Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 10:14 AM Mar 2015

Netanyahu's coalition headache

Now that he has had a chance to get used to and even revel in his unequivocal victory, Netanyahu is starting to realize what it really means to face the world at the head of a right-wing government, and how such a government will affect the deteriorating relationship with the United States. Throughout his campaign, including the last two days, Netanyahu hoped for close results that would enable him to head a national unity government with Herzog. Though he announced that he would not form a government with the left, that seemed like the most reasonable option at the time.

The most important question is whether Bennett’s suspicions about a possible national unity government are correct. As of the morning of March 26, it seems as if his sense of smell hasn’t led him astray. Netanyahu is very concerned, and some say even terrified, of the possibility that he might be forced to face the United States and the world as the head of a right-wing coalition with the ultra-Orthodox.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/israel-netanyahu-politics-coalition-kahlon-bennett-herzog.html#ixzz3VayMwgGr

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Netanyahu's coalition headache (Original Post) shaayecanaan Mar 2015 OP
Ah, so much to look forward to. Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #1
And Labor wonders why they always lose... BillZBubb Mar 2015 #2
The majority of their voters would not support what it takes for the Palestinians to Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #5
You have no idea what you are talking about oberliner Mar 2015 #6
Labor most certainly did build and expand settlements azurnoir Mar 2015 #13
They sure did azurnoir...... Israeli Mar 2015 #18
When you look at the polls supporting the West Bank being vacated for the Palestinians, the Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #9
I wasn't referring to the West Bank. BillZBubb Mar 2015 #15
I think Labor may be satisfied with the settlements..how much more would they need? Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #16
as if it would change anything shaayecanaan Mar 2015 #4
True, it seems like a fiasco for them in terms of PR no matter how you look at it but to the Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #8
The one good thing about this is it clarifies choices and opens the possibility of consequences. leveymg Mar 2015 #3
Like when the Palestinians voted in droves for Hamas? oberliner Mar 2015 #7
Hamas isn't the problem with Israel. It's Likud, the settlements, and disproportionate responses to leveymg Mar 2015 #10
If you live in Israel, Hamas is a problem oberliner Mar 2015 #11
One has to hold Israel to the same high standards as any developed western country. leveymg Mar 2015 #12
So you think Israel should sit by and let others attack Israel constantly? It is Tuesday Mar 2015 #22
Does the US lack credibility because it doesn't bomb Mexico with B-52s? leveymg Mar 2015 #23
Like what? It is Tuesday Mar 2015 #24
and how much of the problem with Hamas was created by Israel's own actions? guillaumeb Mar 2015 #14
or if sabbat hunter Mar 2015 #17
except for the Old City? guillaumeb Mar 2015 #19
no sabbat hunter Mar 2015 #20
Then we agree as to many of the facts guillaumeb Mar 2015 #21

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
1. Ah, so much to look forward to.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 10:24 AM
Mar 2015

This cracked me up: If Herzog somehow manages to convince the other members of his party that joining the government would prevent the formation of a dangerous right-wing coalition, he might even receive the support of former Labor Party Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich, who would then receive a senior economic portfolio.

“Even Shelly Yachimovich is fed up with being in the opposition, and would like to be a minister," said one senior Labor Party official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Now we just have to start putting a story together. Herzog could say that the government is facing a diplomatic and economic emergency, for instance, just like Ehud Barak did in 2009.”


Can't wait, that ought to be a good one.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
5. The majority of their voters would not support what it takes for the Palestinians to
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:16 AM
Mar 2015

have a viable state. Labor party has done their share of expanding settlements..they don't
give a shit and I don't know they should be expected to be the ones who could be persuaded
or pressured to do so if they were in power. Maybe they would, and I am wrong about them.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
13. Labor most certainly did build and expand settlements
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:59 PM
Mar 2015

At the time, on the assumption that the spread of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories was broadly popular among Israelis and certain to win votes on election day, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's Likud Party was boasting about its leadership in expanding the settlements. Indeed, Shamir, never known for subtlety, had been brazen about settlement-building. On several occasions he had attended ground-breaking ceremonies for new ones that were scheduled to coincide precisely with the arrival in Israel of a strong critic of settlements, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker.

Not to be outdone in the campaign arena, Rabin discarded his customary policy of concealment. He informed the electorate that the Labor Party had led the way in building settlements years before the Shamir administration, but added that it had carried out the construction "cleverly" so as to avoid criticism in the United States.

The Oct. 18, 1990 issue of Davar quoted Rabin's response to Likud: "For all its faults, Labor has done more and remains capable of doing more in the future [in expanding Jewish settlements] than Likud with all of its doing. We have never talked about Jerusalem. We have just made a 'fait accompli.' It was we who built the suburbs in [the annexed part of] Jerusalem. The Americans didn't say a word, because we built these suburbs cleverly." The suburbs he cited are Jewish settlements built on land in the East Jerusalem area seized from Palestinians.

In this amazing but little-noted bit of candor, Rabin could accurately have broadened Labor's claim beyond the East Jerusalem area. All of the early and many of the later settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were built when the Labor Party was in power.

http://www.wrmea.org/1994-november-december/speaking-out-israeli-labor-party-s-cleverly-concealed%C2%9D-west-bank-settlements.html

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
9. When you look at the polls supporting the West Bank being vacated for the Palestinians, the
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 12:01 PM
Mar 2015

support plummets within Israel and continues to do so when you add East Jerusalem as their capital.

Add too, the Palestinians right to an army and that idea/support falls flat as well, even though every state
has a sound right to do so...airport, seaport..all of it.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
15. I wasn't referring to the West Bank.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:58 PM
Mar 2015

Likud is hurting the Israeli economy. Yet, Labor is actually considering a coalition. That is nuts.

Let the Likud, like right wingers always do, bring down the economy. Then Labor can start winning elections instead of joining coalitions where they share the blame for the bad economy.

On the Palestinians, Labor is not much better than Likud, although they'd be less eager to expand settlements.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
16. I think Labor may be satisfied with the settlements..how much more would they need?
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 05:58 PM
Mar 2015

It is whether they would agree to a viable Palestinian state and what concessions they would need
to make...I haven't read anything that comes directly from them that indicates they
would.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
4. as if it would change anything
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:14 AM
Mar 2015

I'm not sure that having the ZU inside the tent as some kind of Alan Colmes-like fig leaf will do anything for netanyahu. Its not like having tzipi around has done anything for him before.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
8. True, it seems like a fiasco for them in terms of PR no matter how you look at it but to the
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:26 AM
Mar 2015

passive observers maybe Bibi looks like he can be controlled if they're a part of the coalition.
Jerusalem is heating up pretty bad now, the Palestinians are suppose to believe Herzog
and Livni are going to change any of that even if they were top dog? Best they know who and
what the agendas are from all the alleged moderates too.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
7. Like when the Palestinians voted in droves for Hamas?
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:25 AM
Mar 2015

I mean they got a higher percentage of the vote than Likud by a long shot.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
10. Hamas isn't the problem with Israel. It's Likud, the settlements, and disproportionate responses to
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 02:51 PM
Mar 2015

Hamas and others that have made Israel an international pariah.

I believe it is utterly suicidal and insane to launch small, militarily ineffective rockets against a major military power, but is also morally indefensible and a violation of international law to destroy tens of thousands of homes and to kill hundreds of noncombatants in response. Likud plays Hamas' game, and vis-a-versa, as the extremists on both sides keep each other in power.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
11. If you live in Israel, Hamas is a problem
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:22 PM
Mar 2015

And has been for decades.

You think it is "suicidal and insane" for Hamas to launch rockets, yet you reserve "morally indefensible and a violation of international law" to describe Israel's action - even though Hamas's actions are both of those.

And in case you forget, it's more than just "militarily ineffective rockets against a major military power" - it is the wanton and deliberate slaughter of innocent people at dance clubs, hotels, and bus stops in terror attacks over years and years and years.

And continued support for same, given the opportunity which, thankfully, Israel has made extremely difficult.

The reason why there hasn't been something like the Passover Massacre recently is not because Hamas has embraced peace.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
12. One has to hold Israel to the same high standards as any developed western country.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:40 PM
Mar 2015

That is, if they hope to be treated as such. The number of Israelis killed by Palestinian rocket attacks over the years -- I believe there are only a handful, along with kidnappings and suicide bombings, is actually far fewer than the number of US Citizens killed by Mexican drug gangs inside the US. Does the US launch B-52 strikes against Ciudad Juarez every time that happens? No.

Israel needs to grow up and stop overreacting with massive force to isolated and small-scale attacks. It's "only acting in self-defense" has lost credibility. The rest of us know what's going on - any attack, no matter how militarily insignificant, provides an excuse for Israel to impose group punishment, and that is a violation of the Geneva Accords, and should be treated as such.

 

It is Tuesday

(93 posts)
22. So you think Israel should sit by and let others attack Israel constantly?
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:29 PM
Mar 2015

You think Israel has no credibility?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
23. Does the US lack credibility because it doesn't bomb Mexico with B-52s?
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 03:00 PM
Mar 2015

There are measures that Israel can take other than a continual overkill response and its strategy of group punishment.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
14. and how much of the problem with Hamas was created by Israel's own actions?
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:17 PM
Mar 2015

Many writing here insist on a version of history which actually denies the history of Israel in favor of a narrative that paints Israel as the innocent victim of inexplicable Palestinian aggression.

Absent from many here is any acknowledgement of Israeli war crimes, including land theft, dispossession, use of the stolen land, targeting civilians, collective punishment, illegal use of white phosphorous, and many other crimes.

The problem with such fantasy history is twofold.
First, one has to convince the entire world to accept your fantasy history, and
Second, the longer the fantasy narrative guides actual policy the longer positions harden.

If Israel had immediately evacuated all land seized in 1967 and allowed UN peacekeepers to patrol, there would be no settlements, no dispossession in East Jerusalem. But such evacuation did not fit the plans for a "greater Israel" and was not done.

The inescapable fact, and no historical revisionism can hide it, is that it is Israel that illegally occupies and uses Palestinian land. Not the opposite.

sabbat hunter

(6,825 posts)
17. or if
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 02:36 AM
Mar 2015

Jordan had immediately left the west bank in 48 there could have been a Palestine back then. Oh wait no there couldn't have, as the Palestinians wanted all of the land from the river to the sea.

They could have had their own country between 49-67. Oh wait, no they couldn't, because Jordan annexed the west bank, including Jerusalem.
Since the days of the Mandate the Palestinians have been screwed over by their fellow Arabs, and by themselves via terrorist actions, first with the PLO, then later on by Hamas and IJ.

I would love to see Israel withdraw from all of the west bank, except for the old city, and leave all of the WB for a Palestine, even if they have to do it unilaterally. I would rather see a negotiated peace which probably would involve land swaps, reparations for Palestinians that were forced out of Israel, which is about 1/3rd of the total that left. At the same time Arab countries would provide reparations for Jews forced out of their countries since 1948.

and the occupation is legal under international law, it is the settlements that are illegal.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
19. except for the Old City?
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:21 PM
Mar 2015

Some land theft?

Plus the idea that land swaps be a condition of any settlement does not fit with your "withdraw from all of the west bank" statement because there would be endless discussion of exactly what land would be swapped. ALL of the land under discussion is actually Palestinian land.

And while the occupation is legal, the settlements prove that Israel is not occupying the land, it is stealing it and using it.

sabbat hunter

(6,825 posts)
20. no
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:30 PM
Mar 2015

The old city as never supposed to be a part of Palestine. It was supposed to be an 'international city' under UN control. But the UN long ago abrogated that by not defending it against Jordanian invaders, not doing anything to try and remove Jordan from it or force Jordan to allow all people in to the city.

I would prefer that all of the WB (except for the old city) abandoned by Israel, but I cannot control realities on the ground. I would expect that any land swaps to be fairly minor though, and 99% of the WB as is to go to Palestine via land swaps, with a fully intact and continuous Israel free zone.

I also would expect that all the settlers to be removed (by force if need be). However I could also envision a plan where the settlers become citizens of Palestine, in exchange for allowing some Palestinians that were forced out of Israel to return to Israel, become Israeli citizens. For we cannot forget that prior to 1947, the WB was not a Jew-free zone, with some communities having been there for hundreds and hundreds of years, dating back to at least Roman times if not earlier.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
21. Then we agree as to many of the facts
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:41 PM
Mar 2015

But the bottom line is that this type of settlement could only happen if Israel allows it. Israel is in the power situation here. It has the military advantage, as well as the backing of the US to shield it from UN intervention.

But as Vietnam showed, no matter how much military advantage the invader has, if the occupied people keep fighting the costs of continual war eventually force the aggressor to abandon the fight.

So the question becomes one of wondering how long, and at what cost, will Israel occupy Palestine? Short of complete extermination of all Palestinians in the area, there will continue to be resistance to the occupation. What then is the end game here?

Do Israelis truly envision themselves as eternal occupiers?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»Netanyahu's coalition hea...