February 4, 2013: Speculation has begun on Israel’s next coalition

By Michael Regenstreif

As I write, on January 25 just before this issue of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin goes to press, the negotiations to form a governing coalition following Israel’s January 22 election are in their earliest stage.

The process is expected to take as long as six weeks after President Shimon Peres receives the formal results on January 30. By then, the emerging coalition will need to prove it has the confidence of the Knesset.

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is all but certain to continue in office, his cabinet is likely to be very different given the weakened position of the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu alliance and the surprising success of the new, centrist Yesh Atid (There is a Future) party under leader Yair Lapid.

Conventional wisdom over the past several years, and during the campaign leading to the election, told us that Israeli society was continuing to move further to the right.

If anything, the results indicated a move to the political centre – not just in the surprising strength of Yesh Atid, but on the centre-left with the somewhat stronger than expected showing of the Labor Party under Shelly Yachimovich and the survival of former Kadima leader Tzipi Livni as leader of the new Hatunah Party.

And, with the emergence of Naftali Bennett’s new Jewish Home party sharply to Likud’s right – a party whose key plank is rejection of the two-state solution and annexation of much of the West Bank – Likud itself would be on the centre-right in comparison.

With the election results in, it will be fascinating to see what kind of coalition will emerge. Most likely, Yesh Atid will be Netanyahu’s main coalition partner.

By this writing, Netanyahu and Lapid have already begun talking. Both indicated they will work together to form a coalition and have started informal talks. But, with Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu’s 31 seats and Yesh Atid’s 19 combining for 50 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, another coalition partner, if not partners, will be necessary to form a government.

And this is where the really interesting horse-trading begins. All kinds of scenarios quickly emerged, some more plausible than others.

Does Netanyahu look to the right, to Bennett’s Jewish Home party with its 12 seats and/or one or both of the ultra-Orthodox religious parties, Shas with 11 seats and United Torah Judaism with its seven?

Or does he look to the centre-left, to Labor with 15 seats (despite Yachimovich’s pre-election insistence she would not participate in a coalition with Netanyahu), and possibly Livni’s Hatunah with six, and Kadima hanging in with two seats?

Or does he look in all directions at the same time?

What will make the negotiations so interesting are the seemingly common and seemingly incompatible positions of the different parties on some of the key issues Israel’s next government will face.

Reports following a two-hour meeting between Netanyahu and Lapid on January 24 suggested Lapid has advanced two basic conditions: legislation implementing national service requirements for haredi Jews and Israeli Arabs; and resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.

Looking to the right, Bennett’s Jewish Home party would be supportive of the first condition, but would reject the second. If both conditions are ultimately make-or-break conditions, it’s hard to imagine Lapid and Bennett sitting together at Netanyahu’s cabinet table. And the religious parties would almost certainly fight the first condition.

The strongest possible coalition would embrace a centre-right to centre-left combination of Likud, Yesh Atid and Labor. The three parties together would have 65 seats. Bringing Hatunah and Kadima into the coalition would bring it to 73.

Such a coalition, without the religious parties in cabinet, would be in a much better position to settle the national service issue. Such a coalition would also be a strong signal to the world that Israel is serious about peace with the Palestinians (and would, hopefully, force the Palestinian leadership to stop looking for reasons not to negotiate).

The question for this possible scenario, at least as of this writing, is whether Yachimovich can be lured into the coalition following her campaign promise that she wouldn’t be.

Without Yachimovich, would Lapid be willing to give up one or the other of his two conditions to remain in the coalition?

If not, Netanyahu could move sharply right with a 61-seat coalition of Likud, Jewish Home and the two religious parties. Such a scenario would suggest no imminent progress on the peace front, on the religious-secular divide, and on the social issues which drove the success of the centrist parties.

The next few weeks will be most interesting.

January 21, 2013: Thank you Mitchell, we will miss you

By Michael Regenstreif

In the middle of the week that passes between this issue of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin going to press and its arrival in your mailbox, Mitchell Bellman will have served his last day as president and chief executive officer of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa – a job which also entails being publisher of the Bulletin.

Mitchell has spent most of his working life at the Federation’s helm. Following five years as a legislative assistant on Parliament Hill, he joined the Federation – then the Jewish Community Council of Ottawa/Vaad Ha’Ir – in 1995 as director of community relations and public affairs and became executive director two years later.

When the Federation staff gathered for lunch in Mitchell’s honour on January 8, Chief Financial Officer Shelley Crawford, who will serve as interim CEO until Mitchell’s successor, Andrea Freedman, arrives in March, spoke about how far the Federation and Ottawa’s Jewish community have come under his direction.

Using then-and-now comparisons, Shelley spoke about the early days of Mitchell’s tenure when the Vaad and its 16 employees were headquartered in the rundown conditions of the old JCC building on Chapel Street, working with few and primitive computers.

With Mitchell at the helm, the Federation became a modern, professionalized operation and today’s Jewish Community Campus was built, creating a hub of constant activity.

“There was Chapel Street – today there is Ottawa’s vibrant Jewish community. And many, many great memories, and many great friendships,” Shelley said.

“On behalf of your staff, thank you Mitchell! You are turning a page and we will miss you,” Shelley concluded as the staff applauded.

Speaking personally, I was impressed early in my time at the Bulletin that Mitchell was a mensch by observing the compassionate way he handled the circumstances created by the illness that tragically claimed the life of the late Barry Fishman, my predecessor as editor of the Bulletin.

In 2007, when Barry was diagnosed with ALS and it became clear that he would not be able to continue to work in the long-run, Mitchell created the position of assistant editor (for which I was hired), to help Barry in the day-to-day operation of the Bulletin while learning about this newspaper and the community it serves.

This allowed Barry to continue working for as long as he could, which he did with great dignity, until the progression of his illness meant that was no longer possible. And, when I stepped into the editor’s office early in 2008, Mitchell designated Barry as editor emeritus, a role he continued to fill as a valuable adviser until he passed away a year-and-a-half later.

I know how much Mitchell’s support and friendship meant to Barry during the three difficult years of his illness.

As mentioned, part of Mitchell’s job as Federation CEO was being publisher of the Bulletin. As editor, I have appreciated Mitchell’s insights into the community we serve, his advice on approaches we might take in covering certain issues, and his comments on the 19 editions of the newspaper we produce each year.

When she spoke at the staff lunch, Shelley noted it was under Mitchell’s direction that the Federation became the modern organization it is today. It was also under his direction that the Bulletin continued to evolve into the modern community newspaper it has become.

On behalf of the Bulletin staff, I will also say, ‘Thank you Mitchell! We will miss you.

December 10, 2012: The only path to peace remains direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians

By Michael Regenstreif

On November 29, 1947, with the British Mandate for Palestine drawing to a close, the United Nations (UN) voted to partition the area into two states: the Jewish State of Israel and an Arab Palestinian state.

The partition was accepted by the Jews, who declared Israel’s independence on May 14, 1948, and rejected by the Palestinian Arabs with the support of the surrounding Arab states, which attacked the nascent Jewish state en masse in Israel’s War of Independence.

We can only speculate on how differently the Middle East would have developed, and how different today’s Middle East would be, had the Palestinians accepted the UN partition plan. So many wars, so many acts of terrorism, so much retaliation – all with their tragic death tolls – could well have been avoided over the past 65 years. Think of all the resources that could have been deployed elsewhere and all the human suffering and all the hatred that could have been avoided.

On November 29, 2012, the 65th anniversary of the UN partition plan that led to the creation of the State of Israel, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to recognize Palestine – under the administration of the Palestinian Authority (PA) – as a non-member observer state, a move which MP Irwin Cotler, a former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, and one of the world’s leading international human rights lawyers, points out violates numerous UN resolutions providing frameworks for peace as well as bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements, including 1995’s Oslo II accord, which states “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.” (“An affront to the peace process, and to international law,” National Post, November 30)

That the UN General Assembly would vote in favour of this measure was never in doubt. After all, in that forum, the votes of Syria and Iran carry the same weight in the tally as the United States and Canada.

Israel, to be sure, opposed the Palestinian plan for this UN recognition, believing the only path to peace and Palestinian statehood is through direct negotiations without preconditions. And Israel’s strongest support in that position came from the United States and Canada.

A few other major democracies, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and the Netherlands, took a wishy-washy approach and abstained, while others, including many countries that have relatively good relations with Israel such as France, Italy, Spain and Greece, voted in favour of the Palestinian bid.

Canada’s reaction was swift. Foreign Minister John Baird quickly announced Canada will mount a full review of our relationship with the PA.

“Canada is proud of the support it has provided to improve the stability and security of the Palestinian society. Yesterday’s unilateral action does nothing to further the Middle East peace process. It will not change the reality on the streets of the West Bank or Gaza. This unilateral step is an impediment to peace,” Baird said on November 30. “We again call on the Palestinian Authority and Israel to return to negotiations, without preconditions, for the good of their people.”

While the results of the review will almost surely not be known by the time you read this column, the consequences for the Palestinians could be significant with Canada’s five-year, $300 million aid package to the PA about to expire. As well, there are moves afoot in the U.S. Congress to slash American financial support to the Palestinians in reaction to their move at the UN.

What does the UN measure realistically mean?

Most significantly, it might add to Palestinian status in UN agencies or give them enhanced status at the International Criminal Court. But, as Baird, American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have all pointed out, nothing really changes on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza. The only way to peace and to real Palestinian statehood is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. And the only way for those negotiations to take place is for the PA to come to the table without preconditions – something they’ve been unwilling to do over the past four years.

And let us not forget that, although the UN has recognized the PA as the government in the West Bank and Gaza, it has no practical authority in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization opposed to the peace process and to the existence of the State of Israel.