Just take a look at the last week. On Monday, Religious Zionist MK Itamar Ben-Gvir took to the Knesset podium and refused to refer to Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi, who was running the session, by the title “Mr. Chairman,” as MKs have traditionally begun their remarks.
When Tibi ordered him to do so, Ben-Gvir refused and called Tibi a terrorist. When Tibi called on Knesset ushers to remove Ben-Gvir from the podium, the MK, who is not exactly small, put up a fight, holding on to the sides of the podium for dear life.
The next day, Shas MK Moshe Abutbul called Labor leader Merav Michaeli a “beginner woman” who made a mistake bringing that “Reform guy” into the Knesset referring to MK Gilad Kariv, a Reform rabbi, who later that day saw the entire Shas Party get up and walk out of the plenum when he took to the Knesset podium.
If that wasn’t enough, UTJ MK Moshe Gafni called Prime Minister Naftali Bennett a “murderer,” and then MK Ya'acov Litzman yelled at Kariv to “shut up,” who in turn called the haredi parliamentarian a “disgrace” and “defender of pedophiles.”
Beautiful, right? Exactly what the Jewish people dreamed of some 2,000 years ago.
Unfortunately, while this government might call itself the “change government,” not much has really changed. True, Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer prime minister, but the rhetoric we hear coming out of Israel’s parliament is an embarrassment. Something bad is happening there on those endless nights of votes and filibusters.
Who is to blame? Everyone it seems. Coalition and opposition. The opposition is doing everything it can to scuttle legislation brought by the coalition, and the coalition is refusing to give spots on committees to members of the opposition. The atmosphere is charged, tense and unhealthy. It is setting a bad example for what the political process is meant to look like.
Then there is the government’s swelling size. If reporters used to have to learn 120 names of MKs and ministers, nowadays they need to learn 140. This is because 20 new MKs have been sworn into the Knesset under the expanded Norwegian Law, which allows ministers to resign from parliament to make room for someone else on their list.
Does anyone remember last year when Bennett said that he would not join the “oversized and disconnected government” led by Netanyahu, or when Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said that an “oversized government is corrupt”? How does all that exactly fit in with an expanded Norwegian Law, or the decision this week to appoint Eli Avidar a minister without portfolio?
A renegade MK who broke off from Yisrael Beytenu after party leader Avigdor Liberman refused to make him a minister, Avidar was viewed in the fragile coalition as a loose cannon who needed to be handled. The solution? Give him a ministry now without a portfolio, with a promise that he will become intelligence minister if the current intelligence minister, Elazar Stern, is appointed chairman of the Jewish Agency in October.
Complicated? Not really. Just another case of a successful political blackmail.
A word about the Intelligence Ministry: it was established in 2009 by Netanyahu after his return to power in order to find a suitable role for Dan Meridor, the veteran Likud minister who had returned to government after a long hiatus.
One of the leading judicial and defense experts in the country, Meridor was the right person to become Intelligence minister. He was a member of the security cabinet, and played an influential role when it came to Israeli policy vis a vis Iran and other nuclear-related issues.
Since then, the ministry has not lived up to its potential. Unlike the US, where the director of National Intelligence is a cabinet-level role backed by legislation that provides authority over America’s intelligence agencies, in Israel it’s different. The intelligence minister has no real authority, and cannot give instructions to any of Israel’s intelligence agencies.
Military Intelligence remains subordinate to the defense minister, while the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the Mossad remain under the prime minister. The last Intelligence minister – Eli Cohen from the Likud – was not even a member of the security cabinet. Stern is also not and Avidar won’t be as well, which begs the question: how can you be intelligence minister if you aren’t participating in the meetings where the most important intelligence is being discussed?
Bennett will explain that all of this is needed to ensure that the coalition survives. An expanded Norwegian Law was needed so ministers would not have to spend endless nights in the Knesset dealing with filibusters, and the appeasement of renegade MKs like Avidar was needed to ensure that the coalition passes a state budget when it brings it for a vote in the coming weeks.
Failure to do so, he would stress, would mean a new election and the possible return of Netanyahu.
That all makes sense, and even has some validity. The government needs to function, and it can’t get done what it wants to get done if it is stuck in the Knesset or unable to pass a budget. At the same time, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that the removal of Netanyahu from power is suddenly going to change the political culture of Israel.
All of these moves used to be what members of the current coalition fought against. When Netanyahu did them they were bad, but now suddenly they are okay?
The question comes down to alternatives: if this is what it takes to keep the coalition stable, then maybe there is no choice. On the other hand, for change to be real, it needs to be felt. So far, this looks more like the same old politics of yesteryear.
✶ ✶ ✶
Over the last few years, I have written a number of columns about the way the Israeli government runs public diplomacy and manages media affairs. It is an issue that has troubled me for a long time, particularly how it often seems like Israel does not appreciate the way its actions play out in the international media, and the subsequent impact on political and diplomatic efforts.
One recent example took place in May during Israel’s anti-Hamas operation in Gaza City, when the Air Force bombed the al-Jalaa tower, a 12-story office building that was home to the bureaus of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera.
No one in the IDF bothered to think about the consequences bombing a building with media offices would have on the operation, and how the airstrike would become a turning point in the public and diplomatic support Israel was receiving at the time from countries like the United States and Canada.
This week, I had the opportunity to sit down and chat with Irwin Cotler, Canada’s former justice minister, attorney general, parliament member, and the country’s newly appointed special envoy to combat antisemitism.
Cotler brought to my attention the existence of the Media Freedom Coalition, a group of countries that gathered in 2019 to advocate for media freedom and safety of journalists. So far, 49 countries have signed the pledge, and many have participated in the two international gatherings that have taken place to discuss the pressing issue. The countries include the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, lots of Europe, as well as parts of Asia, Africa and South America.
Israel? Not only has it not signed the pledge, it also has not participated in any of the gatherings. Why? There is no clear answer. The only possibility that comes to mind is that media freedom and safety of journalists are simply not important enough issues in which to invest time for a country that basically lives from one tactical move to the other.
Obviously, preserving journalists’ rights and freedoms should be a priority for any country that strives, like Israel, to be a democracy. Signing the pledge and making it a national priority might have also helped avoid the fallout from the bombing of the al-Jalaa tower in Gaza. If Israel had participated in the gatherings, maybe something would have trickled down to the military and forced officers there to think twice before approving the bombing of the Associated Press’s offices in the Gaza Strip.
Signing the pledge is not enough. What is really needed is for officers and government officials to think a few steps ahead about how Israel’s actions and statements will play out, not only in the media but also among foreign diplomats. The refusal to sign the pledge though is striking. Israel needs to do better.