Shai Tsur
This is the first of a series of blog posts from Israelis with different perspectives on the forthcoming elections. Shai Tsur is a Tel-Aviv based former journalist who works in the finance industry and writes his own weblog at Shaister.
The elections here are just under three weeks away. If the polls can be believed, Kadima, Ehud Olmert's party, will get the largest number of seats and form the next government. Since November, surveys have shown Kadima well in the lead, and it has remained there despite the seemingly incredible turns of event - from Ariel Sharon's debilitating stroke to Hamas's unexpected victory in the Palestinian elections.
I, for one, am not surprised.
I come from a long-time Labor family. During the '90s I supported the Oslo accords and the peace process with the Palestinians. Then came September 2000 and the second intifada. Like many Israelis who once identified with the left, I became disillusioned with Oslo. My politics shifted rightward with every Palestinian suicide bombing. But I have never been an advocate of the Greater Land of Israel approach. I favour a two-state solution, but one that ensures Israel's security.
In short, I am the classic Kadima voter.
Kadima's basic appeal can be summed up as disengagement and strong centrism. Let's start with the former.
After dealing with one Palestinian leader who talked peace while aiding and abetting terrorists (Arafat), followed by one who seems to have neither the desire nor the ability to confront the bombers (Abu Mazen), we Israelis have lost faith in the Palestinians as negotiating partners. But if we learned one thing from the intifada it is that we are limited in what we can do (or what the world will let us do) by force.
For all its faults, unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians currently seems like the least worst option available. Israel withdraws from the West Bank, save for a number of large settlement blocs; we finish putting up the separation barrier to help keep Palestinian suicide bombers out; the de facto borders will eventually become official ones; and eventually, the deep hatred both sides have developed towards each other will fade.
Is this better than a final, negotiated solution to the problem? No. Is a final, negotiated solution currently possible? Unlikely. Long-term conflict management, then, is the next best thing.
Kadima offers this solution with the promise of being able to carry it out. The party was born of the Gaza disengagement. Sharon managed to do something that a majority of the population supported, but that other politicians had been unable to do. And he managed to do it despite the stringent opposition of an unruly faction within the Likud.
Kadima - and the polls seem to bear this out - speaks to a large number of Israelis who are tired of the political deadlock that has characterised Israeli politics over the last quarter century. The deadlock has let smaller parties on the political fringe dictate the agenda. The hope is that Kadima will gain enough seats in the Knesset to allow it to form a stable coalition on its own terms.
In pursuit of this hope, we grudgingly accept Olmert as Sharon's heir. We put aside our reservations about the internal contradictions of Kadima and the little whiffs of scandal that surround it. But it's a funny kind of hope. A hope born of resignation.
