Benjamin Netanyahu has won another term as Israel’s prime minister even as his support base seems more tenuous than ever.
Pierre Klochendler , last updated: January 23, 2013
Inter Press Service
Against all expectations, he could have been defeated. Now, he faces uncertainty over the kind of governing coalition he will lead and thus the kind of policies he will carry out. And he faces a lingering question: can any prospective coalition last?
The initial result was astounding – floating around a tie between Netanyahu’s right-wing camp with 61 seats and his centre-left opposition with 59 seats in the Knesset parliament’s 120 seats.
So, addressing the Israel voter, the self-designate new prime minister decidedly put on a brave face of his own.
“I’m proud to be your prime minister. Once again, you’ve proven that Israel is an exemplary vibrant and dynamic democracy,” Netanyahu harangued his supporters at the Likud-Beitenu headquarters located on the metropolitan’s Exhibition Ground.
Results show that support for the joint Likud-Beitenu list of candidates Netanyahu headed has dropped dramatically, from its previous 42 seats to as few as 31.
Former TV star Yair Lapid, a newcomer in politics, stole the show. His centrist party Yesh ‘Atid (There’s a Future) has become the second largest, with 19 seats.
Empowered with a strong social programme focusing on cheaper housing for young couples, compulsory draft of religious students exempted from serving in the military and, in general, with an uncompromising fight against social iniquities, Lapid has suddenly emerged as the king-maker of any future sustainable coalition.
“Our responsibility is to form the largest possible coalition,” Lapid pledged during his party’s celebration.
Lapid’s vow was echoed by the prime minister-designate. “We must forge the largest possible coalition and, I am in the process of fulfilling this mission,” promised Netanyahu barely two hours after the exit polls.
“It won’t be easy,” predicts Uri Levy, news editor at Israel’s public television. “He’ll have to compromise, change his way of thinking.” Netanyahu is known to be adverse to change.
Election Day seemed auspicious. Flanked by his two sons and his wife, the incumbent Netanyahu was one of the first Israelis to cast a ballot for his Likud-Beitenu list of candidates.
Since he had called for early elections, Israelis were made to believe by opinion polls what Netanyahu himself was made to believe – his re-election for another term at the helm was a certainty.
“He’s obviously not very happy with what happened,” is Levy’s understatement. “He expected a lot more mandates.”
The politically savvy Netanyahu made a beginner’s mistake.
First, by merging his right-wing Likud list with the more right-wing Israel-Beitenu party, he alienated supporters who dislike either one of the two parties.
Then, he harassed the further to-the-right Naphtali Bennett because polls, which he’s known to check compulsively, predicted that Bennett’s Jewish Home party which caters to settlers’ interests would enjoy unprecedented support – though it didn’t. There too the opinion polls were misleading.
Albeit a bright and sunny Election Day, it’s neither a bright future nor a sunny political horizon which got Netanyahu re-elected, but fear – fear of a third Palestinian Intifadah uprising; fear of fallouts from the bloody civil war raging in neighbouring Syria; fear of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Netanyahu is adept at playing those fears. Hence, his opening remarks at the start of the last cabinet meeting two days before Election Day. “The problem in the Middle East is Iran’s attempt to build nuclear weapons, and the chemical weapons in Syria,” he warned.
He added: “History won’t forgive those who allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. This was and remains the main mission facing not only myself and Israel, but the entire world.”
His campaign was as dull and dormant as the political status quo he has prudently maintained during his first term.
Except for a ten-month freeze on settlement construction and one brief encounter with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in 2010, he has made no peace moves towards the Palestinians.
He launched a brief military operation on Hamas in the Gaza Strip in November and suffered a stinging defeat at the UN ten days later when the General Assembly voted by overwhelming majority to upgrade Palestine to “non-member observer state”.
He sounded the alarm against Iran’s nuclear programme; threatened unilateral military action; yet refrained from committing himself to both his own red line and deadline.
Making national security and national strength the twin themes of his campaign, Netanyahu underestimated the lack of social security felt by a middle class weakened and pressured by his ultra-neoliberal economic policy.
Netanyahu ignored the fear shared by a majority of Israelis of a socio-economic downfall, an anxiety so apparent one-and-a-half years ago when half a million demonstrators descended to the street and demanded social justice.
“The election results provide an opportunity for change for the benefits of all our citizens,” now reluctantly retorts the champion of unbridled neoliberalism.
Netanyahu won and lost the elections at the same time. He won because Israelis fear change; he almost lost because they strongly feel for change.
Frederick Kagan, a foreign policy hawk based at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, is best known as the coauthor of the Bush administration's 2007 "troop surge" in Iraq. More recently, Kagan and his spouse Kim Kagan published a report in September that calls for sending 25,000 U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria. This strategy “makes no mention of the immense political challenges that would have to be navigated in order to insert an American force into both Iraq and Syria. Nor does the report explain how American troops get there in the first place,” wrote Elias Groll in Foreign Policy. “One finds it hard not to feel immense pre-emptive pity for the 25,000 American soldiers that the Kagans could help send to Iraq and Syria.”
Eric Edelman, undersecretary for defense in the George W. Bush administration and a board member of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, has long been associated with hawkish factions in U.S. politics, advising the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Mitt Romney. Edelman has advocated a militaristic response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, calling on NATO to become directly involved in Ukraine and to reconsider its policy of not placing nuclear weapons in member states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Many international relations experts argue that such a move would likely provoke Russia into additional aggressive actions.
Otto Reich is a former U.S. diplomat who is best known for his participation in a domestic propaganda operation during the Iran-Contra affair. Since leaving government in 2004, Reich has continued to promote rightwing U.S. policies in Latin American while working as a beltway lobbyist representing Latin American governments and business interests. The Guatemalan government recently awarded a contract to Reich’s firm to “improve the perception, reputation, and the understanding of the reality of Guatemala.” Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina appears to have been motivated to hire a lobbyist to counter criticism that was spurred after the arrival in the U.S. of tens of thousands of undocumented migrant children from Central America. Molina attempted to deflect the criticism by blaming the drug war and U.S. Cold War-era policies. “Given Pérez Molina's sharp criticism of the United States' history in the region,” commented one writer, “his choice—former Reagan official and noted Cold War propagandist Otto Reich—was a shocker.”
Unlike his more ideological peers, former CNN political analyst Bill Schneider seldom engages in straightforward issue advocacy, preferring instead to discuss policy issues in terms of their implications for electoral politics or Beltway political discourse. However, Schneider—a former fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution—occasionally betrays interventionist leanings on foreign policy, declaring in a recent op-ed that “if the U.S. doesn't do anything, nothing happens. … As in Kuwait, Kosovo and Libya, if the U.S. doesn't do something [in Syria], nothing will happen. The murderous bloodletting will go on.”
The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a leading neoconservative think tank, claims to have a solution to the ongoing fallout from the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq: send more troops, bomb more targets, and get involved in Syria as well. Along with peddling an aggressive expansion of NATO along Russia’s borders and expounding on the virtues of nuclear weapons, FPI’s recent publications have urged the U.S. to send troops to Iraq and potentially Syria, launch an aggressive campaign of airstrikes against ISIS, and funnel arms to the Iraqi army (which previously handed over its weapons to ISIS), Sunni rebels in Syria (who could do the same), and Kurdish fighters in Iraq.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
September, 23 2014
At a press breakfast during his trip to New York for the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani questioned the legality of U.S. strikes on Syria, expressed hope for reaching a nuclear agreement with the P5+1, and called for warmer ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
September, 22 2014
As nuclear negotiations between Iran and international negotiators approach their November deadline, domestic criticism in Iran and the U.S., as well as the complicated regional politics surrounding ISIS, may influence their course.
September, 18 2014
A new report by former senior U.S. foreign-policy officials and regional experts argues that a U.S. nuclear accord with Iran could open the way for cooperation on a host of challenges in the Middle East, including responding to ISIS in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
September, 15 2014
Though recent global unrest has spurred an uptick in public support for military interventions, favorable U.S. attitudes toward the use of force abroad appear to be on the decline.
September, 12 2014
President Barack Obama's proposal to attack ISIS will likely receive support from Congress, but experts question his choice of tactics and allies.
September, 12 2014
Despite earlier saying that an attack on Syria would require authorization by the UN Security Council, the Obama administration has suggested that it will bypass the UN in its campaign against ISIS.
September, 11 2014
Although political conditions and opposition from the U.S. and Israel have stymied efforts to create a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, disarmament activists remain optimistic that progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran will open the door for wider talks.