| March 2009 - Politics | ||
| March 2009 | ||
|
No Cause For Optimism Words Francesca de Châtel
The results of Israel’s February 10 parliamentary elections, in which right-wing parties won the majority of the votes, promises little good for the regional peace process, local and international Syria analysts say. On February 11, both Tzipi Livni of the centrist Kadima party and right-wing Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu declared victory, following a close race in which their parties won 28 and 27 seats respectively in the 120-seat Israeli parliament. The right-wing Yisrael Beytenu party led by Russian émigré Avigdor Lieberman took 15 seats, which, together with the votes gained by other conservative parties like Shas and the National Union, secured a parliamentary majority for the right. After discussions with the elected parties, Israeli President Shimon Peres designated Netanyahu on February 20 as the prime minister of the still-to-be-formed coalition government. As this magazine went to print, it remained unclear whether Netanyahu would succeed in building a broad national unity government with Kadima’s Livni and Labour’s Ehud Barak, or whether a right-wing coalition would emerge. Little prospect of peace “The victory of the Israeli right will not make peace talks easy,” Marwan Kabalan, a professor of political science at Damascus University, said. “The position of these parties on the peace process is well known. They oppose any withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and they are against the two-state solution.” Regarding the Turkish-mediated Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations, which were halted on December 31, 2008 after Israel launched its war on Gaza, Kabalan said he believes Syria will only resume talks if it gets guarantees that Israel will eventually withdraw from the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. Netanyahu has ruled out any withdrawal from the Golan, though critics wonder whether this is a permanent position. Runner-up Lieberman advocates further settlement expansion in the Golan and has proposed a “peace-for-peace” deal in which Israel keeps the Golan and Syria receives economic aid from the international community in exchange. Syria has always ruled out any territorial compromise on the Golan. Kadima’s Livni is in favour of pursuing peace talks with Syria and concluding a “land-for-peace” deal in which Israel returns the Golan to Syria on the condition that Syria sever its ties with militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Lack of trust “All the details have now been outlined, so the question is whether the Israelis are serious,” he said. “We cannot at this stage return to questions like ‘what is the Golan?’.” Altaqi added there is a feeling of “complete mistrust and bitterness” towards Israel in Syrian political circles. He said the fact that Israel pursued indirect talks with Syria until the day before it launched its offensive on Gaza shows Tel Aviv’s insincerity towards regional peace. “The Israelis are just playing with peace,” he said. “They used the negotiations with the Syrians and Palestinians as camouflage.” Altaqi is pessimistic about the future and says the tense status quo between Israel and Syria that has been kept in place over the past nine years since the collapse of negotiations between late President Hafez al-Assad and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999 is no longer tenable. “Now it has to be peace or war,” he said. “The ability to sustain this situation of chronic bleeding in the region is limited and that is why I think it’s more liable to degenerate into a full confrontation.” Kabalan agrees that the situation in the region is volatile. “One cannot exclude the possibility of war,” he said. “Tension is running high and any minor incident could lead to military confrontation. That might of course involve Syria and other parties.” War unlikely “Israel paid a very small price for its invasion of Gaza,” he said. “This may convince it that force is an easy solution to its problems and can be used as a substitute for diplomacy and compromise.” At the same time, he believes the possibility of war between Syria and Israel is very small. “Bashar al-Assad is smart and Israel would gain little from a war,” he said. “President Assad avoided war with Israel under President Bush; I believe he will do the same with the next US administration.” Like other analysts, Landis believes a Netanyahu government will not advance peace negotiations. Other observers have however argued that, on the contrary, past peace deals with Israel’s neighbours were concluded by hawkish Likud leaders, with allegedly ‘doveish’ left-wing leaders producing little of substance to advance peace. In 1979, then Prime Minister Menachem Begin of the Likud party signed a peace deal with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace. Likud is also the only party to have dismantled settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel’s 2006 offensive in Lebanon and its most recent war on Gaza, on the other hand, were ordered by leaders of the centrist Kadima party. “There are some who are hopeful that Netanyahu may do with the Golan Heights what Begin did in the Sinai – give it away in order to keep the West Bank,” Landis said. “I am not so hopeful. Much will depend on the White House. If Washington takes an activist role and is willing to be very persuasive with Israel, it might be possible.” US role decisive But analysts like Kabalan take a more sober view. He holds that issues like the global financial crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan will top the US agenda and push the Arab-Israeli conflict to the side. “Given the huge challenges facing the Obama administration, I have doubts that it will invest heavily in the peace process,” Kabalan said. “My hunch is that the Obama administration will adopt a crisis management approach rather than a conflict resolutions approach.”
|
1 February 2012
| |||
