There is a slightly puzzling op-ed in Ynet today, written by Ariana Melamad. She takes comments made by PM rivals Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu as chauvinist and she runs with that and says, “Eight days before the elections, the ugly chauvinism of Israeli politics rears its head with incredible chutzpa and hurls primitive insults at 50% of the voters – the female voters – and at the first and only woman who dared compete for the premiership around here. Golda Meir, to those who have forgot about it, was appointed to the post after Levi Eshkol passed away, and only later went to elections.”

Well I think she misses the point. First of all, both Barak and Netanyahu are speaking to her qualifications of both being Israeli prime minister, and how to manage a war. The fact is that she constantly appears to be overwhelmed by her current position and the thought of her as a PM, has many people looking elsewhere to cast their vote. Barak’s point was that he, as a soldier, general and as Israel’s most decorated soldier, can understand all sides of what it means to send soldiers into combat, and that since she never wore those hats, she can’t possibly understand the gravity of the decision.

Neither one of those comments is because she is a women. it’s because they feel she isn’t up for the job. it almost seems that Melamad thinks we should vote for her solely because she is a women. the question of qualification doesn’t matter for her.

Isn’t that chauvinism of another kind? Why can’t we just vote for someone because he/she is the best candidate for the job?

Maybe the writer can actually give the Israeli public credit. Maybe her free fall in the polls is because few think she will make a good PM? Maybe just maybe that could be the case.

Share with others: