 |
| Click here for my profile |
Second, Yachimovitch is so focused on economic issues the party doesn't seem to address any other ones. In a country that just fought a war (albeit a "small" one), that has a large neighbor, Syria, in the midst of a bloody civil wat, and after a revolution in our neighbor Egypt ( a mere 80+ million citizens), did she really think she could run a serious campaign and avoid any mention of national security? With all due respect to the social protests -- and as a person who spends most of her time dealing with socioeconomic problems -- I must say I don't understand what she is thinking.
Worse, in their whole detailed economic proposal they managed to skirt two of the biggest and most controversial issues: the settlements and the subsidizing of the Ultra-religious and their yeshivot. Is hiding those budget points responsible or just a way to help the party present itself as "centrist" -- i.e., not taking sides on some of the biggest issues facing the country? If a party chooses to focus on only one issue -- the economy-- it should at least be thorough about it.
Third, the Labor Party (again, a party presenting itself as a contender for forming the government) addresses itself only to the middle class. When it does so, it doesn't even do it in terms accepted in Israel: Israelis are known to be one of the most patriotic peoples around, who serve 2-3 years in the army, and come when they're called -- as they are rather regularly-- to defend their borders. What was one of the Labor Party's slogans this campaign? "Shelly is good for you". Personally, I find that a rather offensive pitch; it certainly goes against the Israeli grain (perhaps a suggestion from one of the party's American media consultants?). The average Israeli won't vote for whoever is "good" for them; the average Israeli wants what is good for his country and as Netanyahu's adverts say, "a strong Israel." From my understanding of things, a left wing party, or even a centrist one, should at least try to talk about solidarity. A populist pitch aimed only at the middle class, is irritating and shows how far the party has strayed from its roots.
In the meantime it is heartening to see that Meretz is continuing to rise in the polls: I think that is in part because its platform is clear, consistent, and comprehensive. Too bad our sister party is in such a muddle.
4 comments:
As a fan of Meretz policies, I have been disheartened to see so many loyalists, including the aforesaid columnist, focus more efforts on criticizing Labor than the truly dangerous opposition. One can highlight the strengths of the Meretz Party platform without disparaging allies.
The anonymous commenter above is clearly well-intentioned, but Laura Wharton's critique of Yachimovich's disinterest with the issues of peace, security and occupation is a serious political point. It's a major difference in this campaign between Meretz and Labor.
Ms. Wharton does Labor the courtesy of calling it a "sister party," but Labor has discontinued its usual practice of having an "excess votes" agreement with Meretz this time out. This all the more emphasizes how Labor is NOT acting as an ally.
In the big picture, the differences between Labor and Meretz are more one of emphasis and perhaps an ill-guided U.S. political advisor. The Labor platform and interviews with Yacimovich speak to a two state solution along the lines of the Clinton parameters. If progressives want to succeed, we need to hold our tongues on our differences and do everything to seek unity. Bickering only helps the right and turns off many others to politics altogether. Yes, it is frustrating, but it's what's needed to win.
Shelli Yachimovich is a symptom of the problems with Israeli politics. To talk of peace at a time when the Israeli public, rightfully in my opinion, believes that peace is very unlikely, will only serve to weaken Labor and thus make it less viable as an opposition party. With Kadima now gone, it will be Labor that the Center-Left will have to build around. Remember in 1992 Rabin made hawkish statements about the Golan, which allowed him to form a government that could then negotiate seriously with Syria about it. The failure to discuss the economic effects of settlements and subsidies to the religious parties is probably out of fear of the power of the religious parties. No Labor Party government has ruled for very long without the support of at least one religious party. Meretz is the reform anti-system party that can afford to talk about these things. Nobody expects Meretz to head the opposition, let alone a ruling coalition.
Post a Comment