Any near future Israeli government is likely to be stymied by ideological and political contradictions, writes Khaled Amayreh in occupied East Jerusalem An indecisive elections outcome, coupled with rampant factionalism, is stalling and complicating the task of forming a new Israeli government. The 10 February elections gave the Israeli right, with its oft- inharmonious religious and secular camps, 65 seats in the 120- member Knesset. The so-called Zionist "left" took 44 seats, with the remaining 11 going to three Arab parties. The Zionist political establishment normally excludes non-Jewish parties from government, mainly due to racist considerations. Since the publication of the election results 11 February, Kadima and Likud leaders Tzipi Livni and Benyamin Netanyahu have been jockeying on the Israeli political arena, trying to woo potential coalition partners to their side. However, neither has been successful, an indication that both may be forced to form a national unity government of some sort. Such a government, however, would be one fraught with internal contradictions, given the incompatible platforms of both parties. When Kadima overtook Likud by one seat last week, Livni was jubilant. However, as the dust of the elections settled, she came to realise that her victory was actually much more modest than previously thought. This bought of realism left Kadima negotiators engaging Avigdor Lieberman, whose extreme right-wing party, Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is our Home) won 15 Knesset seats, becoming the third largest political party in Israel, eclipsing the Labour Party headed by Ehud Barak. It is not certain how serious is Kadima's endeavour to form a coalition government with Lieberman, a gung-ho populist leader who suggested that Israel should drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza during the recent Israeli blitz against the coastal Palestinian enclave. One of Kadima's leaders, Haim Ramon, a moderate-turned-hawk, said his party had already accepted all of Yisrael Beiteinu's demands. These demands include resuming the war against Gaza for the purpose of "destroying Hamas", permitting more settlement expansion in the West Bank, legalising civil marriage and introducing "changes in the government system". Supposing that Kadima is serious about forging a partnership with Lieberman, given the math in the Knesset this means that Kadima would have to woo other parties into the contemplated coalition, such as the Labour Party and Shas. It is unlikely that the Labour Party would risk incurring further public indignation by joining a government in which Lieberman plays a pivotal role. Labour officials already warned that Livni's dealing with Lieberman means that the Labour Party will not recommend to President Peres that Livni form the next government. Shas, an ultra Orthodox party, is also unlikely to join a government that would legalise civil marriages and introduce more secular laws, which would be a real affront to the religious-Jewish sector in Israel. According to Israeli journalist Roni Shaked, the "wooing game" between Kadima and Lieberman is only "a game". "I think Kadima is only trying to blackmail Likud to make real concessions with regards to the possible formation of a national unity government," Shaked told Al-Ahram Weekly. Shaked further argued that Kadima stood to lose in the intermediate and long range from a partnership with Lieberman. "Hence I don't really take these manoeuvres seriously." For his part, Netanyahu has been portraying confidence in his ability to form a government "with our natural partners" that would reflect the "clear preference" of most Israelis of the "national camp" over the "left". However, this confidence may be somewhat exaggerated and unjustified given the fragmentation and disharmony of the rightist camp. Indeed, a government comprising the Likud, Shas, Yisrael Beiteinu and the three other quasi-fascist parties (the National Union, Jewish Home, and the United Torah Judaism) would look very much a government of trigger-happy fundamentalists, or the Jewish equivalent of the Taliban, as one Israeli journalist put it. But the more serious concern is that such a brazenly rightist coalition would put Israel on a collision course with the Obama administration. Relations between Israel and the US, Israel's guardian ally, are considered of utmost strategic importance to any Israeli government. Nonetheless, the survival of any forthcoming government will likely rest on the mood and whims of either Shas or Lieberman, with the first representing the ultra-orthodox Haredi fundamentalist constituencies and the second representing the secular-oriented Russian immigrant population that has more or less retained its Russian culture and way of life. For most Israelis, the only sane alternative to an open-ended political stalemate, other than the organisation of new elections in 12-18 months, is a government of national unity composed of Likud, Kadima along with some junior coalition partners from either the left or right or both. This is indeed what more than 65 per cent of Israelis favour according to a fresh opinion poll published 16 February. This is also what President Peres seems to favour, given the inconclusive nature of last week's elections. However, such a government, too, would be constantly beset by internal differences, even contradictions, since the two main components -- Likud and Kadima -- differ substantially over what approach ought to be adopted vis-à-vis the Palestinian problem. Livni advocates the creation of a Palestinian entity on parts of the West Bank in order to preserve Israel as a "Jewish state". Livni also calculates that at some point in the future Israel may inevitably deport most or all of its Arab inhabitants to such a Palestinian state, especially if the Arab population grew to "unbearable levels". Such thinly-concealed fascism on Livni's part has prompted an Arab Knesset member, Ahmed Teibi, to label the Kadima leader as 90 per cent Lieberman and 10 per cent Netanyahu. It is probably this fascist propensity on Livni's part that has lured Lieberman to engage in coalition talks with Kadima. Lieberman advocates the "transfer" and "exchange" of populations between Israel and a prospective Palestinian entity. As to Netanyahu, he, despite public relations proclamations to the contrary, doesn't believe in Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu believes that the Palestinians are only entitled to economic rights, not sovereign rights. This week Netanyahu was quoted by Haaretz newspaper as saying that any prospective Palestinian entity would be "considerably less than a sovereign state". Speaking before 100 visiting leaders at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, Netanyahu said that while he didn't want to govern the Palestinians, Israel would have to control all borders, border crossings, air space, and electronic traffic of a future Palestinian state. In light of and given the political differences between Kadima and Likud it appears safe to argue that any government of national unity involving the two largest parties in Israel would be a government of national paralysis rather than one of national unity. Hence, it may not be too far fetched to expect soon to hear voices calling for new elections in Israel.
