2/11/09

The mixed results of yesterday’s Israeli elections are likely to throw the country into political chaos for the next few weeks.  While Tzipi Livni’s centrist Kadima party appears to have won the most votes, the overall composition of the new Knesset has moved significantly to the right.  This means that Binyamin Netanyahu and the right wing Likud party will be best positioned to form a ruling coalition.  Whether the final result is a national unity government led by Livni or a right wing government led by Netanyahu, the new political situation will likely make any peace efforts more difficult.  

That being said, the U.S. must continue to engage in the peace process.  While it is the parties to the conflict that will ultimately have to make the difficult choices that bring about a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, history shows that constructive American engagement is a key ingredient for spurring progress and preventing deterioration. The episodic and superficial engagement we saw during much of the Bush administration undermines US credibility and leads to a worsening situation on the ground.  President Obama’s appointment of George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the region and his willingness to make this a top tier priority is a positive first step.

The reality is that Israel has made progress towards peace under right wing governments in the past – most notably Menachem Begin’s agreement with Anwar Sadat in 1978 at Camp David.  The only way to ensure that no progress is made is to not even try.

Israelis go to the polls and while the winner is still unclear, the overall result indicates a lurch to the right.  The Washington Post reports that, “Israeli voters delivered a split decision in national elections Tuesday, sparking competing claims by backers of opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni over who will be the next prime minister. Voters appeared to give Livni's Kadima party, which favors negotiations with the Palestinians, a slight and unexpected edge over Netanyahu's Likud party, which has been critical of peace talks, according to nearly complete returns and exit polls. But the overall shift in Israel's parliament, the Knesset, was sharply to the right with the right wing parties now controlling 63-65 votes. That could make it difficult for Livni to build the coalition she would need to govern, particularly if she intends to pursue U.S.-backed talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state.” While the outcome is still uncertain, the most likely scenario is a coalition headed by Netanyahu.  Haaertz says, “Kadima's narrow lead makes it uncertain whether Livni will be able to put together the 61-seat bloc needed to form a government. Netanyahu has a better chance of forging a coalition because of gains by right-wing parties, his natural allies.” But the “two parties began intensive efforts Wednesday to form rival coalitions. The far-right Yisrael Beiteinu came in third place, winning 15 seats with its anti-Arab, anti-religious platform, and securing the position of kingmaker in the formation of the next government... Early Wednesday, Lieberman [leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu] said he was leaving his options open, indicating he could jump either way. Yisrael Beiteinu was to convene later Wednesday to discuss its coalition options.”  Livni has already met with Lieberman and Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with him later today, leaving open number of possibilities. [Washington Post, 2/11/09. Haaertz, 2/11/09]

Election results are a blow to peace process, but do not signal the end of the peace process.  “President Obama's ambition to move quickly on Israeli-Palestinian peace suffered a significant setback yesterday with the rightward shift apparent in nearly complete Israeli election results,” reported the Washington Post.  The Post continued, saying “Even if Tzipi Livni, the head of Kadima who has vowed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, manages to cobble together a coalition after weeks of negotiations, many experts predict she will be hamstrung by her coalition partners.”  Middle East expert Daniel Levy commented: “You are going to have a very wobbly, dysfunctional, survival-minded coalition in Israel.”  Former Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller said: “even a broad unity government -- one possible outcome -- would be unable to agree on peace moves but could reach quick consensus on military strikes against Hamas or Hezbollah, such as the recent invasion of Gaza. ‘You may get a government good at war-making, not peacemaking,’ he said. ‘It's really going to create a major headache for the administration.’"  Yet prospects for some movement remains.  The Israeli right in some respects has enjoyed greater credibility in working towards peace agreements.  The clearest example is Menachem Begin, who agreed to a peace settlement with Anwar Sadat at Camp David in 1978.  In his previous term, Netanyahu moved the Israeli-Syrian negotiations farther along than many had expected.  [Washington Post, 2/11/09. NY Times, 8/06/96. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 9/17/78]

No matter what the election results decide, the U.S. should continue to engage in the Middle East Peace Process.  While the Arabs and Israelis will ultimately have to make the difficult choices that bring about a resolution to the conflict, history shows that constructive American engagement is a key ingredient for spurring progress, while episodic or superficial engagement leads to deterioration.  The appointment of George Mitchell as Envoy is a good first step and sends a clear message.   For decades, the U.S. had a strong history of engaging in the Middle East peace process.  Several major breakthroughs, including the Camp David Accords, the disengagement accords of the mid 1970s, the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords all occurred amidst robust U.S. engagement.   In many of these cases, American Presidents, their Secretaries of State, and special envoys spent weeks shuttling around the region, helping bring about this progress.   Meanwhile, the disengagement of the early Bush years led to a serious deterioration and no progress in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Overall, the U.S. still wields greater influence over the region than any other country and while its engagement is not sufficient to solving the conflict, it is necessary.  As Richard Haas and Martin Indyk recently wrote in Foreign Affairs, “the vast majority of Middle Eastern states still look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security and the power most able to help them achieve their objectives.”  [Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009]

What We’re Reading

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe swore in opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai as prime minister.

NATO will target the drug trade in Afghanistan.  British Foreign Minister David Miliband thinks coalition forces are at a stalemate with the Taliban.

Iraq tries to develop its relationship with France and other European nations to counter U.S. influence.  French President Nicolas Sarkozy, visiting Baghdad, urged European leaders to rebuild ties with Iraq.

General David Petraeus may have leaked information about President Obama’s consideration of Iraq withdrawal plans to the press.

A leaked report points to deeper Pakistani involvement in the November Mumbai attacks.  Pakistan wants more aid from the United States.

Secretary of State Clinton is hopeful about U.S. talks with Iran.

Russia may allow the U.S. to ship military supplies to Afghanistan through its territory.

The Obama administration develops its China policy, focusing on building a broader relationship.

China’s exports were down 17.5% against last year’s figures, the largest drop in more than ten years.

Violence from the Mexican drug wars spills over into the U.S.

Defense Secretary Gates ordered a review of the ban on media coverage of solders’ coffins returning to the United States.

Commentary of the Day

M.J. Rosenberg and Danny Ayalon debate the meaning of the rise of Avigdor Lieberman in the Israeli elections.

Liam Fox argues that challenges in the Israeli-Arab conflict lie with hard-line leaders, instead of the people.

Dean Nelson writes that Pakistan will be the test of the United States’ “smart power” strategy.

The LA Times examines the recent resurgence of former Middle East leaders in current politics.