Lieberman
And The Decline Of
Israeli Democracy
By Uri Avnery
03 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
In
its original German form - Liebermann - the name means "lovable
man". It is hard to imagine a name less appropriate for the new
Deputy Prime Minister of Israel.
He is not lovable, neither
in his personality nor in his views - and that is the understatement
of the year.
His personal lovability can
be judged by the fact that he was once arrested for beating up a boy
who had quarreled with his son.
This week, the arrival of
Liberman at the center of the political system marks the start of a
new chapter in the annals of the State of Israel.
* * *
The time is not accidental.
In all the 56 years of its existence, Israeli democracy has never been
at such a low point as it is today.
In the elections half a year
ago, almost 40% of the electorate did not vote at all - double the usual
percentage.
Since then, corruption affairs
have followed each other. The President of the State is awaiting indictment
on several charges of rape and sexual misconduct. The Prime Minister
is the subject of a whole series of investigations for corruption, in
collusion with an assortment of local and foreign billionaires. Two
ministers are already standing trial. Over Ariel Sharon and his family,
a dark cloud of corruption affairs was hovering when he suffered his
stroke. There is a general feeling that the ruling group in Israel is
cynical and corrupt.
The corruption and cynicism
of this group expresses itself also in its public behavior. Politicians
in Israel - and around the world - have never been notable for their
fulfillment of election promises. But here this has reached a new low
- everything is being betrayed quite openly, in full view of the public.
Ehud Olmert campaigned on
the basis of a specific and detailed plan - the "Convergence".
Now, without batting an eyelid, he announces that it has been abandoned.
He has only one plan left: to stay in power, whatever it takes.
Amir Peretz collected votes
as the leader who was about to carry out a real "social" revolution,
to put an end to the oppression of the weak and the underprivileged
- the elderly, the sick, the unemployed and all the rest. The gap between
rich and poor in Israel is one of the widest in the industrialized world.
Peretz also promised to work towards peace with the Palestinians.
On the morrow of the elections,
Peretz betrayed his promises openly, shamelessly and with Chutzpa. In
order to further his personal career, he did not claim any social ministry,
accepting the Ministry of Defense instead. Since then, he has been demanding
the expansion of the military budget at the expense of social outlays.
Instead of peace, he made war. This week he also violated his undertaking
not to sit in a government that includes Avigdor Liberman. Almost all
the Labor Party ministers are partners to this blatant betrayal, with
the honorable exception Ofir Pines-Paz, who has resigned. (Four of his
colleagues in the Labor Party, including Ehud Barak, are competing to
take his place.)
The first noteworthy act
of the Olmert-Peretz team was to get Israel into a superfluous and hopeless
war. The irresponsibility of this decision to start a difficult and
complex war compares only with the irresponsibility with which the war
itself was conducted in all its phases. To add insult to injury, they
blocked the appointment of an independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry.
The war has left the public
with a profound sense of distress, on top of the disgust aroused by
the political betrayals and the corruption affairs. Our democracy now
appears completely rotten, corrupt and incompetent. A Hebrew proverb
says that "the breach in the wall calls for the thief". The
present situation calls for fascist forces.
Enter Liberman.
* * *
THE SPIN managers of Olmert
and Peretz try to calm us down. What's so special about Liberman, they
ask us.
So he advocates Transfer,
the expulsion of the Arab citizens from Israel. He threatened to destroy
Egypt by blowing up the Aswan Dam. He demanded the execution of the
Israeli Arab Knesset members for meeting with Syrian and Hamas leaders.
So what? Rehavam Ze'evi, whose memory was honored this week by a special
commemoration session of the Knesset, proposed ethnic cleansing, and
General Effi Eytam, the chief of the National Union party, uses similar
language.
Such a person should not
be allowed to enter the government? Why not? After all, Liberman has
already been a member of the government, and so had Ze'evi and Eytam.
This argument misses the
point. The Liberman who joined Sharon's government five years ago represented
a marginal group of new immigrants, which was not taken seriously. Sharon
was a strong leader, and his ministers were unimportant. But the Liberman
that has joined the Olmert government is something else: the leader
of a strong party that is getting stronger, under a Prime Minister who
is a small party functionary, with whom most of the public is fed up.
The Liberman party is quite
different from the fictitious Kadima Party and the decomposing Labor
Party. It is organized on military lines, with Liberman as its one,
unquestioned leader. It has organized most of the immigrants from the
former Soviet Union, and is expanding into other communities, too. It
appeals to the poor and downtrodden. It resembles the Bolshevik party
that Liberman knew as a young man in the Soviet Union. (To coin a formula:
Bolshevism minus Marxism equals Fascism.)
When the democratic system
arouses public contempt, and when the view that "all politicians
are crooks" and "the system is rotten to the core" is
gaining ground, such a person is a real danger to democracy.
* * *
AN OLD maxim says that Israel
can fulfill only two of its three desires: to be a Jewish state, to
be a democratic state and to hold on to all of the territory between
the Mediterranean and the Jordan. It can hold on to the whole territory
and be democratic - but then it will not be a Jewish state. It can hold
on to the territory and be Jewish - but than it will not be a democratic
state. It can be a Jewish and democratic state - but then it cannot
hold on to all the territory.
This has been the basis of
Israeli policy from the very beginning. The main argument for Sharon's
"Separation" and Olmert's "Convergence" was exactly
this: that in order for Israel to remain Jewish and democratic, it must
give up those parts of the occupied Palestinian territories with a dense
Arab population.
The extreme Right has an
answer that resembles the egg of Columbus: all three aims can indeed
be attained. The solution is ethnic cleansing - the expulsion of the
whole of the Arab population.
That is difficult to carry
out in a democratic system. Therefore, this aim almost automatically
means that there must be a "strong leader". Meaning: an overt
or disguised dictatorship.
Mostly this is not said openly,
but by hints accompanied with a wink. Liberman, too, does not say so
openly. But if one listens closely to what he says, one can draw the
conclusions oneself.
* * *
THE MOST depressing phenomenon
at this moment is the lack of public reaction.
The betrayal of the Labor
Party could have been expected. Amir Peretz did indeed swear that he
would never sit in a government with Liberman, but in order to remain
a minister he is quite prepared to sell his principles. No great outcry
could be expected from Meretz either, after Yossi Beilin had his well
publicized breakfast with Liberman and heaped praise on him and his
herrings.
But the general public does
not seem shocked, either. Here and there some articles did appear, but
they did not point out the existential danger threatening the Israeli
republic. Even the Arab public in Israel, whose very existence is menaced
by Liberman, has not set in motion a real protest. On the 1976 "Land
Day", when the Arab citizens protested against the expropriation
of their land, it looked different. As it did in October 2000, when
the Israeli Arab public protested against a suspected threat to the
al Aqsa mosque.
What is the reason for this
weak reaction, which is so like the last days of the Weimar republic?
There is a growing disdain
for the democratic system. There is a general fatigue after the shocks
of the last year. There is a withdrawal into private cares. For the
"persons in the street", it is difficult to imagine the dangers.
He and she are so used to democracy, that they cannot imagine what it
means to live without it. They are sure that "It Can't Happen Here".
Perhaps they are right?
At the end of the 19th century,
there was a French general called Georges Boulanger. Everybody expected
him to carry out a military coup d'etat at any moment. But the general
hesitated, postponed the much talked-about coup again and again, until
somebody threw in his face: "General, at your age Napoleon was
already dead!" It is said that this broke the spell, the authorities
started to take action and the general fled abroad.
Perhaps Liberman will also
turn out to be a scarecrow. But I would not bet on it, if the Israeli
public does not wake up in time.
Uri Avnery
is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights