Israel's democracy, foreign policy<\/p>\n
By Riza Sihbudi<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak resigned on
\nDec. 10. Ariel Sharon, the Likud Party's hardliner, once labeled
\nBarak, of the Labor Party, as the weakest leader in Israel's
\nhistory.<\/p>\n
Sharon said Barak was \"easily manipulated\" by Palestine leader
\nYasser Arfat, referring to Barak's idea to divide the western
\narea to become Israel's capital. This idea, according to Sharon,
\nclearly contradicts the history of Israel's determination,
\nthrough thousands of years, to make Jerusalem, undivided, as the
\n\"eternal capital\" for the Jews.<\/p>\n
As an inflexible ideologue with a reputation of being anti-
\nArab\/anti-Palestine, Sharon's reaction to Barak's idea was
\nnatural; he has, therefore, tried intensively to end Barak's
\nleadership.<\/p>\n
So far, Sharon has had some success. His provocative visit to
\nthe Al-Aqsha Mosque complex not only succeeded in derailing the
\nMiddle East peace process -- built up so carefully by Barak and
\nUS President Bill Clinton -- but the violence between Israel and
\nPalestine that followed led to a political crisis and Barak's
\nresignation.<\/p>\n
The aftermath of Israel's political crisis is yet to be known.
\nWill Barak win the special elections planned for early next year,
\nor will Sharon, or former PM Benjamin Netanyahu, also from Likud,
\nbe victor?<\/p>\n
What is definite is that this crisis has clearly shown that
\nIsrael's domestic political process has been in line with
\ndemocratic norms. At least if one takes into account public
\ncontrol on power, free elections and clear separation of powers
\nbetween the executive, legislative and judiciary bodies.<\/p>\n
It is then difficult to disagree with political expert Samuel
\nP. Huntington who said Israel was the \"most democratic country\"
\nin the Middle East. However, in 1969 political scientist David
\nApter described Israel as a pyramid given its authoritarian
\nprocess of decision making.<\/p>\n
Regarding values, he wrote that Israelis had a sense of
\nsolidarity. In other words, they are elitist; but also democratic
\nand plural.<\/p>\n
Another expert says Israel's political system is basically
\nrooted in ideological and interest factions; but at the level of
\nleadership there is also the strong tendency toward accommodation
\nand consensus.<\/p>\n
This means that even if the elites of subcultures like the
\nLikud, Labor and religious-based parties are embroiled in
\nintensive competition leading to political instability, they
\nwould voluntarily strive to avoid cultural fragmentation; this is
\nknown as \"consociational democracy.\"<\/p>\n
In Apter's view, through such democracy, the ideological and
\ninterest factions among society change into an effective plural
\ndemocratic arena at the elite level.<\/p>\n
The recent political crisis shows the fairly balanced power
\nbetween Likud and Labor in both the executive and legislative
\nbodies. This also indicates that whoever wins the 2001 election
\nwill not find it easy to make radical changes. Continuity, rather
\nthan change, is the more likely outcome.<\/p>\n
In foreign policy, particularly the attitude to Israel-Arab
\npeace, the same is to be expected. Even Barak's victory would not
\nguarantee real peace. Labor has in fact never showed a clear
\nstance on the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is Likud
\nwhich has been clearly against such plans.<\/p>\n
Israel's democracy, in other words, only functions internally;
\nforeign policy, especially towards Palestinians, has contradicted
\ntheir values of democracy and human rights. It is this aspect
\nwhich, consciously or not, has been overlooked by experts like
\nHuntington.<\/p>\n
Beyond all this, whether the peace process continues will
\ndepend more on two things: first, the political will from the
\nUnited States under new President George W. Bush of the
\nRepublican party, as a main sponsor of the process and also as
\nthe only country able to pressure Israel.<\/p>\n
Republicans are expected to be more fair in the Middle East
\nconflict compared to the Democrats who are known to be heavily
\npro-Israel.<\/p>\n
Second is the earnestness of the Arab nations to arrive at a
\nunified stance among themselves. The lack of unity has led to
\nthem being manipulated by the US-Israel alliance.<\/p>\n
Hopefully, the recent flurry of Arab leaders trying to make
\nthemselves more unified is not just driven by short term
\npolitical interests in the face of Israel's repression towards
\nPalestinians. Their unity should be aiming for the long term,
\nsubstantial peace -- and not just symbolic peace, to quote the
\nintellectual, Edward W. Said.<\/p>\n
The writer is chairman of the Indonesian Society for Middle
\nEast Studies (ISMES).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/israels-democracy-foreign-policy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}