If the Trump peace plan comes to a vote, Kahol Lavan leader would oppose unilateral steps at annexation that are not coordinated with the Palestinians, but there are also divisions within the party on the plan
Kahol Lavan leader Benny Gantz in the Knesset chamber.Emil Salman
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announced plans to annex West Bank territory following last week’s unveiling of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians have put Kahol Lavan in a bind. The party’s chairman, Benny Gantz, has made it clear that Kahol Lavan objects to unilateral moves at annexation that are divorced from other elements of the Trump’s “deal of the century” and that are made without coordination with the Palestinians.
On the other hand, sources in the party said Sunday that it may support a proposal for some form of annexation if Netanyahu brings it to the Knesset before the March 2 election. “If there’s a snap decision to bring unilateral annexation to a vote, we may vote in favor. It would be a major dilemma,” a senior party source told Haaretz, adding that if the issue arises, Kahol Lavan’s Knesset faction would convene for lengthy deliberations that would end with Gantz deciding how to proceed.
But one Kahol Lavan Knesset member who wished to remain unnamed and who highlighted the range of opinion in the faction, said: “It’s clear to everyone that Yoaz Hendel could vote in favor of annexation and Yael German against. There is no alternative to allowing members to vote their consciences on such a matter of principle.”
Kahol Lavan has tried recently to obscure the foreign policy confrontation that it is facing. Its Knesset members were instructed to cancel media appearances and other public events over the weekend. The party has also not declared a position on the suggestion in the Trump plan that towns near the West Bank in the so-called triangle of Israel Arab communities might be transferred to a future Palestinian state.
Once Kahol Lavan Knesset members were allowed to be interviewed on Sunday, it was Ofer Shelah, not one of the party’s top four leaders, who made it clear that the party rejects such a move.
The Trump plan, Shelah said, “has one offensive provision, and that’s the exchange of territory in the triangle,” he told Army Radio. “We don’t need to talk about that, and when Kahol Lavan assumes power, the provision will be dropped from the agenda. It’s unfortunate that the cause is there, but without it, we will plan to hold a Knesset vote.”
Gantz himself said last week that he intends to bring the “deal of the century” as a whole to the Knesset for a vote as an agenda item (and not as proposed legislation). Such a move on the part of the opposition would lack genuine weight and would be meant in part to embarrass right-wing parties that would be forced to vote for recognition of a Palestinian state if they sought to support the plan in its entirety.
But even such a symbolic move has been put on hold by an unrelated Kahol Lavan demand – that the Knesset debate the “incessant terrorism from the Gaza Strip.”
In his speech last week at the Institute for National Security Studies, Gantz urged the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. “I make a call upon Palestinian leaders. Since the [1997] signing of the Hebron accord by [Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser] Arafat and Netanyahu, you’ve been refusing everything. Say ‘yes’ for once and give your children hope for a better future. Don’t miss another opportunity for peace. The [Trump] plan recognizes your need for independence on 70 percent of the West Bank, a link to Gaza and addresses issues such as a seaport and projects that would advance your economy by a decade… It’s time you recognized Israel as a Jewish state.”
Kahol Lavan’s Achillles’ heel
Members of Netanyahu’s Likud and the left of center Labor-Gesher-Meretz slate have identified Kahol Lavan’s Achilles’ heel, in which it finds it difficult to present a clear position on unilateral annexation. The two factions have begun targeting Kahol Lavan voters from both the left and the right.
Likud posted a video over the weekend that calls Kahol Lavan a “comme ci, comme ça” party and reminds viewers that Kahol Lavan’s Yoaz Hendel supported the nation-state law while Yael German stated she would work to have it repealed. It also noted that one of the leaders of Kahol Lavan, Moshe Ya’alon, opposes Shelah’s support for a Palestinian state.
For his part, Labor-Gesher chairman Amir Peretz has made it clear to left-wing supporters of Kahol Lavan that his party opposes the transfer of the triangle’s residents to Palestinian rule. “Arab citizens are our partners,” he said.
<
>
Just heard Liberman being interviewed extensively. He went on and on against the Joint List calling them a fifth wave. He then went on and on against sitting with the Haredi. He also called it for Bibi to leave. He did not have clear answers about how a government coalition could be formed. He just kept saying there are 90 seats from Liberal Zionist Parties. It will found from there.
I am not at all confident that he will be flexible in joining a coalition. He would need to backtrack from campaign promises or the Haredi would have to become more liberal.
So fourth elections anyone?
Listening to an interview of Eli Avidar, a member of Knesset from Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu party he insists that a government will be formed without the Arabs and without the UTJ/Shas. He also thinks Bibi will end out of the way so that a coalition will be formed. I and the interviewer did not think he made himself clear. Somehow he thinks a unity government will be formed around the Trump plan with pressure of Trump.
Listen to the interview at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/275878
If he is correct my speculation about a right wing government will not come to fruition.
Adam, hours later still waiting for my confirmation from you regarding the wager. I have responded and repeated the response when you in error said I had not responded to your wager challenge? Are you dodging again?
@ Adam Dalgliesh:I sure did read two posts up in second paragraph.
I quote myself, ” So on the bet you are waging the Joint List along with Liberman & Blue/White will be part of the same government coalition? Is that correct? I am saying that the Joint List will NOT be part of the government coalition? Wager is $50. Kindly confirm.”
I notice that you haven’t responded to my proposal that we go ahead with the wager. Having taunted me for not having agreed to your wager request in the past, I think you should respond now that I have accepted it. As the folk sayings say, “Put your money where your mouth is,” and “Either put up or shut up.”
Ted quotes you as saying that annexation of the settlements will bring Leiberman back into the right wing coalition. Is that you position now?
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
How are you going to spin this quote from Gantz?
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Actually I said he (Liberman) would NOT be part of the right wing coalitions because of the religion/state issues.
I believe Ted, was forecasting that or hoping that. I also said he would not be part of a coalition with Arabs and you kept insisting he would.
So on the bet you are waging the Joint List along with Liberman & Blue/White will be part of the same government coalition? Is that correct? I am saying that the Joint List will NOT be part of the government coalition? Wager is $50. Kindly confirm.
@ Bear Klein: Bear, somehow I can’t imagine YOU ever admitting that you were ever wrong about anything. I seem to recall you said that Leiberman would be part of a right wing government after the first, second and third elections. That didn’t happen. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As for the bet, I accept in principle your challenge. But first we have to each state our predictions and record them on a free space somewhere on the web. Please first tell me what exactly is your prediction for the outcome of the comming election in detail and in full. Then I will give you my complete prediction.
We also need to agree that the wager will only be settled when either a new government is formed, or no government is formed and the President is forced to call yet another election.
I am not a rich man and cannot agree to a wager of more than $50.00.
I have responded to your challenge. I look forward to hearing from you.
Bear Klein Said:
i AGREE.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:I understand you will believe what you like. I have listened to Odeh and he is not recommending Gantz and he will not be in a government with him. Put whatever spin you want on it as I said before and was borne out correct by the results the Arabs are not going to part of any government.
My guess is you will continue to pursue this line of thinking because you are unable to admit you were wrong on this subject and still are. Anyway the election is in three weeks. I again offer you a wager which you smartly refused last election cycle.
Best hope for a government is:
That “annexation” of the settlements brings Liberman back into a right wing coalition. Liberman lives in Nokdim (Judean Desert) and I am sure he wishes to have sovereignty applied. His voters would be in favor of this and it is good rationale to have some compromise on other issues such as religion and state.
@ Bear Klein: Leiberman has made it clear that he will not serve in a government with either the haredim or the Arabs. That will make it extremely difficult for him to serve in either a right-of-center or left-of-center government.
I don’t think he wants to be part of any future government at all, but rather wants to play a gadfly role as a Knesset “back-bencher.” This is not so suprising that he has served in many governments over a long period of time, and feels he has never been able to get his way. That has left him feeling frustrated and resentful. Also, after all, he is over 70, the age when most people usually retire. He may wish to work at politics only part-time, while pursuing business interests for his remaining years in order to assure a “legacy” for his heirs. At any rate, that is what I would do in his shoes.
@ Bear Klein: This needs to be read carefully, Bear. Both sides say they can’t work with the other unless the other party changes some of its policies. That is not a flat out denial that the two blocs are open to collaboration in a future government if they can negotiate a joint policy to bridge these differences.
Also not that saying Blue and White will not agree to the Arab parties actually being part of the government does not mean that Blue-White would refuse to form a government if the Arab parties give them a vote of confidence, or agree to abstain. (If the haredim agree to form a coalition with Blue-White, all Gantz would need would be the abstention of the Arab parties to form a minority government). In return, Gantz could offer the Arab parties a consultative role with respect to some government policy changes, such as more money and constructionfor the Arab sector, and economic aid to the PA and Hamas. Blue-White has never expressed opposition to policies of this sort, and even the Likud government has adopted these measures, although with more strings attached than the Arab parties want. There is clearly a basis for a deal here if both Blue-White and the Arabs show some flexibility over the next few months. It seems to me that they could reach some sort of formula for limited cooperation, without either side having to abandon their core program. I suspect that there are exploratory talks going on to find a compromise formula.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:Funny the same comments were reported elsewhere by Odeh and he was clearly saying that he could no longer support Gantz in a recommendation.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Odeh-warns-Gantz-he-wont-support-him-617222
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
You may be lead astray by politicians and writers who want to bad mouth Liberman. Perhaps you are inclined to hope there is truth to their comments to make your previous erroneous forecasts correct at a later date.
The Arabs are ONLY talking about the recommendation process and not joining a coalition. As of now I heard Odeh say he would no longer recommend Gantz due to his approval of the Trump plan. This I heard in a recent interview. Tibi also said something very similar.
Liberman is not sitting with the Arabs and they are not sitting with him in any government. It is political suicide for Liberman to sit with the Arabs as his voters would turn on him as they are very Antagonistic to the Arab parties.
If one speculates about possible coalitions then:
It is actually possible that “annexation” of the settlements brings Liberman back into a right wing coalition. Liberman lives in Nokdim (Judean Desert) and I am sure he wishes to have sovereignty applied. His voters would be in favor of this and it is good rationale to have some compromise on other issues such as religion and state.
There is a photograph with the story showing Gantz conferring with both Odeh and Tibi. Gantz in between the two Arab representatives. Indicates that Gantz can make a deal with the anti-Zionist parties if he wants to and his own party will let him.
From Feb. 11 Arutz Sheva.http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/275852
This is an op-ed in this week’s Israel Hayom English edition. The Author thinks that Deri may be telling the truth when he says that Leiberman has reached a secret deal with both the Arab parties and Kehol Lavan, and that Kahol Lavan has a secret signed deal with the Arab parties, going all the way back to the the December 2018 election. The author points out that Leiberman has not bothered to deny Aryeh Deri’s accusations. Neither have the leaders f the Arab parties.
Guess the u s democrats learnt from Israel monday on how to count a vote?
Clearly, Kahol Lavan is uncomfortable with the Trump plan because many of them think it doesn’t give enough to the Palestinians. On the other many in the Likud and further right are uncomfortable with the plan because they think it gives to much to the Palestinians at Israel’s expense. This highlights the differences between the parties on the question of “territorial compromise,” “separation,” and a future Palestinian state.
Unfortunately, as this Haaretz article, which seems well informed, indicates, this suggests that aKehol Lavon government is likely to make undesirable “painful compromises in the interest of peace,” including recognizing a sovereign Palestinian state on PLO terms
This important policy disagreement will make it very difficult for the Left and Right blocks to form a unity government after the elections. In the last analysis, Israeli politics are more about policy differences than personality clashes.
https://www.inss.org.il/subjects_tags/palestinians/
This confirms my belief that Gantz has a relationship with the iNSS. The INSS proposal for a peace agreement with the Palestinians, which can be viewed on the web, is much less favorable to Israel than the Trump plan, and much more favorable to the PLO.( I will post a link to the INSS plan in my next post). I suspect that Gantz’s heart is with the INSS plan, not the Trump plan. But he is a smart enough politician to support the Trump plan, at least before the elections. He does not put the INSS plan at risk by doing this, since he knows that the PLO will never accept the Trump plan. But the INSS, and probably Gantz, does believe that there is a chance that the PLO will accept their plan. It calls for a unilateral withdrawal by Israel from a “contiguous ” area of central Judea-Samaria as a last resort if the Palestinians reject any peace agreement.
@ Ted Belman:
Article from HaAretz take this with a grain of salt. Gantz had announced he was for annexing Jordan Valley. As he said the Trump Plan is Blue/White’s actual policy.
I would not be surprised if Blue/White was approving for the Trump Plan and at the same time applying sovereignty to the 30% of Judea/Samaria. This could be the basis of a Likud, Blue/White and Yisrael Betenyu coalition.
THIS ISSUE CAN ASSURE THE RIGHT OF 61 SEATS.
For Gantz to rule out unilateral action, he is doing a stupid thing.