The announcement this week of a new Palestinian unity government was greeted with cautious optimism by most of the world, outside of Israel. In the United States, however, it set off political rumblings that threaten to swell into a storm.

The decision by the Obama Administration to maintain its relationship with the Palestinian Authority for the time being drew an unusually sharp rebuke from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I’m deeply troubled by the announcement that the United States will work with the Palestinian government backed by Hamas,” Netanyahu told The Associated Press.

But the United States decided that the mere support by Hamas of a technocratic government was not sufficient reason to cut off aid and contact with the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. position is far more sceptical, however, than those of the European Union, United Nations, Russia, China, India, Turkey, France and United Kingdom, all of whom explicitly supported the unity government.“Based on what we know now, we intend to work with this government, but we’ll be watching closely to ensure that it upholds the principles that President Abbas reiterated” – U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki

The matter may become even more controversial in the future for the United States. Unlike any of the other countries which are maintaining their support of the Palestinian Authority, the United States has laws which limit support for a Palestinian government that is either controlled or “unduly influenced” by Hamas. That is not currently the case, but it very well could be if Palestinian elections, which were a part of the unity agreement, are held.

Following Netanyahu’s criticism of the U.S. stance, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) urged the United States to reconsider its relationship to the Palestinian Authority.

“(President Abbas) chose to align with Hamas.” AIPAC said in a statement. “U.S. law is clear – no funds can be provided to a Palestinian government in which Hamas participates or has undue influence.  We now urge Congress to conduct a thorough review of continued U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority to ensure that the law is completely followed and implemented.”

Since none of the ministers or current members of the Palestinian cabinet are also members of Hamas, there is no legal obligation to review, much less suspend, aid to the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, if there were a real threat to aid to the Palestinian Authority, it is not clear that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups would support it.

In the past, such groups have been reluctant to see aid to the Palestinian Authority cut, fearing that the likely result would be its collapse, which would greatly magnify the security and administrative burden on Israel, which would have to administer such matters in the West Bank directly.

Nonetheless, members of Congress are not happy that the United States was so quick to approve of the new Palestinian government. Eric Cantor, a Republican and the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, called on President Obama to immediately suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority pending a review.

“The Administration, in consultation with Congress, should initiate an immediate review of this new government,” Cantor’s statement said. “Until such time that it is determined that assistance to this so-called technocratic government is consistent with our own interests, principles, and laws it is incumbent on the Administration to suspend U.S. assistance.”

While Republican baiting on this issue was surely expected, Obama will face an uphill battle even within his own party. Representative Nita Lowey, the Ranking Democrat on the important House Appropriations Committee, offered only tepid support to Obama’s position. “As long as Hamas rejects the Quartet principles and the existence of the State of Israel, United States funding for this unity government is in jeopardy,” Lowey said.

“I still believe that the United States should continue its policy of promoting negotiations to achieve an independent state for the Palestinian people living side by side with Israel in peace and security,” she added.

The 2014 Appropriations Act clearly does limit the aid that the United States can give to the P. Palestinian Authority if Hamas controls or “has undue influence” over it. But the current government does not meet that standard.

“The law as currently drafted at least maintains the pretence of an opening to Palestinian reconciliation,” Lara Friedman, Director of Policy and Government Relations for Americans For Peace Now told IPS. “It in no way threatens or requires punishing the PA for simply seeking such reconciliation; to the extent that negative ramifications for reconciliation are threatened, such ramifications are triggered by the character of the government or entity that comes out of reconciliation efforts, not the fact of the reconciliation itself.”

That is completely consistent with the U.S. stance, as articulated by State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: “Moving forward, we will be judging this government by its actions. Based on what we know now, we intend to work with this government, but we’ll be watching closely to ensure that it upholds the principles that President Abbas reiterated today.”

It is unlikely that Congress is going to take immediate action, but the battle lines ahead of a Palestinian election have been drawn. If the technocratic Palestinian Authority continues indefinitely, Congress may not go beyond bombastic statements. But if an election is held and, as is overwhelmingly likely, Hamas wins a significant presence in the new government, Congress will have the tools it needs to press for a major cut in aid to the Palestinians. It is clear that this is not something the Obama Administration desires, and many believe it is not good strategy.

“Serious analysts of the Israel-Palestinian conflict have long understood that a permanent, negotiated settlement would require agreement between a legitimate and popular Israeli government and a legitimate and popular Palestinian Authority,” Professor Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University told IPS.

“Israel’s long-term security would be best guaranteed by the creation of a competent, authoritative, and generally legitimate Palestinian government that could keep order and protect the Palestinians against both Israeli repression and also their own extremists.  Such a government could not happen, however, as long as there were deep divisions between Fatah and Hamas.  Accordingly, the unity agreement is a useful preliminary step.”

For the moment, pragmatism seems to be trumping jingoism. But the harsh rhetoric that Israel and its supporters in the United Stated have employed suggests that if the Palestinians do take the next step and actually elect a new government, the Obama Administration may be unable to maintain its relationship with them.

Despite renewed calls in Congress for increasing pressure on Iran, support for a U.S. attack against the Islamic Republic has declined markedly over the past year, according to the latest in an annual series of polls carried out by the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

Asked whether they would support a military strike if current diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions failed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, 52 percent of the AJC’s respondents said they would support a U.S. attack – down from 64 percent in last year’s survey – while 45 percent said they would oppose a strike, up from 34 percent in 2012.

Moreover, 46 percent of respondents said it was either very or somewhat likely that a combination of diplomacy and sanctions “can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons,” up from a mere 35.5 percent last year. Conversely, 52 percent said the strategy was either somewhat or very unlikely to succeed in that goal, down significantly from 64 percent last year and 71 percent in 2011.

In another finding that should hearten Secretary of State John Kerry, who has made an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord a major goal of his tenure, the survey also found a sharp increase in the percent of U.S. Jews who favour the establishment of a Palestinian state – from 38 percent in 2011 to 50 percent today.

Despite Kerry’s efforts, however, only 12 percent of respondents said they believed the chances of reaching a final settlement have increased over the past year, as opposed to 19 percent who said they had fallen and 68 percent who said the odds have not been affected by the past year’s developments.

This year’s poll, which queried just over 1,000 U.S. Jews across the country, was conducted between Sep. 30 and Oct. 15; that is, immediately after the highly successful visit by Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, to New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly.

That visit, capped by a farewell phone call from President Barack Obama to Rouhani in the first conversation between the two heads of state since 1979, put the hawkish government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who called Rouhani “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, on the back foot.

Since the trip, and despite talks Sep. 15-16 in Geneva between the so-called P5+1 (United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany) and Iran that were hailed as potential progress toward an agreement to curb Tehran’s nuclear programme, Netanyahu and his supporters in the Israeli lobby here have repeatedly called for tighter sanctions and a credible threat of U.S. military action against Iran if it does not completely dismantle its programme.

Senior administration officials last week made clear in briefings with lawmakers that increasing sanctions – the Senate has pending legislation to force foreign companies and countries to halt all oil imports from Iran – before the next round of negotiations scheduled for Nov. 7-8 in Geneva could prove counterproductive by strengthening hardliners in Iran who oppose Rouhani’s diplomacy and by fraying the P5+1’s unity.

While the administration is focusing its lobbying efforts on Senate Democrats, Republican lawmakers, especially those closely associated with the Israeli lobby, have been calling for even tougher action.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican member of Congress, said Friday a military strike needed to be considered, calling a new report by a controversial think tank that said Iran could produce enough fissile material for a bomb in as little as one month “extremely alarming”. The administration claims that it would take Iran at least a year to be able to produce a nuclear weapon if it decided to do so.

Cantor’s remarks came in the wake of a mini-storm over an interview last week with Sheldon Adelson, a multi-billionaire and major funder of right-wing pro-Israel groups, in which he dismissed negotiations and called for Washington to detonate its own nuclear weapon over a desert in Iran as a warning.

“And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran,'” Adelson, who also serves as chairman of the Republican Jewish Committee (RJC) and provided at least five million dollars to a political action committee run by Cantor during the 2012 election cycle, told students at Yeshiva University in New York.

The remarks by Adelson, who is also a major supporter of Netanyahu, came under fire from some Jewish leaders, notably Eric Yoffie, who led the Union for Reform Judaism from 2006 to 2012 and who called them “”obtuse, insensitive, and morally bankrupt.”

Yoffie also urged leaders of major Jewish institutions to “decline invitations to appear at Mr. Adelson’s side,” in spite of his philanthropy, until he apologises.

The AJC’s executive director, David Harris, has himself criticised Netanyahu for his dismissive attitude toward Rouhani and for ordering Israel’s U.N. delegation to boycott the Iranian president’s speech to the U.N.

In Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, he questioned whether the boycott helped or hurt Israel’s case, adding that some “would say that Israel only demonstrated its unwillingness to hear the message, even if Rouhani turns out to be, say, the next Mikhail Gorbachev.”

While the AJC survey showed continued support for Netanyahu’s handling of U.S.-Israeli relations – 19 percent strongly approved, while 52 percent “approved somewhat” – the drop in support for a U.S. attack on Iran suggests that the Israeli leader has become less convincing. Moreover, the survey found 62 percent approved of Obama’s handling of Iran’s nuclear programme. Only 36 percent disapproved.

The survey also found a significant majority of U.S. Jews supported Obama’s handling of Syria, despite strong criticism from many of Washington’s pundits, especially pro-Israel neo-conservatives who have long favoured more aggressive U.S. action to oust President Bashar Al-Assad. Sixty percent of respondents expressed approval for Obama’s performance.

Israeli soldiers and police block Palestinians from one of the entrances to the old city in Jerusalem. Credit: Mel Frykberg/IPS

By Mitchell Plitnick
WASHINGTON, Apr 30 2013 (IPS)

Despite indications that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is committing a substantial amount of time and effort to revive the long-stalled Israel-Palestinian “peace process”, a growing number of experts believe a two-state solution is no longer viable and the lack of a realistic discussion of the issue in the United States is leaving the country without an alternative policy.

In the two months since confirmation in his post, Kerry has made three trips to the region. On Monday, he hosted an Arab League delegation, including the League’s secretary general, the Qatari prime minister and representatives from the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Lebanon."Obama’s failure makes it clear that the U.S. will never be an honest broker." -- Harvard's Stephen Walt

The meeting was aimed at renewing the long-dormant Arab Peace Initiative (API), which promises full normalisation of relations between Israel and all Arab League member states in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied in 1967 and a “just resolution” of the Palestinian refugee issue.

Kerry hopes that the API can serve to get Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track.

But those efforts may yet be for naught, according to analysts, some of whom have long championed the two-state solution but who now believe that a combination of U.S. fecklessness and Israel’s establishment of “facts on the ground” in the predominantly Palestinian West Bank have made such a settlement impossible.

“The U.S. public has bought a narrative that is totally dishonest and misrepresents the obvious facts – and what can be more obvious that there can be no peace process if you simultaneously steal the land in question,” Henry Siegman, former national director of the now-defunct American Jewish Congress and current senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and president of the US/Middle East Project, said at a recent talk hosted by the Middle East Institute in the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“But the reason the U.S. public is overwhelmingly supportive of the Israeli position is that it is uninformed on geography and world affairs… So it is not surprising that the public accepts a narrative that is totally unrelated to facts on the ground,” he said.

The effect of that distorted narrative is to cripple the United States’ ability to act as an honest broker in this conflict, Siegman said.

“It was always assumed that the United States’ great friendship and support for Israel meant at some point it would say ‘enough’ because if you cross this line, we can no longer invoke our common values – apartheid is not a common value. But the other reason for our failures is that presidents and Congress have never had the courage to act on that reality.”

Philip Weiss, editor of the anti-Zionist web site, Mondoweiss, clarified the reason for that inactivity, and contended that the key place to try and change things is within the U.S. Jewish community.

“The U.S. has allowed this to happen despite knowing Israeli ambitions (to control all of the West Bank) due to the Israel Lobby,” Weiss said. “The Lobby draws its strength from the U.S. Jewish community’s commitment to Zionism… Zionism was once a valid response to the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. But the need for Israel to be a Jewish state leads inevitably to the excesses of occupation.”

Professor Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and co-author of the controversial book, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, identified the United States as a major reason for the current impasse.

“The failure of the two-state solution means we have to start considering alternatives,” Walt said. “For the past 15 years or so, the two-state solution was the consensus of the foreign policy community. The problem is that this goal is further away than ever.

“Many believe it is now impossible, due to settlements, the Israeli drift to right and the split [between Fatah and Hamas] among the Palestinians.

“[President Barack] Obama’s failure makes it clear that the U.S. will never be honest broker…That’s why we need alternatives. People will want to know what the U.S. is in favour of instead.”

The “failures” Walt spoke of are not limited to Obama’s first term. Despite a well-received speech during Obama’s first presidential visit to Jerusalem as well as two trips to Israel by Kerry, the divide between Israel and the Palestinians seems more entrenched than ever.

Reports from Israel after Kerry’s visit earlier this month indicated that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Kerry’s formula for dealing with borders and security first as a way to restart talks with the Palestinians.

This cannot be surprising, as Netanyahu’s own party, Likud, as well as two of his three major coalition partners, the Israel Beiteinu and The Jewish Home parties, are strong supporters of the settlement franchise.

Kerry’s strategy to encourage progress through Palestinian economic growth was deeply undermined by the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad just after that same visit.

While Kerry insisted that his economic initiative was not meant to replace a political peace process, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas insisted on focusing on the political issues such as Israeli settlements and the fates of Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

Even Kerry’s attempt to build on the progress Obama made in rekindling diplomacy between Israel and Turkey by asking Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan to postpone a planned trip to Gaza was met with refusal and a sharp rebuke of Kerry from Turkey.

All of this suggests that there is no hope on the immediate horizon. Secretary Kerry testified before a Senate subcommittee recently and said there was a window of only one to two years for the two-state solution, and given the lack of opportunity now, this is strong evidence for the position that the path to two states is indeed closed.

In a clear signal of the international community’s frustration with the U.S.’s failure to find any progress in the conflict, a recent letter signed by 19 former European prime ministers, presidents and foreign ministers urges European Union Foreign Affairs Representative Catherine Ashton to take immediate action to save the two-state solution.

“European leaders cannot wait forever for action from the United States,” the letter says, while advocating a clear EU statement that all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders are illegal and calling for stronger efforts to unify the divided Palestinian leadership, among other measures.

“He who believes doesn’t fear”…re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hums a popular tune played with great intensity by his supporters. Indeed, faith is what Netanyahu badly needs right now as people showed just how little faith they have in him. “We’ll have coalition problems,” confides a Likud lawmaker.

Support for Netanyahu got him just enough seats in Parliament for his Likud party to keep him in office while a surging centrist vote inflated support for Yair Lapid, only a year ago a TV celebrity freshly converted to politics, and now king-maker, power-broker and potential game-changer.

“Those who voted for us chose normalcy, mutual trust, education and housing, care for the weak,” declared Lapid when it became clear that his Yesh ‘Atid (There’s a Future) was Israel’s second largest party.

“The state of Israel faces the most complex challenges,” warned Lapid. “The economic crisis threatens our middle class; Israel is isolated because of the diplomatic impasse.”

Two years ago, ‘The people demand social justice’ became the rallying call for middle-class Israelis trying against all odds to find a way of life that fulfils their expectation – normalcy. The protest subsided, but social grievances lingered.

Attentive to people’s demands, Lapid campaigned for reduction of the cost of living, including affordable housing for young couples; a more equal sharing of the defence burden by proposing to draft the ultra-Orthodox currently exempt from military service; and a return to peace talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Netanyahu chose to ignore those demands; he recycled old ideas. His unbending, unforgiving motto was ‘A strong Prime Minister for a strong Israel’. But a budget deficit of 10.5 billion dollars (4.2 percent of GDP) betrayed Israel’s vulnerability.

Just as he stood twice already as prime minister (in 1996 and 2009) before the Western Wall, Judaism’s most revered site, Netanyahu stood there again after he voted – as if he himself was the last wall against a division of Jerusalem.

He thought he would uphold his political stature if only he maintained a status quo of occupation in the West Bank and buttressed Israel’s fences and stockade against Syria, Egypt, and the Gaza Strip.

He refused to make the most of progress made during the Annapolis peace process (2007-8) by his predecessor Ehud Olmert, instead preferring to argue for starting peace talks all over again from scratch.

At the beginning of his term in May 2009, during his only meaningful policy address at Bar Ilan University, he agreed to the principle of a “demilitarised state” in Palestine. Then he consented, albeit reluctantly as a result of “proximity talks”, to a ten-month moratorium on settlement construction.

But instead of following the U.S. advice that he prolongs the freeze for an additional three months, he initiated a surge in settlement expansion in occupied East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank.

During his re-election campaign, apart from a self-declared record on security, the sole course of action he bragged about was the steps his government promoted to create a competitive environment in the cellular market which led to a tangible decrease in telecommunication fees.

Re-elected yet barely surviving, Netanyahu belatedly rephrased his guiding principles after his more difficult than expected re-election. Though “preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons” is still “first priority”, “the pursuit of peace is now our third one,” he promised. And, he vowed to redress social iniquities.

Post-electoral pledges aside, Netanyahu is already at work cobbling together a centre-right governing coalition that would include Lapid. But whether he excludes some of his natural allies – the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home or the ultra-Orthodox – remains to be seen.

Either way, a unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear sites seems reduced to making the usual empty threats if to listen to Likud legislator Tsahi Ha-Negbi: “Netanyahu has a strong understanding that unless the world prevents a nuclear Iran, we’ll have to take the initiative.”

Israel’s public television news editor Uri Levy believes “there’s no difference between Right, Centre and Left – everyone knows Iran’s threat. So Netanyahu enjoys a consensus on whatever he’ll do on Iran. Obviously, it depends on what Iran will do.”

Will Netanyahu continue to manage the conflict with the Palestinians or strive to resolve it? Ha-Negbi is cautious: “An overwhelming majority of Israelis are waiting for a big compromise – if it’ll be met by the same understanding and historical compromise by the Palestinians.”

U.S. President Barack Obama can now afford a smile. As both leaders start their respective new term, Netanyahu will want an improvement of their relationship – if he puts together a moderate coalition.

Ha-Negbi predicts that it will be more difficult for Netanyahu now to root Israel in more of the same status quo and vacuum of initiatives.

If his first term provides an indication of his second-term performance, it will be worth examining the kind of coalition Netanyahu intends to forge in the weeks ahead. Left with no choice but the people’s choice, he’s reaching out to the Centre.

If he stays true to himself (as in ‘keen to survive’), Netanyahu will split up with some of the pro-occupation annexationist and religious Right and move towards the Centre and, maybe, towards a modicum of two-state peace leverage that would eventually split the land roughly down the middle.

Meanwhile, between the old ‘much ado about nothing’ Netanyahu who did barely nothing meaningful during his first term and the new Netanyahu who, while putting up his coalition together, is at his best manoeuvring in order to survive, pundits already foresee early elections.

A Likud-Beitenu supporter. Credit Pierre Klochendler/IPS.

By Pierre Klochendler
JERUSALEM, Jan 23 2013 (IPS)

As expected, Benjamin Netanyahu has been ensured another term in office. Against all expectations, he could have been defeated. Now, he faces uncertainty over the kind of governing coalition he will lead and thus the kind of policies he will carry out. And he faces a lingering question: can any prospective coalition last?

The initial result was astounding – floating around a tie between Netanyahu’s right-wing camp with 61 seats and his centre-left opposition with 59 seats in the Knesset parliament’s 120 seats.

So, addressing the Israel voter, the self-designate new prime minister decidedly put on a brave face of his own.

“I’m proud to be your prime minister. Once again, you’ve proven that Israel is an exemplary vibrant and dynamic democracy,” Netanyahu harangued his supporters at the Likud-Beitenu headquarters located on the metropolitan’s Exhibition Ground.

Results show that support for the joint Likud-Beitenu list of candidates Netanyahu headed has dropped dramatically, from its previous 42 seats to as few as 31.

Former TV star Yair Lapid, a newcomer in politics, stole the show. His centrist party Yesh ‘Atid (There’s a Future) has become the second largest, with 19 seats.

Empowered with a strong social programme focusing on cheaper housing for young couples, compulsory draft of religious students exempted from serving in the military and, in general, with an uncompromising fight against social iniquities, Lapid has suddenly emerged as the king-maker of any future sustainable coalition.

“Our responsibility is to form the largest possible coalition,” Lapid pledged during his party’s celebration.

Lapid’s vow was echoed by the prime minister-designate. “We must forge the largest possible coalition and, I am in the process of fulfilling this mission,” promised Netanyahu barely two hours after the exit polls.

“It won’t be easy,” predicts Uri Levy, news editor at Israel’s public television. “He’ll have to compromise, change his way of thinking.” Netanyahu is known to be adverse to change.

Election Day seemed auspicious. Flanked by his two sons and his wife, the incumbent Netanyahu was one of the first Israelis to cast a ballot for his Likud-Beitenu list of candidates.

Since he had called for early elections, Israelis were made to believe by opinion polls what Netanyahu himself was made to believe – his re-election for another term at the helm was a certainty.

“He’s obviously not very happy with what happened,” is Levy’s understatement. “He expected a lot more mandates.”

The politically savvy Netanyahu made a beginner’s mistake.

First, by merging his right-wing Likud list with the more right-wing Israel-Beitenu party, he alienated supporters who dislike either one of the two parties.

Then, he harassed the further to-the-right Naphtali Bennett because polls, which he’s known to check compulsively, predicted that Bennett’s Jewish Home party which caters to settlers’ interests would enjoy unprecedented support – though it didn’t. There too the opinion polls were misleading.

Albeit a bright and sunny Election Day, it’s neither a bright future nor a sunny political horizon which got Netanyahu re-elected, but fear – fear of a third Palestinian Intifadah uprising; fear of fallouts from the bloody civil war raging in neighbouring Syria; fear of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Netanyahu is adept at playing those fears. Hence, his opening remarks at the start of the last cabinet meeting two days before Election Day. “The problem in the Middle East is Iran’s attempt to build nuclear weapons, and the chemical weapons in Syria,” he warned.

He added: “History won’t forgive those who allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. This was and remains the main mission facing not only myself and Israel, but the entire world.”

His campaign was as dull and dormant as the political status quo he has prudently maintained during his first term.

Except for a ten-month freeze on settlement construction and one brief encounter with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in 2010, he has made no peace moves towards the Palestinians.

He launched a brief military operation on Hamas in the Gaza Strip in November and suffered a stinging defeat at the UN ten days later when the General Assembly voted by overwhelming majority to upgrade Palestine to “non-member observer state”.

He sounded the alarm against Iran’s nuclear programme; threatened unilateral military action; yet refrained from committing himself to both his own red line and deadline.

Making national security and national strength the twin themes of his campaign, Netanyahu underestimated the lack of social security felt by a middle class weakened and pressured by his ultra-liberal economic policy.

Netanyahu ignored the fear shared by a majority of Israelis of a socio-economic downfall, an anxiety so apparent one-and-a-half years ago when half a million demonstrators descended to the street and demanded social justice.

“The election results provide an opportunity for change for the benefits of all our citizens,” now reluctantly retorts the champion of unbridled liberalism.

Netanyahu won and lost the elections at the same time. He won because Israelis fear change; he almost lost because they strongly feel for change. (END)