Netanyahu, a former Prime Minister, was ousted in an early election in 1999, due to his aggressive policies concerning Palestine and allegations of corruption. The character of his previous period in office, as well as his current reign, can be summarised in his policy of ‘three no’s’. NO discussions on the separation of Jerusalem, NO dialogue whatsoever on withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and NO negotiations. While his proposed political strategy seems resourceful enough, the truth of his approach lies more in what he doesn’t say. He has stated that he wishes to bolster the Palestinian economy and open diplomatic talks with the Palestinian Authority, but these goals belie what really needs to happen. First, by making no mention of how to resolve the matter of the Palestinian refugees or discussing the question of the borders between them and the Arab nation, he has failed to address the two key issues facing the region. Israel needs solutions, not containment. Second, by declaring his intent to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, Netanyahu has left the most influential Palestinian organisation out in the cold. After winning US-supported elections in 2006, the extremist group Hamas has rallied the Palestinians to such an extent that they are gaining confidence and defiance every day. The group that reigns over Gaza has been highly motivated by Hezbollah’s resistance of Israeli forces in 2006. The Israeli Defence Force no longer has its air of invincibility, and this has proved very dangerous.

To say that Tzipi Livni, the leader of the left-leaning centralist Kadima Party, has done her best to turn Israeli politics on its head is an understatement. With solid credentials, including serving as a lieutenant in the Israeli Defence Force, Livni led the Kadima to victory in the February elections. She is openly pro two-state solution and at the very least recognises Hamas as a player in future negotiations. Despite winning the most seats in the Knesset, capturing 28 votes to the Likud’s 27, she has been overlooked this year to form and lead a government. The fact that she was given six weeks in October of last year to do just that – and failed – does not excuse the undemocratic nature of the current events. And using ‘tradition’ to explain this action won’t help when the cookie starts to crumble.

As if appointing Netanyahu as its next leader wasn’t enough to signal its intentions, Israel has gone a couple of steps further. First, in the January offensive this year, they crushed Gaza in a massive demonstration of their dominance – but it came with a heavy price tag. Controversially, and illegally, they used white phosphorous during the war; the UN has begun a probe to start the process of charging this act as a war crime. Second, Netanyahu has appointed Avigdor Lieberman as the incoming Foreign Minister. Whether or not his reputation as a racist holds true, the world sees him as such and his appointment has further tarnished Israel’s already depleted image. Even the US, which has until now bestowed almost unconditional love on their main diplomatic comrade in the Middle East, has frowned upon Lieberman’s controversial appointment.

Indeed, since President Obama took office, what has been referred to as the “unbreakable bond between the US and Israel” has come under strain. During his tour of the Middle East, the American president repeatedly supported the call for Palestinian statehood. Obama met Netanyahu on 18 May, urging the latter to agree on a two-state plan. Netanyahu subsequently endorsed a Palestinian state for the first time, but only under strict preconditions and prerequisites. At the time of writing, disagreement over the settlement issue was at the crux of the tension between the US and Israel.

Israel might have become accustomed to the leniency of the Bush administration on the settlement issue; Bush publicly condemned the settlements, but privately accepted the ‘natural growth’ of settlements. But times have changed. Obama seems to understand that the settlements are at the core of the problem. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated, “He wants to see a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions”.

Israel needs unity, but, unfortunately, it’s never a simple goal. Ideally, the Jewish nation would have been coaxed towards the Arab Peace Plan by majority vote-winner Livni. This Plan is supported by 22 Arab nations and stipulates that these countries would back a peace process if Israel retreated to the borders they maintained in 1967. This means conferring full sovereignty on Palestine as a nation and giving it full control of the West Bank and Gaza. For now, however, Israel has gone the predatory route with Netanyahu. It is yet to be seen exactly how he will lead, but Livni’s refusal to be part of his coalition and his intrinsic conservatism could prove to be the wedge that sits between Israel and a drive towards peace in the region. The following election is scheduled for 2013; it may come as a relief that we can once again expect Israelis to be casting votes as soon as 2011.

Tobie Taljaard is a third-year BSocSci student, majoring in Politics and History