On August 27, 2019, Haaretz contended in an editorial that a genuine opposition to right-wing rule in Israel, particularly in the political-security sphere, is notably absent. The stark realization of this deficiency becomes increasingly apparent amidst the heightened confrontation between Israel and Iran, which extends across multiple locations in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
The opposition has maintained a conspicuous silence on this longstanding and resurged confrontation, subscribing to the notion of "when the guns sound, the goddesses of inspiration are mute." What was initially perceived as a strength of the Blue and White alliance—the inclusion of three former generals and chiefs of staff (Benny Gantz, Moshe Ya'alon, and Gabi Ashkenazi) in its leadership—is now identified as a significant flaw. The generals, it seems, remain silent when the guns sound, almost as if they are still bound by their military uniforms, merely expected to execute government policy. The editorial opines that the leaders of Blue and White appear to have forgotten their discharge from the army, emphasizing the need to provide the public with a security alternative to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, especially during times of conflict and amid an election battle.
In the view of the editorial, the opposition has failed in its primary task, which is to present the public with a distinct perspective from that of the government. A serious opposition, it argues, should have illuminated the substantial risks under Netanyahu's rule and proposed an alternative. However, Benny Gantz, the President of Blue and White, is criticized for expressing support for the army on Facebook and issuing threats to "the Iranians and their allies in the region." Meanwhile, his deputy, Yair Lapid, is noted for proposing the "use of disproportionate force" in Gaza.
The editorial extends its critique beyond the security sphere to the political arena, echoing recent sentiments from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak, now involved in the political realm through the "Israel Democracy" party, has aligned with Meretz in an electoral list named the Democratic Camp. In an article titled "Regional Settlement and Negotiations, or Secession" published in Haaretz on August 23, 2019, Barak suggests that the upcoming elections resemble a reality TV show more than a substantive discussion of the future, with a conspicuous absence of dialogue on political-security issues. While Barak puts forth his vision on these matters, it is noted that his stance aligns closely with the traditional Israeli position on core issues, as detailed in subsequent contexts.
Embracing the Right-Populist Settler Narrative
As the Israeli elections for the 22nd Knesset loom over two weeks away, a discernible trend emerges, underscoring the pivotal role of the populist and settler right in shaping the discourse surrounding the Palestinian issue.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, during a visit to the West Bank settlement of Elknah on the occasion of the new school year, reaffirmed his commitment to extend Israeli sovereignty over all settlements in the 1967 territories, incorporating them into the envisioned "Greater Land of Israel" and the State of Israel. Netanyahu, persistently advocating for the annexation of West Bank territories since the previous election campaign, emphasizes his indifference between settlement blocs and remote outposts, deeming each outpost as inherently Israeli. In an April interview, he disclosed discussions with the US administration regarding the imposition of Israeli sovereignty over West Bank areas, seeking approval for such measures.
Naftali Bennett, a prominent figure in the Yamina party and former education minister, hailed Netanyahu's recent pledge as a validation of Bennett's own policy, urging its implementation. Bennett pointed out that eight years ago, while Netanyahu was considering a two-state solution, he had proposed a plan to impose Israeli law on Area C—a proposal initially dismissed as delusional but now adopted by the prime minister himself.
Simultaneously, it becomes evident that the Blue and White alliance, positioning itself as a realistic alternative to right-wing rule and Benjamin Netanyahu, aligns its political stance with the rhetoric and positions typical of the populist and settler right. Notably, the alliance's leaders embark on tours of the Jordan Valley, Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip border, advocating for a proactive approach, including military action.
The political platform of the Blue and White alliance underscores support for a "united Jerusalem" under "Israeli sovereignty," the "Israeli Jordan Valley," and a commitment to settlement blocs in territories occupied since 1967. Importantly, the platform specifically references "settlement blocs" rather than "large blocs," rejecting the possibility of a unilateral withdrawal similar to the Gaza Strip separation in 2005. The program categorically states that the occupied Syrian Golan is an integral part of Israel, explicitly asserting that negotiations on the Golan are off the table—a stance unprecedented in Israeli governmental history.
In contrast, the Labor party, forming an alliance with the Gesher party led by former MK Orly Levy-Apaksis of Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu party, centers its platform on socio-economic issues. The coalition emphasizes increased investment in workers, the sick, children, and young couples, aiming to improve working conditions and combat poverty, with no explicit mention of the Palestinian issue. The coalition outlines a vision for a regional settlement with Palestinians and moderate Arab states, proposing a demilitarized Palestinian state and a three-step implementation plan involving construction halts, an "eviction-compensation" law, and a public referendum on the future of refugee camps around Jerusalem.
It is crucial to note that these political positions enjoy broad support within the Israeli public. The Israel Voice Index poll, conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute ahead of the upcoming general elections, reveals a mixed sentiment among the Israeli public regarding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's performance. While the majority expresses satisfaction with his efforts in foreign relations and the strengthening of Israel's military and security capabilities, there is widespread dissatisfaction with his handling of corruption issues and his effectiveness in reducing social gaps.
The poll indicates that Netanyahu, who became the longest-serving prime minister in Israel's history in July 2019, receives positive ratings from the majority of the Israeli public in various areas. Specifically, he is commended for improving and developing Israel's international standing (60%), strengthening Israeli military power (56%), addressing the "Iranian challenge" (50.5%), and enhancing the economy (45%).
On the political landscape, the program outlined by Ehud Barak, despite not presenting an alternative to Netanyahu's rule and the right, demonstrates a notable alignment with right-wing rhetoric prevalent in the Israeli political sphere. Barak's proposal advocates for Israel to pursue secession from the Palestinians and champion a "comprehensive regional settlement" involving the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians under American and potentially international auspices. This settlement aims to address challenges posed by Iran, radical terrorism, regional infrastructure projects, and the Palestinian issue.
Within this comprehensive regional settlement framework, negotiations with the Palestinian Authority would be conducted, with the ultimate goal of achieving a two-state solution. Barak emphasizes Israel's control over security in all territory and seeks American political support to establish borders safeguarding national interests through the option of separation into two states. These borders would encompass key settlement blocs and strategic sites, leaving approximately 83% of settlers living beyond the Green Line. Israel maintains "overall security responsibility" up to the Jordan River.
Notably, Barak's program aligns with Netanyahu's approach to a comprehensive regional settlement as a means to address the Palestinian issue, emphasizing a shared security approach. Additionally, Barak rejects withdrawing to the 1967 lines and embraces an annexationist perspective, echoing Netanyahu's stance.
While Barak's program may face scrutiny, particularly from his main ally Meretz, it underscores the disagreement between him and his ally on key issues. The article published in Haaretz has sparked debates over the acceptability of Barak's approach within the broader political landscape.
Amidst the intensifying Israeli electoral battle leading up to the decision day, the controversies surrounding the formation and subsequent failure of the new Israeli government post the April 9 elections continue to escalate. As highlighted in previous position papers, the key issues at the heart of these crises revolve around the legislation concerning the recruitment of ultra-Orthodox Jews, the immunity law, and the law restricting the powers of the judiciary.
Yisrael Beitenu leader, Lieberman, who has been a central figure in exacerbating these crises, directs his focus toward the conscription law. He emphasizes the need for the wording of this law to align with the recommendations of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) rather than those of the Haredi parties. Lieberman seeks to garner support from factions opposing religious coercion, accusing them of aiming to establish a "state of Halacha" (a state governed by Jewish law). In contrast, Netanyahu concentrates on the other two issues: the Immunity Act and the Law on the Limitation of the Powers of the Judiciary. His primary objective is to sidestep potential indictments following the initial response phase during his impeachment before the attorney general over suspicions of three corruption cases.
Increasingly, analyses align with predictions that the second round of the 2019 elections revolves around these specific objectives. It is not framed as a conflict between right and left, nor is it a battle for peace, settlement, or the resolution of the occupation. Consequently, there is no anticipation of a qualitative shift that could usher in a fundamentally different Israeli political reality.
Recent analyses underscore the absence of a genuine opposition to Likud and right-wing rule in Israel, particularly in the political-security domain. This realization becomes more apparent amid the heightened confrontation between Israel and Iran, extending across multiple locations in the Middle East, notably Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The same lack of opposition is noted in both the security and political spheres, especially concerning the Palestinian question and the prospects for a political settlement.
With the upcoming second round of elections on September 17, the prevailing consensus is that the battle will not be a struggle between right and left, nor will it be focused on achieving peace, settlement, or the reduction of occupation. As a result, there is no expectation of a transformative shift in the Israeli political landscape.
