No sooner had Tzipi Livni, leader of the Kadima Party, called for the dissolution of the Knesset in the run-up to an early election in Israel, then the international media predictably kicked into gear. The verbiage and tone of the world’s press – including Israel’s own leftist-dominated media – took up the mantle of demonizing Bibi Netanyahu and resumed its now-tired refrain about the “death of the peace process”. 

The Toronto Star has already heralded Livni’s inability to create a governing coalition as “kill[ing] the chances of a deal with Palestinians”. The paper’s Middle East correspondent speaks of the year-old talks aimed at forging a peace settlement between Israel and moderate Palestinians, as if that possibility were really within our grasp. He, like so many other journalists, upholds the illusion that there was truly a meaningful dialogue in play and that Abu Mazen was ready in position to deliver a peace treaty on behalf of the Palestinians. If only. 

This desperation to maintain an illusion is further reflected in the many negative references made to Bibi Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud Party. It is Netanyahu’s insistence, they claim, on keeping Jerusalem as the united Jewish capital of the State of Israel that is the real obstacle to achieving peace. 

A reality check would certainly be in order, but one that will likely not be readily forthcoming.  The policies of Kadima have proven disastrous in terms of advancing any sort of meaningful peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, at the time presented as the panacea that would usher in a new era of peace, has instead brought about a de facto Hamas terrorist state.  Abu Mazen, the head of the Palestinian Authority, cannot even enter Gaza due to security risks and fear for his own life.  His supporters were recently saved by an intervention of Israeli defense forces to ensure Fatah forces would not be murdered by Hamas operatives in Gaza. 

The overtures by Ehud Olmert towards slicing up Israel were rejected by Abu Mazen, just as Ehud Barak’s efforts to try to appease Yasser Arafat were similarly in vain.  This fruitless and relentless strategy of offering up everything for nothing at all, it is claimed, within the terminology of “meaningful dialogue” and moving forward towards a peaceful resolution to the problem.  

Explain this, to the people who were forced out of their homes in the communities they had built in Gaza at the encouragement of the Labour and Likud governments. They now languish, for the most part, in make-shift homes, forgotten by the peace negotiators.  They can attest first hand to the emptiness of such “meaningful” peace negotiations. So too can the residents of Sderot and Ahskelon who continue to endure missiles being launched from Gaza, striking at the heart of their communities. 

We are asked to give credit to Abu Mazen for his constant demands that Israel provide confidence-building measures. Indeed, Israel complied by releasing more and more terrorists from Israeli jails so that they could rejoin Fatah’s Al-Aqsa and Tanzeem militias, the “moderate” terrorist operations of Abu Mazen. 

Yes, upcoming elections in Israel will prove to be heated and the rhetoric will undoubtedly become uncivilized.  The accusations and mud-slinging already piling up against Bibi Netanyahu will no doubt boil over into hysteria, with such claims that his election victory might spell the end of this glorious road to peace that started with Oslo, and which has resulted in two intifadas, thousands of Israelis maimed, murdered and scarred for life. This path also included the withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the abandonment of Christian allies in this security zone, only to be replaced by Hezbollah, which is currently estimated to possess between 40,000 to 50,000 missiles and artillery that can easily reach all of northern Israel. 

It would be remiss of me not to point out that the individual responsible for the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon was Ehud Barak, who has had his own resurrection in the Labour Party and who now leads that political faction.

Proportional representation in Israel makes every vote crucial. But, at the same time, it is inconceivable for any single party to have a mandate to govern effectively.  Whoever wins the next election will be required to cobble together another coalition. I am convinced the results will not be dramatically different for the current government’s composition under Kadima leadership, especially considering that Kadima is leading in current polls.  

Nevertheless, Ehud Barak has already met with Bibi Netanyahu, presumably to strike a deal that would have him serve as Minister of Defense under Netanyahu’s leadership, should Netanyahu win. There may well be a large contingent of Kadima members who defect and return to the Likud Party fold, depending on how the political winds blow in the first few weeks of the campaign and what safe seats they can be given on the Likud list.

Shas will feel more comfortable sitting in a Likud Government since it will not have to worry about the division of Jerusalem and can concentrate solely on procuring more funding for its electoral base.

Avigdor Lieberman and his faction will likely be glad to join a Likud-led led government, although he had no difficulty serving in the Kadima Party. 

The fragmented small right-wing parties will undoubtedly lend their support to the Likud Government as will an ultra-Orthodox Party, The United Torah Party. All these, incidentally, except for the handful of small right-wing parties, participated in and/or propped up the Kadima government.

The essence is that the next election will be unlikely to produce a government that will represent a drastic, dramatic departure from the existing one, as the Western media would have us believe. Israeli political constraints do not offer much room for maneuvering. The dire predictions by media of a Bibi Netanyahu victory undermining all the supposed gains made in a fictitious peace process is just the traditional pundits doing their usual spin- doctoring. Here is another reality check: Bibi Netanyahu is hardly the right winger that the leftist media wish to conjure up.  One should remember that he waited until the very last moment to leave Ariel Sharon’s government before it actually conducted its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

In the landscape of Israeli politics, coalition-building all too often trumps ideological principle. 

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 30th, 2008 at 2:07 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.