In contemporary politics, the flow of historical forces cannot be
understood by glimpsing a mere snapshot. The unprecedented fourth-term
election of Benjamin Netanyahu is indeed a significant event in itself.
He will now go down in Israeli history as the longest serving head of
government. It is the kind of policy positions he took in the run-up to
the election, however, which have far-reaching implications on the
future of Israel and its relationship with the United States and the
Middle East as a whole.
US-Israel Relations
The
relationship between the Obama administration and Netanyahu has for some
time been described as dysfunctional, perhaps as early as 2009 when the
US president first demanded a halt to the construction of Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories. What unfolded over the last few
weeks has the potential to make a tense situation worse.
The
invitation from John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of
Representatives, to Netanyahu to address Congress was a reflection of a
deep bipartisan schism in American politics but also a sui generis
situation in international relations that defied traditional diplomatic
protocol. The tactic had multiple motivations: an attempt at torpedoing
the Iran negotiations, strengthening the Republican campaign for
additional sanctions against Iran and boosting Netanyahu's profile prior
to an election (which seemingly did not backfire at home, as was being
argued by some). A rose-tinted analysis may go as far as saying that
this was a display of vibrant democracy at its best, though this would
not explain the boycott of the speech by 60 members of Congress,
including Vice President Joe Biden. Calling the event unprecedented is
no hyperbole: In different political circumstances, the very thought of a
visiting head of state or government addressing a foreign country's
legislature against the wishes of his host would have been unimaginable.
The
Obama administration responded with not-so-subtle retaliation. It has
explicitly questioned the trustworthiness of its long-time strategic
ally by leaking information about new limits on intelligence sharing
vis-Ã -vis the Iran negotiations. Meanwhile, senior US officials met
Israeli opposition leaders on the margins of the Munich security
conference last month. Perhaps this went beyond retaliation. On the one
hand, it was a display of Washington's deep disapproval of the
invitation but, on the other, an attempt at demonstrating to the world -
and the Israeli electorate at large - the cost of Netenyahu's
provocative diplomacy (if not a subtle hint of Washington's desire for
regime change).
The tit-for-tat diplomacy is likely to continue
(indeed, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough will give a speech
to J Street, a major advocacy group that opposes Netanyahu), but a more
serious change is probable. This was augured in Obama's congratulatory
phone call to Netanyahu, in which he clearly stated that the US would
"reassess" its approach to the peace process ergo its relationship with
Israel.
The Palestinians and the Middle East peace process
In
the bigger scheme of things, Netanyahu's victory may not be entirely
unwelcome for the Palestinians and the Middle East peace process.
In
the build-up to the election, Netanyahu presented President Mahmoud
Abbas with the gift of suggesting that there would never be a
Palestinian state, at least not on his watch. He then embarked on an
inflammatory fear-mongering campaign, claiming that the "the right-wing
government is in danger. Arab voters are heading to the polling stations
in droves", described by some as incendiary, if not racist.
The
campaign provided another confirmation of the criticism Netanyahu faces:
the perception that he is a hardliner who cares little for conclusive
peace with the Palestinians or, as one commentator put it, the "face of
Israeli intransigence". What the election could do, therefore, is to
sustain and reinforce such a perception of Netanyahu internationally -
and potentially trigger a new level of isolation against Israel. His
fourth term may provide the Palestinians with even greater momentum and
create a critical mass for a solution ("two-state" or otherwise).
For
the Palestinians, the election outcome was less a preoccupation as is
their ongoing campaign to take Israel to the International Criminal
Court (ICC). And yet their international efforts stand to benefit from
the current outcome: A victory for the pragmatic Isaac Herzog could have
softened the aggressive Palestinian efforts at the ICC and, inevitably,
plunged Palestinians back to square one in their "Groundhog Day" of a
peace process.
P5+1 Iran Deal:
Despite US claims that
Netanyahu's re-election has no real bearing on the future of the Iran
negotiations, the argument is flawed on at least two counts. On the one
hand, his victory significantly raises the bar for Western-led
negotiators working diligently towards clinching a deal by the end of
this month with Iran. The Israeli leader has been undoubtedly emboldened
and will mobilise his antagonistic efforts - along with sections of the
US Congress - over the coming critical weeks. The open letter sent by
47 Republican senators to the Iranian leadership in which they question
the credibility and reliability of their own president - by itself
unprecedented - was merely one of many potential sabotage tactics.
On
the other hand, the election outcome could provoke the Obama
administration into accepting even more concessions in a desperate
effort to reach a compromise between Tehran and Washington. While Obama
may have taken heed of the Israeli left's position in a Herzog victory,
it is now clear that the US will power through the negotiations without
paying much attention to the protest and clamor emanating from the
Israeli right. Politically, Obama has much more to gain now for seeing
the deal materialize, above all a significant foreign policy legacy.
Conclusion
Indeed,
the question that policymakers should be asking in the light of the
election is simple: What is at stake? The simple answer is: a lot, if
anything due to the inter-related nature of the multiple moving parts.
The seemingly internal rumblings in the Knesset have serious bearings on
Washington, Tehran, Ramallah (even the Hague) and, ultimately, the
force of history itself.
(22.03.2015 - Hardeep S. Puri is vice
president of the International Peace Institute, New York, and secretary
general of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism. Omar El Okdah
is senior policy analyst at the International Peace Institute, New York.
The views expressed are personal. The authors can be contacted at
[email protected])
