The political mechanisms and machinery of Israel are reflective, and perhaps indicative, of the complexity and internal contradictions of Israeli society. This reflection is evident in the latest political embroilment that has shaken the Israeli government to its roots. Notwithstanding the current collapse of the National Unity coalition government, political crises have surfaced in the past year, which threatened the vitality of the Sharon government and changed the dynamic of his dominant Likud party. Emerging from these crises is an imminent internal political confrontation (within Likud) between Sharon and former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, which could potentially culminate in earlier than anticipated ministerial elections in 2003. With the collapse of the coalition government, political tensions within the Likud party and the uncertainties that face the Sharon government will reveal themselves in the upcoming weeks and months.

Political infighting within the Likud and the coalition government has proved to be a direct barrier to meaningful steps toward resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the enduring Palestinian suffering since the commencement of the al-Aqsa Intifada on September 28, 2000. With a hawkish Israeli electorate, largely unwilling to revert to the Rabin/Peres approach, a return to the left is unlikely.

The future of the Israeli leadership and the prospects for peace will likely remain in the hands of the Likud party, under the auspices of Ariel Sharon or Binyamin Netanyahu. Furthermore, as the Likud forges a dangerous alliance with the extreme right, the result can only deepen the rift between Palestinians and Israelis, and contribute further to the marginalization of the Palestinian people. 

The Ascension of Sharon and the Likud: The Death of an Era

Ariel Sharon’s ascension to power as Prime Minister was sinisterly calculated to undermine significant developments in the dynamics of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, developments that had culminated in talks between Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Chairman Yasser Arafat.

Sharon’s now infamous march on al-Haram al-Shariff sparked the current al-Aqsa Intifada. He became the embodiment and the new symbol of the Likud, an old warrior who viewed negotiated “concessions” as detrimental to the security of Israel. His “security” platform propelled him to the position of Prime Minister, for which he captured 59.5% of the vote on February 6, 2001.¹

Within the Likud, however, Sharon’s candidacy was challenged by “Bibi” Netanyahu. The linchpin in Sharon’s success was Netanyahu’s withdrawal approximately one month before the election. Netanyahu withdrew from the ministerial candidacy based on the Knesset’s failure and refusal to dissolve itself in order to call for new parliamentary elections, thus paving the way for Ariel Sharon as the next Prime Minister.

The victory of the Likud and Sharon effectively signalled the unequivocal voidance of a decade’s worth of confidence building measures between Palestinians and Israelis, from the formulation of the Oslo protocols through the Camp David talks and the protocols of Sharm al-Sheikh. The Likud’s zealous commitment to Israel’s unqualified security formed an iron curtain insulating Israel from its obligations, set forth pursuant to bilateral agreements reached with the Palestinians, as well as obligations set forth by international law. Since Sharon’s ascendancy, Palestinians have been subject to unprecedented suffering and degradation. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have incurred debilitating human losses due to the politics of the Likud and the coalition government. 

The Likud Crisis: May 13, 2002

On May 13, 2002, the Likud party, following the exploits of “Operation Defensive Shield,” dealt a crushing blow to prospects for peace and to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, thus resetting the political stage between Sharon and Netanyahu.

During a Likud conference, much to the “dismay” of Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu and co. voted “aye” on a resolution to reject the prospect a of future Palestinian state. Ariel Sharon (who has made the statement that a “Palestinian state is inevitable”) had attempted to forestall such a resolution in order to deflect international criticism. Netanyahu blasted Sharon, and reiterated the Likud’s opposition to the formation of a Palestinian state: “This must be clear- there will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river because that would be a deadly threat to Israel.” Sharon, humiliated by his party, urged members of the Likud that it was not prudent to make such a declaration at that time: “Any decision taken today on the final [status] agreement is dangerous to the state of Israel and will only intensify the pressures on us.”

The Likud has officially stated in the Likud Party Platform that it opposes the creation of an independent state and that:

A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration.²

Netanyahu’s assertion that there will not be a “Palestinian state west of the Jordan river” is not in the same spirit of the language of the Likud Party Platform, although it reflects the actual beliefs and practice of the party. The Party Platform statement regarding the declaration of a Palestinian state evinces a concern for adherence to the Oslo and Wye accords. The concern is transparent. Netanyahu has stated that: “Oslo is dead; Arafat buried it. We are no longer obligated to any part of the Oslo Accords.”³ 

The Likud’s rebuke of Palestinian self-determination and future statehood was a clear embarrassment to Sharon, who is, and has been, under international scrutiny. Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erakat responded: “Much has been unmasked. This just shows that the war being waged by Israel against the Palestinians is not a war against what they call terror, it’s really their war to maintain the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.”⁴ The vote, if anything, publicly unmasked the true divisiveness of the Likud, and its resolve to continue its war of aggression against the Palestinians.

In an October 25^th poll issued by International Media Review Analysis (IMRA), 500 members of the Likud party were asked: “If the candidates for chairmanship of the Likud and prime minister were Ariel Sharon and Binyamin Netanyahu who would you vote for?” Forty-six percent of Likud members indicated that they would vote for Netanyahu, and 42% would have voted for Sharon.⁵

The current dissolution crisis of the Knesset may help Sharon achieve a tactical leverage over his Likud opposition in Netanyahu. According to the Jerusalem Post, Reuven Rivlin, Sharon’s Communication Minister, noted: “Rather than deal with extortion every time a no-confidence motion is raised, Rivlin said Sharon intends to call for elections as early as possible, which he predicted would also help him in his challenge from former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.”⁶

The New Likud: Moshe Feiglin and “Jewish Leadership”

The October internal election results for the Likud Central Committee indicate the formation of a dangerous relationship with the extreme right, with the Likud pre-imminent. Moshe Feiglin, of Manhigut Yehudit or “Jewish Leadership,” has introduced an entire Jewish fundamentalist element to Likud.

Manhigut Yehudit, in Likud’s internal elections, captured 125 seats of Likud’s Central Committee, a staggering number. Its objectives are clear: the establishment of an ultra-orthodox religious Jewish State, and the elimination of the Palestinian people. The Party Policy Lines set out the need for the realization of a religious Jewish State guided by the Torah: “The Jewish State will initiate, support, and encourage institutions of Torah learning of all kinds, for both the religious and non-religious population -- equally and in accordance with standards of proper government -- with the sole requirement that in these institutions there will not be any known, anti-Torah efforts.” ⁷ In its list of proposals to the already harsh and damning provisions of the Likud Charter, the following have been proposed:

To immediately apply Israeli sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and Gaza and to accelerate settlement of these regions.

To abrogate the Oslo agreements and to kill the murderers and those who send them, headed by their leader, Arafat.

To enforce practices of war against the Palestinian enemy: to prevent trading of any kind, or aid, supplies, or help being given to the enemy until they surrender all their weapons, hand over all the terrorists amongst them, and recognize Israeli sovereignty over its homeland.

To immediately legislate a basic law that will determine the status of settlements in Eretz Israel whose residents are not Israeli citizens…

To provide financial and political aid to Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza who wish to flee from the disaster that their terrorist leadership has brought upon them and start a new life in distant countries.⁸

Furthermore, Feiglan and Manhigut have essentially called for the destruction of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, including the al-Aqsa Masjid and the mosque at al-Haram al-Shariff:

We undertake to banish any foreign power which tries to gain hold in Jerusalem, such as the Moslem Wakf, the PLO “police,” “Palestinian” institutions, and the like. Authorization will be given to establish foreign embassies in the capitol only. We shall foster Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount in the proper spirit of “awe of the Mikdash” and build a synagogue and a study hall for the Sandhedrin on the Temple Mount, where permitted by Halacha. Laws regulating the arrangements on the Temple Mount shall be passed and enforced. Jewish homes and properties, which were seized during the War of Independence, shall be returned to their owners, or to Jewish hands. We undertake to accelerate the purchase of properties that are not owned by Jews and to encourage Jews to remain in and to move to Jerusalem. Unlawful building by Arabs shall be halted and demolition orders shall be enforced.⁹ [Italics added]

Both Ariel Sharon and Binyamin Netanyahu are keenly aware of the implications of the recent internal elections. According to the American Zionist Network, Sharon congratulated Feiglin from the United States on his visit to President Bush, and inquired about the possibility of a future meeting, with Netanyahu following suit. Bearing in mind that this faction is not independent and is becoming a strategically important faction of the Likud, it is clear that Likud will not be a partner for negotiation or peace.

Sharon: Dissolution of the Knesset

With the collapse of the government, new election for members of the Knesset may be held within ninety days. The dissolution arose from a bitter budgetary crisis that was being fought by Likud against Labour. A particular point of contention in the budget is an allocation of monies benefiting Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Sharon and the Likud, to no surprise, emphatically support the continuance and expansion of Jewish settlements while members of the Labour party have opposed them, not necessarily because they are a barrier to peace, but because they detract from social welfare, health and educational programs for Israelis. Since Labour’s departure, the Likud draft has passed a first reading.

This crisis poses a clear and immediate danger to the Palestinian people. The loss of Labour from the coalition government may remove both Benjamin Ben-Eleizer and Shimon Peres from their respective cabinet posts. Ben-Eliezer and Peres, comparatively speaking, are political moderates who have a somewhat more balanced approach to negotiating with Palestinians. Their replacements will likely be hawkish allies of Likud and Sharon. Sharon will reconstruct a coalition based on right wing ideology.

Prospects for Political Change: the Status Quo?

Clearly, the prospects for a pacific and just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are marginal under the current Likud-Manhigut partnership. A significant political shift to the left is necessary to effectuate policy changes that are conducive to resolution. The Israeli public as of late has maintained its support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In a recent poll taken by Independent Media Review Analysis, 56% of Israelis supports Sharon, and is satisfied with his performance.¹⁰ In the same poll, the Likud found the highest concentration of national support, at 37%, higher than Labour and the left.¹¹ A subsequent poll indicated that if Israelis voted directly for the next prime minister (which they do not), 51% would choose Ariel Sharon over 18% for Labour leader Ben-Eliezer.¹²

Alas, a needed political shift to the left is an unlikely occurrence for the near future. Sharon, since the collapse, has taken calculated steps towards a new coalition with other religious political parties. The Jerusalem Post has indicated that Ariel Sharon may seek an alliance with the ultra conservative National Union-Yisrael Beiteinu faction, a political party that left the government months ago for concessions with Labour, in dealing with the Palestinians. The future of Israeli politics is with the right wing, with much of the Israeli electorate in a supporting role.

The Israeli public has spoken loud and clear that it wants to maintain the status quo. Although there is currently a liberal, leftist movement in Israel, that movement has been stifled to a great degree by the right.

Such political stagnation and immobility adds further legitimacy and justification to the al-Aqsa Intifada. Because the Israeli public, who operates in a functional democracy, has failed to effectuate political change, it bears substantial responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians and their continual suffering. Israel can, and should, expect a fortification of Palestinian resistance, in response to the sheer aggressiveness of the hawkish Likud and the ignorance of the Israeli electorate.

Thomas J. Haidon is an American attorney and activist residing in Wellington, New Zealand. He received a Jurisdoctorate (J.D.) with a certificate of international law from the University at Buffalo School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Niagara University. He has studied at the American University in Cairo and Birzeit University, Palestine. He is currently pursuing an L.L.M. in international law. You can reach him at thaidon@justice.com

1- Segal, Naomi. “Sharon defeats Barak in a landslide.” February 6, 2001.

2- “Peace and Security.” Likud Offcial Party Platform.

3- Shuman, Ellis. “Bibi Netanyahu Prepares his Comeback.” July 17, 2001.

4- Weizman, Steven. “Netanyahu Squares Off With Sharon.” May 13, 2002.

5- Poll of Likud Members. Independent Media Review Analysis. 25 October 2002

6- Rubin, Barry. “Unity Government Totters Ahead of Budget Vote.” October 30, 2002.

7- Manhigut Yehudit. Platform policy Lines.

8- The Manhigut Faction of Likud. The Likud Conference October 2002. “Proposals for Amendments to the Likud Constitution.”

9- Ibid.

10- American Zionist Network. “Sharon on top in latest polls.”

11- Ibid.

12- Ibid.

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses

See Also:

• The Paradoxes of Israel

• Israel’s Nuclear Objectives: Deterrence, Compellence & Hegemony

• The Dilemmas of Israel’s Security Fence

• Christian Zionism… Apocalypse Ever After

• Who Wants Democracy Anyway?