The Relevance of Israel's Dove-Hawk Divide

"An Israeli Party Tips Further Right as Its Leader Woos Centrists"
A6, Thursday 12/11/08
By Ethan Bronner

In this article about the Likud primary, Bronner reports that the result is a "list of parliamentary candidates notably more hawkish" than party leader Netanyahu, who vowed to form a centrist coalition if elected. Bronner does a good job pointing to a looming identity crisis in Likud, citing commentary from the Israeli media – notably using center or right-of-center outlets like Yediot, Maariv and the Jerusalem Post. Bronner points out that Kadima officials hope "wavering voters" will now move toward them.

However, there are two major flaws in Bronner's reporting.

Bronner neglects to explain the process whereby Israelis wound up voting for such a Likud slate. As Bronner quotes Zalman Shoval, "the general public is not represented by the composition of the Likud list." Yet the list was publicized and then voted on. Bronner doesn’t mention this and does little to explain that the major problem is the order of the list. Likud voters may have been aware of who was on the list, but were they aware that centrists were further down? The Times usually does a better job explaining the complexities and nuances of Israeli politics.

A bigger problem is one of language. There's a troubling pattern with which the Times reports which Israelis are peace-minded.

It's not clear what Bronner means when he states that the "major victors in the primaries either reject territorial compromise or are so skeptical of Palestinian intentions and capacities that they dismiss negotiations with them as a waste of time." His lone profile of Moshe Feiglin – who secured the 20th spot on the list – speaks of him as the former, someone who, regardless of Palestinian intentions, rejects territorial compromise. Bronner writes of Feiglin, "he says that there is no Palestinian people and that there will never be a Palestinian state, that Israeli will hold onto everything it has now."

Yet Bronner doesn't clarify how many on the list share Feiglin’s view. Perhaps many are in favor of territorial compromise, but not with a Palestinian leadership that they feel is unwilling or incapable.

Bronner confuses those who favor immediate, fast-track, all-or-nothing negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) – what the Times advocates – with those who favor "Middle East peace". He writes that "analysts are divided on whether or not the nature of the Likud list has sunk in and on whether voters are more focused on the economy, education and crime than on Middle East peace and would still prefer Likud." It escapes Bronner and his paper that there is difference of opinion on how to reach peace, and that as crazy as it may sound to the Times, there is a mainstream Israeli view that peace won’t be sacrificed with Likud, which is even viewed as having the appropriate temperament to deal with an intransigient Palestinian leadership.

Fortunately, Bronner offers an important counter-point in the next paragraph, citing Ron Dermer, a Netanyahu campaign aide. "I think the divide between doves and hawks is less relevant because most Israelis don't see peace around the corner." He then cites Dermer saying "let's not get caught up in an all-or-nothing approach. Let's make steady progress on the ground with the Palestinians and on the domestic agenda." Bronner then somewhat fleshes out Netanyahu’s "economic peace".

Bronner reports that Netanyahu stands against dividing Jerusalem, "a Palestinian demand for peace," or going "beyond certain red lines regarding Israel's territorial security," without clarifying what those lines are and how they might differ from Livni's and other's.

It was important for Bronner to quote Dermer speaking on the "less relevant" divide between Israeli doves and hawks. It is certainly less relevant than the Times' rendering. It's unfortunate such a mainstream Israeli view so seldom appears in this paper.