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 Lieberman holds the key to the current government’s duration. He may be indicted within months. If his party loses the Foreign Ministry he will withdraw it from the government forcing new elections, or, more likely, new government alignments.
2 Barak will betray Netanyahu at the first opportunity but his aim is to stay as Minister of Defence for at least the next 2 years. Attempts will be made to oust him by the Labour Left within 14 months but he will almost certainly successfully rebuff them.
3 Livni’s political future will depend upon how long Netanyahu can stay in power, as her party may begin to split within the first year or two of opposition.
4 Israel will attempt to neutralise Iran’s nuclear weapons programme within 2 years. There will be no attempt to neutralise Iran’s nuclear weapons programme in 2009 unless Russia expedites the sale of the S-300 missile defence system.
5 President Ahmadinejad and Hizb’allah will doubtless be triumphant in the upcoming summer elections in Iran and Lebanon respectively, further increasing the probability of an Israeli effort to neutralise Iran’s nuclear weapons project.
· ANALYSIS
· Lieberman has promised to keep his government in the coalition even if he is indicted on money laundering, fraud, and bribery charges, which should be within the next 2-3 months according to National Fraud Unit officials’ estimates. However, Likud have threatened to give his Foreign Ministry post to Silvan Shalom, Bibi Netanyahu’s biggest Likud rival, in order to placate him and his supporters who feel they were treated disrespectfully by PM Netanyahu. The likeliest outcome is that another Israel Beitenu MK will replace Lieberman, possibly ex Foreign Ministry advisor and official, Danny Ayalon, the current Deputy Foreign Minister.
Were Bibi to be foolish enough to try and give the Foreign Ministry to a non-Israel Beitenu MK, then Lieberman would enforce his threat to withdraw his party from the coalition, which would lead to elections.
· Defence Minister and Labour Party leader Ehud Barak has only one year, according to Labour Party rules, before he has to face a leadership campaign because he lost the general election. Although there is a theoretical possibility he could be ousted, the Left in the Labour Party have shown themselves impotent against Barak’s supreme ability to manipulate the Labour Party central committee vote. Barak should have been dead and buried politically after his party’s dreadful showing in the election, the worst in Labour’s history. Yet, he outwitted Tzipi Livni, Bibi Netanyahu, and the Left of the Labour Party and gained the Defence Ministry for himself, and the Industry, Welfare, Agriculture, and Minorities, Ministries for Labour.
This is an unquestionable triumph under the circumstances but the subsequent price to be paid may be very high as a third of all Labour voters now say they will not support Labour as long as Barak remains its leader. However, this only matters if a new election is called soon as the Israeli electorate are notoriously volatile in their attitudes towards senior politicians. Ehud Olmert, for example, went from 3% to 33% approval ratings within several months (2006-7).
· The Barak-Bibi relationship is based upon shared experience within the elite commando unit Sayeret Matkal, as well as political necessity. Bibi needs Barak as a counter weight to both his own right wing within the Likud as well as the government coalition, and to any pressure from the United States. They also both need to gain votes from the centre Kadima party that attracted, and is mostly based upon, traditional Labour and Likud voters. If Barak and Bibi can squeeze Kadima then both of their parties will gain.
They are also both in broad agreement about the threat from Iran. Both believe that action against Iran may be necessary at any time, but also agree that they should give the United States some time to get an agreement from Iran not to pursue its nuclear weapons programme any further, if necessary through the implementation of sanctions.
They also believe that there is not likely to be any progress on peace talks, on either the Syrian or Palestinian front, as long as Iran remains an active and effective participant or player. Neither believe that a comprehensive peace is likely within the next few years. They do, however, disagree vehemently over the sacrifices needed for peace. Barak would give up the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and even parts of East Jerusalem, whereas Bibi believes the most the Palestinians can in practice be offered is a form of limited autonomy that would enable them to create a prosperous and stable society and economy, and that the Golan Heights could only be given back to Syria in certain extreme circumstances such as a total rejection of violence by Syria and a token Syrian civilian presence. Fortunately for their alliance there is no prospect either the Syrians or the Palestinians are prepared to make the concessions necessary for either Bibi or Barak to believe it politically expedient to abandon the other.
· However, Barak is by nature conspiratorial and controlling, and if he sees any advantage to be gained by sabotaging the coalition he will do so just as he did with Ehud Olmert. This can arise if he sees splits in Kadima, or the right wing coalition, and, of course, he will do all in his power to provoke such splits. In the meantime, if necessary for the next four years, he will do everything he can to bolster Labour’s narrow interests. His main priority as Defence Minister is to implement the ‘Iron Dome’ and ‘David’s Sling’ anti-missile systems that are, in theory, capable of intercepting Qassam, Katyusha, Grad, and Fajr, short and medium range incoming missiles. Parts of the defence shield will be deployed by 2010, but the system should be in place nationwide sometime in 2011 or early 2012. In the meantime his other priority is to sabotage Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.
· It is clear that Tzipi Livni is now in the most vulnerable position. She has been out-thought, out-manoeuvred, and out-witted by Ehud Barak, who should have been forced into political retirement by now but instead is currently in charge of all the key Ministries Labour has traditionally been associated with (Welfare, Agriculture, Minorities, and Industry). Livni has once again shown she has no strategic political vision, and believes principles lie at the heart of politics rather than the ability to gain and wield power, which in turn allows you the possibility to implement the policies that your principles dictate. Livni has not only put the cart before the horse she has also managed to bolt the proverbial gate locking herself and her party outside.
Kadima is a coalition of centre-left and centre-right personalities and policies, that was created and designed by ex-PM Ariel Sharon to hold the centre ground in any conceivable combination of government coalition. Its members joined precisely because they believed they were guaranteed, as the centre political party in a highly representative system of proportional representation, to be permanently in power. It is Livni’s genius that she has managed for the first time in Israel’s history to deny the political centre any representation in government. She has also rendered to Barak’s Labour Party the position of indispensable party of the centre. Her greatest task therefore will be to hold her party together. The longer the government coalition lasts the more difficult this will be. The government and Kadima are now in a race as to who will fragment first.
· Any imminent attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities and programme will depend on whether Russia decides it is in her interests to supply Iran with the S-300 anti-air missile defence system. Russia sees herself in a win-win situation. If Israel attacks Iran then the price for Russian oil and gas and the demand for Russian military and nuclear technologies will increase along with Russia’s revenues. At the same time the United States as an ally of Israel will be harmed diplomatically and economically further undermining her position as a superpower. It will also bolster Russia’s argument that an anti missile system is not needed in the Czech Republic or Poland. If it was so easy to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons programmes and systems how could Iran pose a serious threat to the United States or Western Europe?
If Israel does not attack then both her and the United States’ bluff will have been called and Russia can continue to supply nuclear technology and arms to whomsoever she chooses. This also undermines the US position as superpower, and allows Russia to compete on the world stage. Russia can then control Iran’s desire to gain nuclear weapons in her own inimitable style by threatening to withdraw all technological and military aid leaving Iran exposed to all comers.
· Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu remain confident that they can control all threats, whether an intifada on the West Bank, missiles from Gaza, or terror attacks from Lebanon, on a case-by-case basis. Iran may feel the need to attack Israeli and Jewish interests through acts of global terror in order to bring pressure to bear and to make Israel overreact, thus putting Israel on the defensive again, and allowing Iran to get on with her nuclear programme unhindered. But it is clear Barak and Bibi are content to slowly build up Israel’s defences until such time they feel the need to destroy Iran’s facilities. Unless, that is, the global community decides to take the Iranian threat seriously.
President Barack Obama has just stated that he is “determined to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.” This comes in the context of North Korea firing a ballistic rocket over Japan, Iran’s recent firing of an inter-continental rocket into space, and Pakistan, the only Muslim nuclear power, imploding into civil war. No sane senior western politician wants to repeat this scenario with Iran, particularly as President Ahmadinejad’s victory in June’s general election is all but guaranteed by Ayatollah Khamenei’s support. The ball is now in the international community’s court but based on past behaviour nothing will happen. So we can expect a strike by Israel within two to three years, less if the S-300 is delivered.
· As for progress with the Palestinians, unless Hamas and Fatah can reconcile, Hamas recognises Israel, a courageous Palestinian leader arises who is prepared to compromise over Jerusalem and refugees, and renounce all violence and can deliver his people to that commitment, there can and will be no substantial progress. Israel has had enough of European cowardice, United States inactivity, Palestinian intransigence, Syrian Orwellian double-speak, and Iranian calls for her liquidation. Most of Israel’s current political elite understands that Iran holds the key to progress and that only her effective removal from the political process will result in any substantive development.
The Palestinians will not accept this situation and will increase their resistance accordingly as existing settlements expand and with little to nothing being done about any illegal ones. All offers by Netanyahu to help develop the West Bank’s economy without political concessions will be rejected. Stalemate amidst increasing and continued unrest will characterise the next year or two on the West Bank. This, in turn, will probably result in President Abbas’ resignation by the end of the year leaving the field free for a more radical Fatah Presidential candidate in January 2010.
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:
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:
Posts (Atom)