Jewish Home fighting for Justice Ministry, betting on PM’s desperation one day before government-forming deadline
BY HAVIV RETTIG GUR AND TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF
With just a day and a half left before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must tell President Reuven Rivlin whether he’s succeeded in forming a coalition, negotiations with the last would-be coalition partner have turned ugly.
Netanyahu has made the Jewish Home party an offer he believes it will be hard for party leader Naftali Bennett to decline: the ministries of education and Diaspora for Bennett, agriculture for Uri Ariel and culture and sports for Ayelet Shaked – three ministers from an eight-seat party – and the posts of deputy defense minister and the chairmanship of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.
However, Bennett seems primed to play hardball and leverage his position as the final piece Netanyahu needs to form a government, demanding the Justice Ministry for Shaked apparently in lieu of the Culture and Sports Ministry.
On Monday night, Jewish Home’s leadership held an emergency meeting in which the party voted to give Bennett the authority to seal a coalition deal with Likud.
The move empowers Bennett to resist Likud’s pressure, possibly taking his party into the opposition, but also to sign a coalition deal and enter the 34th government.
Netanyahu’s offer Monday night targeted Bennett and other top Jewish Home lawmakers, but also aimed at the nationalist party’s constituents in West Bank settlements and in the national-religious education system.
Under the terms of the offer, Bennett himself will be a member of the inner security cabinet; Uri Ariel will control the Settlement Division, an agency currently under the Prime Minister’s Office that is responsible for planning and building in West Bank settlements; and the deputy defense minister will control the IDF’s civil administration that administers civilian life in the West Bank.
The nationalist-religious settler movement would effectively gain control of all the institutions that affect its public life. All but one: the state rabbinic institutions under the purview of the Religious Affairs Ministry, which was handed to Shas.
So far, Bennett seems to have weathered any pressure from his own camp and is continuing to aim for the Justice Ministry. The party has set as one of its top goals in the new Knesset the passage of bills that would empower the Knesset to overturn High Court of Justice rulings. That agenda makes the ministry and Knesset Law Committee especially desirable for Bennett.
But Netanyahu has a long history of resisting right-wing efforts at weakening the court, and is likely to fight to keep the Justice Ministry in Likud’s hands. The move could also endanger the already-sealed deal with Shas, as a Jewish Home justice minister would gain a powerful foothold in the committee that appoints religious court judges — a key battleground between the ultra-Orthodox and national-religious camps.
The battle lines are drawn, but time is running out. If Bennett and Netanyahu don’t reach an agreement by Wednesday at midnight, three scenarios are possible: Rivlin may well give Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog a chance to form a left-led coalition; Netanyahu and Herzog could try to put together a unity coalition, an easy prospect mathematically given the parties’ sizes, but a difficult prospect politically; or Rivlin could call new elections, just weeks after the previous ballot.
Likud has not been sparing with its criticism of Bennett over the current crisis.
“The responsibility for [the establishment] of a nationalist government is on Bennett’s shoulders,” Likud coalition negotiator David Shimron said Tuesday. “He got very generous offers.”
Jewish Home has refused to respond to the criticism. Indeed, Bennett has kept almost entirely silent in recent days.
Likud formally signed its agreement with Shas on Monday night, giving the ultra-Orthodox party the Economy Ministry, the Ministry for the Development of the Negev and Galilee, the post of deputy finance minister and the chairmanship of the Knesset Education Committee.
The ruling faction signed coalition deals with Kulanu and United Torah Judaism last week.
With the addition of Shas’s seven seats, Netanyahu now has 53 seats in his coalition. The expected addition of the eight-MK Jewish Home party will give him the 61 mandates needed for a majority in the 120-seat Knesset, albeit a razor-thin one.
Upon signing the deal, Shas leader Aryeh Deri urged Netanyahu to expand the coalition beyond the unstable 61 MKs, and appealed to the Zionist Union’s Isaac Herzog to join the nascent coalition.
Earlier Monday, Yisrael Beytenu head Avigdor Liberman announced he would sit in the opposition rather that serve in a government that he called “opportunistic” and not “nationalistic.”
“We have come to a unanimous decision that it would not be right for us to join the coalition,” said Liberman, who also said he would resign as foreign minister. “We chose our principles over cabinet seats.”
Liberman said that the prime minister’s Likud party made concessions in coalition agreements with other parties that Yisrael Beytenu could not accept.
“The Jewish-state bill was so important in the last Knesset – suddenly no one is talking about it,” he said, referring to the controversial legislation proposed last year that would enshrine Israel as a Jewish state.
Liberman further charged that Netanyahu was weak on terrorism, and charged that the future government “had no intention of uprooting Hamas in Gaza.”
The comments echoed ones made by Liberman over the summer that exposed a rift between him and Netanyahu. The two ran together under a joint list in the 2013 election.
Liberman also lamented that the future government would likely not permit the building of new homes in the major settlement blocs.
In recent weeks, Liberman has criticized Netanyahu’s concessions to ultra-Orthodox parties on the issues of conversion and recruitment to the IDF. Under the deal with UTJ, several major reforms drafted by the previous government aimed at integrating the ultra-Orthodox community into Israeli society will be frozen, including aspects of legislation to phase Haredim into mandatory military or national service. Reforms easing conversion processes will also be rolled back.
Both issues are important to the electorate of Yisrael Beytenu, which is largely composed of immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
ArnoldHarris Said:
@ Arnold
Yes, we largely agree on Israel’s foreign relations strategy that, like investments, benefits from diversification.
There is no “American gun culture”, because the ‘right’ to keep and bear arms is law, not a cultural trait.
I don’t know how you define ‘pleasure’ but I would challenge anyone to describe firing firearm as a form of pleasure unless there are serious mental issues with the individual.
The increasing frequency of the need to use firearms for self-defence is caused by…the prolifiration of firearms in the United States society from consistently NOT interpreting the law.
Before Ted closes this down for straying off topic and off the general intent of his forum, let me say that EVERY Israeli would agree with me after hearing the explanation. This is because, although on any given day one will see in Israel any number of people walking around with military assault rifles, some of these people being in their 18-24 age braket, and Israel is essentially a society in a perpetual state of war, the instances of firearm use against civilians or in crimes is not any greater than in any other society where profligate private use of firearms is not allowed.
And this is important for our discussions in Israpundit because Israel here is evaluate not just in terms of reported news, but necessarily by English-speakers who often come from the United States. There is therefore a cultural bias to interpreting anything and everything in Israel. Is this cultural bias not coloured by the ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’ United States citizens have come to expect and usually unconsciously project on Israeli society as ‘positive’? For example you would argue the right to spersonal self-defence can be projected to Israel as a nation defending its land the wy you would defend your property against intruders.
However, few are aware that the Jewish culture has laws for conduct of war. These laws identify not only defencive wars, but offensive also. They present Israel as desiring to live in an international environment that does not require standing armies, and indeed no standing army is warranted in Jewish culture. BUT, it does provide for the eventuality of a pre-emptive military action when threatened.
Let me translate this into the “American gun culture” context. If I own a firearm, and I see somone who also owns a firearm, and that person SAYS to me “I’m going to kill you” or so much as raises his fist at me, I have the right to blow his brains out without any further warning.
What does this law do for Israel? It prevents people from even HAVING aggressive thoughts towards others in society. This is because actions start as thoughts. It deals with the root cause of violence, and not the band aid of allowing everyone to be armed…illegaly.
So what would Israel look like if it ennunciated to the World that it is going to apply its cultural laws on violence to the international arena?
Now think about the doublespeak of the other nations.
Great Britian used to have a War MInistry, now renamed Ministry of Defence. Its latest procurement is a USN-sized aircraft carrier, assuredly the most offensive weapon platform in the World short of nuclear weapons, which it also has. The United States Department of Defense of course has 13 of these while utterly failing to defend its borders. Russia is being blamed for returning to a very offensive-minded strategy, but it too has a Ministry of Defence.
The United States Government, but ‘covert’ means, tried to influence the last political election in Israel – friendly or not?
Need I mention some of Israel’s neighbours like Saudi Arabia that has more military hardware than personnel to use it, or Egypt that has been at war with every one of its neighbours since the Second World War, or Syria where its society, permiated by the ‘religion of peace’, is tearing itself appart?
So the question is – should Israel in any way use as a model the US ‘democratic’ society? There is a Russian saying, “tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are”
For this reason there is another concept in Jewish culture – remaining a stranger among the nations…until a time comes when the World is ready for a better future
@ mrg3105:
I am not certain I ever before have responded directly to any of your comments. You write calmly, thoughtfully, knowledgeably, and your comments show evidence of substantive grounding in world history. If you have read my comments on the topic, you must know that I favor much stronger Israeli relations with both Russia and China for purposes of balancing the unsteady relationship that the Jewish state has long had with the USA and with Western Europe. I think you largely agree with my assumption on that point.
I cannot say I favor your opinion regarding the constitutional basis of the rights of citizens of this country to keep and bear arms. But one either is or is not a member of the American gun culture. I am, you are not. Thus, I cannot argue with you regarding the merits, sometime the necessities, and often the pleasures of firearms and their usages in outdoor sports, and with increasing frequency, the need for armed self-defense.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@BK, if I may add a bit more…
How societies respond to different stimuli is not much different to individuals.
For this reason how lawyers, plumbers and combat infantry get their training requires entirely different training methods. The operative word here is – stress.
Look at how people, often ordinarily perfectly reasonable ‘nice’ people respond to high levels of stress, and you will understand the dynamics of national politics in most societies.
So what happened with Stalin, and Russian in general?
The Russian society had been in a continuous state of war since the invasion, and occupation, by Mongols in the late Middle Age. War = societal stress.
Under stress most people are not good at learning, or producing, or worrying about freedoms and rights…they just want the stress to stop.
Under Stalin stress stopped…at least temporarily until there was a realisation that the USSR may be in for stress of war being replaced with annihilation; not even the Manhattan Project scientists realised until 1953 the true nature of effects of nuclear warhead detonation.
And then there is the rather narrow definition of ‘war’ most people use as military conflict. War is in fact the resolution of other conflicts by force of arms, economic, socio-political, cultural and environmental.
Putin, and for that matter most of the Russian Federation population, today see Russia as being in an economic conflict, and it may require military force to end it.
Israel is an ‘insider’ on the ‘outside’ in this conflict. Israeli culture of innovation substantially contributes to the US and lesser degree European economic momentum though the ‘engine’ of the US economy is I think quite faulty and has been self-destructing for some time. On the other hand Russia is trying to rebuild its economy, a continuity that began with Andropov, a Jew by birth apparently.
And then there is the issue of the US society which is increasingly being realised to be failing as a cohesive construct.
I think Israel should choose strategically, and the lesser of risks, and it seems to me this choice should be Russia.
Bear Klein Said:
The democratic settling of disputes is to create a political sub-culture which vettes those that are permitted to ‘lead’ as long as they follow the party line, which is often directed by those that sponsor the party election campaigns. Effectively it does “throw people out of buildings, running them over with cars or poisoning” because they are eliminated from the leadership roles in society.
I think you need to brush up on geography. Moscow can get as hot as Florida in Summer.
Democracy, even in its Ancient Greek city state execution, was never a perfect political system in the least. It wasn’t anywhere perfect at the time of the establishment of the Union of the former British colonies in North America, as can be witnessed from comments by delegates at the first Congress.
The problem is better described when looking at the evolution of the public education system in Europe and North America. From the Greek model of unquestioning repetition of material verbatum with knowledge testing set to apply uniformly to all class participants it has progressed and is still evolving to a system where there is recognition that different children learn differently, and there is a gender difference also. Moreover, most of the 19th century subjects have dissapeared from the carricula or have changed substantially.
Indeed, the ‘democracy’ of today in United States would be unrecognised by the Ancient Athenians.
Ergo, every nation, and even sub-social groups within nations, require different forms of political representation and models of leadership, all of which are good if appropriate and produce desired results…a stable, wealth-generating, accepted, efficent and effective governance.
This simple concept is not understood in the USA where there is a belif that its model is the right one for every World’s society and culture…a very Ancient Greek idea that failed almost from inception. Subsequently NO other nation had adopted the US model of democracy, and indeed many argue that the US model is increasingly becoming unstable and is not serving the purpose for which it was designed, good governance.
Does the USA have a successful economy? It does not.
Does the USA offer ‘freedoms’, it depends on the interpretation. For example the freedom of speech that most equate to one of the fundamental freedoms, is today virtually nullified by the political correctness prevelant in the US society. On the other hand the freedom to carry arms and defend oneself, never intended by the Constitution, has led to a casualty toll of 30,000 annually. I think I would prefer to live in a society with a system that selectively “throws people out of buildings, running them over with cars or poisoning” based on their failure to realise where the political power centres are and how to not make them angry, than random acts of violence against children and casual pedestrians.
@ ArnoldHarris:
Sounds like in scheme of things Wisconsin for as a Jewish American is a decent life. Certainly could be worse I would think.
@ Bear Klein:
Good question, all things considered. Here’s why I never moved to mother Russia.
1) My ancestry was Russian and Jewish. But I was born and raised to be American and Jewish. I have served the United States armed forces, and I am loyal to both the Jewish nation and the United States of America. But not at all in regard to some of the bullshit people spout about the ways Americans and Jews ought to think in regard to ourselves and the rest of the world.
2) I don’t read or speak a word of Russian, and I would be even more dependent on my wife, who not only can read and write in the Cyrillic alphabet used by the Russians, Ukraintsi, Byelorus, and Serbs, but can also make her way in many of the Slavic languages. Among other things, Stefi is an expert in historical linguistics, and spends much of her time these days studying Sanskrit alphabetics.
3) My wife and I, along with of our sons, live on a nice, wooded rural property whose mortgage was fully paid down almost 23 years ago. I couldn’t duplicate anything like that anywhere else with our present family assets. And as long as I pay the annual property taxes, nobody can run me off my own land. And inasmuch as this is rural Wisconsin, I can buy and keep all the guns I want, and of whatever types, so long as I stay within the law.
4) In addition to our social security and State of Wisconsin retirement pensions, we own and operate a small specialized data processing business whose customer base is strictly American. I couldn’t earn a living that way anywhere else.
5) Both of us think this country will shuck liberalism, tighten up social control, rebuild the traditional American economy, send out police death squads to eliminate the narcotics dealers, and, hopefully, use the US military to guard the land borders and kill anybody who tries crossing that border illegally. That’s exactly the kind of regime we want here. Basically what we both want are sets of rules that everybody can fully understand and within which folks here can raise our families and live our lives productively, honestly, and usefully. If all that happens, maybe — just maybe — this country will develop a system of governance a lot more like those of Russia and China.
6) So we would not be able to move to a place such as Russia, but we surely can visit it one day, before we get too old, and enjoy that 8-day train ride from Moscow to Vladivostok, stopping off to see Lake Baikal along the way.
You understand me any better now, BK?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ bernard ross: Israel in coalition agreements (in broad strokes or outlines more or less)determine what legislation they intend to pass in the future in the Knesset. UTJ and Shas have deals where the coalition is intended to roll back jailing of Haredi draft dodgers for example. How far that goes depends on what is written precisely later for the Knesset. The conversion process was made more friendly (local rabbis could provide conversion services). This is a very big deal to some of Lieberman’s voters. The Haredim are trying to stop this process and reverse it.
Yes Lieberman if he signs up to the coalition is signing up to the agreements made with other parties, unless he can get can a written out in his coalition agreement (usually something like his party can vote their conscience on a particular subject and not be stuck with coalition discipline)with the Likud but that could proove tricky because it could blow the deal with the other parties.
Unlike in the USA where party platforms are mostly for party marketing the coalition agreements is supposed to be the actual basis the government will function on and that is why all the messy political drama before the government is even formed. Never mind the egos of those trying get power as Ministers or Committee heads.
Bear Klein Said:
can likud and the religious alone roll back prior enactments?
what is the effect of Benetts ministries and postion on the same subjects: is he with or against Liberman on those platforms and how will BY ministries facilitate or obstruct liberman.
Do likuds commitments to shas and UTJ bind BY and liberman to the same commitments? Does bringing a change in law by likud, utj and shas require BY and liberman to vote with them?
I do not know enough of the GOI structure to conclude how it would actually work. as for credibility, when needed, politicians always find a way to walk themselves back. If that were the case liberman would probably ascribe a change of mind to the developments with BY and the coalition and to new understandings, etc.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I understand your frustration and see your desire for a simple order. However, i also see that the odd system of israel has resulted in many decades of enormous success, as a collective, in the face of enormous odds: militarily, economically, ethically,etc. Therefore, I must wonder if perhaps they are also pioneers in the effectiveness of the democratic process in government. 🙂
ArnoldHarris Said:
would you like to live under a Stalin, or would you like the Jews of Israel to live under a Stalin? with all the problems of a democracy it appears to me to be still a more “effective” means of governance than a stalin/putin type government. In what ways do you find stalin/putin governance more effective, or better, than a democratic form( economic, defense, happiness, life style, freedom, liberty,….)?
Russia has been so long under some form of Czarism it is almost impossible to know the long term effectiveness of democracy in russia.
@ bernard ross: You and I would prefer Lieberman but I believe at this point that is not feasible.
Lieberman backed out of the coalition for two points I believe. One to his voters he would have looked stupid because accept for the Foreign Ministers job he lost out on the reforms in conversion, Haredi sharing of the burden and no one is willing to put squashing Hamas on the principle of the coalition. He would lose all future credibility if had joined under these circumstances. He would have looked like a political whore (almost like Livni on the right)
Point two equally as important he wanted to stick to Bibi and he did this by passing on being part of the coalition in the 89th minute (soccer metaphor). Bibi will be extremely pissed about this. Since Gaza operation they do not really get along at all.
@ ArnoldHarris: Yeah democracy is combat without bullets at times and messy and certainly not always efficient.
Certainly throwing people out of buildings, running them over with cars or poisoning is a far more effective way of settling disputes. However as your beloved Russian has never had a successful economy and freedom is only for those how have the power most of the western world has chosen democracy with all its flaws.
Arnold how come you have never moved to mother Russia. The cold should not bother you as Wisconsin has similar weather to lots of Russia? It must be the Packers and Wisconsin cheddar or in actuality is it the freedom of choice and to be left alone and create an independent life actuality does matter over the simplistic longing for a more efficient political power process with less arguing and more clear violence or threat of it to settle disputes and the power structure?
@ bernard ross:
Apparently it isn’t over until it’s over, BR. I understand from this morning’s Arutz-Sheva that Bennett’s Tekuma faction has no problem with Sheked per se, but they feel they are entitled to nominate a candidate, according to whatever foolish agreement Bennett made with them to get them aboard and keep them there.
As I have written here recently, nothing seems more pathetic and self-defeating than getting a bunch of ideologically passionate Jews to stop squabbling for individual power but instead to cooperate for a common purpose of politics and/or governance.
Now, more than ever, I think democracy merely invites he self-destruction of any nation or commonwealth that seriously attempts dependence upon its principles.
Scold me if you wish for saying so, but I think Stalin’s methods of governance, in putting down Lenin’s Bolshevik Politburo, and Putin’s far less grim but obviously effective methods of consolidating power in modern Russia, are the only effective means of governance of countries such as Russia, and — apparently — Israel.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Bear Klein Said:
OR he might keep it in reserve for Liberman to rejoin…. OR anyone else to join. Perhaps with Shaked in Justice Liberman can rejoin claiming a better environment for his “principles”.
ArnoldHarris Said:
this is almost as funny as the left naming themselves the “zionist Union” [George Orwell would be proud to see his visions of “doublespeak” in action]
If this is true this great for those wanting the lefts control of the court weakend.
It is not clear if Bayit HaYehudi will also get a second seat in the security cabinet.
Rumor has it Bennet tried to get a clause in the agreement that the Zionist Union could not join the coalition but was unsuccessful. My guess is that after the Labor primaries depending on what happens in Labor, Bibi will see if they want to join the coalition to make it more secure. If he keeps the foreign ministry position for himself this will be an indication that this is true.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I think this is a credible proposal given in Israeli politics tomorrow can be very different from today and any number of people may be required to vacate their ministerial portfolios.
But, what causes Natanyahu to not see eye-to-eye with Lieberman? Surely something changed from last year, but what? There was a lapse in reporting while Lieberman stood down for investigation, and I hadn’t seen anything much that would have caused an OBVIOUS change of the collective Likud mind on any of the issues YB holds as policy principles.
Latest reports on Arutz Sheva are that Netanyahu has agreed to appoint Ayelet Shaked as justice minister. If so, unless I am mistaken, that was Bennett’s last make-it or break-it demand before agreeing to join what will now be a 61-seat coalition. Whether or not Liberman and his six Knesset can be talked into rejoining the planned coalition remains to be seen. The leftists already our howling in outrage over Shaked serving as justice minister. But as far as I am concerned, she has the right idea of how to conduct wars that someone else makes against the Jewish nation.
Certainly Netanyahu has no more cabinet posts to award any party at all. But he could agree to provide Liberman a seat in the inner security cabinet even if he will not have a ministry. On the other hand, Netanyahu himself as prime minister could also temporarily take on the foreign ministry post in expectations of giving that position to Liberman if he can quietly negotiate him back aboard; 67 seats always constitutes a more secure coaltion than 61 seats.
I sincerely hope all this works out. For the Jewish nation, and for the Jewish state.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
There is a chance Bennet and Bibi will find a compromise bridging proposal that will allow both to come out appearing to have won. To me, it is a no brainier. They will come to an agreement and this odd coalition will come in. It would be nice if Lieberman could join as well. 61 is too narrow to survive the ordinary jostling of day to day politics in Israel, especially these next 2 years.
I predict that at some point the new Knesset kid on the block will be none other that Nitsana Darshan Leitner.
@ ArnoldHarris:
Prefacing that nothing would surprise me concerning Israeli politics, I consider that result highly unlikely as Bibi took the risky venture of calling early elections because he was hamstrung by the Left. So I don’t see why he would want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
As for staying loyal to a government of incompetents consumed by personal power, well doesn’t that pretty much describe most Israeli governments in the last few decades of whatever strip? Civil war may prove to be inevitable – G-d forbid!
@ Yidvocate:
I wonder what your comment will be if Netanyahu simply gives up arguing with Bennett, goes back to Rivlin, asks him to help put together a national coalition to include Herzog+Livni, and Lapid. All of which would result in the end of Jewish Shomron and Yehuda, and Hussein Obama becoming de-facto high commissioner of Israel-Palestine.
And just how long do you think the ordinary Jews of Israel will stay loyal to any government operated by incompetents whose actions are generated mostly for raw pursuit of personal power? I wouldn’t be surprised if civil war develops, exactly as it did during the Judean wars of the Roman Empire.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
All things considered, the powers described gives Bennett and his party major powers affecting the right of the Jewish nation to settle in Area C, which comprises about 62 per cent of all the land area of Shomron and Yehuda. Considering that Beit HaYehudi is now a relatively small party in terms of Knesset seats, such powers ought to be considered as fully sufficient.
I think also that nothing beyond that will be granted by Netanyahu. So it is up to Naftali Bennett alone whether Israel will be governed by a right-wing and centrist coalition, or if Israel will be governed by a left-wing coalition probably backed by the 13 Knesset members of the united Arab coalition. If he pushes beyond what his relatively small party deserves, Mr Bennett could wind up as single-handedly responsible for the permanent destruction of Jewish Shomron and Yehuda. If so, then he had better stop and think very carefully before all this gets too close to Rivlin’s presidential deadline.
And that is probably the bottom line that could result from all these last minute power posturings and other political shenanigans.
I would like to comment further, that if this government is broken up even before it can be established in time to do something of major importance for the Jewish nation, the world will say — and with some degree of justification — that Jews, when they attain power, are less than temperamentally conditioned to govern themselves, because they lack the capability of compromising for a common set of nationally significant and even critically important objectives.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Nice to see Bennett giving Bibi the squeeze for a change!