The New Republic

Succinct, to the point, and right on.

- Noga

January 22, 2013 at 6:57pm

How can Netanyahu win but Likud lose? What is to prevent Likud from dumping him if the center left somehow builds a coalition agreeing to bring in Likud without Netanyahu? It seems to me Likud could win but Netanyahu lose. Certainly Likud can't be happy with that disastrous union with Lieberman who only won that amount of seats because of a pre-arranged deal.

- blackton

January 22, 2013 at 8:40pm

Here is JPost: But when it comes to running a campaign, the man in charge is the man at the top of the totem pole: Netanyahu himself. He was the one who decided to unite Likud with Yisrael Beytenu despite the likelihood that Liberman would be indicted; he determined how to spend the campaign’s bursting budget; and he chose when to attack political opponents and when to hold fire....had Netanyahu not made the deal, Yisrael Beytenu might have disintegrated following Liberman’s indictment. The deal gave Yisrael Beytenu 15 slots that appeared realistic at the time and pushed down the slots reserved for Likud candidates from districts. Those candidates for the party’s backbenches are the Likud’s backbone. They are the branch heads and political power-brokers who know how to bring out the voters, and once the Liberman deal was signed, their motivation was gone. When it came to distributing the massive funds available to the Likud, Netanyahu bypassed the field and focused on television commercials no one watched, and on the Internet. Facebook is a good way of reaching out to people while bypassing the antagonistic media, but Likudniks apparently still want candidates to reach out to them face to face. Netanyahu’s attacks on Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett boomeranged, as did the Likud’s attacks on Bayit Yehudi’s list. The strange Hebrew equivalent of the phrase “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” is “those with butter on their heads shouldn’t go out in the sunshine.”

- blackton

January 22, 2013 at 8:46pm

...Israel’s ultra-Orthodox: For decades, Israel’s religious parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, had won a variety of goodies (including exemption from military service, cheap housing, and generous child allowances and yeshiva stipends)... All that is about to change. If the next government leaves one mark on Israeli society, it is likely to be a new social contract with this rapidly growing sector of Israel’s population... Among other things resulting from this election, this, should it happen, would be entirely salutary.

- basman

January 22, 2013 at 9:41pm

Well, if there's two things that the election showed it's that (1) israelis are all over the map on the likelihood and desirability of the peace process; and (2) isrealis have had enough with the special favors given to the ultra orthodox and think there should be fewer exemptions from military service and fewer subsidies for religious education. On point 2, it does seem that's an area where bennett and lapid agree. If there are enough votes in likud to pass those reforms (and all the members have had more then enough time to formulate their views) then lapid should consider being part of government to make that happen. That would be a significant change to israeli law (replacing sectarianism with nationalism) and one worthy of a new government. If the votes aren't there, then lapid should just sit it out. Kadima (which was nothing more than likud members who favored gaza withdrawal) went away because it compromised too much and wasn't content to sit in opposition. On point 1, forgive me, but i have trouble taking the proposed palestinian state seriously when abbas cannot set foot in gaza without getting shot. Punt. This is an issue that will not be resolved in this generation. There's a fair bet the borders of syria or even jordan or maybe even iraq will be redrawn in this generation. Everyone has an idea, but i don't know how you could negotiate this issue right now.

- bob1239

January 22, 2013 at 10:53pm

Give Shelly Yacimovich her due. Her party went from what five seats? in the Knesset to 17 Is that a sign of being a loser? Also how can Meretz be a winner when they doubled their seats while Labor tripled their seats? I also like Blackton don't see the logic of saying that Netanyahu won while Likud lost? Are you saying that he will bolt the party and split it the way Sharon did? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would like to know the logic behind your assertion.

- arnon1

January 22, 2013 at 11:00pm

"Well, if there's two things that the election showed it's that (1) israelis are all over the map on the likelihood and desirability of the peace process; and (2) isrealis have had enough with the special favors given to the ultra orthodox and think there should be fewer exemptions from military service and fewer subsidies for religious education." I agree with your second point, but am not convinced by your first point. Israel is a modern (post modern some would say) society and its politics reflect that. Just because the electorate didn't concentrate on war and peace issues doesn't mean that they don't care about it. People have other things on their minds too, unimportant things like paying the rent, getting good jobs, educating their children, some even are concerned about their children's tour of duty in the Army, or Arab Israeli Arabs civil rights as well as their loyalty to the State. It's not easy to juggle all these different concerns in a single election. There is no society without its particular contradictions.

- arnon1

January 22, 2013 at 11:08pm

In the context of coalition politics, Netanyahu and Likud are still decisive factors. All of the State of Israel is a single electoral district, which rewards splinter parties and single-issue constituencies. Can anyone here recommend a serious replacement for Netanyahu? The submissive Tsipi Livni? The inexperienced Sheli Yachimovich and Yair Lapid? The more conservative Naftali Bennet? He is an adaptable center-right politician, a strong national leader with substantial experience. Today, even with its problems, Israel is an economic and military success in a hard place. A potential energy exporter. With interlocutors like Mahmud Abbas and Mohammed Morsi, and the Jihadist trend in the rest of the Middle East, Netanyahu's peaceful intentions are not likely to be tested any time soon. Obama is no friend of Zionism. Israel needs strong, competent leadership, not what pleases the salon intellectuals and despots of the world.

- amidut

January 23, 2013 at 8:07am

Israel and surrounding areas are not a particularly interesting part of the world to me, but if there is one reason to pay attention to Israel it is because of the country's bizarre coalition governments and anything-can-happen elections. Makes our own political system seem quite tame and dull by comparison. I sure wouldn't want to live in Israel, but being a political journalist in that country must be a fun job.

- DC Spence

January 23, 2013 at 10:16am

On the face of it, you make a compelling argument. However, I don't know if the Arabs or Iran see Netanyahu as this tried and tested leader they better not mess with. Hamas didn't seem to think so when they launched their latest Gaza war. People who seldom or never change their minds always look tough to others. As for who else could become PM of the coming Knesset the list would be quite long including Yaakov Peri, 69, a former head of the Shin Bet. He is with the Yesh Atid party. But in any case, the Israeli system doesn't rely on one man or woman making all the decisions. Most important matters such as war and peace are taking in collective consultation within the cabinet. The recent desire by Netanyahu to attack Iran's nuclear facilities was nixed by other players in the Israeli establishment even though it had the support of Ehud Barak. In any case I disagree that either Tzipi Livni or even Shelly Yacimovich coudn't become PM. Livni doesn't strike me as a pushover and in the world of Politics it's as hard to rise to the top of one's party as it is to confront belligerent Muslim Nations like Iran and potentially Egypt and perhaps Syria. It may be harder because PM have the nation to back them in times of crises while those running for Party head have mostly themselves to depend on. I agree that Iran is an important and deadly challenge, but I think that any of the people I mentioned and some others would make just as tough Prime ministers as Netanyahu and without his baggage in international relations. Moreover Israel has some serious socio-economic problems that need to be addressed and which Netanyahu hasn't shown any willingness to do so.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 10:22am

"...but if there is one reason to pay attention to Israel it is because of the country's bizarre coalition governments and anything-can-happen elections. Makes our own political system seem quite tame and dull by comparison. I sure wouldn't want to live in Israel, but being a political journalist in that country must be a fun job." Bizarre to you, not to anyone familiar with other governments in the world. Most coalition governments are made up of different groups on one side of the political spectrum or the other. (Right or Left) and if the media was as obsessed with other governments as they are with the Israeli one you could see how "strange" some of their coalitions can be. Greece for example or try Slovakia with its anti-coalition laws, or Hungary: http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/2012-01-06/hungarys-ruling-party-overhauls-constitution-consolidates-power-95349 Just a small sample. I am not surprised btw that Spence would hate living in Israel. In his case Israel is the winner.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 10:35am

Arnon1: Your points to DC Spence are taken, but I share his sentiments about elections in PR/multiparty states. The game theory and negotiations during the formation of a government is fascinating. I LOVE this stuff. I just wouldn't have used the word "bizarre".

- Virginia Centrist

January 23, 2013 at 10:51am

>>I am not surprised btw that Spence would hate living in Israel. In his case Israel is the winner.<< Not just Israel, Arnon. As I indicated in my original post, it's pretty much the entire area I don't like or care much about. I'd rather live in Israel than in any of the Arab states, but that's setting a pretty low bar. The whole area is pretty awful. For all its many faults and foibles, I'm still quite happy in these bad ol' United States -- though if I win the lottery I never play I'm willing to listen to offers from anyone who owns a secluded Bahamian island. And look at it this way -- Israel is still wa-a-a-a-y better than Florida.

- DC Spence

January 23, 2013 at 11:17am

No, Israeli elections and governments are pretty bizarre. I've traveled extensively in Europe and east Asia, so I'm well aware of the vagaries of proportional representation, parliamentary governments and whatnot. Italian politics from 1947-1991 was absolutely fascinating and hilarious. But I'm pretty sure at one point about 20 years ago there was a tiny religious party in Israel that, at least briefly, held the balance of power in the Knesset. This party was controlled by a rabbi living in New York who did not believe Israel should exist because the Messiah had not returned. A government is formed or is not formed according to the whim of a man who does not even live in the country or recognize its just existence? Even Italy can't come close to matching that for sheer oddity.

- DC Spence

January 23, 2013 at 11:21am

"No, Israeli elections and governments are pretty bizarre." I take your point Spence. To me countries like Greece (were corruption is extremely high) which allows a small but murderous Nazi party to participate in their Parliament is pretty bizarre. To me this is the definition of bizarre: allowing parties that oppose democracy participate in bad faith in the democratic process. Ditto, for Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine etc.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 11:30am

Foreign Policy mag has a good article on why Israeli elections are so hard to predict. Apparently, their polling is even worse than ours is. There were, most recently, 17 parties in a diet with only 120 members. Previously reliable voting blocs are disappearing and reforming. Seems like even Nate Silver would get his ass handed to him by the Israeli political system.

- DC Spence

January 23, 2013 at 11:32am

Can Benjamin Netenyahu use an Israeli political consultant, for a change, instead of Arthur Finkelstein? Imagine if an American Presidential candidate used a foreign political consultant -- it would end his or her career as soon as the news came out. But in Israel, you can rely not just on Diaspora money for your political purposes but also on Diaspora political advice. Perhaps the trick is to pass a simple bill in the US Congress that bars an American who works as a political consultant in a foreign country from doing the same in any Federal election.

- wildboy

January 23, 2013 at 12:08pm

"Perhaps the trick is to pass a simple bill in the US Congress that bars an American who works as a political consultant in a foreign country from doing the same in any Federal election." I believe, not definitively sure, that it would be unconstitutional telling Americans that they can't work in foreign countries. Perhaps one of our legal minds would know. Still, Americans have always worked in foreign countries and nor just in their elections. They helped write their constitutions, etc.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 1:25pm

DC: with respect, describing the political/electoral system of another country as 'bizarre' smacks of cultural snobbery. In the case of Israel, an evaluation of this kind is fraught, for at least two reasons. First, Israelis appear to pay close attention to the functioning of their democracy - probably more so that many of us this side of the pond. If I recall correctly, a few years ago, they changed the election of the PM to a direct vote, to ensure more stability. This led to its own challenges - and I don't know any more if they have changed the system again - but the episode demonstrates a deeper understanding of the impact of electoral systems on governance than is perhaps evident in the United States (or, for that matter, many other Western democracies). One may not always appreciate the electoral outcomes but that is neither here nor there. Israeli citizens appear to have a keen sense of their democracy, and the fact that it might appear less than optimally functional in some respects does not, in my view, make it bizarre. Second, back in undergrad days, every time an Italian government fell (every third month) and some editorialist (usually in the English language press) intoned that only if the Italians were sensible enough to adopt the first past the post system, they would get more stable governments, a (northern) European political scientist would observe: "if you put the Swedish model in Italy, they would wreck it [the Swedes produced 45 years of stable majority government even with PR]; if you put the Italian system in Sweden, they will make it work." A bit condescending, that, and not entirely true as it happened: the change in Italy's PR regime did, actually, lead to stable government - of Berlusconi - if not to good government ... but the bigger problem was that the northern European comment mistook the effect for the cause. Italy had and has dysfunctional politics because of absence of social cohesion on key issues; the Swedes managed to have a stable consensus on significant matters and therefore it was no surprise that their PR system produced a stable majority government for 45 years. In the same vein, Israeli politics reflect the diversity of Israeli society and nothing less. A different political system that did not adequately permit the representation of the divergent interests would result in either dysfunctional political parties (cf the Republican Party) or a schismatic society. Bizarre? Hardly.

- icarus-r

January 23, 2013 at 2:26pm

Two very quick comments on the election: a) US Advisers for Israeli elections -- Actually it's been going on for at least 17 years. In his 1996 upset victor over Shimon Peres, Bibi & the Likud retained the services of the same Finkelstein. In the 1999 election, Bill Clinton decided that Israeli needed a change (what, an American president crassly interfering in an Israeli election?) and dispatched Democratic election gurus Stanley Greenberg & his partner (the name escapes me) to guide Ehud Barak in his takedown of Bibi to great success. I can't recall which of the elections in the early to mid 2000's involved US advisers, but some did and some didn't. I believe Sha'ul Mofaz used Finkelstein in his successful run to replace Tzippy Livni as head of Kadima (but a whole lot of good that did for Mofaz). In the current election, Stanley Greenberg resurfaced as an adviser to the radically socialist oriented (and with very communist roots) Shelly Yechivmovich & the Labor party. Rumors suggest that here again he was dispatched to the task by some sitting president. And she ended up with only 15 seats and as such, the Labor Party has unsheathed their knives. And yes, Finkelstein did advise Bibi. So it seems with US advisers you win some & you lose some. b) Let me give a concise explanation of the Israeli election. More than anything else, Israelis rejected the economic / social messianism of Labor's Yechimovich (yes I know she got 15 seats but be patient), the political / security / diplomatic messianism of Tzippy Livni / HaTenu'ah & the remnants of Kadima, and the extreme right wing messianism of Otzma L'Yisrael. Contrary to the "conventional wisdom" much of the head scratching MSM, for the most part (yes, there are exceptions in the list) HaBayit HaYehudi will be cautiously pragmatic with a touch of idealism and eyes wide open regarding security issues, on the assumption they join the coalition (my guess for the coalition based on the current incomplete counts: Likud, Yesh Atid (Lapid), Bayit Yehudi (Bennet), Shas (as always) and Kadima (if they cross the threshold -- they are teetering now). Yechimovich set the tone for Labor's campaign by focusing exclusively on the economic / social issues from her perspective as a self-described "social democrat" (defined as a European style welfare statist) but her rhetoric was soaked with the rabid anti-capitalistic demagoguery of her Communist roots (she was raised in a Communist voting household and she herself was known to be a Hadash (which includes the remnants of the Stalinist wing of the ICP) voter in the 1990s. This resulted in Labor falling from the mid-20's at the outset of the campaign to the 15 seats they got. And in typical Labor fashion, that is why her head is now on the chopping block and she knows it. Lapid by contrast is a lot closer economically to Bibi and Bennett. All three want to boost the middle class not by the redistributionist rhetoric with which Yechimovich foamed at the mouth (it must have brought tears to Obama's eyes to hear it). Rather by getting rid of crony capitalism, and excessive concentration of economic power in a few families, both of which are products of the Labor party's heritage of statist control of the economy. All want to reduce housing costs by increasing supply. The Israeli election should be a wake-up call to those who blindly believe what they read in the Western MSM about Israel even in the allegedly august & ostensibly omniscient NY Times or New Yorker or The Atlantic or The New Republic or NPR or the BBC or .... Ha'aretz If you really want to understand Israel, learn Hebrew and read a variety of Israeli publications on line. And keep in mind a very fundamental law of nature: Political correctness is inversely proportional to factual correctness. You can fill in the rest of the equation yourself. Time to get back to work. hg Jerusalem / Efrat

- ginzy

January 23, 2013 at 2:30pm

Hello ginzy! Nice to hear from you after all this time. I think the Hebrew-learning demand might be a bit tough, however, as one could theoretically apply that to anywhere where citizens don't speak English as their national language. Indeed, also anywhere where they do speak English. Foreigners are often puzzled or misled by Irish elections and the party orientations there, for example. But I just wanted to ask: I was surprised a little when I first learned a few years ago (from a friend who had once run on the Likud ticket, curiously) that all of Israel is one electoral constituency/district. I can see how that made sense in the early days with a smaller population, but I'm wondering if (a) there is any push now for multiple smaller constituencies and (b) if that fact means that local loyalties -- the kind of thing that can be a big individual cushion of support in European countries or in the US House of Representatives -- are weak in Israel? I can imagine how people might draw on local or regional roots, but in the case of Israel such a draw while garnering some votes presumably disappears into the national aggregate.

- ironyroad

January 23, 2013 at 3:24pm

Hello Irony, it's nice to be welcomed back although after this brief stint I may well submerge again (I have problems with the TNR that has emerged post-MP but that is a different story). Israel is indeed one single constituency, for better AND for worse. Or in other words, all MKs are elected at large. Without going into all the gory details why, the underlying philosophy is that you represented not by your geography but by your ideology. Thus even if you are a small minority someplace (e.g., ultra-Orthodox Shas types in Eilat) your votes still count and your views are represented in the Knesset, assuming your party crossed the minimum threshold (currently 2%). So local loyalties are by definition weaker here. There has been discussion over the years about setting up geographical constituencies here, perhaps for some fraction of the Knesset seats (e.g, 25% or 50%). These ideas are often pushed (oddly enough) by Israelis originally from Anglo-Saxon countries. So far they have gone nowhere. Most Israelis seem to prefer this system with all of its problems. A friend of mine, a former MK from the late lamented 3rd way party, doesn't think a geographic constituency system would work well in Israel. Who would draw the district lines and how???? Have to run now. Still cruising on the surface for now. hg

- ginzy

January 23, 2013 at 4:01pm

Excellent discussion with some worthwhile comments occasioned by Spence’s use of the word bizarre. I appreciate Icarus’ response: “DC: with respect, describing the political/electoral system of another country as 'bizarre' smacks of cultural snobbery. In the case of Israel, an evaluation of this kind is fraught, for at least two reasons.” I disagreed and disagree with Spence’s use of the condescending term “bizarre” (and I think it’s his limited acquaintance with the workings of government around the world which led him to single out Israel) still I was reacting negatively to something that I take pride in: the age old Jewish habit of disputation for disputation’s sake. I would be upset if Israeli politics would have been as dull and as predictable as those of Sweden when the Socialists were in the ascendancy. As long as the contestation is done peacefully and in a spirit of conviviality there is nothing to be feared from strong opinions. Of course everywhere and at all times there are groups and individuals like the killer of Itzchak Rabin who think the world should follow their inclination and not its own.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 4:12pm

Part of my comment was cut off: I'll try to reconstruct the rest. I would be upset if Israeli politics were to become as dull and as predictable as those of Sweden when the Socialists were in the ascendancy. As long as the contestation is done peacefully and in a spirit of conviviality there is nothing to be feared from strong opinions. Of course everywhere and at all times there are groups and individuals like the killer of Itzchak Rabin who think the world should follow their inclination and not its own.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 4:15pm

"Can Benjamin Netenyahu use an Israeli political consultant, for a change, instead of Arthur Finkelstein? Imagine if an American Presidential candidate used a foreign political consultant -- it would end his or her career as soon as the news came out. But in Israel, you can rely not just on Diaspora money for your political purposes but also on Diaspora political advice." Blackton: In 1999, Clinton dispatched his trusted friend James Carville to help Ehud Barak win the elections against Netanyahu, whom he detested. I believe not too long ago you expressed much admiration for Barak, but I expect you to display as much derision for his choices of political movers and shakers as you do for Netanyahu.

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 4:32pm

Sorry. Wildboy. Not blackton. Hence, the comment about the admiration for Barak is also irrelevant.

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 4:35pm

"I would be upset if Israeli politics were to become as dull and as predictable as those of Sweden" I wish it did become dull and predictable. An old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. I hold arnon's statement to be of the same mind.

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 4:38pm

Ginzy “b) Let me give a concise explanation of the Israeli election. More than anything else, Israelis rejected the economic / social messianism of Labor's Yechimovich (yes I know she got 15 seats but be patient), the political / security / diplomatic messianism of Tzippy Livni / HaTenu'ah & the remnants of Kadima, and the extreme right wing messianism of Otzma L'Yisrael.” This is ironic because for a true American Capitalist any form of government assistance is how they define socialism which means that settlements constructed by the Israeli government are the essence of "socialism." Hell many American Capitalists believe that social security is a socialist plot. This is why government mandated health care drove them out of their minds. You can characterize any economic or social system as messianic if those favoring it consider its aims as brining about some kind of golden age. That would include capitalism or socialism whether religious or secular. Now I don’t know that Israelis rejected the “economic / social messianism of Labor's Yechimovich. I do know that enough of them approved of what they were hearing to vote for her party and triple her standing in the Knesset. That to my mind is not an example of a “rejection.”

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 4:39pm

"I wish it did become dull and predictable. An old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times." An old story. I guess that's why many people put up with communism for so long. It's a system guarantees dull lives and self-same times in which there is nothing new under the sun.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 4:43pm

Noga, Ginzy -- I'm well aware that, in 1999, Bill Clinton seconded James Carville and Stan Greenberg to work with Ehud Barak on his election campaign against Netenyahu. I thought this was thoroughly rotten at the time, and I still think so today. The removal of nettlesome foreign leaders by exporting American political consultants to support their opponents is extreme hardball/sleazy/unprincipled/undiplomatic (take your pick), not to mention fundamentally disrespectful of another country's democratic values. So please don't puff around accusing me of hypocrisy on this count, as I think American non-interference in foreign democratic elections is a bipartisan (or non-partisan) value. Send election monitors if you think something might be fishy, but otherwise treat foreign democracies the way you would like foreign democracies to treat you. As for the constitutionality of the thing, I'm not suggesting anything that would prevent the American political consultant from working abroad or even in state and local elections in the US. Instead, they would be barred from working in Federal elections (i.e., barred from payment by Federal campaign committees or groups that contribute money to Federal campaigns). I suppose they can still work for "advocacy-only" 501(c)(3) groups, so they can avail themselves of that loophole, but it would at least put a stop to active coordination by US politicians (including sitting Presidents) with like-minded foreign politicians to play ducks and drakes with foreign elections. wb Pittsburgh/Duquesne (with apologies to Ginzy's "Jerusalem/Ephrat" - I still think that France has the rightful and historical claim to this fair city, whatever else the Treaty of Paris may have said).

- wildboy

January 23, 2013 at 6:00pm

"As for the constitutionality of the thing, I'm not suggesting anything that would prevent the American political consultant from working abroad or even in state and local elections in the US. Instead, they would be barred from working in Federal elections (i.e., barred from payment by Federal campaign committees or groups that contribute money to Federal campaigns). I suppose they can still work for "advocacy-only" 501(c)(3) groups, so they can avail themselves of that loophole, but it would at least put a stop to active coordination by US politicians (including sitting Presidents) with like-minded foreign politicians to play ducks and drakes with foreign elections." So you would punish anyone working for a foreign government? What this apply to professors working on behalf of some foundation but not for pay. Or someone working for pay but to an organization not regarded as part of the government but the host country but considered so by the US government. Such organizations can be found in most communist and Islamic countries where there is no difference between government and civil society.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 6:24pm

" "I wish it did become dull and predictable. An old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times." An old story. I guess that's why many people put up with communism for so long. It's a system guarantees dull lives and self-same times in which there is nothing new under the sun."" What an idiot.

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 6:41pm

Here is a view from my favourite British Leftist: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100199834/in-israel-the-centre-strikes-back/ I agree with this: "Nothing is certain, but the centre-Left could use its weight in a new coalition to shape domestic policy about what are called "the social gaps" (rising social inequality, the poverty of the 20 per cent, the high cost of living, the squeezed middle class) and "burden-sharing" (the widespread demand to end the very low rates of participation of the Haredim or ultra-Orthodox communities in either the Army or the workforce)." But not so much with this: "And the unexpected strength of the centre-Left might also have a dramatic impact on the peace process." I think the majority of Israeli society is pretty tired of the Palestinian issue so I do not expect to see any movement on the "Peace process". If anything, the results of these elections mean that Israelis want their leaders to concentrate on improving the life, quality and equality of Israeli society.

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 6:55pm

We where having a decent, not great but decent discussion. Then NOGA shows up and turns out the lights.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 7:16pm

This seems to get lost in all the noise: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151237440142293&set=a.103151622292.93283.21262362292&type=1

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 8:04pm

NOGA shouts and complains about NOISE.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 8:16pm

What an ... Ah, what's the use.

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 9:00pm

I think some of you are being far too sensitive. This is the Webster's definition of "bizarre": a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities Not an unfair description of a parliament with 120 members and 17 parties -- one party for every 7 members. There's nothing condescending at all about the term, it's a fair description of the composition of the Israeli government and what goes into the creation of one. The major issue is whether or not the system works for the people it represents -- a question which I am not qualified to answer. [Nor does the answer matter much to me. I'm not an Israeli, it's not my business.] But it IS bizarre. That's not a value judgment, simply an obvious observation. If you want a look at a government procedure that is bizarre and profane, check out what Virginia Republicans are trying to pull of with the electoral college.

- DC Spence

January 23, 2013 at 9:05pm

Arnon, I wouldn't call it "punishment". I would call it requring the political consultant to choose where he or she wants to make money -- either in the American political system or in a foreign one, but not both simultaneously. If someone wants to go work for a foundation or similar non-profit, that's fine and I would not recommend barring them for doing such work abroad. However, if that person also wants to simultaneously work for a US political campaign, he or she will have to certify upon penalty of perjury that his or her work for the foreign foundation did not involve consultation or direct or indirect coordination with a foreign political campaign. In other words, the consultant can work with a foreign foundation and do public opinion polls or write papers about some aspect or other of foreign politics, but those polls and papers cannot be used as part of a foreign political campaign. In other words, no internal polling for Francois Hollande or David Cameron or Benjamin Netenyahu. As for communist or Islamic countries having non-profits that are in effect governmental sponsors, I guess that I'm not so worried about American political consultants going to work for such regimes any time soon (in addition to most such regimes being, well, undemocratic). Anybody who did polling or consulting work for, say, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt wouldn't be touched with a thousand-foot pole in American politics. But, if they were, the same rules would apply to work without pay by a foreign politician. What's so complicated about that? Heck, the GOP would probably love it as it would eliminate the threat of double-faced political consultants working to impose Sharia law on America through assistance to their foreign Islamist paymasters. I bet Glenn Beck or Newt Gingrich would have some good material right there for a political thriller. wb Pittsburgh/Duquesne

- wildboy

January 23, 2013 at 9:08pm

" Anybody who did polling or consulting work for, say, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt wouldn't be touched with a thousand-foot pole in American politics." Are you sure? What about him? http://www.palestine-studies.org/ipsfellows.aspx?id=24 "Rashid Khalidi Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, received his BA from Yale in 1970, and his D.Phil. from Oxford in 1974. He is editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies, and was President of the Middle East Studies Association, and an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993." Does you rule extend to him, and many others like him?

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 9:20pm

http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/tag/rashid-khalidi/page/3/

- Noga

January 23, 2013 at 9:22pm

DC Spence "I think some of you are being far too sensitive." Icarus answered you already and so have I. I will not repeat myself. I know what you meant about "bizarre" and I am not unsympathetic except that I take it as a compliment. In Spain one can say "bizarro" to mean "cool" and I think that Israeli politics are cool even if you don't. I wouldn't compare Israeli politics to Republican politics in VA or anywhere else. Such a comparison is truly bizarre in your sense of the word.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 9:42pm

It seems to me that this is a very knotty one, with its own logical inconsistency. If someone is hired because of their abilities or track record, not their US passport per se, and if they are working for a body that is not directly running for election themselves but is close to one grouping, then it would seem to require a rather large intrusive examination to conclude that that their work did not form "part of a foreign political campaign." Also, how is it not totally ripe for abuse, especially if official bodies such as the State Dept are the ones making the judgement call? We'd look away when it's Haiti, and probe mercilessly if it's the Palestinian Territories; we'd take a benign view of it if it's a mainstream entity with our approval e.g. a foundation that supports Aung San Suu Kyi's party in Burma, but go looking for negative evidence when it's a Burmese left-wing party. And why shouldn't someone bring their perspective, possibly matured through detailed work in a foreign country, back to the US? Why is that bad? Are such people tainted in some way? I agree that it would be potentially difficult for an American campaign or organization to hire e.g. an expert stats analysis from abroad for an election but if we're going to reform anything let's reform that and put and end to these paranoid nativist laws here in the US.

- ironyroad

January 23, 2013 at 9:43pm

Arnon, I thank you for not repeating yourself. Icarus has his own understanding of the word "bizarre" and while it is not consistent with the standard definition of the word, I do not begrudge him his idiosyncrasy. My point stands. If Israel likes its political system, Israel should keep its political system. I have no problem with it and since I'm not an Israeli, it is not my place to question it anyway. But I do reserve the right to find it strange and fascinating and unpredictable. I love the way parties rise and fall so quickly, the way political stars emerge out of nowhere in a matter of weeks, and how veteran politicos shift their allegiances after decades in one camp or another. The way governments are formed or destroyed by the ambitions or vendettas or whims of a few men or women. It's a helluva toboggan ride. As for this: I wouldn't compare Israeli politics to Republican politics in VA or anywhere else. Such a comparison is truly bizarre in your sense of the word. My point was to contrast it, not compare it. In the case of the Virginia GOP, I WAS making a value judgment, which is why I added the undeniable epithet "profane" to the more value-neutral word "bizarre."

- DC Spence

January 23, 2013 at 10:59pm

Nothing more to add, Spence.

- arnon1

January 23, 2013 at 11:33pm

When you read spence's description of Israel's electoral system, where he inserts words like strange, fascinating, unpredictable, rise and fall so quickly, veteran politicos shifting allegiances, ambitions, vendettas, whims, you wonder whether it is Israeli politics he is speaking of, or something else. I suspect the latter. Anyway, just to increase his fascination with the freak show his mind has produced for its own delectation (a favourite pastime of his, I think), I thought I'd post this best summary of the elections around: http://simplyjews.blogspot.ca/2013/01/israeli-elections-day-summary.html#disqus_thread

- Noga

January 24, 2013 at 9:32am

Noga, you might not be very good with the specifics of who and what constitutes political consulting in the US (not being an American), but I can assure you that Rashid Khalidi is not a paid American political consultant and never was. He is an American college professor who has been a paid advisor to a foreign organization (couldn't call it a government, since the Palestinian Delegation to Madrid wasn't representing one). He is not and, to my knowledge, never has been paid to do polling or consulting work for an American political campaign at any level, whether Federal, state or local. He is an acquaintance and friend of Barack Obama (past or present, who knows), but so what? Let's go further and assume, the way you like to, that he and President Obama regularly exchange thoughts on Israel, the Palestinians and the Muslim World generally. Again, so what? He's not being paid for the work, he's not employed by the White House or Obama's election campaign or any Super-PAC or similar organization and he's not a registered lobbyist. He's just a guy who has worked for foreign governments and has views that he shares with an American politician. There is nothing illegal or wrong about that and nothing that could be prohibited by any American law. As your comment points out, there is already paranoia from various circles about someone like Khalidi having informal discussions with Obama about the Middle East and what sort of influence that may have on Obama. It doesn't seem to have hurt Obama because, first, the evidence clearly shows that he is not anti-Israel in any meaningful sense of the word and, second, he has taken positions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are contrary to what Khalidi would prefer -- so it's obvious to most people he is not taking Khalidi's free advice on the matter. But if Obama or another politician had Khalidi on his payroll while Khalidi was also being paid to advise the Palestinian Authority, or Mohammed Morsi, or what have you, I assure you it would be a pretty big freaking scandal in and of itself, even if Obama didn't follow Khalidi's advice. So, no, it isn't really feasible that an American political consultant would be able to get away with doing work for a Middle Eastern country or political organization (a non-Israeli one, that is) while also working for an American politician or party. But the fact that it happens routinely on the Israeli side of the ledger is a corruption of democracy in America and Israel and a dangerous blurring of lines between Israeli and American electoral politics and policies. Oh, and besides Khalidi, who are the "many others like him"? Who else was Obama palling around with in Chicago or Columbia who were busy advising Muslim tyrants and anti-Semites? His old Professor Edward Said? Right, I mean if you elect to take a college course you are clearly fully endorsing the politics and world-view of the Professor in question and obviously never can change your mind afterward. That's why really open-minded people don't attend college, so we don't have to expose ourselves to such filth.

- wildboy

January 24, 2013 at 11:04am

Having read Adon Ginsberg's admonition about just who can and who cannot understand Israeli politics, specifically excluding those who don't speak and read in Hebrew, I asked my sister and brother-in-law what they think the election results portend, if anything. They have excellent Hebrew, having made aliyah 35 years ago when my brother-in-law was even young enough to have to serve in the army. (We don't know how old noga is and when she emigrated to Canada, but it is a fair bet they have lived in Israel longer than she and certainly longer than Ginsberg.) My brother-in-law answered only this, "So far it sounds hopeful for some of the social issues that are important to us - religion and state - and not so hopeful for the peace process." Seems about right. I doubt very much that Israel is capable on its own of making peace, because it is no longer capable of abandoning its illegal colonial ambitions in the West Bank no matter what it achieves in return. Hence, there will have to be sufficient outside pressure to force it to do so as peace and colonization have a very long history of incompatibility. I expect sufficient outside pressure to emerge eventually, but I would not want to predict when. It is about like earthquake prediction. You can say with a high degree of certainty that one is coming, but predictions about the timing are almost impossible.

- roidubouloi

January 24, 2013 at 12:31pm

"So far it sounds hopeful for some of the social issues that are important to us - religion and state - and not so hopeful for the peace process." This sounds about right, though I would guess that if Israeli citizens start to see some progress on solving their many social problems then many more people there will want to proceed with trying to make peace. Of course, the agreements between Hamas and the PA is going to complicate matters hugely, and so will developments in Egypt which has a President that doesn't believe Jews to be fully human.

- arnon1

January 24, 2013 at 12:53pm

wildboy "Noga, you might not be very good with the specifics of who and what constitutes political consulting in the US (not being an American), but I can assure you that Rashid Khalidi is not a paid American political consultant and never was." You are wasting your time arguing with Noga about this or ant matter. She has been pushing the "Khalidi has had a huge influence on Obama" and she will no more accept known facts any more than a "birther" will believe that Obama born in the US.

- arnon1

January 24, 2013 at 12:58pm

I know, Arnon, she is a monomaniac and a moron to boot. But it did feel good to explain to her that, whatever Rashid Khalidi is, he's not the same thing as James Carville or Arthur Finkelstein.

- wildboy

January 24, 2013 at 2:38pm

Gee roi after that long trumpeting preamble I expected some earth shaking revelations from your fables israeli relatives who know better than all other Israelis put together. Only to remind you, I said exactly the same earlier in this thread: Here is a view from my favourite British Leftist: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100199834/in-israel-the-ce... I agree with this: "Nothing is certain, but the centre-Left could use its weight in a new coalition to shape domestic policy about what are called "the social gaps" (rising social inequality, the poverty of the 20 per cent, the high cost of living, the squeezed middle class) and "burden-sharing" (the widespread demand to end the very low rates of participation of the Haredim or ultra-Orthodox communities in either the Army or the workforce)." But not so much with this: "And the unexpected strength of the centre-Left might also have a dramatic impact on the peace process." I think the majority of Israeli society is pretty tired of the Palestinian issue so I do not expect to see any movement on the "Peace process". If anything, the results of these elections mean that Israelis want their leaders to concentrate on improving the life, quality and equality of Israeli society. Roi must be upset with naughty naughty Israelis (except for his sister and her family, the only worthwhile Israelis he knows) for voting for their own interests, rather than Palestinians'.

- Noga

January 24, 2013 at 2:59pm

And BTW, since none of your here understands Hebrew nuance you wouldn't know that when roi says "Adon Ginzburg" he is not really being polite but rather derisive. The proper form to speak of Mr. so and so in Hebrew would have been: Mar Ginzburg. "Adon" is a somewhat obsolete form of reference and those who use it intend to display derision by over-deference. If you encounter it in Agnon's novels, it is correct. In modern Hebrew novels and everyday interaction, the implication of a sneer is plain enough.

- Noga

January 24, 2013 at 3:25pm

"While I don't really believe Netanyahu has any sincere interest in a two state solution..." Last night on Charlie Rose's show, Dennis Ross was saying quite the opposite. I suggest you watch it on line and hear it for yourself.

- Noga

January 24, 2013 at 3:28pm

" (but I thought David Remnick from the New Yorker came off as a smug, know-it-all, naive twit)." No. He is only a more articulate, cold-hearted version of the kind of posters you find on this message board. Nothing naive about him. A calculated, self-assured, ideologue.

- Noga

January 24, 2013 at 9:46pm

Dennis Ross also reminded Remnick and others that Netanyahu said in one of his speeches that peace with the Palestinians is not a favour we, Israelis, do to Palestinians. it is in our best interest. It is exactly what Rabin said when, very reluctantly, he agreed to the Oslo accords. Funny how Rabin is lionized and sanctified while Netanyahu is demonized. What can be the source of this perversion? Rabin's policies eventually led to the second Intifada with thousands dead on both sides. Netanyahu's policies of sitting on his hands have so far avoided a major war or considerable bloodshed on both sides.

- Noga

January 25, 2013 at 8:17am

"But in terms of what Netanyahu says versus what Netanyahu has done, I just can't jibe the in-your-face settlement expansions and deliberate weakening of the PA (thereby strengthening Hamas) with a sincere interest in arriving at a deal. I'd love him to prove me wrong." I couldn't agree more, malahat. The "in-your-face" attitude is what betrays him. He seems to relish it, with no ounce of subtlety whatsoever.

- scrubby

January 25, 2013 at 9:15am

Of course Netanyahu should never forget that he is a Jew in a Goy world. There is no such thing as a Jew being allowed to pursue his nation's interests with vigor and conviction, it is immediately interpreted as a being uppity and in your face. A Jew should know his place and and if he has to pursue interests he should so under the cover of obsequiousness and back room dealings. You know, Jew-style ...

- Noga

January 25, 2013 at 10:06am

That's right, noga. The fact that Bibi is a Jew is the reason why I judge him so unfairly. Jews that act with vigor and conviction always strike me as uppity and too aggressive, not to mention clever. I'm like that with Jews. Can't help it, must be the self-hating Jew in me raising its beautiful head. But then in my case, I couldn't be a real Jew since my mother isn't Jewish, only my father is. That would make me an antisemite, not a self-hating Jew, right?

- scrubby

January 25, 2013 at 5:07pm

Oooh, scrubby, you seem a little offended. I'm so sorry. I thought a little in your face commentary, emulating your own terribly pertinent and diplomatic criticism of Netanyahu might be met with better consideration. After all, you should be familiar with your own style and nothing is more flattering than imitation. Just as an aside, I hardly ever resort to the self-hating Jew trope. I meet such phenomenon with compassion. The self-hating Jew is a natural outgrowth of antisemitism, it is a desperate attempt to belong, which is a survival instinct. It deserves to be treated with pity, not anger or derision.

- Noga

January 25, 2013 at 5:19pm

correction -- "only my father is" should read "only my father was". Father has been dead for a while now. I'm not offended, noga, just disappointed that you played the Jew-victim card in response to my harsh opinions on Bibi. Very unfair of you. Just as it would be, and rightly so, if any poster here played the race card against your numerous, unrelenting, harsher opinions of president Obama.

- scrubby

January 25, 2013 at 6:19pm

There is a record on which to base my criticism of Obama, his choice of friends and advisers not the least of it. You, on the other hand, have no record to base your reading of Netanyahu's actions on behalf of a beleaguered nation as "in-your-face" attitude". If you think Jews should not be allowed to live in Jerusalem then you have a seriously perverted view of history and human rights.

- Noga

January 25, 2013 at 6:31pm

Your opinions on Obama is right, my opinions on Bibi is wrong. Yes, noga.

- scrubby

January 25, 2013 at 6:57pm

I think I'm right about Obama, yes. And your opinion of Netanyahu can be summed up by what's bothering you most about him, what you call "ïn your face". Yes, talking at the UN about the Iranian nukes is an "in your face" policy. Approving 3000 residential units in Jerusalem is an "ïn your face" policy. The leader of the only Jewish state in the world should walk on eggs when it comes to Jewish rights in the world. I hear you loud and clear.

- Noga

January 25, 2013 at 8:15pm

The only things you hear loud and clear are the imagined voices in your head, noga. First, you ascribe bigoted motives to me, then you put words in my mouth. Opposition to Bibi is always driven by animus toward Jews, according to you. Well, in that case, color me as proudly bigoted. You are now on record as supporting Bibi's Settlement expansion. And your support, as you put it, is vigorously strong, with uncompromising aggression. You know, Jewish style.

- scrubby

January 26, 2013 at 7:54am

"You are now on record as supporting Bibi's Settlement expansion." What I'm on record for is telling you that building apartments for Jews in Jerusalem is not "settlement", unless you have outsourced your own independent thinking and language to Obama. And we know where he gets his views that Jerusalem is a "settlement". "You know, Jewish style." Absolutely. I know Jewish history, unlike you, who cannot let facts stand in the way of your opinions. And, incidentally, those who maintain the principle that Jews should not be allowed to live in the WB are not displaying "progressive" thinking. Rather, they display a deep and vulgar ignorance of both historical records, and the meaning of human rights. In other words, they make common cause with the PLO and Hamas Charters. The next step is to encourage Israelis to return to the countries from which they had come, you know, Poland, Germany, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, etc etc.

- Noga

January 26, 2013 at 8:22am

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100197825/west-bank-settlements-have-killed-the-two-state-solution-right-wrong/ "One of the mysteries of European politics is why many foreign ministries are buying into the myth about the settlements. The Foreign Office now talks about settlements as causing, maybe within a year, the death of the entire two-state paradigm. Arieli – who is firmly identified with the Left in Israel, a committed two-stater and a strong critic of the current government – says we should think again. Look, he says, we have got carried away. If we calm down we might see that the real difficulty in implementing the idea of partition is not physical but political. To create a border which connects the major Israeli settlement blocks in the West Bank and the East Jerusalem neighbourhoods to Israel requires annexing only around 6 per cent of the West Bank and that can be compensated by 1:1 land swaps. In fact, that exchange of territory was the basis of the near-successful Annapolis negotiations of 2007-8. But that was then. Maybe that deal is not possible today? No, argues Arieli, it is still possible, and for six reasons: most Israeli settlement is concentrated in blocks, the Israeli settlement presence beyond the blocks is limited, most working settlers are employed inside Israel, Israeli settlements use largely distinct infrastructure from West Bank Palestinians, many settlers are economically motivated therefore likely to move voluntarily in the event of peace and the number of new homes currently being planned for construction within Israel is 20 times the number of households that might need to be relocated. Arieli argues that we should learn to make a basic distinction. On the one hand are 80 per cent of the settlers (excluding West Jerusalem) who live in settlement blocs, where they represent 95 per cent of the total population, and which both sides understand will be incorporated in Israel when the deal is struck. On the other hand are the 20 per cent of the settlers who live outside the settlement blocs, mostly belonging to the national religious sector of Israeli society, part of the ‘Gush Emunim’ [Block of the Faithful] ideological movement. Scattered over hilltops, often dotted along the central mountain ridge [Gav HaHar] on Route 60 – the main road running north to south – these settlers will find that when Israeli society feels secure enough to make the deal they are not part of it."

- Noga

January 26, 2013 at 8:32am

And, opposed to the Arieli, there is Gideon Levi, a much lauded darling of European insane Lefties and other antisemites) Haaretz journalist, who would, I'm afraid, also be embraced by Scrubby as a reasonable voice, who is on record as saying that he wouldn't drive a hundred meters to save the life of a settler. I don't scrubby you have earned any accolades for the positions you have stated here. You are poised to glide down the slippery slope, effortlessly, I may add. Enough now. I don't understand why I even bother talking to someone of your ilk, boxed in and tone-deaf as you are. Some posters on TNR have excelled as baiters, a practice at bigotry that not always betrays its underbelly darkness.

- Noga

January 26, 2013 at 8:40am

Except that all the settlements are illegal and Israel's idea of land swaps is not mutual bargain for exchange, in which both sides get land they want, but the exchange of scraps of desert that no one wants for the settlements. A real bargain for exchange might succeed, but that is not what the illegal colonizers have in mind. And, of course, anyone who doesn't share the colonial appetites of noga is therefore indistinguishable from Gideon Levi. Noga lecturing on bigotry? Best laugh I had in a very, very long time.

- roidubouloi

January 26, 2013 at 1:07pm