The irresistible charm of Zionist populism in Israel's coming elections

In an environment where a healthy democracy functions, we keep expecting election processes to further increase social tensions and to serve peace more. Yet when one looks at election processes in Europe and many other places lately, one sees that governments, by turning to even more right-wing, even fascistic votes that compete with them in order to win votes, thoroughly divert the results of the election processes from a direction that serves cultural rapprochement and peace. It actually becomes all the more possible for administrations that could act more courageously than such politics, which is gradually turning into a general reflex tendency of incumbents, to make a serious difference. But being able to see this possibility also reveals the difference of the politician. That right-wing votes have a more seductive effect on politicians is, of course, a subject for political scientists to evaluate.

In Israel, for example, election processes do not serve to soften Israel's aggressive, expansionist, fascistic Zionist policies any further. From one election to the next, Israel deepens its hard-right Zionist policies further and turns them into indispensable taboo subjects of the state.

General elections will be held in Israel on March 17, 2015. Before the elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say had himself invited, by Speaker of the House John Boehner to give a speech in the US House of Representatives. The Obama administration, for its part, made a statement announcing that Boehner's invitation did not accord with US diplomatic custom. At the press conference he held with Angela Merkel, President Barack Obama revealed that he considers Netanyahu the real party responsible for the events, by saying that they have no custom of inviting leaders before elections, that they would not have accepted Angela Merkel either if it had been before elections, and moreover that he knew Merkel would not make such a request. Obama and US Vice President Biden announced that they would not be present in the House of Representatives if Netanyahu gave his speech.

More interesting still, while all these developments were taking place, some Jewish organizations in the US began to protest Netanyahu's speech and to organize "Not in my name" campaigns. Netanyahu, for his part, announced that he would give the speech in Congress despite the reactions coming both from inside and outside. So, how should Netanyahu's insistence be interpreted?

After ending the peace negotiations with Palestine and getting up from the negotiating table, he had tried to widen his base, especially by increasing the dose of violence in Jerusalem and carrying out an operation against Gaza, and he had ended the coalition government because he believed that the rising right-wing wave would strengthen him even more. But things did not go as Netanyahu had hoped.

Tzipi Livni, the former Foreign Minister and leader of the Hatnua Party, and Isaac Herzog, leader of the Labor Party, decided on an alliance for the elections. Netanyahu's party, which during his premiership continuing since 2009 had created a favorable ground for the rise of extreme right-wing movements, appeared to be trailing the Labor-Hatnua alliance because of vote splits on the right. Because the risk of coming in second in the elections had appeared, Netanyahu chose the path of hardening his rhetoric. In this framework, it is observed that the tensions between Israel and Hezbollah in late January and early February are returning to Likud as votes. In the latest poll carried out by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu's party Likud was projected to win 25 seats and the Hatnua-Labor alliance 23.

Moreover, in a place where saluting Zionism is seen as dipping into a vote reservoir, everyone enters a race to grab a share of this reservoir. For that reason, even the left alliance we mentioned above preferred to name itself the "Zionist alliance." That this alliance, as the only left party projected by the polls to enter the parliament, surrenders to right-wing rhetoric in this way means that Israel's Zionism is increasingly being registered as its essential character.

Returning to Netanyahu's move to give a speech in the US House of Representatives, this move is in fact an attempt to score points in domestic politics. However, Netanyahu's attempt to give a speech in the House of Representatives without Obama's knowledge and without an invitation has, in a way, the meaning of stealing a role from Obama, of entering his domain without permission. For in the invitation organized by bypassing Obama, the topic of the speech that Netanyahu planned to give in the Congress was the threat that Iran's Nuclear Program poses to Israel's security. Although he may create the effect he wants on the members of the House of Representatives and Congress through one lobbying activity or another, this situation has constituted a typical example of the officiousness displayed in blocking all of US policy with that effect. It is not possible to say that this officiousness is not a source of discomfort within the US.

The relations between Netanyahu and Obama are already quite strained. It cannot be said that the two leaders are very fond of each other or of each other's policies.

Elections always carry a hope and potential for overcoming deadlocks, but as far as can be seen, the Israeli elections are already following a course that further reduces the possibility of a promising and just solution on the Palestine issue.

In fact, in short, we can say there is nothing new on the Israeli front.