For years I have preached against small parties. Whenever my friends get excited by the latest new and fashionable political movement or the latest political star whose ego-trip involves founding and leading his own party, I’ve warned that a vote cast for a small party is both wasted and wanting. Wasted because, in Israel’s system of proportional representation, a vote that goes for a party that does not get over the two percent threshold required for Knesset representation functions like an abstention. Wanting because in a democracy large big-tent parties are, for all their faults, important and effective arenas for the political give-and-take necessary to create consensus around policies.

Large parties should not be chucked out like a perfectly good-but-old refrigerator just because the latest model dazzles you. And Labor (which I’ve almost always voted for) and Likud (which I’ve always voted against) have emerged, through the natural selection of the Israeli political environment, as the fittest parties to lead the country.

But these are unusual times, and I’m about to violate my own rule. I’m going to abandon Labor and vote for the new Green Movement.

The Green Movement (not to be confused with the older but largely ineffectual Green Party) has managed in just a few months of activity to put together a high-quality, diverse team of experienced, wonky, and personable activists. Party leader Eran Ben Yemini started as a student environmental activist and has studied both physics and acting. Number two on the list is Alon Tal, the American-born founder of the Israel Union for Environmental Defense and of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. In recent years, when I’ve sat around daydreaming about my dream Knesset, these two have always been high on my list.

Israel needs to make rational environmental planning a priority. As I have written, the country is rapidly losing its remaining green spaces to a combination of misplaced Zionist ideology and overdevelopment.

But rather than being a one-issue party where being green trumps all else, the Green Movement has a broad agenda. “Israel today finds itself in environmental crisis, yet the alarming ecological impacts are only a symptom of a much broader malaise,” says the movement’s mission statement. “It attests to distorted priorities, narrow interests at the expense of the common good, non-transparent and undemocratic decisions, unjust allocation of resources, deep social schisms, and a crisis in values.”

In other words, these Greens see intelligent environmental planning and conservation as a model for how to approach the entire range of issues that Israel faces, from the peace process to social stratification to economics. Environmentalists are used to planning for the long term, rather than putting all their chips in tomorrow while losing sight of the day after.

The Labor Party is moribund; it has no message and is saddled with a leader who seems unable to articulate not only a vision but also day-to-day policy in a way that can attract voters. Meretz, seeking to absorb a group of other left-wing activists, is bogged down in yesterday’s slogans and is in large measure no less a sectorial party than is the ultra-orthodox Sephardi Shas movement.

The Green Movement can offer badly-needed new ideas and new talent to Israel’s parliament. But can it get sufficient votes to gain seats in the Knesset? And with Israel’s political map so fragmented, will a new small party, no matter how intelligent and dedicated, make it even harder for any Israeli government to govern?

Recent polls show the Green Movement scaling the two percent mark. But other small parties have started out with similar figures, only to fail in the general election. To succeed, the Green Movement will have to get beyond its base of college-educated yuppies and attract voters who have not in the past shown significant interest in environmental issues. The potential is there—the party’s policies should be attractive to Israelis who live on Israel’s rural periphery, both Jews and Arabs, and to disaffected Labor voters. But it will take talent, money, and organization.

For that reason, it would be wise for the movement to seek to expand its base. The Green Movement recently rejected an offer from Meretz to explore running a joint list. But if not Meretz, the movement should certainly seek an alliance with other reform movements, most notably Meimad, with its core of moderate religious voters and its politically seasoned leader, Rabbi Michael Melchior.

The fragmentation argument has lost much of its force with Labor’s collapse and with Tzipi Livni’s failure to take off as a candidate. The field to the left of the Likud will be badly split anyway. Such a situation is politically fluid one in which new faces and new ideas are desperately needed.

It’s too late to recycle Labor. In evolutionary terms, the Israeli left is experiencing a mass extinction. The future may well belong to a little critter with a major innovation (a placenta? a larger brain? an intelligent land-use policy?) who doesn’t look right now like a much of a match of the dinosaurs. Right now, the Green Movement looks like a good bet.

 

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

Ha’aretz has been going ga-ga over the impending new left-wing party that will incorporate Meretz, a few old Labor hands, and some literary figures who have long acted as the collective conscience of the Israeli left. The newspaper also devoted several pages of its Friday opinion supplement to the age-old question of whither the Israeli left.

While I admire most of the people involved in the new initiative, I’m skeptical. In fact, it's counterproductive, both for practical and ideological reasons.

The practical reason has to do with the rules of human political behavior, as borne out by Israeli political history. As in other modern Western democracies, most voters here do not want to see themselves as radicals of either the left or the right. Whatever their positions on the issues, generally want to see themselves as part of a broad consensus. Therefore, they have a natural aversion to voting for parties that place themselves at the far reaches of the left or right.

Conversely, those voters who place a value on the purity of their ideology lose interest in any party that contains a range of viewpoints and accepts the need to reach compromise and consensus on matters of principle.

Every attempt to unite either the left or the right in Israel has resulted in the creation of a radical splinter party of purists who do not want to make the ideological compromises required by being part of a large political movement. The most recent examples are typical: when, after Ehud Barak’s failure at Camp David, Labor moved away from a strong commitment to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, Yossi Beilin and Yael Dayan walked out to merge with Meretz. After Bibi Netanyahu signed the Hebron agreement with the Palestinians, Benny Begin walked out and eventually helped form the National Union list.

In neither case did the fundamental political balance change; the radical parties gained no new strength.

But there’s also an ideological case against the current attempt to create a new left-wing party. The Israeli left is indeed in crisis, as Ha’aretz bemoans. But one of the reasons is that the left is not proposing any new and original ideas. On both the foreign and domestic policy fronts, large parts of the left retain their allegiance to the slogans and solutions of yesterday, offering simplistic solutions to complex problems. 

As vital as I think it is to cut a deal with the Palestinians, I’m struck by how simplistic many leftists are on this issue. A peace agreement will be worthless if it is not robust; to be robust it must take into account the political power relationships in the field. Signing a piece of paper with a weak Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is no guarantee of peace; the provisions and conditions of the agreement must address the practical issues of controlling militias and of Hamas’s political strength.

On the economic and domestic front, many Israeli leftists, retain all too much nostalgia for the socialist state of the 1950s and 1960s. But the world has learned something since then. Left-wing economics must be based on a social democratic model in which the market is free but regulated in the interests of the citizenry. Privatization, welfare reform, and budgetary restraint should not be dirty words for the left. If accomplished properly and with sufficient oversight, such reforms are essential to creating an economy and a society that can both grow and provide for an equitable distribution of resources.

As of yet, no group on the Israeli left—neither Labor, nor Meretz, nor the members of the new initiative—have offered Israelis a compelling, realistic, up-to-date program of accommodation with the Palestinians and Arab world, nor with a convincing economic-domestic program based on both growth and equity.

Producing such a vision should be the task of the Labor Party. The current turbulence on the left is the direct result of the failure of that party and its leader, Ehud Barak, to assume that role.

Until that happens, little will be accomplished by moving a few politicians and writers from one square to another on the political checkerboard. And more and more voters who believe in social democracy will look at Tzipi Livni’s Kadima and wonder whether, realistically, it isn’t, with all its flaws, the best existing political framework to promote peace with our neighbors and a better society at home.

Army logic: CabelIsraelis are abuzz over a proposed law which would equalize its military conscription, provide the option of national service (Sherut Leumi), and punish those who refuse to serve.

Labor Minister Eitan Cabel, with the backing of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, recently proposed the law in an effort to shrink the growing rift in Israel between those who serve and those who do not.

It is estimated that 25% of all Israelis do not serve in the army—a percentage which includes Arab-Israelis, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, conscientious objectors, married and religious women, and individuals with physical and psychological disorders.

This phenomenon has created a serious problem. In a society where militarily service and citizenship are interlinked, those who sacrifice their time and talents to serve end up resenting and socially marginalizing those who are exempts. A popular bumper sticker in Israel actually reads "Army dodgers are not Israelis."

 To solve this problem, Cabel’s law would require any Israeli who won’t serve in the army to devote equal time to Sherut Leumi work in hospitals, special education, disadvantaged communities, immigrant assistance, environmentalism, etc.

Cabel also proposed that those who refuse to join the army or national service will be punished. Examples of potential punishment include losing the right to vote, study and practice one’s chosen profession (e.g. medicine or psychology), and drive a car.

The proposed law has many supporters, despite the fact that it is illegal in Israel to discriminate against people who do not serve in the army.

 I think the law is well-intentioned but misguided. Giving people multiple ways to actively participate in the welfare of the state is indeed a step in the right direction – a trajectory leading to a society in which sizable minorities (like Arabs and Orthodox Jews) are not disconnected and alienated from the whole.

But this cannot be done with a sword hanging over people's heads. Part of the problem in Israel is that we suffer from an excess of army logic: Stick before carrot. Perhaps this law is a reflection of a society in flux—one that recognizes that the army is not for everyone but still uses draconian measures to carry that insight forward.

Soldier boy, tell 'em: The cover of Life after the Six-Day WarPeople behind this law explain that the punishment is simply a preventative means. Yet it seems to me that what we have here is an old style herem (excommunication), aimed at appealing to the large segment of Israeli society that resents and wants to punish those who do not go to the army. It is the labor party's way of saying: "We are just as tough, pro-army, and patriotic as Likkud."

If you are going to disregard people's fundamental rights, why stop at taking away their right to vote, choose a profession, or drive a car? Let’s go for the gold – why not chemically castrate or make infertile those who refuse to play nice with the state? That way they won’t produce any rebellious children.

It is clear that this law, in its suggested form, is a half-baked and dangerous. I am not calling for a society in which there are only rights without obligations. Nor am I calling for laws to be enacted without some type of enforcement mechanism. But to punish folks in such a disproportionate fashion for refusing to serve the state in such a manner is harsh and cruel.

Lets open up the options of national service (which I am for) without the threat of this stupid herem. This is our duty to our country as well. Inspire people to serve their country; reward them with incentives; don't threaten them into being patriotic.