in the past decade we have a new phenomena of conservative politicians and writers that promotes leaving the WB, most of the time unilaterally. we need to take it into account if we want to reach a better understanding of the powers at play.

so first, I suggest separating those who just speak of the two states (Netanyahu, Lieberman) but in practice do the opposite, from those we are making some steps in this direction (a category that might include Olmert and Barak), and could be labeled as center-left.

Second, I think people’s vision of the relations between Judaism and democracy in the state should play a big role in the new left/rigth distinction, and this role will get even bigger in the future.

however, I do think that because of the language (and certainly not because of the quality of reporting), Jpost does not have a major part in the news cycle like the four big daily papers. it’s not read by most people who prepare the morning news show on TV and radio. it’s not read among other journalists in Maariv and Yedioth and Ynet (that i can tell from first hand knowledge) -so its stories don’t get follow-ups. much like the Arab and Russian press, most of the time Jpost is simply not part of the debate.

Again, not because of the paper or the people working in it, but because of the language.

That’s a very good idea in theory (not that the rest of this site follows it – your recent post over AIPAC comes to mind), but this is what the body politic has been mainly divided over all these year. Besides, what’s otherwise left?

One of the unsung drama of modern Israeli politics is the extinction of the Social-Democratic Left. Kadima (and most of Labour) is not distinguishable from Likud in economic policy (nonwithstanding some rhetoric). Haaretz, if anything, is the most (economically) right-wing paper in Israel (at least ever since Aryeh Kaspi died, and I’d say even beforehand). So there’s no difference on economic policy.

What’s left? In theory, the Left’s rhetoric towards the Ultra-Orthodox and “religious coercion” suggests a much more aggressive policy there, but after all these years, we can see this is only kept for being in the opposition. “Rak Lo Shas” becomes “Shas in the coalition” very very quickly.

What’s left, if we ignore foreign policy and once we’ve taken out domestic economic policy, and a good deal of social issues? Not much of anything with actual effect on people’s lives. That’s a pretty poor showing on part of the Israeli left.

My theory is that the private interests of the core leftwing voters (if you look at the last election returns – we’re actually talking the affluent secular (mostly Askhenazi) which lives in the center) is highly opposed to what would be called leftwing policy in every other part of the world – which would inevitably raise taxes and the influence of other sectors in Israeli society. The attempts at a peace deal form a poor excuse (since these voters don’t actually believe it’s possible anymore) for the tribal voting. This explains why Kadima survived and monopolized the left – it has no objectionable baggage from historic Labour.