Politicised Tourism: What You Need to Know Before You Book a Tour to the Holy Land

Mourning at Jesus' grave

 

Mourning at Jesus' grave

Mourning at “Jesus’ grave”, Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem). Picture by Laurien Vastenhout

By Laurien Vastenhout -

 

 

The last time I visited Israel, and in particular the various religious sites throughout the country, I was once again struck by the vast number of organised group tours. Groups of people, singing religious songs, publicly reading from the Bible while sailing in small boats on the sea of Galilea – an area where Jesus is said to have spent a significant period of his life – are by no means an exception. Tourists who are exploring the country individually, either by car or public transport, have become a minority. Christians from all over the world organise themselves and follow a carefully planned out 10-day journey through the country, visiting the places referred to in the Bible.* Interestingly, the practical organisation of these kind of tours are in the hands of locals and the choice of sites depends on whether the group decides to take a Christian Zionist tour or a tour in support of Palestinian Christians. This article will outline the difference between these tours and argue that, 1) despite the seeming innocent nature of ‘Holy Land tourism’, organised tours are in fact highly politicised and, 2) that the confrontation between the tour guide and his/her Christian ‘clients’, although an interesting inter-religious encounter at first sight, also raises problems.**

 

One should realise that to many pilgrims, a visit to Israel is not the same as a summer holiday to Greece. The majority of Christians visit the Holy Land of Israel / Palestine as part of the experience and education of the Christian self. Christians cannot get closer to the ‘reality’ of the holy Bible than when they set foot in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the heart of the Old City of Jerusalem, where supposedly Jesus was crucified, or when they walk on the Via Dolorosa where Jesus is said to have carried the cross to the place of execution at Golgotha.*** Sitting on the rooftop terrace at the “Austrian hospice” in the center of the Old City, I was able to closely watch how people in groups of 20-30 walked the same path Jesus had done before he was crucified (see video below). These walks on the Via Dolorosa, with people alternately carrying the cross of Jesus – in doing so ‘reliving’ a fraction of his experience – are carefully organised. Every ten minutes a new group begins with this ‘last trail of Jesus’, halting at various stations of importance (14 in total). Every thirty minutes, Israeli buses bring these crosses back to the ‘starting point’ again, after which a whole new set of groups can commence with the same ritual. 

 

As said, the choice of tour through the land entirely predetermines the perspective these Christian groups get of the country. When you decide to participate in the Zionist Christian tour, the group visits the typically Jewish sites of Jerusalem and the country. Unsurprisingly, the Palestinian Christian tour centralises the Palestinian perspective and largely ignores the Jewish/Israeli element. The difference is highlighted in the make-up of the brochures. Whereas the former often shows the Western Wall in the Old City and emphasises the search for the Jewish roots of Christianity during the tour, the latter shows the Dome of the Rock (see previous article) and emphasises the Christian presence in the city, showing churches rather than paying attention to the Jewish history of the city. A closer analysis of two crucial days of the program of these two tours also shows a significant difference. Whereas the Christian Zionist tour visits the particular Jewish sites in the Holy City, passes Bethlehem (a Palestinian village and ‘birthplace’ of Jesus) and drives directly to Hebron – one of the major settlements in the West Bank – to have a festive evening with the local Jews there, the latter tour actually visits Bethlehem. Also, the choice to show the separation wall at its most problematic point (between two Palestinian villages that are entirely disrupted as a result of the wall) in the latter day-tour is telling. As a result, the tours become highly politicised. The choice of places to visit by these tour operators is crucial to the understanding and perspective of the Christian visitors on the history of the land. Also, their understanding of the nature and continuity of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is moulded. This is by no means a shock or surprise to the people attending the tour – they consciously choose one of the options with a reason, and are simply strengthened in their religious beliefs throughout their visit. Consequently, their political convictions are played upon as well. 

 

The inter-religious encounters between Jewish/Israeli immigrant guides and Christian pilgrims can become an additional complex and problematic factor. The personal story of Jackie Feldman, who worked for years as a tour-guide (for which a successful completion of a two-year course is obligatory) in Israel, is telling. Feldman was a recent American immigrant in Israel and by the time he started working as a guide, he had been disappointed with his arrival in his ‘homeland’ Israel. Raised in a traditional Jewish family in New York, he believed living in Israel would feel as ‘coming home’. By contrast, he was treated as any other immigrant and the difficult bureaucratic procedures made him feel less welcome than he had anticipated. However, during the tours, in which he mainly guided American Christians, he was the representative – or ‘ambassador’ – of Israeli Jews. Through these encounters, he felt more Jewish-Israeli than ever. As more than half of the tour guides are (recent) immigrants to Israel, the interactions with the Christian tourist groups can reaffirm and even strengthen their particular identity as Jewish inhabitant of Israel, while they in reality still struggle to find a place in Israeli society. In short, these interactions inform who they are and alter their identity. Many of the tour guides have come from countries where Jews are only a minority group, opposed to the majority group of Catholics/Christians who are now visiting and guided through ‘their’ land.

 

The resulting constellation of power is seemingly harmless. There is a spirit of harmony and softening between the Jewish tour guides and the Zionist Christians who, as turns out during the 10-day tour, share a similar background. Their religions are more closely connected than anticipated. At the same time, a shared claim against Muslims/Palestinians (in cases of antagonism, often referred to as being one) starts to unfold during this process. In fact, during these Christian Zionist tours, the Palestinian story is ignored through the particular choice of sites and the strong connection between the Jewish guide and Christian pilgrims. A Jewish/Christian commonality comes into existence and is created at the cost of the Palestinians. The same is done the other way around, where tours emphasise the Palestine side of the story. This creates a problematic situation in which the antagonisms between the two groups increases. Of course, the picture is not entirely black and white. There are tours aiming to show both sides of the Old city, paying attention to both the Jewish and Muslim historical roots to the land. As a result, these tours also pay attention to the many nuances of the current conflict. However, the number of these type of tours are small. My recent visit to the country and its many religious sites confronted me more than ever with the politicisation that is inherent to the organised group tours. Although innocent on the surface, ‘Holy Land tourism’ in this form therefore only increases the already immensely complicated situation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. 

 

* Mostly, these tours have a duration of 8-15 days.

** This article is based on personal interactions when visiting Israel at various periods of time over the past years as well as the work of Jackie Feldman and his lecture at Spui 25 on October, 12 2017.

*** It should be noted that research has proven that, historically seen, Jesus can never have been buried at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Also, it is impossible that Jesus walked on the ‘Via Dolorosa’ as it is currently constructed. This also counts for the sites on the ‘Via Dolorosa’ pilgrims are nowadays worshipping.

 

Video by Laurien Vastenhout

Populist rivalry: Trump’s impact on the future and politics of Israel

Trump_CPAC_2011

 

Trump_CPAC_2011

 Trump speaking at CPAC 2011 (creative commons).

 

By Laurien Vastenhout

 

After a period of disbelief and evasive responses, the world now has to face that Donald Trump is President of the United States. To the extent possible, Trump’s measured victory speech in November was ‘hopeful’; at least his tone had softened somewhat. It was not unthinkable that he had played a harsh election campaign, but in practice would be more appeasing. These were encouraging signs. However, the interview with the UK’s Times and the German tabloid Bild last week indicated that there was no moderation after all. With Trump’s support of the UK’s ‘hard’ Brexit, and China’s president Xi Jinping’s announcement to protect the world’s economy against Trump, it seems that the entire world politics and economy is about to change over the course of the coming months and years. One of the crucial topics that has to be examined in this context is the everlasting conflict between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East and the role of the United States herein. A friend and true (financial) supporter of Israel for many years, Trump is about to break with the decades of cautious US policy vis-à-vis the conflict. What can we expect from the Trump administration in the Middle East? And is Benjamin Netanyahu, current Prime-minister of Israel and chairman of the right-wing Likud Party indeed as happy with the Trump’s support as it seemed in his tweet of December, 28 2016, in which he thanked Trump for the warm friendship and clear-cut  support for Israel? This article seeks to create insight in the multiple dangers that lie ahead.

 

There are two individuals Trump nominated on central positions who we should investigate more closely: David Friedman, appointed ambassador to Israel, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Friedman is a pro-Israel hardliner, and strongly opposes the two-state solution. Being part of Trump’s advisory team, David Friedman co-authored a 16-point action plan in November last year in which his views on the difficult situation in Israel/Palestine are outlined. The Trump administration will ensure that ‘Israel receives maximum military, strategic and tactical cooperation from the United States’, the plan stated. Between the lines, one can read the rejection of the apparent ‘anti-Israel’ attitude of the United Nation (UN) members– see the recent United States Security Council resolution from which the US abstained –  and a strong support for an undivided Jerusalem capital. The latter is a highly sensitive topic as Palestine seeks to maintain the Eastern part of Jerusalem as future capital of Palestine, while Israel believes all of Jerusalem should belong to their country. The attempted relocation of the Main Office of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem therefore is an important indicator of the political line chosen by the Trump administration. Moreover, Friedman is president of the American Friends of Beit El, which supports Israeli hardline settlement movements and believes that Israel is legally entitled to annex the West Bank.

 

Trump’s son-in law Jared Kushner, who is appointed to orchestrate a deal between Israel and Palestine has no experience with politics in the Middle East at all. Although, as an orthodox Jew, he is undoubtedly concerned with the area, his complete unfamiliarity with both Israeli and Palestinian politicians is disquieting. Kusner’s links to a far-right Jewish settlement in the West Bank, to which he donated money, are not very promising either. Clearly, the settler movement will have solid backing in Trump’s administration. Palestinians and their allies have repeatedly called on the UN to force Israel to stop with the settlements as it causes hindrance to serious negotiations. As a result, one of Trump’s major political goals, to reach an agreement in the ongoing conflict, seems a utopian line of thought. All of these difficulties, added to his wish to pull out of the nuclear pact signed with Iran in 2016, raise concern about the position of Arab countries of the Middle East.

 

Ironically, Trump’s presidency does not only raise difficulties for Arab countries and Palestine in particular; Benjamin Netanyahu might in fact be not so happy with Trump’s involvement in the region either. Netanyahu’s policies on the settlements in the West Bank over the past years can be characterised by ambiguity and delay. By pretending to keep a two-state solution alive, Netanyahu has often safeguarded the support of the United Stated for himself at the cost of more right-wing politicians. Now important positions in the Trump-administration are taken by pro-settler politicians, this tactic has become ineffectual. Haaretz columnist Chemi Shalev has somewhat ironically indicated that Trump is in fact making Netanyahu seem a ‘left wing defeatist’. In practice, this means that Netanyahu’s position is threatened by his far-right Minister of Education and political leader of the extreme right-wing party HaJehoedie (The Jewish Home Party): Naftali Bennett.

 

Bennett has suggested that Trump’s election signals the end of the two-state solution and the attempts to establish a Palestinian state. Obviously, he uses Trump’s to pressure Netanyahu to recognise the settlements as permanent. Through his statements, Bennett has secured the support of the majority of the Jewish settlers. For a right-wing political leader, this support is of key importance. Netanyahu’s recent aggressive response towards the UN resolution to end Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories at the end of 2016, indicates that he feels he has to win back right-wing voters. Both Netanyahu and Bennett are increasingly using right-wing, nationalistic discourse to prevail. In the case of Bennett, it is no secret that he aims to become Prime Minister himself. Not only is this an alarming development in Israeli politics, it also might cause that Jews around the world feel increasingly disconnected with the country. This, in turn, will result in an increasing isolation of the country.

 

The current situation in Israel and the proposed policies of the Trump administration, which do not favour a two-state solution, are thus worrisome. Although supported by the US, Israel will become a lone wolf in world politics due to its increasing hard stance vis-à-vis settlements in the West Bank. Both internal and external forces ensure that a solution to the long-standing conflict seems further away than ever, despite Trump’s genuine believe that his administration will broker an agreement. Bennett’s recent declaration that he will propose a bill to extent Israeli sovereignty to Maale Adumin, the third-large Jewish settlement in the West Bank, shows that a first major step has already been taken. The coming weeks and months we will have to wait and see how US policies unfold in the region. Without doubt, Maale Adumin will be the first test case and major determinant of America’s policies in the Middle East.

Event Review – ‘Rooms of Humanity’

-0-0-820-540

De Balie

 

By Laurien Vastenhout & Arja Oomkens

On September 19th we visited ‘Rooms of Humanity’, an interactive and experimental exhibition which theatre directors Ilil Landboss and Giselle Vegter made especially for this evening. The promise to address the complexities of mass violence and genocide ensured a full, sold-out theatre. From experts in the field to the interested layman, this evening provided a platform to discuss one prominent question: ‘How is it possible, despite historical awareness, that genocide keeps on occurring?’ In other words, can we understand present-day violence and radicalization against civilians in, for example, Syria, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Sudan?

‘Rooms of Humanity’ responded exactly to the urge of the audience to reflect on this pressing question. The documentary-theatrical installation ‘Sieben Räume Unbegreifen’ was part of the first ‘experience’ of this three-hour evening program. Instead of walking into a room with neatly lined-up chairs facing a podium, we walked into an empty space where everyone was standing around an immense square grid. The grid consisted out of many smaller squares, which would later be walked on by the audience. The rules of the game we were about to play seemed easy: questions would be posed and each of the participants had to either make a step in the grid or remain in place.

What appeared to be an easy game turned into a thought-provoking social experiment. First of all, this had to do with the questions posed. Questions along the lines of ‘do you feel part of a minority group?’, ‘do you consider yourself privileged?’, and ‘would you sacrifice your life for something?’ made all of us reflect on our own ideas, our ability to answer that question at that exact moment, look around at the others, and eventually take a step, or not. In this sense, the game was a good way to thoroughly think some essential questions through. It also exposed some unmistakable group behavior. When all of us were moving around on the square grid, it became extremely difficult not to conform to the behavior of the other participants; sometimes you couldn’t even move from one square grid to the other because the people that surrounded you decided not to move. Standing cramped, you were then unable to decide for yourself when your next step would be. Other conforming group behavior during the game was that almost no one took steps towards the outlines of the square grid; everyone tended to take steps towards the middle of the square. For some, this may have been because they wanted to show active participation in the game, for others, because they wanted to walk towards friends, or maybe even for other reasons. In this sense, everyone seemed to conform to the choices of the others. It would have been interesting if one of the participants had chosen not to conform, but rather looked for a ‘confrontation’ by stepping into an already occupied square or stepping to the outlines. A confrontation like this may have led to some form of discussion which would have added to the usefulness of the game.

In that sense, it was a pity that there was no analysis or explanation afterwards. The ‘game’ raised many questions but failed to answer any of these. It would have been useful to go through some of the central questions again afterwards and to publicly share thoughts on the answers to these questions. Another possibility would have been to discuss our group’s behavior after the game. For a genocide scholar, the game turned out to be a clear reminder of the fact that processes that lead to mass violence and genocide are highly complex. It also reminded us that, order to understand these processes, we must think beyond the good versus evil dichotomy, and study relations of power, peer pressure, and group conformity. A discussion on how the game reverberated these aspects of the violent process would have made for a thought provoking beginning of the evening.

Fortunately, the two hours that followed did provide the possibility to discuss all these complexities with experts on the topic. Walking around from one expert panel on propaganda to another on genocide education, all of the participants experienced what it is like to engage in such complex issues. In an effort to understand the process of radicalization, the participants learned that, while emotional engagement might be the trigger to study this subject, one needs detachment in order to do so.

 

 

 

Film Review: Im Labyrinth des Schweigens – “The Disclosure of a Disturbed Past”

Copyright: Beeldbank WO2- NIOD

 

Main defendant Wilhelm Boger, on the photo left, awaits the beginning of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial in April 1964. In the background a map of the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp. Copyright: Image Bank WW2- NIOD

 

By Laurien Vastenhout and Marieke Zoodsma – 

 

It was not the handsome leading actor on the promotion poster of the film Im Labyrinth des Schweigens (Labyrinth of Lies) that stirred our young historians’ blood. This was rather caused by the endless number of high-up filling cabinets with documents and dossiers surrounding him, perhaps sloppily archived, but a dream for any historian to dig into. These dossiers are the thousands and thousands of personnel files of the Schutzstaffel (SS), the major paramilitary organization that was, under the command of Heinrich Himmler, primarily responsible for many of the crimes perpetrated during the Nazi-regime. The poster depicts the Berlin Document Center, the central collection point of the American administration for documentation from the time of Nazism. Here, our leading actor, the Frankfurter prosecutor Johann Radmann, initiates his major investigation into the crimes committed at the Auschwitz concentration camp. The film starts at the end of the 1950s in West Germany. Radmann is startled by the fact that no one ever seems to have heard of Auschwitz concentration camp – let alone of the atrocities committed there.

 

This idea of (willful) ignorance of the atrocities committed during the Second World War by the Nazis in the post-war period has been thoroughly investigated by Dan Stone in his recent work Goodbye to all That (2014). He underlines that a consensus on the memory of the Second World War was formulated in Germany. In the communist East-Germany, the capitalist system was blamed for this dark period in German history. In the West, there was a tendency to remain entirely silent on the period. Instead of finding a way to deal with the difficult past in which particular groups had suffered tremendously, the idea that this history had already been sufficiently dealt with prevailed, particularly in the West. Those that were deemed guilty had received their punishments through the Nuremberg trials and, from this perspective, the country had been completely denazified.  Stone has argued that this was a constructed consensus that was necessary in order to restore the country, allowing the German citizens to go on with their lives rather easily without having to think of the disturbing past. This can be seen as the central starting point of Im Labyrinth des Schweigens, with an ambitious young prosecutor who, as the story continues, slowly and painfully opens up this disturbing past.

 

In his publication Legacies of Dachau (2008), Harold Marcuse has also illustrated this deliberate silencing of the past by describing the way the Dachau concentration camp was viewed by German society in the post-war period. The municipality of Dachau refused both to construct signs indicating where the camp was located as well as the construction of a metro stop when a new metro line was built. All efforts were directed to make people remember the ‘good’ things of Dachau, for example that it used to be a place with a significant community of painters before the war. The war period was, in short, entirely ignored. This unwillingness of authorities to investigate the past, or even to pay attention to it in the first place, is a reoccurring theme in Im Labyrinth des Schweigens. Johann Radmann and his prosecuting team become visibly frustrated with the fact that the authorities they have to work with, refuse to actively help find the alleged Nazi perpetrators.         

 

The film neatly portrays how politically charged this search for, and the eventual arrest of, alleged Nazi war criminals has been. Even though 50 years have passed since the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials (1963-1965) and international law has quickly developed afterwards, with international tribunals sprouting up like sunflowers in the sun, the politicization of the arrest of alleged war criminals is still as relevant today as it was then. As Radmann digs further in the evidence on crimes committed at Auschwitz, he learns about Joseph Mengele, the infamous Nazi-doctor of Auschwitz who performed medical experiments on the camp prisoners – at that time Mengele is at large and living in Argentina. Radmann decides he wants to bring Mengele to justice, that he ought to be the ‘big fish’ of these trials; “Mengele is Auschwitz”, he claims. The unwillingness of the West-German authorities to arrest Mengele, even when he visits his family in Germany, is reminiscence of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) 2009 arrest warrant of Omar Al-Bashir – the still presiding Sudanese president who is indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity (see Iona’s recent interview with professor Samuel Totten on the Sudan-conflict). When the Mossad (the Israeli intelligence agency) captures Adolph Eichmann in May 1960, Mengele flees to Paraguay and eventually dies a free man in 1979.

 

As the film is largely based on events that have actually taken place, it is a decent and thorough portrayal of the difficulties faced by anyone who wanted to call attention to the troubled past in a period (1950s and early 1960s) when the large majority remained silent. The historical accuracy is praiseworthy, despite the dramatization of some events – with arrests of suspected Nazi criminals taking place even while they are in the dentist’s chair. The film ends with the actual start of the trials which could leave the viewer feeling somewhat unsatisfied. However, the director’s choice not to focus on the perpetrators and the trial itself but mostly on the pre-trial period, where the silence and lies present in German society are most visible, is a favorable decision. This story is not about the war criminals and the actual trial, it is about the difficult disclosure of a disturbed past.

 

Only last week, the 93-year old “Accountant of Auschwitz” Oskar Gröning, who was assigned with the confiscation of luggage of prisoners at Auschwitz, has gone on trial in Germany. Of the approximately 7,000 SS-officers who served at Auschwitz and its sub-camps, no more than a hundred of them have faced trial and even less went to prison. On January 27th of this year, the 70th commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz was held. Next week on the 5th of May, the Netherlands will celebrate their 70-year liberation of Nazi-occupation. Let these trials, how belated and perhaps incomplete as they might be, be a remembrance of the stories untold by the thousands of victims of dictatorial and genocidal regimes. Perhaps not justice but the opening up of silence, of the labyrinth of lies as the film cleverly portrays, is thus primarily served.

The Future of Israel: The Impediments of the Upcoming Elections

Benjamin Netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu

Photo: Israel/Flickr (CC-BY)

By Laurien Vastenhout –

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, Benjamin Netanyahu encouraged European Jews to settle in Israel. Not only because he considered it to be their sole homeland but also because, due to increasing anti-semitism in Europe, the country provides the only safe haven to Jews. Despite the fact that European governments are most likely still better able to protect their Jewish citizens against (terrorist) attacks than the Israeli government, Jews are currently emigrating from Europe. The expectations are that around 10.000 Jews will emigrate from France this year. Benjamin – ‘Bibi’ – already anticipated on these immigrant Jews and unsurprisingly reasoned that more space was needed to house them. In doing so, he is indirectly justifying Israel’s expansion policies. Last January, the Israeli government published bids for the building of 450 new housing units in West Bank settlements, deepening Palestinian anger and eliciting criticism from the Unites States government which called the move illegitimate, counterproductive and likely to worsen Israel’s isolation. With the elections of the Knesset coming up, Netanyahu’s actions and decisions are increasingly scrutinised. What exactly is Bibi’s standpoint, for example vis-a-vis a two-state solution? What are his future perspectives for the country and does he still have the support of the citizens of Israel?

In his speech given at the University of Bar-Ilan in June 2009, Netanyahu made several concessions concerning the withdrawal from Palestinian territory. “In my vision of peace”, he stated, “in this small land of ours, two people live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect.” Two and a half months before the speech, Netanyahu took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel, pledging to establish a national unity government. These commitments do not really correspond to Bibi’s recent expansion policies and he seems to rather unsteady in his approach to the two-state solution. Recent investigation reports have indicated that there have been several instances over the past years in which Netanyahu was willing to make concessions in order to further a two-state solution. Apparently, there has been a moment Netanyahu agreed to conduct negotiations – in which the Unites States, the United nations, the European Union and Russia were involved – on the basis of Israel’s pre-Six-Day War 1967 borders. The West bank, The Gaza Strip and East-Jerusalem would then become independent Palestinian territories. This would also include territory swaps between Israel and Palestinian territories in order to account for the Jewish settlements in the West bank and in the Eastern part of Jerusalem. The first talks were made in 2011. In 2013 and the beginning of 2014, additional attempts were made to settle the territory issue.

On January, 6 of this year, Netanyahu indicated that the Palestinians have made the speech Bar-Ilan speech meaningless by pursuing unilateral action in the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In addition, the Likud party wrote in a published statement last Sunday that, in light of the situation the Middle East is currently confronted with, any evacuated territory would fall either into the hands of Islamic extremism, or terror organisations supported by Iran. As a result, the party officials argued, no concession or withdrawals will be made. With the national elections coming closer, Netanyahu makes a clear move to the political right. It is a strategically important move as recent polls in which respondents were asked how they characterise themselves politically, indicated that only 8 percent of the Israeli Jews said they considered themselves left-wing, while 35 percent indicated they sympathised with the political right. By making this strong and clear turn to the right, Netanyahu most likely hopes to win the majority of the right-wing voters for his cause.

Netanyahu’s move to the right clearly stems from tactical motives. In fact, everything Netanyahu says should be placed in the context of a particular moment and location – these recent statements are characteristic of his continuous movement from left to right. For a long time, it seemed as if this tactic was fruitful as it appeased several parties involved. However, with only three more days to go until the election day Netanyahu’s chameleonic attitude seems to be taking its toll. A universal fatigue of his changeable policies can be identified among the Israeli citizens. However, what are the alternatives? Although the current tendency seems to be that anyone but Netanyahu would suffice, the alternatives are plenty and the Israelis are divided.

For example, on the right one can choose between Naftali Bennett, Moshe Kahlon and Avigdor Liebermann. On the centre, there is the Yesh Atid party on the left the Zionist Union and Meretz.  In addition, there are some orthodox parties. As the situation in the Middle East is rather unsteady, many Israeli citizens want a rightist leader as recent polls have indicated. Thus, although the interest in Netanyahu may be fading, this does not mean that Isaac Herzog, leader of the Labor party and co-founder of the new center-left Zionist Union and currently mentioned as Netanyahu’s strongest opponent, will win. Besides, the expectation is that up to eleven parties are expected to gain at least one seat in the next Knesset, leading to ungovernable situation.  For example, if Netanyahu’s Likud wants to form a right-wing government, it most likely will have to cooperate with many different other parties – e.g. Habayit Hayehudi, Yisrael Beiteinu and Kulanu – in order to establish a majority in the Knesset. The same goes for Isaac Herzog; in fact his situation is even worse as he will have to cooperate with ultra-Orthodox parties in order to become prime minister. Even for some the leaders of parties belonging to the same side of the political spectrum, it will become rather difficult to cooperate – Lieberman, Netanyahu and Kahlon are everything but on friendly terms with one another.

Thus, whereas the current government has lasted for quite a few years, it is questionable whether the government after the election will be viable in the first place. In addition, as it has become clear that a cooperation between at least four or five different parties is necessary in order to establish a majority in the Knesset, there will most likely be a dysfunctional government after the elections. Therefore, the perspectives are dreary and, to complicate things further, external factors are playing a prominent role as well. United States officials, for example, have already indicated that whoever will become Prime-Minister of Israel, they expect him to be in favour of a two-state solution. With his recent claims that Jews are no longer safe in Europe and that they shall come to Israel, simultaneously justifying his settlements policy, Benjamin Netanyahu is increasingly isolating Israel from the rest of the world which is further expanded by his continuous tendency to underline that the country is threatened by many sides (Iran, IS, the Palestinians). This will make it difficult to improve the relation with the United States.

Although the most recent polls have indicated that the Likud party is four seats behind its centre-left rival the Zionist Union, it will be no surprise if Netanyahu wins again: overall, his ‘allies’ on the right are likely to win the most seats. In case the Zionist Union is able to establish a majority, it will become an unworkable situation as it has to cooperate with ultra-orthodox parties. Thus, it is unlikely that a more leftist government will govern the country after the elections. In order to give the Zionist Union a chance, the entire political system has to change. For example by reducing the number of parties, or by establishing a system which makes it easier for the party that has received the largest number of votes to form a well-functioning government. It seems unlikely, however, that these kind of fundamental changes will become reality for Israel´s political system in the short term.