Israel’s brand new coalition government, formally unveiled on Thursday, is already being recognized for what it will not do rather than what it is capable of. Few Israelis believe the new four-party coalition will promote peace. A grouping of the Knesset’s most right-wing parties, it represents a combination that even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon didn’t want at the outset of coalition talks. At least 14 of the 24 ministers can be expected to oppose the idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and at least two ministers come from a party that actively champions the interests of settlers in the West Bank.
The National Religious Party backs the spread of settlements in the Palestinian territories. Some leaders of the ultranationalist National Union Party advocate annexing the West Bank and forcing Palestinians into Jordan. The two parties are also against the US diplomatic road map that is to prepare the way for a Palestinian state two years from now. And Shinui believes there is no point in renewing peace talks until Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has been replaced. Likud also takes a hard-line stance on negotiations. Although Sharon has said he favors a limited Palestinian state if the violence ends, his new government’s charter skirts the issue and even says statehood talks will require special Cabinet approval.
A poll conducted on the day the new government was formed showed that less than a quarter of Israelis believe the government will invest much effort in peace. The Israeli public’s response to the new coalition has been described as a mixture of “skeptical pessimism and downright depression.”
The Israeli government’s debut came a day after US President George Bush gave a speech outlining his vision of a “truly democratic Palestinian state.” His main points were an end to violence, a halt to settlement construction and a viable Palestinian state. He linked Iraq to a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, saying that the removal of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein will mark the beginning of a push toward solving the dispute. It is a stretch to see how war in Iraq will make peace in the rest of the Middle East. Bush’s post-Iraq foreign policy might include a concerted effort to push the Palestinians and Israel toward an agreement as the prize for those who supported his Iraq policy. A war could also strengthen the already close identification between the American and Israeli administrations.
The best that can be expected from Sharon’s new government is motion without movement. The prime minister will stall progress by making it contingent on the Palestinians to meet a series of preconditions. Indeed, while early drafts of the US-backed peace road map call for Israel to freeze settlements as Palestinians reduce violence, Sharon has long insisted that the violence stop first. In his speech, Bush seemed to echo the Israeli stance by stating that settlement activity must end, but only “as progress is made toward peace.” Bush and company will probably demand Palestinian regime change and an end to all Palestinian violence — which fills the terrorism slot in the American view — before demanding any concessions from Israel.
As Sharon introduced his new 68-seat majority in the 120-seat Knesset, he once again repeated he was ready to make painful concessions for peace. But the makeup of his coalition suggests that he will postpone the pain as long as he can.
