Radio Liberty - Programs - Round Table

Israel: Before the choice after the election
Leading Lev Roitman

Lev Roitman:

For the second time (the first in the 96th year), the Israelis elected the Prime Minister as the presidential republics choose presidents-universal voting. At the same time, the elections to the parliament - Knesset, according to party lists. Ehud Barak is the leader of the working party, last Monday was elected Prime Minister, but his party significantly lost in deputy mandates. At the same time, it is noticeable, triumphantly, if you want, the ultra -religious batch "Shas" has gained in weight. However, her slogans, goals are very far from the election intentions of Ehud Barack and his working party. What does this practically mean for Israel, for its Arab neighbors, for the international image of the Jewish state? Our conversation today. Participate: our correspondent in Tel Aviv Alexander Gold; From Moscow, Jalyal al-Mashta, head of the Moscow Bureau of the Arab newspaper Al Haiyat; And from Paris, Semyon Mirsky, our correspondent.

Israel after the elections. Naturally, it would be the first to include in our conversation Alexander Gold, Tel Aviv, I will begin, however, with a question to Moscow, a question, perhaps paradoxical: Dzhalyal al-Mashta, what do you think, what are not expected in the Arab world, but in Israel, Israelis from their new Prime Minister Ehud Barack?

Jalyal al-Mashta:

It is difficult for me to plunge into the Israeli atmosphere, but I think that Mr. Netanyahu’s policy was in some way a continuation of the Cold War on a global scale. I think that the mentality of the confrontation that he had with should be broken. That's what the Israelis implied implicitly, apparently, choosing Ehud Barack, and thereby wanting to go into a new state for the entire region, for Israel in specificity. I think that this, say, is a foreign policy or a security factor, as you want, but, apparently, there are also internal problems, economic problems. The fact is that confrontation is burdensome for the Israeli economy, for any economy, therefore, I think, this is due to the first factor that I spoke above.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Jalyal al-Mashta, the head of the Moscow Bureau, published in the London of the Arab newspaper Al-Hayyat ("Life"). Alexander Gold, Tel Aviv, I wonder how much our Arab interlocutor gets to the point. Ehud Baraku became the prime minister, but I already said, his working party actually lost, could this not indicate that in fact, from the hut they are waiting for the same unyielding policy that Netanyahu led, just today the Barak is personally for the Israelis, well, if you want, more sympathetic than Netanyahu?

Alexander Gold:

I would interpret this in this way, since after the publication of the final election results, a thorough counting of voices shows that, by and large, the forces of the left and right block in Israel are still equal. That is, there is still this balance between left and right, relatively speaking. At the same time, the results of the election should be noted the strengthening of a religious camp, while strengthening anti -religious moods in society, but this is, as it were, minor results, you, in fact, are not asking about this. It is, generally speaking, that the Barak took a centrist position during the election, the hut turned out to be a very pretty figure as the future head of government precisely because it is not associated with the general public with exclusively left political views. It should be recalled that the Barak was quite skeptical from the very beginning and the agreements that were signed in Oslo, and then on the lawn at the White House on September 13, 93rd. And in the 95th year, he, already being the Minister, by the way, in the Rabin government and being completely obliged to Rabin, abstained when voting for the second part of the Israeli-Palestinan agreements, that is, for interim agreements on the transfer of the territory on the western bank of the Jordan River. That is, with all the fact that it is perceived in society as the successor of the Rabin case, it is still not considered exclusively the left politician. Perhaps that is why he came to power. On the other hand, it should be noted in the party plan the collapse of the ideology of a single and indivisible Israel. Still, the extremely right party association called national unity received only 4 parliamentary mandates in the election, which in general experts evaluate the victory of political pragmatism and liberalism in Israel.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Alexander Gold. And now in Paris, Semyon Mirsky, I recall the following picture: at one time, France President Jacques Shirak, his French calls “Buldozer”, said Ariel Sharon, also had a “bulldozer” nickname from the Israelis, then Sharon was the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Netanyahu government, and so, one “bulldozer” said to another: no one should provoke. At the same time, Shirak had in mind Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories. Question: What is expected in France, what politics from the new prime minister of Israel?

Semyon Mirsky:

In France, the victory of Ehud Barack is perceived primarily as the defeat of Benyamin Netanyahu, which is objectively true. So far, of course, the French government, Jacques Shirak and Yubert Vedin wished all kinds of success to the new prime minister of Israel, centrist Ehuda Barack, but most comments and in the most energetic form, the catastrophic result of the three years of the reign of Benjamin Netanyau is summed up. And I would just like as an example of what the French press is written about the Israeli elections, to quote the editorial article of the Mond newspaper: “Benjamin Netanyahu remained true to himself, he played on the string of fear of his compatriots. His political heritage is terrible: Israeli-Palistine negotiations were stuck on a dead point; relations between Israel and his Arab neighbors are distinguished by ice cold and the relationship between Israel and Europe is simply disgusting from the relationship between Israel and its American patron. Why I started with this quote, the lion, just to say, the reaction in France can be summarized by one phrase: from now on it cannot be worse, it will only be better. That is why really from the hut, who, as Alexander Gold said, seems to be a very pretty person, although in politics is also not very experienced, they expect a lot, because the hut is associated with a sense of political realism, which was completely deprived of Benjamin Netanyahu. By the way, a person, by the way, is thought by many of his supporters, in politics, a random, who had lived in the United States of America for many years, poorly understanding the Israeli political landscape, who came to this country from abroad, who took the power that was spinning, as we saw, a very unsuccessful experiment.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Semyon Mirsky. Absolutely not evaluating the policy of Netanyahu and the possible policy of Barack, I note that mine, and your, and your many -year career of the political commentator probably accustomed us to the fact that the time of great expectations is completely replaced by the time of great disappointment, precisely because the expectations were large, and sometimes exorbitant. Jalyal al-Mashta, return to the environment closer to you: what is expected in the Arab capitals, well, let's stay in Damascus.

Jalyal al-Mashta:

I think not only in Damascus, but also in other Arab countries, first of all, they expect the formation of the government. From how it is formed, the intentions of Mr. Barack will be more clear. If, for example, the post of Foreign Minister will be entrusted to Yoshi Bailin, say, who actively participated in the development of previous agreements, this will be one alignment. Another layout is possible if rumors are confirmed that it is possible in one way or another to connect to the "liquid" to the government. So they expect it in the first place. And subsequently, they expect Mr. Barack from Mr. Barack that he, in fact, was negotiating with the Syrians, and he knows completely all the details of this dossier, expects him to resume negotiations from the point at which they stop, and not with zero, as he once offered Netanyahu. If he does it, and it will do it quickly, without large pauses, then, I think, in Damascus will be satisfied.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Jalyal al-Mashta, Moscow. And now about the possible composition of the government, which probably depends on the party scenario in the Knesset, in the Israeli parliament. Alexander Gold, what you say about this, and in particular, more specifically: representatives of the Israeli with Alia party participated in the Netanyahu government, this is a Russian party, in collision, a party of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. What is the situation with their possible participation, and in general, how did they show themselves in the elections?

Alexander Gold:

Regarding the participation of the Israeli and Alia party, there is no doubt in the government, the slightest doubt that “Israel and Alia” will enter the government no one, this is declared unambiguously both Ehud Barack and Israel with Alia, it was known from the very beginning. By the way, the novel between Ehud Barack and Israel with Alia probably already lasted several months, and Ehud Barak has no time to bet on Russian Street, he paid a lot of effort and attention to the propaganda of his ideas on Russian Street and achieved his own. He achieved that if the shimon of the transfer voted almost 20-30% of repatriates, then 50-60% of repatriates voted for the barrack, so he owes his victory to new repatriates in many ways. The Israeli with Alia Party itself did not put forward clear slogans, that is, she did not urge her supporters to vote for a particular candidate for the post of head of government, retaining both opportunities. Netanyahu would have defeated, Israel with Alia would be in the coalition with Netanyahu, since Israel and Alia declare a centrist political orientation rather to protect the interests of new repatriates. In short, when we are talking about the formation of a new government, the question is rather whether the Likud party will be in this government or Ehud Barak will prefer a coalition with the ultra -religious batch of Shas, which has about the same number of mandates in the Knesset as it has a "likud". If Ehud Barak prefers the Shas party may be easier for him in political terms, since the ultra -religious public does not put forward political demands, he behaves flexibly enough. Let me remind you that the Shas party also sat in the Rabin government and in the Government of Peres. But, on the other hand, then Ehud Barack will have problems with the left -wing anti -religious circles, which, say, the Master’s party and the Shanui party represent, and Echud Barak could not refuse from the Union with the “Master”. Thus, in this situation, it is possible that the Barak will prefer an alliance with the Likud legalist party, especially since Benjamin Netanyahu left the post of chairman of this party, as if marking the road for the party to the government, to the coalition. In addition, in society, apparently, there is a consensus that on the eve of fateful negotiations for Israel and with Palestinians about the final settlement of the conflict, and with Syria, the government is necessary on a broad coalition basis, including both right and left circles and then, apparently, any political agreements can be adopted much easier, it will not cause a split into the divorce to the split. people.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Alexander Gold, Tel Aviv. And again to Paris, Semyon Mirsky, you are in Israel regularly what you expect to see Political on Israelskaya Street when you go the next time, I suppose it will be very soon?

Semyon Mirsky:

Yes, it will be very soon, Leo. I expect and I'm sure it will be better. I, as a person who worked in Israel, in the 60s, can say that before my eyes both the founding fathers of the Israeli state and the change that led to the power of Menachem Begin, the predecessor of the Likud party, then it was called the Kherut party and those who came for him, that is, representatives of the working party. So I see everything as it were: a series of events, a series of large and small names. And I will say the same thing that said at the beginning: Benjamin Netanyahu is just a very unsuccessful and sad episode in the history of Israel, and I, in my opinion, said why - Benjamin Netanyahu was a random person in politics. I think that Ehud Barack still has something to rely on: followed by a tradition, behind him are people in politics, the same Shemon Perez Today is one of the most experienced politicians in the world political arena, I will remind, the Nobel Prize laureate.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Semyon Mirsky, Paris. Dzhalyal al-Mashta, the Palestinian leadership decided, so the case was not to proclaim the state of Palestine before the results of the choice in Israel and since it was assumed that there could be a second round that would fall at the beginning of June, at least postpone the proclamation of the state until June, the issue remains open. Your forecast?

Jalyal al-Mashta:

I just found out that a telephone conversation was held between President Arafat and the newly elected prime minister of Israel, and as I was described, it was a warm conversation. And I think that the resumption of negotiations on the Palestinian track can lay the foundations as soon as possible so that the announcement of the Palestinian state will be achieved with a mutual acceptable consent of both parties. This is also stated in a letter that the Americans sent on the eve of the Palestinians. I think that both Europeans and Russia support the same. The fact is that we are not talking about determining the date of announcement of the state, but about the conceptual recognition of the need for such a state announcement. And if Mr. Barak declares the desire to accept such a concept, then I think that the agreement on the date is a purely technical problem, it can be in the 99th year, and maybe, as the Americans asked, until May 4 of next year, and maybe even postponed before the celebration of the 2000th anniversary. This is all, I repeat, the problem is technical, the main thing is to solve the main essential problem is that the state’s declaration was not a unilateral act, but was with the consent of both parties.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you. The state should have the capital, we would not have interfered with a little time for this issue, but Alexander Gold, try to be brief: how are the Palestinians relate to Israel that Eastern Jerusalem will become the capital of the Palestinian state?

Alexander Gold:

Definitely negative. On this occasion in Israel there is a consensus, on this occasion there are no disagreements even between the barrack and Netanyahu, even between the leaders of the left block and the right block. Israel believes that Jerusalem, a single Jerusalem should remain the capital of the state, there are no disagreements here. On the other hand, the pragmatic forces are ready to negotiate on the transfer of some suburbs of Jerusalem to the Palestinian capital, and, in particular, there was a famous agreement, an unofficial agreement that was talking about this. That is, there is still an opportunity for a compromise.

Lev Roitman:

Thank you, Alexander Gold.