KNESSET ELECTIONS AND NEW POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ISRAEL
05 June 2009
p;nid=1862
Artak Grigoryan
The main peculiarity of Israeli election system is that there are many
parties taking part in the elections. Generally Israeli political
space stands out by the great number of small parties. They need to
clear 2% barrier to enter the Knesset. Till 2003 that barrier was
1.5%. This allows including many small parties in Knesset, which
consists of 120 persons. Such a low barrier was set to provide with
more political pluralism. In spite of that circumstance, today this
model has many opponents and a number of parties come forward with
political programmes of its reform. They emphasize that as a result of
the current model, as a rule, weak coalition governments are formed,
which very often depend on the mood of small parties forming that
coalition.
Knesset elections, which took place on February 10, 2009, were marked
by the defeat of the ruling political coalition.
Despite the fact that the ruling centrist Kadima party gathered most
of all mandates – 28, the elections were won by the radical right
powers. Kadima was founded in 2005 by Ariel Sharon. The leader of the
party is former foreign minister Tzipora (Tzipi) Livni. Kadima is the
adherent of the negotiations process with Palestine and it does not
deny the establishment of Palestine state, of course, it does not
exclude unilateral strict measures on behalf of Israel. It is the
adherent of the `two states for the two peoples’ principle, the
reconsidering of the borders and the return to the state, which was in
1967.
The second place in the Knesset was taken by the Likud party, which
represents the right block and which received only one mandate less
than Kadima. The leader of the party is the prime-minister of Israel
in 1996-99 Benjamin Netanyahu (Bibi). Likud struggles for united Eretz
Israel1. They are opposed to the existence of the Palestine state and,
moreover, to the return of the territories. According to Likud if the
separating strife should be moved, then it should be moved so that the
valley of the Jordan River appeared at the territory of
Israel. Depending on the situation it sometimes softened its right
stance and spoke from the centric stance.
The right radical `Israel is Our Home’ (Yisrael Beiteinu) Party, which
founder and irreplaceable leader is the former citizen of the Soviet
Union, who was born in Chisinau, Avigdor Liberman, received 15
mandates and became the third parliamentary power. Most of the Russian
speaking population of Israel voted to that party.
`Israel is Our Home’ build its political programme on rather radical
stance. That party denies the existence of the Palestine Autonomy, the
reconsideration of the borders, any negotiations with HAMAS or other
`terrorist’ organizations and is the adherent of building the
relations with them from the position of strength. Along with Zionist
ideas it also stands for some religious restrictions, that’s why
sometimes it is called in Israeli press `secular Zionist’.
The heaviest defeat was suffered by the Avoda Party (Labour Party),
which constituted a part of ruling political coalition and which
represents left wing at current political picture. Its leader is the
prime-minister of Israel in 1999-2000 Ehud Barak. In 2006 he also
occupied a post of the minister of defense of Israel. Instead of
previous 20 mandates Avoda could preserve only 13. The axis of the
political programme of Avoda is the principle `territories in exchange
for the peace’.
11 mandates were received by the Zionist and orthodox religious SHAS
Party, which also represents the right radical wing of Israeli
political space.
The 2% barrier has also been cleaned by 7 other small parties, which
provided themselves with the places in the Knesset and among them 2
Arab parties (RAHAM-TAL, BALAD). Generally right powers, including
Zionist parties, gained 65 mandates and left powers – 44. Other 11
places in the Knesset were gained by Arab and Communist parties.
Political struggle begins after the elections
Under the conditions of current political system in Israel and
according to the working rules of the game, the political struggle
after the elections does not calm down but just the opposite; it is
even more intensified and acquires new quality and content. As a rule
the multilateral negotiations on the formation of political coalition
and gaining the conductor’s baton of the government begin between 2-3,
or even more parties, which often took quite the opposite position
during the electoral campaign. Here the political mosaic can get
various colourings. As it is said `policy is the art of
possibilities’. It is characteristic, and it is even mentioned by some
Israeli expert sources, that those negotiations has turned into a
simple political trade for many times. After the political
consultation with all the parties the president of the country assigns
to the party, which has the most of the guarantees and has the biggest
possibility to form the coalition, to form the government.
On February 10 after the elections it became clear that there are 2
parties, which can take the reins of the government – Kadima and
Likud. The leaders of both of the parties stated their victory. Tzipi
Livni insisted that her party outvoted and B. Netanyahu pointed that
right powers won the elections, i.e. he must form the
government. Those parties embarked on the traditional negotiation
process of the `supporter enlisting’. On February 13, on the threshold
of the negotiations rather flexible step was made by `Israel is Our
Home’ party.
Realizing the fact that no coalition can be formed without his
participation, the leader of the party A. Lieberman passed to Levni
and Netanyahu his ultra-radical conditions for entering any
coalition. Those conditions were the suspencion of any negotiations
with HAMAS and any other organization supporting terrorism, the
solution of any problems by power methods, the exclusion of any
unilateral territorial concessions and etc. In Israeli press the
doctrine presented by Lieberman is often called `peace through tank
earth-and-timber emplacement’. Among the presented problems there were
the issues of Israeli citizenship and loyalty to the state2, the
adoption of the law on civil marriages, other radical offers on the
reforming of the state structure and political system and etc.
Realizing that the conditions put forward by him can be acceptable to
its `natural ally’ right wing Likud Party, Lieberman directly stated
that he would support Benjamin Netanyahu if he accepted his demands
and at the same time would form `wide coalition’ through forming the
so called `government of national unity’, which will include the left
powers too, mainly Kadima and Avoda. As the later developments came to
prove Lieberman made an exceptional political step. Possessing only 15
mandates he made two biggest parties not only accept his principles
but also make `political bargain’ with him.
This bait thrown by `Israel is Our Home’ was gorged both by Kadima and
Likud. In spite of the fact that the conditions put forward by `Israel
is Our Home’ Party contradict to some axis provisions of Kadima, the
head of its group of negotiations Khaim Ramon two days later stated
that Kadima accepts almost all the conditions of `Israel is Our Home’
Party except «Citizenship-loyalty’ law. It meant that in order to
retain the power Kadima and its leader the minister of foreign affairs
Tzipi Livni were ready to move towards a new format of political
priciples. This statement caused bewilderment in political field in
Israel, mainly among left powers. Tzipi Livni most likely
overestimated her ability to rally all the left parliamentary powers
round her party. Just like Netanyahu laid claim to present the right
powers, including 65 mandates of `Israel is Our Home’ Party, the same
way Tzipi Livni was more than sure that she can present all the 44
mandates of left powers. At the same time if she could draw over
A. Lieberman and his party, even at the cost of the concessions on
some political views and principles, then the process could be
regarded as finished.
But other left parties did not want to play the games of the rights
under the leadership of Kadima. The representative of Avoda Party, the
minister of agriculture of Israel Shalom Simhon stated that: `Avoda
have never been in the pocket of Kadima. Even more, our fraction will
not most probably support Tzipi Livni before President Shimon Peres to
form a new government. We think that Livni did not conduct properly in
recent days…’
As for Likud Party, according to the official statement sent to
`Israel is Our Home’ Party, all the conditions of `Israel is Our Home’
Party are acceptable for Likud.
In a week after the elections the president of Israel Shimon Peres
stated his political consulting with parliamentary fractions in order
to listen to their proposals concerning the formation of coalitions
and their proposals concerning the candidate to the post of the
prime-minister. As it was expected, all the radical right and
nationalist powers, represented by Likud, `Israel is Our Home’ Party,
ShAS, Jewish Tora, National Unity, Jewish Home parties, formed new
political coalition and they supported the leader of Likud Behjamin
Netanyahu, or as they call him Bibi, as a prime-minister. On February
20 the president of Israel Shimon Peres officially commissioned
Netanyahu to form a new government of Israel.
Political incompatibility of the concepts?
B. Netanyahu, who had four weeks to form new coalition (this period
can be prolonged by the president on two weeks), was the first who
initiated the mending of the relations with the lefts. He probably
realized very well that resting on radical left powers his government
cannot have long life. The presence of small parties with big specific
weight in the coalition, as the subsequent developments came to prove,
was a real sword of Damocles over the head of the government and the
prime-minister and those parties would use the blackmail tactics
without hesitation if necessary. Probably, the offer put forward by
Lieberman to form the government of national unity was not mostly the
condition but a life-buyo for him. Just for this reason the first
steps made by Netanyahu were not directed to the discussion of the
composition of the government with his coalition partners but he
initiated the process of the negotiations with the aforementioned
parties. At the same time Netanyahu announced that he is ready to give
two of three key posts in the office (we speak about the ministries of
defense, foreign affairs and finances).
In her effort not to repeat her previous mistake, the leader of Kadima
Tzipi Livni in her public speaking in front of the fraction stated:
`Today the basis for the radical right government, which is headed by
Bibi, is laid. This is not our way and we have nothing to do in such a
government. The people of Israel did not elect us to become executives
for the right radicals. Our place is opposition and we have to
struggle for our main political line: `two states for the two peoples’
as the opposition’.
The two stage negotiations between B. Netanyahu and T. Livni were the
debate between two conceptual approaches, which can be seen on
political field of Israel; between the concepts, which have drastic
differences connected with the system of values. Just for this reason,
as it was expected, there were no tangible results. The main
discrepancies during the negotiations regarded the Israel’s foreign
policy doctrine within which framework Kadima and Likud parties tried
to build their policy. As Tzipi Livni announced just after the talks:
`the main problem of coalition government regards one issue – the
issue of `peace’. In a point of fact it is the issue, which is
perceived by both parties in deferent ways. According to Kadima peace
is the implementation of `two states for the two peoples’ principle,
conducting the negotiations with FATAH, represented by Mahmoud Abbas,
negotiations with HAMAS, the reconsideration of the borders, division
of Jerusalem and etc. Meanwhile, right radical organizations,
including Likud, are totally against the aforementioned conceptual
approaches. Benjamin Netanyahu stated many times that Likud would
never sit down to negotiations table with HAMAS, would never allow the
division of Jerusalem, because as he mentioned `…any returned square
foot of land will turn into an Iranian base at once, from which
Israeli civilians are the fired on’.
Several days later, on March 2 during the session of Kadima fraction
it was decided to break off the coalition negotiations with Likud and
announce itself parliamentary opposition. The uncompromising and
consistent stand of Kadima during the talks was also most probably
conditioned by the forecast of Tzipi Livni and the top echelon of the
party that the narrow ultra-radical government, which possesses only
65 mandates in the coalition, cannot have a long life. In Kadima they
were sure that the aforementioned government would fail soon and as a
result new coalition and new government (may be even under their lead)
will be formed through the rotation.
The negotiations with the leader of Avoda, the minister of defense of
Israel Ehud Barak, went on approximately on the same scenario. Just
after the elections the leaders of Avoda stated that after the heavy
defeat they were not going to form a coalition with the right powers
and that they would act as an opposition. Though as a result of
negotiations between Netanyahu and Barak the latter had tried to speak
in mass media about the possibility of joining the coalition by Avoda,
but after the resistance of his party fellows he announced on March 8
about the breakdown of the negotiations with Netanyahu and passing of
Avoda to the camp of opposition.
The first round of Netanyahu’s negotiations with left powers failed,
and this was conditioned not by the coordinated actions of the left
parties (in reality there are deep competition and not less strained
relations between Kadima, Avoda and Meretz3 parties) but by the
opposed political positions and deep divergence of principles. The
whole logic of events, regarding coalition, evidences that those two
concepts, which can be found on the political field of Israel, are
politically incompatible.
What kind of coalition is formed on the right wing?
It occurred in the course of the discussion of the coalition
agreements4 and the composition of the government between Likud and
right parties, which expressed their readiness to form the coalition,
that it not so easy to fix the problems not only with the lefts but
also with the rights. The coalition partners put forward mutually
exclusive demands. The smaller was the party, the more aggressive and
ultimative were its demands to Netanyahu. The latter, unlike in the
case with small parties, could come to agreement and sign coalition
agreements with `Israel is Our Home’ and SHAS Parties.
According to the agreement signed by Likud and `Israel is Our Home’,
five minister portfolios would be offered to `Israel is Our Home’,
including the post of the minister of foreign affairs, which was later
taken by Lieberman. Three of `Israel is Our Home’ Party’s ministers
will be included in the Military and Political cabinet of
Israel5. `Israel is Our Home’ would also take over the control of
several parliamentary commissions. All the conditions put forward on
the preliminary stage of the negotiations by `Israel is Our Home’
Party were included in the agreement. One characteristic condition:
Lieberman stands for the improvement of the relations with CIS member
countries and particularly with Russia, and according to the reached
agreements the representatives of `Israel is Our Home’ Party would
take over the control of the interpaliamentary groups with the
countries of CIS, mainly with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova,
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan6.
According to the agreement signed between Likud and SHAS, the latter
will be given 4 ministries, including the Ministry of Home Affairs,
which later was headed by the leader of the party Eli Ishan. Under the
motto `More Judaism’ SHAS will receive 1 billion 400 million shekels
(about $350 thousand) for the development of Yeshivas7, which work
within that system.
There were more problems with Jewish Home, National Unity and Jewish
Torah during the coalition negotiations. Those parties, which have 3-5
mandates, making use of Netanyahu’s `helplessness’ put forward
impossible demands. The most aggressive and reactionist circles of
Jewish spirituality represented in Jewish Torah party even demanded to
declare invalid the agreement with `Israel is Our Home’, which have
`deep, ideological’ factions with `secular Zionism’.
`Mess of pottage’ in 21st century
Netanyahu realized perfectly that he could not stand so long. On March
20 he asked the president of Israel Shemon Peres to give him two more
weeks to bring the coalition government to a definite state. In order
not to be dependent on caprice of small Zionist parties, and finally
having lost the hope to come to an agreement with Kadima, Netanyahu
had only one chance to use the last opportunity, to come to an
agreement with Avoda party. As an old and experienced politician who
clearly understands the logic of the state system of Israel, Netanyahu
could very quickly and acutely carry out strong lobby mechanisms,
where very powerful military, economic, business and social circles of
Israel, were included. On those days the representatives of
influential Jewish organizations and lobby associations, business
magnates came to Israel from different countries. There was some
disjointed and mysterious news in press that this was done to put
Avoda under the pressure. Ehud Barak’s confession in a narrow
surrounding of friends is brought as the grounds of it.
If in initial stage of coalition processes Avidor Lieberman showed
rather competent and prudent position, then Ehud Barak appeared to be
much more flexible in the final stage. According to colourful
definition of `Newsru’ web-site `…after the heavy defeat on the
elections, when it seemed that everything was finished for Avoda,
taking the advantage of the created situation Barak could `sell
himself’ dearly to Bibi who was clutching at the foam. For Avoda it
was a very suitable moment. First of all small parties included in
coalition took too exigent position using blackmail tactics, and
Kadima behaved very hard and steady during the talks, so that
Netanyahu was already forced to pay a very high price for involving
Kadima into the coalition.
For the solution of the issue concerning Avoda’s being involved in the
coalition it was planned to gather a party congress which should make
a final decision about aforementioned problem by a secret ballot.
Nevertheless the coalition agreement was signed by Barak and Netanyahu
on March 24 without waiting for the decision of the congress. This
fact was not accepted by Avoda unequivocally. Rather influential
representatives of party elite, particularly the chief secretary Eitan
Kabel, the deputies of the Knesset Ofir Pines-Paz, Shelly Yahimovich
and others were opposed to that process. In spite of strong resistance
Avoda’s congress on March 25 carried out a secret ballot and by not
very big advantage of the votes approved the agreement signed by Ehud
Barack about joining the coalition.
Netanyahu really paid a lot for `the mess of pottage’ served by Ehud
Barak. Barak will be a vice prime-minister, at the same time he will
keep the post of the minister of defense. Avoda has been given four
more ministerial posts, and two of the ministers will become the
members of military and political cabinet of Israel. Four commissions
of the Knesset were also allocated to Avoda; they are the commission
of defense and security, of foreign affairs, of education, and the
commission of alia8 and absorption. Ehud Barak will be involved into
all negotiation processes on the part of Israel, and the heads of
security and special services will be appointed and dismissed by his
consent.
In the name of all this, Ehud Barak who has lost the elections
abandoned his convictions. Anyhow the latter tries to prove that they
entered the coalition because the people of Israel wished so, that
they do not refuse from their principles, that it was done in order to
counterbalance the radical right government from the inside,
nevertheless, political and analytical circles of Israel testify that
Avoda abandoned its principles becoming an instrument of the right
powers. Though it is mentioned in the coalition agreement that the
government under Netanyahu’s leadership will continue to conduct
peaceful negotiations on the settlement of Arab-Israeli conflict as
well as all the previous international agreements (including peaceful
agreements) and commitments will be kept by the government9, but still
there is no word about Palestine statehood and the principle of `two
states for the two peoples’.
After Likud signed the coalition agreement with Avoda, Jewish Home and
some days later Jewish Tora also signed the coalition agreements, but
without any ultimative demands.
At the preliminary stage of coalition negotiations Tzipi Livni
supposed that Netanyahu had only one way, i.e. to form a narrow, right
radical government, which would be opposed strong and organized
opposition represented by Kadima, Avoda and Meretz.
That is why the latter during the talks with Likud took a very hard
and steady stance refusing all generous proposals made by the leader
of Likud supposing that the latter’s government would hardly exist for
year.
Nobody in Likud supposed that Avoda, which adhere to the left views
could join the coalition even at a very high price. Livni now realizes
that she has fallen into a trap. It was not Bibi who has formed a
narrow government but she has become `a narrow opposition’, which
cannot have any real and active interference into the processes taking
place in the country. By the way, it is the first time in the history
of Israel when the party which gained the majority of votes turned out
to be in the status of the radical opposition. Only one thing was left
to the leaders of Kadima, i.e. to call Barak `betrayer of principles
and values’.
The presence of Avoda at coalition doesn’t influence seriously on the
general strategy of the government, with the help of the latter
Netanyahu creates the illusion of the government of wide coalition and
national unity; using the support of very influential Israeli
trade-unions (Histadrut), industrialists and big businessmen, it can
have a long life in the country ensuring internal political stability.
Netanyahu has formed the greatest in number government in the history
of Israel which consists of 30 ministers but as he said that was the
price necessary for domestic political stability.
And so, in spite of the fact that left side Avoda party has become the
part of the coalition, in the result of the elections to the 18th
Knesset, as it was expected, the right radical coalition government
has been formed.
Arab world and international community on elections in Israel
The elections in Israel were in the news of mass media and analytical
organization all over the world. The roughest was the reaction of the
Arab world. The press of Saudi Arabia specifically touched upon
Netanyahu-Lieberman alliance and called it `radically right menace’ to
the Arab world. Many of Saudi Arabian mass media did not see much
difference between two candidates to the post of the prime-minister
Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu and called their race for power
another kind of Israeli national sport.
`Al-Quds-Al-Arabi’ newspaper, which is published in London, wrote in
its editorial that: `…as a result of the competition between Livni
and Netanyahu exclusively peace process will be harmed’. On the next
day the same newspaper called international community to boycott any
Israeli government where `Israel is Our Home’ Party headed by
Lieberman will be included. The former advisor of Yasser Arafat doctor
Ahmed Tibi in his interview, which was given in Tunisia also called
international community to boycott Israeli government in case if
Lieberman is included in it.
HAMAS’s newspaper `Ar-Risala’ wrote that: `…the whole electoral
campaign to the Knesset was based on who would spill more Palestine
blood, thus it does not matter who would head the coalition
government. The Palestine trouble will not release’. And the
representative of HAMAS stated: `It just the same who would head the
government of Israel. There is no difference between Netanyahu and
Livni. They both are war criminals’.
Much more optimistic was the article placed on famous Saudi Arabian
businessman Fares Asri’s `Arab News’ web-site, where the latter, while
turning to the appointment of Netanyahu on the post of the head of the
coalition government mentions that `it cannot be yet regarded as the
worst scenario… peace with Arabs as a rule was established by
Israeli right politicians, e.g. Menachem Begin, meanwhile left
figures, mainly Holdi Meir or Shimon Peres did not stand out for their
peaceful initiatives’.
The leader of `Hezbollah’ Hassan Nasrallah thanked Israelis for their
`frankness’ and stated: `All those who wanted to scare the people of
Lebanon were defeated long time ago – Begin, Sharon, Rabin, Netanyahu,
Barak, Olmert, Livni… now it Lieberman’s turn’.
The leaders of the Palestine Autonomy also reacted on the
elections. Thus the press-secretary of the president of the Palestine
Autonomy Mahmoud Abbas Abou-Rudein stated: `We will demand any
government of Israel, no matter who is the head of that government, to
carry out the promises of the previous government. We are ready for
the collaboration with any government but the negotiations will resume
from the point, where we succeeded to reach the agreement with the
previous government’. Later, the words of the press-secretary were
confirmed by Mahmoud Abbas.
There were some interesting references made by the western press
too. Thus, while analyzing the results of the elections, `The
Washington Post’ pointed out that there was a `right shift’ in the
Israeli society, of course against the Palestinians. Generally, the
analyses by `The Washington Post’ were marked by their pro-Israeli
position. Particularly the newspaper wrote that both the US and Israel
regard HAMAS as terrorist organization and the main problem is its
disarmament.
`Time’ weekly predicted that most probably the new government of
Israel is not inclined to continue the negotiations following `two
states’ principle, and at the same time war in Gaza make people rally
HAMAS.
Within these two factors there is no optimism concerning the peaceful
solution of the matter. Mahmoud Abbas has been trying without any
effect for 8 years to settle the problems with Israel through
negotiations, meanwhile after the war in Gaza only HAMAS is perceived
as the only and the real leader among Palestinians.
On `Asia Times’ web-site the analyst Jim Lobe made rather pessimistic
conclusions concerning the US-Israel relations. He predicted the
underlined deterioration in the relations between two ally
states. Lobe mentions that the president of the US B. Obama is the
adherent of `two states’ principle, meanwhile right radical Netanyahu
could hardly choose the way, which will bring the situation back as it
was in 1967. All these can cause a deadlock condition in the relations
between the US and Israel.
The European Union also expresses some anxiety by the appointment of
Netanyahu to the post of the prime-minister. There is some concern
that Netanyahu can abort the negotiations process with
Palestine. Particularly that concern was expressed by the foreign
minister of Sweden Carl Bildt and Chezh deputy prime-minister
Alexander Vondr.
An interesting observation was made by `Herald Tribune’. The latter,
turning to the meeting of Netanyahu and the candidate for the
presidency B. Obama, which took place in the summer in 2008 in
Jerusalem, mentions that at the end of the meeting Obama took
Netanyahu aside from the main group of the participants and said that
they had much in common. He had started his political life on the left
wing, and then shifted to the centre.
Netanyahu started his political life on the right wing and shifted to
the centre too. They both are pragmatics, who prefer to do something
definite. `Herald Tribune’ forecasts that as the head of the
government Netanyahu will definitely show necessary pragmatism.
The international public opinion and current approaches to the
Arab-Israeli conflict were briefly and clearly expressed in two
sentences by Barak Obama during his press-conference on March 24: `We
don’t yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like, and
we don’t yet know what the future shape of Palestinian leadership is
going to be comprised of. What we do know is this: That the status quo
is unsustainable, that it is critical for us to advance a two-state
solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side-by-side in
their own states with peace and security’.
Conclusion
In the result of the parliamentary elections there were new
rearrangements, which certainly would leave their trace on the current
political processes. The near future will show what kind of political
feature the Netanyahu government will accept, what kind of line of
conduct they will display. The near future will also show what will be
the attitude of international community to this or that political
strategy of the newly formed government.
In any case, it is not so easy for Israel to face the external
challenges. The new administration of the United States, Israel’s
traditional ally, shows much more loyalty to the events going on in
the Middle East region; this was brightly reflected during the visit
of Hilary Clinton to the region. The relations between Israel and its
other traditional ally Turkey seem also to be wrinkled. In any case,
more efforts will be required from Israel and Jewish lobbies to find
solutions favourable for them in the regional and geopolitical global
processes.
And it is not a mere chance that the previous day of the inauguration
of the new government president Shemon Peres went on a two-day visit
to Prague (Czech Rep. holds the presidency of the Council of the
European Union). The aim of the visit is to convince the Europeans
that Netanyahu’s office is adherent to `peaceful process’ and will
continue to carry out the works in that direction.
The events, which have been taking place for the recent 2-3 months,
the war in Gaza, the results of the Knesset elections and an equivocal
reaction of international community to these results, promise new
scenarios of the development of the events in the region, and, in all
probability, we shall be the witnesses of it in the near future
Firstly, it’s time for Armenia to be able to regulate its relations
with Israel, to establish full-fledged diplomatic relations and to
search for general borders not only in the state of Israel but in
Israeli centres, which work in different countries and international
organizations of the world.
Let us mention here that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the RA has
not shown the initiative in the relations with Israel till today, and
this omission should be filled now.
Secondly, the Armeniancy in Jerusalem has a very influential
representation such as Jerusalem’s Saint Jakob’s order. It also has
considerable resources of great national value, the development and
thrives of which is already a serious problem today, and elaboration
and carrying out of the national purposeful strategies is needed.
This is a quite different topic and with all its urgency it contains
rich material for discussion and we hope that the political,
analytical and diplomatic circles of Armenia will seriously turn to
it.
1According to the Old Testament God promised Jews the land of
Covenant. Under the name of Eretz-Israel the territory of historical
Israel is also understood.
2The provision put forward by Lieberman cuts both. On one hand it is
directed against the non-Jewish and mainly Arab population of Israel,
who, in case of non-loyal behaviour in the respect of Jewry and the
state of Israel, can be deprived of citizenship judicially (this
reminds the notorious 301 article of criminal code of Turkey, which
carries punishment for the offence of Turkishness and today even for
the offence of the Turkish nation). On the other hand it is offered
not to denizen all those who do not serve in Israeli Army, meanwhile
it is known that a great number of Jewish spirituality are exempted
from the military service.
3The party, which have 3 mandates in the Knesset and is adherent of
left views. The leader of the party Khaim Oron headed Israel-Armenia
interparliamentary group. The latter was the author of the of the
Armenian Genocide discussion project, which had to take place in March
2008 but which did not took place unfortunately.
4In Israel the parties, which form the coalition, sign not just one
agreement, but the dominant party, which offers prime-minister, signs
separate agreements with every party forming the coalition. In the
history of Israel there were cases, when the ruling party during the
same session signed conflicting coalition agreements.
5`Narrow government’, `security cabinet’. In other words the council
of security of Israel. The narrow organ of the government, which deals
with almost all the key problems regarding Israel’s security, military
and state policy.
6It is interesting that in the aforementioned list none of the South
Caucasian republics are mentioned. In the last Knesset the
parliamentary group Israel-Azerbaijan was headed the member of `Israel
is Our Home’ Party Joseph Shagal, who was born in Baku, but now he is
not a deputy any more. On his initiative in 2007 A.
Lieberman, who was at that time the minister of strategic planning of
Israel, visited Baku and had a number of meetings with the authorities
of Azerbaijan. It is not known yet what will happen to
Israel-Azerbaijan interparliamentary group or who will be its head.
7In Jewish history yeshiva was called the spiritual educational
institutions, which were planned as a place where `Oral Tora’ and
particularly Talmud were taught. For more than 2000 years yeshivas
have been the main institutions for the retaining of Jews and Jewry.
8The repatriation of Jews to Israel. Before the foundation of Israel
the return to Eretz-Israel was regarded as `aria’.
The repatriated Jews (i.e. those who passes aria) are called
olims. Thus, most of Israel’s population today are either olims or
their successors.
9On the same day after the appointment to the post of the minister of
foreign affairs A. Lieberman stated that the new Israeli government
was not going to bear responsibility for the provisions of Annapolis
agreement. Let us remind you, that two-state principle is stated in
that agreement, which was signed in 2007 by Ehud Olmert, Mahmuod Abbas
and George Bush.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
