Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stunned Israelis Tuesday morning with a political shocker. He convinced his largest opposition leader, Shaul Mofaz, to join his coalition, thus cancelling early elections scheduled for September.
Speaking to the media, Netanyahu said that the coalition agreement (called by some in the Israeli media a stink bomb) is good for the stability of his government and for Israel.
His new coalition partner, who will now become Israel's first deputy prime minister, listed four areas of agreement as the basis for this partnership. The two parties will develop a replacement for the Tal Law that used to exempt religious students from the Israeli army; they will pass a new budget; Israel's political system will be revamped and the new coalition is said to push ahead the peace process.
Mofaz, whose Kadima Party under Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert split from Likud and withdrew from Gaza, gave little specifics as to how the new coalition, which counts for 94 out of 120-Knesset members, will advance peace talks with the Palestinians. Some Israeli commentators indicated that the agreement was born in part because of the rise of radical right-wing elements in Netanyahu's Likud Party.
With a large majority, some argue that Netanyahu will no longer be blackmailed by his radical foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, or by the religious parties and settlers.
There is no doubt that if he chooses to make serious concessions for peace, the new coalition will make his efforts easy, but the question is, does the Likud leader want to make these concessions? Or will his stable government allow him to more easily fend off pressure to do what is necessary for peace, say, freeze settlement activities or even temporarily concede control in areas C to the Palestinian Authority?
A look back to the past few years may help answer this question. Whenever the Israeli government was pressed to make concessions for peace, Netanyahu's radical coalition partners, like Lieberman, threatened to bolt from the government. At those sensitive times, the then leader of the opposition Tzipi Livni repeatedly assured Netanyahu that her party was willing to provide a political safety net for the government if it wishes to make serious concessions for peace.
The supposedly radical Lieberman himself seemed to be more words than deeds. On more than one occasion he threatened to withdraw if something was decided, only to stay in the coalition after all.
Israel's current leader will lead one of the largest coalition governments Israel has had. The Israeli public has made it clear that it does not like what happened because it smells too much of political opportunism rather than something done genuinely for the good of the country and for peace.
While most of the discussion regarding the motives behind the coalition agreement is focused inwards, one should not ignore the possibility that external issues might have contributed to this decision. Some analysts have pointed out that adding a former military commander who is of Iranian Jewish origin will strengthen Israel's position towards Iran and its nuclear ambition.
One factor that has not been mentioned was the upcoming U.S. election. While Netanyahu would be very happy if his friend, Mitt Romney, wins the upcoming November poll, he must be considering the strong possibility that Barack Obama will be in the White House for another four years. With that possibility, Netanyahu knows that Israel will be under strong pressure from its most important ally to make serious concessions for peace with the Palestinians. So while Netanyahu will now be less able to use Lieberman as an excuse, if push comes to shove, his strong government will be able to withstand any U.S. and international pressure.
A large and stable government coalition has strong possibilities to make historic breakthroughs. However, this particular coalition created for opportunistic rather than principled reasons (despite claims to the contrary) is highly unlikely to take courageous steps for peace.
Follow Daoud Kuttab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/daoudkuttab
Dr. Josef Olmert: Netanyahu's Political Coup -- and What About Iran and the Palestinians?
Brent E. Sasley: Israel's Dysfunctional Political System
Brent E. Sasley: Civil-Military Relations in Israel: Not So Civil
Shaul Mofaz Broadens Israel Coalition's Views on Iran - NYTimes.com
Shaul Mofaz Agrees to Join Benjamin Netanyahu's Coalition ...
Mofaz snatches victory from defeat with Netanyahu alliance - Yahoo ...
In surprise move, Netanyahu, Mofaz agree to form unity government ...
there is a year and half before the next Israeli election ... and there is a majority in Israel who would support a final solution , albeit one in which Israel wont become another Arab state like the API demand ..
so ...give us some hope here in Israel that the Palestinians and Arabs alike are serious about co-existence with Israel as Jewish state ...or the disillusionment in the Left concerning peace wont change and you will get netanyahu again and 4 more years of settlement expansion .
if there is indeed consensus in the Palestinian and Arab street regarding refugees then surely the Palestinian officials should begin negotiating with neighboring Arab country's about settling refugees in them and providing them citizenship .
since it never happened its only logical to assume that the Khartoum Resolution 3 no's still stand and both the Palestinian and relevant Arab country's still stand beyond that Resolution.
it never changed even with left leaning governments in the past , so its only convenient to blame netanyahu for lack of initiative .
I would really like to see some initiative in this regard .
because even in the next election the Palestinian issue is going to be secondary for the left leaning party's who wouldn't want to turn off voters who support their social-economical policy's but who reject concessions that lead to nothing .
the Palestinians have a year and half before the next Israeli elections to Initiate such meetings with neighboring Arab states and to come up with something substantial if you truly want the Israelis not to be embarrassed about promoting peace and concessions(which is a big turnoff for potential voters right now) , and I'm talking about regular Israelis not the peace now fanatics who always shout slogans .
No doubt. It will bring peace to every home in the region (eventually)
His party ran on the slogan, "israel is our land, palesine is theirs". He has said he is willing to withdraw from the settlements for a real peace.
So who was? The palestinian leadership, who refuses to even negotiate.
Mr. Kuttab actually posted an article free of the repetitive (rethorical) catch-phrases. OK, some credit is due for even a small miracle.
To answer the article's title question: The only thing that is really a certitude is that when momentus changes like this occur, there is already some plan of modification to the status-quo in process.
I do not think this change was implemented because the 'Lieberman brigade' was "threatening" to leave the colition. Oh no . . quite much to the contrary . .
Please everyone take careful note: Mr. Lieberman has a LOT of dirty laundry in his closet and it was starting to leak out the edges.
can you please tell me what the last thing was that the palestinians did in their attempt to make peace?
thanks. i eagerly await your reply to my questions.
All those conditions Palestinian allege ( to those unfamiliar with history) they always wanted for peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Little known fact-- Mofaz served under command of Netanyahu's heroic brother who lost his life liberating the hostages during Entebbe Operation.
No rational discussion permitted.
Onoy time will tell if he will take advantage of this opportunity to make things better or worse. I am not sure that Kuttab adds anything by predicting doom before the fact.
Really? On what basis does the author conclude this? Some comments in Ha'Aretz?
I found myself shaking my head while reading this article. Rather than cautious optimism or even a "let's wait and see" attitude in response to the addition of a large moderate faction to the ruling Israeli coalition, the author chooses to view this as a distinct negative.
It seems anything that strengthens Israel, even something which potentially moves them more toward peace, is seen as a negative to Kuttab.
Ya and those Jews who are from Russia,Ukraine and Poland should really, really go back home. Their interference in others' issues is really not helpful. "
Palestinians have no nationality. Those who are originally from the former Palestine could now belong to Jordan. There are Palestinians who have been Egyptians and Syrians and Jordanians. They should make up their minds who, and what, they are.
There remains one issue, there IS no Palestinian State, no Palestinian nationality, no Palestinian Government, no Palestinian Unity. It is up to those who identify as Palestinians to make THAT happen. As long as it does not, it is their problem, and no one else's problem.
Now, for there to be a Palestinian State, it must be created, and it must be next to The Jewish State, Israel. For that face to face negotiations in good faith are required. It is NOT only the Israelis who require that. For two or more parties to negotiate on something, all parties must recognize each other, have a number of qualifications and must be ACCEPTED by each other. Otherwise negotiations are not legal and outcomes are not binding. Read up a.o. on Treaties, Contract Law, etc.
Your comment makes no sense, and it does NOT HELP *Palestinians* to get what they want, whatever it may be they want. Try being realistic and factual, rather than emotional and vindictive.
Glad to see that Daoud is asking the right questions.
"However, this particular coalition created for opportunistic rather than principled reasons (despite claims to the contrary) is highly unlikely to take courageous steps for peace"
On the scale of "likeliness to take courageous steps for peace", I'd put this coalition light years ahead of Hamas. But I guess it is never to early to start blaming the Israelis.
btw...Palestinian elections? Anyone? Bueller?
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" - the Palestinian mantra that every HPer ignores because it doesn't fit their narrative.