The Israel/Palestine conflict is one of the most interesting political conflicts in the contemporary world. The conflicts appear to be perpetual with no resolution materializing. This paper presents a summary of the Israeli Politics Today and Beyond section in Israel/Palestine – One Land Two Claimants where an overview of the Israeli politics and their roles in the ongoing conflict are presented. An overview of the corresponding Palestinian political environment is also presented to contrast that of Israel.
Three aspects of Israeli politics are manifested in the book and that have shaped the conflict with Palestine. Firstly, Israel is a strong democratic state which gives it the power to dominate its political environment. Secondly, the country has seen a shift from firm leadership to a pattern of immobilization explaining why peace policies keep alternating between favoring peace and derailing the peace process. Lastly, the Israeli politics are characterized by divisions across opposing camps on peace matters with one preferring land for peace and the other seeking peace without conceding land.
The major political institution in Israel is the Knesset which is a parliament comprising 120 members directly elected by the citizens. The Knesset is controlled by the ruling party or coalition of parties that have the power to pass legislation as they wish. The winner-takes-all nature of the parliament means that the policies and legislation put in place depend on who is in power and the camp to which they belong. The election losers try to destabilize and embarrass the government because their opinions and ideologies are not taken into account. The Knesset is made vulnerable by the fragmented nature of Israeli politics. Consequently, immobilization has resulted in a continuation of the current policies involving settlement building and delaying the peace processes. Such fragmentation is apparent in the differing perspectives on the issue of land for peace. Some prime ministers like Barak and Rabin were ready to trade land for peace while Sharon and Netanyahu were not.
The group basis of the country’s politics best explains the divisions and how they derail the peace process or exacerbate the conflict. An explanation of political parties, elites, pressure groups, political culture, and the political economy paints a picture of stiff competition across groups on matters of national policy. The political parties cannot be easily classified as left or right without properly defining the terms right and left. However, the left in Israel’s politics can be described as the secular version that stresses cultural as opposed to the religious dimension of the Jewish state. The left favors the exchange of land for peace. The right, on the other hand, comprises parties seeking free-market capitalism, ultra-nationalism, and religiously-oriented government. The right is, therefore, more fragmented than the left as each of the three themes pursues different aspects of control over occupied territories.
The pressure groups also have fragmented ideologies and interests with the dominant ones being the settlers who have been blocking the land-for-peace initiatives. Even though they comprise less than 4% of the population, the settlers occupy more seats in the Knesset and have massive support of governments like that of Sharon. The rabbis are considered to be even more powerful and these also are reluctant to conceding land. The smaller pressure groups (Israel has over 3000 registered pressure groups) often focus on influencing the votes of the individual members of the Knesset.
The political culture of Israel demonstrates both the cohesiveness and fragmentation of Israeli society. Despite their political differences, the Israelis tend to share a strong Jewish identity with a sense of mutual dependence explained by the massive support of the political institutions by the world Jewish community. The cohesiveness, however, is increasingly being offset by deep conflicts on critical matters such as peace, land, security, and Jewishness. Post-Zionists believe it is time to move on to a better and more secular Israel. However, this faction is yet to become a dominant force in Israeli politics but it manifests the growing cultural gap.
Lastly, the political economy is greatly influenced by Israel’s political culture. However, the economists attempt to find those factors behind both the growing fragmentation and the strength of the country’s political institutions. The economy has been successful at providing basic social and economic needs to its citizens with a per capita income reaching $18100 a year. The shift from a socialistic to a capitalistic society is a transformation that has had the effect of strengthening the capitalist groups in the policy-making quarters. However, the growing class division within the society has meant that the country experiences sharp swings in economic policy.
Another key aspect that is worth mentioning is the foreign influences on Israel’s policy. The poor relations with the Middle East countries have led to distrust and a sense of insecurity. Most importantly, the country cannot avoid the external influences because of the massive financial support from countries such as the United States. For example, the U.S. is a key player in the Arab-Israeli peace initiatives and other actions such as Israel’s pullout from Lebanon was financed by the U.S. The world Jewish community has also had a significant influence on the policy-making processes in Israel.
The political system of Palestine is also briefly described to explain why the two sides and their interests are different in the conflict. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has been the main political system between 1968 and 1993. The PLO has remained unchallenged despite its torturous history as no other group had the popular support or authority to do so. PLO pursued two objectives: the unification of the Palestinian people and freeing those territories occupied by Israel.
Just like the Israeli political system, elites and groups shape the future of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority (PA) is led by the Palestinian elites who are also leaders of the PLO and member groups. PA’s president, prime minister and cabinet members are members of al-Fatah. Al-Fatah’s military wing, al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, is also led by the elites as do other areas such as the PA’s security services. The divisions with the al-Fatah leadership are visible but the conflicts are eased by the distribution of patronage and personal and client networks. The diverse resistance groups have lesser status and most of them have retained their militias. Fatah emerged as the dominant group largely because of Arafat’s sole focus on national unity and liberation. Arafat won against most of his competitors who had Marxist learning because he placed action before ideology.
In conclusion, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict reveals that the fate of the two states is linked inextricably. None of the two would enjoy a secure existence without the support of the opponent. The best solution for peace, therefore, is that which meets the minimum demands of both Israel and Palestine. Most importantly, land for peace is seen as the only viable formula for a peaceful solution to the conflict.