admin 
It is not unheard of for politicians to sweep the most important issues under the carpet, engaging in wishful thinking that they will somehow resolve themselves or disappear. Yet time and again, it has been proven that one can ignore reality but one can never avoid its consequences.
It might sound naive but it is surely not too much to expect, especially during an election campaign, that the most crucial issues facing the present and future of a country should be addressed and debated with honesty and that the differences between the various political positions should be clearly presented. Voters should be able to walk to the polling stations with a clear idea of what course of action they are voting for and what they can expect their leaders to pursue once elected.
If I am right in making these assumptions, then I cannot think of an issue that should be more hotly debated ahead of the Israeli general election than peacefully resolving the conflict with the Palestinians. One would particularly expect such a debate from the leaders and parties likely to form the next coalition government and potentially produce the next prime minister. Yet there appears to be something approaching a conspiracy of silence: avoidance or perhaps an attempt to sedate voters with the same old commitments to maintaining something resembling what they perceive as the status quo.
It is not only the fault of politicians. Voters cannot exonerate themselves if they are not demanding to be presented with new alternatives and more nuanced approaches instead of cliches and warmed-up versions of old and failed policies. But there is very little of that. Among the parties that represent what is generally referred to as the Zionist narrative, and that mainly represent Jewish voters, there is not a single one that would openly commit to a two-state solution — and, with it, ending the occupation — in any shape or form.
If the opposition replaces the current government, the best it appears to offer is some form of de-escalation
Yossi Mekelberg
To be sure, the parties that form the current coalition government are very clear that they oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, some support the full annexation of the West Bank, while some would extend this to the Gaza Strip as well. They support the continued expansion of settlements and the harassment of the local population in the hope of their “voluntary migration,” a euphemism for forced displacement.
With this camp, there is little ambiguity. For all intents and purposes, they admit that they do not recognize international law. Many among them do not even recognize Israeli law and state authorities when these stand in the way of their biblical-messianic mission of annexation and the imposition of Jewish supremacy. I doubt there is any need to elaborate on why such a megalomaniacal plan should fill with dread any Israeli who believes in human rights, democracy and, above all, human decency.
Then there are the parties that mainly represent the Palestinian citizens of Israel. They support a two-state solution, which, for the Israeli right, automatically singles them out as, at best, disloyal and, at worst, traitors.
At a recent party conference, Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas said: “We, the Arab citizens of Israel, serve as a bridge for the pursuit of peace. A Palestinian state exists and is recognized by most countries of the world, apart from the United States and Israel. We want them to recognize it, too, and to work for peace, reconciliation and an end to the occupation and to the conflict.” This caused a massive commotion in Israel.
Here was a political leader who aspires to be part of the Israeli consensus and potentially the next coalition government daring to plainly say that the path to peace goes through a two-state solution. There was no one to congratulate him for agreeing to take on the thankless task of becoming a bridge for peace and helping to end more than a century of conflict that has caused so much bloodshed, pain and sorrow.
Instead, Gadi Eisenkot, who leads Yashar, the party projected to win most seats and who is a candidate to become the next prime minister, was quick to reject the idea of a Palestinian state. Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid and, of course, Avigdor Lieberman appear uninterested in a two-state solution. But what do they offer as an alternative? And among the Democrats, whose candidates include known supporters of Palestinian statehood, support for a Palestinian state has not been incorporated into the party’s official platform.
If the opposition wins enough votes to replace the current coalition government, the best it appears to offer is some form of de-escalation: removing annexation from the agenda and stopping settler terrorist violence. This would certainly be good news but it hardly amounts to a proposal for a long-term peaceful solution. It would be little more than reversing the most obvious and destructive developments — developments that should never have been allowed in the first place.
For too long, the conflict with the Palestinians has defined Israel and Israeli society. That is why, in the months leading up to the Oct. 27 election, there needs to be a poignant and honest conversation that examines the issue from every possible angle.
Thus far, the conflict has largely been viewed through a narrow, securitized prism. This approach fails to address the root causes, most notably the absence of a diplomatic and political solution. It also fails to consider the consequences of depriving people of their right to self-determination, their basic rights and their dignity, while expecting them to accept this without resistance, especially as they face the continued expansion of settlements, their land being confiscated, their livelihoods curtailed and daily restrictions on their freedom of movement, in addition to their lack of personal security.
There must be an honest conversation about the consequences of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state
Yossi Mekelberg
The brutality of the occupation and what it does to Palestinians is clear. But there must also be a conversation about what the occupation does to Israel, a country that, since its independence, has aspired to be both Jewish and democratic. Is it a coincidence that the rapid deterioration of Israel’s democratic system has coincided with the rule of a government whose members are among the most ardent supporters of the occupation and annexation?
There must be a discussion about the relationship between allowing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester and the increase in violence within Israeli society. And what have Israelis learned from the horrors of Oct. 7, and from the years since then, when they cast their votes?
The promise of Benjamin Netanyahu, the self-proclaimed “Mr. Security,” to protect Israelis from any threat ended with the worst massacre of Jews since the end of the Second World War. It happened under his watch, yet he has resisted a state commission of inquiry amid concerns about what such an investigation might reveal.
Finally, there must be an honest conversation about the consequences of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state, one that is subject to all the security guarantees that might be required, on Israel’s standing in the world. These are pertinent issues for the long-term existence and well-being of Israel and for its ability to become the country it once aspired to be. Kicking the can down the road simply will not do.
