Left: It's the new 'Right'

I had wanted to write about this during and immediately after the disengagement, but things were still too raw (and emotions too high) to be approached (by me, anyway) with anything resembling objectivity.

Now that a little time has passed, I'm hoping that the broad range of political positions represented by treppenwitz readers will feel comfortable contributing to a discussion of a confusing issue.

I have always labeled myself a 'centrist'... not because I'm foolish enough to believe that such a thing actually exists... but because I subscribe to positions that have traditionally been associated with both the right and left.  The idea being that if the two arms of the scale bear similar loads, the balance moves to the center.

For instance, on domestic issues such as social welfare, civil liberties, universal health care, and government regulation/oversight of certain key industries and agencies, I lean strongly to the left. 

At the same time, on some issues related to homeland security, foreign policy, and even such taboo subjects as extra-judicial targeting of self-defined terrorists, I am well to the right.

In other words, I have conveniently cherry-picked issues and policies from each side of the political spectrum without regard to whether they are part of a 'matched set'.  I try to look at things to see if they make sense individually... not whether they match the other policies in my 'closet'.

The problem with this approach is that most of the people with whom I would like to have an honest discussion have already invested heavily in the matched set of political baggage.  As often as not they bolster their own positions by pointing out the flaws in the opposition's policies instead of telling me what's correct about their own!

This is where I get confused.

You see, here in Israel, not only are the two sides of the political spectrum no longer on speaking terms... but they seem to have shamelessly stolen more than a few of each other's central platforms.

Let's take civil liberties for instance. 

Civil Liberties has traditionally been the bailiwick of the left.  Let the government trod upon the civil rights of an individual in the pursuit of its agenda and the lefties are sure to scream bloody murder... and rightly so (pun intended)! 

Yet during the disengagement the government (aided heavily by a traditionally lefty bastion; the media) systematically deprived supporters of the anti-disengagement movement of their right to assemble, demonstrate, travel freely, disseminate lawful communications, etc.  Administrative detentions were employed without any meaningful judicial oversight, and minors were held without remand for weeks without anything approaching due process.  Yet throughout these abuses the left (and the media) remained silent.

Buses and cars that were on their way to demonstrations were detained or turned around by army patrols and police cars simply because the occupants were visibly religious and/or on their way to protest against a government policy they found objectionable.  These were tax-paying citizens that were singled out by the government and denied their ability to legally move about the country simply because of their thoughts... not because of any illegal action. 

Throughout the disengagement process, the leaders of the settler movement worked heroically to keep their followers from inciting / participating in destructive or violent confrontations.  Given the huge number of people actively involved in the protest movement, the paucity of vandalism, assault and criminal acts bears out the efforts of the leadership to avoid such counter-productive behavior.  And those that did act criminally were loudly denounced by both the leadership and the rank & file of the right.

So why was the Israeli political left (and the media) so stridently vocal about what were obviously anomalies in the right-wing camp's behavior, and completely silent on systemic abuses of civil liberties by the government?

One can't easily argue that it was simply a matter of convenience.  To suggest that the left remained mute throughout this period of glaring abuses simply because the abuses were against the 'enemy' flies in the face of a healthy Israeli left wing that has repeatedly championed Palestinian causes against both the government and the right wing when issues of civil rights violations have arisen.

The leftist part of me doesn't understand how Machsom Watch (a group of lefty activists who show up at roadblock) can stand out in the hot sun to ensure that Palestinians are treated fairly / not denied reasonable freedom of movement, yet utter not a peep when anyone with an orange ribbon or a kippah was arbitrarily pulled over and detained by soldiers and police.

I honestly have no (legal) problem with a right wing Prime Minister who steals a plank from the left-wing's platform to create a policy of unilateral disengagement, so long as he does so by legal means and with the support of his party.  That the Likud hasn't brought down the government is proof enough to me that Sharon has been able to win (or coerce) the support of his party.  But it is far from clear that he acted legally in the actual execution of the disengagement plan.

I am genuinely interested in an intellectually-honest discussion of how/why the left and right have reversed positions so completely on such a litmus-test issue as civil liberties? 

Is it simply a case of expedience? 

Is it because the means were ultimately justified by the outcome?

If so, I'm really confused... because I had always considered Niccolo Machiavelli to be a champion of the right wing, not the left!