Arabs watching the Israeli elections

Tue, 02/10/2009 - 9:41am

 

 

Netanyahu on Al-Jazeera (screen capture)

I spent a good part of yesterday afternoon watching al-Jazeera's coverage of the Israeli elections.  I've also been reading editorial commentary and news coverage from across the Arab world. I'd like to be able to say that Arabs are on the edge of their seats awaiting the outcome.  But that's not what I'm seeing. For the most part, the elections are seen as a choice between bad (Livni) and worse (Netanyahu) with Lieberman the "real" emerging face of Israel.  This isn't like 1996, when the choice between Peres and Netanyahu seemed stark and urgent.   Today, they survey the wreckage of Gaza and see little reason for hope regardless of the outcome.   Whoever wins the election, argues the journalist Mustafa Zayn in al-Hayat, the true winner will be Ze'ev Jabotinski and his doctrine of the "Iron Wall." 

The skepticism bridges today's great divide in Arab politics. There's little difference between the coverage in al-Quds al-Arabi (the most populist / "rejection camp" of the major Arab papers) and al-Sharq al-Awsat (the most conservative / "moderate camp" Saudi paper). The Saudi station Al-Arabiya leads with the rise of Israeli extremists (mutatarufin, the same word used to described al-Qaeda extremists). Al-Sharq al-Awsat describes the election as the choice between "the right and the extreme right." Neither Barak nor Livni is seen as offering a particularly better choice after Gaza.  The veteran journalist Abd al-Wahhab Badrakhan is "waiting for Lieberman," marveling that Netanyahu finally succeeded in finding someone worse than himself -- and arguing, as many do, that Lieberman would be the best winner since he would show Israel's "true face." 

Much of contemporary International Relations theory argues that the superiority of democracy lies in its transparency, as a free press and political competition and elections allow other countries to more accurately assess its intentions.  In this case, the transparency of Israeli democracy may be working just as IR theorists expect... but the message being sent is the opposite of reassuring.  Whoever wins will have to take significant steps -- "costly signals" in the IR lingo -- to change these Arab expectations and fears. We'll see.     

Marc Lynch | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register


Advertisement

 

Israeli nuke question put to Obama by Helen Thomas

by Walking Wounded on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 4:01pm

It will be interesting to see whether the 'new' Israeli gov't is led by Livni or Netanyahu.

Perhaps the most important feature of Eretz Israel's diplomatic intransigence is not the name on the office door. It's that they wield the sixth or seventh largest nuclear force in the world, that they have possessed a regional nuclear monopoly for the last 30-40 years. They have stated and demonstrated a willingness to go to war to maintain their 'sole nuclear' military status in the ME. The suffering in Gaza will look like small potatos next to radiological poison getting blown across Iran.

Last night Helen Thomas justified her reputation by asking (on live national television) if the President "knew of any countries in the ME who possessed nuclear weapons?" Softly put, but loss of 'Nuclear Opacity' is a deal changer, because Israel's weapons and past nuclear partnerships are in violation of US military aid restrictions and international non-proliferation treaties. It's the knowledge from the fruit of the tree that changes Israel's status to nuclear.

Pres. Obama dodged with a reply that he 'didn't want to speculate'. Really. Imagine if the President had been asked to name the current PM of Isreal, and had replied that he didn't want to speculate. I hope that Helen's peers grow a pair and demand to know whether our ME intel on nukes is that weak, and if the president has asked to be better informed on this important subject.

The strategic center of Israel's long campaign to hold onto the conquered territories is US political leverage and ME policy. Rahmbo and "I am a zionist' Biden, not the Lieberman over there. Obama pretending to keep 'the secret' is proof that the AIPAC tail is still wagging the US dog, regardless of election results.

John Santore immediately picked up on the significance of Ms Thomas zinger, and provides some of the facts Obama wouldn't admit being briefed on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/israeli-nuclear-weapons

Unsophisticated Arab media

by Martin Kramer on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 6:29pm

If this is how the Arab media are reporting the Israeli elections, then they are missing the story, which is hardly surprising, since the study and understanding of Israel has been systematically avoided by Arab intellectuals and media alike. Whining on about the "true face of Israel" is a cheap substitute for serious analysis--first, of what explains the outcome, and second, what it means. This is no easy task, and it's not surprising that the Arab media aren't up to it.

You can be sure, though, that in the presidential and royal palaces, where the more sophisticated players reside, the results are being closely watched and studied. They're the ones who count anyway.

For Arabs (and others) who are genuinely curious about the dynamic in Israel, I recommend this article. Money quote:

Nearly every action has a reaction. Everyone has been so concerned over the years about what reaction Israel's actions would generate among the Palestinians, that they overlooked the degree to which Palestinian and Israeli Arab actions have caused a reaction among the Israeli public. But if the polls of the last few days prove even a somewhat accurate predictor, that right-wing reaction will become clear for all to see when the country wakes up Wednesday morning.

If this is how the Arab media

by J Thomas on Wed, 02/11/2009 - 5:44pm

If this is how the Arab media are reporting the Israeli elections, then they are missing the story

They probably mostly care about what the election outcomes mean to *them*. How will it affect israel's foreign policy?

And they have rightly concluded that there's no reason to think it means any particular change.

Is there any evidence that israel's foreign policy isn't decided by the generals anyway? I mean, apart from things like the Kadima guys saying they ordered the military to invade lebanon, as opposed to the Likud guys saying they ordered the military to invade lebanon, or the Labor guys admitting the army under Sharon just kind of invaded lebanon without their permission, etc.