Though the left-leaning Kadima party -- led by Tzipi Livni -- won the election by a single seat, the right-leaning Likud party -- led by Benjamin Netanyahu -- made huge gains. When you add in the composition of the smaller parties, it is much more likely that Netanyahu will have a better chance of putting together a cohesive ruling coalition to govern Israel than Livni. The key was the endorsement of Avigdor Lieberman, the distant third-place finisher in the election.
Livni's popularity has suffered through her willingness to trade land for peace with the likes of Hamas or the Palestinians, a tactic that has failed to work every time it has been tried in the past. The Kadima party has even gone so far as to suggest a rotating Prime Minister-ship, but Netanyahu has rejected the idea. In this time of danger and increased radical Islamic terrorism, a scattered and weak leadership structure is really not what Israel needs. Given that Livni has no chance of forming a stable coalition, Netanyahu is calling on her to fall in line behind his coalition to unite the nation.
It looks likely that Livni will declare Kadima an opposition party, thus weaking Netanyahu's governing coalition, though she is powerless to really prevent Netanyahu from gaining control with his coalition. Despite this, Netanyahu has publicly pledged to invite Kadima members into prominent roles in his coalition if they fall in with him.
The reason this leadership role is so critical is that Livni and Netanyahu share very different opinions on how to handle Gaza, the Palestinians, Iran, and other terrorist-related issues. Netanyahu is much more of a hardliner, and will probably take a harder stance on potential dangers, such as Iran going nuclear. With a center-right coalition led by Netanyahu, Israel will be far more likely to act unilaterally to prevent Iran from getting the bomb than if Livni were in charge. Israel seems to be tiring of the continuous attacks from their supposedly peaceful neighbors in Palestine, which is why the right-wing parties attracted much more support this time around. Those same right-wing parties will be much more protective of Israel, but that presents another set of problems in regard to the U.S.
As you may or may not know, President Obama is working hard to court Iran, pledging to talk with them, grant them concessions, and basically fawn all over them to make them play nice. Naturally, this is a very disturbing signal for Israel, who understands that it is they who will probably receive Iran's first nuclear bomb. If they feel that they have lost the backing of the U.S., they may be even more likely to act unilaterally; even worse, if they do so, Obama may very well risk alienating our ally Israel in order to handle Iran with kid gloves. All it would take is for the U.S. to refuse to intervene, and Israel would be on its own against every one of its neighbors.
Another sign of a potential rift between the Obama administration and Israel is that Obama recently sent a delegation to the Durban II conference. Billed as a U.N. gathering to denounce racism, the first conference in 2001 became nothing more than an anti-Semitic hate-fest. The U.S. delegation literally walked out. Though the E.U., Iran, and other delegations refuse to water down their anti-Israeli language carried over from the first conference, Obama still decided to send a delegation to this new one. As Peggy Shapiro puts it:
Getting the Klu Klux Klan to renounce racism is an effort defeated before it begins. Yet any student of history knows that the U.S. is engaged in just such a losing game and that it has been played before.All of these things point toward a deliberate weakening of the U.S.-Israel relationship at a time when Israel is facing increased danger and may have just found the spine to act unilaterally in their own best interests.
Durban I was a stage for anti-Semitism and vitriolic condemnation of Israel and Israel alone. No other country was chastised for acts of racism, not even Darfur, where the genocide continues. Israel was the only country which was criticized and the criticism included even its right to exist as a Jewish nation.
What will make Durban II any better? Nothing. ... Plans for Durbin II have been underway for several years, and a last minute proposal by the U.S. may, at best, remove one or two inflammatory passages but not the core purpose of the event: promoting anti-Semitism.
Durbin II is likely to be worse than Durbin I.
While I heartily support Israel and find it offensive for Obama to change a long-standing American foreign policy especially when so much is at stake, it is hard to escape the conclusion that many of the events we see are leading up to another explosive war in the Middle East. Exactly what that will be remains to be seen - hopefully it will remain a mystery because tensions will ease over some new method of achieving peace, but only time will tell.
Pay attention to this - it will have global ramifications.
There's my two cents.
Sources:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022889.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496286,00.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aofgj1Q0vkEg&refer=worldwide
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/tzipi-livni-says-israel-must-give-up.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/israel_after_the_election.html
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2009/02/winning_iran_losing_israel.html
http://minx.cc/?post=283138
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmM5OWRhZjVjMzNlM2M0NmFiMGU5NTMzODU1NDYzNmE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/us_at_durban_ii_a_dangerous_ga.html
No comments:
Post a Comment