IRELAND: Former Israeli finance minister Benyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu had taken a "huge gamble" in resigning from the cabinet, according to Oxford academic and Middle East commentator Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi. Deaglán de Bréadún, Foreign Affairs Correspondent, reports
"My view is that the timing was chosen to maximise the potential benefits that Netanyahu might reap," he told The Irish Times. A native of Bologna, Dr Ottolenghi, who specialises in Israel Studies at Oxford and writes regularly in the Jerusalem Post and the Italian media, was visiting Dublin this week to give a lecture.
"It is no mystery that Netanyahu has aspired for quite some time to get back into the prime ministerial seat." He headed the Israeli government from 1996-99 and was succeeded by Ehud Barak, who was replaced in turn by the present incumbent, Ariel Sharon.
For several months now, Sharon had been "embattled" within the Likud Party, where there was "a lot of discontent" with his move to the centre. Now Netanyahu had resigned just prior to the closure of Jewish settlements and withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. "His chances of succeeding in snatching the party leadership away from Sharon are dependent on what the outcome of the disengagement will be," said Dr Ottolenghi.
If disengagement proved successful and did not result in Gaza becoming a haven for terrorism, then Sharon would gain stature.
Polls showed that, in a two-way leadership contest with Sharon in the Likud right now, Netanyahu would easily win. But it wouldn't be plain sailing thereafter: "When he comes to power, if he does, he will have to face the same reality as he did in 1996." He was elected that time on a right-wing ticket, but was obliged to engage in realpolitik.
With his resignation, Netanyahu was "playing with the current feelings on the right to enhance his leadership bid".
But one of Sharon's great achievements was to double the parliamentary strength of Likud in the 2003 elections.
The danger for Likud was that, in getting a leader who reflected the party's right-wing views, it could lose electoral support.
Polls showed that the support of the Israeli general public for Gaza disengagement was "quite stable" at 57 per cent, compared to around 60 per cent when the plan was announced.
On the Palestinian side, Dr Ottolenghi expressed concern over the growing dominance of Hamas in Gaza, which was due to "a mixture of its effectiveness and the failure of the Palestinian Authority to do its job".
The PA was beset by "corruption, inefficiency, ineptness, internal divisions and jealousy between leaders".
This had generated "an enormous amount of rage and frustration" in the Palestinian territories.
As for Hamas: "Corrupt they are not." They had been "extremely efficient" in the provision of social services like schooling and hospitals, but their ideology and interpretation of Islam was part of the package.
"Their political view leaves very little space for a possibility of compromise with Israel."