Ongoing tensions with the deadlock of Palestinian-Israeli Peace talks and the “so called” end of the Oslo Peace Process have been dominant elements for a very long time. After the deadlock of the talks, events that took place in the areas like Jerusalem that are in high proportion populated by Muslim Arabs developed rapidly. Within this process, military intervention, kidnapping, new illegal settlements, new activism and of course eventual outcome of physical and structural violence have been likely to cause political consequences for both Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
In that context, after his long resistance, Netanyahu became able to understand that it is not possible to put the government together and as a result of a failed dialogue with his coalition partner Yair Lapid, it was decided to hold early elections that led to a new phase in the Israeli politics. Examining this process is significant to understand the recent developments in the Israeli politics.
Deadlocked Peace Talks and the Subsequent Developments
The first step towards the dissolution of the government was the failed talks. Israel’s unfulfilled promise to release the Palestinian prisoners caused societal conflicts that have grown with time. Many people were arrested, killed and imprisoned due to the events which occurred in the areas like Jerusalem and in the places densely populated by Muslim Arabs. Within this process, Israel initiated military operation in the Gaza Strip that was named the Protective Edge operation and more than 2,000 Palestinians were killed as a result. After those operations, counter attacks were realized. Consequently, Israeli soldiers entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a synagogue was attacked, and so were tram stations and eventually many people lost their lives. In short, those vicious acts of violence had a deep impact on the Israeli politics.
Within the aforementioned process of this violent environment, Netanyahu was strongly criticized by his coalition partners. While far right parties criticized Netanyahu as remaining aloof, the left wing parties criticized him as using excessive force. This makes hard to maintain balance between those two sides but Netanyahu’s profile seemed more relevant towards far right parties’ demands. For instance, left wing parties have criticized Netanyahu for being in Naftali Bennett’s shadow due to the latter’s active policy.
The structure of the Coalition
The recent government in Israel has included 5 different parties in coalition. Benjamin Netanyahu formed a coalition with 2 far right parties (Ha Bayit Ha Yehudi & Yisrail Beytenu) and 2 mainstream left parties (Yesh Atid & Hatnua) and announced the government in the beginning of the year 2013. When we look at the vision of those parties, we can see that those parties and their electorate were compatible. However, we can see that their visions are not compatible with their recent acts. For example, while Ha Bahit Ha Yehudi focuses on settlers’ representation and their needs, Yesh Atid & Hatnua focuses on socio-economic concerns of the Israeli citizens.
Those parties have significantly varying stands towards the Palestinian issue. The visions of Ha Bayit Ha Yehudi and Yisrail Beytenu are very broad in terms of the Palestinian problem which begins from the moment of annexation of the settlements in the West Bank, population exchanges and continues to its ultimate unilateral annexation. Regarding these, it can be said that the failure of the coalition in Israel and ongoing conflictual events resulted from the diversity within the methodology style of doing politics of those parties. Differences of methodology have been debated between coalition partners at the media outlets. In that respect, Netanyahu’s recent criticism towards coalition partners was about their inability to act in a coherent manner.
Stalemate in Foreign Policy
It is obvious that the Israeli foreign politics is in stalemate. The most apparent element of this stalemate is conflicting positions with the US policies. As a symbolic representation of distance politically Netanyahu had appeared on the US television during the Obama’s candidacy for 2nd term and participated in the anti-Obama commercials. Obama who came into force after the 2008 economic crisis and the changes in US foreign policy primaries had maintained more distanced policies towards the regional problems and strongly criticized the Israeli policies.
As one of the main conflicting areas, the Iranian challenge has been highly important for the Israeli foreign policy. The Iranian nuclear quest is deeply problematic for Israel in the way that Israel has produced propaganda to securitize the issue. Thus, Netanyahu tried to tell the Iranian threat is concerning all nations with the caricaturized sketch of a bomb in his United Nations speech. This macro securitization effort has been continuing during all his premiership. However, this stand is not compatible with the US stand. While Israel wants to have a fast solution with military interventions, the US government supports nuclear deal talks with Iran and defends resolution of the Iranian nuclear quest through implementation of diplomatic policies.
Furthermore, in relation to the Palestinian issue, the US government has criticized the Israeli government a lot. The US frequently urged the Israelis to be more willing to resolve the problem after the end of the peace efforts. So, Israel’s settlement policy like “sword of Damocles” had always been a major reason for the end of the peace talks’ rounds. Albeit the US opposition and critiques, the Ministry of Reconstruction in the hands of Naftali Bennett and his party who supposed to represent the settlers, can be beneficial to understand the issue. As a recent development, the law on the recognition of the state of Israel as a Jewish nation-state has not only disturbed the US government but also the leading Jewish Diaspora organizations of the US. This law, it has been argued, would cause damage to the “democratic state” stress in the Israel’s Declaration of Independence and causes a loss of prestige in the international arena.
Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, it was impossible that Israeli politics remain stable after the recent events. Physical and structural violence in Palestine, coalition government’s fragile character and running afoul of the US policies have caused both internal and external criticism towards the government to emerge. It is highly likely that Netanyahu-leading governments would come to an end with the 2015 early elections. Critics that came from his own party, Likud, and expectations regarding the former Minister of Internal Affairs Gideon Saar’s alternative leadership, may create radical consequences for the Israeli politics. There is even a possibility that Netanyahu’s political life would come to an end. Therefore, upcoming elections seem likely to transfer new faces and discourses to the visible segments of Israeli politics that of course would come from the right wing.
