of common understanding rather than the differences.  He said that there was little daylight between the Israeli and US positions.  In truth, I think that he refers more to the assessment of what is happening in Iran, rather than the view as to how to deal with it.  Even though nobody expected that there would be a great deal of public discourse on the Iran issue, it was easy to read between the lines that Obama and Netanyahu are not precisely on the same page where this is concerned.  The Israeli public would like to know if Obama will be prepared to sanction military action in sufficient time to prevent the final steps being taken for the construction of an Iranian nuclear bomb.  It is also important to know whether the US commander-in-chief is prepared to commit his forces to be in the front line, or if they will be watching from a distance while Israeli forces are required to do the hard work.  Answers to these questions were not forthcoming in public, and we have the impression that the US answers to these questions are probably not the ones that Israel would prefer to hear.

It was important to hear Obama say that Israel's continued strength will ensure that a Holocaust does not happen in the future.  As much as it is a stark admission to make that it is not the free world and the powers of the UN that will prevent such a genocide in future, it was equally important for him to publicly recognise the central role that Israel plays in the future of Jewish survival.  It was also important to hear him say that being on friendly terms with Israel is in the US national security interest.  Relationships between countries are built on necessity and mutual-dependence, and not on sentiments.  As much as there are some in the US who do feel some sentimental attachment towards Israel, the only thing that will ensure that the US will continue to support Israel in the future, is a national security interest that drives this friendship.

President Obama's trip to Israel was a public relations triumph that saw him win over many Israeli sceptics.  He managed to convince some that America is indeed there to support Israeli, despite the many instances over the past four years when Israel felt isolated by the contrary view adopted by the Obama administration.  Could it be that the next four years will be different, and that there will be more help forthcoming from Obama and his friends in support of Israel?  Only time will tell.  Many feel that the president's appointment of Chuck Hagel to the position of US Secretary of Defense is more reminiscent of the old Obama, rather than a new one.
Hagel is perceived to unsupportive and unsympathetic to Israel's cause.  I do believe that most Israelis are prepared to give Obama the opportunity to prove his credentials again.  His actions over the coming months, particularly with regard to Iran, will be highly influential in convincing people of his true allegiance.

As a parting gift, Obama brokered an apology to be delivered by Prime Minister Netanyahu to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan over the deaths of Turkish activists in the Gaza Flotilla incident three years ago.  While it is clear to see why a united Israel and Turkey serves US national security interests as a buffer against Syria, it is still unclear whether this is good for Israel's interests or not.  This apology by Israel represents a major climb-down on a point of principle, while the benefits sufficient to outweigh this concession are not immediately obvious.

A good relationship with the USA is certainly in Israel's best interests.  But this is not at any price.  Israel wishes to see the US being prepared to speak out and take actions on matters which would benefit Israel in the international community.  With the constant threats that Israel is facing, this is of importance to Israel's future surivival and that of the Jewish people.  Over the course of the next year, this will manifest itself in the support that Israel receives to counter the Iranian threat.  The clock is ticking.......

Israel Providing a Service to the World

The world has been observing the events in Syria, particularly over the period of the civil war that has raged there for the past two years.  Syria has long presented a threat to the international community because of two main factors.  The first factor is its substantial arsenal of conventional, biological and chemical weapons which President Bashar al-Assad appears to have no reluctance to use.  The second factor is its close links to Iran in the sponsorship of international terror.  During the course of the civil war, the threat has escalated even further with numerous international terror groups using the instability created by the war to take up camp in Syria.  This increases the possibility that dangerous weapons could fall into renegade terror groups around the world.  The world has been observing these events from a safe distance without taking any action at all to prevent the strengthening of international terror.

Israel's proximity to Syria, and the fact that a border is shared by the two countries, has always meant that all that happens in Syria is of significant interest to the Israeli security services.  Syria has been an enemy of the State of Israel from the moment Israel came into existence in 1948, a situation that has not changed until the present day.  The period during which the civil war has been fought in Syria is no exception, and has added further instability to the region due to the lack of predictability as to how the Syrian authorities and the rebels may direct their forces towards Israel.  A few isolated missiles have already landed in Israeli territory from Syria, but these have been regarded having crossed the border in error rather than having been deliberately directed towards Israel.  The truth is that the Syrian forces and their rebel enemies are too busy fighting against each other to spend much time worrying about launching an attack against Israel.  While this presents a source of comfort for Israel on one hand, it also presents a real threat on the other hand.

The war has led to the general opening up of Syria's arms and ammunitions depots for the Syrian army to use against the rebels.  Some reports suggest that it has even made use of chemical weapons in this war.  The opening of missile storage facilities means that these arms and missiles are also more easily available to other renegade groups who may wish to snatch them from the Syrians.  This has resulted in the Syrians trying to move some of their most strategic missiles to be under the care of its allies and friends, most notably Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. 

These movements undoubtedly lie behind recent reports coming from Syria that a convoy of weapons was attacked while in transit from Syria to Lebanon.  Israel has been accused of the attack, even though there is no formal word from the Israeli government or army on the matter.  Another attack was also reported, nearer to Damascus, at around the same time.  Syrian TV reported that Israeli jets attacked an army facility, widely rumoured to be a research centre involved in the production of chemical and biological weapons.  Once again, the Israelis have remained silent on the matter.  Even though there is no official word on whether Israel was involved in either or both of these incidents, the pinpoint accuracy with which they were carried out does bear the hallmark of operations that Israel could have been involved in.  Hints have come out of the US government to confirm this, and remarks made by Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak also seem to support Israel's involvement.

While these attacks were clearly carried out in the interests of Israel's own safety, she is doing the world a huge service in the process.  The threat presented by the axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and their links to other terror organisations, is one that is not solely directed towards Israel.  The Bulgarian government confirmed that the attack against Israeli tourists in Burgas on the Black Sea in the summer of 2012, was carried out by Hezbollah.  In addition to the 5 Israelis who were killed in the attack in Bulgaria, there was also a Bulgarian tour guide who was a casualty.  The Bulgarian economy was also affected as a result of the decision made by tourists to stay away from the area while international terror organisations were operating there.  Attacks on targets in the US, Far East and across Europe which have escalated over the past 10 or 15 years, show clearly that terror that was once aimed solely at Israel or limited to the Middle East, has now become a global threat.  Any activities carried out by Israel against these terror organisations, even if it is solely in the pursuit of securing her own safety, represents a huge favour to the wider international community.

The unfortunate part of this is that Israel seldom, if ever, receives help, support and assistance in these activities.  At best, Israel may receive a "green light" in the form of an agreement not to resist or oppose the attack.  More likely, Israel is subject to international condemnation in the international press, and in bodies like the UN.  An example of this is the reaction that was received to Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility back in 1981.  Israel was roundly condemned by the international community, and resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council and by the UN General Assembly criticising Israel's actions.  It took until 2005 for US President Bill Clinton to finally admit in public that " I think, in retrospect, that it was a really good thing".  Clearly, the path of the Gulf Wars in Iraq would have looked completely different had Israel not been bold enough to carry out this attack.  A similar assessment could be made of Israel's attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007.  Even though the world condemnation was not quite as vociferous on this occasion, there was no other country lining up to challenge Syria's development of nuclear weapons, or to help Israel in destroying it.  As the Syrian civil war continues, a heavy sigh of relief is being breathed by the world that there is no nuclear option available to the Syrian government.

As in the past, Israel's strikes on the weapons convoy being sent to Hezbollah and the Syrian weapons research centre comes as a gift to the free world.  This is a further service provided by the Israeli military, which seems at times to be the only force in the world that is ready to do the impossible.  This impossible is frequently done on its own steam, and in the face of international condemnation.  Although Israel is not necessarily seeking thanks and recognition for these efforts, many of which place the lives of our young soldiers on the line, it would be a welcome change to receive some support for these audacious actions. 

Even if this is not forthcoming, I feel good to live in a country that is prepared to take the tough decisions to do the dirty work to secure the safety of its citizens, and has young men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line in the interests of executing it.  This is a source of immense pride, and source of great comfort to me.  It is a pity that the rest of the world gets a free ride in the process.

Lapid Becomes Kingmaker

The election is over, the votes are in and the results are final.  Despite this, we still don’t really know where we stand.  The coalition negotiations are yet to take place, which will probably add most spice to the process.  The big story coming out of the election is the way in which Yair Lapid managed to propel his Yesh Atid (there is a future) party into second place by capturing 19 seats in the Knesset.  None of the opinion polls ahead of the election gave any indication that Yesh Atid was on the verge of such a significant achievement in its first election.  Many are wondering how Yesh Atid managed to sneak in under the radar in this way, and what the future holds for Yair Lapid and his new party.

It seems as though Lapid managed to pace his election campaign perfectly.  He peaked just as people were heading to the polls, still undecided about whose ticket they would place in their voting envelope.  An exit poll of Yesh Atid voters revealed that as many as 30% decided to vote for Lapid’s party in the last 4 days before the election.  This is an astonishing statistic, and reveals how little previously established voting preferences counted for in this election.  I also think that the combination of right of centre diplomatic polices, centre social policies and the insistence that all groups in society bear the burden equally, proved to be a popular platform for voters.  In particular, the idea that concessions should be given neither to the super-wealthy nor to the ultra-Orthodox, reflects a sense of fairness and equality that most Israelis can identify with.  Additionally, Lapid’s view that civil and social issues should have a higher priority on the new government’s agenda than diplomatic issues, has enjoyed a great deal of support.  Without minimising the threat to Israel or the level of its importance, many Israelis are tired of hearing the prime minister spend most of his time talking about Iran.  They would prefer to hear about how he will strengthen the economy, and make it easier for people to earn a decent living.  Lapid sensed this, and managed to incorporate these views into his platform.

Although the son of long-time politician Tommy Lapid, Yair Lapid has no political experience at all.  He is well-known in Israel as a journalist and TV anchor-man, a fact that clearly assisted him in his campaign.  He needs to use the next few years to accumulate as much political experience as he can if he is truly going to be able to take on the job of leading a government in the future, something he claims to have ambitions to do.  This also means that he has little choice but to join the coalition government that Benjamin Netanyahu is currently constructing.  Acting as leader of the opposition cannot be compared to taking on a senior cabinet role in government.  If Lapid is to progress towards his ambition of being a future prime minister of Israel, he will join the coalition at almost any price.

Despite having stood on a platform that opposed many of the outgoing government’s policies, Lapid and Netanyahu are politically not too far apart.  On paper, Lapid and Netanyahu have remarkably similar diplomatic policies.  Lapid appears more determined to create an environment that will encourage direct talks with the Palestinians than Netanyahu has shown himself to be.  Despite this, Lapid ‘s platform is clear in that it does not advocate the splitting of Jerusalem or giving up on the large settlement blocs in the West Bank in pursuit of a two-state solution.  The main difference between Lapid and Netanyahu becomes more obvious when looking at civil and economic policies.  Lapid is determined to pursue a responsible economic policy, which is also satisfies the calls for social justice.  Lapid’s interpretation of this means that he wishes to ensure that the social burden is equalised across all groups in society.  For the most part, this will manifest itself by reducing or withdrawing the special advantages that the ultra-Orthodox groups have enjoyed over many years.  In practice, Lapid aims to ensure that there is no wide-ranging exemption for the ultra-Orthodox from military service (or some form of national service), and he will be seeking to reduce or withdraw the special government grants that are paid to ultra-Orthodox men who are studying in yeshivot (religious learning institutions).  These two aspects have proved to be a drain on Israeli coffers, and have been the cause of great conflict and anger in Israeli society.

The difference between Lapid and Netanyahu is not because they have different basic convictions on the social and economic issues.  On the contrary, I believe that their basic beliefs are extremely similar.  The issue is that Netanyahu has been forced to accommodate the requirements of the ultra-Orthodox bloc in order to secure his position as prime minister.  He has played to the religious voters who support Likud, as well as to the ultra-Orthodox parties who he has been forced to share a coalition table with in the past.  This has meant allocating vast sums of money to maintain and support the stipends being paid to yeshiva students, and perpetuating their exemption from military service.  Both of these measures are extremely unpopular with the non-religious electorate, and contribute in a measurable way to lack of equality in Israeli society.  The decision earlier in 2012 by the High Court of Justice that the exemption from military service granted to ultra-Orthodox men is unconstitutional, has pushed the government into a corner to force it to make some changes to this policy.  If Netanyahu is able to structure a coalition to exclude the ultra-Orthodox parties, there is a greater likelihood that the required changes on the military exemption will be enacted in spite of the protests on the part of the religious groups.

The ultra-Orthodox parties have sensed the danger to their power base, and have decided to create single bloc out of the seats that were won by the two partes – Shas with 11 seats and the United Torah Judaism party with 7 seats.  Their 18 seats is a counter-balance to Lapid’s 19 seats, and forces Netanyahu to make a choice between one or the other.  It is almost inconceivable that Lapid would sit in a government with the religious parties, and vice versa.  It is my expectation that, after all the  negotiations are completed, Lapid will be in the government and the religious bloc will not.

As far as I can tell, Yair Lapid’s longer-term outlook looks more tenuous.  He has successfully created a political party that bases most of its strength on him as the leader.  Aside from himself, the members of the Yesh Atid list are relatively unknown, and much lower profile.  His platform of policies is not very unique, but rather borrows policies from many others, and packages them in a slightly different way.  His ability to continue to present this package in a unique way is key to determining whether Yesh Atid is a one-hit wonder, or whether it will be around in the future.  Political parties that were built around the fame and personality of their leader, have a poor track record in Israel.  Yair’s own father led the Shinui party, a party that no longer exists.  Similarly, Kadima that was built by Ariel Sharon, is in the process of dying.  There are many other examples of this, and I predict that Tzipi Livni’s Hatnua party will go the same way.  Perhaps Lapid has achieved what he needs from Yesh Atid.  His strategy may be to continue to lead the party in the current Knesset to his advantage, and then to fold into one of the established parties, probably Likud.  This is probably the best solution for Lapid to ensure his long-term survival in politics.

The tens of thousands of people who voted for Lapid are hoping that he will succeed in converting his written manifesto into policies on the ground, to make a real difference to Israeli society.  If he is able to achieve even a small fraction of what he set out to do, the kingmaker may go on to become a king in his own right.  Failure to do so my relegate him to the political trash pile.  The question is whether he is ready to take on the realities of Israeli politics, and to make them work to his advantage.  The challenge is a tough one.

To Vote or Not to Vote? That is the Question.

The polls have now closed in the election for the 19th Knesset, and predictions of a low voter turnout have proved to be incorrect.  Even though it was claimed that the election campaign failed to capture the imagination of the electorate,  initial information is that this is the highest voter turnout since the 1999 election.  When the votes have all been counted, it is expected that more than 70% of those entitled to vote will have cast a ballot.  The positive trend even applies to the Arab Israeli sector, which traditionally has a much lower turnout than Jewish Israelis.  Overall, this is good for Israel's democracy, and shows that Israeli voters are less apathetic than was originally thought.  It is entirely logical for Israel to have high voter turnout.  Jews were forced to suffer many years of being denied the right to determine their own destiny.  This should drive people to flood polling stations to vote in order to influence how Jewish life in Israel will be conducted over the next parliament.  There remain decisions to be taken which are of substantial political significance to Israelis concerning the future of the country, and the how to achieve peace in the promised land.  Some may say that these are life and death decisions, and seem important enough to convince most to exercise their democratic right.

Despite the obvious compelling issues that drive Israelis to the polls in significant numbers, there are those who do so somewhat reluctantly.  This is mainly because of the general disillusionment with politicians and the political system.  Gone are the days when people stood for the Knesset purely for the purpose of serving Israelis and improving Israeli society.  The concept of selfless service of our society seems to be a historical dinosaur in Israel, and indeed elsewhere around the world.  While I am not suggesting that people should agree to serve in the Knesset or in government for free or without adequate reward, it is a pity that the reward has become more of the issue than the service.  This has led to increased corruption, and much less trust in politicians and the system that governs the country.  The fact that financial rewards can be extracted has the effect of attracting a certain type of person to stand for the Knesset.  In my view, the public is justified in feeling negative towards politicians, particularly when it is considered that these are the people who will be determining our destiny.

The second reason why people may be reluctant to vote, is the feeling that there will not be any change to the current status quo.  If this is so, why bother turning up to vote?  It has been predicted throughout the election campaign that Netanyahu will be returned as prime minister.  The person who is elected to lead the government is the most important issue at stake in the election.  The rest is in the details.  The fact that Netanyahu has continued to hold a seemingly unassailable advantage gives the feeling that votes cannot, and will not influence anything of any significance.

The government-sponsored advertising to encourage people to turn up to vote has been quite creative and entertaining.  This can claim a great deal of credit for the high voter turnout.  Unfortunately, not the same can be said for the party election broadcasts, and the party election campaigns.  They have been uninspiring, and have not provoked much interest at all.  Better campaigns would, almost certainly, have inspired undecided voters to come out to exercise their votes.

Only a few years ago, Israel had a voter turnout rate of over 80%, and was in the top 25 countries of vote turnout at general elections.  The last three elections before today have shown a dramatic reduction in the number of voters  turning out, to below 65%.  The challenges facing Israel, and the importance of the decisions, are no less than those that Israel was forced to confront at the time of independence in 1948.  Israelis are all required to serve in the army in defense of the country, and this reality should surely encourage people to vote in their droves. Casting a vote for the right option could literally save people's lives if a peace agreement can be reached with the Palestinians.  For this reason, it is appropriate and pleasing that people have decided to exercise their vote today.

Initial exit polls show that the split between the left and the right-wing in the new Knesset will be very narrow.  This reflects that huge dilemma facing Israelis with regard to the direction that should be taken in dealing with Palestinian issue.  Can we trust that there is a way of agreeing a way to survive harmoniously side-by-side with a Palestinian state, or do we take statements at face value which threaten that the Palestinians will not rest until Israel is entirely destroyed?  Most Israelis really wish to believe that there is a solution to give us the peace that we yearn for.  Many believe that this is not achievable right now, due to the Palestinians taking each concession and using it as ammunition to destroy Israel further.  Israelis are also split on the issue of how to deal with the social justice reforms that are being sought for the economy.  How can we give the weaker members of our society the help that they need, without being irresponsible with the economy?  These are extremely heavy and important issues, for which there are no easy answers. The country seems to be split almost down the middle on these matters.

Irrespective of who will ultimately occupy the prime minister's office, and who will sit in the Knesset, this day has been a great victory for democracy in our country.  Many countries that achieve voter turnout in excess of 70%, are those where it is a criminal offence not to vote in the election.  In Israel, such a law is not required in order to convince people to come to the ballots.  We are extremely fortunate to have a Jewish state of our own, and to have the opportunity to vote in elections to participate in the determination of the destiny of our country and our people.  This was finally achieved after many years of being denied the right to vote, and being denied the right to determine our destiny.  The turnout today is a vote of thanks to the many heroes who fought so hard to get us to this position,  and a tribute to the memories of so many lives which were lost in the process.

The Oath that Really Counts

I had the immense pleasure to attend the ceremony which marked the end of my son's basic training course.  The young soldiers were presented to us in a parade to mark their formal induction to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as fully-fledged soldiers.  It was truly an amazing and an emotional scene to witness the commitment of these young people to the cause of defending their homeland, and the enthusiasm with which they accept the need to give up three years of their young lives in doing so.

During the course of the ceremony, the new recruits were called upon to make an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel and the IDF.  An oath of allegiance is common in ceremonies in which new immigrants to certain countries becoming citizens.  In the USA, the pledge of allegiance is commonly recited in schools as a way of instilling a feeling of patriotism towards the motherland.  In reality, such oaths are more of a mantra and, while those reciting it may believe in its statements in their hearts, they are seldom called upon to act to fulfil the pledge.  This is not so in the case of young Israelis.  The oath that they take includes the statement that they will even be prepared to sacrifice their lives in the protection of the State of Israel, and its liberty.  This is no idle undertaking.  Thousands who have taken this oath before have made the ultimate sacrifice.  This point was not lost on any of the new recruits as they made their oath in front of the gathered crowd, and their commanders.  Even at their tender age, each understood in no uncertain terms how serious this oath is.

The ceremony was filled with symbolism as the recruits first recited their oath together in unison, and were then called upon individually to make their promise.  Each one stepped forward in front of their commander, was handed a Tanach (copy of the Old Testament)* and a rifle, and made his vow.  I was overwhelmed with pride and trepidation as my son also made the simple statement "I promise".  The Tanach in his one hand represented not only a holy book on which to make a vow, but also represented thousands of years of Jewish history that are now being entrusted into his hands.  The rifle in his other hand represented the determination of the Jewish people to survive, even if force is required.  It represented the piece that has been missing at certain critical stages during our history, and which was missing when six million of our people were annihilated at the hands of the Nazis.  The combination of the Tanach and the rifle is all that we need to move forward, determined never to allow such an event to happen again.  Each recruit stepped forward and made his promise with confidence and commitment.  Despite the obvious dangers that are involved in serving in the IDF, not one flinched or hesitated when making his vow.  I felt enormous gratitude to these young men and women, and great confidence in handing the future safety of our country and our people to them.  They are worthy in every way.

My mind wandered momentarily to think of those members of my family who were cruelly murdered in the Holocaust.  I considered what they may have thought if they were present to witness this amazing scene before me.  This is the one thing that was missing for them, and that would have protected them at the moment that they so needed it only 70 short years ago.  I felt thankful that we have learned our lesson sufficiently to create the powerful fighting force that is the IDF, and that I have merited to witness this with my own eyes.  I felt enormous pride that I can also be involved in this miracle via the wonderful work being done by my sons, and by the sons and daughters of our friends and neighbours.  This is truly a modern miracle that could never have been envisaged during the dark days that our people were forced to endure.

Today is the fast of the Tenth of Tevet, which also doubles as the memorial day for those whose date and location of death are unknown.  I feel pain in my heart that they could not be offered the amazing protection that the IDF offers us today.  I wish they could feel the immense pride that we feel, and experience the sense of comfort that we are privileged to feel in the knowledge that we are being protected by our own army.  As much as we all pray for the opportunity to live in peace and not be forced to have our army on constant alert to protect our country and our people, we will never again allow our fate and our safety to be left to the responsibility of others.  Our boys and girls are ready to take their oath to keep our safety in their hands.

* Non-Jewish soldiers make their oath on a holy book or symbol of their choosing. 

Egotism and Politics

There was a time when people went into politics with the intention of serving their community, and making a difference to society.  The main imperative was public service, and offering personal skills and talents for the benefit of the country.  Unfortunately, those days appear to be long gone.  These days, politicians seem more interested in the power that their position brings, and the personal benefits that can be gained by entering office.

This is seen in many, if not most countries around the world.   Israel is no exception.  This has been very clearly demonstrated over the past week with the announcement that Tzipi Livni has formed a new party to contest the upcoming election.  The new party, Hatnua (the movement), seems to bring nothing new to the political arena.  So why would Livni form the new party?  When the press announcement of the new party was made, the main subtitle under the name of the party on the publicity boards was the tag line "under the leadership of Tzipi Livni".  This is the main point which supports the new party.  It is a place where Livni can be the leader.

Livni has already been a Member of Knesset representing two parties in the past, Likud and Kadima.  When she was ousted as leader of Kadima, she decided to leave the party.  It demonstrated what was important to her as a member of Kadima - the fact that she could be the leader and have control over the party.  As soon as she was voted out of the leadership position, there was nothing left in the party to keep her there.  The election platform of Hatnua looks remarkably similar to that of Kadima, which is also not too far away from the ideologies followed by Labour.  The centre left space in Israeli politics is an incredibly crowded area, and the addition of a new party serves to create even more congestion and probably reduce the number of seats that they can collectively win at the election.  The only real difference between the parties, is the people who lead them.  Perhaps this explains why Kadima has gone from a party with nearly 30 Knesset seats, to predictions of only 2 seats in the next election.  The original leader, Ariel Sharon, is no longer there.  Without him, there is no real substance to the party.  Perhaps there was no real substance even while he was there?

The electorate would like to believe that Tzipi Livni is in politics to progress the cause of the State of Israel.  This is not an easy task at the current time.  Instead, we find that she moves from one party to another, seemingly dependent on how well each party serves her personal interests.  Getting lost in this pursuit of personal glory, are the interests of the State of Israel and her citizens.  One of the members of Kadima was fully justified when asking what Livni thinks she can achieve with her new party, that she failed to achieve with Kadima's 28 seats when she was at the helm.  I suspect that whatever she failed to achieve with Kadima will probably also not be achieved with Hatnua.

What is even more remarkable in the politics of personal egos, is the fact that the centre left parties were unable to find a way to unite their lists for the purpose of progressing their policies and platform in a more effective way for the election.  Egos once again got in the way of sensible politics, thereby diluting the real message that the centre left groups are trying to promote.

There are some who would say that the aphrodisiac effect of power is not such a new phenomenon.  Lord Acton wrote in 1887, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".  This seems as true now as it was then, and is clearly evident in these latest moves by Tzipi Livni and others like her.  Nobody expects politicians to do their job for free or without personal remuneration.  There is, however, an expectation that, in return for reasonable pay and reward, they will carry out the requirements of their office which expects them to serve the people by whom they were elected.  This is in short supply at this time.

While the new Hatnua party may well succeed in securing 8 or 9 seats in this election, the longer-term prospects seem slim.  Any party that is built on the strength of individual personalities rather than on the basis of solid ideologies and policies, seems destined to land on the rubbish heap of failed political parties.  Hatnua will almost surely end up in this junk pile in the fullness of time.

Despite Lord Acton commenting on political corruption all those years ago, there was a time not too long ago when politicians had a completely different and more modest approach to their work.  Names like David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin seem to be from a bygone era, even though they were both people who some of us still remember with fondness.  They were happy to live in a small apartment, and to invite members of the public to their official residences whenever they could, even while they were serving in a lofty public office.  Somehow, the office in which they served never allowed them to become corrupt, or to stray from the values that formed their character.


I have considered the possibility that the general public demand too much of politicians when we expect them to behave selfllessly in the interests of the electorate.  The more I think about it, the more I seem to convince myself that this behaviour is really the minimum that we should expect of politicians.   How can we trust them to act in the best interests of our country, and to build a future for our children if this is not the case?  Tzipi Livni has not only disappointed the public by her behaviour, she has let herself down and many others who do behave appropriately.  We cannot help but tar all politicians with the same brush, and she is setting the standard.

The Meaning of the UN Vote on Palestine

The UN General Assembly voted on Thursday by a large majority to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to that of a non-member state.  The issue at stake has nothing to do with the upgraded status that the Palestinian Authority managed to achieve at the UN.  I believe that there are few around the world, including in Israel, who would have a problem with this.  The main issue in this vote is the inclusion of the word "state" in the resolution.  By passing this resolution, the UN has effectively recognised the Palestinian Authority area as a state, something that has not been done before.

Israel fought hard, against the tide of world support, to prevent the vote coming to the UN.  When it became clear that the vote was to be held, Israel did all she could to convince UN General Assembly members to vote against it.  The problem is that there were two different issues at play in the vote.  The reason that Israel was trying to convince member countries to vote against the motion was completely different than the reason why they wanted to vote in favour.  Inevitably, the two issues became intertwined and intermingled, causing a great deal of confusion.

For many in the international community, the vote at the UN was all about recognising the idea of "two states for two peoples".    This idea says that Israel will have the right to exist in peace and security for Israelis, and a Palestinian state will be formed for the Palestinian people.  This has been recognised by the Israeli government, and has been formally supported by Prime Minister Netanyahu.  So why was Netanyahu intent on opposing the UN vote when he has not objected to the idea of a Palestinian state?  It has been accepted that the recognition of a Palestinian state should be done on the basis of mutual understanding, respect and recognition between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  The main barrier which has prevented Israel from wishing to continue peace talks with the Palestinians, is their unwillingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.  This recognition of Israel as a Jewish state does not threaten any peace and harmony that could exist between Israel and a future Palestinian state.  A neighbouring country has no right to dictate the main religion or key identifying characteristics of the country that exists along its borders in peace and mutual respect.  So why is it that the Palestinians refuse to give recognition of this fact to Israel?  There is a feeling that the Palestinians may have ulterior motives by trying to prescribe to Israel what sort of country she is allowed to be.  Is there an attempt to scupper any hopes of reaching a peace with Israel, and then somehow blame the deadlock on Israel?  Or perhaps that is some other hidden agenda?

Having reached an impasse because of the unwillingness of the Palestinians to give Israel the basic recognition it seeks as a Jewish state, the Palestinians have spent a great deal of time and effort to find a way to circumvent the peace process that has been laid down by the international community.  Instead of negotiating with Israel and being forced to make compromises in return for the concessions that they will receive, they been working on unilateral actions that will give them what they seek without having to give in return.  This is effectively what they have achieved by the vote at the UN, and what Israel was so vehemently opposed to.  It seems somehow unjust that the Palestinians would be granted some of their demands via the UN, without them having to give anything in return.  This explains clearly why Israel and the USA were opposed to the unilateral action taken by the Palestinians at the UN last week.  Despite the fact that it has cemented the agreed "two states for two peoples" concept, it has granted unfair advantage to one of the peoples which has created in imbalance in the current situation.

The Israeli government reacted quickly to try to rebalance the situation, by approving the construction of 3,000 housing units in parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  This action, while being roundly condemned by the Palestinians and other members of the international community (including the USA), is not as extreme as it is presented in the international media.  The construction of these units has been approved by the Israeli government in areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are heavily populated by Jewish Israelis, and areas which have already been tentatively agreed to exclude from any future Palestinian state.  As such, these additional construction approvals do not present such a significant departure from the current status quo.  It is certainly not a point that is substantial enough to present is a deal-breaker to the peace process as has been suggested by the Palestinians.  It also masks the fact that the current Israeli government has acted on a number of occasions to dismantle the illegal construction of new settlements that could  have interrupted the status quo.  It is unfortunate that very little recognition of these actions has been seen in the international media, or from the Palestinians.

While it is true that the concept of a "Palestinian" people is a new invention by the Arabs since the establishment of the State of Israel, and has been presented by many as another tactic to try to remove the Jews from Israel, there is a related point that is difficult to deny.  This is the fact that the group of people who have united under the banner of "Palestinians" really have no other nationality that they can claim as their own.  It has been said that the Palestinians are made up of people who are really Jordanians and/or Egyptians and/or Lebanese or some other nationality.  On the contrary, the "Palestinians" are largely despised by the Arab countries around the Middle East, and these countries do all that they can to deny granting their nationality to the Palestinians.  It should be recalled that it was a Palestinian who assassinated King Abdullah I of Jordan, great-grandfather of the current Jordanian King.  There is certainly no love lost between the Jordanians and the Palestinians (even though current Queen Rania comes from a Palestinian family).  The main reason that Arab countries have supported the Palestinian cause so vigorously, is simply to remove the "Palestinian problem" and related threat from their own doorsteps.

The world, by voting for a Palestinian state, has rewarded the Palestinians for bad behaviour.  Israel, despite supporting two states for two peoples, could never have supported a unilateral move on the part of the Palestinians in the way that it happened at the UN last week.  None of this, however, changes the facts on the ground in any substantial way.  The state that has now been recognised still has borders that are not clearly defined, and they remain unchanged from the week before the vote.  If anything, it has created more uncertainty and more conflict than was the case before.  The level of distrust is higher than before, and the prospects of returning to the negotiating table are remoter than was the case previously.  It is also suggested that it gives the Palestinians reason to believe that the way to achieve their aspirations of an independent state, is not via the negotiating table.  Instead, they can manipulate the international community to get what they want, without any cost to them.

While the world may have had good intentions in supporting the Palestinian cause at the UN, it has done irreparable harm to the peace process.  If they thought that this would advance the cause of peace, they clearly have misunderstood politics in the Middle East.  They message sent to the Palestinians is entirely the wrong message, and will simply push any possible peace further and further away.  Israel is unfortunately extremely experienced in coping with negative UN resolutions.  For a country whose population numbers barely 7 million, and which occupies such a tiny area of the earth, there have been more negative resolutions adopted by the UN against Israel than any other country.  This reflects how absurd  the UN's obsession with Israel has been over the years.  As before, Israel will be forced to cope with the latest UN resolution and move forward.  Things could have been much easier had the countries of the world paused to try to understand the full implications of their do-good resolutions.