Friday 27 February 2009

Balad and Hadash—Election Campaigns Take Different Directions

Link

Written by Shir Hever, Alternative Information Center (AIC)

Friday, 27 February 2009



While in the past, the Hadash and Balad political parties have competed for the same constituency, in this election cycle, the two parties have taken different directions.
In the past few elections, two political parties—Hadash and Balad, have competed for the vote of non-Zionist, secular Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Hadash was usually the bigger party (and it’s certainly an older party, as it dates back in different forms to pre-state Palestine before 1948). Both parties, but especially Hadash, also count on support from a (small) group of Jewish voters.

The two parties, who combined have held about 4%-6% of the Knesset seats in recent elections, have a much greater significance for non-Zionist political discourse in Israel than their electoral strength may suggest. The two parties stand at the center of the discussion among non-Zionist about the right strategy regarding the electoral process in Israel—whether to participate in it in order to glean whatever benefits may be gained, constantly challenging the concept of a Jewish state from within, or to reject the electoral process outright and boycott the elections.

The two parties have many similarities as well as ideological differences. Both parties support equal rights for all citizens of Israel regardless of nationality (which puts them at odds with Israel’s definition as a Jewish state), the establishment of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 border (therefore both support the evacuation of the settlements and the division of Jerusalem), and both parties promote human rights, gender equality and democracy. Both parties are equally opposed to Israel’s attacks against Palestinians in the occupied territories as well the discrimination against Palestinians within Israel.

The differences between the parties are not insignificant, though. Hadash is a leftist party with a socialist platform and many communists among its ranks. It puts environmental concerns among its highest priorities, and promotes a joint Palestinian-Jewish struggle. Balad puts greater emphasis on Palestinian national rights and on transforming Israel from a Jewish state to a state of all its citizens.

Because the two parties compete among similar demographic groups, arguments between them often became heated, and in the 2006 elections, the conflict between them even escalated to violence in several instances.

In the 2009 elections campaign, however, mutual accusations between the parties have become lighter. This is probably due to the fact that the two parties are targeting different people in this election. This change is largely due to the attack of the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces in December 2008 through January 2009.

During the attack, the Israeli Knesset voted to disqualify Balad and Ra’am-Ta’al from running for elections. The reason given was that these parties reject Israel’s definition of a Jewish state. The immediate cause, however, was the emotional state of Israeli politics during the attack on Gaza. Zionist parties expressed a combination of unquestioning, even bloodthirsty, support for the attack but at the same time great concern from the international response to Israel’s aggression. Israeli Palestinians (including Balad, Hadash and Ra’am Ta’al politicians), shocked and dismayed by the brutality of the attacks, expressed their anger with strong statements and in mass demonstrations. Hundreds were arrested.

The disqualification of the two Palestinian parties created debates among the potential voters of these parties (mostly Palestinians and non-Zionist Jews) who felt that voting for a different party or appealing to the Israeli High Court to reinstate the parties would only serve to reinforce Israel’s image as a democratic state, and, instead, a better strategy would be to boycott the elections altogether.

Balad and Ra’am-Ta’al chose to appeal to the High Court, won the case, and focused their efforts on convincing Israeli Palestinians not to boycott the elections. Thus they have shifted their focus from the Hadash voters, whose party didn’t go through the process of disqualifying and reinstatement.

Meanwhile, during the attack on Gaza the Zionist-Left Meretz party supported the attacks and the invasion, a move that alienated many of its voters. Many Israelis who opposed the aggression against civilians in Gaza felt that Meretz no longer represents them, and have begun to view Hadash as a possible alternative. Even some who don’t identify with Hadash’s platform of full national equality and socialism have decided that a consistent voice against war justifies a compromise on other issues.

The Hadash party was also encouraged by the success of Dov Hanin, one of its parliament members, in the municipal elections in Tel-Aviv. Though Hanin wasn’t elected mayor, he won a third of the votes, quite an accomplishment for an openly non-Zionist candidate in a city with a large Jewish majority.

Thus, Hadash turned its efforts in this election campaign to getting Meretz voters to cross over to Hadash, and launched a campaign that emphasizes messages in Hebrew.

One of the results of the Israeli attack on Gaza is thus a change in the non-Zionist politics in Israel. It remains to be seen if this change will make the non-Zionist parties stronger and more influential in Israeli politics, especially as the Zionist parties take increasingly belligerent positions against Palestinians in Israel and in the occupied territories.


Why Must Meretz & Peace Now Also be Criticized?

Written by Michael Warschawski, Alternative Information Center (AIC)

Friday, 27 February 2009


Peace Now and Meretz both supported the Israeli military attack on the Gaza Strip.
Several readers of the Alternative Information Center’s website have asked why, during the Israeli massacre in Gaza last month, I did not limit my attacks to the government and the parties that are in this government, bur added Peace Now and Meretz to the list of those who have to be criticized and blamed. The answer is, unfortunately, very simple: because they have openly and unconditionally supported the aggression, and defended the government’s rationale behind it.
According to Peace Now and Meretz, the aggression against the people of Gaza was justified, indeed necessary. Repeating like parrots the arguments of the government, “Gaza” was a threat to Israel security, and a preemptive strike was the only way to protect the very existence of Israel. Like the right-wing, the Zionist left didn't make any distinction between Gaza population, Hamas government and the marginal groups that were firing pathetic rockets on Sderot. “Gaza” is a terrorist entity and should be eradicated or at least severely punished. “Gaza delenda est.”

Only on 15 January, Peace Now general secretary, Yariv Openheimer, published a statement calling on the government “to stop at once the attack on the center of Gaza. […] The conditions are now matured for a ceasefire, and every additional day of fighting is morally illegitimate.” Three days later, after the ceasefire, Peace Now published a new statement: “We need to use the blow suffered by Hamas and to make this movement irrelevant through an agreement with Abu Mazen.” The same week Peace Now published a paid advertisement in Haaretz with the title: “Now it is time to speak.” In other words: the Gaza massacre was fully justified, but it shall now be followed by negotiations with Mahmud Abbas.

In an article published in Meretz website, Daniel Caletti, a former Peace Now/Meretz activist wrote: “The worst was, of course, the final betrayal of Meretz […] with its support for the last war in Gaza, the ‘children's massacre war.’ MK Haim Oron even forbid [!!!] his colleagues in the Knesset from demonstrating against this bloody war.” While explaining the collapse of Meretz in the last elections, Caletti comments: “The true leftist voters left Meretz and voted instead for Hadash, while the rightists-disguised-into-confused-leftists deserted to Kadima, in order ‘to strengthen Tsipi’.”

One must add that this new betrayal of the Zionist Left was not supported by all the leadership of Meretz, and leaders like Mossi Raz and Galia Golan took part in the demonstrations against the Gaza massacre and didn't hide how ashamed they were of the position of their movement.

The electoral fiasco of Meretz confirms that Left-Zionism has reached a dead-end. The non-Zionist Left now has the historical responsibility to build a new political home for the many thousands of orphans of Meretz/Peace Now who didn't choose to join Kadima as a supposedly lesser evil. And we must do it without compromising on principles, but also without irresponsible sectarianism.

No comments: