Even when there is not a presidential election, the question posed every now again by legislators, journalists and members of the wider public is: Does Israel really need a president?
As someone who has met and written about every president from Ephraim Katzir onward, my answer is a definite yes, particularly because the position is apolitical.
So the next question is: Why then, have the overwhelming majority of Israel’s presidents been politicians before being elected by the Knesset?
The answer is simple. The president is apolitical in terms of favoring any particular party or parties, but is not apolitical when it comes to defending Israel’s interests in the world.
A perfect example in the current climate is the many conversations that President Reuven Rivlin has had with presidents of other countries in relation to the allegations against Israel of war crimes that have reached the International Criminal Court. It is important that leaders of other countries understand and agree with Israel’s right to defend itself against aggression. Rivlin has made public statements on this issue, spoken to other presidents on the phone or via Zoom, and has even made emergency trips abroad to present Israel’s case on a face-to-face basis.
On a local level, because he served as Knesset speaker, and before that on various Knesset committees and as a minister, he is familiar with many issues affecting different segments of Israeli society, and he also knows whom to call when problems need to be solved.
THE PRESIDENT is somehow regarded as the father of the nation in a way that the prime minister, regardless of which party he or she might represent, could not.
Most people need a parent figure of some kind, which is why Queen Elizabeth has remained so popular in Britain, and why organizations and institutions make every effort to have their milestone events celebrated at the President’s Residence, or at the very least have the president grace their functions.
To Jewish communities abroad, the president of Israel is the closest thing to royalty. An example was a large delegation from Australia that was led by a rabbi during the tenure of Shimon Peres. The rabbi recited the blessing said in the presence of kings, explaining that since Israel no longer has a monarch, the president is the next best thing.
When presidents of Israel travel abroad, the itinerary almost invariably includes a meeting with representatives of the Jewish community, or a mega event to which the Jewish world at large is invited. There are never any spare seats. The people want to see the president of Israel, to be photographed with him and to shake his hand.
I once quipped to Peres that even if he would charge a symbolic fee, he could make a lot of money for Israel from all the photos for which he agreed to pose.
It’s not only Jews to whom a president of Israel is important. When Chaim Herzog, the father of the new President-elect Isaac Herzog, visited Poland in May 1992, he met with members of the Association of Polish Righteous Gentiles. As people who had saved Jews, they were very keen to meet with a man who as an officer in the British Army had been among the liberators of Bergen-Belsen. The Polish rescuers wanted to meet a Jewish rescuer.
Six years earlier, Herzog had been the first president of Israel to visit what was then West Germany, and had insisted on going to Bergen-Belsen and reciting Yizkor, the memorial prayer for the dead, in order to heighten awareness of Holocaust history. When he was in Poland, he visited Auschwitz for the same reason, and unveiled a stone memorial from Jerusalem.
When the prime minister of Israel makes a statement about existential threats or antisemitism, it is taken in its political, partisan context, whereas when the president of the state speaks on the same subjects, it is accepted that he is speaking on behalf of the whole nation.
When something of great national importance needs to be said publicly abroad, it’s more often the president, and not the prime minister, who says it.
For instance, few people believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sincere when he talks about peace with the Palestinians, whereas Rivlin is believed, because from day one he has repeatedly said, both in Israel and abroad, that Israelis and Palestinians are not doomed to live together, but destined to live together. He also draws frequent attention to the fact that his father translated the Koran and other Islamic literature into Hebrew well before the establishment of the State of Israel, indicating that the Rivlin family had good relations with the Arab community, something that continues to this day. In fact, Rivlin from time to time telephones Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and vice versa, whereas Netanyahu would find it difficult to pursue such a relationship.
On the Christian front, with the help of the Government Press Office, Rivlin meets annually with a very large delegation of mostly Evangelical Christian broadcasters from around the globe, who individually and collectively enable him to convey Israel’s message to literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
The enthusiasm with which these broadcasters greet the president has to be seen to be believed, especially at a time when antisemitism is so prevalent in so many countries, including those that have good relations with Israel.
The president is a diplomat, arbiter, promoter of good causes, and involved on many levels with the army, the intelligence service, industry, education, LGBT rights, women’s rights, sports, people with special needs, civilian national service, Arab affairs, Diaspora relations and so much more, including many things to which the prime minister cannot devote time and attention, but which often need to penetrate public consciousness.
Last week, when the Foreign Ministry hosted a farewell for Rivlin, he was hailed as president-diplomat. That, in a sense, said it all.
Isaac Herzog has experience in all of the above and more, and is therefore the right man at the right time.