Civil war in Israel's political establishment

A vicious war of words has broken out in the top echelons of the Israeli political establishment. The troika which forms Israel’s ruling coalition is turning in on itself. All this comes in the wake of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s derisory speech at the UN, the build-up to the US presidential elections and the likelihood of an earlier than expected parliamentary poll in Israel itself.

Netanyahu is vulnerable at home. His amateur dramatics with the bomb chart and red marker failed to impress anyone at the UN. Whereas his nemesis, Ahmadinejad, was always going to be the source of media ridicule and derision, it was Netanyahu who, on this occasion, emerged as the laughing stock abroad and an embarrassment at home.

With all his mud-slinging against Barak Obama and public courtship of the US President’s Republican rival, Mitt Romney, it was no surprise that the Israeli was refused an audience with Obama. Mr Netanyahu now blames his defence minister, Ehud Barak, for poisoning relations with Washington. In his defence, Barak claims the credit for preventing the US-Israel relationship from hitting rock bottom.

During the last year it was reported that Barak visited the US at least six times; he had meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and other White House officials. Some sources point out that he has been receiving weekly calls from the same contacts. Netanyahu’s aides accuse Barak of not coordinating such visits with the Prime Minister, not least over who he meets. His party assert that the trips never deviate from the path of trying to strengthen Israeli-US relations and that Barak always represents the interests of the government.

Although the immediate recriminations stem from differences of how to deal with Iran, the Palestine issue cannot be dismissed as another significant factor. Barak lambasted foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman for his hostile and provocative tirades against the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas. In as much as they may well be disillusioned with Abbas, Barak believes that such attacks are not in Israel’s interests; the Israelis may not find a more compliant interlocutor if he steps down.

Beyond the ruling coalition, the leader of the opposition, Shaul Mofaz, has also been at odds with Netanyahu. Late last month he posed a public question to Netanyahu: “Mr Prime Minister, tell me, who is the enemy, the US or Iran? Who do you want replaced, Ahmadinejad or Obama?”
In the context of an early election, the attack on Barak appears to be an attempt by Netanyahu first to distance himself from his defence minister and, second, to appease the settler movement and the extreme right. The settlers regard Barak as an obstacle to their expansionist ambitions and a restraining influence on their illegal activities.

According to Israel’s Channel Two TV, Netanyahu took the opportunity of a closed meeting to vent his anger against Barak, accusing him of trying to present himself and his party to the Americans as moderate and reformist. At the heart of the argument is the view that Barak did not do enough to persuade the Americans to support a military strike on Iran. This, even though Obama has bent over backwards, as all US presidents do, to meet Israel’s “existential” and “security” needs from American taxpayers’ dollars.

In November 2010, the Obama administration offered to supply 20 F-35 stealth fighter jets to Israel in a £1.9 billion deal as an incentive to freeze its illegal settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. The package also included a range of missile systems and early warning devices, including satellites. That, evidently, was not enough to satisfy Netanyahu. Nor, it seems, is the $8 million a day that Israel receives from the US in military aid.

More crucially, the US continues to support Israel’s efforts to block the modest Palestinian effort to get recognition at the UN. Efforts are well underway to coerce EU countries to oppose any Palestinian initiative within the General Assembly.

Whether Iran is in pursuit of a military nuclear capability or not, the Palestinians are convinced that the issue is used conveniently by Israel to deflect attention from its illegal activities in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, its lack of commitment to a just peace and refusal to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

Accordingly, Palestinians add that had Netanyahu been true to his words and to Israel’s international obligations to peace he would have had more impact and sympathy at the UN. Alas, no one takes him seriously. There will be no support for him and his fellow travellers beyond the usual suspects until they recognise Palestinian rights; this much is certain. Whatever their shortcoming and failures, the PLO will always find overwhelming international support for their cause, if for no other reason than the fact that the organisation has made every possible concession to Israel, receiving next to nothing in return.

Meanwhile, the war of words will become more acrimonious between the Israeli political elite as the election draws nearer. Between now and then each one of the warring factions will try to boost its image, and that of its leader, in the eyes of the electorate. The next month will reveal more of the same in America. Since there is no substantial difference between Romney and Obama with regard to Israel, a win for the latter could well spell disaster for Netanyahu when Israel’s polls do eventually take place.