1Netanyahuha bisogno di qualcosa di grande politicamente o militarmente , al fine di essere rieletto nel 2017.
Nel
corso degli ultimi anni è riuscito a mantenere Israele
fuori dal calderone ribollente del Medio Oriente. In questi giorni egli pone , da un lato , l'accento sul fatto che Israele non ha alcuna responsabilità nella guerra civile in Siria , mentre, dall'altro , sottolinea minacciosamente che un eventuale attacco non sarà indolore per chi lo attua
Fin dall'inizio ha ordinato i ministri di stare zitti , grazie al cielo . Lui e il ministro della Difesa Moshe Ya'alon sono gli unici portavoce della posizione israeliana . I due stanno trasmettendo sulla stessa lunghezza d'onda per quanto è noto . Yaron appartiene al campo dei ministri moderati . Si
oppose a un attacco di terra contro Gaza e,
secondo vari rapporti , bloccò un'operazione contro l'Iran in due
occasioni , insieme a : Dan Meridor , Benny Begin e Eli Yishai . In
assenza di questi Netanyahu e Yaron stanno
giocando il ruolo degli adulti responsabili ed esperti nel governo
attuale .Il
gabinetto di sicurezza viene convocato con frequenza , ma la
gestione giorno per giorno, è nelle mani di Bibi & Bogie .
I
membri della stretta cerchia di Netanyahu hanno chiarito questa settimana
che lui non ha intenzione di agire come il primo ministro
Yitzhak Shamir nella prima guerra del Golfo . Più di 40 missili furono lanciati contro Israele nel 1991 con nessuna risposta da parte della IDF . Nelle dichiarazioni pubbliche Netanyahu avverte che Israele agirà non solo in caso di attacco, ma anche con azioni preventive , se
l'intelligenza rileverà l'intenzione di sparare missili
. Netanyahu
sta dicendo ai leader stranieri con cui parla che l'uso delle armi chimiche di Bashar Assad dimostra che gli iraniani
non esiterebbero a lanciare un missile nucleare in futuro . Così liberarsi di Assad indebolirebbe l'Iran e distruggerebbe l'asse siro -iraniano . Un modo per farlo consiste nel bloccare il contrabbando di armi agli Hezbollah in Libano attraverso la Siria .La
comunità internazionale potrebbe ritenere legittimo rovesciare il
tiranno che ha ucciso centinaia di bambini con armi chimiche . Certamente
nessuno sarà in grado di dare la colpa a Israele , se viene attaccato e
manda i suoi aerei a bombardare il palazzo presidenziale di
Damasco . Dal
punto di vista di Netanyahu la cacciata di Assad potrebbe spingere
gli Stati Uniti ad affrontare l'Iran .
L'ipotesi prevalente nel mondo
politico è che Netanyahu avrà bisogno di " qualcosa di grosso " sia nella sfera diplomatica che in quello della sicurezza , al fine di
essere rieletto nel 2017 . Fino
ad ora , le opzioni per " qualcosa di grosso " sono state limitate a un non raggiungimento di accordi con i palestinesi o a ipotesi di un'operazione contro
gli impianti nucleari iraniani . Ora, però , si profila un'altra alternativa .
2 Crisi nell'alleanza
Il
segreto meglio custodito nei corridoi della coalizione è il litigio tra Yair Lapid e
Naftali Bennett , ciò sta gettando un'ombra
profonda sulla loro alleanza .Uno
degli obiettivi del ministro delle Finanze Lapid per la liquidazionedel bilancio 2013-2014 è stata il taglio della spesa per la yeshiva ,ma anche i sionisti religiosi hanno la yeshiva e sono rappresentati nella coalizione di Habayit
Hayehudi .Nel corso delle deliberazioni di bilancio Lapid ha assicurato Bennett
le istituzioni del movimento religioso - sionista avrebbero ottenuto un trattamento di favore,ma dopo l'approvazione del bilancio ciò non è avvenuto . Bennett è andato da Lapid e ha chiesto altre NIS 150 milioni di dollari per le sue yeshiva . Lapid ha rifiutato.
Bennett si è arrabbiato l' alleato fraterno stava minando il suo potere nel collegio elettorale .Martedì
scorso , il rabbino Elyakim Levanon , il rabbino dell'insediamento di
Elon Moreh e uno dei leader del movimento religioso - sionista , è stato
intervistato da Arutz Sheva . Ha
scatenato un attacco di inaudita ferocia contro Habayit Hayehudi : " Non è più lo stesso partito che abbiamo costruito e votato. La nostra sensazione è che abbiamo fatto un errore ! E
'stato sbagliato annullare il legame con gli Haredim ".
Allegato
Poll: Labor, Meretz strengthen at Yesh Atid’s expense
Analysis ||
Is Assad's downfall what Netanyahu needs to win the next Israeli election?
Since the last election, the common assumption
has been that Netanyahu needs 'something big' this term, be it political
or military, in order to get reelected again in 2017.Benjamin Netanyahu had wanted to spend this week at his
home in Caesarea, apart from short forays to a kindergarten on the first
day of the school year or to a cabinet meeting, which is also a type of
kindergarten. But he had to give up his deck chair by the pool in favor
of his office in Tel Aviv, the quality time with Sara and the boys was
replaced by meetings with the army’s top brass, and he put aside the
biographies he likes to read in favor of frequent intelligence reports.
Over
the past few years, Netanyahu has succeeded in keeping Israel out of
the boiling cauldron of the seething Middle East. He was able to wrap up
Operation Pillar of Defense in Gaza, which he was forced to launch on
the eve of the last election, without dragging the Israel Defense Forces
into a pointless round of bloodletting in the Gaza swamp. His behavior
in the past few days projected responsibility: reflecting, on the one
hand, an emphasis on the fact that Israel has no part in the civil war
in Syria, while on the other, a warning and threat that we will not take
an attack lying down.
From
the outset, he ordered the cabinet ministers to shut up, thank heaven.
He and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon are the spokesmen for the Israeli
position. The two are broadcasting on the same wavelength, as far as is
known. When it comes to the use of force, “Bogie” Ya’alon belongs to the
camp of moderate ministers. He opposed a ground attack in Operation
Pillar of Defense, and according to various reports, blocked an
operation against Iran on two occasions, together with three others from
the so-called forum of seven in the last government: Dan Meridor, Benny
Begin and Eli Yishai. In the absence of Ehud Barak, Meridor and Begin,
Netanyahu and Ya’alon are playing the role of the responsible and
experienced adults in the current government.
The
security cabinet is being convened with high frequency, but day-to-day
management is in the hands of Bibi & Bogie. The suspiciousness that
Netanyahu felt in the previous term for the former chief of staff, who
joined Likud on the eve of the 2009 election, is increasingly fading as
he and Ya’alon work together more intensely. But no one need worry: The
old feelings will return with even greater force if and when the time
comes to share credit − or to exchange accusations and abdicate
responsibility.
Members
of Netanyahu’s close circle made it clear this week that he does not
intend to reprise Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s role in the first Gulf
War. More than 40 missiles were launched at Israel in that conflict, in
1991, with no response by the IDF. In his public statement, Netanyahu
not only committed himself to take action if Israel is attacked, but to
do so “with force.” And not only as a response but also as a preventive
operation, if intelligence identifies an intention to fire missiles at
Israel. Netanyahu is telling foreign leaders with whom he speaks that
Bashar Assad’s appallingly light trigger finger on the chemical weapons
proves that the Iranians would not hesitate to launch a nuclear missile
at Israel in the future. Getting rid of Assad will weaken Iran and wreck
the Syrian-Iranian axis. And to do so is to block the route for the
smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon via Syria. After all,
whoever succeeds Assad will be the greatest enemy of Hezbollah, whose
troops are now risking their lives for the Syrian dictator.
The
international community might consider it legitimate to topple the
tyrant who killed hundreds of children with chemical weapons. Certainly
no one will be able to blame Israel if it is attacked and sends its
aircraft on bombing runs above the presidential palace in Damascus. From
Netanyahu’s perspective, Assad’s ouster might inject the United States
with greater confidence to confront Iran. In short, Netanyahu could go
down in history for spearheading a historic move.
Since
the January election, the prevailing assumption in the political world
here is that Netanyahu will need “something big” this term, be it in the
diplomatic realm or the security one, in order to be reelected in 2017.
According to this hypothesis, a third term without leaving a mark will
be the last. This is the general view, even though at the moment
Netanyahu appears to have no serious competition in the political arena.
Until now, the options for “something big” were presumed to be reaching
an agreement with the Palestinians or an operation against Iran’s
nuclear facilities, whether carried out by Israel or by the United
States − or by both together. Now, though, perhaps sooner than Netanyahu
planned, the possibility is looming of a different something big.
Fraternal standoff
The
best-kept secret in the coalition corridors over the past few weeks is
the falling-out between the two political “bro’s”: Yair Lapid and
Naftali Bennett. As this is being written, an effort is under way to end
a crisis that, for the first time since the election, is casting a deep
shadow over their alliance.
Here, briefly, is the background.
One
of Finance Minister Lapid’s targets for liquidation in the 2013-2014
budget was the government’s outlays for yeshivas. The anti-Haredi Lapid
cut the budgets in half. The thing is, though, that it’s not only the
ultra-Orthodox who have yeshivas. So does the religious-Zionist
community − just as there are large families in both communities. The
minor difference is that the Haredim are not in the government, whereas
the religious Zionists are represented in the coalition by Habayit
Hayehudi.
During
the budget deliberations, Lapid assured Bennett that all would be well.
That even though the ax was about to fall on all yeshivas as such,
irrespective of whether they are symbolized by a long black coat and a
round hat or by a knitted yarmulke and sandals − the institutions of the
religious-Zionist movement (the so-called high yeshivas, for students
who have graduated high school, and the hesder yeshivas, which combine
religious studies with army service) would get favorable treatment. For
example, by means of a government decision to the effect that yeshivas
that send more graduates to the army will be rewarded with a bigger
budget. That was supposed to solve part of the problem, but only part.
The
budget was passed by the Knesset exactly a month ago, and since then,
nothing. The heads of the Zionist yeshivas watched in stunned
consternation as their money ran out fast. Naturally, they complained to
Bennett, their man in the government. “Your brother and partner killed
us, and you lent a hand to it,” they said. Feeling persecuted and
reviled, Bennett went to Lapid and demanded another NIS 150 million for
his yeshivas. Lapid refused. “There’s a cake, so slice it,” he told
Bennett. “I am not spending any more money.”
Bennett
was angry. He felt cheated. For half a year, he has been telling us
that Lapid is his true brother, and yet it’s that fraternal ally who is
now undermining his status and making him the target of venomous slings
and arrows from the direction of his constituency.
Last
Tuesday, Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, the rabbi of the settlement of Elon
Moreh and one of the leaders of the religious-Zionist movement, was
interviewed on the movement’s house station, Arutz Sheva. He unleashed
an attack of unprecedented ferocity on Habayit Hayehudi over the deep
economic crisis that is rattling the Zionist and Haredi yeshivas alike.
Here’s
what Levanon had to say about Bennett’s party: “It is no longer the
same party that we built and voted for. It is more Yair Lapid’s party
than that of Habayit Hayehudi. Our feeling is that we made a mistake! I
expect a loyal Bayit Yehudi. If we are disappointed, we will draw the
proper conclusions. Joining up with Lapid was a mistake. It was wrong to
undo the bond with the Haredim and with the Hardali public” − a
reference to those who blend the ideologies of the national-religious
and ultra-Orthodox.
Last week, this column ran a short, general
item, whose source was from within Habayit Hayehudi, about the tension
between Lapid and Bennett. The brief report apparently riled someone in
the finance minister’s bureau. On Wednesday, Education Minister Shay
Piron, No. 2 in Lapid’s party, issued a statement that his ministry
would amend “the tests for support that are administered to religious
institutions.” From now on, a yeshiva that sends more graduates to the
IDF will receive increased support from the state.
The
only trouble is that this amendment is actually included in the
government decision concerning the draft reform, the so-called “Perry
law.” There’s nothing new about it. It doesn’t solve the budget problems
of the Zionist yeshivas, certainly not of all of them. Maybe only the
problems of the high yeshivas, but not of the hesder type (whose
students are doing army service anyway).
I
asked a source in Habayit Hayehudi what was going on between those two
precious personalities, Naftali and Yair. The man was taciturn but
cracked after being subjected to moderate pressure. “Yair is just not
fulfilling the agreement between them,” he confirmed in a broken voice.
“And when people spoke to him and explained it to him, he couldn’t
really understand what the problem is.”
Further
clarification elicited the following findings: Lapid read the short
item last week in these pages and got uptight. He ordered the education
minister to issue the statement that was quoted above in order to create
the false impression that all is well between him and Bennett. How do
we know this? Because Piron was decent enough to say, in reply to a
question from Haaretz, that his ministry handled the issue
“substantively,” but it’s true, he confirmed, that he was subjected to
“political pressure.”
What you’ve just read is another small story about the “new politics,” two brothers sitting together and everything in between.
The new Eshkol
The
time is nigh: The sand in the hourglass is running out, the weapons are
being moved up, the destroyers are on their way, the safety clasp is
off and the noose is tightening. The moment of truth is approaching.
This time it’s Shelly vs. Buji, as Labor MK Isaac Herzog is known in
some circles. The Labor Party leadership primaries were officially
launched this week.
It’s
a dramatic, tense and also danger-fraught struggle between the leader,
who is liable to be dumped after two years, and the permanent
challenger, for whom a second loss to Yacimovich might be one too many
and wreck for good his chances of ever reaching the top.
MKs
Eitan Cabel and Erel Margalit, who are both afire with a desire to oust
Yacimovich as the party leader, understood that their entry into the
fray would only help her get elected in the first round. They swallowed
their pride, doused their burning passion − and chose to back Herzog.
Herzog
gets angry when he is asked, for the umpteenth time, if he grasps the
implications of another loss. (He finished third in the 2011 primary,
behind Yacimovich and Amir Peretz.) “She, too, has something to lose,”
he snaps at the interviewer. However, when the question is asked again,
he doesn’t deny knowing full well that it’s now or never. If Yacimovich
is reelected and retains the leadership post for another few years,
Herzog will be comparable to a used car next time around.
The
major obstacle Herzog must cope with in his run for the top spot is his
image, which consists of the following clichés and verities:
super-geek, professional nice guy, quick to please, a Mapainik
(referring to Labor’s forerunner) in his soul, the ultimate No. 2, not
a leader but definitely pleasant and a buddy-buddy type, and above all
wannabe minister, no matter in what government, no matter under what
prime minister and what party.
“The
image is incorrect,” Herzog says, rebutting the unflattering
description. “I come with more experience than most of those in the
political arena. What’s bad about that? People are fed up with instant
leaders who come from nowhere, aren’t ready, fire off posts on Facebook
and get elected. And what’s wrong with my being able to share, to work
on a team, with having diplomatic experience, with being mild-mannered?
Hey, was Levi Eshkol a bad prime minister?”
Looking at it from the perspective of today, he was one of the best prime ministers, I tell him.
“Precisely!”
Herzog retorts. “I have a lot of material about him, if you want. You
know, he, too, was ridiculed and he, too, was called weak. More and more
people here are yearning for that type of leadership. Quiet, sharing.
Maybe it’s precisely in this atmosphere, with Lapid and his party
plummeting in the polls, that I can grow.”
Herzog
relates that two weeks after the Knesset elections, he commissioned a
poll (“in order to snap out of the depressed feeling”) in which he
asked Yesh Atid voters if they would have voted differently if he had
been the head of the Labor Party. He says that almost a third of them,
the equivalent of six Knesset seats, said they would have voted for
Labor under his leadership. He did not say, and perhaps did not check,
how many seats Labor would have lost if Yacimovich had not been the
party’s leader.
In
any event, Herzog’s conclusion is that with her, Labor is buckling
under an unbreakable glass ceiling of 15-16 seats. “In light of the huge
decline of Yesh Atid, we should have grown far stronger than we have,”
he says. “If it’s not happening, it’s only because of her. People will
not vote for us as long as she is the head of the party. The election
failure was due to the fact that she completely ignored the peace
process and that people did not connect with her social-economic
doctrine. The result was that we lost votes to Zahava Gal-On and Meretz,
and to Tzipi Livni and Hatnuah. It’s precisely now, when we have an
agenda that has us spinning, that I am more relevant than she. She is a
featherweight.”
Commenti
Posta un commento