State of decaySharon's new party did not cause a political earthquake in Israel; it expresses a mood and attitude that has prevailed among the Israeli right since the first Intifada. Large segments of the Israeli right have reached the conviction that Israel needs the establishment of a Palestinian state-like entity in order to extricate Israel from its demographic predicament. This conviction, however, stops well short of the conclusions that the creation of such a Palestinian state requires Israel's withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 borders, the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements and the recognition of the Palestinian right to return. In representing this conviction, Sharon's new party is in line with Washington's position as embodied in Bush's letters of guarantee to Sharon in April 2004. It also presents a purer expression of this conviction than the newly reconstituted Likud with its hard- core settler advocates, such as Moshe Feiglin, and its new ideologues who are revamping the party line preparatory to the facedown between Netanyahu and Sharon.
The creation of a new party, such as Kadima (Forward), on the eve of Knesset elections and after years of debate and political rifts brought to the surface by the unilateral disengagement plan, is perfectly valid from the standpoint of political party politics. What is not valid is the conclusion that Sharon has changed or that there is now a move in Israel towards a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian cause. Even less legitimate is that attempt to provide an ideological gloss for Arab weakness with the claim that Sharon has changed and that now the Arabs have an opportunity they must not forfeit. With this latest fad, ruling families in Arab states -- if we are to judge by recent statements and "conjectures" by their leaders in the press -- are now caught between two "alternatives": either to grasp the new opportunity presented by the new Sharon or to hold out hope for the new Labour Party leader Amir Peretz. We will have other opportunities, however, to return to this conundrum; for the moment we'll concentrate on what is not legitimate from the standpoint of democratic theory.
What is taking place in Israel's parliamentary democracy is the subordination of the political party to the political personality. Now the political game in Israel is for the individual politician to do all in his power to hold on to his office, or to make a grab for office, or to wangle his way into a position to participate in the decision- making process, or at least to manoeuvre himself so as to appear to be taking part in decision-making. Political party boundaries, platforms, ideological positions and other such considerations, which should form the bases for the election of a party's candidate to parliament, are secondary.
The phenomenon we are discussing here has nothing to do with extraordinary personalities who have attained political celebrity status by virtue of their charisma or unique accomplishments. Rather, we are talking about your run-of-the-mill career politician who has set his personal and professional ambitions as his compass for political activity regardless of political party or ideological lines. And, as this phenomenon runs rampant, the journalist's task becomes one of keeping track of, or second-guessing, the politician's movements. Will the MP leave his party or stay? Will Party Y take him on board its list? And, if so, will he be elected to parliament or get appointed to the government office he is after -- his success at attaining this or that position being the end rather than the means for promoting a party agenda.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/773/op2.htm