Livni
in Principle and in Practice
Peretz Kidron
September 30,
2008
(Peretz
Kidron is a writer and broadcaster living in Jerusalem.)
For
background on the current Israeli-Palestinian contacts,
see Robert Blecher and Mouin Rabbani, “In
Annapolis, Conflict by Other Means,” Middle East
Report Online, November 26, 2007.
For
background on the Kadima party, see Peretz Kidron, “Less
a Big Bang Than an Earthquake,” Middle East Report
Online, January 18, 2006. |
On the eve
of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, the sitting Israeli prime
minister spoke more plainly than ever before in public about
what will be required of Israel in a comprehensive peace with
the Palestinians and Syria. In a September 29 interview with
the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Ehud Olmert said that,
to achieve peace, “we will withdraw from almost all the territories,
if not all the territories” that have been under Israeli occupation
since the 1967 war, including most of the West Bank, East Jerusalem
and the Golan Heights. Particularly coming from Olmert, who long
opposed the notion of swapping land for peace, these words might
have inspired hope that deals on the Palestinian or Syrian fronts
were at hand.
But Olmert
spoke these words after having resigned his post. He will sit
as interim prime minister, probably powerless to follow through
on his talk of withdrawal, only until his political heir can
form a parlimentary coalition or until coalition talks fail and
Israel holds early elections. What hope there might be for peace
depends on the beliefs and political strength of his successor
-- and each, at this point, are dubious.
Shaky Mandate
The next prime
minister currently looks most likely to be Tzipi Livni, who won
the September 17 contest for leadership of the ruling Kadima
party after Olmert was forced to quit the premiership under the
weight of police investigations into a litany of alleged misdeeds
ranging from illicit campaign funding to handing out government
jobs to political backers all the way to fiddling with official
travel expenses to set aside money for family vacations. Vigorous
probes by detectives and state attorneys eroded Olmert’s public
standing, already precarious ever since his disastrous plunge
into the second Lebanon war in the summer of 2006 and his fumbling
leadership in that conflict.
The parallel
investigations into the various charges against the prime minister
were undoubtedly motivated by a genuine desire to root out delinquency
in high places, of which there has been no shortage, as disillusioned
Israelis learned: Members of Olmert’s cabinet have been indicted
or convicted on charges from sexual misconduct and improper appointments
all the way up to outright theft. But the allegations against
Olmert relate largely to peccadilloes not entirely uncommon in
Israel’s ruling circles, evoking puzzlement over the relentless
pursuit that ultimately brought him down. One theory argues that
the eagerness of law enforcement agencies was tacitly supported
and perhaps even instigated by far-right groups outraged over
Olmert’s apparent intention to follow in the footsteps of his
mentor and predecessor in office, Ariel Sharon, by ordering a
unilateral withdrawal from extensive portions of the occupied
West Bank, in a pattern laid down by Sharon’s “disengagement”
of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip in August
2005. Any such “surrender” of territory within the divinely Promised
Land is regarded as anathema by far-right fanatics and religious
zealots. Their anger has already led to the assassination of
one prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, who was gunned down in 1995
by a militant because of his willingess to strike a land-for-peace
deal with the Palestinians. If this speculation about a right-wing
conspiracy is indeed correct, Olmert can count himself lucky
to have escaped with his life, being required merely to offer
up his political office.
After Olmert
stepped down, pollsters confidently predicted that the broadly
popular Livni, who serves in Olmert’s cabinet as foreign minister,
would win Kadima’s internal balloting in a landslide. Indeed,
had the issue been submitted to the electorate at large, overwhelming
victory would almost certainly have been hers, as her “Ms. Clean”
image resonates strongly with a public heartily sick of a leadership
tainted by charges of bribery, cronyism and larceny. But, in
the final tally, her chief rival Transportation Minister Shaul
Mofaz had come in a close second, with a margin of no more than
a few hundred votes, or less than 1 percent of the party membership,
separating him from the winner.
Within the
narrow confines of the Kadima membership, Mofaz mounted an unexpectedly
powerful challenge. A former commander-in-chief of Israel’s armed
forces who has done a stint as minister of defense, Mofaz promoted
himself as an expert on national security, a subject of which
he insisted Livni had no knowledge. In his electioneering, the
mythical 3 am phone call figured prominently. But Mofaz and his
team of seasoned political strategists were otherwise resolved
to avoid challenging Livni to a head-on popularity contest, where
his dour demeanor and somewhat dodgy reputation would have gone
against him. Instead, he opted for a strategy more in keeping
with Israeli tradition, taking advantage of his portfolio as
transportation minister to recruit bloc votes among groups dependent
upon his ministry’s good will. Dangling promises of benefits,
his aides enrolled troops of bus drivers and dockworkers as members
of Kadima, and made sure they turned out to cast their votes.
The numbers thus drummed up were not large, but in a party with
a nominal membership of 70,000 -- only half of whom bothered
to turn out -- several thousand such “bloc voters” were almost
enough to tip the scales in favor of Mofaz.
And Livni’s
shaky mandate from the party faithful is only one of her problems.
Shadow
Boxing
Although formally
replaced as chairman of Kadima, Olmert remains caretaker prime
minister until Livni can form a new government. Indeed, under
certain circumstances he could even cling to office well into
2009, should Livni’s coalition-building efforts run into obstacles.
That is not an entirely unlikely scenario. Her preferred course
would be to maintain or even expand the present four-party ruling
alliance, on the basis of existing agreements. But her prospective
allies -- Labor, the Orthodox Shas Party and the Pensioners’
slate -- do not appear willing to play along with such a smooth
transition. Each of the junior coalition partners has seized
the opportunity to demand a better share of cabinet posts or
to press particular claims for its core constituency. Labor wants
a greater say in economic policy and a halt on legislation aimed
at limiting the powers of the courts. Shas, representing a constituency
of Orthodox Jews of non-European origin with a preponderance
of large families, is intent on a considerable enlargement of
children’s allowances. The Pensioners’ list is equally determined
to secure a larger slice of the budgetary pie for its elderly
voters.
All of these
demands are likely to be pressed with unusual vigor in view of
the generally held conviction that early elections are a strong
possibility, giving each party a powerful incentive to strike
a public pose attractive to its voters. And even if the prospect
of national elections does not materialize, municipal elections
scheduled for November present an immediate challenge party leaders
cannot evade.
It is against
this turbulent political background that Livni must pursue her
efforts to put together a viable coalition. It promises to be
a daunting task, not least because nobody -- not even members
of her own party -- wants to appear too eager to clamber onto
her bandwagon. Mofaz initially responded to his defeat with the
declaration of a “timeout from politics,” widely seen as a deliberately
offensive slamming of the door in Livni’s face. But after no
more than a few days, the transportation minister appears to
have had second thoughts and returned to the scene. This is the
more normal mould in Israeli politics where, in contrast to the
Anglo-Saxon principle of “winner takes all,” less successful
candidates can expect substantial consolation prizes. Thus, Mofaz
appears to look forward to significant promotion of his cabinet
status, with an eye to grabbing one of the three top cabinet
posts -- Defense, Finance or Foreign Affairs. His expectations
would be hard to meet: The Defense portfolio is held by Labor
leader Ehud Barak, who is unlikely to cede it, while Finance
Minister Roni Bar-On was a staunch supporter of Livni in the
Kadima leadership contest and she can hardly turn her back on
him. That leaves the Foreign Ministry, but it would be hard to
imagine a less likely candidate for that job than Mofaz, whose
military record includes actions and orders that could leave
him open to charges of war crimes (as Israel Defense Forces supremo,
he reportedly ordered commanders facing the Palestinian uprising
to provide him with “70 corpses a day”) and whose political views
include a publicly advocated “bomb Iran” strategy, as well as
intransigance toward Israel’s Arab neighbors.
Sensing Livni’s
troubles, Shas leaders have declared that they “will not offer
her their support on a silver platter.” Shas demands for enlarged
welfare payments are a particular burden at a time when the global
economic upheaval threatens to slow down Israel’s economy and
reduce tax revenues. Like Shas, the other parties are striking
a note of bravado, their leaders claiming to be perfectly willing
to risk early elections should Livni fail to meet their demands.
Although pronounced with apparent conviction, these declarations
need to be taken with more than a pinch of salt in view of opinion
polls predicting that each of the four coalition partners faces
a sharp loss of support, or even outright eclipse, should they
be required to face the electorate in the months to come.
The right-wing
Likud Party, whence Livni and many of her Kadima peers came,
is ahead in the polls. Indeed, that uninviting alternative may
be Livni’s main advantage as she bargains with the other parties.
If they prove too intractable, she can remind them that life
could get very chilly for them should they venture outside the
warmth of their ministerial offices. Shadow boxing in this arena
will be Livni’s first and most pressing challenge.
The Kadima
Epiphany
Her cabinet
will meet many others, should she in fact become prime minister.
She will need a strong team to tackle the difficulties facing
the country’s export-oriented economy, and there are divisive
legislative issues to consider. But overshadowing all else are
the ongoing talks with Syria and the Palestinian Authority on
eventual peace deals. In theory, this should be Livni’s home
turf, considering her experience as foreign minister. She has
personally handled one channel of contact with the Palestinians
(although Olmert purposely marginalized her from his own talks
with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his indirect contacts
with the Syrians). But despite her active involvement, it is
far from clear where she stands on the outstanding issues in
the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed, after
years of public prominence and senior office, Livni remains something
of an enigma, with neither her personal convictions nor her vision
of the future in sharp focus. The high-profile leadership contest
did little to resolve the picture. One commentator put it in
a nutshell when he said Livni’s conquest of Kadima was “not a
victory of essence; rather, it was a triumph of image.” Throughout
her campaign, she carefully sidestepped any binding declaration
of policy on a major issue, confining herself to unspecified
general principle; instead, she worked on self-promotion, extolling
the virtues of personal probity. Few if any know where she stands
on social or economic issues, on religious legislation or civil
rights.
Livni’s unwillingness
to be tied down to specifics may have roots in her biography.
Born into a family belonging to the select band of the Irgun
(Etzel) underground, a militia which fought British soldiers
and Arabs with equal verve before the creation of the state of
Israel in 1948, she was raised on a diet of far-right nationalism.
The Etzel movement’s hymn asserts the claim that Israel has a
right to both banks of the river Jordan: “This one is ours, the
other is too!” Over the years, she has progressively shed such
delusions for more pragmatic views. Like Olmert and ex-premier
Ariel Sharon, who led several colleagues out of Likud to form
Kadima in November 2005, she clothes her change of direction
in high-minded protestations that Israel “cannot forever dominate
another people,” namely, the Palestinians. In fact, like Olmert
and Sharon, she grasped that Israeli rule of a territorial expanse
where Jews are increasingly outnumbered by a growing Arab population
spelled an end to the dream of a “Jewish democratic state.”
Whatever the
origins of her epiphany, Livni has long since cast aside her
youthful belief in a “Greater Israel,” repeatedly proclaiming
her support for the principle of “two states for two peoples,”
or a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and stressing the just
nature of that solution. But here, too, there is a wide gap between
noble principle and practical application. Over many long months
Livni has held regular meetings with a Palestinian delegation
headed by Ahmad Qurei to discuss the contours of a comprehensive
peace. The sides regularly report that discussions are cordial,
and the two principals appear to have developed a close personal
friendship (it was widely reported that Qurei extended active
support to Livni’s leadership campaign). But behind the façade
of vigorous handshakes and warm smiles, little movement has been
recorded. The Palestinians report that Livni is a tough negotiator
with scant willingness to give them leeway. The only Palestinian
state she seems willing to countenance would have to yield considerable
territory to Israel, and consent to severe restrictions on its
sovereign rights. She is equally intractable on other major points,
such as the problem of the Palestinians made refugees in 1948,
where she firmly rejects the notion of admitting even a token
number for resettlement inside Israel.
Toeing
the Line
If Tzipi Livni
brings with her to the prime minister’s office this sharp disparity
between proclaimed principle and practical willingness to act,
she will be following a path well-trodden by her predecessors.
From the first generation of founding fathers and mothers, stretching
from David Ben Gurion to Golda Meir, down to the younger age
group of Israeli-born prime ministers like Benjamin Netanyahu,
Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, the public posture favored by Israel’s
leaders has always played up declarations of peaceful intent
and friendship toward the state’s Arab neighbors, while quietly
encouraging or instigating actions with a far more sinister impact.
Livni’s conduct
while serving under Olmert as a prominent member of his cabinet
may foreshadow adherence to that familiar pattern. Even while
meeting regularly with Ahmad Qurei and hearing repeated Palestinian
protests over Israel’s continued settlement activity in the Palestinian
territories, Foreign Minister Livni has never once brought up
her government’s persistent failure to live up to its promises
to the Bush administration to dismantle “unlawful” settlements
in the West Bank. Nor has she mentioned the equally persistent
channeling of resources and building permits to those settlements
-- the most populous by far -- that her government considers
“lawful” though the international community does not. Here, as
on most other aspects of the policies Olmert has carried out,
as opposed to those he spoke about to Yediot Aharonot,
Livni obediently toed the line, with no hint of a different agenda.
Her critics
also recall that, as a prominent member of the Olmert cabinet,
she voted with her colleagues to approve the 2006 incursion into
Lebanon and largely went along with the course of the military
campaign, loyally keeping up the diplomatic front against foreign
criticism. It was only much later, when the official Winograd
commission of inquiry published its report severely condemning
Olmert’s management of the conflict, that Livni found the pluck
to add her voice to those demanding his resignation. Throughout,
her bearing radiated prudence and reserve. Of bold leadership
there was little evidence.
Such conduct
holds out little hope that, should she emerge as prime minister,
Tzipi Livni will muster the courage needed for a breakthrough
on peace.

|