By Adam Hanieh
Speculation is increasing in Israel on the possibility of a government of national unity between the two major parties, Labour and the ruling Likud. Despite the impression given by much of the big business press that these two parties differ widely in program and practice, the reality is reminiscent of Australian major parties, where consensus is much more the norm.
Around the issues of the Oslo agreement with the PLO, as well as broader social and economic direction, there is enough common ground between Labour and Likud to form a national unity government.
Recently nearly all the parliamentary right have expressed support for such a government. Ariel Sharon (who recently held a series of midnight meetings with Labour leader Shimon Peres), finance minister Dan Meridor and the chairperson of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, Uzi Landau, have all made comments in that direction.
Within the Israeli elite, there is broad consensus for an agreement with the Palestinians based on the Mazen-Beilin plan. This plan, drawn up by Arafat aide Abu Mazen and Labour leadership contender Yossi Beilin, envisages that 80% of the West Bank would remain under Israeli sovereignty or control.
The Mazen-Beilin plan also calls for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, while the nearby Palestinian village of Abu-Dis would become the capital of the Palestinian "state".
There is general agreement between Likud and Labour that an apartheid-style Bantustan arrangement for the Palestinians would serve the Israeli economy well. The opening of the Arab world to Israeli capital and the utilisation of cheap Palestinian labour in industrial zones were prime considerations in the original Oslo Accords.
The difficulty faced by Netanyahu is how to steer a course towards the free market vision of Israeli capital without alienating the significant constituency represented by the religious movement and the settlers.
The present ruling coalition between Likud, other far-right groups and orthodox religious parties is a shaky one, particularly considering the social program of Likud.
Netanyahu aims to push through budget cuts totalling $7 billion, which will devastate the Israeli social system. He aims to cut allocations for education and subsidies for housing and to end an income tax subsidy for women. The government has also announced an extensive program of privatisation that will have far-reaching consequences for the poor and for workers in the vast Israeli public sector.
These cuts would violate Likud coalition agreements with some of the religious parties, whose social base would be devastated by these neo-liberal reforms. On December 30 representatives of the Russian immigrants' party Yisrael b'Aliya, David Levy's Gesher, the Third Way and the National Religious Party — all coalition partners of Likud — voted against the government on the budget proposal to eliminate the tax subsidy for working women.
Likud requires Labour for more than just numbers. The response of the Israeli working class to the proposed cuts has been significant, with massive strikes launched in mid-December.
The government retaliated by arresting the head of the Trade Union Department of Histadrut (the Israeli union federation). Histadrut then called a strike of the entire public sector.
The rabidly pro-privatisation position of Labour and its traditional links with the trade union leadership would contribute greatly to a government of national unity.
A possible Likud-Labour coalition gained credibility with the release of a bipartisan plan for the final status, signed on January 27 by three Labour and five Likud MPs. Resembling closely the Mazen-Beilin plan, the new plan stated that the majority of settlements would be annexed to Israel, the Palestinian "entity" would be demilitarised, Jerusalem would be the Israeli capital, there would be no return of Palestinian refugees, and Israel would control 70-80% of the West Bank.
It is clear that a broad consensus is emerging among Israeli politicians and business leaders that the small territory that will eventually be granted to the Palestinians will be divided and discontinuous, while the large majority of the West Bank will remain under Israeli control.
A Likud-Labour coalition which would implement severe attacks on the Israeli populace as well as imposing a mockery of statehood on the Palestinians is a real possibility in the coming months. Israeli journalist Haim Baram, commenting on this growing consensus, called it "an alliance between the bourgeoisie, clericalism and militarism, somewhat reminiscent of the coalition that brought Franco to power in Spain".
Within a Zionist framework, even for those left Zionists who profess a belief in secularism and democracy, it is impossible to offer any opposition. Such an alliance can only lead to the further repression not only of Palestinians but also of much of Israeli society. It would be the ultimate irony if such an alliance were to point out the common enemy of both peoples.