×
The on-going negotiations around Israel's coalition government look to produce a rather incapacitated right-wing government that includes ethnic nationalist Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beitenu party. This comes after talks between Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party and Tzipi Livni's Kadima party failed to find a compromise that would allow for a unity government between the two most popular parties. Yossi Klein Halevi analyzes the situation:
Livni claims she has rejected Netanyahu's overtures because he won't commit to a two-state solution. But she knows that that disagreement is theoretical, because there is no chance anytime soon of creating a viable Palestinian state: As long as Hamas dominates Palestinian politics, it will impose a veto on any agreement. Nor has Livni managed to negotiate an agreement with Fatah. Livni, after all, served as foreign minister in the outgoing Kadima-Labor government of Ehud Olmert, which had three years to deliver peace with the Palestinians. In fact, Olmert tried to deliver two peace agreements--with the Syrians as well as the Palestinians. Instead, he became the first prime minister to fight two wars in one term--and not because he didn't try to bring peace.The real reason for Livni's rejection of a unity government is that she is hoping a right-wing coalition will fail, opening the way for yet another round of elections. That is a realistic scenario.If the potential for a two-state solution is "theoretical," then what is the harm in Netanyahu committing to it to create a workable coalition between the two center-right parties? Support for the two-state solution would allow for a unity government that would be both more flexible and more representative of the Israeli center. Certainly Livni does have a political interest in seeing Netanyahu's right-wing coalition fail, but I think its irresponsible for Halevi to suggest that Livni is playing politics during a time when Israelis ought to be united against outside threats. My reading of this scenario is that Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice a unity government in order to preserve antipathy to a two-state solution that many Israelis and most international observers, myself included, see as both just and a path to peace.Halevi argues that a unity government will form when the need to confront the threat from Iran becomes unavoidable. He knows more about internal Israeli politics than I do. But here's my question: Wouldn't a government capable of working closely with the United States to engage Iran and prevent that conflict scenario, rather than a government that most observers agree will be too domestically constrained to work productively with the U.S. and other regional players, be more conducive to Israel's long-term security?
-- Tim Fernholz
