Israel is veering dangerously to the right. This is what opinion polls have suggested a few days before yesterday’s national elections. A combination of factors has pushed Israeli voters toward right-wing and ultranationalist parties. An inconclusive war on Gaza, a change of leadership in Washington and a growing Iranian influence in the region have given conservatives and zealots the necessary ammunition to fire up and radicalize the electorate.
The elections are a referendum on the two-state solution, which has been on the negotiation table for years. Under the ruling Kadima coalition, the deal, which involves withdrawal from the West Bank and the creation of an independent Palestinian state among other things, floundered. The Bush administration failed to fulfill the president’s vision and pledge to have the state created alongside Israel before the end of last year.
Under its new leader, Tzipi Livni, Kadima, along with its Labor partner, continued to embrace the route of negotiating a settlement with the Palestinians, which the Obama government views as the only way ahead. And in spite of the fact that Livni, as foreign minister in the outgoing government, failed to achieve any concrete results after years of shaky negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, she is still perceived by the US and Europeans as a credible leader who will oversee the conclusion of a historic deal.
But for Livni to remain an asset to the peace camp, her party and allies must win enough seats in the 120-member Knesset to form a coalition of centrist parties. With Likud edging in the polls, her mission is becoming dire. Benjamin Netanyahu is not only expected to double his party’s seats, but he can count on the backing of an ultranationalist, Avigdor Lieberman, whose far-right party Yisrael Beiteinu is expected to become the third largest in the national assembly.
The recent popularity of Lieberman’s party may still hurt Likud’s lead, but the polarization of Israeli voters and the demise of the Israeli Left have become facets of the Jewish state’s political landscape. Regardless of who will form the next government, Livni or Netanyahu will have to yield to the growing influence and necessary support of smaller parties.
The elections also reflect the surfacing of undercurrents that have always characterized Israeli politics. Lieberman’s rise is indicative not only of the broad appeal of his far-right ideology but also of the independence of hundreds of thousands of Russian Jewry who immigrated to the country after the fall of the Soviet Union. They are now announcing their presence on the political stage and their exit from Israel’s traditional parties.
Lieberman’s head-strong politics does not only concern the future of the two-state solution and the fate of the occupied territories, but challenges the “loyalty” of 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who have been part of the country’s demography since its inception in 1948. His rise indicates the increasing popularity of his dogmatic proposals among Israelis. It also underlines the fact that Israel’s Arabs are becoming more isolated and that their historical complaints of being treated as second-class citizens will become accentuated in the future.
The war on Gaza has failed to boost confidence in the centrist parties. The Israeli public wanted the war to continue, at any cost. The failure of the war on Lebanon in 2006 had shaken Israel’s belief in its military, which had acted as a shield against enemies determined to destroy the state or force it into submission. The so-called centrist leaders, Olmert, Livni and Ehud Barak, were perceived as weak, easily influenced by the West and dangerously close to accepting a territorial deal with the Palestinians.
But if the Gaza foray was meant to restore confidence it surely did not. Even when Livni portrayed herself as a hawk who justified the war, and civilian deaths and injuries while brushing aside pressure to halt the attack, she had to differentiate herself from Netanyahu by promoting the two-state solution as good for Israel.
As world criticism of Israel mounted, Israelis felt they needed a strong leader who could stand up in any forum and tell critics to take a hike. The garrison mentality is Israel’s reaction to what it sees as hostile environment. Netanyahu had been waiting in the shadows for a long time; he knew his day would come and he knew he could count on the electorate’s natural instincts to rally to his side.
The rise of the right in Israel is bad news for the rest of the world. The Arab world is tense and furious in the wake of the Gaza massacres. The moderate Arab camp has hoped that under US President Barack Obama the two-state solution will finally materialize. Netanyahu’s success will dampen spirits and will be seen as a blow to the efforts of moderate Arabs to stem Iran’s influence. Netanyahu differs from Lieberman and other fundamentalists in the political wasps’ nest because he is a seasoned politician, who in the past had eaten his words and sat with Yasser Arafat to negotiate. While he rejects a political settlement now, believing instead that economic prosperity is what the Palestinians really need, it is not impossible for the Obama administration to talk reason with him.
The irony is that his coalition, if he forms one, will depend on far-right and religious parties that may derail any future political deal involving withdrawal, East Jerusalem and refugees. The iron-fisted leader, who has vowed to destroy Hamas as a first order of business if elected, may in the end accept to negotiate. But first he must disengage from his radical partners.
In the mean time, prospects for a quick re-launch of the peace process look weak. As much as Obama and the Arabs would want to put the peace wagon on its tracks, many challenges stand in the way. Israel’s fears of Iran are genuine and the question of how to deal with Hamas will be on the mind of almost every player for some time to come.
— Osama Al Sharif is a Jordanian political commentator.
