Would-be peacemakers might want to wait before they start popping champagne corks in the wake of Kadima’s election victory. The outcome of the Israeli election has further complicated an already-muddled outlook for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Now, in addition to a Palestinian house divided against itself, we have a divided and dysfunctional Israeli house. Weak leaders — none of whom are much admired or respected by Israeli voters — preside over weak mainstream parties, none of which succeeded in scoring a decisive victory. This renders quite remote prospects for big Israeli decisions on peacemaking.
Kadima’s narrow victory scrambles the electoral eggs. It really leaves only two realistic options for producing a viable Israeli government. Count on the Israeli political system, however, to take weeks, and then some, to sort all this out. The most rational and positive outcome would be a national unity government composed of Kadima, Likud and maybe Labor, which would succeed at keeping the right (particularly Avigdor Lieberman) at bay and create some cohesion and stability in Israeli policy. This is precisely what most Israelis want.
At the same time, given the philosophical differences between Kadima and Likud on peace issues, such a unity government would be hard-pressed to make the historic decisions needed to reach a deal with the Palestinians. There might be a better chance with Syria, but even that would be very tough. Far more likely would be a consensus on how to deal with Israeli security challenges such as Hezbollah, Hamas and, of course, Iran, if the need arises. Big egos and personalities in this government would create stress, but even Benjamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni might be able to put these aside if the national interest demands it, and particularly if some form of rotation allows each of them a turn as prime minister.
Equally plausible is a Netanyahu-led government, dominated by the right. The conventional wisdom is that sooner rather than later, a Netanyahu government would find itself in some conflict with just about everyone — the Arabs, the Europeans and even Washington.
We’ve seen this movie at least twice before: A tough-talking Likud prime minister (Menachem Begin in 1977, Netanyahu in 1997) squares off against a determined peace-seeking Democratic president (Carter, Clinton). Circumstances weren’t the same in either case, but anyone expecting a war between Netanyahu and Barack Obama doesn’t understand the situation in Washington or the region.
A Netanyahu-led coalition would likely be unwilling to move on serious negotiations with the Palestinians and would be very tough on security issues. But the former prime minister has grown more mature and pragmatic since his last tenure, and doesn’t want to sour relations with Washington, if he can avoid it.
President Obama, for his part, is not looking for a fight with Israel either, given his domestic priorities. And, in any case, the peace process narrative these days — really more a horror story — leaves him little room to push the Israelis. Hamas is sitting pretty in Gaza; Hezbollah is firmly ensconced in Lebanon; the Iranians are busy enriching uranium; and Mahmoud Abbas and Arab moderates look weaker than ever.
And so a messy political situation in Israel now presents yet another challenge to an already anemic peace process. The new American president will find himself in a tricky situation. Hemmed in by Iran, Hamas, an ineffectual Palestinian Authority and, in Jerusalem, by a cagey Israeli prime minister and/or a dysfunctional unity government, the Obama administration will need to pick its battles carefully. It will need to be firm with Israel on settlements but also reassuring on security. There might even be a chance for some progress between Israel and Syria.
Ultimately, domestic Israeli and Palestinian politics are going to determine how far and how fast Washington can push Arab-Israeli peacemaking. And if the past is any guide, it’s a good idea for the Obama team to keep its expectations realistic.
Aaron David Miller is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the author of “The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace” (Bantam, 2008). He served as an adviser on the Middle East to six secretaries of state.
The Forward's eagerness to see a left-of-center win has allowed its desires to outstrip any semblance of journalistic integrity. This piece, as well as the article "Electoral Gridlock: Livni and Bibi Scramble For a Coalition Overnight, Lieberman Became the Kingmaker and Peres the Decider By Nathan Jeffay" ignore that the soldiers' votes have yet to be counted, that they account for 5 to 7 seats according to observers, and that they traditionally go heavily to the right wing. The Forward will look ridiculous if, as seems likely, when those votes are announced tonight they give Netanyahu two or three seats more than Livni. But instead of eating humble pie and apologizing for misleading readers, it is more likely that the Forward will pretend all this is a big surprise, with headlines like "Election Shock:". Given the Forward's traditional left wing bias, and its increasingly taking leave of responsible journalism standards, it is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Can you say "Dewey beats Truman"? I knew you could. David Sternlight, Ph.D. Los Angeles
Well, the Forward lucked out. The final tallies are announced by the elections commission and the total seats for Netanyahu and Livni are unchanged. Perhaps the Forward's commentators were prescient and it is I who was premature. It is still a bad idea to comment without caveats on incomplete election results. It should be added that they weren't the only ones. It makes one wonder where the journalistic standards I was taught in school have gone.
It's not over til it's over, Chapter 3 (courtesy of Israel National News): The soldiers' votes narrowed the gap between Kadima and Likud to less than 30,000 votes, or three-quarters of a percent. The remaining task for determining the final number of Knesset seats for each party is to complete the complicated calculation of vote sharing agreements and to examine appeals. Vote sharing agreements in this year's elections were made between: Labor and Meretz; Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu; Shas and United Torah Judaism; Ichud Leumi (National Union) and Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home); Ra'am-Taal and Hadash.; Kadima and Hayerukim (Green) Kadima's agreement was voided because the Green party did not receive the minimum number of votes to enter the Knesset. The final official results will be certified next Tuesday, allowing President Shimon Peres to begin the process of determining which party will try to form a new government coalition. Comment: Likud could still receive an additional seat, tying with Kadima, (depending on how the sharing agreement is counted).
There's one other key player worth mentioning - Russia, busily arming both Iran and Syria and providing the all important nuclear fuel to Tehran. In my view, the administration could and should work on a whole new relationship with Russia, if that's even possible, before attempting to make things worse, despite good intentions, between Israelis and Palestinians. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the tough-talking Likud PM, Begin, signed the peace agreement with Egypt. Let's see over the next couple of months whether whoever ends up being Israel's PM actually has a viable partner in Washington; the new administration has yet to be seen in any real action. In the interim, rather than pushing a peace process just to be seen doing something, may be an opportunity to focus on any capability or demonstrated will on the Palestinian side(s) to govern and build a viable society and economy. In its absence, there's little point to waste time, money, prestige or goodwill on people who still dream about 1948 and play the old all-or-nothing loosing game. And before sounding off so critical about Israeli politics and their 33 parties, let's keep things in perspective; our politics aren't too hot either.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.