Ruminations on a Coalition Crackup

The NYTimes informs us that President Obama apparently spoke through Martin Indyk to Nahum Barnea in the now-infamous Yediot Ahronoth piece that thrashed PM Bibi Netanyahu's government and singled out the settlement movement - the raison d'être of the national religious revisionist Zionist Israeli right wing that now characterizes the rank and file of Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, and Jewish Home - as the primary reason for the peace talks breaking down.  This apparently ignored Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to speak straight to President Obama about the rumored Kerry Framework, despite Bibi's acceptance with reservations.  The real takeaway from this turning point is this: the Likud-YB coalition is about to fall into tatters. To wit:

- Tzipi Livni looked like a rock star in that piece.  It should come as no surprise that she's taking the peace talk initiative and meeting with Abbas to restart talks.  The once likely PM has begun her road back to the top spot.
- Netanyahu is so frayed that he's focusing on a Jewish Nation State Basic Law and codifying Torah/Talmud as the basis and inspiration of Israeli Law.  I wonder how Ben-Gurion would have felt about that?
- The Hamas-Fateh unity deal continues to march forward.  From this, Abbas' successor shall come, but perhaps not before the dissolution of the PA in an attempt to burn the Israelis.  We'll come back to this.
- Germany, with US backing, has suspended a gunboat deal with Israel.  Will this finally snap the Coalition's back?
- Would Yair Lapid enter a coalition with Shas?  If he would, then Livni's Hatnuah, Herzog's Labour, Gal-On's Meretz and Lapid's Yesh Atid could form a ruling coalition.

There's a parallel here and I want to put it down: Israel's politics right now, in a very broad way, look like the US of the mid/late 00's.  The old Reagan coalition of conservative working class Democrats, Evangelicals, fp hawks, economic libertarians was fraying and the burgeoning Obama coalition was being born.

In Israel, something similar is happening.  The national-religious movement is becoming more insular and subject to "no true Scotsman" tests.  The secular Zionist middle class that seeks to preserve the basic Zionist dream and improve living standards has broken apart from that (save for the 5 major settlements.)  These people, the Livni/Lapid/Shavit/Oren-bloc, seek to "unburden" themselves of the Occupation and be done with it.

Unilateralism will emerge as the Israeli buzzword.  The self-reliant backbone of Zionism is growing stronger and while Lebanon and Gaza were botched withdrawals, there is an obvious course of conduct:

- Abbas will saber rattle about PA dissolution, the increased settlement activity will make Judea and Samaria more intertwined.  The median Israeli will want out of this predicament.
- A new, pro-2 state (note: not pro-peace) Coalition will emerge based on completion of the security fence, withdrawal from beyond it, and a Marshall Plan of aid to the new West Bank Palestinian government.
- Annexation of the major settlement blocs and fortification of the fence will create a potential Gaza situation, but more likely a propped up PA (perhaps briefly dissolved and reconstituted as more blatantly Fayyadist) will re-emerge and massive state building will ensue.
- Israel and Palestine will sign an accord recognizing this state of affairs and dual sovereignty.  The Palestinians may take their cases to court, but the Right of Return will never happen (there may be national compensation.)
- Israeli entry to NATO and I/P both joining the EU.

This platform, along with massive nation-building through the Negev, will carry the day and set the score for Consolidationist Zionism.  Finishing the victories of the movement and establishing a durable, if imperfect peace not unlike South Korea's.

An Honest Broker

Please, if you have any interest in the I/P conflict at all, READ THIS.

This is absolutely stunning, and something close to the inverse of Camp David. I think the key takeaways here are that:

a) This was in Hebrew in the largest newspaper. The key readership is Israeli. Netanyahu’s coalition is shaky enough as it is. Note the glowing words about Tzipi Livni, who despite Hatanuah’s poor showing in the last election, has already carried a general once. I think this is as much about trying to change the hearts and minds of Israeli voters and build the antipathy towards the settler movement and its representatives like Bayit Hayehudi. Kerry’s recent statement reflected that, too. The current coalition simply doesn’t have a realistic vision of peace and most of it doesn’t want it under any circumstance (like Uri Ariel.)

b) Tom Friedman’s reporting on the Framework was accurate, that the general reaction (the Framework was very favorable to the Israeli position) was not unnoticed by the Americans, and that coalition intransigence was at the center of the breakdown.

c) Urgency. Abu Mazen is nearing the end of his time in public life, is seeking a successor, and seems to genuinely want peace. Yair Lapid this week said that Hamas can be negotiated with. Livni no doubt agrees. Bougie Herzog obviously does, and Zahava Gal-On (whoever many seats Meretz has) would probably rather as many people at the table as possible. This is meant to create urgency, precisely to counter the sort of inertia and “sustainability” that Roger Cohen described the Occupation as having.

“Unsustainable” is the administration keyword on this. It’s the keyword of the secular Israeli middle class and Tel Avivians. It’s the way any right-thinking Zionist thinks of this. The idea is to foment a coalition that gets it and is willing to make peace, especially on favorable and mutually agreed upon terms like the potential Kerry Framework could be/have been.

I am very, very curious as to the domestic Israeli media response to this as well as the NYT/WaPo response.

Framework

Regardless of my (secular, Diaspora) own inclinations (a duly, fairly negotiated two or three state settlement) I suspect the actual outcome to the peace process will look like this:

a) Completion and fortification of the security barrier, akin to annexing an additional 7%-ish of the West Bank.

b) Declaration of the barrier as a border. There would be total withdrawal from beyond the border with the exception of necessary and duly administered security coordination. Functionally, this means that most of Jerusalem would be Israeli.

c) Settlers who do not repatriate and are beyond the Wall become Palestinians. The Right of Return would not be recognized. Very significant aid and assistance would be available to any Arab Israeli wishing to move to Palestine.

d) A massive aid package to the PA in the West Bank.

e) Economic + security coordination and cooperation with the PA in the West Bank, along with massive EU/Jordanian/American influence and dozens of Rawabi projects in a sort of Marshall Plan in exchange for implicit recognition.

f) This last bit could be a bit pie in the sky, but: passage of a formal constitution encompassing the existing Basic Law and defining the borders of the State of Israel and its character as a Jewish nation-state (I'm very curious as to opinions on this.)

Essentially, something like what Michael Oren or Ari Shavit has laid out. I think it happens sooner rather than later. I think it goes without saying that the coalition that enacts this likely won't include Jewish Home or Yisrael Beteinu (maybe even not Likud, considering the rank and file?) I think there's some European protest, but not a ton. I think Americans would largely support this, despite the lack of a peace process imprimatur. I don't think relations with Jordan or Egypt would break down. It's a crappy but likely livable solution (akin to South Korea?)