In his most recent column, Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom compares the two candidates competing to replace Ehud Olmert as chair of the Kadima Party and therefore most likely Prime Minister of Israel. Avnery focuses on Mofaz-as-military-man and gives us a clear assessment of the overwhelming dominance of security-culture in Israel, by which the military dominates state policy and budgets and military professionals dominate 'civil' institutions. The army, Avnery says, is Israel's "only real [political] party," and more: it is "an economic empire," "a political lobby," and, "in a way, a religion - with Security as its only god." The dominance of security-culture and the military mean that many, many people have a "vested interest in the absence of peace."
Avnery rightly notes that the dominance of security-culture excludes women from having an equal say in Israeli affairs, and he cites the organization New Profile (www.newprofile.org) as publicly addressing this issue (see the 9/16/2008 JPN on the new political persecution of New Profile). I would like to add to or amend Avnery's view on the exclusion of women from positions of power, because the issue at hand is not _only_ the exclusion of women. If that were the case, then the just struggle would be for women's inclusion, which is a position that numerous feminist groups have taken. Rightly understanding that military service is the dominant path to power in Israeli society, these feminist groups have worked to unlock the gates for women to advance within the military, including achieving positions for women combat soldiers and pilots in the last decade. (see the work of the Israel Women's Network: http://www.iwn.org.il/innerEn.asp?newsid=179) According to this logic, the election
Tzipi Livni would be a great achievement for women. And while I am glad that a woman can and might advance - again - to the highest political position in Israel, I think it's important to remember what even Avnery observes: that Mofaz and Livni are saying basically the same things in their campaign. Thus the elevation of a woman does not promise any change in political agendas. (As we in the U.S. are seeing, now, with the lauding of a woman candidate as a boon for all women, even though her politics and worldview are extremely hostile to the major challenges facing women, including poverty, lack of health- and child-care, inequality in the workplace, as well as valorizing military service as the most important contribution one can make to society.)
New Profile takes a different position than feminist groups that work to advance women within the military and Israel's dominant power structure. Instead of accepting the structure as is and working to fill it up with women (and men), New Profile seek to overhaul the power structure itself and undermine the dominance of security-culture overall. The exclusion of women from positions of power is one manifestation of Israel's security-culture, but New Profile is more focused the ways in which men and women are continuously recruited into supporting that culture. New Profile's analysis shows us that while women may rarely hold top positions in government, finance, academia or other major institutions, they are constantly acting in small and large ways to support the very structure that both keeps them out and keeps their society in a state of perpetual war. (New Profile focuses not only on women but on all those excluded or marginalized by a power structure that most privileges Jewish,
male and primarily Ashkenazi combat soldiers.) Israelis are socialized into Israel's security-culture and socialized to act appropriately within it - such as by serving in the military or supporting family members who do, or by not challenging or even questioning the continued absence of non-military alternatives in relations with Palestinians, other Arab nations, and Iran. New Profile calls this ongoing socializing process "militarization" and challenges it directly, including by assisting the very substantial numbers of young people who are no longer willing to serve in the military. The new criminal investigation of New Profile is a sign of the significant impact of their challenge.
And finally: in this column, Avnery concentrates on Mofaz as a symbol of Israeli militarism and not on Mofaz as the actual military man - the professional soldier who was initially Chief of Staff and then Defense Minister during the second Intifada. I think it's worth returning to Mofaz's actual terms in office, which were marked by brutal abuses of military might and high Palestinian casualty rates, as well as assassinations of Palestinians, bombings in heavily-populated neighborhoods and the reoccupation of Palestinian cities by the IDF. And it has now been reported that in May 2001, a few months into the Intifada, Mofaz called for the IDF to kill 70 Palestinians per day, in a directive that may fall into the category of war crime. The Independent's August 2008 article on Mofaz's statement is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/candidate-who-wants-olmerts-job-once-sought-deaths-of-70-palestinians-a-day-882628.html and Democracy Now's brief mention of the war
crime speculation is here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/12/headlines#9.
Sarah Anne Minkin
AS AN ISRAELI, I am ashamed. An incumbent Prime Minister has been compelled to resign because of personal corruption. How awful!
As an Israeli, I am proud. An incumbent Prime Minister has been compelled to resign because of personal corruption. How wonderful!
Compelled not by a revolution, not by a military coup, not by rioting in the streets, not by the machinations of a rival party. But by the normal processes of the law enforcement agencies, the free media and public opinion.
In this sordid affair, democracy has triumphed. In his delightful little book, "The Trial of Socrates", I. F. Stone (a man I knew and greatly admired) defined the peaceful removal of a political leader as a hallmark of democracy. Socrates advocated a dictatorship by the man of "knowledge". Stone laid great stress on the fact that there would have been no way to remove such a ruler in case of necessity.
IN ANCIENT Athens, major leaders were elected by all those with full citizenship (about half the free citizens, and slaves, of course, were excluded). Less prominent officials were appointed by lot - the theory being that all full citizens are equally qualified to conduct the affairs of state. Sometimes I think that this may not be such a bad idea.
However, the Kadima party thinks otherwise. On Wednesday, the party's rank and file will elect Ehud Olmert's replacement as Party Chairman, who will then almost automatically become Prime Minister, unless he or she fails to put together a governing coalition - in which case new elections will take place, probably at the beginning of 2009. Until then Olmert would still act as a lame duck Prime Minister.
The real choice is between two candidates: Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz. They could hardly be more different.
First of all, because it is Man against Woman. For the first time in Israeli history, there is a straight confrontation between the genders. (When the late unlamented Golda Meir was appointed Prime Minister in 1969, after the sudden death of Levy Eshkol, she had no competitors.)
Their background reflects the two extremes of Jewish Israeli society; Mofaz is an "Oriental", born in Iran, an outsider. Livni is a native-born Ashkenazi Israeli, an insider. She is also a "princess" - her father was a leader of the Irgun underground and (like Olmert's father) a member of the Knesset.
But the real difference is between the forces they represent.
AS A professional soldier, Shaul Mofaz represents the force that has dominated Israel from its very beginning: the "security establishment".
This vast complex has unmatched political, economic and ideological power. Since all major political parties have degenerated into cynical trade unions of party hacks, without an ideology or any real political program, the army is now, in my view, the only real party in Israel.
It is not the Turkish army or the Pakistani army. It is an instrument of a democratic system, fully obedient to the civil authority. But behind this faחade it is much more: it is an economic empire that consumes by far the largest share of the annual budget, a pressure group, a political lobby, an ideological center.
It is, in a way, a religion - with Security as its only god and the high command as its priesthood. Nothing trumps Security in Israel, and when its name is mentioned, everything else is forgotten. Hear oh Israel, Security thy God, Security is One.
Like almost any religion, it is connected with huge economic interests. The "security" industry, with its production of weapons and other military equipment, plays a central role in the Israeli economy and in its exports, turning the twenty or so tycoons who dominate our economy into natural allies of the generals. Dwight Eisenhower would recognize the pattern.
The immeasurable impact on political decision-making of the "security establishment" - the armed forces, the General Security Service (Shin Bet), the Mossad and the police - is underlined by the fact that the Chief of Staff takes part in all cabinet meetings. He never dictates to the government - perish the thought! - but it would be a very brave politician indeed who contradicted "the considered opinion of the army".
Since Israel was born in war and has been in a state of war ever since, there is hardly any area of Israeli life that does not lie within the scope of Security. And in security matters, it is of course the security chiefs whose opinions are decisive. Also, the army is the sole ruler of the occupied territories (as, indeed, demanded by international law).
In this connection, the settlers must be considered. They are an immensely strong pressure group. While many of them have established their settlements "illegally", no settler would be where he is today if he had not been put there by the army. In many places, the symbiosis between settler and soldier is so perfect that they are one and the same: many army officers are settlers themselves.
FOR A nation at war, it is natural that the army also shapes the national ideology. The media are willing, indeed eager, collaborators. Peace is a silly concept for effete, weak-kneed wimps. It is also, of course, a complete and dangerous illusion.
All this is reinforced by an immense network of ex-officers, the "ex" being only formal. With a few honorable exceptions, all ex-army officers belong to the same club and hold the same beliefs. Since the army looks after its own, senior officers who leave the army in their middle 40s, as is usual, generally find high positions in industry, the public services or the political parties - extending the army's "sphere of influence".
What this means is that very many people have - mildly put - a vested interest in the absence of peace.
Shaul Mofaz personifies all of this. He belongs to this complex, he made his career there as a general, chief of Staff and Minister of Defense. No one has ever heard him voice an original thought - his whole mental world is shaped by the army. In all his jobs he has been reliable and diligent mediocrity.
When he had finished his army career and was looking for political opportunities, he had - like many of his predecessors - no party preference. Such a person can easily find his place in Labor, the Likud or Kadima, not to mention the radical right. The Likud offered the best prospects at that moment. When his way there was blocked, he jumped at the very last second onto Ariel Sharon's bandwagon - 24 hours after solemnly promising that he would never, but never, entertain such a treacherous thought.
MILITARY DOMINANCE of Israeli affairs has one hidden effect: it excludes women. The macho, he-man atmosphere of the army has no place for them.
This was brought up some years ago by a feminist group called New Profile, which declared its goal to be the de-militarization of Israeli society. Perhaps by accident, it is this group which the Attorney General decided to prosecute this week for anti-army activities, inciting against joining the army, helping draft evaders, advising potential recruits to pose as mental cases and such.
Livni is not just a Foreign Minister, a job traditionally despised by the Security Establishment, but also a Civilian and, even worse, a Woman. That is what makes this choice so tempting.
In public, the two candidates say almost the same. They repeat the usual mantras. But there are the (almost) hidden agendas.
There is the racist angle, the sin that does not dare speak its name. Like the race factor in the US elections, the "ethnic" factor may play a far bigger role here than we like to admit. Orientals tend to vote for Mofaz, Europeans - Ashkenazis - for Livni.
There is the gender factor. Women may tend to vote for one of their own.
And there is the military factor: a vote for Livni is - consciously or mostly unconsciously - a vote against the military domination of our lives.
What kind of states(wo)man would a Prime Minister Tzipi Livni be? No one can know, perhaps not even she herself. Her basic mental world is right-wing. Her world view is centered around the concept of a Jewish State. Jewish in the old Jabotinsky way of thinking: not In a religious sense (Jabotinsky was quite secular) but in a 19th century nationalistic one. That could lead to peace based on a sincere belief in the two-state concept (to which Mofaz, too, pays lip service). But I would not count on it.
Mofaz we know. Livni we don't know. That may lead some Kadima members on Wednesday to vote for Livni.
Jewish Peace News editors:
Sarah Anne Minkin
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net