Benjamin Netanyahu’s alternative is just as bleak for Palestinians

With just over two months to go before the second Israeli election this year, and with the latest polls predicting prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will struggle to meet the 61 seats needed to form a governing coalition, former Israeli minister and current Yisrael Beiteinu party chair Avigdor Lieberman has emerged as the kingmaker. Last month the veteran politician expressed his desire for a unity government between Likud and the opposition Blue and White list.  Lieberman, whose refusal to form a coalition with Likud triggered the dissolution of the Knesset in May, told Israeli radio: “We will aim for a government with Likud and with [the Blue and White party] and that will be an emergency government, a national liberal government. We will do everything to limit the haredim [ultra-Orthodox] so that they won’t enter government.” Blue and White number two Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist party Yesh Atid, quickly backed  Lieberman’s call.

It marks a remarkable volte face for  Lieberman, who just days earlier had claimed he would never recommend  Gantz as prime minister and that the Blue and White could “go to the North Pole to form a government with polar bears”. In a later Facebook post, he appeared to relent by stating the party with the most seats in the September 17 election would get his support.

What is driving his loyalties is his stated goal of the exclusion of the ultra-Orthodox parties. The contentious issue of conscription of the haredim, a bill that former defence minister  Lieberman fiercely supported before his sudden resignation, was cited as the reason why he would not join a coalition with  Netanyahu after the last election in April.

A national unity government could secure an estimate 70 seats, well above the 61 needed to secure a majority in the Knesset. However,  Lieberman is effectively calling for a government without  Netanyahu, since  Gantz has rejected the idea of a coalition with the Likud leader, who faces indictments over alleged corruption. By default,  Lieberman is inviting Likud to get rid of  Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, there are elements on the Israeli right – including the orthodox nationalists – who are starting to question whether  Netanyahu has become more trouble than he is worth. Within Likud, somewhat discreetly, key players are manoeuvring for the day after.

 Lieberman’s gamble may not pay off, however.  Netanyahu could very well emerge victorious from the new elections and face corruption charges as a sitting prime minister. He is likely to seek a Knesset majority by trying to unite the right, issuing the battle cry that  Lieberman is trying to force a “leftist” government.

However, in the context of both a second election after failing to secure a majority, and a possible indictment, it is becoming increasingly possible to imagine Israeli politics without the man who has held the position of prime minister for the past decade (in addition to his three years in office in the 1990s).

For many international leaders and pundits,  Netanyahu’s dominance, along with his open opposition to Palestinian sovereignty and alliances with far-right political forces, has made it easy to pin the blame for Israel’s ongoing military occupation firmly on the long-time Likud leader.

However, if  Netanyahu is removed from the picture, a more disturbing reality will become clearer; namely, that the opposition to basic Palestinian rights is not restricted to  Netanyahu, or even his party, but rather is shared across the majority of the Knesset.

Over the years, an argument framed in terms of “security” has helped mask Israel’s true intentions with regards to the occupied Palestinian territory.

SOAS scholar Mushtaq Khan, co-author of the 2005 book Aid, Diplomacy and Facts on the Ground: The Case of Palestine, writes that a genuinely sovereign Palestinian state would not resolve – and would possibly exacerbate – the challenges posed to Israel’s identity as a “Jewish state” by two key constituencies – Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian refugees in the wider region. Thus, Khan wrote, Israel’s security-focused argument, along with the facts on the ground of relentless settlement expansion, only make sense as “part of an Israeli strategy of long-term management of its ‘Palestinian problem’ through conditional, partial, and reversible transfers of governance responsibilities in densely populated parts of the occupied territory”.

 thenational.ae

 

Benjamin Netanyahus alternative is just as bleak for Palestinians

With just over two months to go before the second Israeli election this year, and with the latest polls predicting prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will struggle to meet the 61 seats needed to form a governing coalition, former Israeli minister and current Yisrael Beiteinu party chair Avigdor Lieberman has emerged as the kingmaker. Last month the veteran politician expressed his desire for a unity government between Likud and the opposition Blue and White list. Lieberman, whose refusal to form a coalition with Likud triggered the dissolution of the Knesset in May, told Israeli radio: We will aim for a government with Likud and with [the Blue and White party] and that will be an emergency government, a national liberal government. We will do everything to limit the haredim [ultra-Orthodox] so that they wont enter government. Blue and White number two Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist party Yesh Atid, quickly backed Liebermans call. It marks a remarkable volte face for Lieberman, who just days earlier had claimed he would never recommend Gantz as prime minister and that the Blue and White could go to the North Pole to form a government with polar bears. In a later Facebook post, he appeared to relent by stating the party with the most seats in the September 17 election would get his support. What is driving his loyalties is his stated goal of the exclusion of the ultra-Orthodox parties. The contentious issue of conscription of the haredim, a bill that former defence minister Lieberman fiercely supported before his sudden resignation, was cited as the reason why he would not join a coalition with Netanyahu after the last election in April. A national unity government could secure an estimate 70 seats, well above the 61 needed to secure a majority in the Knesset. However, Lieberman is effectively calling for a government without Netanyahu, since Gantz has rejected the idea of a coalition with the Likud leader, who faces indictments over alleged corruption. By default, Lieberman is inviting Likud to get rid of Netanyahu. Meanwhile, there are elements on the Israeli right including the orthodox nationalists who are starting to question whether Netanyahu has become more trouble than he is worth. Within Likud, somewhat discreetly, key players are manoeuvring for the day after. Liebermans gamble may not pay off, however. Netanyahu could very well emerge victorious from the new elections and face corruption charges as a sitting prime minister. He is likely to seek a Knesset majority by trying to unite the right, issuing the battle cry that Lieberman is trying to force a leftist government. However, in the context of both a second election after failing to secure a majority, and a possible indictment, it is becoming increasingly possible to imagine Israeli politics without the man who has held the position of prime minister for the past decade (in addition to his three years in office in the 1990s). For many international leaders and pundits, Netanyahus dominance, along with his open opposition to Palestinian sovereignty and alliances with far-right political forces, has made it easy to pin the blame for Israels ongoing military occupation firmly on the long-time Likud leader. However, if Netanyahu is removed from the picture, a more disturbing reality will become clearer; namely, that the opposition to basic Palestinian rights is not restricted to Netanyahu, or even his party, but rather is shared across the majority of the Knesset. Over the years, an argument framed in terms of security has helped mask Israels true intentions with regards to the occupied Palestinian territory. SOAS scholar Mushtaq Khan, co-author of the 2005 book Aid, Diplomacy and Facts on the Ground: The Case of Palestine, writes that a genuinely sovereign Palestinian state would not resolve and would possibly exacerbate the challenges posed to Israels identity as a Jewish state by two key constituencies Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian refugees in the wider region. Thus, Khan wrote, Israels security-focused argument, along with the facts on the ground of relentless settlement expansion, only make sense as part of an Israeli strategy of long-term management of its Palestinian problem through conditional, partial, and reversible transfers of governance responsibilities in densely populated parts of the occupied territory. thenational.ae