Middle East
GDN Online App available on
App Store / Play Store
Gulf Daily News Gulf Daily News
Gulf Daily News Gulf Daily News Gulf Daily News Gulf Daily News Gulf Daily News
Tuesday, July 14, 2020 ARCHIVES  |  SEARCH  |  POST ADS  |  ADVERTISE  |  SUBSCRIBE   |  LOGIN   |  CONTACT US

All wishful thinking...

By Dr James J Zogby

Much to the consternation of Western liberals, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take the first crack at assembling a new government. Their concern is both misplaced and mistaken. Misplaced, because the odds are slim that Netanyahu will be able to form a government. And mistaken, because their hope that a victory for Benny Gantz would help undo the damage done to Israel’s image among Democrats is wishful thinking.

While Gantz’s Blue-White party edged out Netanyahu’s Likud party, winning 33 seats in the next Knesset as compared with Likud’s 32, because Netanyahu’s bid to form a government has been supported by a larger number of Knesset Members (55 to Gantz’s 54), he was the one tapped to cobble together a governing coalition of 61 Members.

What’s clear from this election is that Israel has moved so far to the right, no one should expect any significant change in Israeli policy towards the occupation or Palestinian human rights. And because it is precisely Israeli policy that is the determinant factor behind the US’ deep partisan divide towards Israel, that will not change either.

This being the case, when the New York Times editorialises, as they did below, it’s more liberal wishful thinking than fact-based analysis:

“At the same time, elements of the Democratic party have grown increasingly suspicious of Israel, if not hostile to it. Mr Netanyahu’s exit, should it materialise, may halt this dangerous shift and provide a new Israeli government the opportunity to reclaim broad bipartisan support in the United States.”

Much the same came from a US-based Democratic pollster who worked for Blue and White when he breathlessly proclaimed that the post-Netanyahu period would be “a tremendous opportunity for Israel to reset its relationship with Democrats.”

Before I allow my liberal friends to indulge themselves in more fantasy, it’s important for them to consider two critical facts:

First, all of the prospective contenders to the post of prime minister share similar approaches to the occupied territories. All will: continue settlement expansion; insist on maintaining control over the Jordan Valley and extending Israeli sovereignty to this area and many of “settlement blocs”; maintain the annexation of what Israeli’s refer to as “East Jerusalem”; and keep the strangulation hold over Gaza. In fact, some of the positions of Benny Gantz, “the liberals’ hope,” are more harsh than those of Netanyahu.

Second, while the Democratic Party’s establishment, including the majority of its Congressional delegation, will be inclined to welcome the downfall of Netanyahu for several reasons, the views of the Democrat’s voter base are not so wobbly as that of their leaders. “Liberal” Members remain upset at Netanyahu’s: opposition to Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran; his illiberal alliance with Israel’s ultra-religious parties; and his virtual “marriage” with Donald Trump.

While these matters have contributed to the US partisan divide, the major factors driving Democratic voters attitudes towards Israel have more to do with the very policies that all major parties in Israel will continue to pursue – the very policies that the Democratic establishment appears loathe to condemn.

The bottom line here is that while the attitudes of liberal media and political establishments towards Israel may be shaped by their animus towards the person of Benjamin Netanyahu, it is the polices pursued by the Israeli government that are driving voter attitudes. So, unless a new Israeli government ends its abusive behaviour towards Palestinians and their rights, the partisan split will continue. The result may be a growing divide not only between large segments of American society and Israel, but also between the base of the Democratic Party’s voters and their leaders. This is why a number of leading contenders for Democratic Party’s presidential nomination – Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg – have begun to speak, albeit hesitantly about conditioning aid to Israel on its behaviour in the occupied lands.

Back in 1992, the presidential campaign of then-candidate Bill Clinton operated with the mantra “it’s the economy, stupid” – in order to be constantly reminded of the importance of that issue in the election. Borrowing from that, I would offer this mantra to my liberal friends: “It’s Israeli policy (not personalities), stupid.”

You Might Like