The talk in the locker room at the Jerusalem Pool has been surprisingly conciliatory since the election last week. Dani, who voted Meretz (after seriously considering Hadash) and Siman, who voted Likud, agree that the next coalition should consist of the Likud, Kadima, and Labor, under Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership.

When I pointed out that the foreign and economic policies on which Likud and Kadima would be hard to square unless one or the other party betrayed its principles, Dani and Siman insisted that the differences were negligible. So Kadima advocates cutting a deal with the Palestinians in which they’d receive nearly all the West Bank, whereas Likud promises that no such deal will be forthcoming. So Likud advocates tax cuts and a tight budget while Kadima’s program calls for a larger deficit and more government spending to stimulate the economy. When you get down to it, Dani and Siman insist, they’re really the same.

Why this yearning for the country’s large parties to rule together? President Obama has been learning some lessons in recent weeks about the futility of seeking bipartisanship when the ideological differences between the parties are real. Haven’t Dani and Siman been reading the papers?

Here are a few explanations. First, Dani may favor a deal with the Palestinians and Siman oppose one, but neither thinks that a deal is going to be forthcoming anyway, and neither really thinks that Bibi will turn one down if, by chance, one is offered. After all, governments that have advocated a deal have gotten cold feet each time one was in the cards, and governments that have opposed accommodation with the Palestinians have nevertheless signed agreements with them. Neither really trusts or likes the Palestinians, nor Bibi either.

Second, neither really understands the differences in economic policy. Both like Bibi’s business-friendly rhetoric and his willingness to take on established interests like the unions and utility monopolies, but both vilify him for cutting pensions and welfare. Both complain that the state is wasteful but neither wants to give up social services. Both think say they want an economy that encourages diligence and initiative, but both want their jobs protected. Both think Israelis should work harder, but neither wants to give up their afternoon swims.

Third, they’d be quite happy if a secular unity government put diplomacy and the economy to the side and spent a year or two eliminating subsidies to yeshivot, religious legislation, and forcing ultra-orthodox men to serve in the army. (Of course, the locker room conversation would be very different on Wednesday evenings, when the pool is open to men only and fills up with haredim).

Bibi and Tzipi Livni shouldn’t be tempted into listening to Dani and Siman. As sincere as their desire for national unity might be, it’s totally unrealistic. A government that spent its time squaring the different policy circles of the Likud and Kadima would get nothing done. If Israel’s diplomatic and economic position were somehow stable, it might just stagnate under a unity government. But it’s not stable, and without action, Israel will deteriorate on both fronts.

I dread a right-wing government, but better a right-wing government operating under the watchful eye of an opposition hoping to take power in the next election than a hermaphroditic creature that spends the next one to four years screwing itself. If Bibi’s right-wing government succeeds, it will last. If, as I suspect, it fails, then at least the people may learn something, and we’ll have an eager, hungry opposition pushing for early elections.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

The Israeli elections confirm the death of grand Zionist visions and the rise of new forms of fearful separatism.

Both Tzipora Livni of the ruling Kadima party and Benjamin Netanyahu of the opposition Likud party claimed victory in Tuesday’s Israeli elections, in which voter turnout was only slightly higher than the record low of 2006. With 99 per cent of the votes counted at the time of writing, of the 120 seats in the Israeli parliament - the Knesset - Kadima won 28 and Likud won 27. It is still unclear who will be Israel’s next prime minister, but the election results have shed light on the despondency that many Israelis felt for the politicians on the ballot.

Despite various Israeli politicians’ Obama-inspired rhetoric of change, the real shift in Israeli society, which this election has brought to the fore, is the decline of left-wing Zionism, and the prevalence of a politics of insecurity, which inspires defensive patriotism rather than ideological zealotry. The fall of the centre-left Labour party, which came fourth with only 13 seats, and the rise of the right-wing party Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel our Home), which got 15 seats, encapsulate these two defining features: the death of grand-vision Zionism and the rise of a new politics of hiding behind walls.

Continue reading...

Avigdor Lieberman's victory, or so it seems, was preordained. Nothing that the actual winner of yesterday's Israeli elections could do was going to change that, despite the fact Tzipi Livni's incumbent Kadima party received twice as many votes. Even though the second-highest polling Likud party also received more votes, there was little it could do to deny Lieberman's victory either. Indeed, for the past several weeks, Avigdor Lieberman, the head of Israel Beiteinu, the country's fastest-growing party, was increasingly seen to be the next kingmaker in Israeli politics - if not Israel's next prime minister.

Eclipsing the Labour party to take the number three spot in the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the prospects for greater power and influence for the wild-eyed, former nightclub bouncer from Moldova are absolutely undeniable. Running on a simple platform that emphasised almost exclusively anti-Arab themes while using the concept of ‘loyalty to the state' as his campaign's primary branding, Lieberman succeeded in making an avowedly-racist Jewish political party the ideological winner of an Israeli national election.

Though such an event will seem eminently logical to Israel's critics, it signifies the extent to which the country's political environment has come full circle over the course of the past two decades. Indeed, in 1994, Israel's parliament went so far as to ban Israel Beiteinu's predecessor, the racist Kach party, following the murder of 29 Palestinians by one of its members, Baruch Goldstein, in Hebron that same year. The fact that a political party espousing a similar program would now be vying for the country's leadership, let alone was allowed to do so, is proof of this transformation. Even worse, no single political party can form a government without it.

For advocates of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Lieberman's electoral success leaves zero room for optimism. Not just between Israel and Palestine, but also between the Jewish state and it's Arab citizenry, who make up 20 percent of the country's population. Insisting that those Arabs who do not declare fidelity to the state be deprived of their civil rights, offering to ‘trade' Arab communities inside Israel for settlements in the West Bank, Lieberman has simultaneously promoted civil conflict between Israelis, and reassured residents of the occupied territories that they will be allowed to stay put.

In order to understand why such a worldview would catch such fire in today's Israel, it is important to understand the factors underlying Israel Beiteinu's popularity, as well as that of it's larger sibling, the Likud. First and foremost, the success of the Israeli right is indicative of the fact that Israeli conservatives are simply better organized than their liberal counterparts. They project clearer, more defined political messages, they are better at identifying Israeli social grievances, and are more adept at cooperating with one another across party lines due to a combination of political discipline and ideological affinity.

Secondly, even though half the country is in favor of peace with the Palestinians, and could provide center-left parties with nearly enough votes to govern, there is no leadership in the larger center-left parties to make this happen. Thus, for example, though Kadima could forge a coalition with the smaller Labour and Meretz parties, it would also have to partner with the Sephardi ultra Orthodox party Shas, and the country's three Arab-led parties, Balad, Ra'am-Taal and Hadash to make such a coalition actually work. For a variety of sadly predictable reasons, Livni will not cooperate with any of these additional parties, her own inability to collaborate with religious and non-Jewish ethnic parties being the largest of her problems.

Finally, Israel's present leadership lacks any serious understanding of how dramatically it has misruled the country since it was first elected to power in April 2006. Plagued by every manner of potential social crisis - a shrinking public sector, a deteriorating educational system,  even the highest rate of child poverty in the world, though Israel's economy remained relatively stable under Ehud Olmert's leadership - the rest of the country continued to fall apart. That's why though Israel may produce amongst the best technology and film in the world right now, it also increasingly resembles a third world country. Factor in two major wars during this time, in Lebanon and Gaza, and voila. 

It is the chaos of situations like these that fosters the rise of stereotypically fascist politicians like Avigdor Lieberman, and his equally toxic ideology. They are natural consequences of their time and place. That Lieberman would triumph precisely at a time when Israel's best friend, the United States, is moving in exactly the opposite political direction, and the European Union is the most involved it has been in regional politics in nearly four decades, underlines the extent of this tragedy. Every opportunity to move forward right now is there. Yet, the Israeli right, eager to make short term political gains for its own narcissistic, selfish reasons, chooses to drive in reverse. If only it didn't have so many unwitting accomplices.

Reprinted courtesy of France 24

If Israel has voted for change today it is not for change of the political map – it’s for a change of the political system. Whatever one might think about the outcome of this election, it is clear to most observers that this can’t continue: political parties should not rule with less than one quarter of the mandates. A Prime Minister can’t seriously make policy when he (or she) has to compromise with so many parties over so many issues just to maintain his coalition.

Israel has not voted for any of the parties. It did not vote for any of the ideologies. It did not vote for something – but rather against: those voting for Livni voted against Likud’s Binyamin Netanyahu. Those voting for Israel Beiteinu and Avigdor Lieberman voted against the ruling elites.

But they also voted against the political system. Lieberman made a name for himself as the scary candidate promising to change the relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel. However, Lieberman has many other important items on his agenda and one of them is the need to change the system and give the Prime Minister more power (those fearing him tremble when they think of the prospect of a more powerful Prime Minister Lieberman). This longstanding desire for system change is the tempting promise Kadima is now dangling in the hope that Lieberman might grab the achievement he can get – the achievement he’ll be able to take credit for.

The speakers of Kadima have a simple message to Lieberman: with Kadima and Labor you can have this success – with Netanyahu you can’t. Netanyahu, they say, is committed to other parties, namely, the religious parties, and will not be able to implement such change. One Kadima Minister went even further, suggesting that Lieberman join the coalition until this change is completed, and promised that another election round will be scheduled when this is done.

Labor’s Ehud Barak also dedicated a significant portion of his election night speech to the need to better the system. Of course, that’s a more understandable position when it comes from a losing party. Yet again, Kadima and Lieberman, both on the winning side of this day also sing the same tune – and I think they will have another important supporter: the public.

This was not a slip of the tongue. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, speaking at the GA (that is the boring annual gathering of the Jewish Federations no reader of Jewcy’s cares about), chose her words carefully, and got the cheers she expected:

"Israel is not a monopoly of rabbis," the Kadima chairwoman noted. "Israel is a Jewish state, but a Jewish state is not a religious state but mainly a nation-state."

The crowd was quite happy, quite impressed. Is this the beginning of a new era? Look at recent developments concerning conversion:

Cabinet Secretary Ovad Yehezkel, Diaspora Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog and Jewish Agency chairman Ze'ev Bielski, all outgoing as the country goes to elections and Bielski takes a leave of absence to compete in the Kadima primary, said the conversion process was too inflexible and harmed aliya and society.

And this happens as the Jewish Agency has passed a somewhat revolutionary resolution calling on the Israeli government to establish “an independent conversion authority which will facilitate and assist in the conversion process”. No, it will not be an institution free of Orthodox influence. But it will be much more tolerant than its predecessors. And it will be one lead by people who understand the urgent need to reform (even if not Reform) the conversion process.

Why is all this happening now?

Here’s the cynic’s explanation: Livni, for one, is angry with the Haredi Shas Party for refusing to join her coalition and forcing new elections. “Not a monopoly of rabbis” is her way of saying: if I’m Prime Minister, you’re going to lose influence. It’s also her way of telling Israelis: vote for me if you want Haredi influence reduced (implying that a vote for Netanyahu will have the opposite outcome).

But here’s the more profound explanation: Israeli leaders have heard many times that Israel’s conversion process is unacceptable and intolerable as far as the US community is concerned. Heard – and ignored. As often happens, a crisis was needed for the attention to be drawn to the broken conversion system, and this came last May when “High Rabbinical Court of Israel severely censured the head of the country's Conversion Authority for performing” what they thought was “conversion in a non-kosher way”:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wasn’t happy with the court’s decision: “Conversion in Israel is a national priority”, he said. “I am determined to resolve the current conversion crisis and improve the process of conversion in Israel.” This was a moment in which the truth about conversion crystallized: it’s not the rabbis, but rather the politicians, who make the important decisions. Olmert can’t hide behind a rabbi’s back. Livni can’t. Netanyahu – the leading candidate (by far) to be the next Prime Minister – can’t.

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.

With her narrow victory in the Kadima primaries, Tzipi Livni is primed to become Israel’s second woman Prime Minister. It is a mark of the progress women have made that this point has garnered very little notice.

But who is Tzipi Livni? She enters the top spot in Kadima, and quite likely, the top office in Israel, as something of a mystery. We have little indication from her history how she will deal with the vexing dilemmas Israel faces. And perhaps that’s a positive, since the other major contenders—Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu and the now-defeated Shaul Mofaz—are well-known entities, all of whose track records give much cause for pessimism.

Livni offers at least some sense that she might be open to serious diplomacy while maintaining the strong defense necessary for both Israeli security and the political credibility negotiations require. One former high level diplomat who knows her well tells me that she is smart and willing to make concessions for peace. But her ideology is only known in the most general terms.

Tzipi Livni is a pragmatist, whose rightward leanings are not particularly prominent in the context of today’s Israel; she was the symbol of the “left wing” of Likud before joining Kadima. Unlike her predecessor, Ehud Olmert, she has a notable service resume, having been an agent for the Mossad for two years in the early 80s. Her actions in Mossad are shrouded in secrecy, which actually gives them a bit more prestige in some people’s eyes. She will have less to prove in terms of leading during times of conflict than Olmert did, though she might still inspire less confidence in that regard than some of her challengers.

Revisionist Nobility

Livni’s parents were both well known fighters in the Irgun Z’vai Leumi, the pre-state militant group that represented the right-wing Revisionists, precursors to today’s Likud coalition. She comes from Likud aristocracy, and that background surely helped her in her quick rise through the party. Elected to the Knesset for the first time only in 1999, Livni attained a cabinet position in Ariel Sharon’s first government in 2001.

Over the next four and a half years, Livni quickly rose to more and more important ministry positions, finally being named Minister of Justice in October, 2005. While her family connections could well be the key reason for her quick early appointment, another factor, in addition to her own ability, explained her meteoric rise through the ministries: her strong devotion to and support of Sharon’s controversial disengagement plan.

When Livni bolted Likud, she remained a relative novice in terms of her own political connections and support within the party. Bloodline will only take you so far in party politics. Sharon’s disengagement plan, which predictably ended up splitting the Likud, offered Livni the opportunity to move into a powerful role in a new party.

The question is was Livni acting out of mere opportunism, or was disengagement really something she believed in? Her behavior, then and now, points to the latter.

In the Footsteps of Ariel Sharon

Like her predecessor, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni is very much crafted in the mold of the latter-day Ariel Sharon. She is publicly committed to negotiations and to a two-state solution. Yet she, like both of her predecessors at the top of Kadima, has a relatively conservative track record, not that of a peacemaker, as she enters her new role.

Like Sharon, Livni approaches the question of peace with a great deal of pragmatism. Sharon was mistakenly perceived as a hard-nosed ideologue. In fact, he was a man who would use extreme measures to achieve his goals, but he had only one overriding goal: advancing what he perceived as Israel’s security needs. When that meant holding onto every inch of land, he facilitated land grabs by settlers and obstructed any territorial compromise. When he believed Israel’s security would be better served by withdrawal, he did just that in Gaza and, years earlier, by carrying out the dismantlement of Yamit in the Sinai.

Livni shares Olmert’s more understated approach to leadership, but she also shares Sharon’s hard focus on pragmatism and his ability to shift short-term goals in pursuit of her fundamental objective. In many ways, that makes her the very picture of recent Israeli leadership. It also bodes ill for the future of Israel.

A political quagmire

Israel’s occupation has become increasingly costly on many levels, and, while the violence of the early part of this decade has largely subsided, the situation is more explosive now than it was just before the second intifada began.

Palestinian living standards continue to decline while settlements expand and the security barrier, looking more and more like a de facto border, and hundreds and hundreds of checkpoints make commerce more and more of a wistful dream. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and newer, much more radical and dangerous groups continue to gain strength.

In this atmosphere, the Israeli public is less inclined toward major concessions than ever. But Livni was put on the spot by her predecessor, Olmert, when he told the Israeli daily, Yediot Akhronot that in order to make peace, Israel would have to withdraw from all or most of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and from the Golan Heights.

While most dismissed Olmert’s statements as a “nothing left to lose” comment on the eve of his departure, it’s out there, and it is resonating with those involved in diplomacy and advocacy. For those supporting a two-state solution, it is confirmation of everything they’ve been saying for years.

But for those who oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, the reverberations are just as strong. Olmert implied their point as well: that the price Israel would have to pay for an acceptable, much less sustainable, peace agreement with the Palestinians is one that, in their view, would lead to Israel’s eventual demise.

Olmert pushed closer to the surface the decision Israel will have to face eventually and may well be in Livni’s lap. Either Israel will have to reverse the settlement enterprise and come to an understanding with the Palestinians, or the conflict will continue without end.

The holding pattern Israel has been maintaining can’t last. We’re seeing it this Yom Kippur even inside Israel, in Acre. We’re seeing it in a wave of thwarted attempts to firebomb Israeli targets. But most of all, we’re seeing it with the most radical of the settlers.

Livni will have to deal with the new reality of the radical settler movement. Things changed greatly for them after the removal of settlements from Gaza in 2005. For them, the withdrawal demonstrated that it was the government of Israel that was opposing what they saw as Zionism by ceding “Jewish land” to the Palestinians. While always defiant, this sub-group of settlers started preparing to fight Israel itself for what they believe is the greater good for the Jewish people and Zionism.

This is reflected in the increase in violent settler activity, directed at both the Palestinians and the Israeli police and soldiers. More and more, even mainstream Israeli leaders have denounced the settlers’ actions, up to and including Defense Minister Ehud Barak as well as Olmert.

The situation in the West Bank with the settlers combines with the continuing lack of improvement in the lives of the Palestinians. Militant activity is gaining popularity among Palestinians once again, and it is manifest in the violent incidents we have seen in recent months in Acre, in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

Will Tzipi Livni be able to make the bold decisions necessary to resolve the coming crisis?

The Navigable but Winding Road

There remains a question as to whether Livni, confronted with this boiling cauldron, will choose the more difficult road of pursuing peace or will abandon all but the flimsiest pretense of negotiations. But assuming, as seems more likely, that she will pursue some sort of negotiated settlement, will she have the tools she needs to attain it?

Not by herself. Internally, Livni will face serious obstacles, even from within her coalition. The biggest will come from the Shas party, which, with 12 seats in the current Knesset, tends to hold the fate of any coalition—right, left or center—in its hands. Shas will, at least initially, insist that Jerusalem be off the table, a condition that, by definition, will preclude a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians.

But Shas can usually be dealt with, for a price. Though a religious party, and certainly committed to keeping all of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, in Israeli hands, their primary concern is always getting more funding for their schools and other institutions and for increased child allowances (essentially, welfare). With enough money, they can be kept in a coalition that could strike a deal with the Palestinians.

The Israeli public, ill disposed to concessions to either the Palestinians or Syria right now, can be swayed by strong leadership. This is exactly what happened with the withdrawal from the Sinai in 1982-83, the Oslo agreements in 1993-94, the withdrawal from Lebanon in 1999-2000 and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2004-05.

But that requires consistent leadership and a commitment to the plan. Whether Livni has the strength to stick with that through political storms is something we won’t know until she tries it.

But she also needs support. Concessions will not be greeted warmly, and will be passionately attacked from the right. Labor seems to be a shaky ally, with Ehud Barak very much having his own agenda, and even within Kadima, the competition with Shaul Mofaz has sown at least some division in the party.

Livni is also handicapped by her relative inexperience in politics. Having been in the Knesset only since 1999, she doesn’t have a lot of political capital behind her. She does not have loyal supporters, as more veteran figures do, nor does she have the party connections Ehud Olmert had (indeed, this was precisely why some believed Mofaz would defeat her).

This will make it harder to sell negotiations, but not impossible. To succeed, Livni will need help from outside of Israel.

Outside Actors

Obviously, one key player Livni will need help from is the Palestinians themselves. She will need to show the wisdom her predecessors could not and recognize that Hamas can no longer be isolated from Palestinian politics. At the same time, Fatah will need to find a way to unify the Palestinians while not accepting the Hamas agenda which, by definition, makes a durable peace with Israel impossible.

Israel can do much to make that happen, by following through on their rhetoric that the Fatah approach of cooperation will bring improvement in the lives of Palestinians, despite the activities of militants. There is something to build on here, as Israel has noted that the Abbas/Fayyad government has taken serious steps to impose law and order. Egypt has also made some progress in dealing with smuggling and tunneling into Gaza. These are measures that can and should be expected to be enhanced, with Israeli efforts at easing conditions in both Gaza and the West Bank.

As has been noted elsewhere, these measures provide a foundation for more work, and, coupled with the fact that Hamas has kept its word regarding the Gaza cease-fire can provide the opening for creating a Palestinian entity that can make good on its commitments and can speak for all of the people.

For its part, the Arab League must stick to its commitment to the Saudi Peace Plan, and offer some concrete steps that will assure Israelis that peace will pay dividends.

But the key outside actor, as always, is the United States. With what is looking like an Obama victory in November, the US will surely be changing the disastrous course that George W. Bush drove like a drunken driver. The US must maintain its support of Israeli defense while also stepping up its diplomatic efforts aimed at scaling back the occupation.

This is the real key for Livni. If the US can take a clear and firm stand on the illegal outposts and the expansion of settlements, she can act against the lawless atmosphere on the West Bank and will not lose her office as a result. This will pave the way for easing restrictions on Palestinian movement that currently strangle any attempt at improving the economic conditions for Palestinians.

That would, in turn, strengthen Abbas’ and Fayyad’s hand in reigning in terrorists, and from there, the United States could be instrumental in supporting not only a stronger Palestinian government, but also in helping Israel financially and politically to start removing the settlers from the West Bank. In such an atmosphere, negotiations toward a permanent status solution would have a real chance.

An Obama presidency would also almost certainly take the shackles off of Israel in terms of negotiations with Syria, which would, in turn, reduce the threat from Hezbollah.

But all of this requires concerted, and politically risky, action on the part of a new administration. They will certainly be reluctant. But they will respond to a real demand from Americans, and especially American Jews, for such concerted action. With the smashing success of the newly-formed pro-Israel lobby group, J Street and the clear Jewish momentum behind a two-state settlement coming sooner rather than later, there is real potential to push an Obama administration into promoting a real, durable effective peace between Israel and all its neighbors.

The moment has come for Jews everywhere to stand up and be counted. Tzipi Livni and Barack Obama both can be pushed either toward or away from peace. We know that both will face considerable pressure to avoid the difficult but necessary steps peace will require. We can push, and push harder, in the right direction. The only question is whether enough of us will.

The historian J. Rufus Fears noted that great leaders – from Pericles to Lincoln to Churchill – share four characteristics. They are anchored in principles, guided by a moral compass, posses a vision, and have the ability to build consensus to achieve their vision. These are the qualities that differentiate them as statesmen rather than mere politicians.

Unfortunately, the current leadership in Israel is the epitome of mere politicians. Prime-Minister Olmert, for example, is a drunken captain at the helm of a ship headed for an iceberg. An uninspiring power-hungry man mired in corruption and lacking vision, he is leading his country into disaster.

The truth is that people matter. For good or ill, individuals can change the course of history. Recently, the United States has seen what remarkable change the right person can achieve. A tall African-American man did what most thought impossible. No, I am not talking about Barack Obama, but Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett.

The NBA star turned around a team that had been in the basement of the league forStatesmen:: Pericles, Lincoln, Livni, and KG years, whose uniformly awful under-performances of its talent led some fans to believe the team was cursed. But in just one season, Garnett led the Celtics to a championship via the biggest turnaround in league history. How did he do it? With skills, passion, tenacity, determination, and teamwork. In short, he was a true leader, the sort of individual whose rarity underscores their potential to overcome obstacles that had been thought insuperable.

As strange as it may sound, Kevin Garnett gives me hope that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved. But the question is, who is going to be our Kevin Garnett? As things stands today, my money is on Tzipi Livni.

While Livni and I are far from ideological soul mates, her tremendous potential is obvious. A woman who embodies the characteristics of the type of leadership that Israel needs, she is honest, sharp as whip, empathic towards her enemies, has a clear vision for Israel’s future, and has shown the ability to build a consensus to achieve her vision. (For example, in 2005 it was Livni who managed to persuade the divided Israeli parliament to ratify Ariel Sharon's controversial plan to withdraw Israel's settlements from Gaza.)

But Livni's most impressive quality is that she is willing to learn and evolve. Not in the selfish service of staying in power, but in the selfless service of her vision of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. And to that end, she has the courage to do what she thinks is right even if it means alienating those who are close to her.

Remember, this is a woman who came from a hardcore right-wing family – her father, former member of Irgun and leader in the Likkud Party, has the map of greater Israel engraved on his tombstone – and who now after realizing the futility and danger of annexing historic Israel has dedicated her political career to creating Jewish and Palestinian states.

The former "Herut princess" undoubtedly has set her father spinning in his grave. But that is exactly what we need. Leaders who have the courage to spin the dead for the sake of the living. Even if it means going against the ones they love most. Like Abraham of old, Livni has smashed the idols of her father's home.

Some people have second-guessed Livni’s political prowess -- especially after, in light of the Winograd report, she called on Olmert to resign but refused to leave her post in protest. Others have cast doubt on Livni as Prime Minister material due to her lack of known security credentials (it is hard to turn classified service in the Mossad into political advantage).

Much of the criticism leveled at her has a clear sexist overtone, effectively boiling down to: "Livni lacks the testicular fortitude to lead a country like Israel. With threats from Hamas, Hizballah, and Iran we simply cannot leave it all to a woman. Tough times call for manly men (i.e. Netanyahu/Mofaz/Barak). Yes there was Golda but she didn't really count. After all, as Ben-Gurion once remarked, Golda was the only man in his cabinet."

In a similar vein, talking about Livni, a friend of mine once said that Israel can never elect or accept a leader that blinks. I hope he is wrong, because again, that is exactly what we need. Not the My Pet Goat type of blinking, but the type that breaks the reflexive and destructive pattern of unthinking stimulus-response that has characterized Israeli leadership. We need a leader that blinks twice, ten times, a hundred times, before sending off children to kill and die in a war. A leader that in between those blinks thinks about the long-term consequence of their actions – for us and for our enemies.

As I said, Kevin Garnett's leadership of the Celtics gives me hope that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved. I didn't mean it glibly. He didn't, and couldn't have brought about his team's epic turnaround single-handedly; rather, he did it by making those around him better. He did it by taking to heart the African concept of Ubuntu, which illustrates how our individual success is bound up with the success of those around us. (Literally: 'Ubuntu' was the 2008 Celtics motto.) Perhaps in the end the ability to inspire excellence from others is the true mark of a great leader.

The challenges of the state Livni is likely to soon assume control of, unlike the challenges of Garnett's league, are anything but a game. The lives of millions of people, present and future, depend on Israel's next premier being a statesperson rather than a mere politician. Given the opportunity to lead, Livni would have to inspire excellence not only from her fellow Knesset members, but also from her Palestinian interlocutors. Which is not a low bar to clear, to say the least.

Abraham Lincoln said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." To what degree Livni can rise to the challenge remains to be seen, but she is a talent more prodigious than any her country has been blessed with in a long time, and she turned up at just the time her country needed such a talent.

Tzipi Livni, Soon-To-Be-PM?: Certainly beats the hell out of Bibi Israeli journalists are pre-celebrating Israel's sixtieth with a big, compelling story, yet another police investigation of Ehud Olmert over possible bribes he accepted from an American Jewish businessman. But their tone, this time, is subtly different from the past. The reports of interrogation (of Olmert himself, former staffers, etc.,) are less sassy. Ministers are keeping their counsel instead of rushing to Olmert's defense. There are confident leaks that the "situation is grave." The police seem to have got their man -- anyway, if their case is not bullet-proof, it is they who should be investigated for doing this to the public, of all times, now.

So reasonable people are preparing themselves for the possibility that Olmert will soon have to resign. This would be bad news -- and good.

First, the bad: I have not hidden my personal fondness for Ehud Olmert, which makes me completely unremarkable. Olmert is a likable, glad-handing centrist, a poster-child for Israel's rising professional and entrepreneurial élites, who has cultivated Western journalists and back-and-forth Israelis like myself for years. But this is not personal. It is business. Waiting in the wings, liking the polls, is the worst government imaginable, a Bibi Netanyahu coalition of Likud's hardest-liners, back-to-the-Land-of-Israel cultists, ultra-Orthodox claustrophiles, Russian reactionaries and oligarchs, and general opportunists. Resignation could bring the demise of the Kadima Party, as former Likud people scurry back to the fold.

True, Olmert's prosecution would be a tribute to Israeli democracy, in a way --- to the rule of law and the procedures for electing what's next. But new elections would almost certainly bring to power the most antidemocratic coalition in Israel's history, just at a time when negotiations with the Palestinian Authority hang by a thread, a new administration is coming to Washington, and Israel's own Arab minority is inching toward wholesale alienation. I am not sure Israel could take five more years of this. I am sure the West, Arab moderates, etc., cannot take five more years of this Israel.

The good news, however, is that there is an obvious replacement for Olmert, who has always stood a much better chance of holding Kadima together by the force of her popularity. I mean, of course, the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, a straight-talking, very bright, and evolving politician (profiled here by the New York Times' Roger Cohen).

Livni, unlike Olmert, was not tarnished by the 2006 Lebanon fiasco. As Akiva Eldar implies, she might well revive Kadima and draw new, younger forces to it. She is also more likely to advance the peace negotiations (which she nominally runs), or at least bring them to the national agenda. She provides Labor's doves a leader to rally to while their own leader, Ehud Barak, continues to posture as the new Ariel Sharon, the IDF's real commander, the scourge of terrorists. She could add the leftist Meretz Party, which said it would never join a government led by Olmert after Lebanon.

Indeed, the best scenario is not unlikely -- not if the Bush administration supports it actively, and helps keep restless ministers (like former Likud defense minister Shaul Mofaz) bailing water instead of abandoning ship. It is that Livni and Barak will govern together for a year or so, and reconstitute the Israeli center, while putting the taint of corruption behind them. Only this will deny Netanyahu his second act. Something must.

According to an article over at the Forward, Ms Magazine has refused to run an advertisement (pictured below) that features images of Israel’s top female political leaders, and the American Jewish Congress is pissed off about this.This is Israel: And it makes Ms. Magazine uncomfortable.

The ad was submitted by the American Jewish Congress to Ms. Magazine, and spotlighted photographs of Dorit Beinisch, president of Israel’s Supreme Court; Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, and Dalia Itzik, speaker of the Knesset, over the text, “This is Israel.”

According to the AJCongress, Ms. initially approved the ad but then reversed course, saying that the ad would “set off a firestorm.”

Says AJCongress President Richard Gordon:

“Since there is nothing about the ad itself that is offensive, it is obviously the nationality of the women pictured that the management of Ms. fears their readership would find objectionable. For a publication that holds itself out to be in the forefront of the women’s movement, this is nothing short of disgusting and despicable.”

But according to Ms. Magazine’s executive editor, Kathy Spillar, it's not "the women’s nationality but their party affiliation that was the problem. Two of the featured officials, Itzik and Livni, are both members of the Kadima political party," and thus, Spillar said, "the ad would leave Ms. Magazine open to the charge of political favoritism."

The AJCongress created the ad to highlight the fact that women now occupy leading positions in Israel’s executive, legislative and political branches. In response, a Ms. representative said that “we would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this,” according to the AJCongress.

But, for me, this is the kicker:

“Not only could the ad be seen as favoring certain political parties within Israel over other parties, but also with its slogan, ‘This is Israel,’ the ad implied that women in Israel hold equal positions of power with men,” she said. “Israel, like every other country, has far to go to reach equality for women.”

Oh, no, god forbid that a feminist magazine recognize the fact that women in Israel have more opportunities than women in surrounding countries. That wouldn't be fair to Saudi Arabia.

Now, I don't think anyone is going to argue that the equality gap between men and women has completely closed in any nation. But it's hard to deny that there are some countries that have done a much better job of narrowing this gap than others. In particular, I can think of many countries in the same region as Israel (i.e., again, Saudi Arabia, where women can't even drive cars) that have done virtually nothing to rectify this situation. In my opinion, the position of women in Israel is one of the best in the world (comparatively), and the fact that women can hold positions of political influence in Israel should be celebrated by a feminist magazine, especially when considered in contrast to other countries in the Middle and Near East.

I don't know that I agree with the political ideologies of all three of these Israeli women, but I do appreciate the fact that they have been given the opportunity, as women, to hold these positions of power, and I think that is something worth celebrating (or, at least, acknowledging). But the only thing worth acknowledging here is the ease with which Ms. Magazine is able to flaunt its own political and ideological biases at the expense of their own cause.

• The rising political stardom and the work ahead for Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. [The New York Times Magazine] [The Los Angeles Times]
• In Jewcy's feature story, Joey Kurtzman asks why the ADL chief is skirting the Armenian genocide. [Jewcy]
• Last Friday, Metallica singer detained at UK airport for "Taliban-like beard." [Yahoo]
  
• Roger Federer wins 5th consecutive Wimbleton title. [The Washington Post]
• Leave Iraq. Now. [The New York Times]
• Finding a place to pray in Cairo. [The Los Angeles Times]
• How YouTube is ruining hip-hop feuds. [Slate.com]