LAST WINTER, I decided to take advantage of an opportunity given to me by a group called Birthright Israel to spend 10 days of my winter break touring Israel for free. During these 10 days, I got to see many beautiful sites, meet tons of wonderful people and truly gain an appreciation for the little country that appears in the news so frequently.
However, as much as our tour tried to avoid dwelling on the present problems, the facts of life in Israel don't change. There's a reason our group had armed guards and had to be in regular contact through satellite phone with a massive command center.
Our group, though, was not the only place where I felt the effects of the current crisis in the Middle East. Everywhere I went, I could see the impact of an economy destroyed by the drop in tourism. I met settlers in the Golan Heights willing to leave the homes where they grew up, if only it would bring about peace. I met soldiers, some no older than me, who confided in me their grave fear of being sent into action in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. I even watched as former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now Finance Minister, gave a speech at what was supposed to be a pep rally, in which he focused almost entirely on terror and an economy in shambles. What I saw most clearly, though, was a country whose government had let them down.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Likud party swept into power nearly four years ago on an election promise of ending the new Palestinian uprising, or Intifada, through the use of force. They claimed that force, if used properly, would end the Intifada, destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and bring about peace. Four years later, the magnificence of these claims can only be matched by the magnificence of Likud's failure, as the situation in Israel has consistently deteriorated for four years running.
Today, Likud is being further and further hijacked by the extreme right-wing elements of Israeli society. Led by Netanyahu, the extremist wing of the party opposes any possibility of a future Palestinian state (a condition believed necessary for peace by most people of the world, and even most Israelis), and instead believes in expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. These settlements, which only serve as flashpoints for new violence, create more obstacles to future peace and provide an increasing drain on Israel's already weak economy.
Last spring, Sharon proposed a peace plan of unilateral disengagement. Recognizing the fact that Palestinian Leader Yassir Arafat was more of an obstacle to peace than a friend of it, Sharon concluded that the only way to bring about peace was for Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank on its own and give, on its own terms, a state to the Palestinians, so that Israel can finally begin dealing with a state instead of an entity.
Sharon's disengagement plan, which has the backing of the United States, most of the Arab world and over 60 percent of the Israeli people, has been repeatedly blocked, stepped in the way of or forcibly changed by Sharon's own Likud Party, as the party continues to succumb to the pressures of its extremist elements. In addition, the far-right parties that have made up a large chunk of Likud's governing coalition have left the coalition, forcing Sharon to turn to the opposition center-left Labor Party for coalition talks.
Although a coalition between Labor and Likud would force Likud to move farther to the left and to take swifter action in implementing disengagement, the fact is, Labor's leader, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, should not agree to join the coalition. Instead, the time is ripe for Peres to use a no-confidence motion to force early elections in Israel (elections aren't currently scheduled to be held until 2006), as Likud's failures begin catching up to it and polls continue to show Israeli voters abandoning Likud for Labor, or the centrist and pro-disengagement Shinui Party.
New elections in Israel would greatly increase both Labor and Shinui's positions in the Israeli Parliament, or Knesset, and do one of two things. If Likud remains the largest party, Labor and Shinui's increased holdings in the Knesset would practically force Likud into coalition with both parties, making Likud choose between a much more liberal and pro-peace approach (instead of constantly trying to fight the efforts of their own party's leader), or facing new elections yet again, now solidly in the camp of the party against peace. The other option, however, would be if Likud were to lose its status as the largest party, Labor and Shinui could, together with other left-wing parties, form a grand left-wing coalition at the head of Israel's government. This government would be far more open to disengagement and other progressive peace plans even farther reaching than Sharon's, while at the same time remaining firm on Israel's national security (it is the Labor party, after all, that was in power for Israel's victories in all of its major wars).
No matter which option winds up being followed, new elections in Israel would greatly shift the balance of Israel's government to the left, much closer to the sentiments of the Israeli people themselves. This would be a great benefit to peace, and the advancement of the Labor Party's cause in Israel. Shimon Peres today finally has the chance to force new elections in Israel. The time to take that chance is now.
Sam Leven's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sleven@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 18 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
