Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power because the internal contradictions of the Israeli electorate allowed the far right to be the decisive factor in forming a governing majority. More correctly: because in the face of this existing possibility there could not be a coherent rival awe.
But this does not negate the fact that the forces he chose to work with to form a government have a very specific stigma, which makes difficult not only any attempt to restart the debate on a solution to the Palestinian issue, but also leads to a total authoritarian mutation of the state of Israel. All of these signal changes that could potentially negatively affect the support Israel currently enjoys in the West.
Reforming the judicial system is a dynamic conflict
At a time when upholding the independence of the judiciary is considered a cornerstone of the rule of law and government control efforts are a real undermining of it, the Israeli government is promoting a bill that effectively limits judicial review of government decisions, since Supreme Court decisions will be overturned by simple majority of the Knesset, the ability of the courts to review the constitutionality of laws will be limited, and the government will demand a greater say in the selection of judges. We note that Israel does not have a written Constitution, but a series of “Basic Laws” that form a quasi-constitutional order, which is ensured by the Supreme Court.
This reform has led to an impressive series of mass mobilizations, involving thousands of citizens, while the reaction to this law even includes the president of Israel, Isaac Herzog himself. In fact, the February 20 meeting was particularly dynamic, with protesters even protesting inside the Knesset, while others blocked major thoroughfares.
However, Netanyahu appears undaunted by the protests, and so do his far-right allies. Let’s not forget that Netanyahu blames the judiciary for the prosecutions against him.
But this conflicting understanding of the institutional makeup of the state itself and the questioning of the various mechanisms of institutional balance and control that existed within the Israeli constitutional order seem to divide Israeli society.
And Netanyahu may have invested in a far-right shift that has an ever-expanding electoral base, exemplified by the rise of far-right parties or currents such as religious Zionism, yet the image of such a divided country and the sense that the core of a certain democratic function is being challenged creates a distrust towards the Israeli government.
The issue of settlements
At the same time, the government of Israel has opened another front that concerns the Palestinian itself. And this concerns the issue of settlements. Both Netanyahu and the parties that support his government have a particularly “tough” and aggressive line on the issue of settlements, considering that they can and should be expanded, even on the horizon of an annexation of the Occupied West Bank, a move that in the past Netanyahu had roughly announced.
This reflects the fact that the Knesset has already voted affirmatively at the first reading level to repeal aspects of the 2005 Gaza disengagement law. This law was part of a larger US-sponsored political agreement for peace after the Second Intifada. Netanyahu was a member of Ariel Sharon’s government at the time and is apparently aware of the exchange of letters between the US and Israel to make this agreement possible.
At the time Israel had decided to unilaterally withdraw not only from Gaza itself but also from four small settlement areas near Gaza: Homs, Sanur, Ghanim and Qadim. Despite the attempts of the settlers to return, this has not been possible, because usually the soldiers soon removed them.
The current government seems ready to allow their reconstruction. At the same time, the Israeli government has given permission for the construction of thousands of new homes in the settlements and legalized nine illegal settlement areas in the West Bank. In addition, in a break with previous practice, he transferred responsibilities regarding the Occupied Territories from the Likud-affiliated defense minister to the finance minister Bezalel Smotrich of the extremist Religious Zionist party.
The US attitude
The US has voiced its displeasure with the Netanyahu government’s choices, including new settlements that the White House says are creating fait accomplis that undermine hopes for peace between Israel and a future Palestinian state. However, at the same time they did not think that a new Security Council resolution would help. In reality and although e.g. Netanyahu has yet to receive an invitation to the White House, the US administration is giving the Israeli government time, hoping that rhetorical distancing from Israel’s choices will assuage backlash in the wider Arab world.
This, after all, seems to be the political calculation of Netanyahu, who knows that at the moment the US is more interested in an anti-Iranian coalition which is also the basic position of the Israeli government itself and in the continuation of the normalization of relations between of the Gulf countries and Israel, rather than for a solution to the Palestinian issue. This he believes gives him room to move forward more decisively despite protests and criticism.
The difficult horizon
Netanyahu seems to believe he can win this round. It has a governing majority that represents a real bloc within an Israeli society that in its parts turns away from a prospect of a solution and actually favors annexation practices. He knows that at the end of the day the West will face Israel as its pre-eminent representative in the wider region. And he faces a divided and weakened Palestinian movement
But, at the same time, the belief of the Israeli government that it will manage through settlements and annexation practices to be able to control in perpetuity the entire area of the State of Israel and the occupied territories – what is traditionally described from the Jordan to the sea -, a an area where half the population is Palestinian, emerges at the core of a problem that not only makes the lives of Palestinians worse and more vulnerable, but also undermines the democratic elements of the state of Israel itself. The new escalation of violence could also be considered a warning of the problems to come.
