Prior to 1989, the world existed as two mountains, with two superpowers at the peaks, and every other country in the world positioned somewhere on the slope of one or the other of the mountains. The inter-relationships between these other countries, their conflicts and cooperations, and their allegiances to the superpower at the peak of their mountain, kept the international scene tense but stable. There was a certain manageability to the situation despite the tension it caused – or perhaps because of it.
In 1989-90, one mountain disappeared. All the countries that had been scattered on its slope were left in a free-fall and scrambled to find a new positioning on the lone remaining slope. They sought to align themselves in the new world situation in some way so that they would have a place to exist. Many succeeded. A few did not. Those few are now beginning to coalesce into what they hope will be a new second mountain. They comprise the countries that are state sponsors of terrorism, those who reject cooperation and society in the world. These have managed to find no place on the slopes of the one world power.
Israeli politics is now going through a very similar scenario. Before 2005, there were two major political parties in Israel, each with their own mountain of influence. The rest all scrambled for their place somewhere on the slope of one mountain or the other. Allegiances were made, broken, re-established. Parties united, splintered, re-emerged. But the existence of the two powers served to maintain a tense balance in Israeli politics, one in which leaders with varying degrees of competence could emerge and be accepted or rejected in turn.
In two brilliant moves, Ariel Sharon brought the Cold War of Israeli politics to an end. First, he got the Knesset to make it more difficult for smaller parties to gain representation by raising the minimum electoral threshold. Then he implemented the expulsion from Gush Katif and northern Samaria.
This latter move completely destroyed the left mountain of Israeli politics, taking away any reason for voters to support the Labor party. It was complemented by Sharon’s departure from the Likud and his establishment of Kadima. The tatters that are left of the Likud have descended to infighting and petty squabbling.
In place of the two mountains of Israeli politics, Kadima is a third mountain that has come up through the middle, shattering both Labor and Likud and leaving the entire Israeli political spectrum in a complete free fall. Some parties, like Likud, Labor, Shas, United Torah Judaism, and perhaps the National Union and Meretz, will find a place somewhere on the slopes in the hope of maintaining some connection to political influence. Others, like Shinui, the National Religious Party and all the Arab parties, run the risk of not finding a place on the slope. Sharon’s initial move to raise the electoral threshold has removed some of the territory available for them to land, and they stand a very real chance of not gaining a foothold in the new Israeli political landscape.
The importance of this scenario, however, has been completely overlooked by most commentators. Just as the United States has taken on a paternalistic attitude toward most of the rest of the world, for good or bad, so has Kadima. In the international scene, all eyes are pointed toward the US, for either guidance and leadership, or as a target of opposition and even hatred. The US has the role of parent to the rest of the world’s children. It will manage everything and make sure that the world can grow up and prosper.
Israeli citizens have never been looking for leadership as the term is commonly understood. We have had plenty of it, and it is not what the people of this country evidently want. Instead, they are looking for a father-figure to tell them that they need only concern themselves with growing up, while the father-figure will make sure everything else is taken care of. Someone to say “Trust me, I will make it all okay,” and not ask too many questions.
Ariel Sharon understood this, and acted to make it happen. And the results seem to be incredible. Never in Israeli history has it been the case that one political party gained more support than its nearest two competitors combined. But that is what all the polls are indicating will happen for Kadima – regardless who its leader is. The image Israelis have been pining for is now before their eyes, and absolutely no one is asking any questions about policy or vision. They are trusting their single superpower to do what is right for them.
There are other options, of course. Amir Peretz is the head of the Labor party – once the machine in Israeli politics. He has barely said a word about anything in three weeks. There is no vision, no alternative to offer the voters. Binyamin Netanyahu as the head of the Likud might provide some answers. But the top echelon of Knesset members in his party can’t stop themselves from bickering with each other – or him – long enough to even hold a party primary. At best, these two parties represent an older sibling that might be able to babysit Israelis for a few hours so that the citizens don’t get into too much mischief. But in the end, they are still children who cannot be given too much responsibility.
The other parties are even less able to handle responsibility, and most don’t even try to obtain it. They just want to be heard, fed, possibly changed, and eventually put to bed.
The question before Israeli voters this year is ultimately one of where the most comfort comes from. Do we choose a playmate, a babysitter, or a parent. And if the choice is for the parent, what kind of comfort will he offer us. Do we really want Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert to be our parent? Objectively, perhaps. But if that parent can turn around and kick his children out of their homes, even telling us it’s for our own good, what kind of parent is he really?
Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. Yehuda Poch is a journalist living in Israel. Reproduction in electronic or print format by permission of the author only.
