WHEN Hamas emerged victorious in Palestinian elections three years ago, an international boycott was deemed the ideal means of dealing with the situation. The prospect of an at least equally right-wing government in Israel has not led to threats of disengagement. Hamas was told that only unequivocal and formal recognition of Israel’s right to exist could bring it in from the cold. What are the chances of an administration led by Binyamin Netanyahu being cold-shouldered on the basis of refusing to clearly acknowledge the inevitability of a Palestinian state?

In last week’s elections, a clear majority of the Israeli electorate appears to have decided that a negotiated settlement is no longer worth pursuing. This is partly a consequence of the inability of the Kadima and Labour parties to make much progress on that front. In the run-up to the polls, the Kadima-Labour coalition opted for a show of military strength rather than a fresh peace overture as a means of shoring up poll ratings.

It seemed to work for Tzipi Livni, whose Kadima just about managed to outscore Netanyahu’s Likud in terms of parliamentary seats, but Labour under Ehud Barak posted its worst result yet, putting the party in fourth place, behind Avigdor Lieberman’s rabidly anti-Arab Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is Our Home). The latter organization’s agenda has been compared with that of Meir Kahane’s Kach party, which won a single seat in the Knesset back in the 1980s before being banned on the grounds of racism. Lieberman faces far fewer challenges in his effort to effectively divest Israel of its Arab population.

He has proposed a loyalty oath whereby anyone who fails to swear fealty to Israel as a Jewish state would be disenfranchised. The proposal is categorized as controversial, but neither Netanyahu nor Livni appears to have a serious problem with it. Unless the two of them agree to sharing the prime ministerial post (as Labour and Likud once did), either of them would require Lieberman’s support to form a government.

They would also need other allies, however, and this is problematic. Netanyahu’s natural allies are the religious fundamentalists on the far right – but they are reluctant to be part of a coalition that includes Yisrael Beiteinu, because while they probably appreciate Lieberman’s neo-fascist leanings, he is seen as beyond the pale on account of being too secular-minded (talk of liberalizing the sale of pork and support for civil marriages led the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party to decree that a vote for Lieberman would be a vote for Satan). Livni, on the other hand, may have trouble luring the likes of Labour and Meretz into a coalition that also features Lieberman.

Interestingly, though, Lieberman does not oppose a two-state solution. In fact, his racist instincts have led him even to contemplate the possibility of ceding Arab-dominated parts of Israel proper to a future Palestinian state – albeit in exchange for parts of the West Bank encroached upon by Jewish settlements. This does not make him a dove. In fact, that species is all but extinct in mainstream Israeli politics. These days, a "Hawks Only" directive at the entrance to the Knesset would hardly exclude any of its members.

On the face of it, prospects for a peaceful settlement have dwindled to their lowest level in almost two decades. There are those who suspect, however, that the more extremist and uncompromising the next government, the greater the likelihood of the Obama administration nudging it in the direction of negotiations.

Washington’s potential leverage  is hardly a matter for conjecture, given that Israel is economically and militarily dependent on the US to a considerable degree. American governments tend to be extremely indulgent towards Israel – and the Bush regime broke all records in this respect. The Obama administration is not exactly expected to breach etiquette in this regard, and its ranks boast at least an average concentration of Zionists and fellow travellers. However, Barack Obama is not George W. He is well aware that the US has been anything but evenhanded in its approach to the Middle East, and there are indications he is not completely comfortable with that.

He may even realise that the perennial crisis will remain unresolved in the absence of pressure on Israel. The tactic of reserving this treatment for Palestinians alone has clearly been a failure. It has yielded Mahmoud Abbas, who is willing to bend every which way in his eagerness to demonstrate that he has no spine, yet this embarrassing exercize has earned him no prizes. It has also strengthened Hamas, which has of late viciously been cracking down on dissent in the Gaza Strip, a tendency that diminishes the credibility of its posture as a popular resistance force. With a bit of diligence, however, even Hamas can be brought to the table.

There wouldn’t be much point in that, however, unless Israel is willing to end its occupation of the West Bank. That won’t happen without a spot of bullying by Uncle Sam. This has hitherto been pretty much a no-go zone: the influence of the Israel lobby and the significance attached to the Jewish vote have deterred US lawmakers and administrations from contemplating a more balanced approach. But a chance for change has arisen of late. During the Gaza war, a relatively novel phenomenon was witnessed: some Jewish organizations and activists in the US openly displayed their displeasure over Israel’s aggression.

And, notwithstanding Obama’s conspicuous silence on Gaza, some of his aides are reported to have privately vented their frustration. Furthermore, the very fact that Israel was careful to conclude its assault before regime change in Washington points to a degree of doubt about whether the approbation it could blindly rely on from the Bush regime would continue under the successor administration.

Events in Gaza also entailed an anti-Israeli backlash among European Jews, not least in Britain, where a number of prominent figures openly expressed their dismay. Among them was veteran Labour MP Gerald Kaufman who, in a speech to the House of Commons, noted: "My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland … My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza."

An opportunity clearly exists for an international campaign to shame Israel into making the concessions required for a durable peace. The likelihood of such an occurrence is, admittedly, minuscule. But in the Israeli-Palestinian context, even the smallest chances are a precious resource.

Email: [email protected]

---