Pyotr Stegny: Israel at the Crossroads

Israel’s parliamentary elections in late January delivered a result that will see Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remain in power. RIAC Member Pyotr V. Stegny, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation, talks about the future of Israel's foreign policy and prospects for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

– Mr. Stegny, what foreign policy priorities do you expect to see from the Prime Minister during his new term?

– The policies will depend on the coalition’s composition. Under Israeli law, Netanyahu has 28 days to form it, and local experts envisage two scenarios.

The prime minister may build a broad coalition of up to 88 deputies, similar to a national unity government. As there are 120 seats in the Knesset, the coalition seems really broad and almost bulletproof.

But he might as well be restricted to his traditional allies including religious orthodox parties. Under that scenario, the coalition could incorporate 63 MPs. 

A broad coalition would be possible if the recently established Yesh Atid joins the united party of Binyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman. In January, Yesh Atid won 19 parliamentary seats, a significant success, especially against the backdrop of the Netanyahu-Lieberman bloc’s reduced representation. Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid is seen as the main hero of the recent elections.

Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu joined forces but only won 31 seats, while before the January elections they had a total of 42. This 11-seat loss significantly weakens them. 

Should the optimistic scenario come to pass, and a broad coalition emerge, the Israeli government’s policy is likely to become quite appealing and realistic. We can expect to see greater level-headedness toward regional threats, such as for example the Iranian nuclear program. Netanyahu’s broad government would find it easier to adapt to the situation radically changed by the Arab Spring. Certain chances surface to advance the Israeli-Palestinian dialog that has been long frozen to taint Israel's image. According to some pundits, if a national unity government is formed, Netanyahu could even launch talks on the boundaries of a Palestinian state linked with security guarantees for the Jewish state. As for the final status issue – Jerusalem and the right of return – these issues will be time-consuming.

If the coalition is narrow and insecure, risky foreign and domestic policy initiatives seem much more difficult.

– And what kind of stance should Russia take on the Arab-Israeli conflict?

– Our approach is crystal clear, as  Russia has, in recent decades, been focused on global and regional stability. Regarding the Middle East, the key is in developing in line with global trends, as part of the global democratic transformation.

Specific tasks should be shaped by finding solutions to the problems and challenges facing the region. To my mind, the most imminent challenge lies in the dynamics around Syria. Although a Libya-style scenario of external intervention seems somewhat less likely, it has not been viewed through a prism of antiquated or discarded paradigms.   I believe that Moscow will remain an active player within the Middle East Quartet, offering fresh ideas, for example engaging regional actors into the negotiations process. 

Russia’s Middle East policy is well-structured and logical. It rests on the exceptional responsibility for maintaining international peace and security arising from Russia’s membership in the UN Security Council, the Quartet, and the 5+1 talks on Iran. Then there is a need to preserve traditional influence and existing bilateral and multilateral ties with Arab states and Israel. Finally, there is the third basket of issues i.e. democracy and human rights, that exists alongside current global trends but with unconditional respect for state sovereignty.

– A recent edition of the Sunday Times ran a cartoon with the Israeli prime minister erecting a wall between Israel and Palestine, using Palestinian blood for cement. Do you think this gaffe could escalate the conflict? And how acceptable are such ploys in journalism? 

– The Sunday Times has already offered Netanyahu an official apology, which I think is quite proper. Journalism should work within clear-cut ethical restraints that cannot be crossed. The media has been given a sharp, dangerous and sometimes double-edged blade that must be used with the utmost caution, especially if it could have an effect on national pride or faith. Just remember the consequences of the cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed.

Interviewer: Darya Khaspekova, RIAC Program Assistant