#Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid

[xtruss]

Analysis: What Israel Can Teach the U.S. About Confronting a Constitutional Crisis

Sometimes you not only need to vote—you also need to vote with your feet.

— By Aaron David Miller and Daniel Miller | Foreign Policy | March 18, 2023

A protester waves an Israeli flag during a massive protest against the government's judicial overhaul plan on March 11 in Tel Aviv, Israel (Illegally Occupied Palestine). Amir Levy/Getty Images

Over the past four months, in an extraordinary display of national resolve and resistance, millions of Israelis have rallied in the streets to protest their government’s efforts to revolutionize the judiciary. Because Israel does not have a written constitution or bicameral parliament, these so-called reforms, if enacted, would eviscerate an independent judiciary, remove the one check and balance standing in the way of unbridled government power, and fundamentally undermine Israel’s democratic system.

In a recent conversation with the author, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak noted that the behavior of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government during the current crisis evoked thoughts of the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Can the United States learn anything from Israel in its own efforts to stop democratic backsliding and combat a future constitutional crisis in the event, for example, that a president seeks to hold on to power, overturn the results of a free and fair election, and threaten the very essence of constitutional government?

At first glance, the sheer size of the United States and fundamental differences between the two countries’ political cultures and governance systems might appear to render comparisons moot, if not irrelevant. But a closer look reveals important takeaways from Israel’s situation that are worth considering. If Israelis succeed in checking this judicial juggernaut, and even if they don’t, there are lessons for Americans should U.S. liberal democracy be seriously threatened.

The biggest takeaway from what has been happening in Israel has to do with the size, tactics, and endurance of the protests themselves. For months, the world has watched Israelis engage in sustained, massive, nonviolent protests and civil disobedience in cities and towns across the country, drawing participants from nearly all sectors of society.

The scale, scope, and composition of these demonstrations are unprecedented in the country’s history. Hundreds of thousands regularly attend the protests, which are largely grassroots demonstrations, locally organized with former officials and intellectuals recruited to speak. On April 1, close to 450,000 Israelis took to the streets. That is close to 5 percent of the population, roughly equivalent to 17 million Americans. A recent poll showed that 20 percent of all Israelis have protested at one time or another against the judicial coup.

Given the vast disparity in size, replicating this kind of sustained protest movement is no easy matter. As a point of comparison, the Women’s March on Washington on Jan. 21, 2017, drew between 1 and 1.6 percent of the U.S. population. But that doesn’t mean this is impossible. Indeed, the Black Lives Matter protests that took place in the United States in the summer of 2020 were largely spontaneous and may have included as many as 26 million—and perhaps more—protesters in total.

Size is critical, but so is the character of demonstrations. The essential element is nonviolence. As Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan have demonstrated in studying civil resistance movements that occurred between 1900-2006, using nonviolent tactics—which can include protests, boycotts, and civil disobedience—enhances a movement’s domestic and international legitimacy, increases its bargaining power, and lessens the government’s efforts to delegitimize it. Although the vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests were peaceful (despite the false or misleading media and government claims to the contrary), there were acts of violence, looting, and rioting. Any future protest movement in the United States must shun this kind of destructive behavior.

The Israeli movement’s endurance and persistence has also been an asset. The struggle for democracy is not a 100-yard dash—as demonstrated in other countries, such as Serbia. In Israel’s case, the perception that the so-called judicial reform wasn’t just some technical adjustment to the political system, but rather a fundamental threat to Israelis’ way of life, sustained the protests. The profound anger and mistrust toward the Netanyahu government further catalyzed Israelis from virtually all sectors of society to turn out in the streets.

A second essential part of the response to the judicial legislation in Israel has been the active participation of military reservists who have signed petitions, participated in protests, and boycotted their formal and volunteer reserve duty. These reservists play a critical role in both intelligence and air force operations that are key to the current security challenges Israel faces.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is the most respected institution in the country. In fact, what led Netanyahu to pause the judicial legislation was the surge of protests that followed his (since rescinded) decision to fire Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Gallant had publicly called for a halt to the judicial overhaul, arguing that it was jeopardizing Israel’s security. Adding to the pressure, a host of former IDF chiefs of staff, commanders, and former directors of Mossad have publicly opposed the judicial legislation. And even active, lower-level Mossad employees have been given permission to participate in the protests.

Such actions by former and current government officials are precisely what is needed to imbue the protests with additional legitimacy and to amplify the seriousness of the moment. Active members of IDF units have not refused to serve, and we’re not recommending that active U.S. military units join the protests. Indeed, given the U.S. tradition of the subordination of military to civilian authority, uniformed military would be hard-pressed to intervene in a political crisis.

Still, before the November 2020 election, when then-U.S. President Donald Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power pending the results, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley issued a public statement that the military had no role in an election and would “obey the lawful orders of our civilian leadership.” And senior military officials might well publicly remind the U.S. military—as the Joint Chiefs of Staff did in the wake of the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021—that their mission is to defend the U.S. Constitution.

At the same time, civil servants from throughout the federal government should consider joining the protests and have their organizational representatives (the American Foreign Service Association at the Department of State, for example), issue statements in support. These employees need not resign, at least at first, but they should make clear their nonpartisan opposition to efforts to undermine the rule of law and constitutional norms. The nonpartisan nature of these actions would be reinforced if they involved not just federal employees in Washington, but also the much larger workforce throughout the country. Furthermore, calls to protest could also involve state employees, particularly if the constitutional crisis stemmed from state action.

Third is the importance of strikes. The Histadrut—Israel’s largest trade union, with an estimated 800,000 members—called for a general strike that followed more limited strikes in the preceding months. That decision shut down departures from Ben Gurion Airport. Israel’s research universities and medical facilities (all public hospitals and community clinics) also called to strike, in addition to the closing of banks, businesses, and restaurants (including the ever-popular McDonald’s).

These tactics worked in Israel because, along with other measures (such as closing highways through acts of civil disobedience), they communicated to government ministers and Knesset members that unless they reassessed the situation, the country would shut down, with grave economic and political consequences. The tech sector had already begun to express major concerns that judicial reform as envisioned by the Netanyahu government could turn Israel’s image as a start-up nation into one of a shut-down nation, raising risks that foreign investment might be curtailed and Israeli entrepreneurs might decide to move out of the country.

To be sure, the same tactics could not be so easily deployed in the United States. First, 25 percent of Israeli workers are in a union, compared to 10 percent in the United States. Second, shutting down a country the size of the United States would simply be impossible (although such a strategy might have more success in a small enough state). Additionally, it is unclear if such strikes would help or hurt the opposition politically, particularly in light of the fact that COVID-19 school closures and other lockdown measures were fraught. But strikes should be explored and studied as possible tools. In the summer of 2020, tens of thousands of U.S. workers participated in a “Strike for Black Lives.”

Furthermore, taking a page from the sports strikes in the wake of the 2020 police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, there are more creative measures to explore in place of or in conjunction with traditional worker strikes. Sports leagues at both the college and professional level might suspend games until the crisis was resolved. If individual leagues were unwilling to participate, their stars could—and many likely would. What better way to cause a sustained, nationwide conversation about a specific topic that punctures all information bubbles than by forcing the cancellation of college football games, or the NBA playoffs, the World Series, or even the Super Bowl? In recent years, sports figures have increasingly become involved in politics, including ones from places you might not expect.

Similar strategies could be considered in the realm of Hollywood, the music industry, and other areas where Americans have a shared cultural appreciation and imbue their idols with the recognition and respect once enjoyed by political leaders. To avoid the appearance that these measures were partisan or political, these actions would need buy-in from actors, singers, entertainers, and writers from across the political spectrum, including from those who have always stayed above the political fray or who belong to the opposing political parties.

Fourth is the importance of respected political leaders, both current and former, joining the response to a severe political crisis. In Israel, former prime ministers have participated in the protest movement, including Barak and Ehud Olmert, as well as foreign and justice ministers such as Tzipi Livni. Former U.S. presidents have generally avoided this kind of participation, but in a severe crisis one can imagine former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, as well as other former senior officials from across the political spectrum, speaking out and participating in demonstrations.

Leadership extends beyond mere symbolism. Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid made calls for a general strike, among other involvement by elected officials. Similar kinds of bipartisan leadership from those in the U.S. House and Senate would be important to amplify the message of the protests and provide legitimacy. And of course, if the constitutional crisis originated from Congress itself, elected representatives could use their authority to shut it down. In this case, the protesters and other stakeholders, such as businesses, should view their opposition as a way to lobby Congress, including by promising to withhold financial backing to any member who participates in the unconstitutional scheme. There were similar actions in the wake of Jan. 6.

It would also be imperative for leaders to come from outside government, including from media organizations that represent a broad spectrum of U.S. politics. Given the United States’ problem with misinformation, this would be essential to accurately portray what was happening on the ground, including dispelling any untruths—for example, the notions that the protests had turned violent or that they were simply partisan reflections of one political party or another.

Finally, perhaps the most important lesson of all is to look for ways to motivate the public with an inclusive national response that transcends party and partisan affiliation. The reason the Israeli protests have been so effective is that even in a society rent by so many divisions, Israelis have gone into the streets because they believe deeply that their very way of life—the character of their society, and the image they have of Israel as an open, tolerant, and democratic polity with all its weaknesses, including and especially the Israeli occupation—is fundamentally threatened. As journalist Gal Beckerman has written, Israeli protesters have wrapped themselves in their flag—the most visible symbol of the protests. And this is something, according to Beckerman, that Americans should take to heart.

It is important to emphasize, though, that most Palestinians—including both those who are Israeli citizens (roughly 2 million out of a total population of 9.7 million) and those under Israel’s occupation and control—see the protests as an effort to protect Israeli Jewish democracy, not a movement to extend equal rights or statehood to them. Arab political parties in Israel have backed the protests, but the majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel, even while they have a great deal to lose should the judicial legislation pass, feel the demonstrations don’t address their needs, including equal rights and rising crime.

But without holding the line against a government whose objectives include de facto if not de jure annexation of the West Bank, continued second-class citizenship for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and enabling violence against Palestinians—as seen in the settler rampages through the West Bank town of Huwara—there will be no chance for peace, an end of the occupation, or statehood for the Palestinians.

And while we remain gloomy about any chance in the near term for an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this protest movement has imbued Israel with a new energy and dynamism. It has created a focus on democracy, rights, and equality that hasn’t been seen in years and that could, under the right leadership, drive home the message that the preservation of Israel as a Jewish democratic state depends on ending the Israeli occupation and extending equal rights not just in principle but in practice to Palestinian citizens of Israel. One can at least hope so.

For the United States, the greatest challenge would be finding a way to wrap a movement in the U.S. flag and identify a broader set of unifying purposes that creates the biggest tent under which millions of Americans could rally. In today’s perniciously partisan environment, this would be hard—some might say impossible. To quote the historian Henry Adams, politics in the United States has become a “systematic organization of hatreds.” Without a written constitution, Israelis have turned to their Declaration of Independence as a source of inspiration, even as a set of principles for a future constitution. Perhaps the United States could do the same, turning to the basic founding principles that have shaped the country’s self-government.

The United States is perhaps the only nation in history founded on an idea: self-government in the interest of securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fundamentally, no matter the differences between Americans, what makes the United States special is its ability to self- correct, reinvent itself, and make progress toward guaranteeing opportunity, equality, and dignity for all. A truly national protest movement must be grounded in this dream and the aspiration of making it more accessible to everyone. We are hopeful and inspired by the younger generations in the United States today—by their commitment to making the country a better place for all Americans, and by how they would rise to meet the challenge if the United States were truly tested.

Of course, the best way to avoid illiberal backsliding, let alone a constitutional crisis, is to vote for candidates who respect the rule of law, abide by the Constitution, and adhere to democratic norms and standards. Once authoritarians entrench themselves in power, they can use their authority to remain there. But sometimes you not only need to vote—you also need to vote with your feet.

Some of this may seem naive and Panglossian. But the fight for U.S. democracy has always mixed the pragmatic and the aspirational. What has happened in Israel these many months has shown the power that people possess to safeguard their democracy when threatened. It’s not an easy conversation to have. But it’s worth having now because the stakes are so very high, and sadly, the dangers to the United States’ own democratic system are all too real.

— Aaron David Miller is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations. He is the author of The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.

— Daniel Miller is a Lawyer and Activist. Since 2016, he has engaged in various forms of Pro-democracy work and has written for the Washington Post, CNN, Daily Beast, and New York Daily News on democracy issues.

[zvaigzdelasas]

Joe Biden and top aides have discussed the likelihood that Benjamin Netanyahu’s political days are numbered — and the president has conveyed that sentiment to the Israeli prime minister in a recent conversation. The topic of Netanyahu’s short political shelf life has come up in recent White House meetings involving Biden, according to two senior administration officials. That has included discussions that have taken place since Biden’s trip to Israel, where he met with Netanyahu.

Biden has gone so far as to suggest to Netanyahu that he should think about lessons he would share with his eventual successor, the two administration officials added. A current U.S. official and a former U.S. official both confirmed that the administration believes Netanyahu has limited time left in office. The current official said the expectation internally was that the Israeli PM would likely last a matter of months, or at least until the early fighting phase of Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip was over, though all four officials noted the sheer unpredictability of Israeli politics.[...]

A separate White House official downplayed the idea that Netanyahu’s future was a topic of interest, saying that any chatter was just idle speculation and insisting that the administration’s focus was squarely on supporting Israel’s security. [...]

U.S. officials have taken note of Netanyahu’s falling approval ratings. [...]

With an eye toward the future, U.S. officials are talking to Benny Gantz, a member of the current unity government; Naftali Bennett, a former prime minister; and Yair Lapid, an opposition leader and former prime minister, among other Israeli figures, the former official said.

PM Lapid or PM Gantz by next year....maybe even PM Gvir.......Israeli politics sucks man [1 Nov 23]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Bethan McKernan at The Guardian:

The chief prosecutor of the international criminal court has said he is seeking arrest warrants for senior Hamas and Israeli officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant. Karim Khan said his office had applied to the world court’s pre-trial chamber for arrest warrants for the military and political leaders on both sides for crimes committed during Hamas’s 7 October attack and the ensuing war in Gaza.

He named Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas chief in Gaza, and Mohammed Deif, the commander of its military wing, considered to be the masterminds of the 7 October assault, as well as Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the group’s political bureau, who is based in Qatar, as wanted for crimes of extermination, murder, hostage-taking, rape, sexual assault and torture. In an extraordinary rebuke of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and its conduct in the war in Gaza, Netanyahu and Gallant are accused of extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, the denial of humanitarian relief supplies and deliberately targeting civilians. Monday’s statement notably does not include any Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officials, such as its chief of staff, Lt Gen Herzi Halevi, focusing instead on political decision-making. Khan, the British ICC prosecutor, must request the warrants for the Hamas and Israeli suspects from a pre-trial panel of three judges, who take on average two months to consider the evidence and determine if the proceedings can move forward. The ICC has previously issued warrants for Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, the Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony and the former president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, but no leader of a “western-style” democracy has ever been issued a warrant.

While there is no imminent likelihood of prosecution, since Israel is not a member of the court, ICC warrants could put Israeli officials at risk of arrest abroad, further deepening the country’s growing international isolation over its conduct in the war in Gaza. The move also presents fresh challenges for Israel’s western allies, who are already struggling to reconcile support for the Jewish state with growing evidence of war crimes in the seven-month-old conflict and respect for the post-second world war rules-based order. Netanyahu described the prosecutor’s accusations against him as a “disgrace”, saying: “I reject with disgust The Hague prosecutor’s comparison between democratic Israel and the mass murderers of Hamas. “With what audacity do you dare compare the monsters of Hamas to the soldiers of the IDF, the most moral army in the world?” Joe Biden, the US president, described the move as “outrageous” in a statement, adding: “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

[...]

Condemnation of Khan’s decision from across the Israeli political spectrum was swift. The Israeli opposition leader, Yair Lapid, called the ICC’s actions a “disaster”. Benny Gantz, a former military chief and member of Israel’s war cabinet alongside Netanyahu and Gallant, criticised the ICC’s announcement, saying Israel fought with “one of the strictest” moral codes and had a “robust judiciary capable of investigating itself”. Khan suggested heavily in his statement that Israel’s judicial system “shields suspects”. Last year’s conviction rate for Palestinians tried in Israeli military courts was 96%, while fewer than 1% of complaints against Israeli soldiers ended in a conviction, according to the US Department of State’s annual human rights report.

Hamas, too, was critical of Khan’s announcement. The ICC prosecutor’s decision “equates the victim with the executioner”, the senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters. Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz described the chief prosecutor’s decision as “a historic disgrace” that would be “remembered forever”. The US Republican party is all but certain to pursue sanctions against members of the ICC as a result of Khan’s announcement; a group of a dozen Republican senators wrote a letter earlier this month warning his office: “Target Israel and we will target you.” Sanctions were levied by the Trump administration over the court’s investigations into Israel and US actions in Afghanistan, but later reversed by Joe Biden. In 2021, Khan decided to drop the US from the ICC’s Afghanistan file.

ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan is seeking arrest warrants for senior Israel Apartheid State and Hamas officials, such as Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Gaza’s Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

[readingsquotes]

"... despite Democrats’ repeated suggestion that Netanyahu is the impetus for Israel’s war, political analysts say that in reality the prime minister’s actions are in step with Israel’s political mainstream. “Schumer is operating in this fantasy that if you get rid of Netanyahu, you might be able to get somebody else who’s more moderate who could then save the relationship between the US and Israel under the pretense of support for progressive values and democracy,” said Omar Baddar, a Palestinian American political analyst. But this narrative ignores how Israeli politicians almost across the board agree with Israel’s conduct in Gaza, as do the majority of Israelis. Yair Lapid, the former prime minister and head of the Israeli opposition, supports the ongoing assault, as does war cabinet member Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s main political rival and the man who, according to polling, would become prime minister if Israel held elections today. Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, noted that many Democrats might welcome Gantz replacing Netanyahu, but the change of guard would alter little about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. “There is a danger to the idea that replacing Netanyahu will fix everything. It will not,” Duss said. “It could create a grace period where bad things continue to happen, but the US feels better about it. We need to oppose that.”

Instead of constituting a substantive shift in US support for Israel, experts say, Democrats’ emboldened critique of Netanyahu should be understood as an attempt to respond to growing voter frustration without changing policy, as the Biden administration remains unwilling to use US aid and arms exports to Israel as leverage to demand a change in behavior. In this context, the choice to focus on Netanyahu “is a political decision to avoid outright criticism of Israel’s war conduct,” said Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. For Schumer, in particular, blaming Netanyahu as an individual was a way “to avoid the implication that he is lessening his support for the Israeli state or the Israeli people,” she said. “Instead, Schumer is focusing on a man who is unpopular among Democrats to say, ‘See, we are standing up for our values, so voters should stop being mad at us.’”

...

But ultimately, the Democratic narrative about “Netanyahu’s war” doesn’t reflect reality—not only because the assault on Gaza enjoys broad support in Israel, but also because Israel could not continue its assault without a constant supply of US arms and military funding. Senior Democrats’ fixation on the Israeli prime minister thus serves to sideline debate about US policies that could actually bring the war to an end. “Refusing to condition aid or impose sanctions—or do anything that would actually have a chance of influencing Netanyahu—shows that the Biden administration and Democratic Party leadership are not interested in ending the Gaza assault. They’re just interested in managing it,” said Tariq Kenney-Shawa, US policy fellow at Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network. While anonymous US officials have repeatedly told news outlets that the Biden administration is considering conditioning aid to Israel or slowing down weapons shipments, no such move has occurred; indeed, on Monday, the State Department said that Israel had complied with the requirement that countries receiving US weapons follow international law, despite a wide range of flagrant violations documented by numerous human rights organizations."

[mariacallous]

On Sunday, June 9, Israeli minister Benny Gantz, a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet and Netanyahu’s main putative challenger for the position of prime minister, resigned from the government along with his fellow party member Gadi Eisenkot. The resignation comes at an awkward time for the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden, which has been making a significant effort to promote a cease-fire and hostage release deal, proposed by Israel, outlined by Biden in a speech on May 31, and adopted by the U.N. Security Council as Resolution 2735. Gantz and Eisenkot, major proponents of such a deal within the Israel war cabinet, are now out of decisionmaking circles. Should Hamas’s leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, accept the deal, which he has not so far, Netanyahu would now have heightened political incentive to balk at his own proposal. But the resignation may also serve to catalyze political changes in Israel that may hasten a change of leadership, something the Biden administration would welcome. While there is no guarantee that Gantz’s resignation will bring Israel’s elections any closer, it was a necessary step for any major political change.

The Israeli war cabinet is formed

As the details and magnitude of the October 7 terrorist attack became clear, there were immediate calls in Israel for a national emergency government that would include centrist opposition leaders alongside Netanyahu. Israelis shared a sense of historic crisis and were prepared for a major war. The official leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, offered to join the cabinet, but he demanded that Netanyahu exclude Betzalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, two far-right ministers, from his security cabinet. Netanyahu refused, with the rationale that after the emergency government eventually dissolved, he would have lost his base. It was an early sign that politics would continue to play a substantial role in the prime minister’s decisions, even in the depths of the crisis.

Gantz, the other major opposition leader, joined the cabinet nonetheless, satisfied instead by the creation of a “mini” war cabinet that excluded the two far-right ministers from the management of the war.

In the Israeli system, the prime minister is not the commander in chief of the military. Rather, the cabinet serves in that role, as a committee, with most powers bestowed on a smaller security cabinet (formally, the “ministerial committee for national security affairs”) of which Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are members. Netanyahu and Gantz thus formed an ad-hoc forum, the mini-war cabinet, with three official members: Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant of Netanyahu’s own Likud party, and Gantz. They were joined by three observers, Eisenkot; Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s confidante and former ambassador to the United States; and Aryeh Deri, the most veteran minister and leader of the Shas party. Notably absent were the far-right ministers.

Resignations and consequences

Gantz and Eisenkot joined the emergency cabinet on a temporary basis, for the duration of the war’s initial phases, and with the public expectation that they might resign by the end of 2023 or early 2024. Months past that, their resignations now have implications for Israeli policy and politics.

By May, as tensions with the Biden administration over Israel’s Gaza strategy had grown, Gallant publicly called out Netanyahu and criticized the latter’s lack of strategy for what Gaza might look like after Hamas. Without defined strategic goals, no operational or tactical objectives could succeed. Gallant demanded that Netanyahu state that he does not plan for a return to Israeli occupation, as existed before the Oslo II Accords of 1994. This dramatic challenge to Netanyahu also created an opening for Gantz.

In May, Gantz finally signaled his intent to resign. He laid out conditions for his staying in the government and set an ultimatum that he would leave if they were not met, which Netanyahu rebuffed the same day. In policy terms, his most notable demand echoed Gallant, demanding that Netanyahu elucidate the beginning of a strategy for the day after in Gaza.

Gantz, Gallant, and Eisenkot are all retired generals with a long, shared history in the military. Ganz is the former chief of staff of the military, a high-profile role that is more influential in Israel than the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in the United States, for example. As the only lieutenant general in the Israeli military and the commander of everyone in uniform, the chief of staff commands a great deal of attention from a public who face, in theory, universal conscription. When Gantz was appointed to the top military post in 2011, he was, in fact, the second choice of the cabinet. Netanyahu, the prime minister at the time, and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak had preferred Gallant, who was considered more hawkish on Iran, but was disqualified by a public committee due to ethical concerns. Eisenkot was appointed as Gantz’s deputy in 2013 and eventually succeeded him at the top military post. 

Now in government and civilian clothes, the former generals were at times allies in the war cabinet, despite representing different parties. Their demand for strategic thinking about the day after also reflected their desire to see some role, even if limited, for the secular, West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) in Gaza, which Netanyahu has rejected. The centrist ministers’ departures weaken that prospect, possibly strengthening the hands of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who would prefer to see the collapse of the PA altogether.

Elections are not imminent … probably

The resignations also had political motivations. Gantz has led Netanyahu in the polls ever since October 7, but his lead has narrowed significantly. If elections were held today, polls now suggest the possibility of an inconclusive election, though still with a clear advantage to the opposition. If these were the results of the next election, Gantz would need to cobble together a coalition reminiscent of the coalition headed by Lapid and Naftali Bennett, an act of political acrobatics that only held together for slightly over a year.

Elections are not scheduled for over two years, however. Even with Gantz’s resignation, Netanyahu’s original coalition, which consists of 64 out of 120 members of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, still holds a clear majority. It could fracture in different scenarios, but none of them is very likely in the short term.

First, with Gantz’s and Eisenkot’s resignations, centrist Likud members, such as Gallant, may opt to defect and try to replace Netanyahu. This would be a very risky move for them politically, but it may become more likely if demonstrations against the government, already growing, return to the large scale that Israel had seen before October 6. Gantz’s presence in the government, and especially the war’s continuation, made the environment less conducive to such public pressure until now.

Netanyahu’s far-right partners may also bring about his downfall if he veers to the center. In particular, they have already warned that should Hamas accept the cease-fire and Netanyahu move forward with the deal (a “surrender,” as Smotrich termed it), they would topple the government. This, of course, makes such a scenario less likely.

Finally, there is a small chance that Netanyahu’s Haredi partners, who are the most conservative religiously but not the most hawkish in terms of national security, might destabilize his coalition. Haredi men are exempt from military service, due to political maneuvering, a highly emotive grievance for the majority of Jewish Israelis who do serve, especially in a time of war and bereavement. With the Supreme Court now demanding a legislative basis for the exemption, Netanyahu’s coalition is struggling to put one in place. Seeing a political opening, Gantz made conscription, in some form, one of his central demands of Netanyahu. Should such a legal standing not be found, the Haredim may follow through on their threats to resign, though they are unlikely to get a better deal with another prime minister later, and so have incentives to remain.

One final option remains: Netanyahu could call for elections himself if he found an opportune moment or excuse. Netanyahu has identified his opposition to a Palestinian state as a winning ticket in a population traumatized by October 7 and loath to take any security risks in negotiations with Palestinians. Netanyahu would hope to portray himself as the one man able to withstand international pressure on Palestinian sovereignty. He will undoubtedly hope to return to the theme of his recent election campaigns, portraying himself as being “in a league of his own” in global diplomacy. One opportunity for a campaign image of Netanyahu on the global stage will come soon, currently scheduled for July 24, when he speaks before a joint session of Congress.

[no-passaran]

This is award-winning Israeli philosopher, public intellectual and polymath, Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz. He was appearing on the Israeli TV show Popolitika, back in 1992. Leibowitz argues with pundit Tommy Lapid, the father of Yair Lapid, former Israeli Prime Minister.

Yeshayahu Leibowitz argues that Israel is not a democracy after its 1967 occupation of the West Bank and that there are circles in Israeli society that possess a Judeo-Nazi mentality.

Transcription of the video's English subtitles under the cut.

Link to the tweet / Link to the video on IG.

It's interesting to hear the end of this clip. The other man is arguing that until Israel is burning Arabs (Palestinians), Leibowitz's comparison has no base. Leibowitz's answer is that, after the concentration camps (which Israel has used to jail Palestinians in for decades), burning them is the "prophecy". That is: after the dehumanization, ghettification, ethnic separation, and apartheid that Israel puts Palestinians through, the next step is genocide, and it can be seen before it happens because we know what leads to it. In the tweet above, journalist Samira Mohyeddin remembers this "prophecy" now that Israel is, indeed, burning Palestinians alive to kill them.

But it made me think of something else, too. The man arguing with Prof. Leibowitz says that this isn't the case because Israelis don't "burn millions of Arabs just for fun". And, again, this is another place where the "prophecy" has been fulfilled:

Israeli extremist groups linked to the government's party take families (including children) to boat tours to watch Gaza getting bombed and cheer on the deaths and suffering of Palestinians. To extremist Israelis, Palestinian death is fun.

I'm aware it isn't new, we've seen news like this for years, like this one from 2014:

But it goes to show how Professor Leibowitz was right. Regardless of wether you agree or not with his word choice or semantics, genocide is where all these decades of occupation, dehumanization, and apartheid were headed to.

Transcription.

Interviewer: In this situation where you get an award from the government that you referred to as the government of a Judeo-Nazi state. When you get The Israel Prize from that state, do you still think as you said here before, that this state is not a democracy?

Leibowitz: these are two different things. The first, since you raised that issue then I'm forced to respond to it even though I never found the need to respond on the matter, as if I said that the state is a Nazi state.

Interviewer: Judeo-Nazi.

Leibowitz: I used the term Judeo-Nazi to describe a certain MENTALITY which exists among certain circles. A Judeo-Nazi mentality indeed exists within certain circles.

Lapid: Would you go back on this statement for a better atmosphere while receiving the prize?

Leibowitz: the Judeo-Nazi mentality within certain circles is alive and well.

Lapid: Jews who burn millions of Arabs just for fun? Right, professor Leibowitz?! Certain circles whose wish is to establish concentration camps and burn Arabs in a crematorium...

Leibowitz: I do know that the State of Israel holds many thousands of Arabs in concentration camps.

Lapid: And once in a while places them in gas chambers and burns them?!

Leibowitz: I know that the State of Israel holds many thousands of Arabs in concentration camps!

Lapid: and then burns them...?! And places them in gas chambers... Professor Leibowitz?!

Leibowitz: I spoke very clearly! I know that the State of Israel holds many thousands of Arabs in concentration camps.

Lapid: And then burns them?! And puts them in gas chambers!

Leibowitz: That is your prophecy! That is YOUR future prophecy!

[i-am-aprl]

"If the international media is objective, it serves Hamas."!!!!!!

Israel's former Prime Minister Yair Lapid warned that objective media coverage is harmful to Israel and serves Hamas

[watermelonsource]

🚨israel: israeli leftists uniting under yair golan to oust netanyahu a second time

according to israeli media outlet haaretz, which has recently come under fire from the israeli government for its coverage of gaza, after being praised for his acts of heroism during the raid on october 7th, IOF general yair golan is forming a new political party in israel. many israelis are calling for benjamin netanyahu's resignation and large scale demonstrations continue to take place in tel aviv including yair golan and some of the families of the israeli hostages still being held by hamas.

yair golan has recently become a much more vocal opponent of netanyahu, and urges israelis to focus on recovery rather than revenge. israel has denied evidentiary allegations that the attacks on october 7th were anticipated well in advance, despite the ongoing investigation by israel into millions of dollars worth of stock shorting that happened in the days preceding the october 7th conflict.

netanyahu was removed as prime minister in 2021, by a coalition formed by yair lapid, a former tv news anchor, and naftali bennett, a far right religious nationalist. at the time, the knesset voted 60-59 to approve the new coalition government, ending netanyahu’s 12-year rule as prime minister.

but the new government was never implemented, and eventually yair lapid conceded, leaving netanyahu to be reinstated. a timeline of netanyahu's rise, fall, and subsequent re-rise to power:

netanyahu's heritage and commitment to religious judaism has also come under criticism recently. his father, benzion mileikowsky, was a polish-born secular jew who changed his name after settling in palestine.

• all information verifiable with google

• follow @watermelonsource for more "too much news at once" 🍉

[eretzyisrael]

At least one person was killed and 18 people were wounded, two critically, in two explosions at the entrance to Jerusalem and the Ramot Junction on Wednesday morning in what police are treating as a coordinated double attack.

The causes of the explosions were not immediately determined but Israel Police said that the one near the Central Bus Station appeared to have been caused by a bomb placed in a bag near the bus. The bus was riddled with holes, showing the dispersion of shrapnel. Another explosion went off minutes later near the Ramot Intersection in northern Jerusalem.

Police are treating the two explosions as a coordinated joint attackand Police Chief Kobi Shabtai is present at the scene of the initial explosion where he was briefed on the attack.

Speaking at the scene, Shabtai said that every bus in Jerusalem will be searched by police officers and all of the bomb-sniffing dogs in Israel will be activated to search for explosive devices. He added that police are investigating whether or not there was more than one terrorist involved in either attack.

Defense Minister Benny Gantz held a situational assessment along with the head of the Shin Bet Ronen Bar, the deputy chief of staff Maj.-Gen. Amir Baram, the head of the IDF Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aharon Haliva, and other senior officials.

Outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid will conduct a situational assessment at 12:00 the the Defense Ministry Headquarters at the Kirya in Tel Aviv. He will be joined by Gantz, Public Security minister Omer Bar-Lev, the head of the National Security Agency Eyal Haluta, Shabtai, Bar, Baram, and other senior officials.

Five of the injured were evacuated to Shaare Tzedek Medical Center, two in critical condition, two in serious condition, and one moderately injured. Another five were evacuated to Hadassah-University Medical Center in Ein Kerem.

United Hatzalah EMTs were on the scene of the explosions and the United Hatzalah Psychotrauma and Crisis Response Unit has also been dispatched and is treating numerous eyewitnesses for emotional and psychological shock.

Several departments in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have stated that as a result of the attacks and to ensure the safety of students, attendance will not be mandatory on Wednesday.

In recent months, Israel has been experiencing a wave of terrorism although the attacks until now have mostly been in the West Bank and were carried out by Palestinians using either assault rifles or knives. Last week, three Israelis were killed in astabbing rampage at the entrance to the settlement of Arielin the Shomron region of the West Bank. 

Last week a car exploded close to an IDF post near the settlement of Mevo Dotan in the West Bank. The car, which had three gas cylinders and wires, is believed to have exploded in a botched car bombing.

Road One - the main artery into the capital - was shut to incoming traffic from the direction of Tel Aviv.

Prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu said in response to the attack that he is "praying to the health of the injured people, in the coordinated terror attack in Jerusalem this morning and send my support to the security forces who are operating on the ground."

Speaker of the Knesset, and former Jerusalem Police Commander Mickey Levy, has said in response: "A difficult morning in our beloved Jerusalem, who had known difficult days in the past. I wish for a fast recovery for the injured people and send my support to the dear people of the city.

"This is the place to call everyone to remain aware and to report security forces on every suspicious thing you see. I have no doubt that the security forces will get any terrorist involved in the attack."

Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is expected to serve as Public Security Minister in the new government, issued a statement, saying that he is on his way to the scene of the attack.

"I am on my way to the scene of the painful and sad attack when an explosive device has returned us to the dammed Intifada time. It is time to act with determination and a hard hand against the terrorists, it is time to organize the country. I am praying for the recovery of the injured people along with all of Israel at this difficult hour."

This is a developing story.

[canadianabroadvery]

[vaporize-employers]

[ID 1 of 4:

"they got word that Netanyahu was falling out of favor with the state department and so are laying the foundation to sell regime change efforts" — quote tweet by @/uncle_authority "Today's NY Times front page." — original tweet via @/malonebarry, Nov 20 2023.

The New York Times. Main headline reads "Smoldering Gaza Becomes A Graveyard for Children | Thousands Are Killed in Bombardment as Israel Responds to Hamas Attack".

Photo: A little boy in tears, touching his dead infant sister's forehead. A group of men hold him and pull back the shroud around her face so he can say goodbye. Caption: "Khaled Joudeh, 9, mourned his sister last month in Deir al Balah, Gaza. Relatives said 68 of his family members were killed in a day."

2/3 of 4:

"US pulling the plug on Netanyahu?" — tweet by @/battleforeurope, Nov 20 2023.

WATCH: Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks about the Israel-Hamas war. Pressed on whether Netanyahu could be a partner for a two-state solution, Clinton said, "I don't think there's any evidence of that. I think the Israeli people will have to decide about his leadership."

4 of 4:

Yair Lapid, former Israeli Prime Minister and current opposition leader: "The majority of the 12,000 dead Palestinians were terrorists. Good riddance." — tweet by Clash Report @clashreport, Nov 20 2023.

Sky News video preview: Lapid in his office giving a video interview with an Israeli flag in the background.

Onscreen text: LIVE 19:09 Tel Aviv. BREAKING NEWS | Hamas: At least 50 killed in attack on school in Gaza.

/end IDs]

I keep posting this because it's important people see the tricks the US Empire will pull in order to ensure the occupation of Palestine doesn't end.

When Netanyahu is removed and scapegoated for the crimes Israel has committed, his more moderate replacement will go on a media tour in order to repair Israel's image in the West and a diplomatic tour in order to restore diplomatic relations with the countries that have recalled their ambassadors or cut diplomatic ties entirely. The genocide we're witnessing will be treated like a mild mistake that will never happen again (that Palestinians have brought on themselves). More money will be allocated to Zionist groups in the West to ensure that the public doesn't turn on Israel again.

Meanwhile, Palestinians will continue to get imprisoned, tortured and killed, only now without the world paying attention (just like what happened after the 2021 war). It's our duty as people who are pro Palestine to ensure that this fails. We need to make sure they don't sweep the genocide under a rug. We need to make that Western politicians and journalists don't clean the blood off their hands in the same way we've spent 45 days countering Israeli propaganda

[darkmaga-returns]

Even if Israel’s ground operations in Lebanon don’t yield positive results, Israel will want to leave behind a nasty parting gift for its neighbors

José Alberto Niño

Oct 27, 2024

Since Israel launched a limited ground invasion of Lebanon on October 1, 2024,  the Jewish state’s most recent invasion of the Levantine state has all the markings of a military quagmire.

According to a Hezbollah statement, Israel has suffered roughly 700 casualties — 70 dead and over 600 wounded officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces. Despite all signs that Israel is about to drag itself into another protracted military conflict, the Israeli state is still committed to carrying out geopolitical shenanigans of some shape or form. 

There’s no real meaningful opposition in the Jewish state who will consider a more restrained foreign policy. For all intents and purposes, Israel’s current actions in Lebanon will likely draw the United States into this conflict via increased military aid or direct intervention in the worst case scenario. The example of former Prime Minister and current Leader of the Opposition Yair Lapid is rather revelatory. He recently advocated for the re-establishment of the South Lebanese Army (SLA) in an article he penned at The Economist on October 8. For those unaware, the SLA gained notoriety in the 1980s for serving as a de facto proxy military force for Israel during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990).

[bllsbailey]

Netanyahu: Iran Made a Big Mistake and Will Pay for It

Israeli leaders vowed Israel would respond harshly after the Iranian regime launched some 190 ballistic missiles at the country on Tuesday evening, sending millions of Israelis into bomb shelters for around an hour.

"This evening, Iran made a big mistake – and it will pay for it. The regime in Tehran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and to exact a price from our enemies," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the start of the Security Cabinet meeting later in the evening.

"Sinwar and Deif did not understand this; neither did Nasrallah or Mohsen. Apparently, there are those in Tehran who do not understand this either. They will. We will keep to the rule we have determined: Whoever attacks us – we attack them," Netanyahu vowed.

"Today, more than ever, the forces of light in the world must unite and work together against the ayatollahs' dark regime, which is the source of terror and evil in our region. They must stand alongside Israel. The choice has never been more clear, between tyranny and freedom, between the blessing and the curse."

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant concurred, saying that "Iran has not learned a simple lesson - those who attack the State of Israel, pay a heavy price."

Gallant added that he had spent the evening in the IDF's "command and control center together with senior defense officials, closely watching the IDF's successful defense against the Iranian missile attack on Israel."

Shortly after giving the all-clear at the end of the missile assault, IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Daniel Hagari called it "a severe and dangerous escalation," and emphasized, "There will be consequences."

"Our defensive and offensive capabilities are at the highest levels of readiness. Our operational plans are ready. We will respond wherever, whenever, and however we choose, in accordance with the directive of the government of Israel," Hagari added.

In another press briefing, Hagari reiterated, "This assault will have consequences. We have plans, we will act where and when we decide."

Leaders from across Israel's political spectrum, including leading opposition politicians, expressed support for a harsh response against Iran.

"The attack tonight, despite U.S. warning – must be met with not only a forceful Israeli response - but a larger, coordinated regional one," said Benny Gantz, chair of the National Unity Party.

"Like the 13th of April, tonight is yet another example of important and effective cooperation between Israel, the United States and regional partners, for which Israel is deeply appreciative of. The free world and Israel as a democratic outpost of it in the Middle East, cannot remain passive any longer to growing Iranian aggression both regionally and globally."

Opposition leader Yair Lapid said Israel's enemies should know that Israel will win the conflict. "Our military capabilities, the defense industry, the support of our allies and above all the power of our wonderful people – we know that even if the price is already paid, we will win."

"Iran will pay a significant and heavy price for the attack yesterday; in Tehran they know that Israel will come. The response should be tough and send a clear message to the entire axis, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza," he added.

Former prime minister Naftali Bennett stressed that the Iranian assault presented the opportunity to strike the regime's nuclear program.

"Israel has now its greatest opportunity in 50 years, to change the face of the Middle East," Bennett wrote on X. "We must act now to destroy Iran's nuclear program, its central energy facilities, and to fatally cripple this terrorist regime."

"We have the justification. We have the tools. Now that Hezbollah and Hamas are paralyzed, Iran stands exposed. There are times when history knocks at our door, and we must open it," he added.

"This opportunity must not be missed."

Republished with permission from All Israel News

[mariacallous]

There’s an old saying in Israeli politics that a politician can be dead—or dead and buried. Whether a beleaguered Benjamin Netanyahu belongs to either of these unhappy groups is hard to say, but veteran Israeli political analysts are clear that he now faces the test of his life. Netanyahu must deal with a converging web of controversies and pressures, while also dealing with an increasingly unhappy Israeli public. These include rising frustration from the families of hostages taken on Oct. 7 by Hamas; dissension in the war cabinet; a rebellious right wing; the return of mobilized reservists (traditionally an anti-Netanyahu constituency); and growing strains with the United States—not to mention his ongoing trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in the Jerusalem District Court.

Having presided over the greatest intelligence failure and terror attack in Israel’s history and the bloodiest day for Jews since the Holocaust, Netanyahu may well be entering the twilight of his career. One way or another, it is unlikely that the current Netanyahu-led government will run its full term to October 2026. The average length of an Israeli government since independence is 1.8 years. And Israel, whose politics are fractious during normal times, has just weathered a stunningly abnormal—even traumatic—year, with Netanyahu leading efforts to weaken Israel’s judiciary and the Oct. 7 terror surge. Both traumas, his critics charge, were a direct result of Netanyahu’s failed policies.

That is not to say the political demise of Israel’s longest-governing prime minister will be quick. Right now, there are no direct mechanisms to remove him from power. Indeed, Netanyahu has a few more levers to pull, including from a most unlikely quarter: a U.S. president who is aiming to deliver an Israel-Saudi normalization accord before the American elections in November, if Netanyahu plays along.

In January, the Labor Party put forward a no-confidence motion for the government’s failure to redeem the hostages. The vote had no chance, but it signaled the beginning of the return of domestic politics, suspended in the interest of national unity since Oct. 7. Yair Lapid, the head of oppositional party Yesh Atid, talked publicly about holding early elections while former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of the General Staff Gadi Eisenkot, a nonvoting member of the war cabinet, publicly chastised the prime minister for his refusal to prioritize the release of hostages and lack of crisis leadership.

The public is by no means giving up on the war against Hamas. But the twin goals of destroying Hamas’s military organization and freeing the 136 hostages still held are now increasingly at odds with one another. Hamas used time—and its tunnel maze—to frustrate the IDF’s operations; a deal to free the hostages may be looming. That will be a fraught decision point for the prime minister as far-right members of his coalition insist the war must continue while centrists and the center-left push toward a hostage deal involving an extended pause in the fighting.

In this respect, Netanyahu could finally be cornered. As Anshel Pfeffer, perhaps the most astute observer of Netanyahu, has argued, what the prime minister fears the most isn’t the Americans or pressure from the hostages’ families but “losing the majority in the Knesset that took him four years and five election campaigns, including 18 frustrating months out of office, to secure.”

If a hostage deal that necessitates a lengthy cease-fire emerges, far-right Knesset members, notably National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir or Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (especially the former, whose party’s poll numbers have risen), may seek to cement their status as true believers of a maximalist war approach by bolting the coalition.

But if Netanyahu bows to pressure from his right, the looming threat of resignations by Benny Gantz and Eisenkot from the war cabinet remains a distinct possibility. Gantz and Eisenkot, members of the increasingly popular National Unity political alliance, have ramped up their criticism of Netanyahu in recent weeks. Eisenkot said Netanyahu bears “sharp and clear” responsibility for the Oct. 7 attacks. If they do resign, Gantz and Eisenkot could fuel a new wave of protests against Netanyahu and spark other government officials, perhaps even members of Netanyahu’s own party, to step aside.

Netanyahu’s political acumen—and sheer will—to stay in power should never be underestimated. But his staying power these days is also a result of the realities of Israel’s political process.

To send him packing, there are several pathways available for the Israeli opposition—all of them problematic. First, there is the vote of constructive no confidence. Modified in 2014 to ensure an alternative government must be proposed, any constructive vote of no confidence requires at least 61 Knesset member votes (out of 120) to enact. Alternatively, the Knesset can pass a bill supported by a simple majority to dissolve itself and move to elections. Right now, there seems to be no appetite in the current Knesset to send the country into yet another election in wartime, much less the votes needed for an alternative governing coalition.

The second mechanism to remove Netanyahu stems from the belief that resignations by Gantz and Eisenkot from the war cabinet, coupled with widespread protests, will serve as the catalysts for a handful of Likud MKs to abandon Netanyahu. But there’s no guarantee that Gantz and Eisenkot will voluntarily resign from their influential posts anytime soon. To them, overseeing Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s decisions, such as preventing further escalation in Lebanon, help blunt the coalition’s far-right actors. Also, Netanyahu still maintains control of his party. The Likud does not have a history of abandoning its leader and devouring its own. The idea that members of Netanyahu’s own party could see a path forward without their leader and drop from the governing coalition remains a long shot.

The third option that could in theory remove Netanyahu is often overlooked but has proved integral to political change after prior national traumas: a state commission of inquiry. Formed by the government or the Knesset State Control Committee, a state commission is highly consequential given its broad investigative powers, such as the ability to call witnesses and recommend resignations. State commissions are led by the president of the Supreme Court, who appoints its members, insulating the process from political interference.

State commissions of inquiry are powerful. After the failures in the leadup to the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, relentless public pressure based on findings from the Agranat Commission forced Prime Minister Golda Meir to resign five months after the war ended and just one month after forming the 16th government of Israel following the December 1973 elections. Given the national trauma inflicted by Oct. 7, the creation of a commission of inquiry is a near certainty—the question is when, not if.

But any state commission of inquiry would take months to release its findings. The Agranat Commission took five months to release an interim report (April 1974) and nearly a year and a half to release the final version (January 1975).

Aside from the extended timeline, Netanyahu could seek to modify the creation of a commission of inquiry to shield himself from personal responsibility.

Take the Winograd Commission of 2006, for example. In the aftermath of the much-maligned 2006 stalemate with Hezbollah, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appointed former Mossad director Nahum Admoni to head the committee investigating the government’s management of the war in Lebanon (This later turned into a government commission of inquiry.). Ultimately managed by retired judge Eliyahu Winograd, Olmert was able to evade a state commission by the active president of the Supreme Court (Justice Dorit Beinisch)—a move that may pique Netanyahu’s interest given his well-documented critiques of Israel’s current Supreme Court.

Upon the release of Winograd’s damning findings, protests erupted across Israel calling for Olmert’s resignation. Olmert’s party, Kadima, stood behind him. The Knesset opposition leader at the time—a man by the name of Benjamin Netanyahu—called Olmert unfit to lead, arguing “the government is in charge of the military, and it failed miserably.” Despite relentless pressure, Olmert would survive for two more years, and a vote of no confidence in Winograd’s aftermath was never held.

And then, of course, there’s Netanyahu’s own trial—four years running with no signs of concluding any time soon. It could easily go another year and result in either a conviction or a plea bargain, including Netanyahu’s retirement from politics, to prevent that conviction result. The only certainty is that it will take time. Olmert was indicted in January 2012 over the Holyland affair, convicted on two counts of bribery in March 2014, and began serving a 19-month sentence only in February 2016.

There’s one additional pathway to remove Netanyahu from power; it’s a double-edged sword because it also contains an option for him to remain. Though the path ahead is fraught and uncertain, the Biden administration has embarked on an integrated regional initiative to move beyond the Israel-Hamas war and to stabilize the broader Arab-Israeli arena. Its centerpiece is the administration’s desire—evident well before Oct. 7—to push for an Israeli-Saudi normalization deal. The broad outlines involve a sequential series of steps: first, a hostage-for-prisoner release that would lead to an Israeli-Hamas temporary cease-fire lasting months, followed by a Saudi offer to normalize relations with Israel provided the Israelis agree to the creation of a Palestinian state and withdrawal of forces from Gaza. There would also be a package of deliverables to Saudi Arabia, including what is certain to be a controversial mutual defense treaty and help with its nascent nuclear program as well as undefined security guarantees for Israel.

The administration’s logic appears to be that such an offer would certainly break Netanyahu’s coalition. But perhaps Netanyahu, eager to remain in power, would abandon his extremist partners and take part of his Likud party into a new alignment with more centrist partners to do the deal and cement his legacy. If Netanyahu refused the deal, elections would follow, possibly leading to his defeat, and the new government would grab the deal. In the words of Haaretz military correspondent Amos Harel, the deal represents Netanyahu’s “lifeline.”

Who or what replaces him, if things do not work out, is also difficult to predict. The politics of Israel are dominated by the right and center-right, and more often than not, it’s the right wing that has gained from security crises. In 2001, Likud’s Ariel Sharon handed Ehud Barak one of the biggest defeats in Israeli politics following the failure of the Camp David summit and the outbreak of the Second Intifada; the 2006 Lebanon War would shake the Israeli electorate’s confidence in Olmert, whose resignation would lead to the beginning of Netanyahu’s long run as prime minister. It seems hard to imagine a resurgence of the center-left. In the latest election cycle, Labor barely reached the Knesset threshold with four seats, and the progressive Meretz did not qualify altogether. This political paradigm has not changed since Oct. 7. If anything, Israeli attitudes have moved further to the right than ever before.

Still, a course correction is coming—most likely a government led by Gantz, more focused on the protection of democracy, civil society, and the rule of law. Gantz’s new coalition would cast aside the counterproductive rhetoric Netanyahu deploys toward the United States, and perhaps would prove more pragmatic on issues pertaining to the conflict with the Palestinians. It’s doubtful if a new government, likely running the ideological gamut from right to left along the lines of the previous Bennett-Lapid coalition, would be able to make core decisions leading to a transformative, conflict-ending agreement with the Palestinians. Still, while it will not offer a quick solution to the elusive problem of the much-too-promised land, a new government might—with leadership changes on the Palestinian side as well—get the region a step closer.

[catdotjpeg]

As truce talks continue, so do Israeli military plans to launch a violent ground invasion on Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah, where over half the population is seeking shelter. In a video statement, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says preparations are underway for the invasion of Rafah, but an operation “will take some time.” Netanyahu said he will soon approve a plan for the evacuation of about 1.5 million Palestinian civilians from fighting areas after having greenlit the military’s operation, adding that he appreciates the support of U.S. President Joe Biden, who he asked to present proposals on humanitarian assistance and other aspects of the war. The army would “continue to operate in Khan Younis, in the central camps, for the elimination and capture of senior Hamas officials as we just did in Shifa Hospital, while eliminating hundreds of terrorists,” Netanyahu added. “As I promised you time and time again – we are determined to achieve absolute victory, and we will achieve it,” he concluded.

Al Jazeera analyst Bishara says that as long as the U.S. and other allies, who have warned against a military operation in Rafah, take no action to back their words, Israel will do as it pleases. Almost 70 former U.S. officials, diplomats, and military officers have urged President Joe Biden to take a firmer stance with Israel over its actions in Gaza, as well as the expansion of settlements and failure to respect civil liberties in the occupied West Bank, reports U.S. News. “The United States must be willing to take concrete action to oppose” such practices, the group said in an open letter to Biden, “including restrictions on provision of (U.S.) assistance (to Israel) consistent with U.S. law and policy.” The collection of a dozen former ambassadors, as well as retired State Department officials and former Pentagon, intelligence, and White House officials, also highlighted the growing dismay in the U.S. over the mounting death toll from Israeli operations in Gaza, and while it said an assault on Hamas was “necessary and justified,” Israel’s actions “have been marked by repeated violations.”

Meanwhile, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid has warned Netanyahu against launching a ground invasion in Rafah because it risks jeopardizing the deal and called on the government to strike an immediate deal with Hamas to return all captives held in Gaza, reported Al Jazeera, citing a radio interview. Lapid said eliminating Hamas and its battalions in Rafah would then be possible, while the most urgent matter was to end the tragedy of the captives and their families.

-- From "‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 167" by Leila Warah for Mondoweiss, 21 Mar 2024

[michaelcosio]

By Ruth Marks Eglash

October 5, 2021

October could be a fateful month for the organized Jewish community as the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), the quasi-governmental organization with a budget of nearly $400 million that makes funding decisions on some of the thorniest issues in Jewish life, is slated to select its next executive chairperson. The politically charged race for the sensitive post of bridge-builder between Judaism’s often warring religious and political factions is already heating up.

The previous head, Isaac Herzog, stepped down last July to become Israel’s 11th president, and the battle for his replacement is fierce, with a crowded and competitive field of nine candidates currently in the running. Jewish Insider spoke to each candidate about their vision and why they want to head the 91-year-old agency (see their comments below).

“The head of the Jewish Agency for Israel is basically the prime minister of the Jewish world,” Michael Jankelowitz, a commentator on world Jewish affairs and JAFI’s former international media spokesman, told JI. “It is the most prestigious position after being president or prime minister of the State of Israel.”

It might also be just as much of a political battle.

Deciding who will lead the agency, which was founded in 1929 with the aim of assisting and encouraging Jews worldwide to help develop and settle Israel, and take on the biggest challenges facing world Jewry today, is a 10-member selection committee representing the three factions that make up JAFI – the World Zionist Organization (WZO), the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) and Keren Heyesod.

Headed by Yaakov Hagoel, chairman of the World Zionist Organization and the acting chairman of the Jewish Agency, the committee also includes Harvey Blitz, chairman of the World Mizrachi Movement; WZO’s Racheli Baratz Rix; Helena Glazer, chair of the Zionist General Council and past chair of World WIZO; and Rabbi Meir Azari, executive director of Beit Daniel, a congregation in Tel Aviv affiliated with the Israel Movement of Progressive Judaism (IMPJ); as well as JFNA’s Michael Siegel, Mark Wilf, Jeffrey Schoenfeld; and Steven Lowy and David Koschitzky from Keren Hayesod.

To claim victory, the winning candidate must have the backing of nine out of 10 committee members, who will then make a recommendation to the Jewish Agency’s Board of Trustees at the end of this month when the board is scheduled to hold its annual meeting. If there is no consensus among committee members, the process will roll over into next year. The committee is expected to hold meetings with each contender in the coming weeks.

In the past, the individual backed by the Israeli prime minister stood the best chance of winning the committee’s support, but that changed during the last selection, when Herzog was favored over then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pick, former government minister Yuval Steinitz.

“This is Jewish politics of the highest order,” observed Jankelowitz. “The Jewish Agency has changed a lot since its inception. It is no longer just about aliyah, but about recognition and acceptance of all the streams of Judaism, as well as unity of the Jewish people in every corner of the globe.”

The post is also about being an effective fundraiser and manager of an often bureaucratic and bloated organization as it addresses the most potent challenges facing world Jewry. Whoever becomes the chairperson will be responsible for a core budget of some $365 million, including vast assets in Israel and abroad, as well as additional sums from the Israeli government for various targeted projects run jointly.

Backed by Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, Israeli Minister of Intelligence Maj. Gen. (res) Elazar Stern is said to have the best chance of garnering the nine-vote quota, though reports have emerged of some resistance from certain members of the committee, most notably Hagoel. The acting chairman hails from the opposition Likud party and is said to be loyal to another candidate: Israel’s former U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon, who is now chairman of World Likud.

Also considered a top candidate, according to analysts closely watching the race, is Jerusalem’s Deputy Mayor Fleur Hassan Nahum, who has worked hard to boost the city’s image and is known as an effective fundraiser. Former Minister of Diaspora Affairs Omer Yankelevitch, also vying for the position, has the backing of Blue and White party head and Defense Minister Benny Gantz. Former Knesset member and Israel National Security Advisor Maj. Gen. (res) Uzi Dayan, who flew to the U.S. last week to campaign, is supported by Netanyahu.

Non-political candidates include Irina Nevzlin, chair of the board of directors of ANU – The Museum of the Jewish People, formerly known as Beit Hatfutsot; Israel’s former ambassador to the United States Michael Oren; Michal Cotler-Wunsh, another former Blue and White Knesset member; and Bar-Ilan University law professor Yaffa Zilbershats, chairwoman of the Planning and Budgeting Committee of the Council for Higher Education.

In interviews, several candidates stressed the necessity of reaching out to “the next generation,” amid increasingly fraying ties between Israel and the Diaspora community, and especially among younger Jews.

What follows are the candidates, in their own words, discussing their visions for the Jewish world’s top post. (The list is in alphabetical order.)

“The Jewish Agency is the singular most important platform connecting Jews in Israel and throughout the world,” said Cotler-Wunsh, an expert in international law and human rights. “That was what it was founded to be, and remains its mission. Implementing, enhancing and advancing existing plans and programs, it has the ability and responsibility to bridge growing gaps and heal deepening rifts, uniting Jews worldwide.”

“At this tumultuous time, marking nearly a century of leadership, the Jewish Agency’s continued stability is an important asset, enabling it to transcend real or perceived divides — of politics, geography or denomination; to listen to all communities; and to represent their voices in Israel, ensuring the nation-state of the Jewish people, its leaders and general public, recognize and prioritize this relationship.”

“I am honored that my name is being considered for this position. I got to know the Jewish Agency very well when I was an emissary for JAFI in North America and also in my position as chairman of the Committee on Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs in the Knesset,” said Danon, who previously served as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations and as a minister in the Israeli government.

“I believe the agency has a significant role in tackling the challenges facing the Jewish people, mainly in connecting the younger generation to Israel and Jewish life. We care a lot about promoting aliyah; at the same time we have to make sure that we bring the next generation of Jews who, according to recent polls and reports, are distancing themselves from Israel and their Jewish identity, into the Jewish life.”

“The Jewish Agency is vital for the survival of the Jewish people, and we must work to preserve the Jewish people at this very problematic time. Jewish education should be the main focus [as well as] Jewish identity, which serves as the basis of the unity and cohesion of the Jewish people,” said Dayan, a former chairman of Israel’s National Lottery and founder and chairman of the Sderot Socio-Economic Conference.

“It is important to do this work in Israel, as well as abroad, to bring the different communities around the world together with Israel and to let Israel take a leading role in promoting Jewish cohesion and unity.”

“I don’t differentiate between Israel and the Diaspora because we are all one family. Once we start with that premise, any disagreement is easier to solve.”

Hassan Nahoum, who made aliyah from Gibraltar and this year co-founded the UAE-Israel Business Council and the Gulf-Israel Women’s Forum, added: “As a former Diaspora Jew and new immigrant, I have a unique perspective. I understand what Diaspora Jews are looking for and what the challenges are for new immigrants to Israel. I am dedicated to helping improve the experience for both, building bridges and improving communication.”

Nevzlin, who immigrated as a child from the Former Soviet Union and authored a book on Jewish identity, said: “Being Jewish is a gift. We share the same roots and there is so much that unites us. I am a product of JAFI’s work, and I see this role as an opportunity to make sure that the Jewish people are united, and together, we can look forward to a shared future.”

“The most important work for anyone who becomes the chair of the executive is to engage the younger generation of Jews, to make sure they feel proud of being Jewish and to make sure they are connected to Israel. I know from my projects in the museum that this is possible to do.”

“The Jewish people are at a crisis point and we stand to lose a large segment of the Jewish people. There is no other organization that has the scope, staff and means to tackle this crisis,” said Oren, an author, historian and former deputy minister in the Israeli government who made aliyah from the United States.

“It is time to reexamine the ways we reach out to Jews in the diaspora with a Zionist message, particularly young Jews. We also need to reinforce the appreciation for aliyah among Israelis, this is a sensitive point and a huge challenge.”

“The Jewish Agency needs to look at the challenges of the Jewish world and needs the synergy to bring them together – this is essential. It is important to think outside the box and to do things that were not thought possible in the past,” said Stern, who headed the IDF’s Manpower Directorate, served as a commander of the IDF Officers Training School, and chief education officer.

“I want people to be proud of their Jewish identity. It is important, in this role, to be a bridge builder between different sectors in Israeli society, and also between Israeli society and the Diaspora,” said Stern, who initiated the army’s Nativ conversion project to assist immigrants from the FSU to convert to Judaism while serving.

“The Jewish Agency plays a critical key role in the alliance between the Jewish state and the Jewish people in the Diaspora,” said Yankelevitch, a lawyer by training who lived in the FSU as a child while her parents served there as emissaries for the State of Israel.

“For me, the issue of world Jewry is my mission, and this was reflected in my tenure at the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and in the initiatives I led there. I was very involved in the connection between the different populations and communities, in Israel and in the Diaspora, and I think it is very important,” said the former minister, who has been deeply involved in the nonprofit world advocating for marginalized populations, particularly the Haredi sector.

“I think the Jewish Agency has an important role to connect all segments of Jewish people and connect the Jewish people in Israel and to Jews around the world,” said Zilbershats, formerly dean of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University and deputy president of the university.

“I believe that the Jewish people are one, and the State of Israel is a place not only for the Jewish people that live here but for all Jews,” she said.