Settlers lose, no matter who wins election
There can be no compromise: Equality for all, regardless of sexual orientation
With nine days to go until the elections, why would Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travel to the South Hebron Hills?
It’s an isolated area of the West Bank with few voters, of whom many have previously supported his rival, Yamina Party head Naftali Bennett.
In a way, it’s surprising Netanyahu went to the West Bank at all.
His playing card throughout the elections has been Israel’s almost mythic ability to lead the world in inoculating its citizenry against COVID-19, a particularly impressive feat given that the Jewish state has no ability to produce the vaccines.
The settlements issue, in contrast, has been his weakest selling point.
During the last election, he pledged to annex the settlements, but then reneged on that promise in favor of normalization deals with four Arab nations under the rubric of the US-brokered Abraham Accords.
He promised to authorize the outposts, but then was stymied by Alternative Prime Minister and Defense Minister Benny Gantz of the Blue and White Party.
Out of all the right-wing party heads – Gideon Sa’ar of New Hope, Naftali Bennett of Yamina and Bezalel Smotrich of the Religious Zionists – Netanyahu has the most centrist agenda regarding settlements.
He supports a demilitarized Palestinian state and has never spoken in favor of Israeli retention of all of Area C of the West Bank.
His right-wing rivals oppose a Palestinian state and would want to see Israel hold onto Area C of the West Bank. They have all made campaign trips to Judea and Samaria.
The pot of settler voters is small: in the last campaign, it stood at 247,072, of which only 76% voted.
Out of those, only 52% of the votes went to right-wing parties, with Netanyahu capturing 29.5% of the support and Yamina garnering 22.6% of the tally. Netanyahu is bolstered by support in two centrist leaning right-wing settlement cities – Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel – which traditionally contain the largest pockets of Likud support.
Sa’ar’s New Hope Party is expected to pull voters from both Yamina and the Likud, making it even more unlikely that Netanyahu could bolster his numbers with a trip to the settlements.
And once there, he has little to offer them compared to his rivals.
With his support flagging by a mandate or two in the polls, however, Netanyahu turned in the direction of the settlements Sunday with a trip designed to highlight three messages.
He visited the Gush Etzion region, whose communities fell to the Arab Legion in the 1948 War of Independence and which has symbolized in modern times the resurrection of Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria.
Then he made his first-ever trip to the South Hebron Hills as a prime minister, where he visited the site of a fifth-century synagogue to underscore both his understanding of the region’s ancient Jewish history and to renew his pledge never to uproot settlements, including isolated ones.
Lastly, Netanyahu also made a campaign stop at an outpost to show he would increase Israel’s footprint in the West Bank and approve new settlements.
The South Hebron Hills region portion of the trip was particularly aimed at Bennett, whose supporters he has always pilfered in the past. Historically, many of the South Hebron Hills residents have favored Bennett over Netanyahu.
ONCE ON the campaign trail in the
West Bank, Netanyahu’s strongest argument, however, was not about what the settlers could hope for, but rather what they could most fear – in this case, a government led by centrist politician Yair Lapid.
His argument went like this: No matter how much more Bennett and Sa’ar can promise them, no matter what their track record is, the following are correct.
They are unlikely to best Netanyahu on election day, and according to the polls, Lapid is the second largest vote-getter. His party believes in a two-state solution that includes only the settlement blocs, and would support the evacuation of isolated settlements such as in the South Hebron Hills.
There are two choices before the voters; a Netanyahu-led government or a Lapid-led government.
Should Bennett and Sa’ar not join Netanyahu’s government, they would have to go with Lapid. At the very best, they could stop him from achieving a two-state solution with only the blocs, but they could not promote a full fledged right-wing agenda for the settlements.
The true factor that voters have to weigh when choosing a right-wing party is not its maximalist positions, but whether it can execute them.
Bennett and Sa’ar can promise what they want, but they will not be able to fulfill that pledge, because neither of them are likely to come in either first or second place.
In a contest between Netanyahu and Lapid, Netanyahu is a better choice for the right, because he believes in retaining all of Israel’s settlements and can execute that policy as long as he can form a right-wing government.
It’s a point Netanyahu hammered home at each campaign stop in the settlements.
But he failed to mention that a right-wing government under his leadership would still be limited by US President Joe Biden, who opposes settlement activity.
So at best, those who support the settlements in this campaign can choose between a Lapid-led government that could uproot isolated settlements, or a Netanyahu government, which could work to retain all the settlements.
For the Israeli pro-settlement right-wing voter, who just a year ago believed that sovereignty over the settlements was only months away, the election results are a loss no matter what the outcome.
Conference tournament week has been chaotic this year, with close to half of the No. 1 seeds getting upset and several top-tier programs being forced to end their tournaments to meet COVID-19 protocols.
With Selection Sunday right on the horizon, we have seen teams bolster their NCAA Tournament profiles, while others have damaged theirs. Projected seeding lines have been in constant fluctuation.
Which teams have used the final week to hit their stride for March Madness? And which teams are drifting in the opposite direction? Here are the biggest winners and losers from
championship week:
Texas: The Longhorns (19-7) started the season off hot at 10-1. Then they hit a skid midway through the season. Now, they’re back to being hot. Coach Shaka Smart’s team won its sixth game in a row with a 91-86 victory over a similarly surging Oklahoma State team in the Big 12 Tournament final. Texas didn’t get to play Kansas in the semifinal because the Jayhawks were forced to drop out because of a COVID-19 positive test, so that likely overshadowed how much this team is hitting its stride. This win likely vaults Texas up to a No. 3 seed.
Georgia Tech: The Yellow Jackets (17-8) took down Florida State 80-75 to claim the ACC tournament title Saturday. It’s just the latest evidence that this is one of the hottest teams in the country. Georgia Tech, once a bubble team, is now a safe No. 9 seed thanks to winning their last nine games.
Illinois: The Fighting Illini (22-6) solidified their No. 1 seed by dispatching Iowa 82-71 to reach the Big Ten tournament final. It also positions Illinois to make a statement as the league’s best team as March Madness begins, thanks to Michigan falling. Coach Brad Underwood is a national coach-of-the-year nominee, while Ayo Dosunmu is a national player-ofthe-year candidate.
Ohio State: The Buckeyes (21-8) knocked off top-seeded Michigan 68-67 in the Big Ten tournament semifinals – a Quadrant 1 win that will bolster Ohio State’s credentials as a likely No. 2 seed in the NCAAs. Before that, the Buckeyes beat Minnesota in the second round and Purdue in the quarterfinals. Ohio State’s showing in the league tournament is huge for March momentum purposes considering it had lost four consecutive games to close out the regular season.
Alabama: Coach Nate Oats has this team rolling in March. After hammering Mississippi State by 38 points in the SEC tournament opener, the Crimson Tide (23-6) held off a tough Tennessee effort for a 73-68 win in the semifinals. While it’s unlikely now to catch Michigan or Illinois for a No. 1 seed, ‘Bama will be one of the best No. 2 seeds.
Georgetown: After an offseason of transfers and controversy, coach Patrick Ewing now finally has himself an NCAA Tournament team following the Hoyas’ 73-48 beatdown of Creighton in the Big East Tournament final. The bid thief of the this year’s March Madness, Georgetown knocked off top-seded Villanova and Seton all before Saturday’s impressive win.
LSU: The Tigers (18-8) clipped Arkansas 78-71 in the SEC tournament semifinals on Saturday to reach the final. Before that, they survived Mississippi at the last second in a 76-73 win in the quarterfinals. This is all good news for LSU, which had slipped in seeding because of poor play in late January. But now this group is drifting toward a No. 6 seed.
LOSERS
Creighton. The Bluejays (20-8) got obliterated by Georgetown 73-48 in the Big East tournament final, and hardly looked like the best iteration of this team that’s been ranked all season. The blowout loss is coming on the heels of a one-game suspension last week for coach Greg McDermott after he used racially insensitive remarks during a postgame speech with his players. Creighton showed signs of being a strong No. 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament in the Big East semifinals, edging Connecticut 59-56. But Saturday’s outcome is still eye-opening.
Michigan: The Wolverines (20-4) won’t lose their No. 1 seed after a 68-67 loss to Ohio State in the Big Ten Tournament semifinals, as that’s locked up. But the loss of Isaiah Livers, who is out indefinitely with a stress fracture in his right foot, drastically changes the dynamic of this team right before the NCAA Tournament.
Baylor: The Bears (22-2) are locked in as a No. 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament, trailing only undefeated Gonzaga as the top overall seed. But Friday’s 83-74 upset loss to Oklahoma State in the Big 12 tournament semifinals revealed how beatable Baylor can be when it isn’t shooting well (6-for-28 from three-point range) and when its defense falters (allowing 45 points to Cade Cunningham and Avery Anderson III). Baylor has been phenomenal all year, but it also is prone for an upset. Championship week just reinforced that notion.
Missouri: Coach Cuonzo Martin’s team was one of the top 16 seeds unveiled by the NCAA in last month’s bracket reveal. Now, the reeling Tigers (16-9) are a No. 6 seed on the verge of falling to a No. 7 seed. A narrow win against Georgia in the SEC tournament was followed by a 70-64 loss to Arkansas in the SEC tournament quarterfinals. This group has now lost six of nine.
Oklahoma: The Sooners (15-10) are not a good team to pick in your NCAA Tournament bracket. Although they barely escaped Big 12 doormat Iowa State in the conference tournament opener, they couldn’t get past Kansas in the quarterfinals and have now lost five of six. Coach Lon Kruger’s team looks unimpressive this March and we’ve seen OU fall from a No. 4 seed to a No. 7 seed in bracketology as a result.
UCLA: Coach Mick Cronin got the Bruins (179) off to an 8-0 start in the Pac-12 this season, but this team is not heading in the right direction heading into the NCAA Tournament. They’ve lost four consecutive games, including an 83-79 overtime loss to Oregon State in the Pac-12 tournament. While UCLA did enough earlier in the season to be safe on Selection Sunday, it’s still fallen to a No. 10 seed in bracketology.
Duke, Virginia, Kansas: All three blueblood programs were forced to drop out of their conference tournaments due to COVID-19. While the Blue Devils lost their chance to make a run for an NCAA Tournament at-large or automatic bid, Virginia and Kansas lost out on opportunities to improve their seeding line by calling it quits to adhere to COVID-19 protocols. Kansas is a No. 3 seed that could have improved to a No. 2 seed and Virginia is a No. 4 seed that could have jumped to a No. 3 seed. Duke, of course, needed to beat Florida State in the ACC tournament to be even considered as a bubble team.
(USA Today/TNS)
Fighting for its political survival, with the polls pointing to it precariously hovering around the 3.25% electoral threshold, the last thing Meretz needed last week was for Ghaida Rinawie-Zoabi to alienate potential LGBT voters, one the key constituencies the candidate’s party represents.
For as long as Meretz has been in existence, the promotion of equal civil rights for all the country’s citizens regardless of race, religion or sexuality has been at the forefront of the party’s identity, alongside its consistent and vocal opposition to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
In a car crash of a political interview, the number-four candidate on the Meretz slate told the Kul al-Arab website that while Meretz supports the right of every person to live as they please, she planned to take into account the society she comes from. Therefore, Rinawie-Zoabi said, out of consideration for religious sentiments in the Arab community, she would abstain from supporting a bill banning the use of the controversial “conversion therapy” that aims to change the sexual orientation of LGBTQ people.
The bill, which has already passed its preliminary reading, is sponsored by Meretz leader Nitzan Horowitz, so Rinawie-Zoabi really doesn’t get top marks for her political smarts.
Rightly so, the party machinery cracked down hard on Rinawie-Zoabi. She was quickly forced to issue a clarification and immediately released a hostage-like video in which she reiterated her retraction and stressed her
commitment to legislation on behalf of the LGBTQ community. To hammer home the point that Meretz was and is the most gay-friendly party in the Knesset, Horowitz filmed a tongue-in-cheek video of the joys of home life with his partner, Ido Riklin.
This little episode highlights one of the difficulties facing Meretz: the need to attract the votes of the supposedly more conservative-leaning (in terms of sexual politics) Arab electorate while spearheading the battle for LGBTQ rights across Israeli society. In this clash of values, though, there can be no compromise: Meretz must stand firmly behind the right to equality for all, regardless of sexual orientation.
Support though for Meretz has been steadily dropping. Some Meretz voters looking to vote strategically are tempted to cast their ballot in favor of Yesh Atid in the hope that this center party will bring about the end to Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu’s grip on power; others are tempted by the attractive feminist agenda of new Labor leader Meirav Michaeli.
MANY ON the Jewish Left, despondent at the failure of Meretz to make a mark on Israel’s mainstream political life since its mythical leader Shulamit Aloni was a cabinet minister in Yitzhak Rabin’s government, are tempted to turn this disillusionment into a vote for the Arab Joint List.
On many levels, such a move is understandable. The Joint List has shown an increasing desire to play an involved role in national, rather than just sectoral politics. Strong Jewish support would help further the aim of true Arab-Jewish solidarity and the building of a better society for all of Israel’s citizens. The Joint List has consistently polled stronger than Meretz in recent elections and is regarded by all, from Yair Lapid leftward, as potential coalition allies.
But the Joint List also has a homophobic skeleton hiding in its closet. Just as Rinawie-Zoabi initially justified her would-be abstention on the conversion therapy bill due to religious sensitivities in the Arab community, Joint List politicians are even more vehement in their anti-gay rhetoric as they seek to garner votes among Israel’s Arab citizens.
As journalist Akiva Novick pointed out, the Jewish Left’s favorite Arab politician, Ahmed Tibi is no friend of gay-friendly legislation.
“We are against the LGBTQ ‘phenomenon,’” Tibi was reported saying last week. “If there was a law regarding gay pride marches or promoting gay pride in schools, we would vote against it.” Unlike Rinawie-Zoabi, Tibi, who is regarded as a liberal, faced no calls to retract his remarks.
Jewish (and Arab voters for that matter) who pride themselves on their concern for the principle of equality, need to take careful stock of such comments and ask whether a vote for the Joint List really will promote an agenda of equality for all. Where is the condemnation of Tibi’s homophobic remarks by other leading Joint List politicians and supporters?
On the Meretz side, damage-containment done, the party can now concentrate on its most pressing need: ensuring it wins enough votes to make it into the next Knesset. The importance of Meretz cannot be overstated. Even if it only manages to squeeze past the threshold and bring four members into the Knesset, the presence of an anti-occupation, pro-equality (across all sectors and sexualities) Zionist party in Israel’s parliament is vital for the country’s democratic wellbeing.