Regrettable. Pathetic. Many
adjectives apply to what took place here in Israel last night at the
political level:
A party, the very first to do
so, signed on to the coalition PM Netanyahu has been working to
form: Tzipi Livni's party, Hatnua. Not only has this left-wing party
-- with six mandates -- joined, Livni herself will be Justice Minister
AND will be responsible for negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs, reporting
to the prime minister himself. Netanyahu will lead a ministerial
committee on the peace process that will include Livni and the defense and
foreign ministers.
~~~~~~~~~~
Credit:
Samsonblinded
Oi vey! To say that this is bad
doesn't begin to do justice to the situation. It's infuriating,
disappointing, unsettling, and bewildering.
The first question on everyone's
lips (perhaps first after "Are you kidding?"), has been, why? Why would
Netanyahu join forces with Tzipi Livni? They are working within different
political frameworks, and happen to seriously dislike each other (although you
wouldn't have known this last night). Why?
~~~~~~~~~~
There are several answers,
somewhat overlapping (which means he might well have weighed multiple
factors in having made this decision):
As we are all painfully aware,
President Obama is due here in a month. One of his goals is presumed to be
encouragement of the "peace process." So, for want of a better phrase that
I can use here, we might call this the "Suck up to Obama" gesture.
The fact that Netanyahu didn't
just announce Livni's role, but made his own pitch -- "Today Israel extends
its hand once more for peace. We want a peace process, and we hope that it will
yield results" -- strengthens the impression that "sucking up" is what he's
about. Actually, he also said that Livni will be leading talks
to "end the conflict once and for all."
It's a bit nauseating, quite
frankly. He has outlined parameters that he knows the totally intractable
PLO will not accept, and yet he mouths the words, "we hope that it will yield
results."
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the issue of Iran --
the security elephant that is always in the room. I've written before
about the possibility that Netanyahu might be looking for a quid pro quo
here. The idea would be that he would demonstrate "flexibility" on
negotiations in return for a toughening of the US stance on Iran.
Is this in his head now?
Does it in anyway mitigate the position he has taken?
In real terms, there is no
connection between a "peace agreement" with the PLO and taking out Iran's
nuclear capability. That the connection has been made in the US again and
again means that we have a responsibility to disabuse people of the notion that
there is an organic connection between the two. It's not true, for
example, that Arab states will only tolerate an attack on Iran if they see
progress with the Palestinian Arabs. Nonsense.
Any connection being made here is
purely pragmatic -- it would be a deal that says, I do this for you, you do this
for me. Nothing more.
~~~~~~~~~~
But could such a pragmatic deal
work?
My first observation here is
that, if this is the case, Netanyahu is rushing into this too
quickly. Unless -- and I really really doubt this -- there is already an
understanding in the works, what Netanyahu is doing can only be seen as
premature and over-ambitious. The way to go would be to sit with the
president first, provide an offer in terms of what Israel can do to give the
president a diplomatic achievement and explore the ways in which Obama
is willing to change the US stance on Iran.
But here he is, having put someone
who's itching for a "peace agreement" in place before there is any clarity on
where Obama stands on this.
Then there is the question of how
much "toughening of the US stance" would be sufficient to change the dynamic
with Iran. Iranian leaders don't take the US seriously, don't believe
Obama would ever attack them. What would Obama have to do to convince them there
was the threat of a serious military option backing up the
sanctions/negotiations approach? Words alone from him would not do
it, and unless the Iranians took the military threat seriously, all the rest
would be moot.
Lastly, there is this
question, which boils down simply to trusting Obama. Is this in any sense
a prudent thing for Netanyahu to do? Certainly Obama has no track record
on this. But if Israel advances peace negotiations in expectation of
a political/diplomatic/military return...?
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, we can see here internal
political machinations.
I have been diligent in not
repeating rumors that have been floating with regard to Netanyahu's formation of
a coalition -- precisely because they are unreliable rumors that change by the
hour. But at the heart of the matter is the fact that the prime
minister is having trouble negotiating with Naftali Bennett, head of Habayit
Hayehudi (to the right of Likud), and Yair Lapid, head of Yesh Atid
(somewhat centrist).
The simplistic overview:
Bennett and Lapid, separately and together, have been demanding that Netanyahu
negotiate seriously with regard to issues; they want to know where he
stands before joining the government. A prime concern of theirs is the
drafting of haredim. They complain that Netanyahu only wants to talk
about who gets which job, and that there is a lack of serious
negotiations. Certainly, Netanyahu dragged his feet in meeting with
Bennett, in a manner that might be said to be rude. But once they met, the
scuttlebutt was that tensions between them -- which had a long history -- had
been mitigated. Who knows. Certainly it is the case that Lapid allowed his
electoral victory go to his head, so that he made inappropriate statements,
which undoubtedly irked Netanyahu (with reason).
Whatever the case here, a lot of
tension and no coalition.
The rumors have it that Bennett
and Lapid have forged an agreement that either they both go into the
coalition or neither does. Don't know if this is literally true, or if
there is a more general "simpatico" feeling between them. But if there is
such an agreement, the intent is to squeeze Netanyahu and to refuse to allow him
to take either party for granted.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, some analysts see the way
Netanyahu has brought in Livni as being a retort to Bennett and Lapid: You
don't want to play? I'll move left and make you less
important.
Or, conversely, he might be trying
to make them feel that they'd better join before they become irrelevant.
He's playing a game, not with
Obama, but within Israeli political circles. Here it's "stick it to
them." But the prime minister may be too slick for his own good.
Bennett has now said that Livni's placement makes it less likely that he'll join
the coalition.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the record: If
Netanyahu takes in Kadima, Shas, and United Torah Judaism, he would still
be short of the necessary 60+ mandates without either Bennett or
Lapid. He needs them.
Unless he takes in Labor.
Head of this party Shelly Yachimovich has said she won't sit with
Netanyahu. Were she to change her mind, there would truly be a left wing
government, forged by a prime minister who is supposed to be right
wing.
~~~~~~~~~~
And there's the rub: Netanyahu has
lost credibility with this gambit, whatever his intentions. Many people
are furious with him, feeling that he cannot be relied upon to represent the
concerns of the very people who vote for his party.
What we have yet to see play out
(if it will in public) is the full response of the right wing within Likud,
which was actually strengthened in the last elections. They too feel betrayed by
how their leader is acting..
Worst of all is the way in which
Netanyahu has reversed himself. There are multiple sources attesting to
the fact that before the elections he had said that Livni would have no part in
negotiations with the PLO in the next election.
There is, for example, Gilad
Erdan, Minister of the Environment, who said that Netanyahu had personally
assured him that Livni "will not take part in any negotiations with the
Palestinians."
~~~~~~~~~~
As to Livni herself, I will say
that I consider her to be a disaster as a politician/diplomat. She has
repeatedly been involved in decisions that have proved detrimental to
Israel. Many remember her for her role in promoting the "disengagement" --
the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
I always associate her with
Resolution 1701: the Security Council resolution of 2006, which brought a
stop to our war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and called for a UN force in Lebanon,
UNIFIL, to prevent the re-arming of Hezbollah. She called this a
"diplomatic victory." Yea, right. Israel trusting the UN for
protection. Hezbollah has huge quantities of weapons today, brought in
from Syria under the watchful eyes of UNIFIL.
Once, when she gave a talk as
foreign minister, I walked out. I could not bear her explanation that
we, in essence, had to give away part of our land because it was important
that the world like us.
~~~~~~~~~~
Livni has done her own about-face,
or several of them, actually. After the elections, she implored Lapid
and Yachimovich to join with her against a Likud-Beitenu coalition, because
Netanyahu was unsuitable to be prime minister. For a full recounting of
the several ways in which she has seriously reversed herself,
see:
Of course, she is making a big
deal about the fact that she is willing to reverse herself now for the good of
the country.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are those who are
referring to Livni as a fig leaf, saying that Netanyahu is using her in order to
give the appearance of moving on negotiations, and nothing more. She has
alluded to this term herself, saying, "I will not be a fig leaf
for Netanyahu's policies," and insisting that her role is a real
one.
~~~~~~~~~~
The last question to be asked
now is how much damage she can do, either as a powerless fig leaf or
more.
Let me make it very clear that I
do not for a single instant believe that Livni can accomplish successful
negotiations. This is first because of the Palestinian Arabs, who are not
in a negotiating mood and have never been in conciliatory
mood.
They continue to demand release of
all prisoners, freeze of all construction beyond the Green Line, and
agreement that the starting point for talks is the '67 line -- all before they
even come to the table. They want half of Jerusalem (for starters), and "return
of refugees" to boot. They will not consider any proposal that would
be even half-way acceptable to any Israeli sitting at the table with
them.
A settlement is not what they're
after. And to make even small concessions would brand them traitors in today's
radical environment within the Arab world.
~~~~~~~~~~
On our side, we must remember that
Netanyahu -- who has put forth such parameters as the demand that Israel be
recognized as a Jewish state, and that a Palestinian state be de-militarized --
will have the last word.
Not only that, if you noted
carefully what has been proposed, the prime minister will head a ministerial
committee on negotiations that includes the foreign minister and the defense
minister. Livni would sit across the table from Saeb Erekat or whomever,
but she would hardly have unilateral decision-making power.
Avigdor Lieberman, who will
return as foreign minister if he defeats his legal problems, would not be
disposed to serious negotiations. We have to see
who becomes defense ministry (this is something to worry
about). But it's difficult to impossible to imagine a government in
formation that would sign off on the parameters for negotiations that Ehud
Olmert approved as prime minister, which is when Livni last
negotiated.
~~~~~~~~~~
But, this said and done, there is
still the chance for Livni to do damage. To make proposals that concede too
much, to make public statements that should not be made, to lend a tone to the
matter that does not reflect our strength.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, we have one piece of the
puzzle now and yet are still in a waiting game. Word is that Shas is going to
sign on next.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment