Home > Two Earthquakes

Two Earthquakes

by Open-Publishing - Saturday 3 December 2005

Parties International Uri Avnery

by Uri Avnery

A POLITICAL earthquake is itself a rare event. When two
major political earthquakes follow each other in quick
succession, this is almost unheard of.

One such earthquake was the election of Amir Peretz as
leader of the Labor Party. The other is Sharon’s
leaving the Likud and forming a new party.

Suddenly, the political landscape has changed beyond
recognition. Previously, there were two mountains. Now
there are three - and none of them stands where either
of the two was standing before.

The Likud has evolved over the last 28 years into a
center-right party. Its extreme nationalist views have
been diluted with opportunism and ever growing
corruption. Its leadership became intertwined with the
ultra-rich, who dictated its economic policy, even if
most of its voters belonged to the underprivileged.

The Labor party has become its own tombstone. It has
turned into a pale copy of the Likud, a kind of Likud
2. Its main gravedigger, Shimon Peres, was also its
main representative, while also acting as Sharon’s
chief propagandist throughout the world.

This landscape does not exist any more.

IN THE new landscape there are three mountains, facing
three different directions.

 THE LIKUD has reverted to what it was before coming
to power in 1977: a radical right-wing party. This is
the classic Herut party, which believes in the Greater
Israel (called in Hebrew "The Whole of Eretz YIsrael"),
from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River (at
least). It opposes any peace agreement with the
Palestinian people and wants to maintain the
occupation, until circumstances allow for the
annexation of all the occupied territories. Since it
also wants a homogeneous Jewish state, this contains a
hidden message: the Arabs must be induced to leave the
country. In right-wing parlance, this is called
"voluntary transfer". However, the party takes care not
spell this out openly.

The Likud may now prattle about "social" matters, in
order to compete with Peretz for the "Eastern" (mostly
North African) voters. But since the unification of the
Herut Party in the 1960s with the defunct Liberal
Party, it has served the interests of the very rich.

 THE SHARON PARTY (called Kadima, "Forward") is built
on a lie. Sharon has declared that the Road Map is its
sole political platform. But the Road Map was dead
before it was born. Sharon does not dream - and never
intended - to carry out his part of the very first
phase of its realization: the elimination of the
hundred new settlements ("outposts") that were set up
after 2000, and the freeze of all settlement
activities.

Sharon does not make a secret of his real intentions:
to annex to Israel 58% of the West Bank, including the
ever-expanding "settlement blocs", as well as various
"security zones" (the extended Jordan valley and the
roads between the settlements) and Great-Great-
Jerusalem, up to the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement. Since
there can be no Palestinian partner for such a
"solution", he plans to implement this by a unilateral
diktat, backed by force, without any dialogue with the
Palestinians.

As far as Sharon is concerned, social matters are a
nuisance. He will, of course, publish some social
program in order to compete with Peretz and the Likud,
but it really does not interest him.

 THE LABOR PARTY of Amir Peretz will concentrate on
social-economic issues, hoping to attract the masses of
the Eastern public who have until now voted for the
Likud and Shas (the party of Orthodox Eastern Jews).
The chances of victory lie here. Amir Peretz supports a
serious peace program: negotiations with the
Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian
state, on the basis of the borders of 1967. He will
represent this in a social context: the money wasted on
war, occupation and the settlements is stolen from the
poor and increases the gap between rich and poor.

Peretz’s advisors will try to convince him to "become
centralized" (there is a new Hebrew word for this) and
to dilute his peace message, in order to attract voters
"in the middle". If he does this, he will appear to
lack self-confidence, credibility and a clear program.
But in any case, Peretz will try to emphasize social
issues and relegate peace-and-security issues to second
place.

ONE OF the main principles of military strategy is that
the side that chooses the battlefield has a better
chance of winning the battle, since his choice will
reflect, of course, their particular requirements. That
is also true for the election battle.

Sharon is a victorious general, and therefore he is
interested in placing "Security" in the centre of the
election campaign. There he has a huge advantage over
Peretz, who was a mere captain in the maintenance
corps. When there is danger to the security of Israel,
the people will trust Sharon, the Sabra (born in this
country) from Malal village, who radiates the aura of a
military leader.

Peretz is a trade union leader, a man born in Morocco
who grew up in a small town of poor immigrants, and so
is interested in placing the social-economic issues in
the center of the elections. When hundreds of thousands
live beneath the poverty line and see the social gap as
their main problem, they may treat security matters as
of secondary concern.

Peretz must get the masses to internalize the formula
"Peace = Reducing the Gap". That is quite difficult.
During my ten years in the Knesset, I made dozens of
speeches about this, and did not succeed. In public
consciousness, there exists a kind of mental block:
when speaking about the economy, the national conflict
is ignored. When speaking about the national conflict,
they don’t want to hear about the economy. Peretz must
break through the partition and establish the
connection between the two. After so many sacrifices of
blood and money, the public may be ripe for this.

So the main battle will be about the battlefield
itself: whether Security or the Social Gap will be its
centerpiece. Peretz must stick to his agenda, even if
all kinds of advisors and media-people urge him to
deviate from it and respond the attacks of his
opponents. And, of course, every "terrorist" attack
will help Sharon and the Likud. (Sharon-haters assert
that he is quite capable of provoking such attacks
himself, by initiating military actions that demand
retaliation.)

HOW DOES the new landscape differ from the old?
Strangely enough, many commentators ignore the most
manifest and most decisive fact:

The whole system has undergone a shift to the left.

The Likud nucleus is stuck on the right, where it
always was. But all the others have moved.

The Sharon-party, which has split from the Likud, has
given up its main article of faith: the Whole of Eretz
Yisrael. It advocates the partition of the country.
Sharon himself has established the precedent of
removing settlements. However bad his political program
is: compared to the former position of himself and of
the Likud, it is much less rightist. He has not turned
into "Labor 2", as his Likud opponents assert, but he
has moved leftward.

The election of Amir Peretz constitutes a major
movement of the Labor party to the real left.

This is true for the solution of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict as well as for the social problem.
Not only does Peretz bring with him a social-democratic
agenda, he also compels all the other parties to turn
in this direction, or at least to pretend to.

Even Shas has suddenly remembered that it is, after
all, the party of the underprivileged Eastern Jews.
After several years on the extreme right, it is now
recalling that its sole leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yossef,
years ago came out in favor of giving back territories
for peace.

For years now an abnormal situation has prevailed in
Israel and driven social scientists crazy: according to
all public opinion polls, most of the public wants
peace and is prepared to make almost all the necessary
concessions, but in the Knesset this position has
hardly been represented at all..

During all these years, my optimism has irritated many
people. I told everyone: this will not go on. Some day,
in a way that we cannot yet foresee, this abnormal
state will right itself. One way or another, the
political scene will attune itself to public opinion.

An earthquake causes changes on the ground, but is
itself caused by forces deep in the earth. This is true
in political life, too: the changes hidden in the
depths of public consciousness eventually result in
changes that are visible to the eye. The outcome is
quick and sudden, but it results from a long, slow
subterranean process. I am proud of the role that I and
my partners have had in this.

What will happen now? That depends on many factors. On
us, too.

For access to a lot of interesting material:
 The brochure Truth Against Truth (available in many
languages)
 Boycott list of settlement products
 video footage of hot spots
 Archive of articles and documents

www.gush-shalom.org