Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for two more weeks to form a coalition, the maximum allotted time under Israeli law, is neither surprising nor particularly encouraging. While the prime minister designate has stated that he is taking the additional time to forge a broader coalition, there is more self-interest behind the decision than any real enthusiasm for the peace process. Nor is there real reason to believe that a coalition government that embraces more than just the Right would be any greater friend of peace.

Although Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Middle East envoy, has told The National that he believes Mr Netanyahu would support a two state solution, the Likud leader’s track record is not encouraging. It is possible that he has had a change of heart that belies his public rhetoric, but not probable. From an examination of the former Israeli premier’s past policies rather than what he says behind closed doors, his attempts to partner with the right-of-centre Kadima and the left-leaning Labour party have more to do with domestic policy than the peace process.

Mr Netanyahu is a free-market capitalist whose favoured economic policies would run foul of religious, Zionist parties, who would form a substantial minority in a purely right-wing government. In particular, Shas seeks to expand a financially crippling social welfare programme for Orthodox Jews, and in a narrow coalition would have the clout to do so. As the global financial crisis hits Israel as it has every country, Mr Netanyahu will not wish to compromise on his fiscal policies as he seeks to stimulate the economy.

Despite this, it is the peace process that, ultimately, will shape the coalition. It is possible that Mr Netanyahu’s purported statements to Mr Blair were calculated to appease Labour MPs opposed to a coalition agreement. But it is a message to Tzipi Livni of Kadima as well. A Likud-Kadima coalition would allow Mr Netanyahu to sideline religious parties. While talks with Ms Livni have made no ground thus far, it is not impossible that she will yet form a government with him. To do so, Kadima would have to obtain face-saving concessions from Mr Netanyahu, probably in the form of reassurance that Likud will respect the current peace process. This will probably not come from Mr Netanyahu directly, but a back-channel leak could satisfy Kadima while preserving plausible deniability for Likud.

It is also possible that Ms Livni is holding out for a deal to free the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in the next two weeks. Hamas seems to be scrambling to get a deal done, both out of fear that its bargaining power will be reduced with a right-wing government, and because it has its own upcoming elections to worry about. There are few more potent political footballs in Israel than this young man. Freeing him would give Kadima a massive popular boost and give Ms Livni greater bargaining power. But Mr Netanyahu also knows how to drive a hard bargain, and the longer that Kadima holds out the less likely it is that he will have any significant ministerial positions to offer her.

In the end all these calculations mean little to the Palestinians. An Israeli government headed by Mr Netanyahu is not likely to pursue peace earnestly, despite what it may claim to the West. Nor will a unity government necessarily present a more favourable bargaining partner. It is more likely to be hamstrung by myriad competing interests and ideologies. Israel has never had the ability to field a strong government that can make the tough concessions necessary for peace. At least a right-wing government would provide a unified face with which to negotiate. Even if only to say “no”, and actually mean it.