The Gilad Shalit Deal

The political risk for Netanyahu

One thing we haven't really discussed, amidst the latest round of rumors about a possible deal for Gilad Shalit's release, is the political ramifications of such a deal within Israel.

Shalit's plight has taken an outsized role in Israeli politics and public life, so his release, by itself, would give Netanyahu a big political boost. But there's a potential complication: If yesterday's press reports are accurate, Netanyahu will be releasing hundreds of Palestinian militants to secure Shalit's release.

So Netanyahu would be exposing his right flank by agreeing to a prisoner swap. Several members of the hard-right National Union party held a press conference to denounce the proposed deal; one even called for Netanyahu's resignation. They referred to the "red lines" drawn by former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who said he would not free "mega murderers" in exchange for Shalit.

"Netanyahu is crossing (former PM Ehud) Olmert's red lines. Netanyahu does not stop at red light; not even Olmert's red light," said National Union MK Arieh Eldad.

"The murderers that will be released killed between one and 65 people each. Start calculating how many Israelis might pay with their lives for the government's irresponsible decision," said Eldad.

[...] MK Yaakov Katz (National Union) called on Netanyahu to resign, saying "we decided to convene at the last moment. We are not naïve; we know that once a decision has been made, the chance of changing the government's mind is close to zero.

How much of a political liability is this, though? In a poll conducted over the summer by the Rafi Smith Institute, 69 percent of Israelis said they'd be willing to release prisoners "with blood on their hands" to free Shalit. Only 23 percent said they were opposed. And 62 percent of Israelis said Olmert didn't do enough to free Shalit -- a clear sign that his "red lines" policy isn't universally popular.

National Union is a small party, with just 4 seats in the 120-member Knesset. But Netanyahu depends on a coalition of right-wing parties -- Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas, for instance -- who might be similarly opposed to releasing militants.

If nothing else, the Shalit negotiations illustrate how tenuous Netanyahu's coalition is, and how difficult that makes the "peace process." Even if Bibi wanted to pursue a more conciliatory path with Palestine, his governing coalition would drag him to the right. (And there's no strong, outspoken left-wing coalition to keep the debate centered.)

There's also a long-term risk, of course: If one of the released prisoners ever carries out a terrorist attack, Netanyahu (and his Likud party) would face relentless criticism.

No Comments

Post a Comment

Poll: Labor will lose big in next Israeli election

A new Yedioth Ahronoth poll finds that Kadima would win more Knesset seats than Likud in the next election. But Likud would also gain support; the big loser would be the Labor party. And Kadima would struggle to form a new coalition.

No crisis in Netanyahu's coalition

Coalitions don't just collapse; Netanyahu would have to make some policy decision that causes the right-wing parties to withdraw. Obviously we're talking about a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem -- a decision Bibi has shown no desire to make.

B'Tselem: Settlements occupy 42 percent of West Bank

Ben-Eliezer makes "secret trip" to Turkey: Israeli TV

CENTCOM talking sense on Hamas and Hizballah

Al-Akhbar: Our weekly brief

Peace Processing

Talking about direct talks: Netanyahu returns to the White House

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivering a statement in Jerusalem on July 1, 2010. (Photo: AFP)
US president Barack Obama will use a White House meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push for an extended West Bank settlement freeze. If Netanyahu doesn't offer one - and the domestic politics are quite difficult for him - it's hard to see any possibility of direct talks with the Palestinian Authority later this year.

The Afghan Surge

Obama's southern strategy

Gen. David Petraeus testifying on Capitol Hill. (Photo: Reuters)
The president's decision to nominate Gen. David Petraeus as the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan won't mean a major change in strategy. But there are mounting reasons for pessimism about current policy, particularly the relentless focus on southern Afghanistan. The deployment of tens of thousands of additional troops to Kandahar and Helmand serves few NATO objectives.

Freedom Flotilla Killings

Anticlimax: How much did the flotilla raid really change regional politics?

A demonstration in London against the Israeli attack on the Gaza-bound flotilla. (Photo: AFP)
It has accelerated Israel's isolation from several of its neighbors and allies; it has sharpened divisions within Turkish domestic politics; it has deepened perceptions that the Obama administration as too close to Israel. And it seems to have had a remarkably minor impact on Palestinian domestic politics.