Now that the elections are over and President Barack Obama is returning to business, one person he should pay some serious attention to is the new head of Israel’s Labor Party, Shelly Yacimovich. All polls show Labor becoming the second-largest party by a large margin after Israel’s January 22 election. Thus, if Obama is hoping for an alternative to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, she’s the only serious possibility.
So here, according to Israeli embassy reports on her meetings with French officials in July, is what she thinks on diplomatic issues: She thinks the Palestinians should negotiate without preconditions – just like Netanyahu. She thinks they must recognize Israel as a Jewish state – again like Netanyahu. She thinks Israel should retain the major settlement blocs, and shouldn’t withdraw to the 1967 lines – yet again like Netanyahu.
And, from an interview last year: While she thinks most settlements will have to go under any deal with the Palestinians, she, like Netanyahu, doesn’t consider them “a sin and a crime.” Moreover, again like Netanyahu, she doesn’t think the “peace process” should top Israel’s agenda (though she disagrees with him over what should). In fact, as she herself said just last week, she is “fighting for” the cause of “ending the dichotomy between left and right in foreign affairs. There are no longer two blocs … it’s all a fixation.”
In short, contrary to the media’s persistent portrayal of Netanyahu as a “hardline right-winger” heading a “far right” coalition, his positions on the Palestinian issue are shared by almost all Israelis – not only supporters of his coalition, but also supporters of what is likely to be the main opposition party come January, assuming Netanyahu (as expected) forms the next government. What will probably keep Yacimovich out of his coalition aren’t her diplomatic views, but his economic ones.
Hence if Obama is hoping for an Israeli leader whose positions on the “peace process” will be closer to his own than Netanyahu’s, he should think again: There isn’t one.
It’s not that they don’t exist in theory: Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni both deem an agreement with the Palestinians top priority, fall somewhere to the left of Netanyahu and Yacimovich on specific final-status issues, and are reportedly considering running. There’s only one problem: They have virtually no support. Between them, they have held almost every senior cabinet portfolio, whereas Yacimovich is a second-term MK with no cabinet experience whatsoever. Yet when pollsters asked Israelis last week who should lead the center-left bloc, Yacimovich got more votes than Olmert and Livni combined.
That’s no accident, any more than the fact that Labor – the party that signed the Oslo Accords and has traditionally headed Israel’s self-described “peace camp” – overwhelmingly voted to be led by a woman who deems socioeconomic issues more important than peace talks (“Before we … engage in a struggle for peace, we need to have a state,” as she put it). As I’ve written before, this has been the mainstream Israeli view for years. It just took a while to produce mainstream party leaders who agreed.
Today, Israel has two: Netanyahu and Yacimovich. One of them will be running Israel for the next four years. And the sooner Obama comes to terms with that fact, the better.
Gordon is too sophisticated about Israel's political history to believe everything that its politicians say whether they are from the right or left, and especially when the topic concerns security issues. Leaving aside Bibi's continuous slide – shaking Arafat's hands, giving up large parts of Hebron to the PA, and most recently accepting the idea of a Fakistinian state – Labor politicians have usually campaigned as hardliners only to sell out the store when they get elected. Rabin's victory before Oslo was fueled by his image of a hardened military leader and tough language toward Arab rioters in Judea and Samaria. Similarly, when General Barak beat Bibi in 1999 he promised toughness toward the Arabs, not saying that at Wye and Camp David he would offer Arafat half of Jerusalem and almost all of Judea and Samaria. So whatever Yacimovich says or promises during her campaign should be given as much weight as the bread crumbs one throws to attract pigeons in the town square. (Livni, on the other hand, these days doesn't even know how to attract pigeons.)
Some truth in these remarks but there is a Knesset that determimes these things and, If memory serves me right, you need two thirds vote for any future withdrawals- never going to happen in our lifetime,
I don't expect Obama to be impressed by Israeli political unity. n nIn his mind, he is the the Decider, and he has decided where Israel's borders will be. n nHis second term will be brutal for Israel, because he will have a free hand there, unlike domestically. n nHe plans to leave a mark on the world, and if it involves pushing the Jews around, so much the better. n nIt's going to be very, very ugly. And that's the optimistic perspective. n n
"One of them will be running Israel for the next four years. And the sooner Obama comes to terms with that fact, the better." n nMaybe it's they who should come to terms with the fact of Obama's victory.
Another stupid remark. Obama is the President of the UNITED STATES. The prime Minister is PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL. Last time I looked Israel was still an independent country.
adding to :"Last time I looked Israel was still an independent country." nand Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel!
Why is it that the people who are quickest to spread the lie that Israel is interfering in US elections, or that Israel is trying to set policy for the US, or that Israel is endangering the safety of the US, are also the first to think that the US should interfere in Israel's elections, set Isreal's foreign and domestic policy, and endanger Israel's safety?