Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Is There Really an Israeli Center?

Today, the latest new Israeli political party showcased their leading members as part of the kickoff to the campaign for the country’s Knesset election in March. The Kulanu (“all of us”) Party revolves around the personality of former Likud Cabinet member Moshe Kahlon who seemed to part amicably from Prime Minister Netanyahu and his old party before going into business for himself. Some international observers have tried to interpret Kulanu’s rise as somehow symptomatic of general dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s policies. But Kahlon’s gambit has nothing to do with the issues of war and peace that concern the world and around which Israeli politics revolves. While the party’s prioritization of social issues ought to net them a strong showing in the voting, any expectation that its success will demonstrate the existence of a viable political Israeli center are bound to be disappointed.

Kahlon’s party seems to be a conglomeration of largely non-ideological activists who are united behind a banner of commitment to social issues in a country where the left-right divide on how to deal with the conflict with the Palestinians is still the primary concern. But rather than something new, those unfamiliar with Israel’s history need to be told that such parties have been a staple of the country’s politics since 1977 when the first such centrist party burst upon the scene. Since then the pattern is familiar. A centrist party led by a famous personality campaigns as an alternative to the leading parties of the right and left and usually does well in its first election. In the last Knesset vote in 2013, the Yesh Atid Party led by journalist Yair Lapid (whose father Tommy had led a different centrist party to a similar good showing a decade earlier) made a huge splash with a social justice platform and won 19 seats, the second highest total after Likud.

But like all of its predecessors, Yesh Atid appears to be a one-hit wonder. Compromised by its participation in the government, it quickly lost the glow of newness as well as its standing as the voice of a protest movement. Lapid’s party’s purpose was revealed to be primarily about the ambition of its founder and the ability of some of its leading members to gain government posts. That’s why it appears on its way to losing half of its strength in March. No one would be surprised if it disappeared altogether in a few years, as have all of the previous centrist groups.

Kahlon seems to be a wiser political player than Lapid and not just because he earned his celebrity by a successful stint in Netanyahu’s Cabinet. Unlike Lapid, Kahlon isn’t trying to be prime minister or the harbinger of a transformation of the Israeli political landscape. He has said his only goal is the Finance Ministry and it’s likely that either Likud or Labor will give it to him in the next government.

Moreover, he’s also making clear that while he is critical of Netanyahu, there’s not a shekel’s worth of difference between their positions on the peace process. Kahlon said his position is that he is in favor of any agreement that “would strengthen Israel,” an anodyne stance that means nothing. He backs the idea of peace with the Palestinians but said “right now there is no partner and no one to talk to on the other side” as well as saying that any deal would have to leave Israel in control of all of Jerusalem. This places him very much on the prime minister’s side on the key questions that divide his government from the positions enunciated by President Obama and the United States.

Can Kahlon and Kulanu ultimately succeed where every other Israeli centrist party failed and grow from its initial success and become the focus for genuine change? Nothing is impossible, but everything we know about the dynamics of the country’s politics tells us that it won’t happen. No matter how principled his followers seem now, they’ll be perceived differently once they are in office. The same applies to Kahlon, who became something of hero for his work in lowering cell phone rates when he served in the previous government. Once he is tainted with participation in a government led by someone else, he won’t be the successful rebel anymore.

In a normal country where economic issues dictate the outcome of elections, one of the country’s two main groupings would likely embrace social justice as their focus. But so long as the Arab and Muslim war on Israel’s existence continues—which is to say for the foreseeable future—parties like Kulanu will come and go with regularity. There is no real center in Israeli politics. Indeed, it can be argued that at this point it is Netanyahu and Likud that represent the center of the country’s divisive politics. Depending on how well he does, Kahlon may help keep Netanyahu in power or make a deal with Isaac Herzog and Labor. But no matter which side he picks, no one should imagine that his likely short-lived success will mean much in the long run.



Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »


4 Responses to “Is There Really an Israeli Center?”

  1. BARRY MEISLIN says:

    Very true; but he may do very well if the new party will be able to persuade voters that Kahlon is the new political “messiah”. This is not an absolute given, since, as you mentioned, so many “salvationist-style” parties have come and gone, and the Israeli electorate, though always looking for the “new”, may have finally realized what is going on.

    (As an example, Lapid’s “Yesh Atid” party, not having distinguished itself after earning an extraordinary number of votes, will likely be toast in the upcoming election. And, Tzipi Livni must continually reinvent herself as “messiah”, but to do so, she—who has failed twice, under two different PMs, to persuade Abbas to make a deal—has to either create new parties or reinvent old ones in order to make it appear as though she has something fresh to offer. I say “failed” but there is no way she could have succeeded, given that “peace” for Israel’s “Partners in Peace, Inc.”, means Israel’s disappearance. That she appears not to have recognized this even at this stage of the game means that she is either extraordinarily foolish or a political demogogue right up there with the best of them; to be sure, the pursuit of political power does do strange things to people….)

    Of course, prognostication is all a crap shoot.

    As far as the Israeli “center” goes, it pretty much realizes that there is no peace (in the usual sense of the word) on the horizon, as long as “peace” means Israel’s destruction.

    But since this sense of reality is balanced by the desire for peace—together with the sense, perhaps, that Bibi may have been PM for too long and a change may be necessary (remember that democracy usually means, in practical terms, the ability to “throw the (incumbent) bums out”—then the “left of center”, even if almost as delusional as the extreme left in matters of foreign policy, may do relatively well.

    On the other hand, it would be logical to assume that the spectacular crash-and-burn currently being enacted by Lieberman’s “Yisra’el Beitenu” party would, by definition help out the Likud.

    Logic, however, is not terribly reliable in this part of the world.

  2. MANUEL LAZEROV says:

    The party has very practical ambitions, which in light of Israel’s inability to reach a rational compromise with the palestinians, it would not cede any land, but would make the lives of the Arabs better, so that unlike Hamastan, they actually have something to lose. Michael Oren, on Koolanu’s list made that point very effectively.

    By improving the lives of the Arabs economically, it will diminish their radicalism. Will the Arabs ever admit to it. No. That’s to be expected. But, they won’t undermine their achievements either.

    • BARRY MEISLIN says:

      This concept (premise? strategy?), alas, has already been tried by the Israeli, Americans and Europeans—and refuted by the Palestinians—many, many, many times over.

      Sure they’ll take your money. But they’re not for sale. (After all, they have their pride—and their goal.)

      Which means that anyone who clings to this oh-so-logical idea, fits precisely the classic definition of “insane”.

      And yet it ought to be true…. Yes, it really ought to…. Indeed, it’s so sensible that it really ought to work…. Yes, it should work…. Yes, it will work… It really will…. Because it must work. After all, there is no alternative….

      Note, however, that what one can always rely on is: the reason it hasn’t worked and doesn’t work and won’t work is all Israel’s fault.

      Yes, you can bank on that.

  3. JACK LEVEY says:

    Yesh Atid shared one trait with European political parties of the 19th and 20th Centuries: it was led by people who bitterly hate the Jewish religion and those who follow it, its platform blamed them for much of the countries woes, and its prescription for progress relied on further marginalization of a marginalized Jewish population. Israel being a Jewish state, Lapid had to make one small gloss, by confining the hatred to those Jews who had not fully abandoned the Jewish religion. Like his father Tommy, Yair Lapid reveled in saying things about non-atheist Jews that would have resulted in criminal charges had they been said about non-Jews.




Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.