And the winner is… Bennett.

Ted Belman. What is interesting in this Haaretz Op-Ed is that it acknowledges that the idea of leaving Jews to fend for themselves in Palestine, should it be created, is dead and buried.

It goes on to suggest that Bibi was not bluffing when he issued an ultimatum to Bennett, “Apologize or be fired”. I disagree. Bibi took the flimsiest of apologies and triumphantly announced that Bennett had apologized. Bennett didn’t leave it at that and announced he didn’t apologize. And so the matter ended.

My reading of Bennett’s original statement is that it was entirely substantive. The fact that he said Netanyahu was suffering from “moral confusion” is no more ad hominem than to call someone “ignorant”. Both merely explain where the other is coming from.

As I see it, Bennett made Bibi’s position and substantive argument appear so weak that Bibi had to change the subject from the substantive argument to him being unwilling to accept the affront to his character.

Spat between Netanyahu and Bennett over, but cold war rages on
Relations between the prime minister and the economy minister are so toxic that it’s hard to imagine the two surviving an entire term together.

By Yossi Verter HAARETZ

Naftali Bennett heard the sensational report from the Prime Minister’s Bureau on Sunday as he was about to pay a condolence call at the home of Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein in the settlement of Neveh Daniel, west of Bethlehem. In a briefing, spokesmen at the office had said that Benjamin Netanyahu believes Jews could remain in their homes in the territories under future Palestinian rule, should a peace agreement be signed.

Even though Neveh Daniel itself is supposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty under any agreement, there is no doubt that its history and location, which evoke the Bible, stirred something in the Jewish heart of the leader of Habayit Hayehudi. Moreover, there is no doubt that he spotted an opportunity here to reap serious political capital among the country’s right-wing electorate. Politics, ideology, faith and rolling of eyes have always gone hand in hand in the religious-Zionist movement.

Bennett lost it. He insisted on issuing a sharply worded condemnation on the spot. If he had made do with that statement, it would have been one thing. It would have been logical. But he didn’t hold back and chose to use the loaded phrase “moral confusion.”

There is no more searing affront in Netanyahu’s private lexicon. It’s a lot more than a blow to his soft underbelly; it’s a bullet between the eyes. Every insinuation of confusion, panic, hysteria or heavy perspiration drives the prime minister up the wall. And then morality gets dragged in, too! Who better than Bennett – who served as chief of staff of then-opposition leader Netanyahu in 2006-2007 – should be aware of the boss’ sensitivities? And of the boss’ wife’s?

For two and a half days, the crisis that broke out early this week simmered on a low flame. It wasn’t until Wednesday morning that the apology demanded by the Prime Minister’s Bureau cropped up. Bennett sent his confidant, Pensioner Affairs Minister Uri Orbach, to the media to announce that there would be no apology, because there was nothing to apologize for. His party colleague, Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel, who was also interviewed, conveyed a far more conciliatory and moderate message.

Unlike Orbach, Ariel is a seasoned politico. Unlike Orbach, he is not bound by certain messages coming from Bennett’s bureau. And unlike Orbach, he is not involved in creating ministerial fiction void of all content. Ariel heads a powerful, well-budgeted ministry that has always been the dream of the settlers; to give it up now, after less than a year, would be their ruination.

With his keen political antennae, Ariel grasped that Netanyahu could not allow himself to back down. Not this time. Not when he had been insulted like this, and especially not when the insult came from Bennett. If the prime minister had let the insult go by, he would have become a wimp, a wet rag. Ariel also realized that this quarrel constituted a dangerous slippery slope, at the end of which he was liable to find himself once more in a place he knows only too well: in the remote, irrelevant, opposition back benches.

Ariel went into action behind the scenes. On Wednesday afternoon, when it was already clear in the corridors of political power that an apology was on the way, Netanyahu’s office raised the bar. A humiliating ultimatum was fired at Bennett: Apologize by 10 A.M. next Sunday or be fired.

This time, even Orbach was dumbstruck. There were no more jokes and quips. Silence descended on Habayit Hayehudi. That evening, Bennett spoke at an event an the Dead Sea, said what he said, apologized fully, and all seemed to be well in Zion. Until the next time around.

The relations between the prime minister and the economy minister are so toxic, that it’s hard to imagine the two surviving an entire term together. Even though, at the end of the day, this is the most convenient coalition for Netanyahu – as long as he does not commit the sin of making peace – and it’s certainly the most convenient one for Bennett, under those same conditions.

But take a look at the cold war that continues to be waged between the minister and the prime minister. In “private” conversations that Bennett held Wednesday evening, he lauded the contribution of his wife, Gilat, to ending the crisis. “She told me, ‘Yallah, Naftali, don’t be a child. Be the responsible adult and finish this whole thing.’”

That particular text was not a random choice. Those who are aware of its historical background understand: There is one wife who is responsible, judicious, restrained, calm, sees the good in a certain cause and doesn’t want things to escalate. And there’s another wife who is, how to put it, different.

Patchwork spin

Along the way to vanquishing Bennett, Netanyahu made every possible mistake. In Davos he declared that he will not evacuate a single Jew from his home. Afterward, when the premier started to feel the ricochets, he recoiled and corrected himself, telling the Associated Press that what he meant was that settlers who want to could remain under a Palestinian regime.

Then, when all hell broke loose, not only in Habayit Hayehudi but also in Likud, where this idea doesn’t have a single supporter, Netanyahu added another “patch” by explaining that the whole thing had been a sophisticated spin designed to trip up Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and to expose his true face. A ploy at the level of kids’ street games. What will U.S. Secretary of State Kerry think, what will President Barack Obama think, and what will the embarrassed reporter, whose nullity is exposed to all, think?

Politically, Bennett was probably not hurt by the squabble with Netanyahu, even though he had to back down eventually. From his perspective, he did his thing, searing into national consciousness the fact that leaving Jewish settlements in enemy territory, or in effect agreeing to the 1967 boundaries, is not an option.

Furthermore, Bennett admits that he overreacted on a personal level. That this is not the way one talks about a prime minister. If there’s one thing he learned from the episode, it’s that you have to argue substantively, not personally. To attack the issue and not the issuer. And he admits that he should have learned this above all from his former boss. Netanyahu generally brawls about substance. It’s rare that he is caught hurling insults at political rivals. Bennett aspires to behave likewise.

What else did he discover in the three days of heavy artillery bombardment he sustained? That the right-wing voters who are his constituency also deplore a descent to the personal level. Stick to your ideological guns, they told and wrote him, but if you’ve offended don’t hesitate to apologize.

What next? The next test of the coalition will revolve around Netanyahu’s response to the paper that John Kerry will submit. Bennett has no idea how things will work out. He can think of many scenarios, each of which will leave him in a different place. But then he, as Ehud Barak used to say, will already know what to do.

Not including Shabbat

Knesset members and ministers from Likud who spoke with Netanyahu, face to face or by phone, on this past, tension-filled Wednesday were highly impressed by his determination not to let his wayward minister get off scot-free, even at the price of a new general election. Some of them claim to have discerned an Ariel Sharon-like sangfroid in the prime minister. “I couldn’t care less,” he told them, more or less in these words, “even if I have to call an election. That man [Bennett] has no restraint. He has no inhibitions, the only thing that interests him is politics, just to attack and attack.”

There are three options, Netanyahu went on to tell his interlocutors: “1. For him to apologize and end the whole thing; 2. To fire him and then I’ll try to bring in Labor; or 3. Go to an election. All three are fine with me. But things will not go on like this.”

By the way, according to informed sources in the Prime Minister’s Bureau, Netanyahu intended to send Bennett a letter of dismissal on Thursday at 10 A.M. He signed it on Wednesday and instructed his staff not to take calls from Bennett’s people. The only connection was with Uri Ariel. The letter was intended for Bennett’s eyes alone, not for those of Ariel or Orbach. The rationale? If Bennett did not apologize by 10 A.M. this coming Sunday, his dismissal would come into effect immediately, and instead of coming to the cabinet meeting, the economy minister would go collect the stuff from his office.

Netanyahu would then have been spared the dubious pleasure of seeing the visage of the man he loathes across the cabinet conference table. The Prime Minister’s Bureau thought of everything: The law stipulates that 48 hours must pass from the time a letter of dismissal is sent to a minister and the time it comes into effect. As Shabbat would fall in the middle, the intention was to send the letter, via a courier, 72 hours ahead, so as to leave no room for doubt.

Oil and water

Opposition leader MK Isaac Herzog (Labor) was one of the last speakers at a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies held this week at Tel Aviv University. He assailed Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Bennett, and then called on Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid and on Hatnuah leader Tzipi Livni to join him in uniting the peace camp. “Under certain conditions,” he said, “we will even have a majority in the current Knesset.”

In an interview on Army Radio on Thursday, Herzog added that the possibility exists of forming an “alternative government” in the present Knesset. What is he thinking? To topple Netanyahu and form a sustainable alternative government, Herzog has to forge a connection between Lapid and Shas leader MK Aryeh Deri and also with MKs Yaakov Litzman and Moshe Gafni from United Torah Judaism. But Lapid and the ultra-Orthodox are like oil and water. Still, for the sake of peace and the economy, Lapid, who is the finance minister, might be ready to change his spots, especially after he’s already cut Haredi allowances and is about to pass a new draft law that will affect them. Maybe yes and maybe no. It’s a poor to middling prospect.

In any event, that’s what Herzog is thinking about and that’s what he’s talking to Yair and Tzipi about, in conversations that really are private. Well, it won’t hurt the reader Benjamin Netanyahu to know what’s going on.