Israelis will go to the polls on Nov. 1 for the fifth time in lower than 4 years. Will the elections bring any significant change on this divided country, or offer any hope for a resolution to the greater than 70-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
To reply these and other questions I interviewed Father David Neuhaus, an Israeli Jesuit who lives in Jerusalem. He’s a member of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land and is an acute political observer.
Born right into a Jewish family in South Africa in 1962, he became an Israeli citizen on the age of 17. Nine years later he was baptized within the Catholic Church and, after obtaining a doctorate in political science from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he entered the Society of Jesus. For the reason that yr 2000, he has been a member of the Jesuit community on the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem. A fluent Hebrew and Arabic speaker, he teaches Scripture within the Latin Patriarchate Seminary, within the Salesian Theologate and in various other Christian and Jewish institutions in Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
In the primary of this two-part exclusive interview, Father Neuhaus explains why the Jewish state is so divided and why it has had so many elections in recent times. He discusses the central role former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has played in Israeli politics, and what the opposite political actors must offer within the November elections. He identifies the problems at stake and underlines how little attention is given to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
PART I
Israel will hold its fifth election in lower than 4 years on Nov. 1. What’s the importance of this? A myriad of parties are expected to contest it, so can we expect much to vary?
These elections are a transparent sign that Israeli society is deeply divided and that our political representatives not only disagree but are also unable to supply us with a vision for our society. We now have entered a time of deep crisis, political stagnation and despair. Those guiding the political process repeat the identical slogans which were used for a long time and yet we’re treading water, going nowhere. An increasing number of persons are losing faith within the political process itself, crippled not only by an absence of imagination and creativity but in addition by corruption, self-interest and internal strife. That is accompanied by a rise in violence on every level: vicious rhetoric in political and social life, police and military brutality, violence inside the family and the varsity, and an upsurge in criminality. Our society appears to be coming apart on the seams.
Why is Israeli society so divided today?
Divisions cut across society in every direction: Jews and Arabs, religious and secular, wealthy and poor, center and periphery, diversity of political orientations and multiplicity of ethnic origins. Israel was founded as a Jewish state. This, by definition, excludes almost 1 / 4 of the population, most of them Palestinian Arab residents of Israel, relegated to the margins. The founding ideology, Zionism, dreamt of uniting Jews as a nation despite the range of cultures, languages, social classes and spiritual orientations. To some extent this has been successful. The state of Israel is home to a big percentage of the Jewish population on the earth today and is overwhelmingly supported by Jews all over the place. The resurrection of the Hebrew language because the official idiom of Israel is a stupendous achievement, remaking an ancient language into a contemporary expression. Israel’s economic, military, technological and business successes have made the country a regional power.
Nonetheless, Zionism has not succeeded in uniting Jews around a vision of what sort of society they wish to live in: liberal and democratic or ethnocentric and populist, secular or religious, free economy or welfare state. Specifically, Zionism has not been capable of bring unanimity with regard to what sort of relations are desired with Palestinian Arabs, the Indigenous people of the realm, nor what borders constitute the state, those internationally recognized or those including parts of the territories occupied within the 1967 War.
Zionism has not been capable of bring unanimity with regard to what sort of relations are desired with Palestinian Arabs, the Indigenous people of the realm, nor what borders constitute the state.
Since June 2021, Israel has had a coalition government made up of eight political parties from different, even opposing parts of the political spectrum that has included, for the primary time, an Arab Israeli party. As I understand it, their binding glue was to forestall Netanyahu from becoming prime minister. Indeed, many observers say the past 4 elections were, and this one too can be, about Netanyahu and whether he should govern or not. Is that the way you see it?
At ground level this appears to be true. Much attention is concentrated on the person of Netanyahu or the person of his opponents. The parties that defeated Netanyahu within the last elections were ideologically very near him, their discourse hardly distinguishable in the case of the major issues: the occupation of the Palestinian territories and Jewish ethnic domination through discrimination. Nonetheless, Netanyahu must be understood also as a worldview and never only as a person. What he represents for a lot of Israelis is the conviction that eventually Israel can be victorious, that there is no such thing as a must undergo world pressure to barter with the Palestinians, that Israel can dominate through its economic, military and technological strength, [and] that it could actually use the tested tropes of fear of antisemitism, fear of Islam and fear of Iran to keep up the establishment.
What does Netanyahu stand for, other than trying to avoid wasting his own skin?
Undoubtedly Netanyahu is trying to avoid wasting his own skin, assailed as he and his family are by accusations of corruption and abuse of power. Nonetheless, he can also be a committed political actor who represents a vital segment of the population. He, like lots of his closest international allies—[Prime Minister Viktor] Orban in Hungary, [President Jair] Bolsonaro in Brazil, [Prime Minister Narendra] Modi in India—assures Israelis that their country is just not only strong but right. Playing on the convergence between fear and pride, fear of world antisemitism and nuclear Iran, pride in Jewish genius and Israeli success, Netanyahu presents a worldview that many find each consoling and attractive, assertive and defiant. As well as, lots of those that feel that the dominant socioeconomic and cultural elites have excluded them see in him a savior and a spokesman.
What are the major issues and who’re the major actors on this election?
Many Israelis are primarily concerned with improving their economic situation and are drawn to those that vow to counter the rising cost of living. In a poll carried out by the Israeli Democracy Institute after the announcement of elections, 44 percent of those polled said that the fee of living interested them essentially the most. One quarter focused on the personality of party heads. Fourteen percent focused on questions of faith and the state. Only 11 percent said that their voting would primarily be based on the party’s line on justice and peace.
There may be a plurality of parties which are almost indistinguishable in the case of their platforms. Yair Lapid, incumbent prime minister, Benny Gantz, incumbent defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, incumbent finance minister, Ayelet Shaked, incumbent interior minister, and Merav Michaeli, incumbent transport minister, each head political parties that underline the Jewish identity of the state and the supreme need for security within the face of the Palestinian right to self-determination. The occupation of the Palestinian territories and discrimination inside the country are studiously avoided. The one Zionist party that loudly proclaims its opposition to occupation, its support for a two-state solution and its adherence to the principle of equality is [the left-wing political party] Meretz. Nonetheless, it joined the ruling coalition after the last elections, sacrificing its principles on the altar of “national unity,” based on keeping Netanyahu out of power.
The [center-right-to-right-wing party] Likud, headed by Netanyahu, who has vacillated through the years between bending to international pressure on the Palestinian query and defiance of the international community, seems to have one interest above all else: to place Netanyahu back in the driving force’s seat. It stays the biggest party in all polls.
Meanwhile, the Jewish ultra-Orthodox religious parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, although closer to Netanyahu than to his opponents, lobby predominantly for the parochial interests of their electorate: more funding for ultra-Orthodox institutions and safeguarding the religious Jewish character of society.
Likud, headed by Netanyahu, who has vacillated through the years between bending to international pressure on the Palestinian query and defiance of the international community, seems to have one interest above all else: to place Netanyahu back in the driving force’s seat.
It is simply on the margins that ideologies predominate. In these elections, three parties compete for the Arab vote. Their fragmentation reflects the ability struggles among the many Arab political elite despite the undeniable fact that many Arab residents would love to see a united non-Zionist opposition. All three parties agree that among the many priorities are ending occupation within the Palestinian territories and achieving civic equality in Israel.
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, [far-right politician] Itamar Ben-Gvir is garnering much attention. In his adherence to a Jewish ethnocentricity and non-democratic rule, Ben-Gvir represents a very important segment of Israeli society that resents a democratic system which enfranchises non-Jews and maintains an independent court system. Although these two aspects would characterize much of the Israeli right wing, Ben-Gvir’s discourse is unabashedly racist.
Netanyahu encouraged the merger of the intense right, now running as one bloc under the name Religious Zionism. Netanyahu has up to now paved the best way for the legitimization of Ben-Gvir in mainstream Israeli politics and continues to accomplish that. Some analysts imagine that this party can be the large winner within the elections, garnering as much as 10 percent of the vote and ensuring a Netanyahu victory.
Whereas those on the margins can afford to formulate the problems clearly, those at the middle must think ahead, strategizing about what sort of government they could give you the chance to form. Taking too clear a stand on pressing concerns will limit possibilities in the case of constructing coalitions with parties who’ve expressed opposing positions. This is especially true with regard to central issues like settlement constructing, relations with the Palestinians and civic equality.
Political analysts say the coalition government selected not to deal with the Palestinian query. They are saying that unlike earlier times in Israel’s history, this query has not been a priority issue within the last 4 elections. Why?
Many Israelis are uninterested in hearing concerning the Palestinians and speculating about the right way to resolve the conflict. This weariness convinces many who there is no such thing as a real solution possible. As an alternative of pondering when it comes to an answer to the conflict, allowing for the establishment of a Palestinian state, some are suggesting managing the conflict so that it’s the least harmful possible to either side. This is able to mean attempting to get Palestinians invested within the establishment, with an interest in preserving it. Reasonable economic and social conditions without ensuring self-determination are seen as one of the best guarantees to prolonged pacification. In return for work permits, travel permits, access to Israel and its markets, and economic development, Palestinians are expected to simply accept occupation as a everlasting state of affairs and hand over each on their desire for self-determination and on achieving equality.
The current international context has also yet again relegated the Palestinians to the margins. The world is busy with the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine (many Palestinians wonder why they’ve been missed on this insistence to punish occupation) or the specter of Iran. These “more vital” crises throw up a smokescreen that makes Palestinian grievances seem distant and vague.
Part II of this interview can be published later this week.
