A tale of two prime ministers
At last, we appear to have an Israeli election issue on at least one foreign policy matter, rather than just solely on personalities – or do we?
In September the following words were said by the prime minister of Israel to the UN General Assembly: “I have not given up on peace. I remain committed to a vision of peace based on two states for two peoples. I believe as never before that changes taking place in the Arab world today offer a unique opportunity to advance that peace.”
The prime minister who gave that speech was Benjamin Netanyahu in 2016.
This September, interim Prime Minister Yair Lapid said the following in the same chamber: “An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economy and for the future of our children.”
Lapid said Israel has “only one condition. That a future Palestinian state will be a peaceful one. That it will not become another terror base from which to threaten the wellbeing and the very existence of Israel”.
Which of course goes to the heart of the matter, and sadly and tragically for both Israelis and Palestinians, presents a bar too high for the Palestinian leadership – an agreement to not merely divide the land, but to commit to peace itself. To an end of conflict.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in his own UNGA speech, used his usual doublespeak saying, “All glory to the righteous martyrs of the Palestinian people who enlightened the path of freedom and independence with their pure blood” as he again demonstrated his true intent by continuing payments to the families of terrorists, or as he calls them, “martyrs”, under his ‘pay for slay’ policy.
It cannot be repeated often enough that while Israel is discussing what to do with the territories from 1967, the Palestinians are focused on 1948 and challenging Israel’s very existence.
Abbas told the UNGA of “the injustice, the tragedy of the Nakba or catastrophe, 74 years ago”.
To be crystal clear, Israel’s actual establishment.
He called the Nakba “a disgrace to humanity” and castigated the countries that supported the original two states plan back in 1948. He berated those countries “who conspired, planned and carried out this heinous crime”.
That crime, once again pushing past his doublespeak, being the two-state solution.
Whether Lapid was wise to raise two states at this time is a judgement for others. What we do know, is that Lapid’s offer has zero chance of being taken up by the Palestinians.
In Israel, it will serve to provide rhetorical fodder for the elections still a month away, with all sides conveniently overlooking their own struggles in answering the ongoing question of how to ensure the security of the Jewish State, both physically and demographically.
Another foreign policy issue is developing around the Qana gas field and a potential deal between Israel and Lebanon.
There is much at stake after years without resolution. Aside from the royalties, the site of the Qana field has very important sovereignty issues and brings into play what Israel calls the ‘buoys line’, which extends five kilometres into the sea from Rosh Hanikra.
Expect Lapid to tout this as a historic agreement and Netanyahu to question both its wisdom and legality, as Lapid is only an interim prime minister. Did Lapid give away too much? Certainly, Netanyahu will claim so. Until we see the full details, which we may not get before the elections, it will be hard to know.
In further election news, polls show Netanyahu as the clear frontrunner, but moving between the ability to form a government of 61 and falling just short.
Behind him is Lapid, with Benny Gantz a distant third. Gantz hopes to be the only person able to cobble a diverse coalition together in the event Netanyahu fails to achieve the magical 61 seats.
Gantz called the iteration of his most recent party ‘National Unity’, and says that anyone who leads Israel needs to be able to connect the left with the right and to be a unifier.
It was therefore strange on Rosh Hashanah eve, in a seemingly brain snap moment, Gantz told Kan 11 news that if Netanyahu manages to form a narrow coalition government, he Gantz, should be invited to give “an end of country interview”.
Netanyahu has once again demonstrated his own political skills by the discipline he has been able to impose on his potential coalition partners in order to maximise their votes and to ensure none are lost by threshold issues.
Lapid, on the other hand, has failed to do similarly with his potential partners – Meretz and Labor. Whether this becomes critical or not, we will only know after November 1, when we will see if these parties manage to pass the 3.25 per cent threshold.
The Israeli Arab turnout will also play a role. With the Joint List now splitting, there will be three Arab parties running.
Two issues will determine the Israeli Arab presence in the next Knesset: the danger of one or more of the parties failing to pass the threshold; and voter turnout. As voting in Israel is not compulsory, the lower the turnout of any sector, the higher the seat numbers for other parties.
It is expected that if one or more of the Arab parties fall short, this would assist Netanyahu and his bloc.
If Netanyahu just scrapes over the line with 61 seats, he will be hostage over the next term to the whims of his coalition partners as well as any rebellious members of his own party.
While the experiment of Bennett and Lapid arguably produced a good government, its make-up of too many disparate parties became its downfall and does not augur well for any future similar coalition led by Lapid or Gantz surviving in the long term.
Of course, if neither bloc reaches 61 the game will be on for defectors from either side – parties and/or individuals.
Ultimately what would be best for Israel is a clear and decisive win for one bloc or the other. Political stability would be a great asset.
The Israeli electorate, however, still does not seem to be in a mood to be cooperative in this aim.
Ron Weiser is a former Zionist Federation of Australia president and a Zionist Council of NSW honorary life president.
comments