Rassegna Stampa Elezioni Israeliane 2009

Monitoraggio attraverso i media internazionali delle elezioni in Israele del Febbraio 2009

Posts Tagged ‘estrema destra’

Jewish extremists’ march sparks clash

Posted by Folco Zaffalon su 25 marzo, 2009

Omar Karmi

Foreign Correspondent- The National

March 25. 2009

Israeli police clashed with Palestinian demonstrators in Umm al Fahm north-west of the West Bank yesterday, after an Israeli court had allowed a far-right demonstration to go ahead at the edge of the town. Dozens were arrested and about 30 people needed medical treatment after police used tear gas, stun grenades and water cannons to disperse crowds which had arrived to protest against the far-right march. Israeli officials said 2,500 police officers had been deployed to prevent clashes, Leggi il seguito di questo post »


Posted in Conflittualità | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Column One: Enter the Netanyahu gov’t

Posted by Andrea Pompozzi su 16 febbraio, 2009


Who won the election on Tuesday night and what do the results tell us about the composition of the next government?

Israeli voters decided two things on Tuesday. First, they decided that they want the political right to lead the country. Second, leftist voters decided that they want to be represented by a big party, so they abandoned Labor and Meretz and put their eggs in Kadima’s basket.

These two decisions – one general and one sectoral – are what brought about the anomalous situation where the party with the most Knesset seats is incapable of forming the next governing coalition. Despite Kadima leader Tzipi Livni’s stunning electoral achievement, she cannot form a coalition. Binyamin Netanyahu will be Israel’s next prime minister. The Likud will form the next coalition.

But what sort of governing coalition will Netanyahu form? That is today’s sixty-four-thousand-dollar question.

During the campaign, Netanyahu said he wants to form a broad governing coalition. Until Tuesday, he planned to bring the Labor Party led by Ehud Barak into his government while leaving Kadima out in the cold. It was his hope that as the odd man out, Kadima would be destroyed as a viable political entity.

The public, though, had other plans. On Tuesday, voters wiped out David Ben-Gurion’s party as a political force in the country. Labor’s senior leadership reacted to their defeat by declaring that the time has come to move into the opposition. There will be no coalition with Labor.

That leaves Kadima. If Netanyahu wants a leftist party in his government, he will need to bring in Kadima. Such a coalition would be based on a tripartite partnership between the Likud, Kadima and Israel Beiteinu.

Although Netanyahu clearly prefers such a broad coalition, it is not his only option. The other possibility is to form a government with his rightist political camp. A coalition of the Likud, Israel Beiteinu, Shas, United Torah Judaism, the National Union and Habayit Hayehudi would constitute a stable governing majority that could withstand attempts by Kadima to bring down the government in the Knesset.

THE QUESTION is which coalition is best for the Likud? The answer to that question is debatable. But to begin to understand what should drive Netanyahu’s decision, it is necessary to recognize his top priorities in office.

Netanyahu has made clear that his top priorities are preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, defeating Hamas and strengthening the economy.

Netanyahu’s free market economic philosophy is shared by Kadima and Israel Beiteinu. It is not shared by Shas or Habayit Hayehudi. The National Union is neutral on this issue. So to cut income taxes by 20 percent, as Netanyahu has pledged, a coalition with Kadima is preferable to its rightist alternative. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that Netanyahu will probably be able to push his economic policies through the Knesset with either governing coalition, particularly if he proposes them quickly.

This leaves the issue of Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza. Here the situation becomes more complicated. In a conversation on Thursday morning, Likud MK Yuval Steinitz argued in favor of a coalition with Kadima by noting that as the Kadima-led government’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and its destruction of the Iranian-financed, North Korean built nuclear installation in Syria in September 2007 show, Kadima shares the Likud’s willingness to use force against Israel’s enemies.

At the same time, Steinitz acknowledged that Kadima used force in both Lebanon and Gaza to advance diplomatic aims that are diametrically opposed to the Likud’s diplomatic aims. In Lebanon, Livni was the architect of the cease-fire with Hizbullah that paved the way for Hizbullah’s rearmament, reassertion of control over south Lebanon, and effective takeover of the Lebanese government. In Gaza, the Kadima-led government is about to agree to a cease-fire that will in the end strengthen Hamas’s grip on power and legitimize the terror group as a political force.

Moreover, unlike the Likud, Kadima has made establishing a Fatah-led Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza its most urgent strategic goal, followed only by its ardent desire to give Syria the Golan Heights. The Likud opposes both of these goals.

In contrast to Kadima, the rightist parties in Netanyahu’s voter-made coalition share the Likud’s philosophy both in terms of when to use force, and in terms of the diplomatic aims the resort to force are supposed to achieve. The rightist Knesset bloc would not agree to a cease-fire agreement in which Israel is required to release a thousand terrorists, including mass murderers, from prison. They would not agree to cease-fires that enable Hamas and Hizbullah to continue to arm, control territory or attack Israel. They would not agree to a national strategy that advocates subcontracting Israel’s national security to international forces. And they oppose transferring Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Arab control.

THE DISPARITY between Kadima’s and the Likud’s strategic goals makes a rightist coalition seem like the best option. But there are reasons why an observer could reasonably reach a different conclusion. The existential threats Israel faces today from Iran and its proxies are exacerbated by the fact that the West’s position on Israel is swiftly converging with the Arab world’s position on Israel. Throughout Western Europe, elite opinion has swung against the Jewish state. Today not only can Israel expect no support from Europe for its moves to defend itself from its enemies, it can be all but certain that Europe will actively seek to weaken it. The only question is what means Europe chooses to adopt against Israel.

Presently, Europe suffices with threatening to prosecute Israeli military personnel and political leaders as war criminals, levying partial embargos on the sale of military equipment to Israel, supporting anti-Israel resolutions in international forums, and refusing to end its trade with Iran. In the future, the EU is liable to end its free trade agreements with Israel, seek Israel’s delegitimization as a “racist” state, and perhaps join Russia in supplying Arab armies and Iran with advanced weapons and nuclear reactors.

As for the US, the Obama administration’s interest in courting Teheran and the Arab world place Jerusalem on a collision course with Washington. Given the high priority the Obama administration has placed on appeasing Iran, its decision to end US sanctions against Syria, and its intense desire to establish a Palestinian state, it is fairly clear that Israel cannot expect to enjoy good relations with Washington in the coming years without adopting policies that would endanger its survival.

It is common wisdom in Israel that the Israeli Left is capable of limiting the level of hostility directed against Israel from the US and Europe. Livni exploited this popular belief during the electoral campaign when she warned that a rightist government would destroy Israel’s relations with Washington. Apparently convinced by her warnings, some voices in the Likud argue that with Livni and Kadima in the government, the US and the EU will think twice before adopting openly hostile policies.

Unfortunately, this view is demonstrably false. As foreign minister in Ariel Sharon’s government during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, Shimon Peres did not prevent the international Left in Europe and the US from accusing Israel of committing war crimes. The Kadima-led leftist government was unable to secure European support for Israel in the Second Lebanon War. The fact that Israel was led by the leftist Kadima-Labor government during the wars in Lebanon and Gaza did not improve the West’s negative reaction to the fighting.

The generally ignored truth is that international hostility toward Israel is driven by factors extraneous to Israel. Consequently, Israel’s governments have little ability to influence how foreign governments treat it, regardless of who forms those governments.

There is one intrinsic advantage that leftist parties bring to rightist-led coalitions. Leftist parties are capable of mobilizing the support of the domestic leftist elites for the government’s actions.

Because the Left was in the government in 2003, 2006 and 2009, the media supported Defensive Shield, the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. And because it was in the opposition during the 1982 Lebanon War and during the Palestinian uprising from 1988 to 1990 as well as in 2003, when Sharon led a rightist coalition, the political Left colluded with the leftist elites in the media, in Peace Now and its sister groups, as well as with foreign governments to undermine the government. Since Tuesday night, both the local media elites and Kadima leaders have made clear that they will consider a Likud-led rightist government illegitimate and will work to destabilize it with the intention of overthrowing it within a year or two.

It is true that it is hard to imagine that either Kadima or the leftists in the media would oppose a decision by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. But it is also true that they would seek to minimize any strategic advantage Israel might gain either locally or internationally from removing this clear and present danger to Israel specifically and to international security generally. In the aftermath of such attacks, Kadima would unquestionably blame the government for whatever punitive steps Washington and Brussels implement against Israel in retaliation for the attacks.

More disturbingly, in the event that Kadima leads the opposition, it is easy to imagine Livni and her cohorts in her party and in the media attacking the government for refusing to give land to Fatah in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem and for refusing to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria. Kadima’s leaders will have open invitations to travel to Washington and Brussels to delegitimize the Netanyahu government’s policies toward the Palestinians and the Syrians, and more likely than not, they will use them.

On the other hand, it is far from clear that the situation would be much better if Netanyahu were to bring Kadima into his coalition. Livni can hardly be expected to set aside her obsession with establishing a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria, particularly given that she seems convinced that she won the elections.

IN SHORT, given their disparate strategic goals, as a senior coalition partner, Kadima can only be relied upon to support Netanyahu in implementing a limited set of policies. As Netanyahu considers his options for forming a coalition, he needs to answer four questions:

First, can Kadima’s cooperation be assured in the event that the government decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Second, will having Kadima in the government bring Israel significantly more leverage with the Americans in the run up to or the aftermath of such a strike than not having it in the government?

Third, will the Likud be weakened more if Livni attempts to advance her Palestinian policy from within the government or from outside it?

And finally, as the Likud’s senior coalition partner, will the damage Kadima causes the Likud through its devotion to Palestinian statehood and willingness to transfer the Golan Heights to Syria outweigh the advantage gained by its partnership in attacking Iran?

How Netanyahu answers these questions should determine the nature of his governing coalition.



Posted in La scena Politica Israeliana, Likud | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bibi, Livni seek coalition crisis ‘savior’

Posted by Andrea Pompozzi su 16 febbraio, 2009

Feb. 16, 2009
gil hoffman and jpost.com staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Sources close to Kadima leader Tzipi Livni and Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu expressed hope on Sunday that a “responsible adult” would intervene in their efforts to build a new government after the two sides grew further apart.

Both Netanyahu and Livni called for the formation of a national unity government during the campaign, but they have been sparring over who should head it since last Tuesday’s election, when Livni’s Kadima won one more seat than Netanyahu’s Likud but the Right bloc beat the Left by 10 mandates. Leggi il seguito di questo post »

Posted in Kadima, La scena Politica Israeliana, Likud, Partiti etnici & Ortodossi | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Livni, Netanyahu to begin unity talks

Posted by Andrea Pompozzi su 15 febbraio, 2009

Feb. 15, 2009

Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu and Kadima head Tzipi Livni will hold talks aimed at forming a national-unity government after President Shimon Peres, as expected, appoints Netanyahu to put together a coalition, senior officials close to the two party leaders said on Saturday night. Leggi il seguito di questo post »

Posted in Kadima, La scena Politica Israeliana, Likud, Partiti etnici & Ortodossi | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Israeli leaders battle for power

Posted by alicemarziali su 11 febbraio, 2009


Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister and leader of the Kadima party, has narrowly won the closely fought election race, but the real political battle is only just beginning as negotiations get under way on forming a ruling coalition.

Kadima won the biggest number of parliamentary seats, just one ahead of Likud, but as observers had predicted, the Israeli political scene moved to the right in this election.

Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu, made the biggest gains and Likud remains hopeful of uniting the right-wing parties. Leggi il seguito di questo post »

Posted in Kadima, Likud, Media/Guerra di Informazione, Mondo Arabo | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Elections israéliennes, revue de détail: l’extrême droite et Israel Beitenou

Posted by alicemarziali su 5 febbraio, 2009


l’extrême droite

Elle est composée à ces élections de deux grandes familles, Ichoud Leumi (Union nationale) et Habayit Hayéhoudi (Maison juive), totalement hostiles à la création d’un Etat palestinien. Ces deux courants étaient unis en 2006 et avaient remporté ensemble neuf sièges.

Le première fondée en 1999 résulte du rapprochement de trois partis ultra-nationalistes: Moledet, Hérout et Tekouma. Moledet est inspiré du sionisme religieux mais cette composante n’est pas essentielle, ce parti est en effet centré sur le programme de transfert volontaire des Palestiniens hors de Gaza et de Cisjordanie. Hérout, créé en 1999 par Benny Bengin (transfuge du Likoud et qui a réintégré cette famille pour ces élections), se veut l’héritier du Hérout inspiré par Vladimir Jabotinsky, plaide lui aussi pour le Grand Israël et ”l’émigration” [des Palestiniens] vers les pays arabes. Tekouma (précédemment Emounim, “foi”) est le fruit d’une scission du Parti national religieux (Mafdal), pilier de la colonisation des territoires palestiniens.

En 1999, Ichoud Leumi s’était allié à Ysrael Beitenou (Israel notre maison) de Avigdor Lieberman, transfuge russophone du Likoud).

La deuxième grande famille, Habayit Hayehoudi, repose en partie sur ce même Parti national religieux, fondé en 1956 et qui participa à pratiquement toutes les coalitions jusqu’en 1967. Ce parti se radicalisa après la conquête des territoires palestiniens et la création du “Bloc de la foi” (Goush Emounim) ardent défenseur de la colonisation. 

Il faut sans doute enfin mentionner l’existence d’un courant ultra-nationaliste, Manigout Yéhoudit, au sein du Likoud, organisé autour de Moshé Feiglin



Avigdor Lieberman installera-t-il sa formation comme la troisième force politique de la Knesset? A en croire les sondages publiés dans la dernière semaine avant les élections, cet objectif est tout à fait envisageable. C’est d’ailleurs le poids que revendique son parti qui justifie qu’il soit traité en tant que tel et non rattaché aux partis rangés à l’extrême droite et dont il a été l’allié par le passé.

Issu du Likoud, ancien directeur de cabinet de Benyamin Nétanyahou, Avigdor Lieberman s’est mis à son compte, politiquement, lors des élections de 1999. Né en Moldavie, il s’est concentré tout d’abord sur l’électorat russophone qu’avait guigné avant lui l’ancien refuznik Nathan Chtcharansky (trois des cinq candidats en tête de la liste de 2009 sont des “Russes”.)

Contrairement à son illustre devancier, qui avait milité initialement pour la réussite de l’aliya des juifs de l’ancienne Union soviétique (il comptait dans son parti Israel Be’aliya des personnalités qui ont rejoint par la suite la gauche, comme Roman Bronfman), Avigdor Lieberman a privilégié un discours musclé vis à vis des Palestiniens, du monde arabe en général, puis des Arabes israéliens. L’électorat “russe”, en Israël, est particulièrement sensible à ce discours.

Allié incommode d’Ariel Sharon puis plus tard de Ehoud Olmert, Avigdor Lieberman chasse ouvertement sur les terres du Likoud, en espérant le le ton mesuré adopté par Benyamin Nétanyahou depuis le début de la campagne lui fasse perdre le soutien de son aile droite, qui pourrait alors être tentée de le rejoindre, comme l’ancien ministre Ouzi Landau qui figure en deuxième position sur sa liste.

Dans son programme, le chef de file de Israel Beitenou s’oppose à la formule de l’échange de la terre contre la paix et s’en prend radicalement aux partis arabes israéliens. Il était favorable à un échange de territoires controversé (les colonies juives contre les zones arabes israéliennes). Il considère qu’Israël est aux avants-postes de la lutte qui opposerait l’islam extrémiste (relayé selon lui en Europe et aux Etats-Unis par des cercles antisémites) à l’Occident et à ses valeurs, et prône une déconnection de Gaza de la Cisjordanie.

Posted in Likud | Contrassegnato da tag: , | Leave a Comment »

Clueless in Gaza

Posted by claudiacampli su 5 gennaio, 2009


The absence of any leadership from the United States offered a diplomatic opportunity for the European Union in Gaza; it flunked the chance Leggi il seguito di questo post »

Posted in Conflittualità, Il Quartetto, Palestinesi, Piani di Pace, Usa/Israele, Varie | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Genocidal settlers

Posted by Alessandro Accorsi su 24 dicembre, 2008

Religious fanaticism in Israel may not be a mainstream media topic, but it is a mainstream Israeli ideology, writes Khaled Amayreh in the West Bank

Al-Ahram Weekly

When the Israeli High Court recently ordered Jewish squatters to leave an Arab house they had illegally seized in Al-Khalil (Hebron) a few years ago, settlers and their supporters converged at the contentious site, vowing a showdown with the Israeli army and police.

Among the settler leaders arriving at the site, apparently to incite the squatters to resist evacuation, was Daniela Weise, a charismatic preacher of blood and fire against the Palestinian community in Israel-Palestine, demanding that they be enslaved, expelled or exterminated outright.

Weise didn’t content herself with invoking the usual mantras, such as “God gave us this land,” and “We are only reclaiming our country.” She quoted heavily from the Old Testament, telling hundreds of Jewish fanatics that it was a mitzvah (good religious deed) to attack Arabs, even murder them, and damage their property, because “their lives have no sanctity and their property belongs to us.”

“The Bible shows us the way as to how we should be dealing with the Arabs. The Bible can’t be wrong,” he said. Leggi il seguito di questo post »

Posted in Coloni, Partiti etnici & Ortodossi | Contrassegnato da tag: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Yisrael Beitenu list: Two famous models, one disappointed ambassador

Posted by Andrea Pompozzi su 21 dicembre, 2008

Dec. 21, 2008
haviv rettig gur , THE JERUSALEM POST

The Israel Beitenu Party announced its Knesset list on Monday evening, presenting a list of familiar names with few surprises.

While some in the party vowed to fight the new list, which was drawn up Sunday night by the party’s organizing committee and approved by the party’s central committee on Monday, it will likely be the one contending for votes on in February 10. Leggi il seguito di questo post »

Posted in Varie | Contrassegnato da tag: , , | Leave a Comment »

Ultrà anti-islam a convegno a Gerusalemme

Posted by giacomofinzi su 18 dicembre, 2008

da: Il Manifesto. http://www.ilmanifesto.it/il-manifesto/in-edicola/numero/20081214/pagina/10/pezzo/237287/

Uomini politici visceralmente anti-islamici e appartenenti dell’estrema destra europea, come il parlamentare olandese Geert Wilders, che proietterà il suo controverso documentario Fitna , ma anche uno dei più noti neocons statunitensi, Daniel Pipes, si riuniranno oggi al Begin Heritage Center di Gerusalemme per partecipare alla conferenza «Affrontare il Jihad», organizzata da Aryeh Eldad, deputato israeliano ultranazionalista e generale della riserva.

Leggi il seguito di questo post »

Posted in Varie | Contrassegnato da tag: | Leave a Comment »