Getting over 1977

Whatever the final tally of votes show, one thing is clear: In February 2009 the upheaval of 1977 was made complete. The right, which until that year was in the opposition and has since (with the exception of the hiatus provided by Yitzhak Rabin's premiership) remained in power, settling itself permanently within the mainstream of Israeli politics.

Tzipi Livni's claim that the old division between right and left is dead is only partially correct. Livni was of course referring to the schism between hawks and doves, and on this point she is right, as everyone has become hawks. (She, perhaps, is a dove in hawk's feathers or vice versa.) But by every accepted international standard Kadima is moderately right-wing, Likud is the immoderate right and Yisrael Beiteinu is extreme right.

All these parties believe in neoliberal capitalism and complete privatization. Kadima just espouses more compassion, as is evident by the safety net it unfurled for those who fell victim to a policy that it itself wholeheartedly supported. All three parties reject a separation of church and state, including civil marriage and the excising of the ethnic origin category from the national identity card.

All the parties support minimizing government intervention, weakening public sector services - which are in any event dying a slow death - and in "easing the tax burden." None of the parties has proposed slashing the salaries of executives who oversee semiprivate companies that receive state assistance. What is good for Barack Obama and the United States, the cradle of the free market, is in their view bad for Israel.

All of them speak loftily about state education yet think private education, speak of reducing crime yet think (and carry out) the privatization of prisons, which will enrich investors while sending minor offenders into a downward spiral. They all speak of infrastructure for transportation, yet in practice are quick to slash budgets, encourage the treasury to formulate restrictive budgetary laws and raise public transportation fees while reducing the price of gasoline.

When the map looks like this then Labor - which makes vague noises about being "social-democratic" and wants kinder, gentler privatization - is perceived as ostensibly left wing, but as far back as 1977, when the Herut-Liberal bloc ousted it from power, it ceased being leftist and instead became the jaded bourgeoise that betrayed its constituency. Even now everything mentioned above applies to the party in most respects.

But the grand drama, which took place last night as the right consummated its campaign and seized power, has far deeper roots that touch on the very existence of left-wing culture versus the culture of the right. The most serious development is not the weakening of the Labor Party, but the evaporation of the Labor movement, the one that created the pre-state institutions in all their glory, the movement that made bold decisions, built communities and industry, elevated the working individual on a pedestal and created an enterprise that nurtures life and creativity.

Since being struck temporarily blind in 1977, the generation that inherited the Labor movement has failed to open its eyes and take a sober look at the changing reality. For a fleeting moment, between 1992 and 1994, it was reminded of the values on which it was raised, but its despairing alienation from a majority of the population prevented it from taking back the seat that was pulled out from under it.

In 2006, with Amir Peretz at the fore, it appeared that Labor was returning to its senses as a social-democratic party capable of capturing the lower classes and the periphery. But the core nucleus of the party did not stand behind Peretz and even veered righward, to the hazy bloc known as Kadima, and a chain of tragic errors extinguished the hope.

But what remains of the Labor movement - from its core values as established by A.D. Gordon, Berl Katznelson, Haim-Yosef Brenner, David Ben-Gurion, Luba Eliav and many others, people of substance and deeds - is not dusty history. On the contrary, in light of the economic crisis, most Western states, chief among them the U.S., are returning to the social-democratic model that has been abandoned, calibrating it to the prevailing conditions of the era.

This is not solely about the degree of government intervention, but rather, it is mainly about the degree of commitment toward society. Even today Labor has some dedicated, serious individuals who hold these principles. They must create a different kind of leadership, one with the ability to disengage from the trauma of 1977 and to offer Israeli society, as an alternative to the right, the true path of the Labor movement, a revamped and reborn movement that can meet the needs of the future.