Arabs watching the Israeli elections
Netanyahu on Al-Jazeera (screen capture) I spent a good part of yesterday afternoon watching al-Jazeera’s coverage of the Israeli elections. I’ve also been reading editorial commentary and news coverage from across the Arab world. I’d like to be able to say that Arabs are on the edge of their seats awaiting the outcome. ...
Netanyahu on Al-Jazeera (screen capture)
I spent a good part of yesterday afternoon watching al-Jazeera’s coverage of the Israeli elections. I’ve also been reading editorial commentary and news coverage from across the Arab world. I’d like to be able to say that Arabs are on the edge of their seats awaiting the outcome. But that’s not what I’m seeing. For the most part, the elections are seen as a choice between bad (Livni) and worse (Netanyahu) with Lieberman the “real” emerging face of Israel. This isn’t like 1996, when the choice between Peres and Netanyahu seemed stark and urgent. Today, they survey the wreckage of Gaza and see little reason for hope regardless of the outcome. Whoever wins the election, argues the journalist Mustafa Zayn in al-Hayat, the true winner will be Ze’ev Jabotinski and his doctrine of the “Iron Wall.”
The skepticism bridges today’s great divide in Arab politics. There’s little difference between the coverage in al-Quds al-Arabi (the most populist / “rejection camp” of the major Arab papers) and al-Sharq al-Awsat (the most conservative / “moderate camp” Saudi paper). The Saudi station Al-Arabiya leads with the rise of Israeli extremists (mutatarufin, the same word used to described al-Qaeda extremists). Al-Sharq al-Awsat describes the election as the choice between “the right and the extreme right.” Neither Barak nor Livni is seen as offering a particularly better choice after Gaza. The veteran journalist Abd al-Wahhab Badrakhan is “waiting for Lieberman,” marveling that Netanyahu finally succeeded in finding someone worse than himself — and arguing, as many do, that Lieberman would be the best winner since he would show Israel’s “true face.”
Much of contemporary International Relations theory argues that the superiority of democracy lies in its transparency, as a free press and political competition and elections allow other countries to more accurately assess its intentions. In this case, the transparency of Israeli democracy may be working just as IR theorists expect… but the message being sent is the opposite of reassuring. Whoever wins will have to take significant steps — “costly signals” in the IR lingo — to change these Arab expectations and fears. We’ll see.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, where he is the director of the Institute for Middle East Studies and of the Project on Middle East Political Science. He is also a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. He is the author of The Arab Uprising (March 2012, PublicAffairs).
He publishes frequently on the politics of the Middle East, with a particular focus on the Arab media and information technology, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Islamist movements. Twitter: @abuaardvark
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
