Netanyahu & the Evolution of Likud
By Timothy Collins
Not surprisingly Benjamin Netanyahu's heavily qualified endorsement of the two-state solution prompted scorn and ridicule from Palestinian and Arab quarters. In Israel, many considered the prime minister's offer of a future Palestinian state a generous one.
But to characterise Netanyahu's endorsement of Palestinian statehood in his address last Sunday at Bar-Ilan University as either farcical or magnanimous is to miss the historic significance of the moment.
Granted, Netanyahu vetoed both a Palestinian military and Palestinian sovereignty over its airspace, staked Israel's claim to an 'undivided'Jerusalem as its capital, and demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But seen in the context of Likud's ideological evolution over the past several decades - and notwithstanding Netanyahu's unwarranted reiteration of his belief that the West Bank and Gaza are part the Jewish peoples ancestral homeland - the PM's de facto abandonment of Jewish claims to Eretz Yirsael represents a sea of change in Likud thought.
Therefore, if one considers Likud's proven capacity for change it is possible to see Netanyahu's grudging endorsement of Palestinian statehood as an opportunity, not an obstacle. After all, this is the leader of the party that inherited the uncompromising ideology of the Herut Party before it and, prior to that, Vladimir Jabotinsky's Beitar movement. In other words, Netanyahu was, prior to last Sunday at least, a staunch guardian of the tradition that considers it the inalienable right of the Jewish people to all of Eretz Yisrael (as opposed to Medinat Yisrael, or the State of Israel.)
What transpired last Sunday then was the ultimate discrediting of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his ideological disciples. But this was no sudden or clean break with tradition. The notion of Eretz Yisrael has long been considered a duality in Likud circles: part abstract ideal, part policy goal. However, the forces of politics have been steadily encroaching on Likud's ideology and eroding that duality. The first major blow to Likud ideology was self-inflicted - dealt by the party's support of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty. Thereafter, talk of a Jewish state on both banks of the Jordan could not be taken seriously.
But peace with the Palestinians will require an even greater departure from the party's foundations and so the question being asked by many prior to Netanyahu's address last Sunday was simple: Will Likud finally abandon its anachronistic Greater Israel ideology?
Though straining under the weight of his many caveats, Netanyahu answered, not surprisingly, in the affirmative. After all, it has been clear for years that members of the Likud Central Committee are not only open to the peace process, but also willing to compromise on territory. It was only a matter of time before these internal realities came to bear on Netanyahu's decision-making. And then there is the matter of public opinion in Israel.
Many Israelis simply do not buy the fatalistic assumptions rooted in Likud lore that see peace with the Gentiles as an unattainable end. While Yitzhak Shamir's contention that - we are here in the Middle East and not on safe shores - may have struck a chord in 1991, today the Israeli electorate is hip to the fact that its neighbors have, at various times since, been more willing partners for peace than Israel has. Therefore, if Netanyahu wished to remain a viable political actor he was going to have to get behind President Obama's peace effort sooner rather than later.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak had other reasons for urging Netanyahu to get on the peace train. Speaking to the Council for Peace and Security in Ramat Gan the week before the PM's highly anticipated address, Barak opined that it would be a mistake for Netanyahu to stand in the way of the U.S. President achieving his peace objectives. If Israel refused to accept the two-state solution, Barak argued, it would soon find itself an apartheid state, or one where Arabs outnumbered Jews.
It is demography, therefore, that will almost certainly lead to changes in Likud policy. Though it was once fashionable in Likud circles to proclaim 'time is on our side,' the rapidly changing demographics within Israel will likely convince Likud's leaders that time is in fact fast running out - at least if it remains Likud's desire for Israel to remain a 'Jewish' state.
It is no secret that the views of Arab Israelis are radicalizing. Fewer and fewer Arab Israelis recognize Israel's right to exist as a 'Jewish' state, and there is less support among them for Israel's right to exist at all than there was only a few years ago. Add to that the distinct likelihood that the Arab population of Israel will exceed 20 percent of the total by 2020 - and 40 percent of the total population of Jerusalem - and one begins to see why significant changes in Likud policy and, as a consequence, progress on the peace front are likely.
Abandoning Israel's claims to Eretz Yisrael was an important step in the right direction. And given Netanyahu's apparent grasp of the prevailing zeitgeist, there is no reason to think that the PM's grudging endorsement of Palestinian statehood was the final stop on the Likud Party's path to enlightenment. If current trends in the United States and the Holy Land persist, Likud will be compelled to alter the means with which it pursued its recently relinquished end. Next stop: settlements.
SOURCE
Not surprisingly Benjamin Netanyahu's heavily qualified endorsement of the two-state solution prompted scorn and ridicule from Palestinian and Arab quarters. In Israel, many considered the prime minister's offer of a future Palestinian state a generous one.
But to characterise Netanyahu's endorsement of Palestinian statehood in his address last Sunday at Bar-Ilan University as either farcical or magnanimous is to miss the historic significance of the moment.
Granted, Netanyahu vetoed both a Palestinian military and Palestinian sovereignty over its airspace, staked Israel's claim to an 'undivided'Jerusalem as its capital, and demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But seen in the context of Likud's ideological evolution over the past several decades - and notwithstanding Netanyahu's unwarranted reiteration of his belief that the West Bank and Gaza are part the Jewish peoples ancestral homeland - the PM's de facto abandonment of Jewish claims to Eretz Yirsael represents a sea of change in Likud thought.
Therefore, if one considers Likud's proven capacity for change it is possible to see Netanyahu's grudging endorsement of Palestinian statehood as an opportunity, not an obstacle. After all, this is the leader of the party that inherited the uncompromising ideology of the Herut Party before it and, prior to that, Vladimir Jabotinsky's Beitar movement. In other words, Netanyahu was, prior to last Sunday at least, a staunch guardian of the tradition that considers it the inalienable right of the Jewish people to all of Eretz Yisrael (as opposed to Medinat Yisrael, or the State of Israel.)
What transpired last Sunday then was the ultimate discrediting of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his ideological disciples. But this was no sudden or clean break with tradition. The notion of Eretz Yisrael has long been considered a duality in Likud circles: part abstract ideal, part policy goal. However, the forces of politics have been steadily encroaching on Likud's ideology and eroding that duality. The first major blow to Likud ideology was self-inflicted - dealt by the party's support of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty. Thereafter, talk of a Jewish state on both banks of the Jordan could not be taken seriously.
But peace with the Palestinians will require an even greater departure from the party's foundations and so the question being asked by many prior to Netanyahu's address last Sunday was simple: Will Likud finally abandon its anachronistic Greater Israel ideology?
Though straining under the weight of his many caveats, Netanyahu answered, not surprisingly, in the affirmative. After all, it has been clear for years that members of the Likud Central Committee are not only open to the peace process, but also willing to compromise on territory. It was only a matter of time before these internal realities came to bear on Netanyahu's decision-making. And then there is the matter of public opinion in Israel.
Many Israelis simply do not buy the fatalistic assumptions rooted in Likud lore that see peace with the Gentiles as an unattainable end. While Yitzhak Shamir's contention that - we are here in the Middle East and not on safe shores - may have struck a chord in 1991, today the Israeli electorate is hip to the fact that its neighbors have, at various times since, been more willing partners for peace than Israel has. Therefore, if Netanyahu wished to remain a viable political actor he was going to have to get behind President Obama's peace effort sooner rather than later.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak had other reasons for urging Netanyahu to get on the peace train. Speaking to the Council for Peace and Security in Ramat Gan the week before the PM's highly anticipated address, Barak opined that it would be a mistake for Netanyahu to stand in the way of the U.S. President achieving his peace objectives. If Israel refused to accept the two-state solution, Barak argued, it would soon find itself an apartheid state, or one where Arabs outnumbered Jews.
It is demography, therefore, that will almost certainly lead to changes in Likud policy. Though it was once fashionable in Likud circles to proclaim 'time is on our side,' the rapidly changing demographics within Israel will likely convince Likud's leaders that time is in fact fast running out - at least if it remains Likud's desire for Israel to remain a 'Jewish' state.
It is no secret that the views of Arab Israelis are radicalizing. Fewer and fewer Arab Israelis recognize Israel's right to exist as a 'Jewish' state, and there is less support among them for Israel's right to exist at all than there was only a few years ago. Add to that the distinct likelihood that the Arab population of Israel will exceed 20 percent of the total by 2020 - and 40 percent of the total population of Jerusalem - and one begins to see why significant changes in Likud policy and, as a consequence, progress on the peace front are likely.
Abandoning Israel's claims to Eretz Yisrael was an important step in the right direction. And given Netanyahu's apparent grasp of the prevailing zeitgeist, there is no reason to think that the PM's grudging endorsement of Palestinian statehood was the final stop on the Likud Party's path to enlightenment. If current trends in the United States and the Holy Land persist, Likud will be compelled to alter the means with which it pursued its recently relinquished end. Next stop: settlements.
SOURCE
Comments