Page 34 - Iton 10

“Thinking before you vote” is an independent objective organization of about 250 citizens: educators, young people
from the periphery of Israel. We are addressing the Israeli public from a deep concern for the fate of Israeli
society and the great importance of the coming elections.

Letter to an undecided voter from the left and center – regarding the 2009 elections:

Hello,

Many are deliberating over whether to vote for the Labor party in the upcoming elections. The main reason for their
dilemma is that in this ambiguous reality we live in, many prefer parties that offer a clear agenda over the Labor party,
which offers complex compromises of various sorts, in the form of “this and that”, instead of a clear-cut decision
between alternatives.
For the question “for whom to vote”, it is our understanding that the “ambiguous reality” demands a complex answer, and
the Labor party offers this.
First we need to ask what this “ambiguous reality” is. Well, it is not the reality that is ambiguous, but rather the way
that the parties that speak in a clear cut voice interpret it. The Israeli political party structure has not adapted itself
to the changes that occurred in all spheres of life in the past years. The political and ideological battlefield, as it is
depicted by the extremist parties, just is not relevant, and as such they blur it; the ambiguity plants despair regarding
the possibility of change, and despair strengthens the “clear” extremes and makes the complex view laughable.
In the fields of security and foreign policy: the disagreement between the left and right on the question of the
[occupied] territories have not been updated since the days of the Oslo Accords, and as such have become irrelevant.
Iran, for example, does not enter at all into the “clear” equation, and clear cut answers do not produce a response to the
Iranian threat in its different forms [e.g., nuclear capabilities, Hamas, Hezbollah]. The right has a problem giving up the
occupied territories in order to build an anti-Iran coalition, and is willing to sacrifice peace with Egypt on the altar of
the fight against the Hamas; so too, those to the left of the Geneva initiative do not understand the religious dimension
of Hamas that is replacing the PLO’s national dimension, and disregards the ever-closing affinity between the Palestinian
and Iranian spheres.
The debate between left and right on socio-economic policies follows similar lines: the world economic crisis and the way
to deal with it has yet to enter the equation of “clear cut” stances. The capitalist right throws sand with its claim that
the crisis is a glitch that can be overcome within the neoliberal system, and the social left clings to the demand to
increase the welfare budget, and has trouble adjusting to the social-democratic language in which this crisis is being
dealt with in the world, from strict supervision of the financial system (including nationalization of banks in Europe), and
the major increase in the national debt, to the billions now flowing to help pay for mortgages and save jobs.

The Labor party stance seems vague because it dissolves the certainties – which are in fact illusions – within which the
political debate in Israel lays. Barak’s stance of “this and that” in the security and foreign policy field expresses a
calculation of both the Iranian and Palestinian spheres, and the need to create solutions that go beyond the playing field
defined in the days of Oslo. Braverman’s [a former Economics professor at Ben Gurion University, and now Labor’s lead
economics figure] “this and that” stance in the socio-economic field combines a demand for an increase in the national
debt with the creation of “safety-nets” for businesses and individuals, in a similar way to the how the crisis is being
addressed in the west.
Of course, this is not to say that we agree with all of the solutions that the Labor party is offering; however, Labor at
least provides and relevant field in which to have a fruitful debate.
To the question of the political structure of Israel’s left: to the right of the Likud lies a central axis that branches off
to different “niche parties”, whereas the Israeli left suffers from a splintering that hurts its ability to suggest a
political alternative. Kadima is unable to become such an axis, since it was formed by those who were disappointed with
Likud and refugees from Labor, and thus its expiration date is approaching. And the smaller the Labor party becomes,
the harder it will become for Labor to fulfill this role as an axis party, which will lead to the neutralization of the left.
Therefore, a large Labor party is of vital interest of the left.

Perhaps most important of all, a large Labor party would allow creation of a field for the debate between the different
existing approaches within it, and could be the basis for the rejuvenation of the social democracy, which would prevent
the left from wallowing in the rivalries of yesterday, and would allow it to lead Israeli society in dealing with the
challenges of the future.
Thinking before you vote,

Young people, educators, and people of the periphery – coming back to Labor!