Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu
Photo: AP
Unity is good for Right
Rightists should be happy that Labor joined government instead of National Union
The unity government being formulated is stirring significant grievances among the large camp that voted Right but got Right intermixed with some Left. However, with his latest moves Benjamin Netanyahu in fact follows in the footsteps of almost all rightist prime ministers. They always preferred a broad and stable center-Right government over a narrow and blatantly rightist government.
As a rule of thumb, a unity government is a better alternative: It constitutes a moderating element and its survival prospects are better. It expresses national responsibility, which sadly can be found only in the rightist camp. When the leftist camp won in 1992, Rabin did not imagine bringing Likud into the government. Olmert conducted himself similarly following the previous elections.
Commentary
Hanoch Daum
Netanyahu managed to form sane unity government that will save Israel
Blatantly rightist parties have accumulated vast experience in toppling rightist governments, and Netanyahu should not be thinking that the Right would treat him any differently. The first Netanyahu government collapsed against the backdrop of the Wye Accord with the Palestinians. The government was toppled by Land of Israel loyalists in the Knesset even before it turned out that Netanyahu actually does not intend to honor the agreement, based on his famous demand for reciprocity on Arafat’s part.
Eventually, Ehud Barak won the 1999 election, unilaterally implemented all the Wye Accord clauses, and rushed to hand over almost the entire Judea and Samaria, including Jerusalem, to Arafat in Camp David and in Taba.
Back in 1867, Bismarck said that “politics is the art of the possible.” This statement is true for 2009 as well: Politics is not the art of the desirable and good, but rather, of the possible and less harmful. Politics of all or nothing is proper only for arenas of debate and discussion and for Torah lessons at yeshivas. It has no place around the government table and in our practical public life.
I too believe in the people of Israel’s full right for the entire Land of Israel and in the foolishness of the Oslo process and all its derivatives. However, this position is a minority view even in the current Knesset, which is rather rightist. Through Netanyahu’s art of the possible, we’re supposed to see a government with a very wide spectrum of Land of Israel loyalists. Their vast majority does not accept the interpretations of the National Union or Jewish Home.
It is naïve and even foolish to think that a long-time policy can be changed by the hand gesture of one government. Regrettably, the damages of Oslo and the disengagement can only be corrected via a lengthy and ongoing effort by a responsible rightist government. The State of Israel is bound by quite a few agreements, obligations, and international expectations that stem from the peace delusions and folly of previous government – however, there is no choice but to honor them as long as they do not constitute an existential threat. For this reason, Netanyahu had to honor infamous Hebron deal in 1996, and he will have to swallow quite a few bitter pills in 2009 as well.
It is very important that Netanyahu and his rightist government adhere to the Right’s diplomatic horizon in an ongoing and principled manner. The essence of this horizon is the rejection of the two-state solution and the adoption of aggressive policy vis-à-vis the various types of Arab-Muslim enemies. Maintaining this approach, while realizing that many twists are expected in the long road ahead, are the only recipe that will see the State of Israel make it to safety.
I’m hopeful that Netanyahu will be able to keep his eyes open on this horizon, even under the pressures he will face, and won’t change his ideological views as Ariel Sharon did with his destructive government.
