Even by the standards set by previous attempts to form governments in Israel, the political calculations involved in today's election will be unusually complex and labyrinthine. The two contenders for the premiership are both tarnished figures - Bibi Netanyahu, the rightwing leader of Likud and now head of the opposition who has already had one go at the job, and Tzipi Livni, the leader of a centrist Kadima party after a close contest last year, who is thought to lack experience. By law, the president, Shimon Peres, invites one member of the new Knesset to form a government. By tradition, that person is the leader of the largest party who can also muster the largest block of votes in parliament. But in a dead heat, the two may not be synonymous. It is the smaller parties who become king or queen makers.
After today that role might well be played by a former nightclub bouncer from Moldova who, only weeks ago, was no more than the head of a minority party of Russian immigrants. Back then, Ms Livni had just shot herself in the foot by refusing to do a deal with the ultra-religious party, Shas. She maintained her image as Ms Clean but lost the obvious opportunity she had as the head of the ruling party to form a new government. In Israel, you do not do that. Nothing could stop Mr Netanyahu from claiming the mantle of the right. But then came the war in Gaza, and with it the scenes of Arab members of the Knesset standing up to condemn the actions of Israel's army in the conflict. In the far right's eyes, this was tantamount to treason. Avigdor Lieberman, the Russian-speaking young immigrant turned politician, grabbed his chance. Making his campaign slogan "No citizenship without loyalty", he challenged the entire community of Israeli Arabs - that is 20% of the population of Israel - to swear loyalty to the Jewish state or lose their citizenship. The idea, which sent tremors through the already disaffected Arab villages of northern Gallilee, was an instant hit with young Israelis. Mr Lieberman's party, Israel Our Home, went from a party representing a narrow, sectional interest to a movement with a broad, populist appeal. Mr Lieberman gained the equivalent of six seats in the opinion polls, draining support from Likud. He could get more seats than Labour, which has only been in opposition for two periods in the entire history of the state, 1977-84 and 1996-99.
None of which provides President Obama's administration with the best platform with which to work on the peace process. It is a cliche of Israeli politics that the left provides the best defence ministers and the right furnishes the leaders who make the greatest territorial concessions. But in these times, just to have a leader worthy of the name would be a start. This contest reflects the fear and insecurity of a nation which derives ever less confidence from the wars it fights. Being the strongest kid on the block is not in itself enough to guarantee security in this neighbourhood. The army prided itself in re-establishing its deterrence over Hamas, laying the ghosts of Lebanon in 2006. But if the price of the return of Gilad Shalit, the soldier Hamas captured two and a half years ago, is the release of hundreds of Hamas prisoners, if the result of a total military victory in Gaza is the reopening of the border crossings, with Hamas still in charge of Gaza, then what in Israeli eyes, or indeed anyone else's, was the war about?
If the alternatives are a government led by Ms Livni or one headed by Mr Netanyahu, American, Arab and European leaders should all be rooting privately and without much enthusiasm for the head of Kadima, despite the grievous loss of civilian life in Gaza. Given a choice between a leader who has invested all her political capital in negotiating with Palestinian leaders and a man like Mr Netanyahu, who still nurtures a belief in Greater Israel, there can be little hesitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment