Soccer Dad

Bibi disengages from his political ambitions

By resigning, Binyamin Netanyahu has effectively ended his political career. He stayed in the government much too long to be embraced by those against disengagement; the fact that he left the government at all makes him a pariah to those who support disengagement.
Arutz-7 notes that despite the fact that Netanyahu has apparently hung a large anti-disengagement banner from his residence:

At the press conference following his resignation, Netanyahu told reporters that he does not intent to fight to thwart the implementation of the Disengagement Plan, but wanted to be recorded in history as having objecting to it.

This is not the action of someone who is deeply committed to an idea, but of someone who is positioning himself in opposition to the government. True, in his resignation, Netanyahu hit all the right notes but he's been part of this government much too long.
The New York Times mocked Netanyahu:

Mr. Netanyahu, apparently preparing to face off against Mr. Sharon soon for the leadership of the Likud Party, said he had to resign as finance minister because of his concerns about Israel's security. He has certainly done all he can to fan Israelis' fears with fiery speeches warning that Gaza could become a base for radical Islamic terrorists.

But when you read articles like this, or that 44 communities near Gaza have been designated "front line" towns it's hard to say that Netanyahu is simply "fan[ning] ... fears". There are grave risks attached to disengagement that the Times refuses to acknowledge.
And Netanyahu also mentions how the disengagement divides the nation. PM Sharon has gone about this in the most divisive way possible.
(The Times objects to Netanyahu's reasons for leaving. This is from IMRA's translation:

As I warned, the
Hamas is strengthening, the terror continues, the firing of rockets and
mortars on our communities has not ended, and terror elements proclaim that
they will move the rockets that drove us out of the Gaza Strip to Judea and
Samaria, and from there will operate them until "the complete liberation of
Palestine."

I wish the Times had pointed out which terms here were hyperbole and which were accurate.)
But Netanyahu's accuracy doesn't matter. Benny Begin was correct about Arafat but, in the end, he was marginalized. The same happened to Natan Sharansky. In Israel it appears the choice to be right or Prime Minister (or even a minister) is a real one. Netanyahu has chosen somewhat belatedly to be right; but he has probably sacrificed his political future in doing so.
The Washington Post reported:

Increasingly, Israel's political alliances appear to be forming along generational lines, with men such as Sharon and the leader of the rival Labor Party, Shimon Peres, clashing with younger leaders such as Netanyahu over Israel's future boundaries and its relationship with the Palestinians. Sharon and Peres, who are old friends, have been involved in public life here since before Israel's creation nearly six decades ago.

Biur Chametz doubts this:

no "big bang" realignment in which (most of) Likud merges with (most of) Labor to form a ruling centrist national unity party

(Just recall the last time there was supposed to be such a re-alignment. Remember the excitement over the Center party? Here's the Washington Post from Jan 7, 1999:

Still, by dint of his poll ratings and military record, Lipkin-Shahak is regarded as an important wild card in the race. And his candidacy poses a dilemma not only for Netanyahu, his main rhetorical target, but also for Ehud Barak of the Labor Party, who preceded Lipkin-Shahak as military chief of staff.

For Barak, 56, Lipkin-Shahak's decision makes an outright victory by either one of them more difficult in the first round of voting May 17. The two former generals have similar military resumes and, it seems, similar views on security and social issues. Polls suggest they will split Israel's center-left vote and force a runoff against a right-wing candidate, probably Netanyahu, on June 1. In the latest surveys, Lipkin-Shahak is far ahead of Netanyahu in a one-on-one race but trails Netanyahu and, by a small margin, Barak in a three-way contest.

(This was written before Yitzchak Mordechai joined the party but it still shows the mindset.) The polls cited reflected the media excitement about the anti-Bibi party, but since that's all the party was - a collection of has beens and wanna bes united against Netanyahu - their electoral prospects crashed and burned when they faced a real poll, the 1999 elections.

Finally there's the issue of the new finance minister. Ehud Olmert, termed an "obstructionist" by Daniel Doron - interested in preserving the monopolies that hurt Israel's economy - will be taking over for Netanyahu who has reformed many aspects of Israel's economy. Will Netanyahu's improvements persist? Or will the new finance minister try to return to the days of yore? Perhaps Netanyahu was right to stay in government as long as he did on account of the economy. Resigning by itself was damaging to his political fortunes; resigning as late as he did only made matters worse for him.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at August 9, 2005 5:38 AM | TrackBack