Israel: Coalition Talks Continue

Yair Lapid (left) and Naftali Bennett

The Israeli election was held on January 22, 2013.  My analysis of the expected coaltion talks, writing at the time, can be found here.  Meanwhile, more than a month has passed and it is still unclear what type of government Israel will have, other than the fact that it will almost certainly be led by the Likud party.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has failed to reach a coalition deal within the initial alotted time period.  He will now have until March 14, 2013.  If he still cannot conclude a deal by that time, there will either be new elections - or President Shimon Peres will ask another party to try to form the government.  In all probability, Netanyahu will reach a deal with some of the other parties by the deadline, even if the deal is reached just as time is expiring.

The only party to have joined the Likud so far is "The Movement" led by Tsipi Livni.  This was quite surprising to many Israelis since the centrist Livni joined a government without knowing which other parties would be involved.  She was granted a few cabinet posts and put in charge of overseeing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.  As leader of the Kadima party after the previous election, Livni had opted to stay out of the government, despite having a large and powerful party.  This time around, she brings a much smaller number of seats.  To date, no other parties have been willing to join this coalition, which now numbers 37.  A majority of 61 is required to control the Knesset.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has been speaking to all of the possible suitors - Labour, Yesh Atid, Habayit Hayehudi and the ultra-Religious parties.  These talks are mainly held behind closed doors and it is really difficult to know exactly what is being demanded, promised or rejected and what genuine information or misinformation is being leaked.

However, it is fairly clear that two of the largest parties, Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi have reached some sort of deal under which they will only enter the government together.  Apparently, the main piece of the deal centres around the idea that almost all ultra-religious Israelis will be required to serve in the army or the national service, by age 21, with only a small number exempted.  Both parties seem to be holding very firm to this demand, even as the ultra-religious Shas party has been attacking the parties for their lack of flexiblity and alleging that they are "anti-Haredi."  Tonight, Likud-Beitenu suggested that Yesh Atid was refusing to sit in a government with the ultra-religious parties.  However, it is not clear that Yesh Atid has actually taken this position.  It may be that they are holding merely steadfast to certain demands - the content of which are entirely unacceptable to the ultra-religious.  However, there is a big difference between insisting on some significant policy changes that will affect Haredim (as well as many other Israelis) - versus being "anti-Haredi."

Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid seem to have been able to agree on policies in a number of areas, primarily related to domestic issues.  Their stated aims are to improve education in Israel, improve life for the middle class, change the relationship of the State and the Ultra-Religious and other issues.  Both Bennett and Lapid served in the Israeli Defence Forces and both believe that the burden of mandatory military service should be distributed universally across Israeli society including ultra-religious Jews and Arab Israelis.  Overall, in the realm of domestic policy, Bennett does not appear to have staked out any particularly extreme positions, though his party would certainly have a much more right leaning social and domestic agenda than the platform on which Lapid campaigned.

The big question mark is what this means for the future of Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian relations.  Bennett is adamantly opposed to any territorial concessions and has indicated that his party will not support a government that makes any such compromises.  Lapid is much more flexible and favours an immediate return to the bargaining table  with the Palestinians.  Even though both parties oppose any concessions with respect to Jerusalem, it is hard to see how any kind of peace deal could be reached with the Palestinians without significant territorial concessions in other areas.  So, ultimately, if both Bennett and Lapid join the Netanyahu-led government together, the government will likely be preoccupied with domestic issues and negotiations with the Palestinians will move down on the priority list, even below where they have been currently.

The big winner so far in the Israeli public forum has been Yair Lapid.  Israelis have apparently been very supportive of his determination and resolve in not making concessions to the ultra-orthodox on the issue of universal conscription.  Some polls have suggested that Lapid's party would win more than 30 seats if a new election were held now.  It may well be that Lapid plans to deal with domestic issues first and then use his momentum and popularity to force a change in the governing coaltion or to force the government to turn its attention to addressing the Palestinian-Israeli dispute in more flexible fashion.

In any event, it seems to me that there are still reasons for Israelis to be cautiously optimistic.  Although the Yesh Atid Party may not be able to fulfill all of its promises, the determination that Yair Lapid is showing with respect to domestic issues is a promising sign that some significant, positive changes are on the way.
 

Israeli Election 2013 - Official Results

Here are the final results of yesterday's Israeli election - according to the Israeli press.  These results could still change slightly - though they are apparently based on more than 99% of the actual polling station results.  If there are any changes from these numbers, they would be very minor.

Likud 31                     Right/Right-Centre            Same as exit polls
Yesh Atid 19             Left/Left-Centre                 Same
Labour 15                   Left                                     Down 2 seats from exit polls
Shas 11                       Ultra-Religious                  Down 1
Bayit Yehudi - 11      Religious/Right                  Down 1
Meretz 6                     Left                                      Down 1
Hatenuah 6                 Left-Centre                         Down 1
Yehadut HaTorah 7   Ultra-Religious                  Up 1
Hadash 4                    Arab/Left                             Up 1
Raam-Taal 5              Arab/Left                             Up 1  
Balad 3                       Arab/Left                             Up 1
Kadima (Mofaz) 2     Centre                                  Up 2

With these new numbers, the "right wing bloc" as it is referred to by the Israeli press - which includes Likud, Bayit Yehudi and the two religious parties, Shas and Yehadut HaTorah sits at a total of 60 seats, which would not provide them with a sufficient number of Knesset members to form a government (61 would be required).  To form a government, Prime Minister Netanyahu will have to make compromises with at least some of the centre or left-centre parties to get them into a coalition government.  In doing so, Netanyahu will have some very interesting challenges.  He may choose to start by negotiating a deal with the number two party, Yesh Atid.  Assuming he could come to a deal with this party, the deal would probably be attractive to Tsipi Livni and HaTenuah as well.  That would put the three parties at 56.  They would then either need to add religious parties (who have 18 seats - between Shas and Yehadut HaTorah) or they would have to add the right wing Bayit Hayehudi (with 11).  Much of Lapid's campaign has focused on reducing the influence of the ultra-religious parties in Israel - ensuring that the ultra-religious are conscripted to the army, reducing the amount of money paid to Yeshivas.  So it is hard to see how Netanyahu will be able to build a government with both Yesh Atid and the religious parties.

If Netanyahu chooses to add Bennett's party (Habayit Hayehudi), there will also be significant hurdles.  While Habayit Hayehudi might go along with some form of universal conscription (they are a religious party but a party of "modern Orthodox" who serve in the army), Bennett is strongly opposed to some of Lapid's ideas with respect to the peace process.  If this type of coalition is arranged, it might lead to significant domestic policy changes but it is hard to see how a government that includes Bennett would make any meaningful changes to the policies of the current Israeli government with repect to the Palestinians.

So in either case, it will be tricky for Netanyahu, who will likely be required to include Yesh Atid plus either the ultra-religious parties or the more nationalist party, both of which have interests that conflict with those of Yesh Atid.

Netanyahu could aim for a broader coaltion with Lapid, Labour and even Meretz.  However, this seems quite unlikely.  Labour's leader Sheli Yacomovitch has attacked Netanyahu at every opportunity and has railed against the possibility of another Likud led government.  She has stated very clearly she would not join.  While this might be a wonderful bargaining tactic, it is hard to see how Labour would wind up in a goverment with Likud this time around.  Meretz is even further to the left.

One other option is that the left and left-centre bloc could try to form a coalition with the religious parties and take over the government.  T|his is what Labour leader Yacomovitch was suggesting last night that she would try to do.  However, she is sitting at only 15 seats.  Even if she added 18 ultra-religious seats, that would get her to 33.  Add Meretz and she has 39.  She could add Tsipi Livni and get up to 45.  She could get the support of the Arab parties and that would get her to 57.  Would Lapid want to join this type of government, which would rely heavily on including 18 ultra-religious Knesset members and 12 Arab members of the Knesset?  This seems extremely unlikely.  I would have to conclude that Labour is going to be part of the opposition unless it dramatically changes its rhetoric very soon.

So overall, it looks like a government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and moderated, perhaps significantly, by Yair Lapid.  We should see some signficant changes in direction.  If the government includes Shas and Yehadut HaTorah but not Habayit Hayehudi, we may see movement towards reopening peace negotiations with the Palestinians but not nearly as much domestic change as Lapid might have liked.  If the government includes Habayit Hayehudi but not the ultra-religious parties, we could see signficant domestic change but not necessarily any movement on Israeli-Palestinian issues.  Of course, coalition negotiations in Israel never cease to amaze, so we could see some very interesting surprises.  Prime Minister Netanyahu is very experienced in handling these negotiations and has managed to put together some very stable Israeli governments.  As he said in his speech last night, it is time for him to get to work and start negotiating.

The next few weeks - or even months of coalition building and horse trading will be fascinating.  We will only understand that real results and meaning of this election once we see the make up of the new coalition government.  In either case, it is almost certain that there will be some movement to the left on either domestic issues, foreign policy issues or perhaps even both.  

Postscript:  See my subsequent posts - but the "final results" have Bayit Hayehudi at 12 and Ra'am-Tal down to 4.  I have discussed the implications of this in my Jan 24 post - Election is Over: Coalition Talks Begin.

Israeli Elections 2013: Preview

With Israeli national elections approaching on January 22, 2013, I thought it was about time that I provided a bit of information and perspective on the coming elections.  It will be my first opportunity to vote in Israel, though I'm not writing this article as a partisan piece.  I thought I would look at trends and anticipated outcomes.

As many of you know, Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a 120 seat legislative assembly, the "Knesset."  Like in other similar systems (Canada, Britain, to name a couple), a party is required to cobble together a majority in order to govern.  A governing coalition requires more than 61 seats to hold the confidence of the Knesset.

The Knesset

The challenge in Israel, of course, is that each Israeli believes that he or she can and should run the country.  New political parties are constantly being formed, old ones disbanded and new coalitions arranged.  Things are very volatile, to put it mildly.

Following the last election in 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put together a very stable coalition (by Israeli historical standards).  The numbers ranged from 66 to 74 over the course of this term in office but the coalition was never really threatened.  The government was made up of a multi-party coalition which included the Likud party, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Yisrael Beitenu party lead by Avigdor Lieberman (who has now been indicted), some religious and ultra-religious parties and the leftist Labour Party.  It is interesting to note that some of the most vociferous condemnation of the current government has come from the leader of the Labor Party, even though Labor was an integral part of the governing coaliton.

Prime Minister Netanyahu

For the current election, there have been some very interesting changes for some of the parties. While at this point, there seems to be little doubt that Prime Minister Netanyahu will be reelected, the big issue is what type of coalition he will put together and what policies that government will embrace.

The "Right Wing" Parties

The two major right wing or right centre parties are Likud and Yisrael Beitenu ("Israel, Our Home").  Founded by former Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1973, Likud has been one of the two dominant Israeli political parties for more than 30 years.  Its membership includes members with a range of view points from those who support a negotiated two-state peace solution with the Palestinians to those who favour annexation of much, if not all, of the disputed territories (Judea and Semaria or the West Bank).  On its own in the last election, Likud won 27 seats.

Avigdor Lieberman

Yisrael Beitenu is a party led by Avigdor Lieberman, who was serving as Israel's Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister until December 2012 at which time he was charged with fraud and breach of trust.  Yisrael Beitenu won 15 seats in the last election.  While characterized as a right wing nationalist party, Yisrael Beitenu favours a two-state solution including territory swaps with the Palestinians.  Lieberman has called for the Israeli government to demand "loyalty" from its Arab citizens and has also called for a reduction in the power of Israel's religious authorities.

Likud and Yisrael Beitenu have now merged and are running as one party for the current elections.  Most recent polls estimate that they will win anywhere from 32 to 37 seats.  The combined total will almost certainly be lower than the 42 that these two parties won in the 2009 election.

One of the big surprises of the campaign to date has been the newly named party Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish Home).  Its leader Naftali Bennett, a youthful and successful entrepreneur oversaw a merger of the Jewish Home and National Union parties and won more than 60% of the combined leadership race.  The party has an avowedly right wing platform, favouring annexation of the disputed territories, even though Bennett himself lives in the wonderful city of...Ra'anana.  Bennett has used a mixture of facebook advertising, carefully produced videos and his own energetic appeal to build growing support.  While many might characterize Bennett's views as extremist, current polls have estimated that Bennett may win between 13 and 18 seats in the Knesset.

Naftali Bennett

 One other "right wing" party, Otzma L'Yisrael ("Strength for Israel) could also win anywhere from 0 to 4 seats.  This was a group that splintered off from the newly merged Bennett party.

Overall, the "right wing" parties, which are not characterized as "religious" are projected to win anywhere from 45 to 59 seats.  This is quite a variance and will have a tremendous impact on the type of government that is formed.  If the combined numbers are closer to 45, the group will almost certainly be forced to combine with some of the centrist parties to form a fairly broad coalition.  If the group is close to, or even over 60, it could combine with some of the religious parties and produce a very stable, very right wing government, politically and even economically.

The Religious Parties

Shas is an ultra-religious party dedicated to furthering the interests of observant Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews.  It has formed governments with the right and the left over the past 20 years - and has been willing to bend on some of its principles, as long as there is lots of money available for its constituents.  Several Shas Knesset Members have been convicted of offences including fraud, forgery and bribery.   One of those convicted, well known member, Aryeh Deri is now the number two candidate on the Shas list and will almost certainly be elected in the coming elections.  Polling numbers for Shas have been quite consistent.  Estimates range from 9 to 12 seats, with most polls at 10 or 11.

Aryeh Deri

United Torah Judaism, another ultra-religious party, is estimated to win between 5 and 6 seats.

So the ultra-religious block is expected to have somewhere between 14 and 18 seats, which would position it well to join a government in exchange for all kinds of concessions.

Throughout Israel's history, left wing and right wing governments have been prepared to make major concessions to this religious block to bolster their governments.  Some of the resulting policies have included exemptions from the army for Yeshiva students, exclusive legal jurisdiction for the religious over personal status matters including weddings and funerals and control of many other aspects of Israeli life, ranging from limitations on public transportation on Shabbat to laws prohibiting the sale of Hametz (leavened bread) on Pesach.   Of course the flip side is that at least some of these laws enjoy fairly widespread public support, even among non-Orthodox Jews.


The Centrist Parties

There are currently three centrist parties that are expected to win seats in the coming election - Kadima, Yesh Atid and Hatnuah.

Formed in 2005 by moderate Likud members, Kadima reached a high point of 29 seats in the 2006 elections, with a policy platform emphasizing efforts to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.   In the 2009 election, the party won 28 seats under the leadership of Tsipi Livni.  Rather than join a coalition with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Livni opted to remain in opposition.  In 2012, Livni lost a leadership race to Shaul Mofaz.  Following Israel's history of politicians founding new parties, Livni left Kadima and set up her own party, arrogantly named "Hatnuah" - "the Movement."  The party's campaign has featured some fairly bizarre advertising slogans.  Tsipi Livni herself has been viewed as ineffective as an opposition leader.  Nevertheless, it looks like many of the Kadima supporters have deserted Mofaz and flocked to Livni.  The party's platform has emphasized peace, social justice, environmental protection and religious pluralism.  Current estimates suggest that Livni's party may win between 7 and 10 seats.

Tzipi Livni

The other centrist party expected to do well is the party led by well known Israeli media personality Yair Lapid named Yesh Atid ("There is a future").  Lapid's party's platform has included an emphasis on education, religious pluralism, an end to exemptions from military service for the ultra-religious, and efforts to change the Israeli political system.  Lapid's party seems to be running at 9 to 11 seats.

If these two parties, which should be natural allies, combine for between 16 and 21 seats, they could be part of a government and have substantial power.  Lapid has already suggested that he would like to be part of a Likud led government if Likud wins the election while Livni has been more circumspect.

Yair Lapid

The number of seats won by the centre may be the most significant factor in determining what type of government Israel has.  If the centre attracts some Likud supporters and helps limit the cumulative right wing block to less than 50 seats, it will be very important for Likud to include the centre in the government.  If the centrist parties are less successful, Likud may be able to form a government without them, relying only on the religious parties.




The Left

Though the Labor Party was one of Israel's two strongest parties and has been the governing party throughout much of Israel's history, it seems fairly clear that this has been a party on the decline over the past several years.  Perhaps Israel's new economic realities, with a shift over time to more of a capitalist economy have been instrumental in creating this result.  Or perhaps there has been disenchantment over Labor's role in participating in a staunchly right wing Likud coalition.  In any event, under its current leader, Shelly Yacimovich, the party has emphasized social justice issues rather than national security and has tried to position itself as the party most willing to tackle issues of widespread Israeli middle class decline and increasingly high levels of poverty.  Predictions have varied for the Labor Party, but most seem to estimate 16 to 21 seats.     

Over to the left of the Labor Party is Meretz, a party that touts itself as "Israel's Left."  Emphasizing human rights (especially in the area of sexual orientation), social justice, separation of religion and state, dismantling of most Israeli settlements, and humanism, the party is expected to win 3 to 5 seats.

If Labor and Meretz do well in the coming elections, they could have as many as 25 or 26 seats.  This would either be a considerable opposition block - or it could elect to try to form a national unity government though that seems unlikely.    Even if the political left and centre were to combine, the ceiling would probably be in the range of 40 to 45 seats.  Given current Israeli political realities, it seems quite unlikely that the left wing parties will play a significant role in the next government.

The Arab Parties

Israel currently has three Arab or Arab-Socialist parties in the Knesset.  UAL-Ta'al, Balad and Hadash.  They currently have 10 seats between the three of them.  The expectation is that they will be in a similar range following the coming election.  It is unlikely that they will form part of the next government, though it is theoretically possible that these parties could bolster a left-centre coalition.  Given the expected number of seats, it appears that even if the left and the centre combined with the Arab parties, they would still have less than 61 seats.

Israeli MK Ahmed Tibi

Finally, this type of survey article would not be complete without mentioning at least some of the "novelty parties" that are not expected to win seats.

There is the "Green Leaf Party" - I will leave it to you to figure out what they stand for...

How could I not mention the "Kulanu Haverim" ("We are all friends") party, whose members include follows of Rabbi Nachman of Breslev?



And finally - the "Pirate Party" whose members advocate the "freedom to copy" and promote the lifestyle of the piracy sector.

This list is not complete - there are many other parties running, including, for the first time, an Arab Zionist party (El Amal Lat'gir), led by Bedouin politician Aatef Karinaoui.  But time limitations keep me from making this blog article more comprehensive.

Green Leaf...

I will see if I have time to add some additional information between now and the election date.  I will want to be sure to research all of the issues thoroughly to make an informed decision.

For now, a couple of things seem fairly clear to me.  Prime Minister Netanyahu will almost certainly be the next Prime Minister.  Labor and Meretz will almost certainly be in the opposition along with the Arab parties.  The real issue is whether Netanyahu will lead a broad right-centre or right-centre-religious coalition or whether it will be a much narrower right-religious government.  Stay tuned and if you are in Israel and you are eligible - make sure to vote!!

Canada and Israel Issues: Conservative Support and the National Post

Canada's National Post printed two interesting articles about Israel on Saturday.  I had the chance to review them on Sunday on my flight back.  Both have certainly generated some online controversy.  At the same time, both illustrate a certain pro-Israel viewpoint that is increasingly rare in much of the rest of the world.

One article by Kathryn Blaze Carlson, "No Better Friend" describes the close nature of the relationship between Canada's current Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The article looks at Prime Minister Harper's motivation for standing by Israel in difficult situations, even in the face of withering criticism from many other countries.  It is certainly true, especially here in Israel, that all of the policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu are not synonomous with Israel and Israel's interests.  In other words, there is plenty of room for Israel to have good friends who do not necessarily agree with all of the policies of any particular Israeli administration.

However, the article discusses the ideas, suggested by some critics of the Conservatives, that Canada used to be viewed as an "honest broker" by much of the Arab world.  But these days, as the world is watching many Arab countries shift towards Islamicization, peace loving western democracies cannot be "honest brokers."  The  article suggests that Prime Minister Harper is one of the few western leaders to truly recognize the importance of the struggle that Israel faces, as a democratic country situated in sea of repressive, anti-democratic regimes.  The conclusion is that Prime Minister Harper and the current Conservative government support Israel as a matter of principle not as part of quest to win a handful of Canadian electoral ridings that happen to have large Jewish populations.  Given the tireless efforts of Conservative Minister Jason Kenney in supporting Israel but also in fighting anti-Semitism worldwide, it is clear that the current Conservative government has been a tremendous ally for Canadian Jews and for Jews everywhere around the world.  This has been the case even in the face of an overwhelmingly hostile world.  Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has also demonstrated recently that Canada will continue to support Israel even when it is unpopular to do so.


The National Post also printed an article by Conrad Black, "A Better Two State Solution" proposing what would effectively be an unilateral Israeli withdrawal from certain territories, a unilateral demarcation of acceptable borders and an extremely aggressive military response to the types of rocket attacks that Israel recently faced and which it would likely face from other areas if it were to cede certain territories.  Yet the policy is probably close to one which was favoured by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and may not be that far removed from current Prime Minesterial candidate Avigdor Lieberman.   There is little doubt that many Israelis would prefer a negotiated long term settlement with a neighbour that would be interested in a truly peaceful resolution. But the indications over the recent weeks from a range of Palestinian leaders, whether Khaled Meshal of Hamas or Mahmood Abbas of the Palestinian Authority are that the only real long term policy on the part of the Palestinians is a long term commitment to the destruction of Israel.  This concern is buttressed by the unsettling events over that past few years that have been occurring in Syria, Egypt, Iran and Turkey, among others, all of which suggest that Israel is facing an increasingly hostile existential threat.  Conrad Black's proposal may not lead to short or even long term peace.  But Israel may be pushed towards unilateral disengagement as a means of countering unilateral Palestinian initiatives.  Israel could recognize a Palestinian State within borders that Israel deems acceptable, and under conditions that Israel deems acceptable if these matters cannot be properly addressed through negotiation.

It is unclear which Israeli Prime Ministerial candidate, if any, would be best suited to address these matters though it seems clear to a majority of the Israeli electorate, according to recent Israeli news reports, that Prime Minister Netanyahu will win the coming election quite handily.  We can only hope that the winds will change and there will be movement from all sides toward a much peaceful future.  Unfortunately, recent events do not suggest that there is currently a basis for optimism.

The U.S. Election, Obama, Netanyahu and Israel

So after four years of run-up, the U.S. election came and went yesterday.  Although the electoral college system is quirky and flawed, the U.S. still ranks among a fairly small number of truly democratic nations that hold properly democratic elections and transfer power peacefully.  Election night is a great evening (or morning) of television drama and can be quite suspenseful some years.  While things were uncertain at some points last night, there was definitely an early sense that it was going to be President Obama's night, even while Ohio and Florida remained unpredictable.  By the end of the night, Governor Romney gracefully accepted that the American people had spoken and lauded the American democratic system. 

Israel shares that great democratic tradition with the U.S. and other distinguished company and will go to the polls in January 22, 2013, although as of the writing of this blog entry it appears that the political landscape in Israel is not likely to change any more dramatically than the U.S. changed as a result of its 2012 election.

The whole topic of Israel and the Middle East attracted quite a bit of interest during this U.S. campaign., probably more so than many previous campaigns.  Like in the case with many other issues in this U.S. election, particularly social issues, people's views were very polarized.  There were those, like vice Presidential candidate Ryan and Governor Romney himself, trying to portray President Obama as someone who had "thrown Israel under the bus."  On the other side, there were those like former World Jewish Congress Chair Edgar Bronfman, who staunchly defended President Obama as a great friend of Israel.  Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seemed to have gotten himself involved in the campaign in a very partisan and unprecedented fashion and this may not have been such a great tactic for ongoing Israeli-U.S. relations even though it might assist Prime Minister Netanyahu in his dealings with his domestic constituency.

In looking at President Obama's record in his first term, it does seem odd and uncomfortable, to say the least, that the President would fly to the Middle East and visit Egypt - in a very apologetic way - and not find the time to visit Israel. While I appreciate that President Obama visited Israel before the 2008 election (and it is fair to say that his trip was better planned and more graceful than Romney's visit this year), he should have found the time to visit Israel at some point during his first term.  Hopefully, he will visit soon.

It was also unhelpful, to say the least, to lay all of the blame for the failed peace negotiations on Israel by insisting that the first step that must be taken, as a precondition for any negotiation is a building freeze.  President Obama realized this and backtracked somewhat.  But his call for a return to 1967 borders also seemed to be handled in a deliberately provocative way even though he added "with mutually agreeable land swaps" to the phrasing.  At the time time, Prime Minister Netanyahu's response was predictably excessive and seemed intended to further the rift with the U.S. President.  Despite all of this, most analysts who are genuinely interested in a peaceful solution recognize that the eventual result will have to be a two state solution with mutually agreeable land swaps.  This is even a solution that the present Israeli government has endorsed - and certainly the kind of solution that former President Bill Clinton pushed so hard to achieve, while remaining extremely popular in Israel.

Another source of tension between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama has been the issue of Iran.  President Obama has overseen a series of very significant sanctions imposed on Iran in an effort to cease the Iranian nuclear program.  Yet despite these sanctions, it is far from clear that the sanctions will actually result in Iran dismantling its program.  So it does seem reasonable for Prime Minister Netanyahu, as he proposed at the U.N. to ask that the world draw a "red line" beyond which other means may become necessary if Iran continues to develop a nuclear program.  Neither President Obama nor Governor Romney were willing to stake out a "red-line" position and in the third U.S. debate, their positions on this issue sounded very similar if not identical.  It may well be naive, given Iran's history, to assume that Iran will concede its position as a result of the sanctions or that this plan of action will actually stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons.  But it is unclear whether any U.S. president would support Israel in conducting a pre-emptive attack at this time.

It may well be the the source of tension is also related to a personality clash between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama or a perception of policy direction rather than actual policies that have been implemented.  In fact, the level of strategic, military and economic cooperation between Israel and the United States is it one of its highest points ever and the two countries remain very close allies and friends.

In Israel, the perception of antipathy towards Israel by President Obama apparently translated into a voting trend by absentee American voters living in Israel choosing to vote for Governor Romney by a margin as high as 85% to 15%.  Of course, the explanation that has been suggested by some is that a significantly high percentage of American expatriates living in Israel are observant Orthodox Jews who might also share some of the social policy preferences of the Republican party and are likely to vote for "right wing" parties in Israel.  I am fairly confident that if one were to poll Conservative (Masorti) and Reform American Jews living in Israel, the results would be quite different.

On the other hand, President Obama apparently carried close to 70% of the Jewish vote in the United States itself.  While some suggest that this is because many American Jews are apathetic about Israel, I don't think this is the real explanation.  American Jews tend to share many policy preferences on a whole range of social issues with the Democrats rather than the Republicans (ranging from abortion and gun control to who might be the most suitable candidate for appointment to the Supreme Court).  Further, while many of these American Jews are staunchly supportive of Israel, that is not necessarily synonymous with being staunchly supportive of all of Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies.  In fact, many very committed Israelis have views about the peace process and other matters that are diametrically opposed to those of Israel's current Prime Minister.  Overall, most American Jews probably prefer Edgar Bronfman's viewpoint that President Obama is, and will continue to be a strong friend of Israel rather than the rhetoric that was coming from the likes of Sheldon Adelson.

Even though President Obama has vowed to continue the strong relationship between Israel and the United States, there are certainly areas of concern.  The tension over Iran's nuclear program will heat up as Iran draws closer to its goals.  The continuing absence of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is also a sore spot and one that is potentially explosive.  And the personal tension between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu has probably been exacerbated after Netanyahu's failed efforts to bolster Governor Romney's campaign.
 
The tension even increase further if President Obama chooses to become as involved in the Israeli election as Prime Minister Netanyahu was in the American election.

Yet, it seems to me that with all of this said, the best thing that President Obama could do in the area of Mideast policy, would be to plan a visit to Israel, Jordan and the area governed by the Palestinian Authority at a fairly early stage in his second term.  With a short but meaningful visit, President Obama could send a confidence boosting message to the Israeli public and to the Palestinians that would probably help him regain some of the trust he would need to oversee a peace deal successfully. 








 

Israel, the U.S. and Iran - Rosh Hashanah 5773

As Jews around the world prepare to celebrate Rosh Hashanah  - the Jewish New Year of 5773, it is probably fair to say that many of us have significant concerns about the coming year and in particular the situation that Israel is currently facing.

Events throughout the region over the past year have demonstrated yet again that Israel resides in a very unstable and dangerous neighbourhood.  The emergence of an Islamic government in Egypt, with its volatile and often hostile rhetoric has led to a heightened level of security on Israel’s southern border and accompanying sense of deep concern.

Events  unfolding in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East have all reinforced the idea that Israel really is an island of democracy and western values in a sea of dark, hostile regimes.  As Caroline Glick recently suggested in the Jerusalem Post, many liberals held the optimistic view that these regimes would be “liberated” and would choose freedom in their new transformed governing structures.  But this hope has not turned to reality.  In fact, even Turkey, a country that once was the example of a true Muslim democracy, seems headed in the other direction.  For all the talk of an “Arab Spring” in Egypt, there is no sign that Egypt will be emerging from winter weather any time soon even though summer and early fall temperatures may regularly pass 40 C.

Of course, above all else, the Israeli government, the Israeli press and much of the world media have been consumed with the ongoing threat posed by Iran and the best way for Israel to address it.

There is no easy solution here.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has been pushing for a “red line” threat to be presented by the world to Iran, beyond which the world community would take military action to prevent Iran from realizing its nuclear ambitions. 

On the one hand, Israel has every reason to be concerned.  Iranian leader Ahmadinejad has vowed to destroy Israel and has repeatedly called for its elimination.  He has called Israel “a cancer” on the body of the world that needs to be removed.  Iran has certainly shown in the past that it is not averse to suicidal missions that could result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its citizens if this is viewed as justifiable.  Should Israel simply dismiss his rhetoric as that of a madman?  This could be a very dangerous miscalculation, as history has shown.  This is a very real, existential issue for Israel.

On the other hand, it is not clear that Israel would be able to carry out a successful attack on all of Iran’s nuclear facilities at this time, even with U.S. help, if such help was forthcoming.  This does not appear to be the same type of situation that Israel faced in dealing with Iraq’s nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq in 1981 or the alleged attack by Israel on the Syrian nuclear project in September 2007.  Iran supposedly has many different sites, spread out throughout the country and hidden deep below the ground.  These sites have purportedly been designed to repel traditional air attacks.

Moreover, if Israel were successful, it is far from clear that such success would translate into a significant delay in Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Perhaps Israel would gain a year or two or more, but Iran might also redouble its efforts with increased aid from sympathetic countries.  As well, Israel could face massive reprisal attacks from a range of sources.  Israel had a very difficult time defending itself from rocket attacks in the 2006 war with Lebanon.  This time around, the attacks could be far more severe.   

Radio talk shows have filled the airwaves in Israel with discussions of possible consequences.  One radio show I was listening to was hosting former Israeli generals to discuss competing estimates of potential Israeli casualties in the event of an attack on Iran.  The estimates ranged from 300-400 Israelis killed in a “highly successful attack and defence strategy” to tens of thousands in a less successful operation.

Another radio show appealed to the black humour of the Israeli public which is often necessary for those of us living here.  Callers were asked to come up with an appropriate code name for the eventual military operation to be undertaken.  This show was a few months ago, just after the holiday of Purim (which is said to have taken place in ancient Persia (i.e. Iran).  Callers were suggesting names like “Operation Avenge Esther,” “Operation Crush the Hamentaschen” or “Operation Ra’ashan” (a noise maker used on Purim to blot out the name of the evil villain of the story, Haman).  Even though the callers were trying to be humourous, one could still sense the readily apparent level of unease.

More recently, much has been made of the apparent rift between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. President Obama, particularly over the very issue of whether to proceed with an attack on Iran.  Many have suggested that Netanyahu is openly interfering with the current U.S. election campaign by attempting to call attention to President Obama’s failure to give Israel a green light (at least publicly) to proceed with an operation against Iran.  Indeed, Netanyahu often seems to be echoing the sentiments of Republican candidate Mitt Romney who claimed that President Obama has “thrown Israel under the bus.”

But President Obama’s record  vis a vis Israel is not nearly as negative as one might believe from listening to the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu or Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  In many respects, U.S.-Israeli cooperation in military, economic and technological spheres is the strongest it has ever been.   While it is somewhat disconcerting that President Obama has not visited Israel during his first term in office (even while visiting Egypt), it is far from clear that the U.S. President must be seen as supporting every policy of the current Israeli Prime Minister to be viewed as a close friend and ally.  In fact, quite a number of Israelis do not agree with many of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies.  Many Israelis feel that Prime Minister Netanyahu has gone out of his way to try embarrass President Obama and to push for the election of Romney.

While some Israelis might accept Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assessment of President Obama’s views of Israel, it appears that American Jews are remaining supportive of President Obama.  According to a Gallup poll released this week, some 70% of American Jews are expected to vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections.  While this may signify the fact that American Jews overwhelmingly support more liberal positions on a range of social issues – and these are the issues that dominate an American presidential election campaign, it may also indicate that American Jews still believe that Obama will be fine for Israel in the long run.  Many Israelis (and American Jews) would count Democratic President Bill Clinton as one of the best friends that Israel ever had in the White House.  On the other hand, Republican President Ronald Reagan was a tremendous friend of the Saudi Arabian regime, perhaps more so than with Israel.  It is far from clear that President Bush’s policies (either one of the two presidents) left Israel in a safer, more secure or more stable situation in the Middle East. 

Hopefully, despite all of the posturing by Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Israeli-U.S. relationship will continue to be a close, strategic relationship between friends, irrespective of who wins the White House in November.  And hopefully, these friends will continue to work together on an urgent basis to come up with the best way of preventing Iran from fulfilling its nuclear ambitions.  It may well be that military leaders have a detailed plan for a pending attack that will meet all of its objectives successfully.  Or perhaps, there will be other ways to achieve this result.

That’s a lot to hope for at Rosh Hashanah, along with our hopes for peace throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world.  But I do believe that we have to be optimistic, even while being realistic and being prepared for a whole range of possible scenarios. 

A happy and healthy New Year to all.  Shana Tova.