Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘likud’

Looks like it will be an Yisrael Beiteinu-backed Likud government.

One potential monkey wrench: Lieberman made his support of Netanyahu conditional on forming a broad-based coalition. And so far, Livni looks prepared to keep Kadima in opposition.

So, as they say, it ain’t over till Shimon Peres sings.

With over 85% of votes counted, Tzipi Livni’s Kadima has a narrow lead over Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud in today’s Israeli election.

Netanyahu had a commanding lead in the polls and the election looked like it was going to be a wash, but Livni fought back and now it’s almost too close to call.

Even if Kadima wins, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Livni will be the next Prime Minister. She had trouble forming a coalition government after Olmert resigned last year, and conditions now are even less favourable for Kadima than they were then.

Should be interesting times ahead as the post-election political jockeying begins.

The Israeli blogosphere has been up late following the events as they unfold, of course. Aussie Dave was liveblogging all day. Imshin thinks it’s gonna get ugly. And Allison posts her excellent analysis on Pajamas Media.

In a related story, Meryl Yourish has more on what’s passing for journalism at AP these days.

Benjamin Netanyahu has won the Likud primary with 47% of the vote, beating out rival Silvan Shalom for the leadership of a party that suddenly finds itself in third place.

When Netanyahu visualized the circumstances under which he’d regain leadership of Likud, somehow I don’t think that’s quite what he had in mind.

Still, he will lead a party that is the voice of Israelis who felt betrayed by Sharon’s disengagement plan or who believe that Sharon led Israel down the wrong path. Unfortunately for Netanyahu, they aren’t in the majority. And come March, in all likelihood, he will find himself in a situation that is nominally different but factually familiar: the opposition. Only this time, it will be from without instead of from within.

The media is calling it a “political earthquake”, but those who have been watching Israeli politics have seen this coming for a while: Ariel Sharon has left the Likud party to form his own new centrist party. Most likely, the Knesset will be dissolved and elections will be called within 90 days.

Sharon has been fighting the hardline faction in his own party for quite some time, ever since he moved ahead with the bitterly contested Gaza withdrawal. It’s been clear for a while that Sharon has more support among the general Israeli public than within his own party. And with the Labour party moving further to the left with the election of new leader Amir Peretz, there is room in Israel for a broad-based centrist party.

For those who are thinking that Sharon has just committed political suicide, remember that he’s the proverbial cat with nine lives in Israel, and he’s only used up about three or four of them. He enjoys massive personal popularity and those who underestimate him tend to end up picking up the pieces of ruined careers. I wouldn’t count him out just yet.

A vote by Likud to reject a coalition with Labor to push through Gaza disengagement is being presented as a major setback for Ariel Sharon:

Likud’s Central Committee, its decision-making body, voted by a 58% majority to prevent PM Ariel Sharon from negotiating with the opposition Labor party. By a narrow margin, even Sharon’s modest proposal to allow him to talk with any Zionist party was rejected. The PM vowed to pursue his course and talk with Labor anyway. Most Likud Ministers and Knesset Members supported him.

In his speech, interrupted by frequent catcalls and boos, Sharon attacked the “rebellious and irresponsible” parts of the body that opposed him. “Unfortunately, there is a group within the party that has been plotting against the government since its establishment,” he said. “This is not the behavior expected from members of the ruling party.”

That last bit sounds like Jean Chretien speaking to Paul Martin. But anyway…

This is one of the problems with fighting a war in a democracy. All the decision-making is done in public; all the dirty laundry gets to be dissected by the international press. Arafat, in contrast, can just shoot anyone who opposes him. Much less messy or controversial, I suppose.

Anyway, the opposition is busy talking about how bad this is for Sharon’s government:

A Labor Party spokesman said that the decision would inevitably lead to elections: “The Likud convention decided that it wants to see the Likud refusing peace and destroying any chance of ending violence in the region. If this position is adopted elections will be required.”

But ultimately, the disengagement plan will happen. Ariel Sharon is – politically – the cat with nine lives. Every other week, some media outlet predicts the collapse of his government and the end of his political career. They’ve always been wrong until now. We’ll probably see that repeated again here.

Ariel Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza was soundly defeated in today’s referendum in Israel, with exit polls indicating 60% of votes against and only 39% for:

In an initial response to the resounding defeat of his disengagement plan in a Likud Party referendum on Sunday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that while he and the Israeli public were disappointed with the results, he would respect them.

[ . . . ]

“I know that much of the Israeli public supports my plan. I know that they feel, as I do, disappointment with the results of the referendum. We have difficult days before us where difficult decisions need to be made,” Sharon said in a statement.

This could put Sharon’s job in jeopardy, although initially he said he would not resign. In fact, he vowed tonight to continue pushing the plan. Still, few politicians recover from this kind of defeat, and what will happen in the days and weeks ahead remains to be seen.

Results and reactions are, of course, mixed, as they tend to be with any controversial result. I’m not an Israeli Likudnik, so my opinion really doesn’t matter… but for the record, my reaction is more of a qualified disappointment. Disappointment that a plan that seemed like it might have a real chance of success will probably not have a chance to be put into place… but qualified because the terrorists will interpret any unilateral withdrawal as a sign of weakness.

What next? We’ll have to watch and see, I suppose.

Harry isn’t impressed by how the voting on Sharon’s disengagement plan will be taking place:

Am I the only one who is a bit worried about 200,000 members of the Likud party determining the future of Israel? Shouldn’t the referendum be open to all Israelis, not just Likud? Last time I checked Ariel Sharon is prime minister of all Israelis not just Likud members. We should be wary of Likud’s central committee and membership due to their voting track record. I mean, they voted a waitress into a top spot of their party list last election…

He follows up with a scary position statement by the “Manhigut” faction of the Likud party – a fringe element, no doubt, but in the grand tradition of fringe, the term “lunatic” wouldn’t be too inappropriate.

I’m with Harry on this one. Luckily, most members of Likud aren’t like that. But unfortunately, there are enough wingnuts that it makes the voting strategy a little suspect, to say the least.

The Jerusalem Post asks, in an opinion piece, Why not Mitzna?

Why, when during the last Israeli election campaign, former Labor party leader Amram Mitzna proposed essentially the same “pull out and fence off” plan that Ariel Sharon’s government is pursuing now, was he so readily dismissed?

As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reviewed his year in office in a Knesset speech last night, it was hard not to ask the question, have we not come full circle? In the last election, the now-forgotten Amram Mitzna proposed negotiating with the Palestinians, and if that did not work, unilaterally withdrawing behind the fence.

During the election campaign, the Labor party ran an advertisement accusing Sharon of not building the fence fast enough. The Likud responded with an ad featuring Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who explained the dangers of Mitzna’s plan to withdraw unilaterally from much of the West Bank.

The article claims that it’s because Sharon’s vision is pragmatic while Mitzna’s was idealistic:

Plan B, however, is preferable to the status quo. And we would rather have Sharon implement it than Mitzna.

The reason is that what Israel needs most is consensus on its own red lines. Mitzna could never have redrawn the map the way Sharon is doing while maintaining a consensus, in part because the Left cannot quite shake its ideology that concessions will bring peace, in part because Mitzna would never have been able to gain the trust of the Right. Sharon is doing what Mitzna said he would do but for the opposite reason: drawing the most defensible (politically, demographically and militarily) lines because there is no Palestinian partner. The public will back a pragmatic withdrawal/retrenchment over a utopian one any day, and that consensus is itself critical to maintaining Israel’s strategic credibility.

I think that’s true. But I think it goes further than that.

The thing is, a leader distrusted by the majority of a population can’t sell the tough concessions. There’s a reason it was Menachem Begin – with his hardliner background and right-wing affiliation – who signed the peace treaty with Anwar El-Sadat. It’s the same reason that Ariel Sharon might be able to sell a Gaza pullout, while Mitzna would never have been able to do so.

Israelis are concerned first and foremost about their security. They won’t trust a leadership that they perceive as selling out their security for a worthless piece of paper. They may trust a leader who they perceive as taking steps in the interest of security.

That doesn’t make me any more enthusiastic about Sharon’s plan. But it does go a long way towards explaining why the Israelis have been voting for people like Sharon over people like Mitzna in these past few years.

So who’s celebrating? Well, ironically, not Sharon. He knew he’d be re-elected. He’s not going to celebrate until he figures out how on earth to string together a coalition in this mess.

Amram Mitzna’s not celebrating too hard either. He gambled and opted to compete for votes on the Left instead of in the middle. Bad call, Mitzna. Sure, people like him and he’s charismatic . . . but nobody’s willing to entrust him with the security of the Israeli people any further than they could throw him. Besides, now he’s stuck with a promise not to join Likud in a unity government. I somehow suspect that he’ll be convinced to change his mind on that one in the next couple of weeks.

Sharansky and Sarid were both so disappointed with their parties’ respective performances that they resigned. Oh well, I guess that frees up Sharansky’s schedule a bit and maybe he can even come to Concordia. Yay . . . another riot to look forward to! As for Sarid, he had to realize that there’s only so many members of Peace Now who he can convince to come out and vote. And with Mitzna looking to the far left instead of to Labor’s traditionally centrist base for votes, Meretz lost a lot of ground.

The religious parties can’t be celebrating too hard either. Actually if there’s one bit of good news here, it’s the decline of seats for the ultra-religious parties. Shas lost a good amount of support. This is a bit strange, considering demographics. On the other hand, what was lost in sheer number may be gained in terms of leverage for the religious bloc, since if Sharon can’t convince Mitzna or Lapid to join a unity coalition, he’ll be forced to align himself with the religious parties to form a government. And they’ll demand their pound of flesh in return for support.

Tommy Lapid should be ecstatic with the rise in support for Shinui . . . but an offhand comment by Arafat about meeting with him and possibly having a chance for talks probably didn’t exactly make Lapid’s day. A compliment by Arafat is basically a kiss of death in Israeli politics, and it’s virtually guaranteed that Lapid’s popularity will suffer as a result.

Actually, the only one who should be thrilled here is Arafat.

Okay, I know that sounds crazy. Arafat has to say that he hates Likud and loves Labor. He even made a show of extending an olive branch to Sharon, knowing full well that there was no risk Sharon would actually accept, so it was a cost-free PR move.

But secretly this is the best possible outcome for Arafat. Because if a dovish government was voted in, and wanted to initiate talks, Arafat would have to bargain and make concessions and try to stop the terror. And he’s not ready to do that. So Likud being in power gives him an excuse to continue his hard line. In private, Arafat did a little victory dance last night.

The fact that Hamas regards Sharon’s re-election as a “blessing” should be enough to drive that point home.

Ironically, the only politician in Israel right now who potentially COULD give the Palestinians anything is Sharon. Mitzna couldn’t. Because the only way a deal will ever be negotiated is if the Israeli people are convinced that their security is a foremost concern. They don’t trust Mitzna to look out for their interests above the interests of the Palestinians. But they do trust Sharon.

What, if anything, can we learn from the election? Well, it’s simple: Just look at the number of parties compared to the number of people. The old joke about two Israelis having three opinions must have at least some truth to it.

Montreal/Israel in Brief sent a special election mailing that contained this handy table summarizing the election results:

While some of the party summaries are not entirely accurate, or are oversimplifications, this does give a bit of an overview of what the election results may mean for Israel.