Thursday
Feb052009
Welcome to the Israel-Palestine Future, Courtesy of the Likud Party
Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 9:20
Reader E.T. Cook has posted at Brazen Statesmen an excellent analysis of the Likud Party, which is predicted to capture the most seats in next week's Israeli elections and thus provide the next Prime Minister in Benjamin Netanyahu, and the significance for Israel-Palestine relations. His conclusion?
Even if Netanyahu wins, he will most likely find himself with around 30 seats, which means a coalition with more moderate parties might be in store. If the recent polls are any indication, regardless of who wins, the Israeli public seems to be demanding more aggressive action by their government.
Even if Netanyahu wins, he will most likely find himself with around 30 seats, which means a coalition with more moderate parties might be in store. If the recent polls are any indication, regardless of who wins, the Israeli public seems to be demanding more aggressive action by their government.
Reader Comments (4)
Lest We Forget… A Little Bit of Recent Israeli Political History (about 10 years ago):
While it has been common practice for prime ministers to renege on international agreements signed by their predecessors, I believe Netanyahu has the distinction of being the first Israeli premier to renege on an agreement which he himself had signed, the Wye accords of October 1998, a land for peace deal with the Palestinians which had fair public support in Israel (74% approval by one poll), but which encountered severe opposition in the cabinet and in Israeli nationalist and religious circles. Despite a 75-19 vote in the Knesset in favour of the accords, demonstrating a broad national consensus, Netanyahu’s government on December 20, 1998 suspended the second stage of the implementation of the accords, leading to the dissolution of the Knesset in December 1998, when the government had been in office for only two and a half years of its four-year term.
“The decision to hold new elections amounted to an admission by the Likud that Netanyahu had failed as a national leader and as prime minister. [..] To the outside world the government appeared to be knowingly and deliberately missing the chance to achieve peace with the Palestinians [..] Netanyahu himself was described by commentators in Israel as an “endemic refusenik” who created a dangerous tide in relations with the Arab world and an apprehension of more wars and more intifadas among ordinary Israelis at home.”
“Under Netanyahu’s leadership Israeli society sank into situation of confusion and disarray that was without parallel in the country’s history.
The general election, held on 17 May 1999, was one of the most vitriolic in Israel’s history [..] The campaign focused on Netanyahu’s personality, with many Israelis accusing him of exacerbating the country’s divisions by his paranoid personal style, duplicity, deviousness, and inability to get on with his colleagues. Three of his most senior ministers… supported his rival, Ehud Barak, for the premiership.”
“During his short period in power Netanyahu had gone a long way toward alienating his colleagues and destroying his party,” which was reduced in the 1999 election from 32 seats to 19. “In the direct election of the prime minister, Barak defeated Netanyahu decisively (by 56% to 44% of the vote). [..] Even before the final election results were declared, Netanyahu threw in the towel…. and quit as the leader of the Likud. Netanyahu’s dethronement came as a huge relief in Washington…”
~all quotes from Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall (Penguin Books 2001, pp. 603-609)
Surely Netanyahu if as seems probable , is elected his approach to security is the most pressing issue to determine . He must facilitate 2 apparently countervailing forces ; that of appeasement to the Israeli electorate who it would appear demand a more unambiguous approach to finalizing the Palestinian problem in Gaza and perhaps the West Bank also)- while at the same time he must appear to be a moderate towards Obama.
Whether these two positions are mutually polarized positions are reconcilable remains to be seen.
Mr Netanyahu also has to define his leadership in terms of the two state solution; At one time the concept seemed an unacceptable solution , now however he sems disposed at least superficially to considering some position which would not preclude such a resolution.
His position on the settlements ; whether to expand or enlarge the existing settlements also seems to be framed contingent on how this wwould play out in Washington.
Mr Netanyahu would seem less hawkish, rather than more doveish now, but this may well be a position which allows him the latitude to change his thinking " when the facts change "
How long then before the electorate demand less ambiguity form Netanyahu and less pandering to the nascent Obama administration , it seems all to play for .
It looks like I might have been wrong about a more moderate, left wing coalition.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304702702&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This might prove to be interesting, because Likud is staunchly against any disengagement, especially unilateral. However, Beiteinu is open to some kind of tit for tat. It is driven, though, by ultra nationalism - they want to get rid of the Arab "infested" parts of Israel, and trade those lands for the larger settlements, including some in Gaza.
E.T.,
Thanks for this --- please keep us updated. Should be very interesting on Tuesday.
Scott