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 sad story about the election Israel will hold tomorrow is that, no matter what the precise results, the balance of power will be held by a group of legislators contemptuous of the principles of democracy.

Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party seems almost certain to become the country’s third largest parliamentary faction and, as such, a member of whatever ruling coalition the new prime minister forms. Lieberman is not new to the Knesset and he has held cabinet portfolios, but with between 15 and 20 parliamentarians in his faction, he will be far more powerful than he has ever been before. Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Ehud Barak of Labor already granted Lieberman legitimacy by agreeing to sit in a government with him, but in the new government he will possess both legitimacy and power.

Press reports about Lieberman have focused on his promise to require Israel’s Arab citizens to sign a loyalty oath in order to preserve their citizenship. Stripping citizens of their rights because of their political views and ethnic origin is manifestly anti-democratic, but that’s hardly where it ends. Lieberman wants to strip Israel’s Supreme Court of its powers of judicial review and create a separate constitutional court to review legislation—a court whose members would be elected. This politicization of the constitutional process would endanger the rights of all of Israel’s minorities—not just Arabs, but religious, ethnic, and ideological minorities as well.

Lieberman’s platform stresses good and effective government and may not sound so bad to American ears—but his rhetoric shows him to play as loose with the term “democracy” as did the Communist regimes of the late twentieth century. And it’s important to listen to the rhetoric—the country needs a strong man to solve its problems, investigative journalists are public nuisances, and what’s important is not law and procedure but “getting things done.”

Overshadowed by Lieberman’s burgeoning popularity is another disturbing development on the Israeli far right. Ha-Ihud Ha-Le’umi—the National Union slate, composed of a couple extreme national-religious factions and one far-right secular party, is the home of the unrepentant advocates of Greater Israel and messianic nationalism. But in the past even this group had the decency to recognize that the acolytes of Meir Kahane and his outlawed Kach party were untouchables who should not be granted legitimacy. Kahane and Kach were boycotted by the rest of the political spectrum, even the right, precisely because Kahane declared unashamedly that he opposed democracy and the rule of law. This year, Ha-Ihud Ha-Le’umi has brought Kahane’s successor, Baruch Marzel, into the fold. And Marzel hasn’t changed—he still advocates the anti-democratic policies of his political and spiritual teacher.

Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, realized the importance of making a clear statement about what political parties could and could not be legitimate partners in government. His rule was “bli Herut ve-Maki”—that Menachem Begin’s Herut party (because of Begin’s contempt for the rule of law in the country’s early years) and Maki, the Communist party (because of its lockstep alignment with the Soviet Union), were not legitimate coalition partners.

The place where Ben-Gurion drew the line is debatable—Begin, for all his love of military trappings and his attempts to incite mobs against the Knesset, eventually proved himself to be a committed democrat, and the Mapam party, which Ben-Gurion accepted as a partner, was in the early 1950s also subservient to the Soviets. But he was right that it’s important for democratic leaders to refuse to grant legitimacy to parties and figures who display contempt for the basic rules of the democratic process—which include the rule of law and the equal rights of all citizens.

On Wednesday morning, Israel’s leaders will face a challenge. Will they be prepared to draw a clear line and say bli Yisrael Beitenu ve- Ha-Ihud Ha-Le’umi? Frankly, the prospects don’t look good.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

Two months ago, I announced that I’d decided to vote for the Green Movement. I urged the Greens to form a joint slate with MK Michael Melchior’s Meimad party—and they did. And since then, silence. Where the hell have I been?

Skeptical journalist that I am, I’ve been doubting my decision. I’ve been looking for the holes in my arguments. I’ve been agonizing. In the wake of the Gaza war, shouldn’t security issues take precedence? What if the Green Movement-Meimad doesn’t get over the 2 percent threshold? And if they do, what can a tiny party accomplish?

But now, with the election coming up next Tuesday, I’ve made my decision. Again. And it’s to vote for the only party in the race that I can be enthusiastic about. The only party that offers a new way of looking at the weighty issues that Israel will face in the years before us, the only party that offers a comprehensive, long-term vision of Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish state that is part of the local and global community of nations.

A friend told me the other day: “Environmental issues are important, but given the perils Israel faces, should the environment be the single issue you vote for?” A brief perusal of the movement’s platform shows that the question is misplaced. Far from being a one-issue party, the Green Movement-Meimad offers a comprehensive program that addresses international affairs, economics, social services, and education as well as the environment. In the tradition of the Green movements of Europe, the environmental crisis serves as a paradigm for how to address the entire range of issues facing the country.

The left-hand column of the movement’s website offers (in Hebrew) a long list links to the slate’s position papers on topics ranging from the Israel-Arab conflict, employment, and higher education to immigrant absorption, Jewish-Arab relations within Israel, health, and the water crisis. If you believe that Israel must strive for an accommodation leading to a two-state solution to the current conflict; if you believe that Israel must build a more just and equal society if it is to survive; and if you understand that to survive and to live peacefully with our neighbors, we must adopt rational, conservationist policies regarding our use of our land and natural resources, this is the only party to vote for.

So the good reasons to vote for the Green Movement-Meimad are evident. What about the good reasons for doubt, the ones I’ve been agonizing over for the last few weeks?

One of these is the strategic argument. It states that a responsible citizen should vote for that large party that is headed by the candidate for prime minister the voter prefers. To govern effectively, the prime minister needs the backing of a strong party. So one should not quibble about details and chose the large party that is closest to your views.

In this race, there are only two viable candidates to head the next government—Binyamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni. The news organizations have been including the leader of the Labor Party, Ehud Barak, on the list simply because Labor has historically been one of Israel’s two largest parties. But the fact is that Barak and Labor are out of the race.

While I’m far from enthusiastic about her, there’s no question in my mind that she’d be a better prime minister than Netanyahu. But Livni heads a party whose allegiance to her commitment to the two-state solution and social progress is questionable. Her slate includes super-hawks like Shaul Mofaz and a large contingent of party hacks. There’s no reason to believe that a vote for her party, Kadima, would in fact make her more able to govern.

Another reason not to vote for the Green Movement-Meimad is the fear that they will not make it over the 2 percent threshold required to gain seats in the Knesset. In fact, most polls show them falling short.

However, the polls also show that a full third of voters remain undecided. The accuracy of the surveys’ findings is thus seriously in doubt. And there are good reasons to believe that the Green Movement-Meimad’s support is being undercounted. Most of the polls call people at home; Green Movement-Meimad’s supporters are disproportionately young people who have only cell phones, not land lines.

But even if the movement does not make it over the threshold, its votes will not be lost. If Netanyahu wins, as seems likely, the Zionist left will be in disarray. It will need to look for new ideas and new leaders. And the enthusiasm and commitment that the Green Movement-Meimad has generated in this election will make it an important component any new force for peace and social justice in Israel.

So I apologize to the candidates and supporters of the Green Movement-Meimad. I’m done agonizing and ready to vote.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

”Humor in the Tanakh”, Daniel Saunders promises us on Jewcy. And what a relief to find some lighthearted biblical exegesis amidst the posts like Jamie Sneider’s account of interfaith sex with her not yet ex-husband, Mia Rut’s three-way date with a Jewish guy and a Russian cat (sorry I keep picking on you, Miz Rut), and Lilit Marcus’s account of her multicultural conquests (why do my old flames never blog about me? Was I that boring?). Although, come to think of it, all that stuff can be found in the Bible, too, except the cat.

Saunders disappoints, however. The passages he adduces are not exactly rib-tickling. In fact, they are about as funny as the Gospel according to John, which is probably the most unfunny religious text ever written. I mean, Jeremiah’s pun about the almond tree? Generations of scriptural commentators haven’t even figured out what the hell he meant by it. I guess you had to be there.

Good humor is subversive. And, fortunately for us, our holy book is auto-subversive in a way undreamed of by the average portentous sacred text.

So with apologies, Daniel, for stealing your idea, here’s my own selection.

Let’s start with the same book you start with, Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s an annoying guy. He spends his entire book berating his fellow-Judeans for their sins and warning them of the punishment that God will mete out to them through the agency of the king of Babylonia. You’re so far gone that even if you stop worshiping foreign gods, you can’t avert disaster. Jeremiah’s deal is: don’t repent, get conquered, slaughtered and exiled. Repent, just get conquered and slaughtered. Not much of an incentive, you might think, but some Judeans took him up on it. And what happens? They get conquered, slaughtered, and the few survivors, righteous Jeremiah among them, end up in exile in Egypt.

You’d think this exasperating prophet would let up now that everything he said has come true. But no, he keeps berating his fellow Jews. And finally, Chapter 44, verse 16, the people get fed up. “This stuff you are telling us in God’s name—we’re not going to listen any more!” There we were, loyally observing the customs handed down to us from our fathers and our fathers’ fathers, burning incense to the Queen of Heaven, and no Babylonians bothered us, and life was pretty good. Then you came along and told us to stop—and we did. And look what happened. I mean, QED, Jeremy. Look at the facts. Empirically, you’re wrong.

Now that’s funny. In a black, ironic way, true, but it’s funny.

My second choice comes from I Kings, chapter 22. Yehoshafat, the king of Judea, makes an alliance with the king of Israel to conquer the Gilad Heights from Aram. The two kings meet, muster their armies together, but before setting out for battle, Yehoshafat thinks it might be a good idea to consult some prophets. So he asks his Israeli colleague whether there are any prophets around. The northern king calls 400 prophets together and asks them if he should go conquer Gilead. “Go up! For the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king!” the prophets shout in unison. Yehoshafat, being of the Davidic line, knows that getting 400 prophets to agree on anything is pretty nigh impossible, so he asks if there might not be some other prophet around.

The king of Israel grumbles and equivocates and finally admits: “There is one other man, Mikhayahu the son of Yimla.… but I hate him, for he does not prophesy good of me.”

Is this starting to sound eerily contemporary?

So they haul in Mikhayahu and ask him what he thinks of the proposed war. The poor guy comes in, sees both kings in their official royal robes, sitting on thrones, and 400 prophets are there cheering them on.

Verse 13: “And the messenger that was gone to call Mikhayahu spoke to him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like one of them, and speak that which is good.”

But poor Mikhayahu. He’s a real prophet and can only speak the truth.

I won’t give away the punch line. You can go read it for yourself. But it’s pretty funny, in a sad, subversive sort of way.

Or maybe you’ve had too much irony, and you’d rather read about interfaith, intercultural, inter-species dating.

Come to think of it, maybe I would, too.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

With apologies to Frank Sullivan

Q: Why Magnus Arbuthnot! How unexpected to see you in South Jerusalem! What brings you here?

A: I have been sent by a respected and impartial NGO to investigate the carnage inflicted by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Q: Which NGO would that be?

A: An NGO that uses an ostensible human-rights agenda as camouflage for an anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic program.

Q: So you’ve been south. What did you see there?

A: Collateral damage.

Q: Collateral to what?

A: To Israel’s right to defend itself.

Q: And what else?

A: To courageous Palestinian resistance against Zionist imperialism.

Q: What targets were hit?

A: Homes, schools, hospitals, military installations, and firing positions.

Q: How do you tell one from the other?

A: If you are Palestinian, you don’t bother.

Q: And if you are Israeli?

A: You shoot anyway.

Q: Could you be more specific? If you are a Hamas guerilla fighter, what is a legitimate military target?

A: Every outpost of Zionist imperialism.

Q: And what is an illegitimate civilian target?

A: Come again?

Q: The Israelis bombed homes and schools containing non-combatant men, women, and children.

A: They were being used as firing positions and endangering Israeli forces.

Q: How were they being used?

A: Cynically.

Q: And what the hundreds of deaths this caused?

A: They were tragic.

Q: What about the tunnels from the Gaza Strip to Egypt that Israel bombed?

A: They were lifelines for a besieged civilian population.

Q: Didn’t Hamas use them to smuggle rockets and other weapons?

A: Of course, the tunnels were a threat to Israeli security.

Q: Now that you’ve been to Gaza, what do you think of Hamas?

A: Hamas is fanatical Islamic movement sponsored by Iran that seeks Israel’s destruction.

Q: So Israel has a right to be concerned.

A: No, because Hamas is the national resistance movement of an oppressed people.

Q: And what do you think of us Israelis?

A: You are brave and determined.

Q: So you like us?

A: I suppose. Of course, you are the descendants of apes and pigs.

Q: Why did Israel invade?

A: It was provoked.

Q: And why did Hamas bombard Israel’s southern cities?

A: It was provoked.

Q: Couldn’t they have responded differently?

A: No, because the other side understands only force.

Q: What did Israel achieve?

A: All its goals.

Q: And what did Israel fail to do?

A: Finish the job.

Q: When will Hamas stop attacking Israel?

A: When it destroys the Zionist entity and liberates the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Q: And what did it inflict on Israel in this engagement?

A: A decisive loss.

Q: And what has Israel regained?

A: Its deterrence.

Q: What was the outcome of the war?

A: A cease-fire.

Q: What was the immediate cause?

A: The end of a cease-fire.

Q: Hey, where are you going?

A: Back home to a place where clichés don’t kill so many people.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem