BICOM

Key points

 

• Can the current Israeli government survive a settlement freeze? Is the imperative of political stability merely an excuse to delay concrete action on the ground? These questions have been a central focus since American pressure was placed on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt all settlement construction in the West Bank.

 

• Netanyahu faces growing international pressure to agree to a full settlement freeze in the West Bank, at the same time as he is under pressure from coalition partners not to do so. However, he may have more room to manoeuvre now than he did even a few weeks ago.

 

• Netanyahu’s positions, as outlined in his recent policy speech, reflect the broad consensus in Israel, which transcends rigid party divisions. This consensus supports progress towards peace with the Palestinians, supports the broad involvement of the Arab world and is willing to make territorial concessions in the process.

 

• Any demand for policy change must take into consideration Netanyahu’s constraints and various Israeli concerns. This is crucial to ensure Israeli public support for future progress towards Middle East peace.

 

Introduction

 

Can the current Israeli government survive a settlement freeze? Is the imperative of political stability merely an excuse to delay concrete action on the ground? These questions have been a central focus since American pressure was placed on PM Netanyahu to halt all settlement construction in the West Bank. While previous assessments suggested that the prime minister’s centre-right coalition is unlikely to survive this policy ‘u-turn’, evidence in recent weeks shows that Netanyahu is enjoying high levels of public support that may provide him with the political capital needed to make this dramatic shift. Furthermore, internal political dynamics within the coalition suggest that there is reluctance from various parties to quit the government at this early stage.

 

The new Israeli government has taken immediate steps to change the reality on the ground, including a concentrated effort to remove unauthorised settlement outposts, easing movement restrictions in the West Bank by lifting dozens of roadblocks and checkpoints[i], and minimising military activity in Palestinian population centres.[ii] However, international demands remain, presenting Netanyahu with greater political and ideological challenges. The following briefing looks closely at the Israeli prime minister’s challenges and constraints and the possible ways he may overcome these.

 

Preserving mainstream support

 

In a long-anticipated policy speech at Bar-Ilan University, Netanyahu outlined his vision for Middle East peace. It was widely noted that he accepted the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Additionally, the prime minister outlined his government’s agreement to avoid the construction of new settlements or confiscate private Palestinian land. However, Netanyahu added several provisions, without which a final agreement will not be possible. These include Arab recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, the demilitarisation of a future Palestinian state and the need to enable the residents of settlements to lead normal lives. This last point was understood as Netanyahu’s disagreement with the categorical international demand that no new construction be allowed in West Bank settlements, including construction that caters for the basic needs of communities.

 

The Bar-Ilan speech, as well as Netanyahu’s more recent statements reiterating his conditional support for a two-state solution and urging the Arab world to kick-start a multilateral process leading to regional peace, reflects the broad consensus in Israel. Polls conducted in the days following the speech indicated that a large majority of 71% of Israelis back Netanyahu’s views as they were expressed in the speech. This includes 90% of Netanyahu’s Likud movement, as well as almost half of those who support Netanyahu’s main rival movement, Kadima. Regarding Netanyahu’s views on the demilitarisation of the future Palestinian state and the necessity for Israel to be recognised as a Jewish state, 61% of Israelis supported the prime minister’s stance. Fifty-eight percent disagreed with the demand for a complete settlement freeze.

 

These figures are telling, as they illustrate the broad consensus in Israel which supports progress towards peace with the Palestinians, supports the broad involvement of the Arab world and is willing to make territorial concessions in the process. At the same time, the general public in Israel is also disillusioned by the notion that territorial concessions alone will provide the conditions for peace. As Netanyahu outlined in his speech, previous withdrawals – such as from the Gaza Strip, the northern West Bank and southern Lebanon – resulted in mounting terror, not in progress towards stability.

 

Thus, the pressure Netanyahu faces at present in fact demands that the prime minister, only months after democratically elected, retract from the political platform on which he was elected in the first place. Netanyahu, who was known as a controversial leader in his first term in office, is unlikely to turn his back on this consensus which would in turn threaten to fracture public confidence in his leadership once more.

 

Maintaining coalition stability

 

Contrary to some speculation prior to the Bar-Ilan speech, Netanyahu’s acceptance of the two-state formula did not result in a political earthquake. As noted before, this is simply because the vast majority of the Israeli public accepts the future formation of an independent Palestinian state, and political parties from across the political spectrum currently reflect this view. Furthermore, on a whole series of issues – from the removal of unauthorised outposts and easing restrictions on Palestinian movement, to the enhanced operation of Palestinian security forces in the West Bank – the prime minister enjoys the support of all of his coalition members, including right-wing parties like Yisrael Beiteinu and the orthodox Shas party.

 

However, Netanyahu also knows that this relative stability of his coalition may be challenged if he succumbs to international demands for a complete or even partial West Bank settlement freeze. The idea of a temporary settlement freeze for a period of several months has been advocated by Defence Minister Ehud Barak, as it was becoming clear that Israel’s attempts to circumvent American pressure on the settlement issue are unlikely to bear fruit. However, opposition to this idea has been made by members of Netanyahu’s coalition, who fear that such a step will only create a precedent which cannot be easily reversed. It is worth taking a closer look at the dynamics of his coalition to find an indication of the balance he needs to strike:

 

Within the Likud‘s 27-member faction, some six MKs, most of whom are serving for the first time in the Knesset, oppose concessions on Israeli construction in the West Bank. In effect, this group does not pose a threat to the prime minister’s coalition nor to his unquestioned leadership within the Likud. However, if concrete action is taken to change government policy on the matter, this group may be joined by more influential Likud figures like Minister Benny Begin. This would not result in an outright challenge to the prime minister, but Netanyahu will make every effort not to lose the support of his party’s core, which is known for its right-leaning stances.

 

Furthermore, two leading figures within the Likud, Begin and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon, are members of Netanyahu’s six-member forum that advises the prime minister on crucial security and diplomatic decisions. In a meeting of the forum prior to Ehud Barak’s trip to the US earlier this week, the two, along with Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman, presented strong opposition to Barak’s proposal for a temporary freeze of settlement construction.

 

Meanwhile, Shas‘s opposition stems out of the party’s constituency, many of whom currently reside in the West Bank. The fastest-growing West Bank towns like Beitar Illit and Modi’in Illit provide housing solutions to ultra-orthodox religious communities who cannot afford the high costs of housing in Israel’s urban centres. As a result, Shas’s leaders, headed by Interior Minister Eli Yishai, are extremely wary of any change of government policy on settlement construction, which would directly impact on their key voters. It is important to remember, though, that the party, which holds 11 seats in the current Knesset, is guided more by the practical concerns of its constituency and not directly by ideology.

 

Yisrael Beiteinu, the second largest coalition faction with 15 MKs, also faces a complex political dilemma, and Foreign Minister Lieberman’s voice has not been clearly heard on the matter. Still, there is reason to believe that Lieberman would not lead his party into the opposition if a temporary settlement freeze or an equivalent gesture towards the Americans is made in the coming weeks.

 

The fact that Kadima remains the largest faction in the Knesset with 28 MKs deters potential rebellions within the coalition. Netanyahu’s partners are aware that threats to leave the coalition will only bring Kadima and the Likud closer together and pave the way for a unity government. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni is already facing a vocal opposition within her party who are calling for a unity coalition should the current government takes concrete steps to renew talks with the Palestinian leadership. Kadima ‘number 2′ Shaul Mofaz has been leading this effort in the party and has increasingly intensified his criticism of Livni. Thus, the ‘threat’ of a Likud-Kadima-Labour coalition is enough to keep internal opposition to Netanyahu at bay.

 

However, there is also another scenario that complicates Netanyahu’s political manoeuvring. In several encounters between the prime minister and Livni in recent weeks, the leader of the opposition has been uncharacteristically critical of Netanyahu. Livni sarcastically criticised the prime minister during an appearance he made at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee several weeks ago, and regular briefings given to the leader of the opposition at the Prime Minister’s Office have also been called off for unknown reasons. Analysts closely following the two note that there is little chemistry between them and that Livni’s hesitation to join Netanyahu’s coalition also rests on her unwillingness to serve under his leadership. This has caused even greater unrest within Kadima and has led to recurring threats that a group within the faction will break away to join the coalition. At this point, these threats have not been substantiated by concrete action, and legal constraints also keep the mutiny within Kadima at a level that does not pose an immediate threat to the party’s cohesion.

 

Creating room for manoeuvre

 

The eagerness of the international community to see rapid progress in the peace process, as well as the desire to ‘reset’ relations between the West and the Arab and Muslim world, have brought about a growing sense in certain political circles that the Israeli government under the leadership of Netanyahu ought to be coerced to agree to make progress towards peace. According to this view, Netanyahu’s reluctance to agree to international demands should be answered by even greater pressure.

 

The political reality is rather more complicated. While Netanyahu’s ideological convictions are indeed rooted in the traditional Israeli right wing and the Revisionist movement, the positions expressed by the prime minister in his speech at Bar-Ilan University are not those of a marginal sector in the Israeli society. In this sense, the majority of the country’s leadership, both those in the coalition and those in opposition, would support the general outlines presented by the government in recent weeks.

 

Pushing Netanyahu to fundamentally change Israel’s policy on settlement construction may well undermine the stability of his coalition, but will not increase Israelis’ confidence that the peace process will bring about greater security and stability in the region. Without securing the Israeli public’s support, any Israeli government will find itself under similar constraints faced by Netanyahu at present.

 

Recent American statements provide initial signals that the administration in Washington understands the need to harness all parties in the region to restart the diplomatic process and ensure that leaderships on all sides continue to enjoy public support. Following the meeting between Defence Minister Barak and US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell earlier this week, the US State Department discussed this multifaceted approach: ‘all parties have to meet their obligations under the road map. And, of course, you know for the Israelis that means a stop to settlements, which means a freeze of all activity, including natural growth. The Palestinians have their own obligations under the road map, and that’s stopping incitement and proving that they can improve security. We also have made it clear to Arab states in the region that they should take steps towards normalisation.’[iii]

 

These statements are important. Showing an even-handed approach that sees all sides actively working to create the political space for negotiations will help keep public support levels in their current high rate, minimise the internal political opposition to Netanyahu’s government and enable the negotiations to begin in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill.

 

To ensure the Israeli leadership’s ability to move forward in negotiations without the threat of recurring political crises, the Israeli public will need to feel that its concerns are not disregarded. The solution to the conflicts in the region will only emerge if leaderships on all sides are given some room for manoeuvre, and taking notice of the delicate political balance in Israel remains a crucial component in this process.

 

---

[i] Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, ‘Israel removes dozens of West Bank roadblocks,’ Haaretz, 24 June 2009

[ii] Adam Entous, ‘Israel agrees to limit incursions in four West Bank cities,’ Reuters, 25 June 2009

[iii] US State Department Spokesperson Ian Kelly, ‘Daily Press Briefing,’ US State Department, 30 June 2009