Election Souvenir 2006

The sign above (scanned and reduced) is my souvenir from yesterday's Israeli Parliamentary Elections. I didn't vote because I don't have that right, but I did end up with the polling place sign. It had been thrown over the fence into our yard from the school behind our house. I'm not sure if it was thrown in exuberance or exasperation at the results. Perhaps it was simply easier to throw it over our fence than put it in the trash can. In any case, I have a neat souvenir from the 17th Knesset election.

Some have asked what I think of the results. I'm no political expert, but it seems clear that the turnout was disappointingly low, particularly for the Likud (Bibi Netanyahu's party, Sharon's former party). Ariel Sharon's new party, Kadima, came out the winner, but not the big winner. In fact, their 28 seats are less than 1/3 of the seats in Parliament.

This is the second weakest winner in history. The lowest number of seats by a winner is 26, won by the Labor Party (Ehud Barak) in 1999. A note of warning: That government lasted only 18 months.

When I use the word winner it means that a particular party, the Kadima party in this case, has the responsibility of bringing together a coalition of parties to form the government. (Ideally, the winning party would win 61 seats themselves, but that is really unlikely these days, and clearly didn't happen this time.) The less seats a winner has, the more unstable the government seems to be because in order to get the necessary 61 seats, they typically have to bring other parties to the table that have different (sometimes opposing) agendas, which work contrary to each other. And this is when politics really becomes politics.

I'm not making any predictions of brevity or longevity, other than to reference the apparent weakness of winning parties with so few seats.

No Chance for Peace?

While visiting the Old City of Jerusalem today, we stopped to visit a young, Arab shopkeeper (probably not the one you’re thinking of). During our visit, I asked him a number of specific questions regarding his current job, potential careers for young Arab men like him, and his overall impression of the “situation” in the region, specifically Israel and the West Bank.

It was interesting to hear his answers to my questions and to see him become more transparent, offering heartfelt answers to very probing questions about war and peace once he realized that there was no trap or debate at the end of my enquiry. He realized that I was simply interested to hear what he thought about something that millions of people think about around the world – the Arab-Israeli conflict. For once, he had a genuinely interested audience.

He started with a very typical line of argument among Arab shopkeepers in Jerusalem: If the Israelis would stop doing “X, Y, and Z” and start doing “A, B, and C” there can be peace. When I began to probe below the surface of this argument, asking for definitions and specifics about “X, Y, and Z,” as though he were in a confessional he suddenly said, “There can’t be peace!” In an effort to make sure that I had heard him correctly, I asked him to repeat himself. “There can’t be peace. Oh maybe, one or two years, but real peace is not possible. The Arabs hate the Jews, and the Jews hate the Arabs and the two simply can’t mix - not even side by side.”

While only one young man verbalized this today, I think it represents the core thought and feeling of many (perhaps most) on both sides of the divide. And, if that is true, whether or not Iran is disarmed, or the mess in Iraq is finally cleaned up, doesn’t really have a great bearing on peace in the Middle East, though many politicians keep talking as if the resolution of either or both of those situations will bring forth “peace in our lifetime.” Do they really believe it, or are they just trying to get elected?

I wonder how such a conversation, if broadcast widely on television and radio, might influence the Israeli elections next week. Would it make the more left parties try even harder to prove that they can cut a deal with the Arabs? Would it make the right parties try even harder to prove that the Arabs can’t be trusted? Would it matter at all?

Israeli Elections 2006

Simply put, Israeli politics are not boring. It's probably true that "politics is politics, no matter where you are," but the political structure in Israel does offer some distinct differences from the American system.

One of the things you will probably not see in American politics is the political rival illustrated as a mokey as in this advertisement:


The caption says, "Enough of ignoring corruption." By the way, the three "monkeys" are the leaders of the three largest political parties (r to l: Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Olmert, and Amir Perez). I can't see either Republicans or Democrats not demanding an apology and the withdrawal of an advertisement like this.

One thing you may see in American politics is the message of this advertisement:


"I believe in God, but I will seperate between religion and government." Unfortunately, too many politicians say they have religious beliefs that they can dismiss in order to fulfill their political responsibilities.

Finally, an advertisement that is on the agenda in America:


"Sleep with whomever you want..." This is a platform for civil weddings (currently not available in Israel) that include homosexual marriages.

Screwtape Letters Part 10

Chapter 20

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it (I Corinthians 10:13 NASB).

Uncle Screwtape apparently has this verse in mind as he explains to his nephew that their best weapon against Christians is “the belief of ignorant humans, that there is no hope of getting rid of us except by yielding.”