New Israeli Government A Bundle Of Contradictions
The new Israeli government is the largest in Israel's history and the largest of its kind in the world, according to Israeli media reports. Another enviable number--54% of the Israeli public already hold it in negative esteem and this is on the day of its swearing in, today.
That's the good news. The bad news is that even due to its internal contradictions, it is unlikely to collapse quickly because this is a government about self-preservation, and not much else. The only pressure it will feel--and it will feel it for certain--will be from the U.S. and from Europe.
Europe has already laid out the first strike by pre-empting Prime Minister Netanyahu's swearing in with a statement that Europe will be looking for a clear path to a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians if the EU is to upgrade its trade ties. This is no small thing. Europe is Israel's largest export market and contrary to popular belief, Israelis love Europe--they want to be part of Europe. Bibi Netanyahu wants his economy to succeed and he has to know that if that is to work, he needs the world on his side. That's something that his new Foreign Minister perhaps doesn't know and doesn't care about-there could be no worse public face on the global stage for Israel than Avigdor Lieberman. The only immediate hope is that the criminal investigations pending against him come to fruition with an indictment or two soon.
Meanwhile, there has to be a global appeal, from leaders in Europe, the US government and the majority of Jews worldwide all who care about peace in the region--that there must be a clear statement by this government for two states and movement now toward that end. No economic fix can work for Israel without an agreement with the Palestinians. Bibi must know that somewhere inside of himself. That's one reason he put together such a contorted government. Or at least, those of us who care about peace can hope this is so.




















Perhaps this government has fewer contradictions than the previous.
Kadima claims to be for two state solution, and did much to make it less possible. Two wars and a lot of new settlement expansion. The more settlements, the larger the constituency that cannot tolerate minimum conditions that Palestinians may accept for a "two-state solution". Wars were supposed to improve the position and security of Israel, but they actually increased the sense of paranoia among Israeli Jews, so they were made any further negotiation yet more difficult.
Likud talks differently than Kadima, but will it act differently? We will see.
One can hope that the combination of wars of the previous government and the bluster of the current one will finally break the patience of governments in Europe and America. But it will not happen soon, I am sorry to say.
April 1, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no contradiction. There is no ambiguity nor is there any consideration of US national interest in the new Israeli government.
Israel has affirmed its course of apartheid
At least they're honest
Welcome Avigdor Lieberman at JSt
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/4325/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2626
April 1, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best assessment that I have seen on how this new government will operate was given by Uri Avnery
http://counterpunch.org/avnery03312009.html
April 1, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the good news is that A. Lieberman favors a two-state solution.
The bad news is that the Palestinians' will be a prison state.
April 1, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman: No concessions for peace
Israel never ratified 2007 Annapolis peace talks, new foreign minister says in debut speech
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/israel-palestinians-lieberman-annapolis
Chas. Freeman was just the opening shot
April 1, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The contradictions are more significant within the Israeli public than inside its various governments including this latest.
The recent incursion into Gaza was cowardly, reckless and utterly useless to the people of Israel (their nihilistic terrorist-settler fanatics excepted). But, almost nobody says that THIS massacre should be a reason for Israel to give up statehood. (Plenty of Arabs want Israel to disappear, or at least give up its status as a Jewish state, but their numbers have not changed noticeably AS A RESULT of this or any other particular action of Israel SINCE its creation in 1948).
And yet, the mainstream self-proclaimed "friends of Israel" in America, and apparently, many Israelis as well, take defacto this position on a Palestinian state. Palestinians are too violent, too dangerous, they don't deserve or can't be trusted having their own state, etc. Or, they can have a state only after a long period of accepting occupation and oppression without any violence in return. This view, though not lacking a modicum of factual basis, is cowardly, myopic, foolish, and massively hypocritical. Smart people know this, and leaders with vision and determination (ironically including Sharon) have occasionally been willing to embrace common sense instead. The new government MAY be among them, and -especially if really effective international carrots and sticks are presented to them- go against its deeply contradictory constituents, in order to advance their real interests. This may sound anti-democratic, and in some senses it is, but there is a serious social-pathological problem here. Pure democracy is not a way to run a nut house.
April 2, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink