We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to: Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 –
Contents:
Netanyahu, Livni, and Herzog: Winners of the Week: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, Dec. 15, 2014— The definitive decision to dissolve the 19th Knesset was taken on the 8th of December by a vote of 93 for dissolution, and zero against.
The Crass Self-Promoting Motivations Behind the “Anyone But Bibi”: Isi Leibler, Candidly Speaking, Dec. 15, 2014— The “Anyone but Bibi” frenzy, now moving into high gear, highlights the absence of genuine discourse or debate over issues confronting the nation and demonstrates that this election is dominated by the machinations of individuals obsessed with gaining personal power.
Sane and Stable, Despite the Election: David M. Weinberg, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 11— Take a deep breath, everybody, and put some cynical filters in your ears.
Elections in Israel: Is Netanyahu All Talk?: Shmuel Rosner, New York Times, Nov. 9, 2014 — Israeli prime ministers, like all leaders, come in various types.
After Years of Enmity, Jerusalem to Follow US on Cuba Détente: Raphael Ahren, Times of Israel, Dec. 22, 2014
A Flawed Report’s Important Lesson: Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2014
Truly Thinking About Torture: Jonah Goldberg, New York Post, Dec. 12, 2014
What Will Israel Become?: Roger Cohen, New York Times, Dec. 12, 2014
NETANYAHU, LIVNI, AND HERZOG: WINNERS OF THE WEEK
Manfred Gerstenfeld
CIJR, Dec. 18, 2014
The definitive decision to dissolve the 19th Knesset was taken on the 8th of December by a vote of 93 for dissolution, and zero against. It also confirmed the election date for the 20th Knesset for March 17, 2015.
The following days were dominated by two events, one taking place within the center right and one within the center left. On the center right, Netanyahu proposed that the election date for Likud’s party leader be advanced by one week, to December 31st. Many saw this as an effort to block a possible challenge from former Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar. It would be difficult for Sa’ar to organize a campaign to challenge Netanyahu on such short notice, the more so as he had left politics several months before.
Furthermore, Netanyahu proposed that the Likud chairperson would be authorized to name two people of his choice for the 11th and 24th positions on the party’s list of Knesset candidates. On December 10, the Likud’s central committee held a vote on the matter and 65% supported Netanyahu’s proposal. This showed that Netanyahu still has the support of a solid majority of the Likud behind him. Sa’ar announced that he would not challenge Netanyahu for the party leadership. It seemed a wise decision on Sa’ar’s part, for even if he had succeeding in winning, the battle would have caused major political damage to the Likud. Several polls found that if Netanyahu were to lose the Likud leadership, the party would get less votes. If MK Moshe Feiglin were to head the list, the Likud would get 18 seats. If MK Danny Danon were to lead, the Likud would get only 17 seats, as opposed to Netanyahu’s 20-plus seats. A Channel 10 poll found that if Sa’ar were to head the Likud list, the party would get 20 seats, the same number of seats held when Netanyahu headed the list. On the sidelines of the battle within Likud, veteran Minister Limor Livnat announced that she would not participate in the next Knesset elections.
Many in the media have presented the upcoming elections as those of “everybody against Netanyahu.” The daily Ha’aretz for instance, titled an article with “Israel's Next Election is a Referendum on Netanyahu.” Even 91-year-old former President Shimon Peres intervened publicly, claiming that Netanyahu’s policies have moved Israel further away from peace and security. That statement sounded rather bizarre, as both Peres and the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin were responsible for the 1993 Oslo Accords, which have not brought security or peace to Israel. On the center left, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog and Hatnuah (“The Movement”) party leader Tzipi Livni agreed on one list, with Herzog in first place and Livni in second. In case they will form the next government, the two agreed that Herzog would be Prime Minister for the first two years and Livni for the following two years. The current numbers two and three on the Hatnuah list, MK Amram Mitzna and MK Amir Peretz, would have reserved slots on the joint list of candidates. Both are former Labor party leaders. Later it became known that the other three MKs of Hatnuah would be placed between numbers 20-25 on the list. A Midgam poll, broadcast on Channel 10, found that the joint list would win 22 seats, as against 20 seats for the Likud. In the meantime, former Labor Party minister MK Binyamin Ben Eliezer left the Knesset due to health reasons.
Even if the list headed by Herzog were to get the most seats in the coming elections, it would not necessarily mean that Labor would be able to form the next government. The overall battle for the majority between the center right and the center left will be one of the main issues in the upcoming months. A poll conducted by the Rafi Smith Institute on behalf of the Hiddush religious freedom lobbying group found that 62% of the general public is in favor of a government excluding all the ultra-Orthodox parties. 76% of those defining themselves as secular wanted a government without the inclusion of United Torah Judaism and Shas, as did 66% of those defining themselves as religiously traditional, and 80% of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. On the other hand, 65% of the national-religious respondents and 95% of the ultra-Orthodox respondents opposed the exclusion of the ultra-Orthodox parties from the government. The poll also found that 71% of Labor voters and 86% of Meretz and Kadima voters are opposed to the inclusion of ultra-orthodox parties in the next coalition.
Each political decision taken by the government during an election campaign is perceived by some of their opponents as election propaganda. This was the case with the recent Israeli bombing of the weapons cache in Syria that was destined for Hezbollah. The government was accused by Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) MK Yifat Kariv that the bombing was done for election purposes. Similar accusations were made when Netanyahu suggested that the VAT would be reduced to 0% on basic food items. With major moves having already taken place on the center right and the center left, there may be more attention given to other parties in the coming weeks. One issue which is currently being discussed is the establishment of a new party by the Tekumah (“National Union”) faction of the Habayut Hayehudi (“The Jewish Home”) party, to be formed jointly with MK Eli Yishay, who would then break away from the ultra-orthodox Shas party he previously led. If this party were to be formed, it would get seven seats, according to a poll by Minna Tzemach and Rafi Smith. Former Communications Minister Kahlon, who is establishing a new party called Kulanu (“All of Us”) has been keeping his cards close to his chest. Little is known about where he is planning to position himself on the political spectrum, but it is considered most probable that there will be a heavy emphasis on social issues.
Another issue to be resolved is whether the three Arab parties will be able to form a joint list. Arab participation in the elections is usually much lower than the Jewish participation, and some Arab MKs hope that a joint Arab list will increase Arab participation. An unprecedented political development occurred when female activists in the ultra-Orthodox community started a campaign to have at least one woman elected to each ultra-Orthodox party list. Their Facebook group, named after their slogan of “No representation, no vote” group has gotten three thousand likes. At present, female representation is considered to be outside the norm of ultra-Orthodox community’s values. The two largest parties and several others are now preparing for internal elections to choose their Knesset candidates. In the other parties, the lists will be determined either by the party leaders or by small forums…
[To Read the Full Article With Footnotes Click the Following Link—Ed.]
Manfred Gerstenfeld is a CIJR Academic Fellow
THE CRASS SELF-PROMOTING MOTIVATIONS
Isi Leibler
Candidly Speaking, Dec. 15, 2014
The “Anyone but Bibi” frenzy, now moving into high gear, highlights the absence of genuine discourse or debate over issues confronting the nation and demonstrates that this election is dominated by the machinations of individuals obsessed with gaining personal power. The bizarre Herzog-Livni fusion exemplifies this. In pursuance of elevating her own personal political standing, Livni has zig-zagged from Likud, Kadima, Hatnua and now to Labor. Polls indicate that in an election, her Hatnuah party is unlikely to even reach the minimum threshold to qualify for representation. Now, Labor leader Yitzchak “Bugie” Herzog has stunned even his own followers by signing a leadership rotation with Livni. It is difficult to conceive of Israelis endorsing Livni, the failed politician, as an alternative Prime Minister. Even Ha’aretz wrote that “this disagreement is so incomprehensible that it raises suspicions that Livni must have slipped something into Herzog’s drink.”
A second tier of three parties which all purport to represent the “center” are primarily driven by the machinations of the individual leaders all aspiring to become Prime Minister. They comprise of Liebermann, head of Yisrael Beiteinu who in the past promoted himself as the hard right-wing voice of Israeli politics frequently lambasting Netanyahu for being too soft’, the zig-zagging TV-host-turned-politician, Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid who rejected a merger with Tzipi Livni because he was unwilling to rotate the leadership, and former Likud minister Moshe Kahlon, who heads the embryonic Kulanu party.
All three of these “centrist” party leaders are unencumbered by any form of democratic pre-selection of their candidates who they will arbitrarily select for their Knesset list. They have also assumed for themselves the exclusive right to determine the policies and tactics of their respective parties. This effectively means that three individuals, unconditionally backed by their political machines, will determine whether they endorse a national or left wing government – based on extorting the best deal for themselves personally.
Liebermann’s support from the public was based on presenting himself as a hardliner in relation to the Palestinians, savaging all politicians who considered Abbas as a peace partner or moderate. Yet he has now announced that if it suits, he would align himself with a left-wing government headed by Herzog and Livni, both of whom continue to embrace Abbas. Lapid has probably burned his bridges with Netanyahu (although in this cynical political environment anything is possible). His remaining option is to join a Labor government which would mean a coalition that would include his arch enemies – the haredim – who Herzog has proclaimed he would willingly bring on board. Lapid would also have to effectively reverse his previous policy regarding the future of Jerusalem and defensible borders. When Kahlon was a minister in the Likud government, he was an outspoken hawk and even vigorously opposed a two state policy but now he is intimating that he is also open-minded to backing any government. Like Liebermann, in joining Herzog he would be obliged to totally reverse his former positions and even support the division of Jerusalem.
We are therefore faced with an election in which Netanyahu and Bennett will be competing with Herzog and Livni. Yet despite the electorate having moved considerably to the right over the past year, a left wing government could still emerge, simply due to machinations of aspiring political leaders purporting to represent the center and who, unrelated to ideological or policy issues, will be maneuvering and engaging in seedy backdoor deals based on promoting their own personal political power. All share the ultimate objective, by rotation or otherwise, of replacing Netanyahu and becoming Prime Minister. That such a scenario is possible, despite the fact that the core support of Liebermann and the bulk of Kahlon’s supporters are right-wing nationalists, is astounding. Politicians acting in such a crass and cynical manner shamelessly proclaim their willingness to prostitute their existing political ideologies in order to promote their personal power. At such a crucial time when Israel faces so many challenges and when national unity should be the priority, an election based primarily on the personal aggrandizement of power reflects the extent to which our dysfunctional political system ignores and abuses the will of the people…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
SANE AND STABLE, DESPITE THE ELECTION
David M. Weinberg
Jerusalem Post, Dec. 11, 2014
Take a deep breath, everybody, and put some cynical filters in your ears. Israel is not on the edge of a precipice. The country is not going to soar or crash in any way, no matter what the March election result is. Israelis are not faced with a choice between good and evil. What we’re facing, rather, is just another muddy election in a convoluted Israeli political system where negative campaigning and personal animosities are at a peak. It must be said: Israel is stronger, more stable and saner than it may look over the next 95 days of campaigning. It’s important to say this, because desperate politicians, such as Tzipi Livni, are already revving up hysterical campaigns that portray Israel as a country in danger of going down the drain; a country threatened by dark illiberal forces; a country where “religious extremists” and “ugly nationalists” seek to “turn back the clock,” and to “impose,” “intimidate” and “dictate” their “intolerant” views on a beleaguered society. The choice before the electorate, Livni has arrogantly and outrageously declared, is “between Zionism and extremism,” no less. Livni and her latest boyfriend, “Bugie” Herzog, are, of course, the voice of pure, rational, laudable Zionism; while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fronts for ominously surging, retrogressive extremists who supposedly are on the march.
Already you can hear plenty of nonsense about this race being a turning point in the battle for Israel’s soul; about a spirit of “rage, resentment and xenophobia” that is running through Israel; about this being a battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness; about Netanyahu driving Israel backward to fundamentalism, and caring only about his personal political survival. On the other side of the political map, you can hear wild exaggerations about the Left wanting to gut the Jewish character of Israel, steer Israel toward diplomatic suicide, and bring back stifling socialism. And in between, there are a bunch of newbie economic crusaders and saviors, who promise to magically and overnight bring down the cost-of-living for middle class Israelis while simultaneously boosting the military, balancing the budget, and integrating the Arabs and the ultra-Orthodox.
All of this is nonsense. The overwrought rhetoric and fanciful promises are claptrap, because the contours of Israeli diplomatic, economic and military policy are relatively constricted by the realities of the times – including regional instability, the fickleness and fecklessness of Israel’s Palestinian neighbors, difficult economic forecasts and the vagaries of coalition politics. The actual differences in policy between a Netanyahu-led coalition government and, say, a Herzog-led coalition government, are likely to be more cosmetic than real. The election campaign, rather, is more a personality contest than anything else. It’s a referendum on Netanyahu’s appeal versus that of the newest Israeli messiah, Moshe Kahlon. It’s a plebiscite on the puffed-up (and mostly empty) political résumés of people like Yair Lapid. It’s a chance to pronounce on the preening ambitions and inflated self-image of Tzipi Livni – a political vagabond who has just switched political frameworks for the fourth time in 10 years. It’s a poll on the suitability of Naftali Bennett for higher office. Yet the opposition to Netanyahu seems determined to raise the rhetorical stakes; to draw apocalyptic lines in the sand; to present this race as a grand, historic tipping point in Israel’s history; as a sink or swim moment for the Jewish People.
To me, this hyperbole is very problematic for a number of reasons. First, as I say, it is simply inaccurate. It sets up a false dichotomy between Netanyahu and everybody else; between purported “extremists” and those who have self-appropriated the term “Zionist.” Second, it creates a dynamic of hatred that is dangerous. Third, the overheated bombast is bound to reverberate beyond Israel’s borders, and undermine perceptions of Israel as a stable and decent democratic polity. When the political opposition to the government, in order to win a vote, spuriously maligns the dominant political leader and his political party as fanatic and fundamentalist – language usually reserved for the Iranians – the State of Israel suffers long-term damage. What’s good for fund-raising and electioneering is not necessarily good for Israel or for world Jewry. The end (replacing the government) does not justify the means (falsely depicting half of Israel as extremist).
The danger in this campaign is alienation. Who in their right mind wants to be associated with a country as retrogressive and thuggish as the place Livni describes? And what happens if the “good guys” don’t succeed in stopping the alleged hordes of Jewish ayatollahs? What if Netanyahu wins again and a Jewish Nation State law is passed; what if the Orthodox maintain their control over matters of religion and state; and what if Israel moves to strengthen its hold on Jerusalem and the settlement blocs? Does Israel become an illegitimate reality? By painting the situation in dire and apocalyptic terms, Israel’s rash politicians are threatening the very legitimacy of Israel. They are cutting away the limb – love for, and identification with, Israel – upon which all world Jewish unity is based. They are destabilizing the foundations on which Israel’s diplomatic relations are based.
I say to them: Stick to the facts and the issues. Offer us realistic policy prescriptions. Avoid besmirching Israel or significant sectors of Israeli society. Beware campaign themes that are corrosive to this embattled state’s strategic objectives and international image. Take some of the absolutist self-assurance out of your speeches. Speak moderately and be a little humble. None of you is such a great savior, that crushing and delegitimizing your opponents is justified. Always ask yourselves – what are the political and social models of Israel’s future that will allow us to continue to love the country even if it doesn’t sign onto your very particular, partisan vision?
ELECTIONS IN ISRAEL: IS NETANYAHU ALL TALK?
Shmuel Rosner
New York Times, Dec. 9, 2014
Israeli prime ministers, like all leaders, come in various types. There are those who talk a lot and do a lot (Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres); those who seem to act more than they talk (Ariel Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin), and those who say little and don’t do much, either (Yitzhak Shamir). And then there is Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu is so well rehearsed at the talking part of his job that it seems to distract him from the actual doing. Last week, when he announced his decision to dismantle his own government, he made another fine speech in which he ably defended another bad result. On Monday, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, confirmed that in three months voters will either grant (according to current polls) or deny Mr. Netanyahu (as opposition leaders vow to do) a fourth term as prime minister. Mr. Netanyahu is already the second-longest serving prime minister, trailing only Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion.
When Mr. Netanyahu explained why Israel needs new elections, the opposition rushed to claim that he was “whining.” In fact, he made a number of valid points about the misbehavior of his coalition partners, who have made life difficult for him as a leader. But his early election speech was heavy on blame-sharing and short on soul-searching. Mr. Netanyahu had trouble counting his government’s achievements — there weren’t many — so he spoke about those of his previous term in government. After six consecutive years at the helm, he has little visible success to be talked about. Even many of his supporters would admit that Israel today does not feel in better shape than it was when Mr. Netanyahu ascended to power.
Being a smooth communicator, Mr. Netanyahu does a wonderful job of making the argument that this lack of improvement is not his fault. Indeed, he has a strong case. He can’t be blamed for the world economic crisis. In fact, Israel did reasonably well in handling the downturn under his leadership. He is not to blame for Hamas’s behavior or its rule in Gaza. He did his utmost to resist Iran’s rush to a nuclear bomb, and cannot be blamed for President Obama’s lack of resolve on that front. He didn’t ignite the Arab Spring, nor could he have influenced trends that have made the Middle East even more chaotic than it used to be. And although he wasn’t the most enthusiastic negotiator with the Palestinian leadership, claiming that the collapse of the talks with the Palestinians is mainly his fault would be a stretch. Mr. Netanyahu is rarely responsible for the kookier legislative initiatives emanating from his coalition, such as the bill unilaterally annexing the Jordan Valley to Israel, or the one proposing to allow settlers to return to the homes that they were forced to evacuate as part of Israel’s “disengagement” operation of 2005. In many cases, he was the one blocking or moderating them.
Mr. Netanyahu was elected under certain circumstances. It is not absurd to argue that he had to focus his energies on prevention and containment of negative developments, and that he did reasonably well under tough conditions. And yet doubt lingers. If a leader cannot bring about positive change, can he at least find a way to improve the atmosphere? If he cannot alter greater outside forces, can he still find a way to positively impact internal trends? Even Israelis like me, who tend to accept Mr. Netanyahu’s caution and skepticism on peace talks, and his unapologetic insistence on proud nationalism, should wonder about missed opportunities. Chief among these was the missed opportunity of the now-defunct coalition to reshape Israeli society and make it less polarized and more civil. It wasn’t long ago that this coalition of sour feelings and mudslinging had promise. It brought together Israelis from right and left, secular and religious backgrounds, experienced politicians and new faces. Instead of a rigid coalition of the same old politicians, and the same old formulation of right and ultra-Orthodox parties, Israel got, for a brief moment, a Knesset that felt fresh. A third of the members were new legislators — eager, energized, idealistic and well-intentioned (and, yes, they were sometimes naïve, too). They spoke about a “new politics” and, as childish as it sounded, they meant it. They planned to give Israelis with opposing views the chance to advance a common good where they could agree or compromise. It looked like a sunny, centrist, mainstream coalition. It presented the prime minister with an opportunity to be “perhaps even a better Bibi, now that he has new partners,”…
Surely, Mr. Netanyahu could again pull out of his bag of rationalizations a fine defense of his decision to dismantle this coalition. After all, he can’t be held responsible for having to work with a group of novices, saboteurs, incompetents and juveniles. After all, the voters put those people in office. But Israelis haven’t seen the prime minister try very hard to keep the coalition together. The coalition was “forced on me” — he complained last week — and it showed. He never warmed to it. He never grasped its potential. Mr. Netanyahu chose not to be the “better Bibi.” He chose to stay the same. The same is not terrible. The same is not undeserving. But it’s also not very exciting. And for voters, it’s never exciting to have to decide if the same is still our best option.
After Years of Enmity, Jerusalem to Follow US on Cuba Détente: Raphael Ahren, Times of Israel, Dec. 22, 2014—Following the lead of the United States, Israel will likely abandon its anti-Cuba policy, yet the road to a possible resumption of bilateral ties is still long, officials in Jerusalem said this week.
A Flawed Report’s Important Lesson: Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2014 —The “torture report” exists. It shouldn’t—a better, more comprehensive, historically deeper and less partisan document should have been produced, and then held close for mandatory reading by all pertinent current and future officials—but it’s there.
Truly Thinking About Torture: Jonah Goldberg, New York Post, Dec. 12, 2014—For a long time I resisted the word “torture” when discussing the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used against high-value captives in the war on terror. I don’t think I can do that anymore.
What Will Israel Become?: Roger Cohen, New York Times, Dec. 12, 2014—Uneasiness inhabits Israel, a shadow beneath the polished surface.
Contents:
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
