The Palestinians and Arabs await the new Israeli government with interest

Dr Adnan Abu Amer

The Israeli election result makes it possible to look at the regional positions taken in response to the apparent gains of the Blue and White Party, and the fall in support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud. While Hamas does not seem keen on the victory of the former, led by ex-Chief of Staff General Benny Gantz, the Palestinian Authority has welcomed what looks like Netanyahu’s defeat and wants to help Gantz to form a government.

Across the region, Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi’s Egypt and Saudi Arabia under de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman seem to resent Netanyahu’s defeat because he provided them with a political umbrella in the White House. The government in Tehran, however, will be happy to see the back of the current Israeli Prime Minister whose main priority has been to instigate a war against Iran.

The Palestinian issue dominated the election campaigns of the major parties, and the people of Palestine are affected by the results of the poll more than anyone else. They believe, rightly so, that the results are likely to cast a long shadow over their already dire situation. No doubt the issue will feature prominently in the discussions to form a ruling coalition. The right and far-right blocs will present their demands on what to do about the Palestinians, in line with their extremist ideologies.

Although it is 13 years since the people of Palestine had the opportunity to take part in free and fair elections, they watched the Israeli process with great interest. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had, albeit indirectly, pushed hard for Netanyahu’s defeat. He implied in several statements that the Israelis should vote for peace and the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. Throughout the election campaign, the PA Presidential headquarters hosted a number of meetings and visits with Israeli peace activists, including those who seek normalisation of relations between the Arab world and Israel. “Vote for any candidate but Netanyahu” was the implicit message that came out of Ramallah.

The PLO Committee for Interaction with Israeli Society, led by Fatah Central Committee member Muhammed Al-Madani, even took the unconventional step of preparing a document entitled “Palestinian attitudes towards the core issues of conflict with Israel”. Printed in Hebrew, it was distributed across Israel in an effort to influence voters before they went to the polling stations.

The PA’s fears of another Netanyahu victory in particular, and the extreme right-wing in general, are logical. The longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel’s history is intent on eliminating the so-called “two state solution” to which the PA and Abbas are committed. The Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has put all of its eggs in Israel’s basket in this respect and left itself no room for manoeuvre.

The de facto ruling party in the Gaza Strip, Hamas, seems to have tacitly interfered with the Israeli election process by reaching security and humanitarian understandings with the government. These meant that Gaza was relatively calm, allowing the Israeli electorate to cast their votes without the sound of rockets and air raid sirens. The message to the Israelis was that Netanyahu — the self-styled “master of security” — is worthy of re-election and being prime minister for the fifth time.

This does not mean that Hamas prefers Netanyahu to his rivals, but the feedback provided to the movement in previous years has led it to conclude that it is a case of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know”. That was one reason why Hamas negotiated a major prisoner exchange deal with Netanyahu in 2011, and the movement is counting on reaching a new deal with him to close this issue, which is exhausting for all concerned.

The movement also understands that Netanyahu generally accepts the status quo, meaning that he may allow Hamas to remain in control of Gaza without thinking about far-reaching and costly attempts to overthrow it and restore Ramallah’s control over the Gaza Strip. This is what Netanyahu’s rival Gantz and others have hinted at in an effort on their part to suggest a resumption of negotiations with the PA in Ramallah.

Hamas, of course, remembers Benny Gantz as the commander of the Israel Defence Forces during the 2014 military offensive, and the assassination of senior military leader Ahmed Ja’abari in 2012. Gantz might start a new offensive against Gaza and may well be trigger-happy. Moreover, his partners in the Blue and White leadership, such as Moshe Ya’alon, Gabi Ashkenazi and Yair Lapid, appear to Hamas to be more dangerous. They have far-right aspirations and may resort to assassinating Palestinian leaders.

Regionally, while Al-Sisi and Bin Salman make no secret of their support for Netanyahu, Jordan’s King Abdullah II is less enthusiastic. It is noteworthy that Arab monitoring of the second General Election in Israel this year took place without clear intervention, as happened in the previous poll in April. There were no phone calls between Arab leaders and Netanyahu, nor invitations to visit Arab capitals, although the “secret” communication between them is at their peak during these times. However, there were no Arab-Israeli meetings with Netanyahu until the last minute before polling day.

Cairo has little enthusiasm for finding a replacement for Netanyahu, which explains why it has not communicated with the Blue and White, Labour or Joint List candidates. Nevertheless, Egypt’s ambassador and diplomats in Tel Aviv sent periodic reports, which indicated that Netanyahu had a great chance of winning, despite the fact that there was a warning that anything could happen.

Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi has apparently never met Benny Gantz face to face, but if the Egyptian President is asked which Israeli candidate he prefers, he would immediately say Netanyahu because he has done him so many favours. It was Netanyahu, for example, who allowed Al-Sisi to sidestep formal agreements and deploy significant numbers of Egyptian troops in the Sinai Peninsula. They talk on the phone about Gaza and Sinai. Netanyahu has also done favours for Al-Sisi with US President Donald Trump; the Israeli leader’s presence is obvious in the relationship between Cairo and Washington.

Jordan’s position is complicated. On the one hand, the security and military coordination between Amman and Tel Aviv is strong. On the other hand, Netanyahu’s announcement that he will annex the Jordan Valley if he wins the election produced a negative reaction from the Hashemite Kingdom. It seems that King Abdullah would prefer to sit with a new Israeli prime minister who understands the security and intelligence cooperation between the two countries and appreciates its importance.

Under the rule of Bin Salman, Saudi Arabia believes that Netanyahu is a comfortable option, especially in terms of exchanging messages about the perceived common enemy, Iran. The Saudi Crown Prince agrees with Netanyahu about the Iranian threat, and they are both wary of the upcoming meeting between Trump and President Hassan Rouhani.

So what does Iran itself think of the election result in Israel? There was an unmistakable welcome for Netanyahu’s defeat, albeit with concern that he might still form the next government if he can put a viable coalition together. It is Netanyahu, remember, who has put great pressure on Tehran on the political, security and military levels, and used his influence over the White House to impose further sanctions and get Trump to pull the US out of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Finally, it has to be said that Israel’s General Election can never be an entirely domestic issue, such is the impact of the Zionist state on regional affairs. The Palestinians, Arab states and the wider region will thus await the formation of the coalition government in Israel with great interest, and more than a little trepidation.

Netanyahu or Gantz: The tragic dilemma facing Israel's Palestinian citizens

Orly Noy

The Joint List's recommendation of Gantz as prime minister dramatically alters the traditional political stance of Arabs in Israel

Members of the Joint List party sit next to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin as he began cross-party talks on 22 September over who should form a new government (Reuters)

Many people were hoping that the mid-September election in Israel would resolve the political mess that followed the previous election in April when neither of the two leading candidates for prime minister - Benny Gantz of the Blue and White alliance and Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud - garnered enough votes to form a government.

But that hope was quickly dashed within a few days when the votes were counted. The political blocs headed by both candidates fell short of securing the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority.

Chaotic landscape 

On the right, the bloc headed by Netanyahu won 55 seats. It included Likud, Shas and the ultra-Orthodox Torah Judaism party as well as the far-right Yamina party headed by Ayelet Shaked. The centre-left bloc, headed by Benny Gantz, which includes Blue and White, the Joint List, Labor and the Democratic Union, secured 57 seats.

The degree of chaos in the Israeli political landscape today is indicated by the status of Yisrael Beiteinu, headed by Avigdor Lieberman, who has proposed among other things the “transfer” of Arab citizens out of Israel entirely. Lieberman is one of the most extreme far-right politicians the country has ever seen.

The degree of chaos in the Israeli political landscape today is indicated by the status of Yisrael Beiteinu, headed by Avigdor Lieberman

Yisrael Beiteinu won eight seats but has joined neither the rightist bloc nor the centre-left bloc. Thus far Lieberman has refused to express support for either Gantz or Netanyahu, and is calling for a national unity government with the two major parties, Likud and Blue and White.

In the absence of a clear majority for either of them, both Gantz and Netanyahu have begun their quest to round up the required minimum of 61 Knesset seats to form a government. The first stop is the office of the Israeli president, where the heads of all political parties represented in the next Knesset must come to recommend their preferred candidate for the prime minister position.

Following those discussions, the president in turn recommends which of the candidates he believes has the best prospects to succeed in forming a government and formally tasks him with the job. If, within the legally mandated time period, that candidate fails to muster 61 seats, his rival is given an opportunity to assemble his own coalition. 

The highest priority

The decision as to which of the two candidates - Gantz or Netanyahu - to recommend to the president, or whether even to make a recommendation at all, has posed the first major challenge to the (mostly Arab) Joint List since it reassembled itself on the eve of the election.

The Arab parties have historically refrained from recommending Jewish candidates for prime minister, from either the right or the left

On the one hand, the Arab parties have historically refrained from recommending Jewish candidates for prime minister, from either the right or the left, because all of them lead Zionist parties that seek to preserve Jewish supremacy in Israel.

On the other hand, this latest electoral victory was - to a great extent - a referendum on the question of Netanyahu’s continued leadership, the end of which is sought more eagerly by Arab citizens in Israel than by any other constituency. And given Netanyahu’s increasingly unbridled incitement against Arab citizens over the course of his tenure in office, the yearning to put an end to his rule became the highest political priority. 

Dethroning Netanyahu

This dilemma sparked some trenchant discussion among the four parties comprising the Joint List, each with its own distinct political ideology. Ultimately (five days after the election, on 22 September), the Joint List recommended to the president that Gantz be named to form a government.

But the move was made with a heavy heart, based on the overriding need to do whatever was necessary to dethrone Netanyahu.

The Joint List's recommendation of Gantz as prime minister was made with a heavy heart, based on the overriding need to do whatever was necessary to dethrone Netanyahu

Balad, the Palestinian National Democratic party, remained opposed because of Gantz's bloody military record of Gantz when he served as Israeli army Chief of Staff between 2011 and 2015, and because of the likelihood that ultimately he will opt for a unity government that includes Likud and the far-right Lieberman. 

The decision by the Joint List was termed “historic” and duly applauded by many on the Jewish left in Israel. Bear in mind, however, that no such truly “democratic” celebration is possible in Israel, nor is there cause for such rejoicing.

The decision proves only one thing: The depth of the tragedy of Palestinian citizens of Israel, whose default choice was the man whose election campaign included boasting of having "returned Gaza to the Stone Age" during the Cast Lead war on Gaza (2008-09), who bragged about the massive numbers of Palestinians killed in that war and whose pronouncements show that he will not hesitate to do likewise again.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sits next to Benny Gantz, leader of the Blue and White party, on 22 September (Reuters)

The Joint List representatives also presented the president with a list of their demands, including among other things the annulment of the Nation State Law, an end to the demolition of the homes of Arab citizens and official status for villages without it, an end to the occupation, etc. – but in practice, the gesture is merely a formality.

The list of demands needs to be presented not to the president but to Gantz, who not only did not promise anything to the Arab members of Knesset in exchange for their recommendation, but continues to dodge any suggestion of negotiating or partnering with them. Gantz has trouble even pronouncing the word “Arabs”, preferring during the campaign to talk about "Jews and non-Jews".

No government participation

Meanwhile, we should note that a recommendation in favour of this or that candidate to be tasked to form a government does not reflect willingness to join that government. Certainly no one is contemplating such a possibility vis-à-vis Arab members of Knesset.

The Arab parties are voicing a historic refusal to join an Israeli government as a matter of principle

But to assist in bringing down Netanyahu's regime in favour of a government headed by Gantz, the Joint List is not required to join Gantz’s coalition. Besides their recommendation of Gantz to the president, the Joint List can theoretically be part of the Knesset's voting bloc on which Gantz’s government relies, without themselves being part of the government.

There is a precedent from 1993 when Shas left the Rabin government after Israel signed the Oslo Accords and the five Arab Knesset members, without actually joining the government themselves, were part of a voting bloc that enabled the government to remain in power. 

If this question comes up, there will naturally also be a question as to the price Gantz is willing to pay for such support by the Arab parties from outside his coalition. But this is not entirely about a quid pro quo; the Arab parties are voicing a historic refusal to join an the Israeli government as a matter of principle, and not merely because in any case a government with Arab ministers would be considered illegitimate by a substantial majority of the Jewish public in Israel.

Between fire and brimstone

The Arab Knesset members know that their presence in the Knesset lends legitimacy to a government that engages in institutionalised discrimination against them, but the implied liability in actually joining the government is another thing entirely.

In the Knesset, they can fight for the rights of the Arab minority and can oppose government policies whereas once they join the government, they are no longer the opposition, and the responsibility for Israeli policies falls on all members of the governing coalition.

Again, the question of Arab Knesset members’ inclusion in the government is not on the agenda, but nonetheless the Joint List has taken a dramatic step that alters the traditional political stance of Arab citizens of Israel. Arabs and Jews seeking greater political involvement on the part of Arab citizens lauded the decision and called it "historic".

And so it may be; but the hand of every Arab  legislator who voted for that decision must have trembled at the thought of its significance and of the responsibility thereby laid upon them when the day comes that Gantz, this time as prime minister, orchestrates another hellish massacre against the residents of Gaza.

In such an eventuality, those who applauded the decision today will presumably find it hard to live with their role - a not inconsiderable one - in having brought Gantz to power. The same dilemma naturally exists with regards to a Netanyahu regime, of course.

That’s how it is when you have to choose between fire and brimstone.

Orly Noy

Orly Noy is a political activist who has worked through frameworks including the Coalition of Women for Peace and the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow Coalition.

Netanyahu Rejoices as 3 Arab Leaders Retract Gantz Endorsements

A combination picture shows Blue and White party leader Benny 

Gantz and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. | Photo: Reuters

• Previous

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said Monday that now the recommendations from the Joint List will account for 10 endorsements, giving Netanyahu a lead by one recommendation.

Benjamin Netanyahu went ahead of Benny Gantz by one recommendation Monday after three Israeli-Palestinian politicians abstained from endorsing Gantz. 

The Joint List won 13 sears in Tuesday making it Knesset’s third-largest bloc. Their support gave Gantz 57 recommendations. However, three Arab politicians from Palestinian nationalist Balad party abstained. The Joint List, an alliance of Palestinian-Israeli parties announced Sunday they would endorse Blue and White’s Gantz. 

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said Monday that now the recommendations from the Joint List will account for 10 endorsements, giving Netanyahu a lead by one recommendation. 

Rivlin also said he called both leaders Monday for a closed-door talk to break the impasse. The president has to choose a prime minister by Oct. 2 who will then have six weeks to form a government. 

He is not obliged to pick Netanyahu but can choose whoever he thinks has the best chance to command a majority and form a government. Usually, it goes to the leader of the largest party but the close election result formed a deadlock. 

Rivlin suggested that Netanyahu and Gantz should form a unity government. However, when Netanyahu offered coalition last Thursday, Gantz rebuffed it. 

The Palestinian leaders said that they were not backing Gantz but rather attempting to topple Netanyahu, the longest-serving far-right prime minister of Israel who is facing three corruption charges. 

“We have become illegitimate in Israeli politics in the Netanyahu era,” the leader of the Joint List, Ayman Odeh, told Rivlin. “We are this time recommending Benny Gantz to form the next government.”

Ahmad Tibi, another Arab lawmaker said, “History is done: we’ll do what is needed to bring down Netanyahu.”

All Points Alert: Killer State at Large

Israeli forces shot dead Alaa Wahdan (28), near the Qalandiya checkpoint. (Photo: Video Grab)

By Jeremy Salt

The most important news coming out of occupied Palestine last week was not the blow delivered to Benyamin Netanyahu.  Netanyahu or Gantz, it will be business as usual, now that the elections are over: more attacks on Gaza, possibly a large-scale war on Gaza, possibly a war on Lebanon, or Iran, who would know, as Israel always has a profusion of targets.

No, the most important news was not the elections but the killing of a Palestinian woman in the West Bank, only a few days after a 10-year-old boy, Abd al Rahman Yasir Shtewi, had been shot in the head by a soldier near the northern West Bank village of Kafr Qaddum during a demonstration over the closure of an access road. He was taken to hospital in critical condition.   

The woman, Alaa Wahdan, was shot with an assault rifle as she walked towards a checkpoint near the Qalandiya refugee camp, built for refugees after the massacres and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Lydda and Ramle in 1948.

She was walking on the road, having missed the pedestrian lane allotted to the Palestinians. That was the crime for which she had to die. She was told to stop. According to the five heavily armed men who blocked her way, she pulled out a knife, a small yellow-handled thing photographed lying on the road. Alaa was five to seven meters away and the knife could have been knocked away with the butt of a gun but one of the armed men shot her instead, the bullet apparently severing an artery in her leg.   

Alaa fell to the road and was left there unattended for half an hour, bleeding to death. The Palestinian Red Crescent said it was prevented from attending to her. The soldiers watched her drag herself along the roadside on her front, the blood pouring out of her body, leaving a long, wide red stain behind her.  Not one of them made any attempt to comfort her or staunch the wound. They watched her bleed to death. They let her die, in line with unstated state policy.

Who Alaa was precisely, a mother, a sister, a daughter or an aunt, was of no interest to the occupiers. She was a down-page story in the media, not even worthy of being given a name, no more than the African ‘terrorists’ of the 1940s or 50s were worthy of being given a name by the British or French occupiers of their land who tortured and murdered them. In the words of Mickey Rosenfeld, the police gauleiter of occupied Jerusalem, she was no more than a “female terrorist” who was “injured moderately.” If this is so, Mr Rosenfeld, why did she die?   

In the background, while Alaa crawled along the road, her lifeblood draining away, the spivs, the thieves and the war criminals quarreled over who should be next to take over the occupation of Palestine. The choice was between Netanyahu and Gantz, the outcome of the elections so close that the ‘kingmaker’ will be Avigdor Lieberman, the Moldovan immigrant who arrived in Palestine when he was 20 and lives with his wife and children on Palestinian land in the settlement of Nokdim.

Like Menahim Begin in the 1970s, Lieberman was once regarded as a thug and fanatic who would never make it into the mainstream of Zionist politics but as the mainstream has shifted further right year by year it finally reached him.  He once advocated the bombing of the Aswan dam as a means of shutting up the Egyptians. He thinks the ‘Arab’ members of the Zionist ‘parliament’ are the allies of terrorists.  

He wants Muslim and Christian Palestinians to be required to swear an oath of loyalty to a state which has declared itself to be a Jewish, which has practically stripped them bare of all they possess and which plans to keep going until nothing is left.

His philosophy can be summed up in his own words: “Whoever is against us there’s nothing to do …. We have to lift up an axe and remove his head … otherwise we won’t be here.” The option of handing back part of what has been stolen as a means of making peace is not even within his realm of thinking.

As for Netanyahu, his campaigning was nakedly racist. He warned against an ‘Arab’ party ending up in government and his Likud party stationed cameras outside polling booths to intimidate Palestinians and prevent them from voting.  It didn’t work. They turned out in higher numbers than ever.  It is the measure of this individual’s vile nature that he wanted to attack Gaza either to win or postpone the elections, riding to eventual victory over the bodies of more dead Palestinian men, women and children.

Gantz got in his way, but only for the same electoral reason, because he also is a killer of Palestinians, and currently the subject of prosecution in the Netherlands for the bombing of an apartment building in Gaza in 2014 which killed six members of the same family.

As the Palestinians well know, it makes no difference which of the parties is in power because their policies – more war, more killing, more settlements, with annexation now only a few steps away – are all the same.

The pathology of the Zionists puts them beyond reason. They do not connect up with any laws or values except their own and trying to reason with them on the basis of international law and universal values is a waste of time, pebbles thrown against the side of a tank.

In 2013 Mehdi Hassan interviewed Dani Dayon as the centerpiece of an Oxford Union debate. Until recently Dayon was the head of the Yesha settler council.  Sitting in the front row, Ghada Karmi, born in Al Quds to a family that owns land on the West Bank taken over by foreign settlers like Dayon, had to endure the lies and delusions that flowed from this man’s mouth. Cutting through the arrogance and his smiling, self-assured attempts to deceive the audience, she told him what he actually was in her eyes and the eyes of the world –  a common thief.

There is no mystery about what has ‘happened’ in Palestine.  There is no ‘conflict of rights,’ ‘contested narratives’ or ‘disputed’ ownership. These are all propaganda phrases designed to conceal the indisputable reality.  From the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, Palestine has been stolen by people whose moral right to stay there can only be conferred on them by the people whose land they have stolen.  Had they ever accepted this principle, had they ever apologized for their crimes, had they agreed to share instead of wanting to take the lot, using all the brutal means at their disposal, this moral right could have been secured but they forfeited this possibility long ago, preferring endless war to the possibility of peace. There is no ‘two state’ solution in sight.  Add it to the list of myths still being purveyed. There is no solution in sight at all, at least not one based on rational discussion and the application of international.   

There is no statute of limitations here. The land was stolen and will remain stolen no matter how long the Zionists hold it.  There is no ‘land of Israel’.  There is no ‘Temple Mount’ and no ‘tomb of the patriarchs’ in Hebron.  These are all deceptions sitting atop a mountain of lies intended to bury the truth.  There is Palestine, there is the Haram al Sharif, the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron, where the settler state pogrom against the Palestinians continues without pause, and countless other sites on the map, all of them occupied and renamed.  Not a drop of water in the sea or a speck of sand on the beach belongs to the Zionists.  It has all been stolen.

As soon as the elections were over, ‘kingmaker’ Lieberman, leading the party of Russian ‘immigrants’ to an illegally occupied land, started stitching together a ‘national unity’ government. As excited or as preoccupied with the process as the Zionist population of Palestine might be, there is no prospect of change for the Palestinians except change for the worse.

Gantz is as much a warmonger as Netanyahu or Lieberman and as the Palestinians will continue to resist occupation of their land where and when they can, as is their natural right and their right under international law, more large-scale violence is only a matter of time. In their arrogance the Zionists are ignoring all the warning signs, the cries of ‘death to Israel’ from the Houthis, the tens of thousands of missiles in Hizbullah’s armory and the determination of Iran to defend itself and its allies. The Zionists can kick the Palestinians around, but not these powerful enemies, who have behind them the support for Palestine of Muslims everywhere, not to speak of the numerous defenders of Palestine and Palestinian rights in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and many other countries.

The Zionists came to the Middle East as a ‘rampart’ of ‘western civilisation’ and that is where they have remained, on the ramparts, behind the palisades, the fences and the wall, fencing others out and fencing themselves in. They wanted to be in the Middle East but not of the Middle East. It was beneath them. They hijacked those aspects of its culture that suited them but looked down with contempt on the rest and they still do.   

In any case, western domination was the accurate phrase, not western civilization.  The ‘west’ has never been civilized, not in the Middle East or in any other lands against which it went to war and occupied. Rather, it has been utterly barbaric, as the word is generally understood, and Zionism has been part of that barbarism.   

Not wanting to be part of the Middle East except on its own unacceptable terms, Zionism has to rely on powerful outside backers, a role currently filled by one of them, the United States.  However, will it always be there to give the Zionist state the support it demands, will it always be capable of giving it the support it demands, will it ultimately be willing to put its own life on the line for a small state far away that is held in contempt by much of the world, not for bad reasons but for perfectly understandable ones, and one that is held in contempt as well by an increasing number of Americans?

Only arrogance could be the reason for the willingness of the Zionists to stake their future on such uncertainties, when for a small price, except in their own greedy eyes, they could have secured their place in the Middle East long ago. There is one other reason for their confidence, though, and that is their possession of nuclear weapons.  At the worst, backs finally against the wall, they can take everyone down with them.

Take a serial killer out of the psychiatric ward, hand him a machine-gun and wait to see what happens.  That is the prospect ahead of the Middle East as long as the Zionist state remains a killer at large.

– Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years, specializing in the modern history of the Middle East. Among his recent publications is his 2008 book, The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (University of California Press). He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Israelis have shown Netanyahu the door. Can he inflict more damage before he exits?

by Jonathan Cook

Nazareth: For most Israelis, the general election on Tuesday was about one thing and one thing only. Not the economy, nor the occupation, nor even corruption scandals. It was about Benjamin Netanyahu. Should he head yet another far-right government, or should his 10-year divisive rule come to an end?

Barring a last-minute upset as the final ballot papers are counted, Israelis have made their verdict clear: Netanyahu’s time is up.

In April’s inconclusive election, which led to this re-run, Netanyahu’s Likud party tied with its main opponent in the Blue and White party, led by retired general Benny Gantz. This time Gantz appears to have nudged ahead, with 33 seats to Netanyahu’s 31 in the 120-member parliament. Both parties fared worse than they did in April, when they each secured 35 seats.

But much more significantly, Netanyahu appears to have fallen short of the 61-seat majority he needs to form yet another far-right government comprising settler and religious parties.

His failure is all the more glaring, given that he conducted by far the ugliest – and most reckless – campaign in Israeli history. That was because the stakes were sky-high.

Only a government of the far-right – one entirely beholden to Netanyahu – could be relied on to pass legislation guaranteeing him immunity from a legal process due to begin next month. Without it, he is likely to be indicted on multiple charges of fraud and breach of trust.

So desperate was Netanyahu to avoid that fate, according to reports published in the Israeli media on election day, that he was only a hair’s breadth away from launching a war on Gaza last week as a way to postpone the election.

Israel’s chief law officer, attorney general Avichai Mendelblit, stepped in to halt the attack when he discovered the security cabinet had approved it only after Netanyahu concealed the army command’s major reservations.

Netanyahu also tried to bribe right-wing voters by promising last week that he would annex much of the West Bank immediately after the election – a stunt that blatantly violated campaigning laws, according to Mendelblit.

Facebook was forced to shut down Netanyahu’s page on two occasions for hate speech – in one case after it sent out a message that “Arabs want to annihilate us all – women, children and men”. That sentiment appeared to include the 20 per cent of the Israeli population who are Palestinian citizens.

Netanyahu incited against the country’s Palestinian minority in other ways, not least by constantly suggesting that their votes constituted fraud and that they were trying to “steal the election”.

He even tried to force through a law allowing his Likud party activists to film in Arab polling stations – as they covertly did in April’s election – in an unconcealed attempt at voter intimidation.

The move appeared to have backfired, with Palestinian citizens turning out in larger numbers than they did in April.

US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, intervened on Netanyahu’s behalf by announcing the possibility of a defence pact requiring the US to come to Israel’s aid in the event of a regional confrontation.

None of it helped.

Netanayhu’s only hope of political survival – and possible avoidance of jail time – depends on his working the political magic he is famed for.

That may prove a tall order. To pass the 61-seat threshold, he must persuade Avigdor Lieberman and his ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party to support him.

Netanyahu and Lieberman, who is a settler, are normally ideological allies. But these are not normal times. Netanyahu had to restage the election this week after Lieberman, sensing the prime minister’s weakness, refused in April to sit alongside religious parties in a Netanyahu-led government.

Netanyahu might try to lure the fickle Lieberman back with an irresistible offer, such as the two of them rotating the prime ministership.

But Lieberman risks huge public opprobrium if, after putting the country through a deeply unpopular re-run election, he now does what he refused on principle to do five months ago.

Lieberman increased his party’s number of seats to eight by insisting that he is the champion of the secular Israeli public.

Most importantly for Lieberman, he finds himself once again in the role of kingmaker. It is almost certain he will shape the character of the next government. And whoever he anoints as prime minister will be indebted to him.

The deadlock that blocked the formation of a government in April still stands. Israel faces the likelihood of weeks of frantic horse-trading and even the possibility of a third election.

Nonetheless, from the perspective of Palestinians – whether those under occupation or those living in Israel as third-class citizens – the next Israeli government is going to be a hardline right one.

On paper, Gantz is best placed to form a government of what is preposterously labelled the “centre-left”. But given that its backbone will comprise Blue and White, led by a bevy of hawkish generals, and Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu, it would, in practice, be nearly as right wing as Netanyahu’s.

Gantz even accused Netanyahu of stealing his idea in announcing last week that he would annex large parts of the West Bank.

The difficulty is that such a coalition would depend on the support of the 13 Joint List legislators representing Israel’s large Palestinian minority. That is something Lieberman has rejected out of hand, calling the idea “absurd” early on Wednesday as results were filtering in. Gantz appears only a little more accommodating.

The solution could be a national unity government comprising much of the right: Gantz’s Blue and White teamed up with Likud and Lieberman. Both Gantz and Lieberman indicated that was their preferred choice on Wednesday.

The question then would be whether Netanyahu can worm his way into such a government, or whether Gantz demands his ousting as a price for Likud’s inclusion.

Netanyahu’s hand in such circumstances would not be strong, especially if he is immersed in a protracted legal battle on corruption charges. There are already rumblings of an uprising in Likud to depose him.

One interesting outcome of a unity government is that it could provoke a constitutional crisis by making the Joint List, the third-largest party, the official opposition. That is the same Joint List described by Netanyahu as a “dangerous anti-Zionist” party.

Ayman Odeh would become the first leader of the Palestinian minority to attend regular briefings by the prime minister and security chiefs.

Netanyahu will continue as caretaker prime minister for several more weeks – until a new government is formed. If he stays true to form, there is plenty of mischief he can instigate in the meantime.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net

The War Ahead: Netanyahu’s Elections Gamble Will be Costly for Israel

Ramzy Baroud

On September 1, the Lebanese group Hezbollah struck an Israeli military base near the border town of Avivim. The Lebanese attack came as an inevitable response to a series of Israeli strikesthat targeted four different Arab countries in two days.

The Lebanese response, accompanied by jubilation throughout Lebanon, shows that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may have overplayed his cards. However, for Netanyahu, it was a worthy gamble, as the Israeli leader is desperate for any new political capital that could shield him against increasingly emboldened contenders in the country’s September 17 general elections.

An Israeli soldier stands guard near the border with Lebanon on 4 December 2018 [Amir Levy/Getty Images]

A fundamental question that could influence any analysis of the decision to strike Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza is whether the strategy originated from the Israeli government or the limited personal calculations of Netanyahu himself. I contend that the latter is true.

Israel has already violated the sovereignty of all of these regions, bombing some of them hundreds of times in the past, but striking all at once is unprecedented. Since neither Israel nor its US allies offered any convincing military logic behind the campaign, there can be no other conclusion that the objectives were entirely political.

One obvious sign that the attacks were meant to benefit Netanyahu, and Netanyahu only, is the fact that the Israeli Prime Minister violated an old Israeli protocol of staying mum following this type of cross-border violence. It is also uncommon for top Israeli officials to brag about their country’s intelligence outreach and military capabilities. Israel, for example, has bombed Syriahundreds of times in recent years, yet rarely taken responsibility for any of these attacks.

Compare this with Netanyahu’s remarks following the two-day strikes of August 24-25. Only minutes after the Israeli strikes, Netanyahu hailed the army’s “major operational effort”, declaringthat “Iran has no immunity anywhere.”

Regarding the attack on the southeast region of Aqraba in Syria, Netanyahu went into detail, describing the nature of the target and the identities of the enemy as well.

Two of the Hezbollah fighters killed in Syria were identified by the Israeli army, which distributed their photographs while allegedly travelling on the Iranian airline, Mahan “which Israel and the United States have identified as a major transporter of weaponry and materiel to Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon,” according to the Times of Israel.

Why would Israel go to this extent, which will surely help the targeted countries in uncovering some of Israel’s intelligence sources?

The Economist revealed that “some … in Israel’s security and political establishments are uncomfortable” with Netanyahu’s tireless extolling of “Israel’s intelligence-gathering and operational successes in surprising detail.”

The explanation lies in one single phrase: the September 17 elections.

In recent months, Netanyahu has finally managed to wrestle the title: the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister, a designation that the Israeli leader has earned, despite his checkered legacy dotted with abuse of power, self-serving agenda and several major corruption cases that rope in Netanyahu directly, along with his wife and closest aides.

Israel’s first prime minister David Ben Gurion

Yet, it remains unclear whether Netanyahu can hang on for much longer. Following the April 9 elections, the embattled Israeli leader tried to form a government of like-minded right-wing politicians butfailed. It was this setback that pushed for the dissolution of the Israeli Knesset on May 29 and the call for a new election. While Israeli politics is typically turbulent, holding two general elections within such a short period of time is very rare, and, among other things, it demonstrates Netanyahu’s faltering grip on power.

Equally important is that, for the first time in years, Netanyahu and his Likud party are facing real competition. These rivals, led by Benjamin Gantz of the Blue and White (Kahol Lavan) centrist party are keen on denying Netanyahu’s every possible constituency, including his own pro-illegal settlements and pro-war supporters.

Statements made by Gantz in recent months are hardly consistent with the presumed ideological discourse of the political center, anywhere. The former Chief of General Staff of the Israeli army is a strong supporter of illegal Jewish settlements and an avid promoter of war on Gaza. Last June, Gantz went as far as accusing Netanyahu of “diminishing Israel’s deterrence” policy in Gaza, which “is being interpreted by Iran as a sign of weakness.”

In fact, the terms “weak” or “weakness” have been ascribed repeatedly to Netanyahu by his political rivals, including top officials within his own right-wing camp. The man who has staked his reputation on tough personal or unhindered violence in the name of Israeli security is now struggling to protect his image.

This analysis does not in any way discount the regional and international objectives of Netanyahu’s calculations, leading amongst them his desire to stifle any political dialogue between Tehran and Washington, an idea that began taking shape at the G7 summit in Biarritz, France. But even that is insufficient to offer a rounded understanding of Netanyahu’s motives, especially because the Israeli leader is wholly focused on his own survival, as opposed to future regional scenarios.

However, the “Mr Security” credentials that Netanyahu aimed to achieve by bombing multiple targets in four countries might not yield the desired dividends. Israeli media is conveying a sense of panic among Israelis, especially those living in the northern parts of the country and in illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Golan Heights.

This is hardly the strong and mighty image that Netanyahu was hoping to convey through his military gamble. None of the thousands of Israelis who are currently being trained on surviving Lebanese retaliations are particularity reassured regarding the power of their country.

Netanyahu is, of course, not the first Israeli leader to use the military to achieve domestic political ends. Late Israeli leader, Shimon Peres, has done so in 1996 but failed miserably, but only after killing over 100 Lebanese and United Nations peacekeepers in the Southern Lebanese village of Qana.

The consequences of Netanyahu’s gamble might come at a worse price for him than simply losing the elections. Opening a multi-front war is a conflict that Israel cannot win, at least, not any more.