This site is unconnected to the award winning blog concerned with: "Reflections on human rights and peacemaking in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" for that site please click on:http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/
· Main Points:
1. Likud will win the February 2009 elections and form a national unity government under Bibi Netanyahu.
2. This will likely lead to a stalemate in negotiations with the Palestinians and increase the likelihood of either a major operation in Gaza or a regional war.
3. In such a war Israel will succeed in re-establishing its military deterrence but any military losses inflicted upon its enemies will rapidly be replenished by numerous hostile or interested powers such as Russia, China, North Korea, Libya, etc. and the whole negotiation process will have to be started from scratch.
4. The only way an inevitable upsurge in violence can be stemmed is if Netanyahu is prepared to give up almost all the territories currently occupied. But this is unlikely to happen unless a large NATO or US-led military force was committed to guarding those areas vacated by Israel, and affiliate membership of the EU and NATO were also offered together with sufficient financial restitution. These would be the minimum requirements to induce Netanyahu and most Israelis to give up the Golan, West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
5. This cannot be achieved unless President Obama makes concessions to powers such as Russia and China, and holds an international peace conference.
· ANALYSIS
· Israel’s current government is possibly the most centrist in its recent history. It has managed to maintain a line between the Left’s demand for a quick retreat from the West Bank at almost any cost and the Right’s demand that large swathes of Judea and Samaria remain in Israel’s possession.
It has resisted the Left’s demand that Hamas in Gaza be appeased, and the Right’s demand that it be attacked with full force. It has withstood demands from the Right that Syria be made to pay the price for supporting Hizb’allah, Hamas, and Iran, and demands from the Left that the negotiations to give back the Golan be started come what may.
It has also curbed appeals from the Left to appease the Histadrut and Teacher’s Unions whilst avoiding any major cuts to the welfare and health budgets. Israel’s economy has never been stronger, tourism levels are exceptionally high, and Israel’s cultural life is more vibrant than ever with recent international successes in film and dance and more cultural events than ever partly as a result of celebrations marking Israel’s 60th anniversary.
All of this has been accomplished under the stewardship of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who also achieved the almost impossible by waging a major war on Israel’s northern border without any negative impact on Israel’s economy and despite the IDF not being able to offer him any serious military options as its senior officer class was in total disarray and its army untrained and unprepared. Despite this Olmert was able to achieve a totally one-sided UN Resolution in Israel’s favour with the onus on Hizb’allah to restrain its activities and the introduction of a very large international force into southern Lebanon. There have been no significant incidents on Israel’s northern borders for over 2 years.
However, this sensitive balancing act has come at a price. The feeling amongst Israelis is one of uncertainty and rudderlessness because of a lack of perceived progress either in the peace process, or against the threat posed by Iran, or in relation to any resolution of the Qassam missile threat from Gaza, whose range and accuracy has visibly increased within the last year with the city of Ashqelon becoming a routine target, as well as the quadrupling of Hizb’allah’s missile arsenal that can now reach all of southern Israel.
· Precisely because Olmert has kept a tight rein on the budget Israel has not made the preparations it needs to cope with a simultaneous missile onslaught from Hizb’allah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran. And because Olmert has refused to be drawn into a conflict in Gaza, and has supported a ceasefire, Hamas have become entrenched, with a sophisticated tunnel and communications network, backed by anti-aircraft and thousands of ground to ground missiles, booby traps, anti-vehicle mines, and kilometres of trenches. In short, maintaining the centre way has come at a cost to Israel on both strategic and psychological levels.
The benefits have been unparalleled good relations with all European countries, which remain Israel’s most important markets, and increased contacts with Muslim and Arab nations, many of whom were present during the Annapolis meetings and in other informal international gatherings where Israeli representatives were present.
· Despite this it has become clear from recent polls conducted on Israel’s Channel 2 TV Station amongst others, that the Israeli public no longer want to follow this centrist path if it means losing the strategic and psychological initiative. This means in practise that a centre right government will be elected 10 February 2009. Recent poll projections for the February 2009 Knesset are:
RIGHTIST PARTIES (seats in Knesset):
33 Likud (centre right and right wing secular and religious nationalist party)
11 Israel Beitenu (centre right and right wing secular nationalist party representing the interests of ex-Soviet Union immigrants)
12 Shas (centre right and right wing sephardi religious quasi-nationalist party)
7 Habayit Hayehudi (right wing religious nationalist party)
4 United Torah Judaism (orthodox non-Zionist religious party)
CENTRE PARTIES (seats in Knesset)
25 Kadima (centre left and centre right mainly secular nationalist party)
6 Labour (centre left and left wing mainly secular nationalist party)
LEFTIST PARTIES
7 Meretz (left wing secular quasi-Zionist party with links to the Fatah faction of the PLO and Palestinian Authority)
4 Green (leftist environmentalist party; presumed Zionist or quasi-Zionist)
ANTI-ZIONIST PARTIES
10 Arab List (includes 3 Arab dominated parties who are either hostile, or at best ambivalent to, Israel’s existence as a Jewish State)
1 seat undecided. The proportional representation system in Israel requires only 2% of the vote to gain a seat for a party or individual. Depending on the residual percentages this seat will be ascribed to whichever party gets closest to this figure.
· The government will be led by Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu of the Likud. He has indicated that he wants to form a national unity government in order to push forward with economic reforms and an overall peace settlement that maintains Israeli control of Jerusalem and some major settlement blocs just south and east of the city, as well as an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley. He also wants a national unity government to deal with the threats from Iran, Hamas, and Hizb’allah, supported by Syria.
· Even were Kadima to win the elections it is highly unlikely that anyone would be prepared to work under Tzipi Livni’s leadership. Her flaws have been exposed including: uneven social and political skills, little to no political acumen, no strategic vision, and little to no tactical political ability. She is earnest, hard working, honest, intelligent, and dry, and has a certain personal magnetism, but she does not have the authority required to command respect. However, Bibi Netanyahu will want her in his government to counter balance the more impractical demands and outbursts from the right wing. He can afford to ignore Labour but if Barak can survive the post election Labour implosion Bibi would rather have him in government than out, again, in order to counter balance the more extreme demands of the right and as an adviser over Iran.
· Netanyahu has attracted many charismatic and respected individuals who will soon stand in primaries to try and get onto the Likud party list from which Knesset party members are chosen if their party accumulates enough votes, they include: Natan Sharansky, Benny Begin, Dan Meridor, General Uzi Dayan, General Moshe Yaalon, and Tal Brody (Maccabi T.A. basketball star), amongst others. Labour, by contrast, has been losing major figures including their number 2 Ami Ayalon in recent weeks, whilst Kadima have attracted some worthy personalities, as Kadima drifts under Livni’s non-leadership. A new threat to remove Olmert and his refusal to budge until indicted has not helped Livni either. Were Olmert to stand down for any reason, Livni as acting Prime Minister may finally come into her own and change the current dynamic, but she is also just as likely to expose her weaknesses to the electorate.
· The makeup of the government will effectively end the peace process as presently constituted and will lead to constant delays and torpor. This in turn will radicalise the Palestinian side that will become more vocal and extreme in their rhetoric and demands. The Palestinians may also seize the opportunity to unite against Netanyahu’s government and paralysis will be guaranteed as Hamas’s presence will end all negotiations with the P.A.. On the other hand if the Palestinians remain divided it will be impossible for President Abbas, even were he to survive into 2009 and win another election, to make a deal on Netanyahu’s terms. So once again stalemate is inevitable.
· If Hamas decide they have nothing to lose by ratcheting up the violence should Netanyahu indicate for any reason he would strike at Hamas, then a large operation against Gaza would be possible. That, in turn, could lead to missiles being fired upon Iran’s orders into Israel from Lebanon. This may eventually, or even quickly, escalate into a full-scale war. Israel’s preparations for such a war would be far more advanced than in the 2006 Second Lebanon War, but nevertheless it is clear that defences would not be at their optimum. That said, it is within Israel’s capability to neutralise the main threats from Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and even Iran, if absolutely necessary.
· The first stage to halt any inevitable decline in the negotiations and atmosphere in the Israel-Palestine area would be if President Barack Obama steps in very quickly through his emissaries and insists negotiations continue. Very intense pressure will have to be put on Israel’s right wing parties and Netanyahu to not sabotage the negotiation process. This might be just enough to keep them going but it may lead to Hamas violence in any case. This, in turn can only be moderated by intense pressure on Syria and Iran to restrain their subordinate radical organisations. If this fails then some form of conflict is highly likely.
· The only realistic hope for the second stage of Obama’s initiatives to succeed is if he offers a large US or NATO-led force (10-15,000 men) to protect Israel’s borders in exchange for Israeli concessions. These forces would have to be stationed on Palestinian and Syrian territory. Obama would also have to secure for Israel affiliate membership of the EU, as well as affiliate membership of NATO. He would also have to offer a suitable financial and military package to compensate Israel for the risks taken, and to offer restitution to the displaced settlers. No realistic possibility of a peace deal will be accomplished under a Likud-led government without these conditions being met. If President Obama fails to grasp the importance of these measures then conflict is probably inevitable. It would also mean that President Obama would have to get the other major powers onside and this cannot be achieved without including them. Therefore an international peace conference will also be needed as a framework for the process to succeed. This may also be used to facilitate the containment of Iran. If either of these stages fails then the possibility of regional conflict remains very high.
President Obama almost certainly will have to offer the Russians and Chinese sweeteners to prevent their sabotaging the peace agreement and to contain Iran. For example he may have to deny Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership. Or, he may have to encourage China-Taiwan reunification and promise greater access and cooperation to Chinese goods to the US market and support China in World Trade Organisation talks and so on. Syria will also have to be given the requisite financial, political, and military inducements as well.
· Without major territorial concessions the Likud-led government will not be able to bring even President Abbas to the table. This will result in both sides believing that only conflict would be able to break the logjam, preferably in their respective favour. In essence both parties to the conflict will be committed to a fight because both will believe it strategically necessary to ensure their respective political survival. And, they would also both believe they will be stronger post conflict: whether in victory, or defeat, for the Palestinians; and solely in victory for the Israelis of course as defeat is not an option.
· The military wing of Hamas does not believe they can or will be defeated in Gaza. They believe that they are the Palestinians’ strongest fighting force and that they can last the few days or weeks it will take to get the international community to stop Israel’s invasion, and in any case they believe Israel will suffer so many casualties that it will unilaterally pull out effectively defeated. The same thinking applies to Hizb’allah in Lebanon.
· Israel will see the military defeat of Hamas as an essential prerequisite to further negotiations on terms that will not jeopardise Israel’s future security or existence. If the conflict expands it will also be seen as an opportunity to radically diminish Hizb’allah’s missile arsenal and influence. The same will apply to any Syrian and Iranian involvement.
· In reality Russia, China, North Korea, and many other countries will very soon after any major regional conflict take the opportunity to replenish any depleted missile and military stocks incurred by Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizb’allah, and not long afterward all will be back to square one. The one difference will be that Israel will have once again reasserted its political and military will to survive in the region no matter what trials its enemies set before her. And the whole negotiation process will have to once again start over.
Links:
¨For the best English language news site on Israel:
http://www.jpost.com/
¨For a vigorous Liberal-Left position of the Israeli daily paper:
http://www.haaretz.com/
¨For a Centre-Left view on Israel, in occasionally appalling English:
http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html
¨For an insight into Arab and Muslim media coverage of the Israel-Palestinian issue, anti-Semitism, and other Middle East issues see:
http://www.memri.org/
¨For an overview of the media coverage of Israel see the BICOM (Britain Israel Research and Communications Centre) site. Below are the sites for -
News headlines with links to each site:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/headlines
A written summary of the news:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news
The main issues behind the news:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/briefings/behind_the_news/
Extracts from editorial and article Opinion:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/comment-and-opinion
A small selection of Quotes:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/quotes
______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment