ISRAEL GOES to the polls tomorrow in an election widely expected to produce a right-wing majority. Opinion polls indicate that this will be the result, although the gap narrowed in recent days. It represents the culmination of long-term shifts in Israeli opinion towards a more radical view of the state’s security needs against Palestinian and Arab opponents. This trend was strengthened by the 23-day attack on Gaza.
Rather than bolstering the position of the outgoing coalition led by the Kadima and Labor parties, the war has reinforced the appeal of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and the extremist Yisrael Beitenu, led by Avigdor Lieberman. They play more into the fears of ordinary Israelis convinced that only a stronger stance can protect their state’s security. Media coverage of the war uncritically supported that view, leaving little room for alternative efforts to encourage a more accommodating stance. Israeli public opinion overwhelmingly supports the war. There is little real awareness of how shocking its violence is perceived to be internationally and a widespread disposition to dismiss external criticism as anti-Israeli or even anti-Semitic, which for the most part it definitely is not.
A government led by Mr Netanyahu would be quite unwilling to offer concessions to Palestinians on settlements, land transfers, Jerusalem or the return of Palestinian refugees, since he believes a peace is unattainable at present. He wants to build up the Palestinian economy instead. If Mr Lieberman is part of the government, his demand that Israeli-Palestinians sign an oath of loyalty to the state and his proposal to transfer the towns and villages where they live to Palestinian authority will become more active. He has widespread support among the one million plus recent Russian immigrants to Israel and has succeeded in extending his appeal to other groups.
The moderate centre-left Labor party and the more left-wing Meretz are altogether on the defensive. This radicalisation of Israeli opinion matches that on the Palestinian side and in the Middle East region. It is exemplified by Mr Netanyahu’s statement at the Davos forum that Iran is a far greater threat to the western world than the economic crisis. Iran is seen as a deep existential threat to Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon are taken to be its willing and compliant agents and Iran’s assumed plan to acquire a nuclear weapon is seen as a deadline requiring preventive military action, by Israel alone if necessary.
This bleak vision is overstated and inaccurate, but sufficiently well-founded to demand action by the international community. It poses an enormous challenge in particular to the Obama administration which is committed to seek direct talks with Iran and wants to broker a new round of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Israel was irresponsibly indulged by unconditional support by the Bush administration. Mr Obama must not repeat that mistake, since the US interest is different from Israel’s, even if it remains supportive. The same applies to the European Union.