Without ideology

Both right- and left-wing ideologies have crumbled. All that's left now is to be pro-active
Daniel Friedman

The great victory of the Six Day war created a question of what to do with the newly-conquered territories.

Two opposing ideologies competed to set the national agenda: One – the Whole Land of Israel ideology – maintained that Israel should retain most of the area, including the Gaza Strip and all of the West Bank.

This ideology was embraced by several central Labor Party figures and was adopted whole heartedly by the right-wing.

The other view – that of Peace Now – held that peace could be achieved in exchange for the occupied territories, and that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders and establish a Palestinian state.

The Whole Land of Israel ideology brought us the settlements. The Peace Now ideology brought us the Oslo accords. The fact that Israel has lacked any consensus regarding a major foreign policy question for nearly 40 years, and right- and left-wings have staged a political tug-of-war on the question is a disastrous story in-and-of-itself.

Crumbling ideology

In the meanwhile, both ideologies have crumbled. The Whole Land of Israel ideology was laid to rest by Menachem Begin when he signed the peace treaty with Egypt, returned the entire Sinai Desert and made commitments with regard to the Palestinian people.

This was joined by the fact that the Israeli public understood, albeit late in the game, that the Whole Land of Israel ideology provided no answer for millions of Palestinians living in the territories, and that annexing them to Israel would make the country a bi-national state.

On the left, the Peace Now ideology rumbled with the Oslo Accords. Turns out the agreements did nothing to help the Palestinians abandon terrorism. They continue to demand a right of return for 1948 refugees to Israel proper, and there are many, powerful elements on the Palestinian side working hard to destroy Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

Anyone who was unconvinced of this after the terror outbreak of September 2000 understands it well following the election victory by Hamas in January.

Being pro-active

Israel is left only with the possibility of being pro-active, an approach that says the country must establish the best arrangement it can get in the current, difficult reality in which it finds itself. This will be done by retaining those areas necessary to maintain security, while taking into consideration Palestinian civilian concerns and international considerations. The only consideration, the only "ideology" at work, is the practical/ pro-active.

In the current circumstance, the emergence of Kadima is not surprising. Many call it the "rise of the center," but in actual fact it is testimony to the abandonment of both outdated ideologies and the adoption of a pro-active approach.

This is what brought Ariel Sharon to pull out of the Gaza Strip. It is also the common denominator between Kadima's candidates, who come from both right- and left-wing ideologies. Both have abandoned their old ideologies and chosen the path of pro-activity and reality.

We are witness to attempts by the Likud and Labor parties to adopt such an approach, but they are both saddled with yesterday's world view, by outmoded ideologies.

Strange politics

Israeli politics are characterized by a strange phenomenon: the folks responsible for the failures of yesteryear are asking the public to give them a chance to rectify their mistakes. History is full of similar examples.

Moshe Dayan once said he'd rather have sovereignty in Sharm al-Sheikh than peace; he eventually became the architect of the peace treaty with Egypt. Ariel Sharon was the godfather of the settlements; he was also the man to destroy the settlements in Gaza.

Each of the major parties has central figures whose parties cannot stick to the positions they preached in the past.

Daniel Friedman is a columnist for Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth