TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
17.09.2008
Michael Oren: Israel and America at the Polls

Michael B. Oren is a TNR contributing editor, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and a visiting professor at Georgetown University. He is the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.

As an Israeli citizen living in America for the year, I can't help getting caught up in the whirlwind of this country's presidential election. But as my home country chooses its new prime minister today, I find myself drawing many similarities between the two contests. Gender is certainly a factor in both--with Tzipi Livni currently leading the polls--as is ethnicity, with the Iranian-born Shaul Mofaz vying to become Israel's first non-Western prime minister. Israelis are also familiar with the candidacy of a 72-year-old maverick with combat experience--indeed, they would reelect Ariel Sharon tomorrow were he to miraculously emerge from his coma.

And yet, on a more visceral level, the two elections could not be more different. I've been watching Obama, McCain, and their surrogates debate undoubtedly important issues, such as the country's general direction, its social and economic policies, and the time it will remain in Iraq. In Israel, the stakes are no less than its survival: the future of the territories Israel captured four decades ago, the retention of which threatens its basic security and the demographic balance on which its existence as a Jewish state depends.

For that reason, Israelis can't afford the luxury of debating crucial but non-existential issues such as immigration and the economy. Nor could they countenance candidates such as Obama and Palin who have no experience in the armed forces. The costs of such inexperience are prohibitive for Israelis, as they learned in the 2006 Lebanon war, in which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz--both veteran Knesset members but lacking military backgrounds--dismally failed. Livni is a former Mossad agent, while Mofaz is an ex-commando, defense minister, and chief of staff. 

Unlike in the American election, Israel's preoccupation with such existential threats (rather than domestic policy issues) means that candidates' platforms are often indistinguishable. Israelis have a hard time seeing light between Livni, who has called for intensive efforts to reach an accord with the Palestinians and Mofaz, who also favors accelerated talks but with a greater exercise of caution; both Mofaz and Livni advocate continued contacts with Syria and robust measures--possibly military--to prevent Iran from nuclearizing.

Ultimately, in the United States as in the Jewish state, the contest may well be decided less by the voters' preference for one party's platform over another than by their conviction that one contender, by virtue of his or her character, is inherently more qualified to lead.

But will they in fact be able to lead? Barring impeachment or mortality, the victor in America can look forward to one four-year term and possibly a second in which to forge his legacies in domestic and foreign affairs. In Israel, though, where politicians are vetted after, rather than before, attaining office, the next prime minister is likely to face a succession of internal investigations that will impede any efforts to implement policies. The new American president can pick a cabinet, but Israel's prime minister-elect must negotiate furiously to construct a coalition from rival party members and the leaders of other factions--right, left, and religious. And even then, the centrist Kadima will still have to confront a formidable challenge from the right-wing Likud.

The ballots are now being counted and, as of this writing, Livni is significantly out front. Paradoxically, the leader of a country facing an existential threat has the least amount of leeway to address those issues. Watching both the US and Israeli elections simultaneously, I cannot help thinking that in order to resolve the Palestinian problem, Israel must first reform its crippling political system. Needed is a prime minister who is popularly elected, who serves for a full four years without fear of weekly police probes, and who can choose cabinet members on the basis of their qualifications and not their political power. Israel needs a system much more similar to America's.

--Michael B. Oren 

Posted: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:59 PM with 17 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ndmackenzie said:

Shorter Michael B. Oren

-- Unlike in the American election, Israel's preoccupation with such existential threats (rather than domestic policy issues) means that candidates' platforms are often indistinguishable.

-- For that reason, Israelis can't afford the luxury of debating crucial but non-existential issues such as immigration and the economy.

-- In Israel, though, where politicians are vetted after, rather than before, attaining office, the next prime minister is likely to face a succession of internal investigations that will impede any efforts to implement policies.

-- Nor could they countenance candidates such as Obama and Palin who have no experience in the armed forces.

According to Oren, Israel is so macho stupid it can be led only by unvetted people with some connection to the military. No wonder the country can't solve any of the problems it faces.

September 17, 2008 7:25 PM

jobeek2 said:

"Needed is a prime minister who is popularly elected, who serves for a full four years without fear of weekly police probes, and who can chose cabinet members on the basis of their qualifications and not their political power."

So basically, you're looking for a Presidency with less accountability. Yes, that's definitely a model America has to offer.

September 17, 2008 7:33 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Well, keep in mind that the American system Oren wishes for has produced an incumbent president who forced Israel to allow Hamas to participate in Palestinian elections even while it was engaged in terror. So this essay at least offers us the chance to witness Michael Oren and Ismail Haniyeh finding common ground: Both wish the Israeli political system would allow for the election of an Israeli leader of comparable competence to George W. Bush.

September 17, 2008 8:41 PM

rozenson said:

"Unlike in the American election, Israel's preoccupation with such existential threats (rather than domestic policy issues) means that candidates' platforms are often indistinguishable."

This is very true. I myself would be torn between supporting a Labor government led by Ehud Barak or a Kadima government led by Livni. To enlist some help, I asked members from each party to explain the differences.

Kadima MK Yohanan Plessner gave me some vague answer about Israelis trusting Livni more than Barak, and that meant that she could govern more easily. Basically, not much difference.

Einat Wilf, a former senior policy advisor to Shimon Peres when he was in Labor, gave me a very candid answer: there would be absolutely no difference between the two.

And you think undecideds in THIS country have tough times choosing people . . .

September 17, 2008 8:58 PM

gennitydo said:

"Nor could they countenance candidates such as Obama and Palin who have no experience in the armed forces."

Michael - if you re-read your excellent book on the Six Day War you will learn that PM Levi Eshkol had no experience in the armed forces.  Maybe the Israelis of the '60s who regularly faced real existential threats were wiser than today's generation.

September 17, 2008 9:28 PM

sleepyavl said:

Good old ndmackenzie! Here's again the fucked-up anti-Semite we can count on. He's there: vicious, imbecile, and always paranoid. How many pounds have you given to Hamas this month? Maybe yiur beer allowance, sicko?

September 18, 2008 12:33 AM

simon greenwood said:

The BBC has actually interpreted Livni's win almost oppositely: her win supposedly represents a triumph of domestic concerns over ability to handle foreign threats.  They think Livni won despite being less credible on security because she's an uncorruptable 'Mrs. Clean'.  Goes to show how tough it is to distinguish between them I suppose.

September 18, 2008 1:29 AM

jyunis said:

While Michael Oren is right to point out the advantages of the American political system, its worth noting some of its shortfalls relative to Israel's parliamentary system. The two party system we have in our country, by definition, drowns out the voices of those who are passionately devoted to an issue of special interest. For those who are concerned principally with the federal deficit, gay marriage, immigration etc, their issues may not necessarily be brought to the fore in this election cycle. As a result, voters are forced to make a calculus based on a sum total of the two candidates array of positions. In this sense, the system is less, not more democratic.  

So, much like the vetting process, candidates in the US are required to form their coalition before the elections and not after. In Israel, everybody potentially gets a seat in government, and this is more democratic. Thus, the pensioners party ("Gil") for example, has earned its seats in the Knesset, and can represent its constituents accordingly, and Ale Yarok, (had they earned enough votes) could've represented those who really, really wanted marijuana to be legalized in Israel. This forces the Israeli government to form its coalition after elections, and in so doing, ensure that the voices of far more of its citizens are heard. Yes, a lot less might get done in Israel, but a whole lot more citizens get a fair seat at the table, too.

September 18, 2008 2:18 AM

Bulbman1066 said:

Michael Oren is right on target,  Israel needs a strong government in order to survive as an island of freedom and progress in an ocean of barbarism and stupidity.

Let's pray that McCain wins this election.  The left wing of the Democratic Party is no friend of Israel. Obama's past ties time to black nationalists anti-Semites are a cause for concern.  On top of that he is naïve and inexperienced.   Like most liberals, he thinks that if only we were nice to the Islamic extremists they would forgive us our many sins and stop attacking us.  That approach didn’t work with the Nazis, it didn’t work with the Communists, and it should as heck ain’t gonna work with the Islamofacists.  It is a principle of Islam that promises made to Christians and Jews are not binding.

Obama has said that terrorism results from poverty.  RIght, let's all send money to those poor souls in Saudi Arabia and then they'll love us.

By contrast McCain and Palin* are rock solid.  History has reversed itself.  Today the Republicans are the philosemitic party, and the Democrats increasing lean toward the anti-Semitism of the international left.

It is time for all Jews and all freedom loving gentiles to abandon the Democratic Party and support the Republican Party with donations and with votes.

*Governor Palin has an Israeli flag on the wall of her office.

September 18, 2008 2:46 AM

Robert Powell said:

I see a distinction without a difference. In both Israel and the US, nothing important ever happens without some kind of consensus, resulting in essentially a one-party system where major policy is concerned.

The solution to the "no prior vetting" problem seems solved with Livni--simply nominate someone who's clean. In terms of the "no military experience" problem, I think Israel's recent difficulties in Southern Lebanon were at least in part due to the fact of an Air Force general serving as head of the military rather than the relative inexperience of the PM and Defense Minister. We had a similar problem for the first few years in Iraq. "Shock and Awe" is no substitute for boots on the ground.

Most politicians in the US who claim an advantage from having served were from the lower ranks with little relevant command experience. John Kerry's few months of a Lt.(jg) in Vietnam, no matter how heroic, obviously didn't qualify him to make up his mind about policy in the war we were actually engaged in when he ran. Obama's policy proposals for Iraq are indistinguishable from McCain's if one skips the rhetorical flourishes, and of course I'm looking forward to his moving the US Embassy to an undivided Jerusalem.

September 18, 2008 3:43 AM

bwickes said:

Oren misses the point that Livni and Mofaz are in the same party, so the comparison should be to Obama and Hillary, and they disagreed about very little. Livni and Netanyahu will differ a lot just as Obama and McCain do. Pary primaries are about personality, general elections should be about issues. But of course, ours (US presidential elections) are about fake issues.

September 18, 2008 10:09 AM

dvilner said:

Though he didn't reach general rank, my understanding is that Amir Peretz had at least some military experience and was severely wounded during his service.

September 18, 2008 11:42 AM

arubin said:

Israelis can't  "countenance candidates such as Obama and Palin who have no experience in the armed forces"? Really? The following Israeli Prime Ministers had little or no military experience (i.e., as high-ranking officers in the IDF):

David Ben-Gurion

Menachem Begin

Moshe Sharett

Levi Eshkol

Yitzhak Shamir

Shimon Peres

Benjamin Netanyahu

Golda Meir

Ariel Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ehud Barak are the exception to this general pattern (and the general consensus is that Barak was an utter failure).

September 18, 2008 12:15 PM

tarfon said:

Why does Michael Oren think that the most desirable way to make the Israeli political process more stable is to introduce a fixed 4-year term for the PM?  Other countries have parliamentary systems without sacrificing stability -- the UK and Canada are two.  But what they have (in common with the US, and _not_ with Israel) is election of MPs by district rather than by slate.  Israel's slate system encourages the proliferation of small parties with highly-focused interests (in particular the religious parties).  A member-district system would seem to create pressures that would move the country toward two or three parties and promote stability.

September 18, 2008 12:23 PM

weisbardaj said:

For someone with a claim to academic respectability, Mr Oren has an exceptional ability to sling together factual errors and non sequiturs in the service of his right wing ideology.

First of all, Israel did experiment with something closer to an American model of an independently elected Prime Minister. It probably made sense to try it; there was pretty broad consensus that the experiment failed, and Israel went back to its more parliamentary system, for better or worse.

It is not clear to me that the series of scandals, sexual, financial, military, and conflict-of-interest, affecting the upper echelons of recent Israeli leadership has all that much to do with the parliamentary vs. presidential structural issue. Clearly, and sadly,  Israel is beset with a culture of corruption among  its political elites. Some of this, of course, reflects on the character of individual politicians, and probably more broadly, on the type of persons attracted to Israeli politics. I suspect this has to do with the murky internal dynamics of many or most Israeli parties, as well as the intrinsic instability of a system with so many small parties and the transience of coalition structures (and the decisive role of relatively one-issue parties, who can be bought off with offers of ministries and budgetary allocations for their often narrow constituencies. Surely, if one is considering structural changes, a better approach would be increasing the percentage vote necessary to qualify a party for representation in the Knesset, exploring some role for geographic constituencies with greater accountability, and increasing the transparency of campaign contributions and the machinations of party dynamics. Which, of course, are themselves problematic in American politics, and those in much of the world.

The failure of the misguided and misfought second Lebanon War, it would seem to me, owes as much to failings within Israeli military leadership as to the clear failings of the political leadership, particularly Olmert and Peretz (who was recognized to be a preposterous choice for Minister of Defense, but insisted on this as part of the political manoevering for power within his party and the Cabinet). Israel has had a number of successful leaders who were themselves not senior officiers--although in response to another commentator, several had leadership in pre-state militias or served as less senior officers in elite units, and were very familiar with the realities of military life.

Perhaps more important than these relatively minor issues is Oren's overhyping of the "existential" stakes of leadership decisions and his exaggeration of the real world differences (beyond sometimes important matters of tone) among plausible candidates for the prime ministerial position. Israel's government of necessity acts collectively on a broad range of issues, and there are clear limits on how far outside the mainstream (and beyond the bounds of popular support) any prime minister could take Israeli policy on critical matters. It is hard enough to "predict" the past, let alone the future, in the Middle East, and the notion that there can be a clearly "correct" path, from which a dubious leader could lead Israel astray with existential consequences--which Oren seems to presume--supposes greater prophetic ability than is recently among us.

There are, I think, deep problems in Israel's existing governmental structure, but there are also reasons, rooted in Israeli demography, culture, and politics, why these problems exist and have been so difficult to solve over many decades. Simplistic invocations of other systems (which, in many cases, have their own deep problems) are unlikely to get us very far. Mr. Oren's proposals should be convincing neither to Israelis nor to Americans.

September 18, 2008 3:32 PM

jerrywander said:

Thie was a load of misinformation.  Israel does have that in common with the U.S. press and politicians.

There was no election in Israel.  There was a selection of a party leader who would become the next prime minister, so long as the majority of the country continues to be apathetic.  

70,000 voters (most of whom were bought by one candidate or the other) were allowed to vote.  Their votes do not represent 5 million Israelis.  In many cases their votes don't even represent themselves - some of whom were unaware that they had been drafted into the Kadima party until they were told to vote.

The press apparently picked the winner - as Fox News did in the 2000 US elections.  You wrote, "as of this writing, Livni is significantly out front."  And that is because you believed what you heard from the media.  At the end of the day, Livni's lead over Mofaz was less than 500 votes.  Had Mofaz successfully contested the votes from one of the Arab villages, the lead would have been less than 2 votes.  

There is no requirement of military service to be a good leader in either America or Israel.  If the president works well with good  military advisers - he can do admirably.  In both Olmert and in Bush, we see a disconnection from military advisers - and a subsequent denial of the results.  (I don't know if Golda Meir had extensive combat training or not. She performed pretty well in 73 despite the mistakes that were made by Intelligence.)

Israel's most highly trained military men have turned out to be the worst prime ministers.  Yitzhak Rabin - we're not supposed to criticize him because he was killed - was giving away more of the country than he was letting on.  Ehud Barak - BIG Mistake in Lebanon - and he thinks everything is fine. And Ariel Sharon - not only did he manipulate the press and the politicians to avoid corruption charges - he orchestrated the greatest tragedy and impediment to Israel's security in Israel's 60 year history without a single vote from the public.  Olmert would only be a worse prime minister than Ariel Sharon because he was preparing to do the same thing in the West Bank.  Now, Livni wants that distinction.

I would much rather have a Barack Obama leading Israel than Livni or Mofaz, if I knew that he would stand up to the enemy - as he claims he will do - rather than give the country away to the enemy, as Livni may already have done.

Please get your facts right.

Jerry W.

Sderot Israel

September 18, 2008 6:48 PM

ginzy said:

A few comments & factual corrections:

a)  Amir Peretz (and I am no fan of his, quite the contrary) served in the Paratrooper corps, was badly wounded in combat, and I believe reached the rank of captain.

b)  Instead of military combat & command experience, I think it would be more productive to speak of studying and dealing with national security issues.  In this regard, Ben Gurion, Shimon Peres (again someone of which I am not a fan), Yitzchak Shamir, Binyamin Netanyahu all have "national security" experience.

c)  Yitzhak Shamir served in the Mossad for many years, I believe rising to the top or one of the top positions. This in addition to his time in the Etzel & Lehi.  To my mind this qualifies as significant National Security experience.

d)  Netanyahu served in the super-elite commando group Sayerret Matkal and was wounded in the famous rescue of the Sabena airliner (his commanding officer in Sayerret Matkal was one Ehud Barak).  Netanyahu also reached the rank of captain before leaving the army.  He also studied and wrote about national security issues (in particular terrorism) and did an extended stint as UN ambassador.  Although his real strong point is economic issues, he does have a reasonable amount of national security experience.

e)  Olmert's military experience consisted of being a reporter for the IDF periodical BaMahaneh.

f)  I don't think Israel's poorly designed experiment with direct election of the P.M. came even close to approximating a more stable system of government.  For a variety of reasons the system actually encouraged voting for smaller parties other than that of the PM candidate for whom one was voting.  The result was even less stable coalitions.  Also, the Knesset retained the ability to bring down the government with relative ease (now it is much harder -- that is one reason the Olmert government has been able to survive.

g)  There is a lot to be said for a constituency system, i.e., direct election of M.K.s from defined districts and indeed among many Israeli reformers instituting such a system has become something of a holy grail (best example, see the Jerusalem Post's Amotz Asa-el).  However the one question that none of the electing-M.K- by-district advocates address is who is going to DETERMINE the district boundaries and by what criteria (sort of like who is going to bell the cat).  Before someone suggests the Israeli Supreme Court, they are no less tainted by politics and the most unaccountable body in the Israeli system.

Electing-M.K- by-district advocates claim (with a fair amount of justification) that going to a constituency system would import the concept of "accountability" into Israeli politics and for that matter, the Hebrew language (as of now, there is no Hebrew equivalent for "accountability").  However the constituency system would also import the concept of "gerrymandering" into Israeli politics and the Hebrew language.... with a vengeance.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

P.S.  Citing the BBC as a knowledgeable & reliable commentator about all things Israeli, is like citing the Pope on the joys of sex.

The final stats on the Kadima primary:  Of the 77,000 (+/-) registered Kadmia voters, only 53% (again, +/-) bothered to vote.  Livni got 42.1% of the vote beating Mofaz by about 1.1% or 431 votes.  In other words, all of 17,000 Israelis made Livni the head of Kadima & presumptive next P.M.  There is also good reason to suspect electoral hanky-panky in favor of Livni.

So to say that Israel decided this or that based on these electoral results is less valid than reading tea leaves.  So much for the BBC.  But then again, careful & complete reporting of facts was never its strong point.

September 19, 2008 9:33 AM