Op-Ed: The Israeli left’s growing pragmatism

[Mosby]

ARLINGTON, Texas (JTA) -- It’s often said these days that the left in Israel not only is decimated, but it continues to cling to long outdated idealism about how to solve the conflict with the Palestinians and withdraw from the West Bank. Also that it’s out of touch with Israelis’ current preoccupations and the settlers’ successes. Avraham Burg’s latest editorial in The New York Times is taken as illustrative of this.

-snip-

As Lior Amihai of Peace Now explained it to me during a recent tour of the West Bank, the moral argument against occupation simply no longer matters -- Israelis are not directly concerned with it anymore. Rather, given the growing economic disparities in Israel, the social protests, the preoccupation with consumerism and their own individual priorities, Israelis care more about the costs of occupation. Indeed, surveys of Israelis and the public statements of the leaders of the social protests both indicate that the settlers and Palestinians have no place in their considerations of their future.

Peace Now’s new campaign focuses on the tiny percentage of the settler population as the recipient of massive government expenditures. The settlements, they argue, should be evacuated because they hurt the average Israeli citizen within the Green Line who otherwise would be the target for more government resources.

Labor also has adopted this change of direction. Its new leader, Shelly Yachimovich, refuses to discuss either the conflict or the settlements, preferring to hit Netanyahu and Likud on social and economic policy. If current polling trends are anything to go by, the tactic is working.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/08/08/3103321/op-ed-the-israeli-lefts-growing-pragmatism

[Fantastic Anarchist]

1. The "Left" must be relative to the author.

I have a real problem with someone referring to the Israeli Labor party (or the UK Labor party) as "Left." Yes, they're "Left" relative to the "Right," but that's not saying much.

And arguing against the occupation because of fiscal reasons is hardly moral; it's not what left-wing politics is about. The moral reasons for ending the occupation outweigh the pragmatic reasons - even if they serve the same purpose. An actual "Leftist" would understand this.

Interesting article, nonetheless. Thanks for posting.

[azurnoir]

2. actually the exact same article was posted here a week ago

it was reposted after it had sunk of course

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113415955

[Mosby]

3. I didn't see the earlier post

and I usually look around and/or google the title.

[bemildred]

5. I'm glad to see it re-posted.

It had some interesting bits.

Edit: and it sank like a stone.

[Mosby]

4. It's all relative

There are a lot of folks upstairs who think that the Democratic party isn't particularly progressive and IMO they have a decent point, politicians want to get elected and they don't let ideology get in the way of that.

[bemildred]

7. "Left" tends to mean "to the left of me".

Same for right. We all have this bias towards thinking we are in the center or "normal" or the like, except for those of us for whom that has never been an option. And society has a bias against the nonconforming, anywhere you go outside the higher reaches of academia and the intellectual orders.

Both major US parties are so large that they are not able to represent anything controversial strongly, hence the fondness for dicking around overseas where nobody here cares what happens as long as it does not affect them.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Interesting

Of course, I think that the Likud are bad both on issues related to the conflict and the settlements AND on general social and economic issues.