Between 1996 and 1999, during his first stint as Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu several times seemed not to be the rightist many thought he was; it turned out he was far more the pragmatist as he tried to forge a path through the Arab-Israel conflict.
Today, it seems that Mr Netanyahu may be influenced more by the left and Kadima than we imagine.
His recent behaviour illustrates his hearkening to the left: between September-December 2011 alone, he has used the left’s wording of ‘protecting our democracy’ to oppose legislation to bring Israel’s High Court closer to the professional standards of the US Supreme Court; he has allowed Leftists in the government and the military to coerce, arrest and displace religious nationalist Jews in a variety of incidents [but did not allow the youth rioters in an IDF base to be termed “terrorists”, ed]; and he has apparently taken the position that Likud rules for upcoming internal elections must change because current rules have allowed Judea and Samaria Likud numbers to swell sufficiently to tilt Likud further right. The PM doesn’t sem to like that. He prefers to limit rightist influence In Israel’s largest party just as that party—and the country—tilts further right.
Mr Netanyahu seems to think the left is important. Maybe he believes that a rightist approach to the Arab-Israel conflict will make Israel even more of a pariah. Does he believe that the left has helped Israel’s reputation?
Based on his behaviour, he seems disinterested in what Likud stands for. He seems to use Likud as a stage to attract Israel’s right-leaning majority to win the election. But once elected, he seems to do something else– and it appears that what he wants to do is more left of ‘centrist’ than ‘right’. Now he wants to protect that by changing Likud rules.
He flirts with the left because he has learned by bitter experience how to ‘kiss and dance’ without doing either. In fact, he has built a career with a strategy that has worked on both domestic and international stages: at home, he uses a ‘shift-to-win’ kiss, and he has won big with it. That’s how he won in 1996—by starting right, then moving left on Oslo; and it appears that is how he works today, glancing left as national elections (perhaps next year) draw closer.
On the international stage, he has morphed shift-to-win into a kind of boxer’s bob-and-weave, as he absorbs and then successfully dodges intense pressure from the EU, the US, and the UN. It worked well fighting UN recognition of the PA as a state. On both stages, he acts as if he does—but doesn’t.
This strategy reveals both his past strength and possibly, his future weakness: it reminds one of the man who has only one tool, a hammer; everything he sees looks like a nail.
The future, however, promises to be very different from the past. Mr Netanyahu’s singular tool—brilliant for yesterday’s realities– may no longer work because the world is changing.
Israel is moving to the right and the EU is in danger of economic collapse. Governments in Europe teeter. America fears an economic tsunami. Economic upheaval in the West could shuffle the deck of international diplomacy. Today’s leaders could topple.
If 2012 brings chaos to Europe, Israel could be pushed hard. Bob-and-weave in this caldron could be a mistake because past is never prologue to future when the future catches fire: yesterday’s success can be tomorrow’s disaster.
As the world changes, Mr Netanyahu’s flirtations with the left and Kadima grow hard to take. True, his Likud and national popularity is high today. But if this happens once too often, his popularity’s days might be numbered.
If Mr Netanyahu seeks to protect himself by locking out rightist Likudniks, then he may be in trouble because this country is turning right and bob-weave may not be worth saving because a chaotic world may not tolerate it.
If the West threatens to catch fire, this may be the time for Jewish leadership to stop dancing because when the West weakens, the Jewish nation may not be in position to survive.
Our survival may depend more on proclaiming our steadfastness to our religion and our heritage. That is certainly what our Torah tells us.
Our Torah also tells us about the requirements for Jewish leadership. If Europe darkens as radical Islam strengthens, Jewish leadership will need to be steadfast and strong. If all Mr Netanyahu can think about is pleasing the Left so he can appear better on the international stage, then 2012 may not be good for Israel. Mr Netanyahu needs to read our Torah. He also needs to re-evaluate his priorities.
Unlikely as this may sound, one way that Netanyahu can pre-empt European interference in Israel’s affairs, would be to concentrate on boosting Anglo-Israeli trade.
Given the recent display of Euro-scepticism, demonstrated by Cameron’s refusal to enter a new treaty designed to forlornly save the Euro, and the dire state of the British economy, such an overture would bear fruit also in the diplomatic arena.
With such a financial incentive, the British would be more inclined to rally other EU states to deter dispatching a European army to intercede in Israeli affairs, thereby obstructing such an unwelcome initiative.
As the European Union spirals into economic chaos, its elite become increasingly authoritarian, desperately tries to maintain their fantasy of a political union.
With Obama taking a back-seat during the election year, Israel needs to be be ready to thwart the ambitions of the European grandees, who will go to almost any lengths to shore up their pipe-dream, which is little less than the establishment of a fourth reich.
Being economically impotent, the EU is very likely to try and demonstrate its machismo with a diplomatic offensive against Israel, insisting that the Oslo process on life-support still has a chance of a recovery.
A probable Gaza operation, could spark a new intifada in the territories, which the EU would see as an invitation to send in “peace-observers” to protect the poor Palestinians.
This must be blocked by Netanyahu at all costs, otherwise we will shortly see Israeli troops confronting a European army.
The declaration by Netanyahu of his approval of a PA state, most probably means that it will take the future PM to quash this nightmare scenario, unless Bibi himself, can deftly and with full justification, put an end to any such folly.
Whilst transfer is deemed, in less than saintly quarters, a human rights offence, termed ethnic cleansing, the human rights of the Jewish state may make such cleansing feasible and essential in the not too distant future.
I wish Israel the best. We’ll see how Feiglin does in the party election. If he doesn’t make a good showing, perhaps he should leave Likud and try to work out a deal with National Union. I think Bibi will win, and Likud will become even more of an echo chamber than it is today. Of course, I would love to be wrong here.