by Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn

March 19, 2009

Israel does not face an immediate existential threat. It does, however, have a number of major looming security issues which the new government must address. Its failure to do so will only force Israel to face growing international isolation, worldwide frustration with the continuing Palestinian conflict, and greater sympathy with the suffering of the Arabs.

Admittedly, more and more world players do recognize the looming threat posed if and/or when Iran becomes a member of the nuclear club. At such a time, Israel could be physically threatened. At the same time, there already are serious concerns as Hamas gains greater range, accuracy, and sophistication with its Kassam rockets still being launched from Gaza. There is also a genuine awareness that the calm northern border could erupt suddenly if and/or when Hizbullah decided to violate the United Nations-brokered cease-fire and start raining Katyusha rockets once again on Israel.

Most military analysts have suggested that a direct hit by Hizbullah or Hamas on a major Israeli population center is not a question of if, but when. Some have observed that during the 2006 Lebanon War, Haifa was not attacked directly only because Hizbullah did not want to absorb the consequences.

All of those staggering security concerns aside, Israel and the world await the formation of a likely new Netanyahu-led coalition with very little enthusiasm.

Virtually every poll in Israel indicates that the public recognizes the need for electoral reform. The recent election underscored once again this fundamental need. A national and political will must be asserted to institute a major overhaul of the current, purely proportional representation system. The new government will be Israel’s 32nd in its 61 years of existence. The frequency of its national elections, four in the past 10 years, bears a sad comparison to the Third and Fourth French Republics and the Italian governments of the 1950s and ’60s. Israel’s system, with a 2 percent minimum threshold for a party to obtain a Knesset seat, grants far too much power to minor political parties. In addition, the current system actually disenfranchises thousands of voters who cast votes for minor parties that do not even achieve the 2 percent threshold.

Absent the unlikely possibility of a government of national unity, however, the chance for even minor reform remains extremely slim. People in power simply are unwilling to vote themselves out of power or reform a system from which they benefit in the short term.

Many Israelis also recognize the need for change in the laws involving matters of personal status. Starting first with the matter of institutionalizing civil marriage in the country — a suggestion supported even by some rabbis and leaders in the religious Zionist camp — would begin to address some of the fundamental social issues facing the country. It would also signal to Jews throughout the world that Israel recognizes that it will no longer be beholden to the sometimes extortionist tactics of the Israeli rabbinate, and especially of the fervently Orthodox.

On the international level, and even within the framework of his party’s platform, Benjamin Netanyahu could follow the classical mold of most of Israel’s political leaders and defer non-security matters in the name of attending to Israel’s security. Here, too, Netanyahu could demonstrate a level of political courage, despite his political mandate. He may well be right that the first order of business is addressing the economic dislocation of the Palestinians. Netanyahu will be hard-pressed to pursue even this economic agenda unless he categorically commits himself to an eventual two-state solution and, at least, a settlement freeze. Besides the international repercussions that Israel will face absent a commitment to a two-state solution, such a failure might well set the Arab demographic clock on an irreversible course. It will also accelerate a growing movement for a one-state solution.

One of the classic questions about political leaders is whether times make the leader great or the leader makes the times great. Should President Obama successfully deliver the United States out of its current economic crisis, he will certainly achieve his place in U.S. history as a great president. For Netanyahu at least as great a challenge exists. He will require political courage and commitment to rise to the occasion. Netanyahu begins with an exceedingly skeptical public and not much support; but he has an extraordinary opportunity to lead Israel through dangerous and challenging times.

Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union (e-mail gkahn@kean.edu).

Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com

--TOP--