Netanyahu: Lunacy or Selfish Lunacy?—by Michael Aronson

Yesterday, seeking nationalist right-wing support to clinch re-election in Israel’s March 17, 2015 elections, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel will say no to a Palestinian state if Likud is re-elected. In essence, a Likud win means that a two-state solution, where a Jewish state coexists with a Palestinian state, is dead.

On one level, this tells us nothing new. Netanyahu’s refusal to heed international pressure to cease construction and settlement activities clearly meant to obstruct the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank is clear enough evidence that this was his intention all along. But Netanyahu’s announcement puts other forces into play, forces whose potency was limited so long as a one-state agenda remained hearsay and not policy, forces whose legitimacy is now tied to the outcome of elections now bootstrapped to a public referendum.

Netanyahu has given Hamas and the P.A. solid political ammunition to use against Israel in the UN and elsewhere. Before, while Netanyahu maintained the veneer of interest in a two-state solution, Israel’s representatives and allies had the power to deny that Israel’s activities were malicious and propose that differences of opinion justified Israel’s international and domestic behavior. Now, if Netanyahu wins, Israel’s representatives lose defensibility, Israel’s allies look colossally stupid, and Israel herself can be painted as a rogue regime. One-state policy will undermine international confidence in and support of Israel while reinforcing the absolutist oppression narratives of Hamas and the P.A., as well as the rhetoric of New Antisemitic groups such as SJP, who can now justify their bad behavior by claiming to have known better all along. What does a Netanyahu victory now mean for popular support of anti-Israel movements like Hamas and BDS, necessary substantive pro-Israel advocacy, and the future security of world Jewry in general?

Popular Islamist and far-right Palestinian nationalist images of the United States as the Big Bad Wolf of the West are made faux-legitimate. President Obama and the United States’ ability to build consensus with Middle Eastern and other world powers to combat Islamic State in Iraq, Syria and now Africa will be damaged by appearing to be in bed with a far-right nationalist powder keg. Before, if pressed for concessions in our relationship with Israel to gain support for an international Middle Eastern agenda, our representatives and ambassadors could defend our relationship with a democratic Israel as conducive to long-term stability in the Middle East while maintaining our distance from its unstable Prime Minister. Now, if Netanyahu wins, few people would believe that the United States wasn’t in on the joke. This is especially true after Netanyahu’s recent visit to our House of Representatives. Meanwhile, IS expansion into the African theatre makes multinational cooperation more essential than ever to contain the growing threat. Can the United States still work with other nations without bringing its relationship with Israel to the bargaining table? Is the United States’ relationship with Israel – vital to both nations’ futures – still viable at all?

Even deeper implications may now be tied to Israeli Arab fortunes in the Israeli election. The Joint List – a coalition of four Israeli Arab parties formed to escape Avigdor Lieberman’s racist and self-destructive small party legislation – is expected to claim thirteen out of 120 seats in the Israeli Knesset and become its third largest player. Observers are asking, if this happens, what will the Joint List do? Traditionally, Israeli Arab representatives hold Knesset seats but abstain from voting or involvement in coalition governments. If Zionist Union wins the majority and is tasked by Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to form the next coalition, and Joint List representatives maintain this posture, then Zionist Union will likely be forced to deal with Likud and Netanyahu will probably remain premier. Assuming that the Joint List is stable and prescient enough to appreciate this – its cast of characters ranges from political moderates to Islamists, Palestinian nationalists and communists, suggesting that it might not be – Netanyahu may have actually handed the minority Israeli Arab bloc incredible power to dictate the agenda of a new Israeli government as well as the flow of world affairs. What would happen if the Joint List says, “take our agenda, or take Netanyahu?”

A Zionist Union-Joint List government could be very good, or it could be very bad. Only time will tell.

It seems clear that Netanyahu’s statement pushes the limits of irresponsibility and possibly sheer irrationality. One must wonder, what the hell is Netanyahu thinking? If we give Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt and decide that he means what he says, then he is a lunatic. If we decide that Netanyahu is making a last-minute political bid for power then he is still a lunatic, but a selfish lunatic whose selfishness sacrifices the future of the State of Israel on the altar of his own ego. Either way, Israel is the biggest loser.