PARLIAMENTARY RACE IN THE CONTEXT OF CONFLICT

Election campaigns in Israel always attract international attention. The Knesset elections in February were no exception. Furthermore, they were also a litmus test of sorts of current trends in Near Eastern mediation. In fact, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was pivotal to debates throughout a country which has just ended a military operation in Gaza - the major recent development in the region.

The right wing supported the right wing

The parliamentary elections brought victory to the Kadima centrist party. However, its victory was not overwhelming: the right-wing Likud party has only one seat fewer. The triumph of these two forces effectively demonstrates a considerable radicalization of sentiment in the Israeli society, because both support a strong-arm policy in the conflict situation. At the same time, there are differences between Kadima and Likud on the issue of the future borders of the Jewish state.

Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, Israeli foreign minister and recognised as an organizer of the Cast Lead operation, nonetheless adopted a peaceful stance in the election campaign. She said that the Israelis must give up most of the occupied territories in return for peace with the Palestinians. At a so-called presidential conference in Jerusalem, which was held after the elections, she said in support of her statement that Israel's withdrawal from Palestinian-populated areas was in the interests of the Israelis themselves, because this would "make it possible for Israel to remain a Jewish state."

In contrast to Livni, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu who, since his prime ministerial tenure in the late 1990s, has been considered a "hawk," denies the Palestinians' right to the occupied territories. He voiced the opinion that Israel must "remain in control of all the borders, airspace and electricity supply of the Palestinian autonomous entity." "Regardless of what the peace treaty will state, the Palestinians must live their own lives. They must govern their territory themselves, but they should not be allowed access to facilities which might pose a threat to the state of Israel," Netanyahu said.

The success of either of these two approaches turned out to hinge on the sympathies of another right-wing organization, which came third in the elections, the Yisrael Beiteinu party. Its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, who makes no secret of his nationalist views, decided to impose his demands upon his rivals by giving them to understand that he would decide later whom to support, Netanyahu or Livni. During talks, Likud accepted almost all the terms laid down by Lieberman's party, including those on the fight against terror, support for demobilized military service personnel, the introduction of civil marriages and simplification of procedures to adopt Judaism. Tzipi Livni too tried to demonstrate acceptance of the Yisrael Beiteinu demands, but Lieberman decided to rely on his rival from the right-wing camp. During a meeting with President Shimon Perez, he recommended him to entrust the formation of a government to Benjamin Netanya-hu, but at the same time expressed his opinion on the need to form a broad coalition of the three largest parliamentary groups: Kadima, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu.

Thanks to Yisrael Beiteinu's support, Benjamin Netanyahu received the required number of seats - 65 - to form a coalition. The leftist bloc of Meretz and New Movement declined to support any of the candidatures. Ehud Barak's party Avoda refrained from making endorsements. As for Kadima, the news of Lieberman's choice came as a surprise. Tzipi Livni had been sure that the Yisrael Beiteinu leader would not declare a preference for either herself or Netanyahu, which would finally bring the centrists, as winners of the elections, to power.

Different reckoning of Netanyahu and Livni

After President Shimon Perez asked Netanyahu to form a government, the latter had 42 days under the law to form a coalition. The Likud leader said that he realized the need to form the country's government on the basis of a broad coalition, but the rigid position of Kadima's leadership left him no other choice but to form a cabinet from the nationalist, that is to say, right-wing camp.

Tzipi Livni flatly rejected the offer to become a member of the government. She said that a right-wing coalition under Netanyahu's leadership had "no governmental prospects" and that this factor would prevent Kadima from fulfilling its promises to voters if the party decided to enter the coalition.

In her address to her parliamentary group, Tzipi Livni formulated the main point of disagreement with the right-wing: "This paves the way for an ultra-right-wing government under Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership. This is not our path, and there is nothing for us in that kind of the government. When the people of Israel voted for us, they did not us want us to be a fig leaf for right-wing extremists. We must be the opposition and fight to promote our political line - two states for two peoples - from there."

Observers believe that it is possible that Kadima opted for opposition because it counted on the recalcitrance of the religious parties which, considering Benjamin Netanyahu's acceptance of the excessively secular demands from Avigdor Lieberman, could create all kinds of obstacles for the former. Tzipi Livni can realistically expect that unless Likud accedes to the clerics demands, they will simply thwart the formation of a government, and that this task will then be reassigned to the Kadima leader.

However, Livni's main plan apparently had a different objective. Kadima expects that the Netanyaju Government will plot a course towards the final suppression of Hamas - an uncompromising approach to regulation of the conflict in the Near East is characteristic of Likud - and will therefore not be able to propose any acceptable formula for regulation of the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will come under serious international pressure which will drive the right-wing cabinet out of power. Livni realizes that with the assumption to presidential office by Barack Obama, who is much less willing to support Israel's strong-arm policy on Palestine than the preceding Republican administration of George Bush, Tel-Aviv's "hawkish" policy will cause displeasure even in the United States, the main supporter of the Jewish state in the international arena.

It is also interesting that, even before Shimon Perez asked Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new cabinet, activists from the Jewish community in the United States wrote a petition protesting against the possibility of Yisrael Beiteinu's accession to an Israeli coalition government. "Lieberman's ideas might make Israeli society backslide towards the dark trail of racism, demagogy and radical nationalism. We respect the right of Israeli citizens to elect their leaders but, as representatives of a democratic state, we do not have the right to be silent at this critical hour," the petition reads. The Jewish activists even organized a demonstration in front of the World Zionist Congress, protesting against the Israeli elections results. In their words, Israel abuses the memory of the Holocaust to justify the repression of Palestinians.

In the mean time, Benyamin Netanyahu must understand how difficult the situation will be for him in the domestic and international situation taking shape. Realizing the expediency of forming a coalition with Kadima, Likud leader offered Tzipi Livni "full partnership," up to the joint design of the future government's policy. Netanyahu also said that he is ready to make considerable concessions. It is quite possible that he would not mind offering Kodima as many ministerial posts as his own party. The Israeli press disseminated the information that Tzipi Livni would be offered two of the three strategically important portfolios - finance, foreign policy and security.

However, the chances of Livni accepting Netanyahu's offer are small. The Kadima leader will apparently stipulate as conditions of her partnership with Netanyahu his scrapping of obligations to the other right-wing parties, Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas (yet another ally of Likud in the right-wing camp) and agreement to continuing peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. Netanya-hu is unlikely to agree to that because he can only remain a leader in Israeli politics if he honours obligations to the right-wing political forces which supported his candidature during consultations with the president. On the other hand, to maintain his reputation as a firm politician, which makes him popular with the nationalists, the Likud leader cannot go back, either, on the tactic of no compromise in negotiations with the Arabs. An alliance with Livni cannot guarantee Netanyahu leadership of the right-wing parties, who joined forces to bring him back to the top of the Israeli political hierarchy. This is why the possibility of creating a broad coalition in the Jewish state is in serious doubt.

"Resumption of violence might turn out to be even more destructive"

Finally, the main point is not the balance of power in Israel at all, but rather the fact that the balance of power is a reflection of the growing influence of nationalist forces in the country. The Cast Lead operation did not lead to the crushing of the Hamas movement, which was so much expected by Israelis, and even the numerous victims among the peaceful Palestinian population did not help stem the belligerent mood in Israel.

The Israelis are so profoundly aware of their country's lack of security that their only choice is to vote for the forces which declare their willingness to guarantee security by the toughest means. It was no accident that President Perez noted that Israel faced threats from Iran and international terrorists (not to mention Palestinian extremists) when he asked Netanyahu to form a government, and that this made it necessary to form a coalition government.

However, neither the aggravating situation with Iran, which continues its nuclear research, nor the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, which effectively leaves no hope of a more or less lasting peace, at least for the foreseeable future, are convincing arguments in support of a toughening of Israel's position. On the contrary, the tougher Tel Aviv's position - even if the need to "retaliate against terrorist action" is cited in its support - the even more irreconcilable all kinds of radicals in the Arab world become. As a result of this vicious circle, peace in the Middle East has long ago become an unattainable dream.

The UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, Robert Serry, said recently that the threat of escalation of violence in the region was very real. "One month after unilateral statements on the suspension of combat operations, a proper cease-fire has still not been achieved, and the permanent threat of deterioration into instability, which took place last year, or even the resumption of even more destructive violence, still persists," he noted.

Indeed, facts are against both Palestinian radicals and the Israeli Government. After the termination of the Cast Lead military operation, Palestinian gunmen launched 15 missiles against the Jewish state. For its part, the Israeli Army carried out 19 air raids over Palestinian areas. Both sides continue to make sacrifices at the altar of war which now seems endless. And the political triumph of the radical parties certainly does not bring that war any nearer to a conclusion. The electoral victories of Hamas and Israeli nationalists testify to this disappointing reality. Apparently, there will be no other reality for now for two peoples at war which, in desperate fear for their security, vote for the "hawks."