The Middle Road

Benjamin Netanyahu has been at the helm of the Israeli government for just over a year and has made some significant decisions thus far, but has yet to make that momentous decision that will define his premiership. So far, Netanyahu’s decisions have either been ones that mitigate the damage done by his predecessors, or are the sort made out of political consideration, mostly to shore up his existing coalition or create unity coalition government. Until now, the Prime Minister has managed this juggling act but he cannot hope to do the same in his second year of power.

In most democracies the beginning of a government’s life is the period when it exerts most of its influence and spends most of its political capital. In Israel this is not the case, and more specifically during Netanyahu’s tenure he has been reluctant to make any real reform or any sweeping change to Israel’s status quo. The reasons for such a democratic anomaly vary. Some see it as institutional, due to the fragile nature of coalition governments (especially Israeli coalitions), while other see it through a lens of personal leadership style. What is most likely true in Netanyahu’s case is that it’s a bit of both.

Israeli governance has seen seven prime ministers in just the last two decades, providing a strong case for Israel’s current political leaders to be far more concerned with perpetually stabilizing their power base than utilizing it. In the last election, Likud (Israel’s second-largest party) managed to carve a majority out of five parties -- a far cry from stability.

For an Israeli leader to be bold in such an explosive environment he must be very very careful.  Which brings us to the larger point that such a politically precarious environment breeds a certain style of politician – an environment in which political instincts are far more important than political vision; where deal making becomes far more useful than governing ability. The problem is circular. The system feeds the actor who in turn fuels the system.

As far as we can surmise from his past actions and present premiership, Netanyahu is a pragmatist with an ideological bent, and not the other way around. He has shown that his core ideological beliefs do not stop him from consistently making the convenient political choices in order to manage the current balance, instead of choosing the tough choices that make change but will expose him to the risks of treacherous political winds.

As we saw in the Wye River agreement, his Bar-Ilan Speech, and his 10-month building freeze on the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, Netanyahu will negotiate first, delay second and finally when he’s forced to he will make a decision but a decision that only manages the issue and never resolves it.

Today, with the 10-month freeze coming to a close, with Hezbollah encroaching on Israel’s northern border, a near-nuclear Iran and Hamas riding high from the flotilla victory, Netanyahu’s political posturing is no longer sustainable. Bibi’s staccato policy jigs will not be able to contend with the avalanche of crisis, and one way or the other, he will have to make the tough choices that have yet defined his political life. Rabin had Oslo, Barak South Lebanon, Sharon disengagement, and Olmert his wars with Hamas and Hezbollah. Netanyahu has yet to stake out his beliefs that define his use of power, but as we see Israel’s threats coalescing, his moment of truth is fast approaching.