Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon today faces a possible no-confidence vote in the Knesset, the first crucial test for his narrow ad hoc coalition since last week’s acrimonious departure of Labour from his national unity government. Sharon has emphatically said he is unwilling to go for early elections so he is expected to pass the test, vowing as he said, to continue to lead the country “responsibly.” Though he is likely to survive the vote of no-confidence, the same cannot be said for the peace process. In trying to shore up a fragile government on all a sudden, Sharon has counted on far-right and ultra-religious parties and personalities, all dead set against peace.
The appointment of former Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz as the new defense minister highlights how Labour’s withdrawal has narrowed Sharon’s government to basically rightist and religious elements.
As head of the armed forces, Mofaz put the greater part of Israel’s arsenal into the fight against the Palestinians. He tightened military restrictions on Palestinian society, stepped up targeted assassinations of activists, demolished their homes and set up more blockades of Palestinian towns and villages. He oversaw the Jenin invasion and sent in thousands of troops into the occupied territories this year — the Jewish state’s biggest military offensive since the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The new minister is known for his tough stand against the intifada, comparing it to Sept. 11, advocates the expulsion of Yasser Arafat from Palestine and wants to bring down the Palestinian Authority which he calls a terrorist entity.
Then there is the nationalistic National Union-Yisrael Beitenu faction, which would bring Sharon seven votes, giving him a Knesset majority, but barely so. The party is implacably opposed to Oslo peace accords and any territorial compromise with the Palestinians. Its most controversial policy is that of transferring Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan as a solution to the conflict. It believes in the indivisibility of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and in extending Israeli sovereignty over the territories.
Complicating the situation still further, Benjamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister, is the man whom Sharon has chosen as his foreign minister. He has made no secret of his opposition to peace with Palestinians. Thus the political parties Sharon is counting on and the people he wants in his Cabinet oppose negotiations with the Palestinians and advocate Jewish settlement expansion. A narrow right-wing government would continue the military policy against the Palestinians and bury ever deeper the chances of reviving a political process. Discussions of the American road map toward resuming negotiations with the Palestinians are now off the agenda. Another example: Former Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer was trying to remove illegal settlements; that will not happen now. It will be easier to make decisions, like a tougher response to suicide bombers. But the opposition will be more vocal.
Labour tried to moderate Sharon’s policies — at least to outward appearance; he had as his Foreign Minister Peres, a Nobel Peace laureate. Not that Labour was that much different from Likud; peace with the former has been just as elusive. But Labour’s exit robs Sharon of even the veneer of moderation. Without Labour as a counterweight, Sharon seems likely to face more trouble balancing the demands of his rightist allies such as a greater expansion of settlements and a more aggressive military campaigns against the Palestinians. US pressure to avoid further inflaming the region ahead of a possible attack on Iraq might temper this upcoming right-wing government. But that will be only for tactical purposes; not out of any commitment to peace or an accommodation with the Palestinians. Shortly after his 20-month coalition collapsed, Sharon said his government’s policies won’t change. Sharon will indeed continue to be the major player but now he will be vulnerable to small factions who will have the power to endanger the coalition and the peace process at every turn. In short, the region may be heading for more turbulent times.
