Rouhani - First respect him and then suspect him.

1) We need to understand the new direction of the West in confronting their  international problems in the wake of the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq followed by the debacles in Libya and Syria. We, on our part have to face a different future not keep living in the past when our cards were more powerful in influencing the policies of the West in the Middle East. Then our interests were almost identical with those of the Americans and we sang from the same hymn sheet. Times have changed and we need to adapt to the new situation.

2) Nothing can illustrate our lack of understanding better than the behaviour of our government in the United Nations. We are undermining our friends and losing their trust rather than bolstering their stand in the renewed cold war irrupting in Europe and the Pacific. To leave the UN Assembly when Rouhani delivered his address, was a mistake  of the first degree. Yaeer Lapid's public chiding of Netanyahu was mild. Dany Danon, another Minister, declaring  that he would ensure the failure of our negotiations with the Palestinians was appalling. Our Government looks like it lacks cohesion and clear direction which is harming our future standing in the region and confusing our supporters. We should stop self congratulatory rhetoric which is becoming too much of a recurrent theme.

3) We insulted the Iranian people instead of exploiting Rouhani’s new approach slanting it to serve our purpose. We denied him the chance to address us publically. Respect, Dignity and Face are very important in the East. Fight an oriental if it suits you but don’t insult him showing him disrespect. Diplomacy is a make-belief art and a game. We can play it to exploit  the cracks appearing in our enemies' change of tone and try to widen it.   We should have shown respect towards Rouhani. Sitting to listen carefully and respectfully  to him could have given us a better platform to appeal and address the Iranian People over his head. Instead we appeared to spoil the delicate game that Obama believed he was playing as much on our behalf as on the Americans'.

 

4) Rouhani was more crafty than Netanyahu. He appealed to the Jewish people over the head of Israel's Government. He was exploiting the very approach that should have been taken by Israel. The Yom Kippur War was primarily a political failure anchored in a mistaken military assessment of our enemies. Our military might is again breeding arrogance and blinding our people.  We need to grasp that things are changing in the West whose governments are under great pressure from their anti Israel public and that unfortunately includes even  Germany recently despite the unwavering support by Angela Merkel. Netanyahu should have learned the lesson when President Hollande complained at the time that his joint visit  to Toulouse' Synagogue  was exploited by Netanyahu for the latter's home election campaign. And let us not forget the off the recorded whisper between Obama and Sarcosi voicing their exasperation at Netanyahu's tactics.

6) President Obama might not be the weak president that some commentators in our media in Israel portray him to be. It is only that he realises that America is economically too weak to afford itself wars abroad following Afghanistan and Iraq. But he is still the elected President of the most powerful country in the world today. Netanyahu has to understand that.  The thrust of Obama's stated address to the United Nations is two prong. Settling the Israeli/Palestinian issue and resolving the Iranian nuclear impasse. These are the two places where world leaders' attention were directed to join him in finding solutions. As for the Syrian crisis  Obama realised that he has to treat it as a side issue rather than  tackle it head on and clash with the Russians.

7) After the debacles in Libya and Egypt  Obama began to understand the mosaic of the Middle East. Turkey and Iran have been going through social transformations for the last century. As a result their populations are divided between on the one hand the modernity of Atatuk in Turkey and Pahlavi in Iran and on the other hand the rising Islamist reactions of Erdogan and Khamenaei. Recently these reactions were accentuated by a new open confrontation between  Shiaa and Sunni Islam. The undercurrent rivalry of five centuries between the  Ottoman Sunni Empire with the Shiaa Persian Empire has revived and is now bubbling.  But  both countries today have comparatively stable regimes and they realise that they have to find mutual accommodation of coexistence vis-à-vis the West. They are non-Arab Muslim countries in our region and we cannot afford to lose both of them. Our conflict with our Arab neighbours is less significant to them against their internal problems and is expressed by them in lip service verbal echoing of the Arab stereotype  pronouncements. Lately the Americans are trying to find a balance between them But on our part we must take every opportunity to address the moderates amongst them directly rather than concentrate on attacking their  governments.  

8) No doubt that Israel needs to be and be seen to be strong. However what is needed is not just a  strong well prepared army. Strength is relative. Israel's strength needs to be its ability to protect its borders from outside dangers and to create peaceful co existence of its fractured society inside. Realities cannot be faced with semantics. A slogan of a Jewish Democratic State cannot ring true in an Israel with a substantial Arab presence today that would swell into a future majority were we to keep the West Bank within Israel's Borders. Solutions not wishful thinking are called for. On my part, I tried on the pages  of my book “Israel: State or Ghetto” (and in my Hebrew book: Hametsiut Machtiva) to encapsulate my analysis of the 3 Major Problems that have been facing us crying for resolution and offered realistic  solutions. 1) A clear defendable borders,  2) A practical electoral system to ensure the cohesion of our citizenry and 3) A rehabilitation of our tattered  image abroad.

9) And just before  the second Lebanon war of 2006 in my address to the Oxford Union (Chapter 6 )  I analysed factually the struggle of Shia and Sunna for power in the region to the extent that won me the final vote at that night’s debate, but more importantly it won me the admiration of Professor Ali Ansari a close associate of the Rafsanjani faction in Iran. He went out of his way to tell my wife and later confirmed by email to me that as he put it, he bowed to the quality of my analysis and the wisdom of my approach. It is worthwhile to read this address which demonstrates a model of how to present our case and even our thorny case for keeping our nuclear option and win without insulting our  enemies and all that while not conceding an inch.

10) Soon after the second Lebanon war I analysed in the same book (ch 7 Debacle in Lebanon)  the precariousness of our relationships in the region and beyond, while discerning the signs of a coming  renewed Cold War. Here we are sandwiched between Arab hostile states neglecting our relationship with the two non-Arab real powers in the region, the Sunni Turkey and the Shia Iran. We are a small Jewish enclave in a sea of Arabs. We need the two non-Arab countries to set them up as our allied dams against the turbulent Arab sea. The history of the last 500 years would help us to understand better the background of the Arab relationship with their non Arab Muslins in the region.

11) The swell of anti Israel sentiments in the streets of Europe fed by a powerfully orchestrated Palestinian public relation machine is quickly changing into anti Jewish and Anti Semitic. It will soon spill over to the wider public of the United States. I say wider in order not to compress the US public as we often do into New York and Washington. It is this fear that  should inform our first and most important policy to settle our borders with the Palestinians with the dual objective of  securing the future survival of Israel and changing  its image in the world. Once our borders are agreed and settled Israel then will become as it was meant to be, the de facto last refuge of the Jewish people rather than a Masada like militarized camp where voluntarily the entire Jewish population of the world kraal themselves together into a tiny strip of land surrounded by 400 million Arabs raring to repossess it.  Geography and Demography should guide our politics and wisdom should guide our negotiations with the Palestinians. At the heart of our stance during the negotiations should be that in a final settlement  Jews can live in Palestine in the way that Arabs now constitute 20 per cent of Israel living as equal citizens within its borders. 

12) And as if we have not enough what with our internal divisions and external dangers a new problem as  worrying is now beginning to surface. A fault line is developing  between the messianic convictions of the militant ultra nationalistic ideologies in Israel and the progressive  pragmatic views of a growing segments  of  the Diaspora. This is a  gratuitous future threat  to our very existence as a united Jewish People.  Letting this gap between Israel and the Diaspora widen will weaken and may lead to destroying a unity which we have maintained for a century. Herzl's Altneuland needs to meet midway the Golden Medinah.  

Aharon Nathan, 15 Oct 2013

A New Year Message to my Friends in Israel

First let us be less arrogant and stop thinking that anybody who thinks differently from us is stupid. Let us assume that Obama and some of the entourage from the ultra Right Tea Party and from the ultra Left Liberal Democrats have something brewing but undefined as yet towards isolationism that eventually will affect American policies in the Middle East. I remember in the fifties a book on the ME (by Spicer ?) saying that we did not know what the United States’ interests in the Middle East were, but that that they were  growing! The reverse appears to be happening today. Policies are not defined first and applied later. They get slowly applied by force of circumstances and are defined at a later stage

.

With this in mind  let us proceed:-

America and Soviet Russia fought each other in an ebb and flow fashion from the two sides of the Iron Curtain. Roosevelt and Stalin met in Teheran during World War 2  to define their spheres of influence in that region by dividing Iran itself, between the Russian North and the American South. The background for all that is well known and over documented, culminating in the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All that was guided in the main by America and the West’s need for oil and therefore the fortunes of Aramco and IPC. However, the latest development of fracking and other measures are forecast to make America self-sufficient in energy by 2020.

America and Russia supported the creation of Israel, the first out of religious and humanitarian motives moved by the Holocaust and the Russians by long term calculations of sheer self-interest.   The Americans continued their support in a merely humanitarian way, helped by NY Jewish community. The Suez War alienated the American establishment but Israel's triumph in the Six Day War proved to be a great land mark signalling change of direction. By that time Soviet Russia had penetrated Syria, Egypt, and Ethiopia, threatening Saudi oil supplies and challenging American interests. It is then that America realised that victorious Israel could provide a counter balance to neutralise this acute threat. Slowly the 6^th Fleet took residence in the Mediterranean, and Israel became for the Americans a sort of an American aircraft carrier on land.

The same Anwar Sadat (a super conspirator!) who together with General Masri met Rommel during the second world war, woke up to see that Russia could supply arms but not bread. Wily crafty Kissinger recognised all that and exploited it to the full, and the Israel Egyptian peace treaty ensued following the Yom Kippur War.

With Soviet Russia economically disintegrating, American hegemony became supreme both in Europe and the Middle East. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were superfluous and only served Russia indirectly by weakening America economically at the time when Russia's fortunes were reviving. This rendered the United States impotent in a startling way. Even more so recently with its hesitant moves both in Libya and recently in Syria. The international wheel turned complete circle round.

Russia was emboldened and the new Tsar Putin saw that his growing interest in pushing America was bearing  fruit. The new situation has created a new mood in Teheran. The two world powers have to accept sharing their spheres of influence again. Conveniently America backing the Sunnis and the Russians, the Shiaa. And where is Israel in all this?

This drama is being enacted before our eyes, but we are so obsessed with the latest 24 hour news headlines that our evaluation and understanding of the finality of these events is still based on the past. We need to wake up to the new realities that will dictate the future impact on the American public and therefore policy towards Israel. We have to think now and take the long view well before facing new realities.

Israel needs to speed up the setting up of the Palestine State out of sheer self interest. The solutions are well known and documented At best is to revive the Bush/Sharon agreement. If not then to agree to a new situation where Jews live in Palestine the way that Arabs live in Israel. That will be beneficial to both sides and the world will acclaim such a move by Israel. Time is against us. The public in the West (may be not the Governments) resent Israel and will not be sorry if it is hurt.

I know and accept that Israel's military power today can prevail and defeat the combined armies of all the Arab countries and Turkey together. That is not the issue. The existential danger for us comes from the sheer number of the Arab millions surrounding us.  Leaving our borders undefined stalks vulnerability. The danger does not need to come from attacks or intifadas. What will we do if one million of them decide one morning to walk unarmed, children first followed by women and then by their men folk. Just literally walk towards and through the check points claiming what they believe is the repossession of their lands? How many of them are we prepared to kill? A devilish nightmare plan but not unthinkable.

In all this one thing remains a mystery. The most potent weapon in our hands vis a vis the world and the Arabs is the fact that as many Jewish refugees from Arab countries found refuge in Israel as the number of Arab refugees who left Israel. Arab lands are now Judenrein. Why are our leaders shy and intimidated from shouting these facts from the rooftops. Irrespective who pushed and who pulled before or after 1948 the facts of the present are staring us and the world in the eye. The realities on the ground today confirms the validity of our position and constitutes a powerful argument that the public of hostile or friendly countries would understand and accept far better than invoking King David Temple or King Solomon Palace or for that matter whether Abraham paid or did not pay for Sarah's Tomb in Hebron 3500 years ago! Let us cast aside messianic dreams and face re-al politics.   

Aharon Nathan

16 Sept 2013

Analysis and Comments on 19th Knesset Coalition

Analysis of the Parties in the Knesset
		17th Knesset (2006)	18th Knesset  (2009)	19th Knesset (2013)
Party Orientation	Party / List	Actual	Actual	Actual
Fluid Parties Sub-totals	Shinui Yesh Atid Pensioners Be’Aliya Beitenu Meretz / Greens Am Ehad Brit Leumi	-   -   7   - 11   5   -   - --- 23	-   -   -   - 15   3   -   - --- 18	- 19   -   -   -   6   -   - --- 25
Solid central parties Sub-totals	Labour Likud Kadima Hatnuah	19 12 29   - --- 60	13 27 28   - --- 68	15 31   2   6 --- 54
Solid right parties Sub-totals	Shas Torah Judaism Mafdal Jewish Home Echud Leumi.	12   6   9   -   - --- 27	11   5   4   3   - --- 23	11   7   - 12   - --- 30
Solid Arab parties Sub-totals	Hadash United Arab Balad	3   4   3 --- 10	4   4   3 --- 11	4   4   3 --- 11
Total		120	120	120

In order to point out some future trends and draw some conclusions from the above table the parties are grouped into four categories. The results for 18th Knesset were  analysed  after the inauguration of Netanyahu's Coalition in March 2009 and published at the time in:

Chapter 13 of Total Representation by Aharon Nathan and Prof Ivo Skrabalo ERS Publications, London 2009. (Paper Back in AMAZON at £11.99). It was prepared with full participation of the late Professor Gideon Doron.

Here the analysis is carried forward to review the formation of Netanyahu's new coalition. Being in or out of the Coalition can impact on the future of the Parties.

The assumption by the Parties  and the public that Netanyahu would lead the new Government distorted the results and confused everyone, the electorate and the various Party leaders. It also blinded Likud senior members during  the campaign for the  2013 Elections who behaved with arrogance as if success is in the pocket. Despite this we have to keep a sense of proportion.  Yesh Atid 19 + Hatnuah 6 + Kadima 2 = 27 i.e. one less than Kadima in 2009 with 28 seats. However Lapid managed to get out with his 19 more than Tsipi Livni could  manage with her 28. Our electoral System and our politics are failing everybody. A change is very  long  overdue  before we get into another debacle of 2 Ballots directly or worse through the back door destroy our parliamentary democracy by raising the threshold (Achuz Chasima) and granting presidential power to the prime minister.

Netanyahu: The moment the results were announced Netanyahu made a simple calculation and moved quickly. With Shas and Yahadut Ha-Torah he had 49.  Lapid on the other hand with Benet, Tsipi, Shelli, Zhava and Mofaz theoretically could  secure 60 and the Arab Parties would  be only too ready to be neutral.  49 versus 60 could have left Netanyahu and Likud out in the cold. He could not have met Benet without losing his only cartd/weapon of Shas/Yahdut left in his hand to threaten with. The key was Lapid not Benet. And with the former  playing hard to get and with Shelly even harder, Netanyahu had no choice but to act swiftly in secret away from the press cameras. By treating  Tsipi generously (a forced marriage of convenience) he theoretically secured 55 thus closing the door in the face of  Lapid. Netanyahu from his point of view  used wisely the few cards left to him. He actually managed to save his  premiership and his Likud Party. And with  the same brilliant stroke in  appointing Tsipi he signalled to Obama and Abu Mazen that he  was now ready for real dialogues especially as the Feiglin/Settlers faction within Likud proved an obstacle in the past and a liability in the elections. Moreover Netanyahu through  facilitating a ministerial  appointment for  Amir Peretz rendered both Labour and Hatnuah split down the middle and weakened both. All very clever  moves! However this weakening  may now open the door for Lapid to become the Centre-Left alternative to Likud in the next elections may be sooner than envisaged. Lieberman, the most likely successor to the  Likud  Leadership if he survives his Court Case must take notice.

Shelly Yechimovitch made all the mistakes in the book from the moment she was elected Labour  leader. She played the self-righteous in a field of sinners. She did not learn from Tsipi Livni's bitter experience  when in the last Knesset  she allowed Netanyahu to manoeuvre her into  the  Opposition. No credible aspiring Party leader should declare during the election that he/she is campaigning to be in the Opposition. By sidelining Amir Peretz and Mitzna she showed political immaturity and her  defeatist stance helped Lapid to project himself as the sole  alternative to Netanyahu's dominance without presuming to be next prime minister. Shelly did and compounded her defeat by refusing to join the New Government as the senior partner and secure the Finance Ministry. She led herself and Labour to a precarious and uncertain future existence as a leading party. Ben Gurion must be turning in his grave!

Tsipi Livni : By accepting Netanyahu's olive branch  with alacrity she kept her hope of  leading, may be with Olmert,  the Centre-Left against Lapid in time to come. 

Mofaz before, during and  after the elections managed to snatch defeat  time and time again from the jaws of victory despite the fact that he had all the right policies, on Palestine, electoral reform and on the inclusion of the religious in the army. Mofaz by retiring from politics and the Knesset could help what is left of Kadima in a  future possible survival if Olmert decides eventually to return to his old Party.  

  

Fluid Parties

Over the years Fluid parties seem to come and go. Each starts with a flourish and a fanfare, only to disappear soon afterwards. They are mainly secular in outlook and centred in and around Tel Aviv. The future fluid parties and their chances will depend which direction they go left or right. Apart from Beitenu, their voters have supported Kadima in the 2009 elections. Beitenu is the exception. Its voters, backed by Russian immigrants, have more in common with Likud. As predicted in my review  way back in 2009 its members gravitated  towards Likud  and  merged with Likud just before the elections in  2013. In view of the election  results it is unlikely that this merger will revert back to its two  constituents. Lieberman, the sworn enemy of Shas, is now inseparable from Netanyahu and Likud constituting together the Centre Right in Israeli politics.  

Meretz which lost seats to Kadima in 2009 has regained its strength to 6 seats thanks to a clear and sincere leadership of Zahava Gal-On. However without the big guns of Sarid, Beilin and Ran Cohen it cannot continue its orphan situation.  It will have to  go back to its original  home and unite with Labour to their mutual benefit and may even save Labour from extinction if the Histadrut supports this union.   

Yesh Atid, despite its protestations, is like Shinui  a secular party centred in and around Tel-Aviv. It rode on a temporary tide of the social protests of the Rothschild Bld., and  the disintegration of Kadima and drew voters from the same sector. To stay as a leading party it has to replace one of the two centre parties, left of centre Labour or right of centre Likud. With Beitenu within Likud and having shed the liabilities of Shas/Torah, Likud has established itself as the Right-Centre Party in Israel. For Yesh Atid to replace the traditional Labour it has to move to the left. It is then that the two main Parties will model themselves on the Two Party Pattern in the West in UK, France or  USA. The adoption of YESH Yitsug Shalem Electoral System(TR Total Representation) will ensure the election of two big parties as simulations have shown. This in turn will bring  stability to the government and to the body politics of Israel.

                                            

       

Solid Centre Parties

The Solid parties are the old Zionist parties with ideologies and outlooks inherited from the two main streams of Zionism, led in Israel by the two flag-bearers Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin. Labour and Likud were well defined. In 2009 it was Kadima that was left undecided after the  elections for the 18^th Knesset. Which turn was it going to take?  

Prime Minister Sharon set up Kadima to replace Likud. He then added a sprinkling of Labour leaders to facilitate his then-impending evacuation of Gaza, and in order to pave the road for peace with the Palestinians. He looked upon Tsipi Livni as a potential successor in the distant future. So the Kadima -- call it New Likud under Sharon – that he created was a right-of-centre party. Sharon untimely withdrawal from politics was followed  by an  internal  strife between Tsipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, and later on at the party primaries between her and Shaul Mofaz – a perceived hawk who was brought into Likud by Sharon.  This had created a new situation that  forced Kadima to fight to replace Labour as a new left-of-centre party. It had  no chance of  replacing Likud after 2009 as the latter had already consolidated its position in the Knesset, in the government and in the country at large as the right–of-centre party. The big question was  which party will lead the left-of-centre in the country. The fight for this position was going to be life or death for one or the other of Kadima or Labour. Unexpectedly it was Kadima not Labour that disintegrated at the end  leaving Labour in command of the Centre-Left  backed by the Histadrut. 

Towards the 2013 elections the utter failure  of Labour, Kadima and Hatuah to unite and the untimely defection of Amir Peretz to Hatnuah resulted in Netanyahu's Likud-Beitenu staying ahead to produce the biggest faction in the new Knesset with markedly reduced majority. None of the leaders of the former  three parties could project a credible Prime Minister's image. Moreover their collective failure to unite left their voters  demoralized and disorientated leaving a gaping space for Yesh-Atid to forge ahead. This result created a tug of war between the two sides of the Centre-Left. Labour unwisely, declared that it would lead the Opposition to Netanyahu. But with  Yesh Atid  joining the government together with Hatnuah (with Tsipi and Amir Peretz) Labour is left vulnerable. In the new situation it is most likely that Lapid's Yesh Atid will replace  Labour as the future Centre-Left Party.

 

Jewish Religious Parties

The Jewish religious parties, with the exception of Torah Judaism, were  weakening as their supporters were slowly moving to the main stream  parties. 

Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) halted this trend amongst the Jewish ultra-nationalist religious factions by recruiting seculars and appealing to the traditionalists. Its leader Naphtali Benet was the biggest winner of the elections by unexpectedly allying  himself to Lapid.  Will his success  strengthen his party and revive the glorious days of Hapoel Hamizrachi of the 50s!? 

Shas made a fatal mistake. While Benet allied himself with Lapid it allied itself with Yahadut Ha-Torah. Even if Lapid could have tolerated Shas at  least as a Sephardic and socialist partner he could not swallow its sandwich with Charedic Yahadut HaTorah. Shas  has two sides to it. On the one hand it is religious, the way Arab Jews generally were in their diasporas. Unlike in the West a Jew could not be both an Arab and a Jew at the same time the way English, French or German could. But in Israel  things are moving on.  Without the  spiritual leadership of  Rabbi Ovadiah Yossef it is difficult to predict the fortunes of Shas as a Sephardic Party.  It has another side to it, the welfare and socialist. It is seen by many poor in the Sephardic communities  as protector of their welfare  But for how long? Unless it emphasises its social side and accept traditional but not strictly religious Jews along the lines of Benet, it will continue to weaken. The emergence of Jewish Home in this context and the efforts of  Derii inside and Amsalem outside Shas in the same direction will hasten the disintegration of Shas especially now that it was left out of the Coalition. Sooner or later membership of both these Parties will merge officially or through movements of members' allegiances. This applies   especially to Shas voters as the label of Sephardi does not appeal anymore to the second and third generations of its oriental  immigrant populations  themselves.

That leaves Torah Judaism as the only true religious party drawing more and more support from the young generation of  true Ashkenazi Charedim helped by increasing birth rate in those  communities and  near 100% voters' participation. It will continue to draw financial and moral support from its diasporas in America and elsewhere.

Arab Parties

The power of the Arab vote has to be taken together with the Druze vote. The Druze have secured four seats out of 120 in the 18th Knesset, far beyond the proportion of their numbers in Israel’s total population which is only 1.6 per cent. The reason for this is that they serve in the army and have no problem swearing allegiance to the state. Their communities are used to this in Syria and Lebanon. Moreover, while the Muslim and Christian Arabs in Israel distance themselves from the  Jewish parties, the Druze don’t have any problem with that. They claim Jethro, Moses' father-in-law to be  their exclusive Prophet!  Being a minority everywhere they learnt to  run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds. Things may change now with the increasing anti-Israel belligerence of the Muslim MKs and the encouraging spirit of the Arab Spring. The chasm between Arab MKs and their Jewish counterparts is widening. This chasm will draw the young Druze towards the Arab Muslims. It is a worrying trend. 

The Arab, mainly Muslim parties,  are becoming stronger as independent groupings. That is fine and is what democracy is all about. The problems will arise when Islamist elements infiltrate and take over one of them, which would sharpen the conflict with the main Jewish Zionist parties and could lead to conflict and even violence. Political leaders in Israel need to wake up in time to bring about internal reconciliation and pave the way to integrate all their Arab citizens into the social and political fabric of the country. The introduction of YESH/TR can help in that direction.

Meantime the three Arab parties stood still in 2013. The elections brought no change in their fortunes. However few undercurrent trends could be detected during their campaigns. On the one hand Daam an urban Arab/Jewish voice that called for Arab-Jewish integration in Jaffa was  completely ignored by all sides. Hadash faired no better. That left the field wide open for the militant extremists headed by Balad and Hanin Zuabi. Unfortunately that will be the voice which will unfairly  project the allegiance of the Arabs of Israel in the present Knesset and impact on the image of Israel abroad.  A reform of the electoral system based on 60/60 will strengthen and these Parties. A threshold of more than the present 2% will unify the Arab Parties and merge them into one big party that can theoretically secure  more than  20 seats in future  Knessets.   

TR YESH 90/30 can avoid this danger and bring real transformation  by integrating the Arab citizens and their representatives within the main stream parties. 

YESH avoids the necessity of corrupt primaries and  simplifies the  elections of Party Leaders. It  bestows representation for all voters in the peripheries and ensures the accountability of MKs and Parties. It is simple to introduce and cheap to operate. It creates two big parties and avoids the need to leave the country without effective government 6 months before and 45 days after each elections. Moreover it can save at least one billion Shekel out of the 1.5 Israel Treasury has to dish out. It will be irresponsible for all the Parties in Israel not to study its details seriously.

Aharon Nathan, 

London, 16th March 2013

Representation in Democracy (AV Modified is what the Con-Lib coalition needs)

AV Modified is what the Con-Lib coalition needs in order to provide what the Lib-Dems require and what both Conservative and Labour MPs can be persuaded to swallow.

1. The Con-Lib coalition is a wonderful expression of the character of our political traditions of compromise and practicality. We should all welcome it as a step on the road to re-enforce our representative democracy which has been smothered under adversarial ideologies fostered by the FPTP System. This Coalition-Government, unlike other governments for decades, is a majority government, elected and backed by 59 % of the voters. However it is based on a freak result that is unlikely to recur while FPTP rules in its present form. The adoption of AV will not only increase democratic representation but it could bring about much wider participation of the electorate from the recent low levels of around 60 per cent.

2. Most important of all is that together with Labour that has pledged to back a referendum on AV in its Manifesto, the proportion of the actual voters of the last election backing AV stands at 88 per cent representing the votes of the three big Parties. Therefore a referendum on AV becomes mandatory in this Parliament. The terms of this referendum and how it will operate however should be explained clearly in a simple and unambiguous manner to the public leaving no place for confusion. Only a single YES or NO answer to one clear question can be effective and can induce a majority of the public to participate.

3. A big advantage of AV over other systems is its flexibility; this makes it possible to introduce it gently without going against the grain of our traditions where the relationship of the MP to his/her constituents is sacrosanct. The British balk at revolution. AV provides the evolution which we all prefer. AV retains the FPTP System with its backbone of the Constituency. It simply modifies the FPTP slightly without drastically changing its essence. In addition if AV is applied wisely it can strengthen rather than weaken the status of Parliament and Parliamentarians, lying so low lately in the eyes of the public. Moreover by keeping the FPTP system intact, AV can preserve the stability of future governments. The doors for Hang Parliament is not open ajar.

4. For all these reasons it is imperative that while introducing AV we are careful not to disturb the way voters have been accustomed over the generations to cast their votes. Voters are used to vote with one X for one individual candidate that belongs to a party. Even an independent is deemed by the constituent voters as belonging to a one-member party. Changing that will result in even less participation as indeed happened at least in England both in the elections for the European Parliament and the London Mayor. If you ask a voter who represents him/her in either institution they will tell you which party but very rarely can an actual voter point out which elected individual represents him/her.

5. Some MPs and certainly many Conservatives consider AV in its present form as giving two votes to those who sticks to the traditional one ballot to choose one individual candidate. So how to proceed? The answer is simplicity itself. Instead of confusing the busy citizen with a list of candidates to choose one and grade the others in a long list of preferences the voter can choose his/her preferred candidate and his/her party as is the case today. If that specific vote doe not succeed in electing the Constituency MP “CMP” in a simple majority that vote goes to that candidate’s party and added together with such other unsuccessful votes nationwide to elect a limited number of Party MPs “PMP”. Say 100 PMPs or a 20 per cent of the present total MPs.

6. By substituting the long lists of graded preferences and passing on the unsuccessful votes to the candidate’s party, this version of AV gives some weight to the votes of unsuccessful candidates and brings fairness into the electoral process. AV in this modified version preserves the Westminster model of FPTP for the traditionalists and infuses it with a dose of PR to satisfy the innovators ensuring a greater representation. Thus AV in this way carries electoral reform without an upheaval.

7. This modification of AV is borrowed from another electoral system called TR Total Representation. (A brief summary of it can be found on : http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=154 which is the Electoral Reform Society website. I urge all those interested in electoral reform to read it.) This modification of AV renders it more effective and useful if we really are serious at reforming our present system of FPTP.

8. The Lib-Dems’ zero option of “PR or nothing” kept them for decades as a protest party. And so they would have stayed after the recent elections. It is the failure of the Conservatives to gain those extra 20 seats that gave an unexpected opportunity to Nick Clegg. To his credit he exploited it to the full. Now a door is opened both to improve the Lib-Dems’s present and future influence in politics while reforming the electoral system for his party’s sake as well as that of the country. Politics is the art of the possible. A bird in hand is better than five on the tree. If the Lib-Dems push now for this version of AV and secure a YES vote in the referendum they can at least be sure of achieving a partial reform that both big parties could reluctantly swallow while giving the Lib-Dems the non-recurring chance to double their seats in the Commons. An AV simulation of the results of the recent elections that follows using this version of AV shows just that. It is based on re-calculating the figures from the real results.

9. AV needs one ballot paper with one vote. By retaining the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates and using them to elect Party MPs, instead of throwing them to the dust bins, it secures direct representation to every vote cast albeit with different weighting, In this way AV injects a limited dose of PR into the system without destroying it. AV accommodate both Systems of FPTP and PR Proportional Representation in a form of co-habitation.

10. This version of AV requires all candidates (including those competing in Party Lists) to start off by running in the constituencies. It dispenses with long list ballot papers which mix party allegiances and confuse the busy citizen in the voting booth.

11. The PR element of AV 2010 gives an active role and leverage to the runners-up in the constituencies by keeping their hopes alive in between elections even in “safe seats” They are given a chance to compete for a PMP seat at any General Election depending on their level of support or wait for another round at the next. Thus AV converts the rival runner-ups into vigilant watch-dogs, monitoring the incumbent MPs and guaranteeing their constant accountability.

How AV 2010 works
12. AV in both versions, is a constituency-based system. For it to work properly, constituencies need to have roughly similar number of voters each to avoid gerrymandering. This is fair and indeed what David Cameron wants. The majority of seats in parliament, say 80%, will be awarded to the winners in simple majorities of these races, just as they are under the Westminster system today.

13. So each party puts up candidates for election in the various seats. Their names appear on the ballot paper in alphabetical order and next to each name is the party he or she represents. However, these candidates also appear on their own party’s national “list” of all its candidates headed by the party leader.

14. Voters go to the polls and put a cross against their preferred local candidate. Whoever wins a simple majority of the votes becomes that Constituency’s Member of Parliament (CMP) – again, just like today.

15. From then on, the innovations begin. All the “successful” ballots drop out. So if you voted for candidate X and candidate X wins, your ballot is judged to have already secured representation. As for the “unsuccessful” ballots (for example, if you voted for candidate Y, but candidate Y did not win in your constituency) these are placed in a giant nationwide pool – and it is from these unsuccessful votes that the remaining seats (20%) are decided using the PR method and awarded to the various parties to select Party Members of Parliament (PMPs)

16. These remaining seats are allocated proportionally amongst the parties according to a quota of a minimum number of required votes per seat. This is reached by dividing the nationwide number of “unsuccessful” votes by the number of the allocated seats of PMPs. Obviously in an 80/20 FPTP/ PR as recommended here the legitimacy and the status of the PMP is assured by the fact that he/she needs often 3 to 5 times as many party voters countrywide to be elected as that needed by the CMP in the constituency.

17. Unlike in other list-based systems, the way these seats are awarded depends crucially on how the candidates performed in their constituencies. The party leader – if failed to secure a CMP seat directly–should automatically be allocated the first PMP seat secured by that Leader’s Party to avoid disrupting the party in the wake of a general election. All the other PMP seats available to each Party are awarded in priority to the highest scorers of that Party’s Candidates in the Constituencies in the early First-Past-The-Post part of the election. They are most likely also to be the strongest runners-up in their constituencies. Their number in each party depends on the number of votes nationwide that their respective parties gain. Everything therefore depends on the number of votes each potential PMP candidate and his/her party secures.

Arguments in Support of AV(2010)
- Each voter is required to cast only one ballot.
- No votes are “wasted”, with most going on to secure at least some level of representation, albeit with different weightings.
- Its PR element is relatively simple to understand and easy to operate
- All MPs would have to start off as constituency candidates, and all votes are worth fighting for even in “safe seats” because there is a potential prize also for coming second.
- It gives minority views the chance of a voice in parliament without giving them undue influence, because the system is still weighted heavily towards First-Past-The-Post.

Arguments against AV (2010)
- It creates two “classes” of MPs (CMP and PMP) However unlike in other such systems, most of the “Party” MPs would also have to score at least second in their constituencies and therefore would continue to retain a close link with the constituency waiting for the next opportunity notwithstanding the fact that they don’t serve as constituency MPs.
- The centre of the duties of the CMP is the constituency, that of the PMP is to add strength to the Party in Parliament while preparing for the next round of elections.
- All existing constituency boundaries would have to be redrawn periodically (as the case is now) but more to ensure similar and comparable sizes of the number of the electorate in all constituencies in line with the Conservatives’ thinking.

Israel Arab Conflict (Post Annapolis)

Three years post Annapolis, the solution remains the same - unilateral disengagement.

In my article of 15 Dec 2007 on Annapolis I concluded:

The leaderships of the two main protagonists of Annapolis are too weak to deliver an agreement; but of the two, it is the fragmentation of the Arab side that will eventually scupper any possible resolution.

So what is left for Israel to do when this year [2007] passes without conclusion? The answer is to be prepared to declare that it would implement withdrawal from the West Bank unilaterally along the lines and spirit of the agreement reached by president Bush and Prime Minister Sharon as embodied in their exchange of letter of 14th April 2004 and take immediate steps to implement them. The majority of Israelis, including Israeli Arabs, will support that move. And so will the electorate if a general election or referendum is called.

With Sharon sadly incapacitated it was left to Ehud Olmert to lead Kadima in a General Election. His Manifesto centred around the Peace Process. He won on that basis and therefore had a mandate, indeed an obligation to do just that. But the Lebanon War, the lack of support from Tsipi Livni and the misguided subsequent Vinograd Commission sapped all his strength. Actions and reactions by politicians and media were taken over by form of words rather than substance of contents. Olmert nevertheless battled bravely to the last minute of his tenure with tenacity and single mindedness. At the end with “et tu Brute” behaviour of Ehud Barak joining the cabal and a legal indictment hanging over his head, he was left with no choice but to leave it to Tsipi Livni to take over. She failed to form a government and led the country into another divisive general election at the end of which she failed yet again to form a government. Livni’s frontal attack on Shas paradoxically gave a golden opportunity to a defunct Likud to revive and lead the extreme Right. Sharon’s Kadima lost its Sharon’s central ground and moved to the Left. And the real victim of all this Byzantine politics was of course the peace process. So another three years passed of paralysis of the leaderships of both sides and the sufferings of their ordinary citizens

What Now?

Since then another war in Gaza; and more bereaved and more orphans on both sides. Israel’s image in the world, unjustifiably and unjustly, has been left tarnished. We are weary, the Arabs are weary and America is exasperated. We lost a big chance handed to us by President Bush and our good friend Condoleezza Rice. And that was when Binyamin Netanyahu took the wrong decision at the time by opposing, indeed sabotaging, instead of embracing Sharons’ policy of unilateral disengagement first from Gaza and then from the un-defendable parts of the West Bank. Sadly for him, and unfortunate for us, Sharon is unable any more to help guide us to see the light which could lead us to the end of a tunnel we have been stuck in since the end of the Six-Day War. Netanyahu and Ehud Barak failed separately in the past to broker peace for us. Would they jointly now achieve a breakthrough? It looks doubtful. However a new hope appears on the horizon: The Mofaz Plan. With politics paralysed as a result of a dysfunctional system of government and with Prime Minister Netanyahu tossed around by a chaotic coalition with a non existent sense of collective responsibility, he is unable to pursue a cohesive policy for peace. He is letting the Israeli media and daily events inside and outside the country buffet him and dictate his moves. Democracy, and certainly representative and participatory democracy, has become a misnomer in Israel. The Knesset is becoming the laughing stock of the Israeli public.

It is at this juncture that MK Shaul Mofaz, an ex Chief of Staff and a former Minister of Defence under Sharon, boldly went public on November 11, 2009 with his Plan. He proposed to move in two phases to a peace agreement with the Palestinians with the immediate establishment of an independent disarmed Palestinian state in the West Bank and in Gaza, preempting a possible move by the Arabs while simultaneously engaging in direct dialogue, State to State, with the Palestinians on the final status issues. He says (and his words are paraphrazed below):

I believe that a permanent Palestinian state with temporary borders and simultaneous negotiations on the core issues: borders, refugees and Jerusalem, will allow us to rebuild the trust between the two sides, and totally change the atmosphere in our region. In this process, we must have the support of the moderate Arab countries, the European countries and the leadership of the United States.

The second phase of my plan would be the implementation of the agreements reached between the two sides on the final status issues.

Before implementing final status agreements, the Palestinians must provide a clear statement about the end to demands and end to the conflict. We have to build a mechanism for potential mediation if gaps still exist between the two sides; and I call for a referendum in Israel to approve what was achieved during the negotiations on the core issues before implementing the second phase. I have full confidence that the moment the Prime Minister of Israel adopts this plan, and the moment the President of the U.S. approves of it as the right direction to move forward, we will be able to achieve an agreement.

 

And then Mofaz added remarkably that in certain conditions he would talk with Hamas and that if they are elected subsequently by the Palestinians he would have no problem in dealing with them as the legitimate government.

It is important to read his statement and interviews in full. It still needs some modifications and adjustments esprcially with regard to Gaza. But here is a policy and here is a man who can move it forward. This is the voice of Mofaz and the hand of Sharon. We better listen to this Plan coming from a statesman with impeccable credentials, integrity and authority. He reiterated since then that with neither Prime Minister Netanyahu nor the Leader of the Opposition, Tsipi Livni, following a clear declared policy he finds himself unable to support either. But he emphasised that he is prepared to support one or other or both if they come up with a clear declared policy. Naturally he favours the general lines of his Plan, but he did not say that they are set in stone.

And turning to the paralysis of the body politics in Israel that is preventing both Government and Opposition to act decisively Mofaz wisely added recently a second proviso for his support. That is a clear, well defined reform of the electoral system that could lead to a stable government and a true representative democracy.

Mofaz did not specify his position on Jerusalem wisely leaving it vague. I believe the problems of Jerusalem are not insurmountable and in this context it is folly to ignore the views of Meir Shetreet and Haim Ramon who both served under Olmert. The Arab villages around Jerusalem were never part of historic Jerusalem notwithstanding their inclusion within the Municipal Borders of the Capital today. Moreover it is important to remember that even Rabbi Ovadia Yoseph, the Spiritual Mentor of Shas Party might, when the chips are down, opt for sparing Jewish Life over adding Jewish Land when confronted with seeking a painful balance between the two. He expressed such views at the time of the evacuation of Gaza.

And finally in dealing with all this it is important not to get swept overboard by the recent episode of the meeting in the White House of President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. It will prove to be an insignificant passing cloud. Obama is a friend of Israel but he is also the President of the United States and leader of the free world. We err if we try to read into the way that meeting was conducted a sudden change of US policy. There are deep and enduring mutual interests between the two countries which have solid strategic basis. The analysis of the different sides including the US to the Arab Israeli Conflict in my article of 2007 has not altered. Geography and demography don’t change overnight. But it is important that we move swiftly to help reduce tension with our strongest ally and the best way to do that may lie in the Mofaz Plan.

Aharon Nathan, 26th March 2010