The prime minister knows his rival-partner may one day be his successor. That’s why he keeps him close but belittles him at every turn.
By Yonit Levi and Udi Segal, HAARETZ
During the summer conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Naftali Bennett went on a verbal offensive, harshly censuring Benjamin Netanyahu. First came criticisms by anonymous “cabinet ministers” of Israel’s restrained approach. Then the far-right-wing leader of the Habayit Hayehudi party blasted the prime minister and the army’s top brass during a cabinet meeting, calling their approach rigid, uncreative and not daring enough. Another minister said at the time that Bennett had fashioned himself as Israel’s new “Mr. Security”; the chief of staff, defense minister and prime minister all rolled into one.
Bennett’s bluster recalls the language and tone of another young, charismatic, fluent-English-speaking individual from some 20 years ago. That man claimed to understand Israeli politics better than any other politician and the Middle East better than any left-wing leader (including those who built the state, unified Jerusalem and shaped modern-day Israel). He also asserted that he knew America better than Americans themselves. That man is Netanyahu. And he still believes all these things today.
The similarities between Netanyahu and Bennett may explain their complicated relationship. Bennett is Netanyahu’s political rival-partner and onetime bureau chief who is competing for the support of Israel’s rightist camp. It’s possible that Netanyahu first perceived Bennett as a reflection of his younger self.
Unlike for Netanyahu, the upcoming elections are a win-win for Bennett. If he joins a Netanyahu-led coalition as a senior minister, his base will certainly grow at Netanyahu’s expense. If Netanyahu snubs Bennett – his natural partner – and forges a unity government with the Zionist Union’s Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, Bennett will ambush the coalition from the right, billing himself as the true leader of Israel’s right wing and paving the way for his run for premiership in the next elections. That’s exactly what Netanyahu would do if he were in Bennett’s shoes.
Only seven years have passed since Bennett was unceremoniously ousted as Netanyahu’s chief of staff. (Netanyahu was opposition leader at the time.) Bennett was Netanyahu’s confidant, the right-hand man who tried to shield Netanyahu from various influences – including that of his wife, Sara. He admired Netanyahu and studied him closely. Bennett is Netanyahu’s political handiwork, his would-be successor.
Bennett’s personal charm stems from his upbringing, but he learned the rest from Netanyahu. Like his mentor, Bennett walks a fine line between patriotism and extreme nationalism, between persuasive rhetoric and propaganda. He knows how to exploit the media, while accusing it of toeing a left-wing line.
That worked for Netanyahu in the 1990s and it seems to still work today, although Bennett’s approach is a tad more sophisticated. Netanyahu lost the election to Ehud Barak in 1999 because he tried to drive a wedge between the Israeli left and right – and was caught whispering into a rabbi’s ear that “the left has forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” Israelis weren’t willing to forgive such a blatant attempt to pit one side against the other back then. Yet Bennett has built his political career on precisely such divisiveness. He recently compared Labor Party candidate Yossi Yonah to Hamas, and several years ago inspired a website that campaigned against journalists, judges and other public figures that were deemed “not patriotic enough.” Not only has Bennett not paid the price that Netanyahu did, the Israeli public of today seems to relish his rhetoric. Netanyahu sowed the seed, but Bennett is the one reaping the fruit, thanks to the Israeli public’s rightward shift over the last two decades.
Bennett has followed Netanyahu’s footsteps closely, whether it was serving in an elite military unit or fondly using props during interviews like a piece of a Qassam rocket or an ancient coin (proving the Jewish people’s connection to its homeland). That all comes from Netanyahu’s playbook: He has an ancient coin from a Jerusalem archaeological dig in his office that bears an inscription similar to his last name, and is also meant to symbolize the Jewish people’s eternal connection to its home (and perhaps his own eternal connection to the prime minister’s seat). Netanyahu’s impressive bag of props have earned him many a spotlight at his UN speeches, flashing Iranian President Hassan Rohani’s book, aerial photographs of Auschwitz and the now-infamous cartoon diagram of a bomb.
Despite his burning ambition, Bennett’s ascent to the prime minister’s office could be hampered by two things: He is more religious and more extreme than Netanyahu. Netanyahu straddles his family’s elitist secularism and some of his voters’ biblical Jewish mission. He wears a kippah, quotes the Bible and says “with the help of God” when he needs to. His youngest son even won the country’s prestigious national Bible quiz. Bennett is the opposite – a religious man who flirts with the secular world (literally, too – his wife used-to be secular). Bennett, who once headed the Yesha Council of settlements, lives in a luxury home in the central town of Ra’anana. Yet Bennett wears a kippah and keeps Shabbat, and members of his party don’t hide their ultra-conservative views (including their homophobic ideas).
It’s clear, though, that Bennett and his national-religious party won’t be partners forever. He may leave the party that elevated him to his current strength after the upcoming elections, or he may try to fundamentally change its makeup, which has become more of a burden to him than an asset. Bennett wants to create another Likud, an “all-Israeli” party. But that may not be so easy. When he recently tried to add a former soccer star to the roster, his party revolted. Bennett backed down and the soccer star bolted – which is exactly what Bennett may do soon enough.
Neither Netanyahu nor Bennett believes in what they call the left wing’s “fake peace.” That’s their secret weapon with voters. They don’t naively believe peace will solve all of Israel’s problems, yet they will pursue negotiations as long as they go nowhere. Netanyahu may have said he supports a two-state solution – which allowed Bennett to claim he is the only Israeli politician opposed to creating a Palestinian state – but really there’s little difference between them. Both would accept Palestinian autonomy and territorial concessions. After all, when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tried to restart peace talks, Bennett sat in the government that voted in favor of releasing Palestinian prisoners with blood on their hands. Later, when he criticized the move, Netanyahu told the world that Bennett agreed to the prisoner release so long as settlement construction continued.
A former senior minister told us that Bennett has “daddy issues;” that, at the end of the day, he just wants Netanyahu’s approval and admiration. That may be true, but it’s more likely that he has an Oedipal Complex – he wants to succeed and be the next Netanyahu. Netanyahu understands that, which is why he wanted to shut Bennett out of his coalition after the last elections. That’s why he belittles and tries to discredit Bennett at every turn. But the truth is he recognizes Bennett’s potential, energy and drive. He understands that, ultimately, he’s competing against himself, against Bibi 2.0.
Yonit Levi is the anchor of the Evening News on Israel’s Channel 2. Udi Segal is the network’s Senior Diplomatic Correspondent. Their twitter feeds are, respectively, @leviyonit and @usegal.
@ Max:
Max:
Perhaps you have missed the point of this discussion. Prime Minister Winston Churchill, commenting upon Hitler’s massive attack against Russia in June 1941, proclaimed that if Hell were to rise up against Hitler, then he, Churchill, would at least put in a good word for the Devil in the House of Commons. In any case, Roosevelt, Churchill, and most of Western civilization freely acknowledged as World War 2 was drawing to a close that there would have been no such victory over Hitler and Nazi Germany without Stalin and the great Red Armies that he deployed in service of the destruction of the German armies that had conquered all of Eastern Europe. Dwight David Eisenhower thought so too, and freely admitted it in “Crusade in Europe”, his own history of the allied war against the Axis powers.
Everyone truly evil proclaims his or her attachment to absolute goodness. Read the proclamations of the ayatollists of Iran who wish to burn up all civilization so that Allah can remake mankind more perfectly — at least from the point of view their particular interpretation of Shi’a Islam. And on the opposite side, the self-proclaimed Kalif of whatever patch of Syrian Desert now belongs to the Islamic State of Syria, perhaps truly believes that slowly burning to death captured prisoners of war locked in cages, is a commandment representing the true beliefs of Sun’a Islam.
Possibly, what you proclaim as evil, frequently is little more than intelligently and adeptly applied strategic and tactical moves against an implacable enemy.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ ArnoldHarris:
He is only worth it to those who worship evil. Stalin and Hitler were defeated without Stalin. It’s no use to have a country if there is no civilization within it The history of humanity is the struggle between good and evil and so far evil (your side) has always lost.
@ Felix Quigley:
bernard ross Said:
Perhaps you should read up on the Zen art of “not doing”
🙂
Felix Quigley Said:
how about a continuation of the status quo as long as it can last, even temporarily, whereby the enemies do us the favor of killing each other….. DUH????????
Felix Quigley Said:
you make statements but give no examples, you misread posts and blame your lazy reading on others. You are the one obfuscating with red herrings by assigning statements to me that I never wrote. I think you do that intentionally as a learned tactic from your soviet disinformatzya days. Planting disinformation.
Post your examples of obfuscation.
Felix Quigley Said:
and yet, in the very next sentence you prove that you are the liar:
Felix Quigley Said:
In other words you did in fact support that Israel support the terrorist jihadi axis of Iran, Syria and hezbullah against the other jihadis, the ones without power, a nation or heavy weapons. You advised Israel to help their most dangerous enemies rather than let the enemies kill each other and then you called me a liar based on the fact that you wanted the alliance and support for the russian, syrian, iranian,hezbullah jihad terrorist axis to be temporary
😛 😛 😛
Felix Quigley Said:
and yet still an “ALLIANCE”
did you suggest the the Jews should have helped Hitler too?
If anyone should be helped it should be the weaker and less dangerous enemy with the goal of weakening the bigger enemy.
Like when the west allied with stalin against hitler.
but better than both is to celebrate and enjoy the enemies and murderers of the Jews killing each other….
Perhaps next they will even chop off some heads of those other enemies in europe along with the BDS churches.
@ Max:
Max, in the life and death destinies of nations and states — which is exactly what is being decided upon here — I write clearly and concisely that a single Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin is worth more than six thousand Barack Hussein Obamas.
And that measure applies equally to Russia, Israel, or the United States of America. It had and still has nothing to do with communism but everything to do with focused leadership in the interests of one’s country.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ Felix Quigley:
Your role model is Stalin isn’t it?
Arnold
Your post 23 is a classic in clear and strategic thinking and stands in such contrast here tot he obfuscation of B Ross and Yamit
You write “But first and foremost, everyone who considers his or her self as a Zionist loyal to the historic rights of the Jewish nation, must back Prime Minister Netanyahu, irrespective of any disagreements with him over past policies.”
I put it like this our support for Netanyahu is always critical but against Obama and the Traitor class in Israel it is UNCONDITIONAL and you have clarified that Iran is the issue in this election and speech Mar 17. Thanks for clarity Arnold!
You are a liar B Ross sorry to have to use that Word but only one that fits
I was very specific in all of this. An Alliance with the Shah against Khomeini, with Milosevic against Izetbegovic, AND ABOUT 20 OTHER CASES ESPECIALLY MUBARAK AND EL SISI, is always in those conditions episodic and holding the fort against a greater evil. It is a temporary Alliance to prevent the Jihad from winning…
Assad is a very difficult one I grant but if Assad is destroyed the Jihad and Obama will have won.
These are always episodic and critical alliances I propose.
@ Felix Quigley:
FQ:
Thanks for the boost. It should be obvious by now;
— that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will make his speech to the United States House of Representatives and Senate on March 3;
— that the facts laid out in that presentation, plus the fact that he and the US Congressional leadership have boldly and successfully contradicted and defied the Barack Hussein Obama, means a line in the sand has been drawn between them, and that line cannot and will not be scrubbed out;
— that Obama is increasingly distrusted by much of the US military, the US Congress, and many influential observers, regarding both his capability and intent to defend Western civilization and even the USA against growing threats and actual depredations of Jihadist Islam;
— that HaLikud and its related right-wing and Jewish religious parties will parties will be able to assemble a viable governing coalition under the leadership of Netanyahu;
— that no peace of any kind can now or probably ever be negotiated between Israel, Fatah, and Hamas;
— that Israel can never safely retreat from control of any part of Eretz-Yisrael located west of the Jordan River;
— that despite real or implied diplomatic threats or rumors of threats from the UNO, NATO, the EU, or the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, Israel is capable of breaking and boycotts, disinvestments or whatever through increased and vibrant trade with willing buyers and sellers in Japan, China, India, numerous other Asian countries;
— that Russia has shown it will not back down from asserting primacy in and near all its western borderlands in Eastern Europe, and in so doing, now regards the USA, NATO as threats against Russia’s permanent interests, and that Russia is seeking allies in the Middle East, in a movement that is growing at the same pace that Obama’s influence is there is fading.
Put it all together, and draw your own conclusions.
But first and foremost, everyone who considers his or her self as a Zionist loyal to the historic rights of the Jewish nation, must back Prime Minister Netanyahu, irrespective of any disagreements with him over past policies.
Because Bennett or anyone else on the right side of the Knesset will not now be the prime minister, but they can help steer Israel’s policies in favor of Jewish nationalism by backing Netanyahu not only in this present struggle with Obama, but also in helping maintain the unity of the Jewish nation where such unity is most important, in the Jewish state. On numerous occasions,
I have written against Netanyahu. But that must now be set aside, perhaps temporarily, but I hope permanently. That’s up to him. But right now, Israel and the Jewish nation must give its leader the backing he needs.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
yamit82 Said:
in which case there needs to be a paradigm shift. it looks like the window of opportunity disappeared as a result of relying on the americans, which is surprising as the american record of betrayal is very consistent. So I must wonder why anyone with basic knowledge would have relied upon them in the first place, unless Israel could not have done it alone. Certainly Israel had the past american and world reaction on Osirak to see that the storm was weatherable diplomatically so there must have been a different reason for delaying.
yamit82 Said:
I blame sharon whose scandals brought on disengagement and kowtowing to the US CIA. Bush was gone in 2008
yamit82 Said:
yamit82 Said:
so what happened before that and what prevented BB?
Perhaps this is the real problem. It appears to me that in almost everything there is so much disunity in Israel that it is impossible to galvanize foreign support in any one direction. One can always find enough Jewish support in israel for the most dangerous and radical ideas of the enemies. Therefore everything defamatory has wings because enough Jews will support it. In fact, I think it is almost miraculous that there is any foreign support considering that Israelis cannot agree even on the most dangerous of issues. I think that Israel would get a lot further if most Israelis spoke with one voice on important issues of danger.
I just finished watching a video dove posted on the eu page with yariv oppenheimer and when he finished I realized there can be little hope when intelligent people promote crazy ideas and believe them. I am amazed at leftists in Israel who dont internalize that the arabs want to kill them whatever they do. I cant imagine wanting to make peace with someone who was trying to kill me, my time instead would likely be spent on figuring out how to kill him.
@ bernard ross:
I blame Bush for Israel’s inaction. He is the one who initially threw Israel under the bus and blocked and threatened Israel at every turn. Obama is only taking the Bush Policies re: Iran to a step beyond but by the time Obama came in the window I believe had closed on Israel to attack Iran conventionally. BB for the past 4-5 years has had two options either to get Obama to take care of the problem militarily or for Israel to do it and that means using tactical nukes. The whole military and security establishment is against the Israeli option as it’s been reported that they rebelled directly in thwarting BB ordering an attack alone with out American support. As far back a the late 1990’s Israel ordered special custom F-16I’s with extra large fuel tanks just for attacking Iran and here we are in 2015 and no attack so far. Israel has been spending 3 billion dollar per year just getting ready and preparing for Iran….
Three things seem to be a given.
Obama will do next to nothing to prevent and or delay Iran’s nuke project.
Israel Yammers but does next to nothing.
Iran will get their nukes and delivery systems
Now they are building their own submarines with cruise missiles
yamit82 Said:
I agree, Israel used to be known for little talk and more action but these days they have appeared to take on the arab nature of being all mouth and no action. Not only does too much talk lessen deterrence but it also might annoy americans who come to beleive that Israel is goading the US into war, which is the card I think Obama will use. The mistake was in the first place relying on the US to determine Israels actions, that is the sign of a weak decision maker.
@ yamit82:
on tarpley you already know that I beleive that Israel has been involved in understandings with the gulf monarachies. However, i specualate that the involvement is cautious and specific, a kind of sitting on the fence with the feet hanging over the side ready to jump. I think Israel cooperated in cast lead cease fire, protective edge cease fire, faux abbas peace talks and prisoner releases. However I think Tarpley spins small facts into big propaganda; its obvious that Tarpley has a particular axe to grind. tarpley reminds of employees in the 3rd world who came with whopping BS stories as excuses but during the whole BS story they would smile at you almost as if their lies were even ridiculously funny to them also. Tarpley was grinning almost the whole time he spun his yarns, he brought back memories of obvious BS artists.
what bothered me was that there is a developing narrative of Israel being involved with supporting AQ and these small facts are used as a basis. This will likely be spun bigger by those anti semites, including Obama. i think there is indirect truth in that Israel has cooperated with those who created AQ, Nusra and IS but not with them directly, and so does the US.
@ Felix Quigley:
@ bernard ross:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acr5ArBxZXA
@ bernard ross:
‘If you want to shoot, shoot,’ urges Liberman, deriding Israel’s whining on Iran
Too much talk is harming Israel’s deterrence, foreign minister says in implied attack on Netanyahu
Read more: ‘If you want to shoot, shoot,’ urges Liberman, deriding Israel’s whining on Iran | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/if-you-want-to-shoot-shoot-urges-liberman-deriding-israels-whining-on-iran/#ixzz3SJhb8pxM
yamit82 Said:
I did, not as far back as you though. That was why I did not just accept BB’s words. It was his record which causes me to say the jury is still out. The cloudy area for me, in that the jury is not yet back, has to do with those areas which are not transparent having to do with foreign pressure and what appear to me to be other clandestine arrangements with the gulf monarchies. I cannot tell what real effect those factors exert. therefore, I bring his inconsistent record to attention but do not feel fully informed to reach a final conclusion on where he is headed. I lean negatively but I am open to facts saying otherwise.
Felix Quigley Said:
I said the exact opposite, are you disingenous or do you have ADD?
I said he would NOT seek to form with labor BUT I disagreed on the reason why he would not. I said his reasons would be opportunistic rather than ideological.
Felix Quigley Said:
agian, pay attention, the discussion was about the article on this page re BB and Bennett. I disagreed with Arnold on the value of the article and on the reasons for why I beleived BB WOULD NOT form a coalition with labor. I did not disagree on the obama issue as important to the election… I have been posting my election motto here and elsewhere regularly:
A VOTE FOR THE LEFT IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA AS PM OF ISRAEL
I made that clear before glick.
Felix Quigley Said:
Perhaps English is not your first language: I NEVER promoted that and stated the opposite would happen. However, my citing BB record still stands.
Felix Quigley Said:
Is this what they taught you at stalin trotsky propaganda camp: to tell lies? Its not nice to tell lies and put false words in others mouths. I already cleared up that misunderstanding with AH so you must have known my position when you told your lies.
Felix Quigley Said:
It is better that they kill each other rather than Israelis and Jews. You advised that Israel support assad, Iran and hezbullah. It is still good because when Israel has to fight them they will be weaker from the battles with each other.
You gave no support for you arguments as to why you think supporting Assad russia hezbullah iran would be better
At last I think I have got it. And got all of those hate filled replies to my searching questions by B Ross
Note the analysis by the great in every respect Martin Sherman today. Note especially the beginning there where Sherman hammers out the reality of the Arab Spring for Israel.
That was the same that B Ross kept saying was a good thing for Israel because it kept the enemies of Israel at each others throats.
But it was not good for Israel at all and Sherman nails it in great style.
It has been very bad for Israel and in every way creates great danger for Israel.
Now B Ross gets it again wrong but Arnold right. The issue in this election is the Arab Spring role of Obama and now role of Obama as an extensión to all of that in his promoting Iran as a real Nuclear threat.
Stupidly disgracefully and dogmatically B Ross does not see that Arnold is right.
In the above it is necessary to read rightist as “Zionist Patriot” and leftist as “Traitor Anti-Zionism”. This needs to be repeated and is a position backed by Gil White, Jared Israel and Richard Landes. I am far from alone. But the confusion continues to be spread. Ted also understands this point.
It is interesting that B Ross comes out and suggests that Netanyahu may be angling for a deal post election with Livni. There is no evidence for this. There is evidence for the very opposite that the election was called to stop the influence of Livni in Israeli politics.
This discussion is now to be seen in the context of Obama and his backing of Iran as a nation able to in a very short period of time have nuclear weapons in its hands.
That is the main content of politics in Israel at this moment in time.
People may try to deflect as B Ross appears to be doing in these exchanges with Arnold. But Arnold is right to insist that this issue of Iran, and the visit of Netanyahu to speak to Congress on Mar 3, is the CENTRAL issue in politics in Israel today.
Funny that B Ross appears to be deflecting from this in these exchanges.
The very issue of Obama and Iran makes Livni enemy number one for Netanyahu.
B Ross yet still promotes Netanyahu making a coalition with Livni as in “his actual record shows that he makes announcements and takes credit and then does not implement the announcements AND his appointments of Livni”
Things have changed drastically as Arnold points out but B Ross cannot see it for some reason. That leaves him militating against Netanyahu in this vital Iran Obama Congress speech issue.
bernard ross Said:
What Jury?
BB has been consistent since first term in office as PM in 1996. He is Israels longerst serving PM next to Ben Gurion.
Look at his record not his rhetoric.
The only time he really stood up to American pressure was when he felt even more pressure domestically when his coalition partners threatened to bring him down like they did in 2009 and he lost to Barak as a consequence. Sharon chopped him up and spit him out politically and I’ve seen BB really sweat live on TV while Sharon toyed with him like a limp wuss of a rag doll.
Look at his many political appointments:
Attorneys general appointments:
Chief of Staff of IDF:
Justice Ministry appointments:
Heads of Mossad and Shabak”
Advisors:
internal staff:
Shook the dirty bloody hands of Arafat and called him a partner!! Several times in public.
Gave up Hebron the second Holiest site in Judasim.
Did not defend Josephs Tomb under attack.
History of conflict avoidance under and in-spite of extreme provocations.
Always supported PA and Hamas
Always backed down against America except once.
A compulsive liar and manipulator whose word means nothing whose promises are hollow and has no real visible friends in or out of politics. List is too long to enter here but I can supply pages of anti BB acts some even treasonous by any normal and legal standards.
Read: The Real Netanyahu …Is he defending Israel?
ArnoldHarris Said:
I do suspect that livni is basically a treasonous foreign agent who has been chosen by the foreign left to be their Israeli stooge leader. I even suspect that barring being PM during BB’s terms that he may have been pressured by the same foreign interests to install her in her very important positions which kept jewish settlement in shackles. However, I cannot be sure if he was pressured or if he wishes to give that impression as a reason for his choosing of her, after all she provided a good fig leaf to shield him from grater criticism and to obfuscate the situation. Why I am also suspicious of him is that he took every opportunity to garner credit as a rightist while actually implementing anti zionist policies de facto during his term. I am not sure that he might be also a mole because since Nixon it is generally accepted that a right wing leader is able to make greatest concessions and therefore cultivating a right wing leader like BB as well as Livni is not beyond reasonable consideration. My jury is still out on who BB really is.
ArnoldHarris Said:
one of the problems with this approach, although I agree with the content, is that BB put her in very important positions and she is no different now than when he installed her.
ArnoldHarris Said:
never bought into as I just explained to you. However, keep in mind that BB chose Livni and put her into Justice and negotiations both of which have impacted jewish settlement in YS very negatively. You have not explained how you reconcile your perspective that BB is a right wing nationalist with all the behaviors I mentioned which de facto are the opposite.
In any case none of this has anything to do with my original point that I still feel the article is superficial, gives no new valuable perspectives, is based on psychobabble rather than factual political analysis. I see no real political analysis in the article that sensibly explains the behavior. I say the behavior of BB is driven by election strategy and tactics and not past psychobabble. He is setting up his ducks, he wants to form a coalition with no strong competing party and therefore it would suit him, if my view is correct, to have some of Bennetts seats go to other smaller parties which he plans to bring into a coalition of a center right. In that way Bennett could not get too much(ministries) out of BB in a coalition and it is unlikely that bennett could replay his last alliance with a center left party like he did with lapdog last time. BB would be doing the same thing with anybody in the same postion as bennett in competition with him. BB is thinking past the election to the coalition…. electoral strategy and NOT psychobabble.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I have no idea what this means in relation to my posts
@ ArnoldHarris:
bernard ross Said:
I disagreed that his reason for not going into a coalition with labor was not ideological but opportunistic in that with them he would have to rotate the PM which I beleive he would find unacceptable. I do not beleive he will go in with labor.
ArnoldHarris Said:
you should re read my post, I never said or implied this and instead implied the opposite: that BB would NOT form a coalition with Labor livni. What I said about livni was that she has managed to arrange a rotating PM for herself with labor if their coalition wins. You appear to have completely misunderstood me
@ bernard ross:
BR:
I think some of the political stuff you cite originated as malicious rumors paid for by Obama’s stooges working in Israel in frenzied efforts to keep Binyamin Netanyahu out of office after the coming Knesset election.
In the latest Arutz Sheva Israel news roundup, they quote Netanyahu as describing the campaign against his incumbency as an effort that would lead to Tzipi Livni, as part of a power-sharing arrangement with the Labor Party, as little more than an “infiltration” campaign that enable her to sneak into control of the prime minister’s office to her for two years.
He also said that Livni as national leader would be a danger to the State of Israel.
Now, BR, think carefully about all of this. Like the great Rav Meir Kahane, I believe firmly that words mean exactly what they say. I also know that it was primarily to get that dreadful woman out of the government that was a major factor in breaking up his last coalition. Moreover, she is not taken seriously anymore in Israeli politics.
So why do you insist that Netanyahu would cut a deal with her Labor Party backers that would put her into nothing less than the office of the prime minister of Israel? He may not like Bennett a hell of a lot, but you seem to have bought into the interpretation that he would find Tzipi Livni more fit to run the government of Israel than the leadership of HaBayit HaYehudi, which, at least, shares most of the principles for which HaLikud was founded back in the era of Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir.
It is open political war now between Binyamin Netanyahu and Barack Hussein Obama, who, from his shell as president of the United States, is emerging the first leader in the history of the United States who all but openly is serving up alibis for Islamic terrorism that is threatening not only the interests of the United States in the Middle East, but is openly announcing its intention of destroying Western civilization and enslaving the entire human race.
Netanyahu cannot retreat from the stances he has taken. The whole of America and the whole of Israel will be watching and listening to his address to the two houses of the Congress of the United States in just 12 more days. If he were to cancel his acceptance of that invitation, or if he were to mush-mouth or back-pedal from what he is expected to say, Obama will have destroyed him.
And if Obama succeeds in destroying or even weakening Netanyahu politically, it will also weaken the resolve of the new Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in what has become a growing apprehension that everything Netanyahu says about Iran and the hidden Obama-Kerry sellout to the crazed ayatollist leadership of that country.
All that is what is at stake here. So be careful what you say, and even more careful about what you think is true, but may not be so at all.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
ArnoldHarris Said:
In my view Bennett has no option but to seek a coalition with Netanyahu in order to be in government whereas BB has numerous options to the right or left. IMO BB seeks to be PM but also seeks to be in control of the coalition. I dont beleive that Bennett seeks to be ruling party anyway or even to be a PM. compare his ambition to Livni who has hardly any support in seats but might end up being a rotational PM for 2 years. I think that BB wants to be a big dog with smaller parties in his coalition. He needs votes to his right and left, he cannot afford to leave all the right for Bennett. I think its simply political strategy for position and no big pschoanlytical narrative or even ideological.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I thnk it has little to do with ideology but more to do with not wanting to rotate as PM or not be the single top dog. therefore, I would expect his desire to be to bring in a number of lesser parties rather than seek a power sharing situation. therefore less votes for Bennett and more for other prospective coalition parties would be his preference, IMO.
BB seeks to take the center and carry with him without effort the parties to his right. Last time Bennet threw him a curve ball which I assume BB has internalized this time around.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I don’t agree, its chock full of speculative psychobabble rather than a “political analysis”. It does not go into at all what BB’s “political goal” is in its current focus on taking votes from BY and the same for BY. My view is that the current behaviors appear more based political election tactics than some deep background psychoanalysis. Of much more relevance to this situation is whether BB is actually a rightist or does he campaign to siphon off right wing voters while wooing the left at the same time… to understand BB in terms of current politics one would need to know what his real goals are: his actual record shows that he makes announcements and takes credit and then does not implement the announcements AND his appointments of Livni and the behavior of Yaalon to settlements contradict a nationalist zionist platform. I thin that BB is a political strategist who seeks to have and eat his cake and will therefore be dishonest and opaque. In any case I dont see their personal background as relevant as their current political goals.
this is a piss poor analysis. Bennetts operational behavior in cabinet is not comparable to BB’s behavior as PM. BB rejected his own Levy commission report. BB’s has no interest in Israel retaining YS except as a security issue(jordan valley) whereas Bennett has clearly stated that he seeks to first annex C and deal with A&B later. To me that is a world of difference. BB announced E1 and after getting the political credit, shelved it. I think they have little in common politically and I find the psychobabble analysis and absence of competent political analysis in the article to be of no value to my knowledge of the “political” situation.
@ bernard ross:
BR:
My preferences are strictly focused on right-wing Jewish nationalism. But I have to agree with the logic of the political analysis that Levi and Segal have put together for HaAretz. Their summation, in my judgment, well explains Netanyahu’s sweet and sour political relationship with Bennett.
In any case, I want very much for Bennett to be prime minister of Israel in some near-future election. In order for him to accomplish that, he must assist Netanyahu in assembling a viable and stable right-center Knesset coalition, which would put HaBayit HaIvri into position to obtain one of the more important ministries of the next government.
I do not think a ruling coalition mating HaLikud with the Labor + Livni temporary construct would be either stable or logical from the point of view of Netanyahu himself, whose political history has been an all but endless battle against the left-centrists of Israel.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I am guessing the authors are leftists as the article gave little valuable info but appeared dead set on sowing seeds of dissension on the right. It appears that the lefts platform of presenting Obams policies as their own, with nothing added, is not working well enough. They hope to coast on the lefts loyalty to each other, even obama, and the hope that folks had enough of the right.
I got nothing from this article, only someones sour grapes.
a vote for the left is a vote for obama as PM of Israel
🙂