clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

Early election for Israel in conflict over Netanyahu's future

December 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm

It was hard to imagine that the latest meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and his former finance minister and chairman of the Yesh Atid Party, Yair Lapid, could have ended in a reconciliation. It didn’t; instead, it ended with a flurry of accusations as they argued about the date of Israel’s next general election, which will end the Netanyahu-led coalition government’s mandate after just two years.

During the meeting, Netanyahu is reported to have placed certain conditions on Lapid for the coalition to continue. Among them is related to what Netanyahu calls Lapid’s intent to conspire against the government, which should be halted, he insisted. Lapid has been critical of settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the current tension in US-Israel relations. He has also recently criticised Netanyahu’s decision to transfer six million shekels to the military budget for training and supplying army bases in the south in support of Netanyahu’s “Jewish nation-state” bill. The tensions between the two politicians were exacerbated further by the prime minister’s decision to freeze Lapid’s economic plan, which included a zero per cent tax increase as part of a greater effort to bring down the cost of living and solve the housing crisis in Israel.

It looks as if Netanyahu is accusing Lapid of conspiring against the Israeli government while his supposed coalition partner accuses the Likud leader of retreating from his previous support for the zero tax law. The gap between the two was widened further when it became quite clear that Netanyahu preferred to confront Lapid rather than find a solution to the problem. Meanwhile, those close to Netanyahu claim that he actually insulted his opponent.

Netanyahu may have opted for an early election when he realised that it would not work in his favour to continue with a coalition government that has failed seriously in everything except settlement expansion and straining relations with the Palestinians. The current Israeli government has failed in its political process and this is evident in its deteriorating relationship with the US, a reality that has encouraged the Palestinians to head to the United Nations. Netanyahu’s government has isolated Israel further and allowed the Palestinian cause to make a number of gains.

More importantly, the Israeli prime minister cannot claim that his government has been successful in security matters, not least due to its failures in the war against the civilians of the Gaza Strip and the inability to contain the Palestinian reaction to the aggressive Judaisation of Jerusalem. Lapid’s promises on the economic front as finance minister of the coalition are no longer possible due to increased government spending on settlement expansion and the military sector. The Israeli electorate will be hard-pressed to praise any aspect of the government’s performance and for that Netanyahu has to take the blame. The early election call, however, is one way for him to try to evade responsibility.

Many political analysts doubt that Netanyahu will win next March, even if he is able to ride the tide of Israeli nationalism. Reports suggest that he has received many threats from Moshi Kahlon, a former Likud member who has formed a new party and believes that he will win over the majority of Likud voters. In addition, parties like Jewish Home and the National Union are disintegrating and will more than likely be divided into smaller groups. Even so, recent opinion polls may not necessarily reflect the reality of the voters’ intentions. There are those who hope for the failure of the right-wing government so that the political map can be redrawn, especially if the government could have a leader able to unite the centre and the left.

In any case, an election presents Palestinians with the opportunity to influence the course of Israeli politics. Not by direct intervention, as the Israeli government would never accept such a thing, but by encouraging Israel’s Palestinian citizens to participate in the vote. Furthermore, we could also encourage the Arab-Israeli parties to unite under a coalition umbrella. Another possibility is to raise the media profile of the Palestinian presence in Israel and remind the masses that there is a conflict taking place. The Israeli public needs to know about the Palestinians’ willingness to accept a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, but that we lack a partner for peace. In doing this, we do not seek to normalise the current situation but instead hope that we can sway the Israeli public to make some significant changes in the political arena.

Translated from Samanews, 3 December, 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.