A Guardian Editorial suggests that Israel's new right-wing government could become a liability for the US:
The United States may thus be approaching the point where it begins to see Israel as a strategic liability, or at least a problem, rather than an asset. This is not to say that the commitment to Israel's right to exist will waver, nor that some crude transfer of allegiance is about to take place, or that, if it did, it would have a magical effect on relations with America's Middle East antagonists. But American opinion has been slowly shifting for some time towards the view that the alliance with Israel must not be allowed to get in the way of the pursuit of America's larger interests in the Middle East. President Obama is both less constrained than his predecessors were in his dealings with Israel, and under greater pressure. Israelis may find they have voted for a greater change in their circumstances than they imagined.
The problem here is that our interests and Israel's interests are starting to diverge. For example, the more instability there is, the higher that gas prices go -- militaries need tons of oil to fuel their killing machines. But on the other hand, gas prices would make a bad economic situation here in this country even worse. Therefore, it is in our economic interests to see gas prices as low as possible; therefore, it is in our economic interests to see peace and stability in the Middle East.
And there is another divergence of interests as well. As the editorial notes, Israel was asking the Bush administration for bunker busting bombs to take out Iran's alleged nuclear facilities. Now, the Obama administration sees cooperation with Iran as essential in order to stop Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Keep in mind that Bin Laden planned and implemented a war of aggression that resulted in the loss of 3,000 lives here in the US. So, for all of Obama's professions of support for Israel at the AIPAC conference last year, it is clear that American and Israeli interests are starting to diverge, leading to cracks in the alliance.
Gideon Levy -- The Israeli Left is Dead:
The Israeli left died in 2000. Since then its corpse has been lying around unburied until finally its death certificate was issued, signed, sealed and delivered on Tuesday. The hangman of 2000 was also the gravedigger of 2009: Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The man who succeeded in spreading the lie about there being no partner has reaped the fruit of his deeds in this election. The funeral was held two days ago.
The Israeli left is dead. For the past nine years it took the name of the peace camp in vain. The Labor Party, Meretz and Kadima had pretensions of speaking in its name, but that was trickery and deceit. Labor and Kadima made two wars and continued to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank; Meretz supported both wars. Peace has been left an orphan. The Israeli voters, who have been misled into thinking that there is no one to talk to and that the only answer to this is force - wars, targeted killings and settlements - have had their say clearly in the election: a closing sale for Labor and Meretz. It was only the force of inertia that gave these parties the few votes they won.
There was no reason for it to be otherwise. After many long years when hardly any protest came from the left, and the city square, the same square that raged after Sabra and Chatila, was silent, this lack of protest has been reflected at the ballot box as well. Lebanon, Gaza, the killed children, cluster bombs, white phosphorus and all the atrocities of occupation - none of this drove the indifferent, cowardly left onto the street. Though ideas of the left have found a toehold in the center and sometimes even on the right, everyone from former prime minister Ariel Sharon to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has spoken in a language that once was considered radical. But the voice was the voice of the left while the hands were the hands of the right.
Haaretz further reports that Labour and Meretz are considering uniting, which would give them 16 seats in the upcoming parliament. But this is a living example of what would have happened if the Democrats had followed the way of the DLC and nominated, say, Joe Lieberman for President in 2004. They might have enjoyed electoral success, but they would have marginalized themselves in the process. Instead, the nomination of John Kerry and the run of Howard Dean laid out the groundwork for Obama's election in 2008. But that is not enough -- we must now hold Obama's feet to the fire and insist that he keep the promises that he made during the election campaign.
Abbas Urges World to Isolate Likud:
Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas has conducted an international campaign in recent weeks aimed at the diplomatic isolation of a right-wing government headed by Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu. Abbas has been trying to convince the international community that such an Israeli government must face conditions similar to those faced by the Hamas government.
A senior political source in Jerusalem said Wednesday that the leaders of France, Britain and Italy have promised Abbas that they would not allow any new Israeli government delay or freeze the peace process. The same source said that Netanyahu's statements on continuing the peace process and on "economic peace" are perceived by Abbas and his aides as "empty promises."
As such the Palestinian Authority prepared a plan for "diplomatic resistance" to Israel. The purpose of the plan is to offer an alternative to the "military resistance" of Hamas and preserve Fatah as a relevant force, even in the absence of a peace process.
Mel Frykberg -- Extremism Dominates Israeli Polls:
Lieberman:
"The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions," said Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Israel's extreme right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, which will dictate the formation and political course of the next Israeli government.
"These include the assertion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."
Lieberman's politics and ideology fly in the face of international law, various UN Security Council resolutions, the basis of all Israeli peace agreements with the Palestinians, moderate Israelis, and the U.S. government.
And Netanyahu:
It is uncertain what Labour will do, and it appears that Netanyahu will emerge as the next prime minister. This doesn't portend well for the future of the peace process. Netanyahu has stated that he will crush Hamas should he lead Israel again.
This is despite the plethora of evidence and growing international, regional and even domestic opinion that there is no military solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, and that Hamas can no longer be ignored and sidelined from any political equation.
Netanyahu is also on record as saying that he would continue to support the expansion and establishment of new illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The problem is that Bibi will have to negotiate with Hamas whether he likes it or not. There are growing calls for Israel to aid Gaza, even from normally conservative Jewish organizations. Even the Bush administration supported the two-state solution. The problem is that the Israeli government is trying to turn back the clock to policies that have long been shown to be failures. Even the Bush administration grudgingly signed the Status of Forces Agreement that will pave the way for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The problem is that there is no such willingness on the Israeli government's part to admit that a policy of perpetual warfare against the Palestinians is not likely to work.
The nature of warfare is such that it is always glamorous in the beginning -- Livni was able to capitalize on that to win the election after her party had been given up for dead. But the longer that wars drag on with no end in sight, the more unpopular they get.
Haaretz on Meretz's poor showing:
Meretz was not in the coalition, and therefore could not be blamed for the government's shortcomings. It fulfilled its role as a small opposition party decently, and even more than that. But the more dovish circles among the traditional voters accused the party of betraying its basic principles in supporting the Second Lebanon War of 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza last month. Traditional Meretz voters are unforgiving of indecisiveness and cannot disregard unnecessary wars. Some of these hardcore voters, thus, supported the even more left-wing bi-national party Hadash.
Meretz also paid a heavy price for the fragmentation within the left wing bloc. Almost two of the seats that should have gone to Meretz went to the Green Party-Meimad and to other smaller niche parties with similar platforms, like the Green Leaf Party.
However, it looks as though the deadliest blow was dealt in the final days before the election. The close tie in the polls between Kadima and Likud, and the campaign messages that whichever of the two would gain more seats, would be tasked with forming the next government, compelled Meretz voters, considered involved and educated citizens, to abandon their party and vote for Kadima in efforts to "rescue" Israel from a Benjamin Netanyahu-Avigdor Lieberman coalition.
In other words, the same dynamic that worked against Nader in 2004 and 2008 worked against Meretz and other such smaller left-wing parties this time around, even though our electoral systems are two totally different things.