Israel’s
New Opposition Leader
December 19, 2002
The clear winner of Israel’s Labour Party primaries on November 18, was the Mayor of Haifa, Amram Mitzna, a retired General who served with distinction in the Israeli Defense Force. He comes with a radical new agenda that is considered both bold and dovish. He will face Prime Minister Sharon in the general elections scheduled for the end of January 2003. At this point in time it seems highly unlikely that Mitzna could win. Sharon’s lead in the polls is overwhelming and as terrorism continues in Israel, the Israeli public will, by and large, settle once more for a war time prime minister.
However, two possibilities are worthy of note. First, many believe Mitzna has set out a more realistic and constructive approach to solving the Arab-Israeli conflict than any proposal Sharon has made or anything he has done since becoming prime minister. Mitzna would open negotiations immediately with the Palestinians, including Arafat, and would evacuate Israeli settlements in Gaza and freeze settlement construction elsewhere in the West Bank. He would be prepared to make far reaching concessions on land for peace provided that Palestinian violence stops. If, however, the Palestinians persist in their self destructive policies of escalation then Mitzna would opt for unilateral separation. That is to say Israel would withdraw to behind new security fences in an area approximating that it occupied before the Six Day War but with a continued major presence in East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians would not, under these conditions, get the territorial contiguity that they were offered at the end of the Clinton Administration. Many Israelis believe this unilateral option has downsides. It does mean uprooting a lot of settlements which would be unpopular and costly. On the other hand, the Sharon approach which offers a mini state or, the policy proposed by Sharon’ persistent challenger, Benyamin Netanyahu, which is to never offer a Palestinian state, are both seen as counterproductive and, in the long run, unworkable.
Mitzna’s other strength is that he has proven to be an excellent manager of Israel’s third largest city, Haifa. The Israeli economy is in a deep recession with over 10 percent unemployment and many people living below the poverty line. Management of the economy has been Sharon’s weak point. The economy is one of the arguments that Netanyahu used to challenge him. But Mitzna will not get a chance to prove his metal as prime minister for some time yet.
If, as expected, Sharon wins the January elections he could invite Mitzna and the Labour Party to join Likud in a coalition government. Coalition governments are popular in Israel when the country is in trouble. If this were to happen there would undoubtedly have to be some compromises beyond what was the case with the previous Labor leader, Ben-Eliezer, who tended to be hardline on all security matters. Mitzna and Sharon have little respect for each other unlike Shimon Peres who, despite his differences with Sharon, shares a long history of working together. Mitzna resigned from the idea in protest against Sharon’s behavior as Minister of Defense during the Lebanon war during the early 1980s. When Sharon had to resign his position, Mitzna rejoined the armed forces. If Mitzna and the Labour Party stay out of the coalition and form a small, but determined opposition, it will have interesting implications for both Israeli and American politics. So long as the coalition government exists in Israel the Bush Administration will by and large go along with that government. But if an effective opposition emerges that has new, radical ideas, it will put pressure on the United States to reconsider its policies in a more practical way that serves American, rather than Likud, interests. If this were to happen further American pressure on Israel to reassess Sharon’s negative policies would be very welcomed.
