Israel’s next Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu – leader of the right-wing Likud party and staunch opposer of the two-state solution – has just about finished assembling his government. His coalition now includes the right-wing racist Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak, leader of the centre-left Labour party – a combination that must surely make Netanyahu favourite for this year’s “Weirdest Team-up” award.
Lieberman, leader of the extreme right-wing nationalist party “Israel is our home”, has been appointed Foreign Minister. Foreign minister. This is a man who campaigned on a platform of forcing Israeli Arabs to sign loyalty oaths; a man so opposed to any concessions to Palestinians that in 2003 he reacted to a commitment made by Ariel Sharon to give amnesty to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners by opining that “It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world”. In January 2009, during Israel’s military operation in Gaza, Lieberman argued that Israel “must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary”… Yes, that’s right. He’s referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and he’s also under investigation for corruption and has been convicted of beating up a twelve year old boy. Even “The New Republic” editor Marty Peretz – a vocal member of the Pro-Israel lobby – has denounced Lieberman, calling his party a “neo-fascist” outfit and the man himself a “certified criminal” who is “the Israeli equivalent of Jorg Haider of Austria and Jean-Marie LePen”.
The idea of Lieberman being the face of Israel’s diplomacy is the kind of thing that makes you wonder whether the Joker from Batman is controlling Israel’s foreign policy. This guy is going to negotiate peace with the Arab governments of the middle east? You’re kidding, right? I can’t wait to see what kind of reception he gets in Europe!
What about yesterday’s entry of the centre-left Labour party into the new government, including the appointment of its leader Ehud Barak (pictured, with Hillary Clinton) as Defence Minister? Labour was split right down the middle on whether this is a good idea – seven of its 13 MPs opposed joining Netanyahu’s coalition and the vote of Labour’s central committee was a fairly narrow victory for its leader: 680-570. Barak claimed that they would not serve as anyone’s fig-leaf and they would “ensure there will not be a narrow right-wing government, but a real government that looks after the State of Israel”. However opponents of the coalition within Labour felt that this was simply an unprincipled grab for power on Barak’s behalf; a case of being “bought off with portfolios and empty promises”.
Regardless of whether this was a case of Barak putting ambition before principle or trying to make the best of a bad situation, how does the inclusion of a centre-left party into Netanyahu’s coalition affect the chances of progress for the peace process? My initial thoughts are that it won’t make a massive difference. Netanyahu and his party are staunchly opposed to the two-state solution. Barak claimed to have sought an agreement from Netanyahu to honour Israel’s commitment to Palestinian statehood, but if we’ve learnt anything over the last ten years it’s that when it comes to the peace process, words are cheap. After all, Netanyahu has a real incentive to say anything to ensure Labour are a part of his coalition as this is his only chance to try and assuage American fears about his right-wing government. We can but hope that the US aren’t so gullible.
In particular, no-one should be fooled by Netanyahu’s remarks yesterday, which were meant to reassure those alarmed by his right-wing government-to-be . Read his words carefully, however, and you’ll notice no mention of anything approaching a commitment to a two-state solution. Indeed, his words were completely consistent with his vision for Palestine, which is essentially apartheid: a scenario whereby Israel could retain control of the West Bank but allow the Palestinians limited autonomy in a set of disconnected enclaves, while it controlled access in and out, their water supplies, and the airspace above them.
Having said that, though I can’t see Barak being able to force a two-state process on an unwilling Netanyahu, it’s conceivable that he could act as a restraint on the Prime Minister- preventing further illegal settlement expansion, for example. With Labour in the government it’s also conceivable that progress could be made on returning the Golan Heights to Syria, especially given recent signs that Syria are coming in from the cold, diplomatically speaking. Of course, this isn’t nearly enough: as I documented in detail in my post What happens if the two-state solution’s off the table? it’s now or never for chances of a two-state solution - unless progress is made soon, we could well be faced with the options of either Netanyahu’s apartheid vision – which America would never accept – or the scenario of giving Palestinians the vote, which would mean the end of Israel as we know it.
Finally, I should add that the moderate party Kadima are headed into opposition, having resisted Netanyahu’s advances – Kadima head Tzipi Livni was discouraged by his unwillingness to commit to peace talks with the Palestinian leadership. At this rate, Kadima’s going to have to be the greatest opposition Israel’s ever seen.
The coalition games are almost over – soon it will be time to govern. For Palestine and the international community, this is not exactly something to look forward to: a Prime Minister with an alarmingly retrograde stance on the peace process who’s torn between, on the one hand, a crazy neo-fascist racist outfit and on the other a left-wing party who he disagrees with on almost every matter of importance. Good luck with that…
