Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has announced the formation of a new government. The new 68-member coalition promises to be unwieldy: It is composed of Likud and three smaller parties that have little in common. While the new government can muster a majority in Parliament, it is unlikely to be able to make difficult decisions. That means a continuation of the status quo is the most likely course. That is good for Mr. Sharon and good for the settlers, but it offers no hope for progress in the violent Israeli-Palestinian confrontation.
Mr. Sharon's Likud Party won a historic 40 seats in the January elections. He has joined with the Shinui Party, a secular party that won 15 seats, the National Religious Party, a pro-settlement group that claimed six, and the National Union Party, a rightwing party with seven seats. While the coalition gives the government a comfortable majority in Israel's bitterly divided Parliament, fault lines are quickly evident. While there are shared suspicions of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, there is no consensus on the future of a Palestinian state. The NRP and NUP are opposed to any state. Shinui has said that it favors statehood, although it concedes that the time may not be right for serious negotiations. Mr. Sharon has said that he is ready to make "painful decisions," but his actions have fueled suspicions that he is hostile to the creation of any real Palestinian authority and is trying to create a fait accompli that would leave any eventual Palestinian state at the mercy of Israel.
Settlements are the other real problem. Shinui favors dismantling some of the outposts in preparation for a deal with the Palestinians. Shinui leader Yosef "Tommy" Lapid said Mr. Sharon promised that there would be no expansion of settlements. The leader of the NRP, Mr. Effie Eitam, denied this, claiming that the coalition policy guidelines "will include absolutely no reference to removing or freezing settlements" and that natural growth is to be expected. Mr. Sharon has been a supporter of settlements, and his party has generally supported them, although it is also divided. Past precedent suggests that Mr. Lapid will find himself isolated and marginalized on this pivotal issue.