What Are We to Do About Kerry’s Attempts to Revive the Dead!

No one can deny the social and ideological shifts that are rocking Israeli society, propelling its steady continuation towards increased extremism. Indeed, we find that those who were formerly among the ultra-conservative are now considered moderate pragmatists, were they to be compared to those who are leaping into the front seat of Israeli leadership. Curiously, this is not a recent phenomenon; instead, what is new is the steadily paced rise in extremism.

Were we to return to the final days of the Likud under Ariel Sharon’s command, we would find that Sharon was fed up with the far right under Netanyahu, viewing it as an extremist limb that would lead Israel to further international isolation. Realizing that Netanyahu would defeat him in party leadership and push him to the sidelines, Sharon hastened to distance himself by allying with Shimon Peres to form a new centrist party known as “Kadima,” leaving what remained of the Likud under Netanyahu’s far-right leadership.

As time passes and Israeli society becomes increasingly extremist, Netanyahu now finds himself in the same position as Sharon was prior to leaving Likud to form Kadima.

Anyone following the internal developments of the Likud these days will notice how extremist settlers have taken over the center of the party. Particularly after Netanyahu caught the scent of his defeat in the party elections and was compelled to withdraw his candidacy for party leadership. This allowed for the win of settlers’ candidate Danny Danon, who also occupies the position of Deputy Minister of Defense, and the ultimate right-wing extremist, “Bogie” Ya’alon.

Likewise, one may notice the rise in the number of statements being issued not only by Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home faction in the Netanyahu government’s coalition, but also by the new generation of youth that appeared in the latest elections such as Tzipi Hotovely, Ze’ev Elkin, and others like them.

The incontrovertible truth about the Likud today is that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s public stances are representative neither of the central party stance nor of the stance of the majority of its members. Netanyahu finds himself in an unenviable position, for he has not changed from an ideological standpoint, but has become increasingly shrewd and apt in maneuvering. Meanwhile, statements issued by his party leadership, who reject the two-state solution and call for further consecration of the nation of Israel concept, diminish any wiggle room left to him and put him in a sticky spot with the U.S., which is interested in mobilizing negotiations to prevent the possibility of Palestinian leadership again going before the United Nations next September.

The fact is that U.S. diplomatic visits to the region no longer generate much interest these days; their usefulness expended and their credibility lost, most have turned their back on them. This makes the observer look with disbelief on the time and determination Kerry expends on reviving a political process that successive Israeli governments have sent to their deathbed, because of their insistence upon moving forward with an expansive settlement agenda. This is coupled with the late-coming resolve of Palestinian leadership to refuse to enter negotiations prior to the complete freezing of any settlement-building; also with the Israeli government taking advantage of Netanyahu’s leadership to continue its settlement program, claiming that it is ready to come to the negotiation table “with no prior conditions,” and then blaming the Palestinians when this does not happen.

The U.S. is taking into account the upcoming United Nations session to be held in September, and the increasing international concern over the worsening political state of affairs in the region. This is happening in addition to the possibility of new bouts of violence erupting in Palestinian territories and any regional ramifications these may incur, as well as any accusations or international sanctions levied against Israel. It is thus attempting to revive negotiations in order to prevent this, and to distance the Obama administration from any possible faux pas were this to occur. However, Israeli leadership is walking a thin line between allowing for negotiations to resume and sabotaging them, all the while holding Palestinians responsible.

Thus Netanyahu, who is concerned only with staying in power, repeatedly brings up the two-state solution and “painful” concessions without defining what exactly he means by that. At the same time he brings up other unrelated subjects such as recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and focuses on other matters intended to sabotage any opportunity for serious negotiations such as refusing to address the matter of Jerusalem and demanding long-term “secure” coexistence in the West Bank. On top of this are his continuous attempts to cast the blame on the Palestinians for any failure to resume negotiations.

The question now posed to Palestinian leadership is what if they were to acquiesce to the pressures and concede to returning to the negotiation table under pretexts unconvincing to the Palestinian people—thus wasting an opportunity to achieve something on the UN level next September—only to discover after that that it must wait for yet another September? Or will it persist in the face of these pressures and show more interest in internal Palestinian matters by way of adopting a reunification strategy, ending the divisiveness, and re-legitimizing the institutions of power—whether the Legislative Council or the presidency—via democratic elections. This is in addition to rebuilding organized liberation institutions, and empowering them by virtue of their being the last refuge of Palestinian legitimacy, if it ever comes to the point of fully breaking from the negotiation process and signing its death certificate.