News

"After seven weeks of intensive negotiations, Benjamin Netanyahu finally presented his coalition government to the Israeli Knesset yesterday for approval," The Globe's Mideast correspondent Patrick Martin writes today in his article Netanyahu knee-deep in ministers

"But he appears more interested in decisions in cabinet than lawmaking in parliament, which last night did confirm him as Israel's new leader.

"His government, consisting of 30 ministers and seven deputy ministers drawn from six parties, is the largest in Israel's history, a fact not lost on the incoming leader of the opposition, Tzipi Livni. The Kadima party chief laid into Mr. Netanyahu for his extravagance at a time when thousands of Israelis are losing their jobs.

"To put the number in perspective, more than a quarter of all Knesset members have ministerial positions. In Canada, that would mean more than 80 members of Parliament were in the cabinet.

"But Mr. Netanyahu had promises to keep, and keep them he did, going so far as to break up some ministries into smaller parts, and appointing several ministers without portfolio. Some have pretty comical titles: There's the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for improving government services to the citizenry via the Internet, Minister without Portfolio for diaspora affairs and broadcasting authorities, and even a Minister without Portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office."

Mr. Martin writes that it appears Mr. Netanyahu wishes to govern more like the president of the United States than the prime minister in a parliamentary system.

But that's not the only question his new government raises.

Is it "the most right-wing government in Israel's history?"

In relations with Palestinians, will things only "go from bad to worse?"

Will Avigdor Lieberman, as Foreign Minister, prove a disaster for Israel?

Is there nowhere to go but up?

Mr. Martin was online earlier today to answer those questions and others.

Your comments and Mr. Martin's replies appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Martin is serving for the second time as The Globe and Mail's Middle East correspondent, the first being from 1991-95. In between postings, the former host of CBC Radio's Sunday Morning program served as The Globe's Foreign Editor and Comment Editor.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Patrick. It's always a pleasure to have you online to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com.

Let's start with what may be an obvious but important question: Given the current situation in the Knesset, how long is this government likely to survive? Is this a stable coalition for years? Or is it vulnerable to defections and defeats, as some of its predecessors have been?

Patrick Martin, Globe Middle East correspondent: Thanks, Jim. It's always a pleasure to be here. You ask a very good question.

It's been a long time since an Israeli coaltion government served out a full four-year term.

But Mr. Netanyahu is certainly keen to try. That's why he went to such extraordinary lengths the past seven weeks, and even right up to the last minute yesterday, making his coalition partners as happy as possible.

Of all of them, Labour is the most important. It's presence gives Mr. Netanyahu a total of 74 seats in the coalition. Take them away, and it's reduced to 61 seats, the bare minimum for a majority.

Of course, Avigdor Lieberman, whose Yisrael Beitenu party has 15 seats also is important, but it would unlikely that they would pull the plug on this government.

Mr. Lieberman's position is giving his party enormous credibility, and Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Netanyahu are reported to be on very good personal terms.

The bottom line is that if these two parties stay in place, the coalition can withstand any withdrawal by any of the other three religious and right-wing parties.

Of course, should the government make a deal for peace with a new Palestinian state, it might tempt fate.

However, I think in such a case even the ultra-orthodox Shas party is likely to be pragmatic and not bolt from the government.)

I might not bet the house on a full four-year term, but I think it could come close to it.

iPhone: Why should Canadians care about an Israeli government? It is halfway around the world and of no consequence to Canadians ... other than those supporters of George Galloway and freedom of speech.

Patrick Martin: That's a fair question, "i". Certainly many Israelis ask why there's so much world attention being paid to their relatively little patch of Earth.

That wasn't their view 50 years ago when they were struggling to survive in a hostile neighbourhood. Then they wanted the world to offer support for their nascent state. And they got it. In the right places: western capitals, and many developing countries.

Today, you might say, it's the Palestinians who are hoping for world support for their embryonic state. They have support in some capitals, but often the support for them comes in the form of anti-Israeli vitriol, not really constructive pro-Palestinian support.

Apart from helping a struggling people, I think many people in Canada care about both these peoples, they are very much like many Canadians, and Canadians can relate to them.

More than that, this region is the birthplace of the three monotheistic faiths, practised by most Canadians. People care what happens to the Holy Land.

Finally, if there was to be a great or nuclear war, this is one of the two places on Earth most likely to spark it.

I think it helps to be informed about all of this.

Irina Levitsky, Montreal: Mr. Lieberman's motto "no loyalty, no citizenship" is considered by some to be right wing, anti-democratic, racist, almost fascist.

But what's wrong with the principle of loyalty? As far as I'm concerned, in every country, loyalty is a normal natural thing expected from citizens, and treason is often punished by death.

Yet, for Israel (a tiny country surrounded by millions of not-too-friendly neighbours), a natural demand for loyalty is wrong? People who are not loyal will, logically, help to bring about the collapse of the state.

Is that what expected/hoped for by the international community?

Patrick Martin: No, Irina, I don't think that's what lies behind people's concerns about a loyalty oath.

As Arab Israelis see it, their loyalty is proven by their very presence: They were born in this land, and resent being told, by someone who wasn't born here (Mr. Lieberman was born in the Soviet Union) that they are ones who need to prove their loyalty.

They also point out that are the Palestinians who stayed, they didn't flee in 1948, and have overwhelmingly been law-abiding Israeli citizens ever since they were given citizenship.

They say: punish us for our deeds, the things some of our people may do that vilolate the law, but not for failing to live up to some Orwellian view of what loyalty is.

They see this as a slippery slope to losing their citizenship and their place here.

And I think a lot of critics of the idea reflect that view.

Rick Stones, Calgary: Could you comment on the influence of the Israeli lobby on U.S. and Canadian politics?

I'm referring to the very pro-Israel media coverage and political support Israel receives. For example, Israel's right to exist isn't questioned, while Hamas and Hezbollah are declared terror organizations. Harper immediately supports Israel in the 2006 Lebanese war. The U.S. doesn't step in during the recent Gaza conflict. Galloway isn't allowed into Canada.

Patrick Martin: Well, you've certainly laid a little minefield there, Rick. I shall try to tiptoe carefully through it.

First, I agree with you that Israel gets a great deal of political support in Canada.

I don't agree with you that the media coverage is necessarily pro-Israel. This correspondent tries hard to remain impartial and objective in reporting and analyzing events here.

Having said that, it is true that there is almost no media in Canada that doesn't take as its starting point, at least, that Israel has a right to exist. Beyond that, you can expect coverage to be impartial in its treatment of the behaviour of all parties in the region.

I think it's also true that the media, and slowly, the government have come to accept that Palestinians too have a right to a viable state.

Yes, there are world views that would say we should start with the question of whether Israel has a right to exist. But, more than 60 years on, Israel does exist and our task as journalists is to cover the reality of this situation.

Is that a product of the Israel lobby? I don't think so. I think it stems from Canada's support for both Israelis and Arabs right from Israel's earliest days, long before any sizeable lobby was in place.

As for the government's support for Israel in Lebanon (I was on the receiving end of those Israeli bombs, by the way) and in Gaza too, I think it's fair to say that, yes, there are organizations in this country that strongly support the government and state of Israel, and have brought issues of concern to the attention of Canadian political leaders (and work to keep Canadian media honest and accurate).

There also are groups that support Palestinian, Arab and Islamic causes and also raise their concerns with politicians and the media.

In the battle for attention and for sympathy, the Israel-oriented groups have enjoyed a headstart and may have had more success than their opposite numbers in Palestinian, Arab and Islamic circles. But I think that position is shifting.

A.S., New York: Will this new government now always be referred to as "radical" and "against Palestinian statehood" in every reference to it, the same way The Globe seems unfailingly to reference Hamas?

Patrick Martin: Well, A.S., I've just gone back over the past 100 or so references to Hamas in articles I have written, and in not one case was any adjective used at all to describe Hamas, let alone the kind of reference to which you refer, so I'm not sure to what you are referring.

Are you sure you're not mixing us up with another paper?

Or perhaps you are extrapolating from some column a view that you think we exhibit in our news coverage?

We would only employ such value-laden modifiers for a particular purpose.

Having said that, Hamas can fairly be described as an Islamist party, as well as a national resistance party.

It has employed military tactics and sometimes terrorism (though the wave of suicide bombings that characterized the military wing in the 1990s and early 2000s appears to be a thing of the past).

So, it could be described as radical in some of its views and practices. As well, its fundamental belief is that Israel should not exist, so it's fair to say that too, though there is no need to repeat this ad nauseum.

I also think it's fair to say that not wanting Israel to exist and being willing to live in peace beside Israel, for a very long time, are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed that's the formula Mahmud Zahar, Hamas's Gaza leader, has put forward. Hamas would be willing to live in peace, within the 1967 borders, alongside Israel for a very long time. But it will never accept Israel's right to the land. (I paraphrase from an interview I had with him in December, the fourth time I have met with him over the years.)

Jim Sheppard: Patrick, Wim in Berlin posted this comment on your article in today's Globe about the Netanyahu government. Would you care to comment?

"This new government rightfully faces a very cold reception in Europe where all government-to-government contacts _ other then necessary ones _ have been put on hold indefinitely. In Europe, the general perception, [correctly or incorrectly] is that the Israeli government plans to expand Jewish settlements and continue its total shutdown of Gaza. This is seen as not only a hindrance to any possible peace deal but a clear provocation. It seems Obama's view will be a somewhat scaled-down version of this European view. We can expect Harper, his right-wing government and his Israeli lobby friends in Ottawa to be sending their warm congratulations and best wishes."

Patrick Martin: Sure. Much of Europe has given Israeli governments a cold reception for a very long time. I recall they even gave Yitzhak Rabin a tough time, but he proved to be quite a partner for peace.

I'm not saying that the Netanyahu government will be a repeat of that government, but I do think it should be judged by its deeds more than the rhetoric of election campaigns.

I would not be surprised, for example, if this government sought to impress the new U.S. administration with a concrete overture to Syria.

Mr. Netanyahu, as I note in today's article, is a very savvy American-oriented politician. He knows how much he can expect from Washington and when he has to give ground. As Gideon Doron noted, the U.S. is Israel's greatest strategic asset and Mr. Netanyahu knows it.

It's also worth noting that though Mr. Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, have not said they support a two-state solution, they are not that different from other Israeli political leaders.

The others, even as they say they support two states, in fine print they say: of course a Palestinian state can't have a full military, or can't control its borders, or can't police its own airspace. In that way, what they're referring to isn't really a full fledged Palestinian state either.

The bottom line is that any leader is going to have to move one step at a time, and they may end up in the same place in the end.

I think most people, including most Israeli people, hope that end is, eventually, a full and viable state.

M. Vezina: Will Israel attack the nuclear facilities in Iran in 2009?

Patrick Martin: That's a tough thing to predict, M. But I will say no.

For one thing, Israel would never take such action while President Obama is trying to engage Tehran in dialogue. And that effort is likely to last more than this year.

For another thing, some of Israel's own, best, atomic analysts have acknowledged that while Iran is approaching "break-out capacity" — i.e., the ability to make bombs, there is no evidence that it has taken the political decision to make such things.

And that political decision is the key.

As it's highly unlikely that even Israel's vaunted airforce could wipe out all of Iran's nuclear capacity (they haven't even been able to stop tunnelling into Gaza) they must ask themselves: Would attacking Iran encourage or discourage it from making the political decision to build bombs?

I think, for all of Mr. Netanyahu's rhetoric, the Israelis will be very happy to let the United States take the lead on this matter.

R.S., Windsor, Ont.: Given the obvious tension and non-recognition of Hamas by the Israelis, how do you think the new Israeli government would react to a Hamas/Fatah agreement?

Patrick Martin: Given that a Hamas/Fatah reconciliation will have to provide for some formula of accepting Israel's presence, if not its right to exist, or will leave Hamas out of the government, I think they should be able to work with it.

They know it's in their interest too to have calm on this front. And they don't want to squander the support of the U.S. which has invested heavily in reconstructing Gaza and the West Bank.

Joe Smith, Toronto: Mr. Martin, Yisrael Beiteinu went from being a minor party to a major player at a stroke, which made Lieberman the power-broker in the new government.

It reminds me of Shinui, the Israeli secularist party headed by Tommy Lapid that had a similar sudden rise from bit-player to key coalition partner in the early 2000s.

Like Yisrael Beiteinu, Shinui was pretty much a one-issue, leader-driven party, but Shinui was unable to cope with its new responsibilities and imploded after a short while.

Do you think a similar fate awaits Yisrael Beiteinu?

Patrick Martin: Good point, Joe. But Yisrael Beitenue did pretty well in the last election too, so it might not disappear so quickly.

Having said that, its complete focus on one man does certainly risk collapse, especially if that man should be indicted on criminal charges.

Jim Sheppard: Patrick, thanks again. I'm sure our readers appreciated your expertise and analysis. Any last thoughts?

Patrick Martin: My pleasure, Jim.

I'd only add that politics and events in this part of the world are never dull. Keep tuned.

Jim Sheppard: To our readers, thanks for all the questions you submitted today. We're sorry we couldn't get to all of them.