Netanyahu Breaks the Record

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Netanyahu officially became Israel's longest-serving prime minister since the state was created in 1948.  And he could not have reached this historical milestone under stranger circumstances.

Netanyahu has achieved this notable record while currently governing the country without a mandate.  In spite of having been democratically elected to continue to rule the country in the elections in 2015, the most recent round of elections earlier this year did not produce any winners who could secure a mandate to rule.  A such, Netanyahu has remained in office as a caretaker prime minister until the next round of elections take place in September.  Without the support of the majority as required by our democracy.  And it is in this role as caretaker prime minister that he has overtaken David Ben Gurion's previous record of having ruled over Israel for 13 years and 127 days, in spite of the heavy cloud that hangs over his head.  He also holds the record as the prime minister to have the longest uninterrupted term as prime minister (10 years and 110 days and counting).

There can be no doubt or argument that Netanyahu has devoted much of his life in the service of the State of Israel.  Nor can there be any doubt about some of his significant achievements during this period.  Credit needs to be given for this.  As can be anticipated with any leader and public official, he has had his notable failures too.  And, as much as he would like to achieve the legacy of having been the protector of Israel during his term in office, it seems that he is likely to be remembered for the scandal that currently surrounds him, irrespective of how it ultimately turns out.  This is a real pity for the longest-serving prime minister in Israel's history.

Along with this record, come many unwelcome and undesirable effects of the length of time that Netanyahu has been in office.  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  This quotation by Lord Acton from 1887 seems as relevant now as it was then, and can easily be applied to Netanyahu in recent years.  He has behaved in a manner that indicates his sense of invincibility, that has only been strengthened by success that he has enjoyed at the polls.  The people gave him the power, but it seems as though this has been taken for granted as a result of it lasting for too long.  The feeling that he will have enough public support to rule irrespective of how he behaves, has led him to really test this out with behaviour by him and members of his family that is way beyond what could reasonably be tolerated from an elected leader.  It is no coincidence that other democracies, such as the USA, put a limit on how long the elected leader is allowed to be in office for.  I believe that such a limit is healthy and much-needed in Israel.

In addition to the promotion of unlawful behaviour, the lack of limit on time in office promotes another unwelcome consequence.  This is the lack of incentive to groom new young leaders to assume the senior positions.  In Netanyahu's case, he has done everything in his power to ensure that there are no pretenders to the throne who could possibly cause a threat to his continued rule.  He has no interest at all to ensure that a new generation of leaders is prepared to take over from him when he finally leaves office.  There is a huge chasm in his party and in the country at the moment between the current prime minister and those who may take over from him.  This is surely undesirable and unhealthy.

As a result of his extended term in office and the anti feeling that this has generated against Netanyahu, the upcoming election will ignore the main issues of the day that face Israel.  Instead of focusing on security, economy, education or health care, the election will be all about how to keep Netanyahu in office or, more likely, how to remove him.  The country is currently divided into three camps; those who support Netanyahu at any price, those who would vote for Mickey Mouse if he was a candidate only to remove Netanyahu, and those who feel forced to vote for Netanyahu simply because there is no alternative credible candidate.  This is surely not what our democracy is about.

Now that the record has been achieved and past, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has become Israel's longest- ruling prime minister, the time has come to change the laws to prevent anybody else from surpassing this record.  Democracy is not only about holding elections, it is also about ensuring that the best quality candidates are encouraged to come forward and have an equal chance of being elected on merit.  Our democracy is sorely missing this right now.

Starting on the Wrong Foot

The entire process that led to the forming of Israel's 34th government in 68 years of independence was filled with drama and unexpected events.

Opinion polls in the weeks leading up to the election predicted that the two largest parties, the Likud and the Zionist Union (formed out of a pact between the Labour and Hatnua parties), would be fighting each other off to form the new government.  The feeling was that one or two seats would separate the parties.  Even the election's exit polls did not predict the extent to which voters ultimately favoured the Likud over Zionist Union.  When the election result was announced showing that the Likud won 6 seats more than the Zionist Union, it took everybody in the country by surprise.  Even the members of the Likud were shocked at the size of the victory, especially in view of the earlier predictions.

The pendulum of expectation swung in the opposite direction.  All of a sudden, there was the expectation that Prime Minister Netanyahu would form a broad-based, strong, right-wing coalition government in double quick time.  As it turned out, the formation of the government took way longer than expected, is the narrowest possible government and is not nearly as strong as people thought and hoped it would be.   With these fluctations came swings in the public's expectation about how long this government can reasonably survive, and whether it has the ability to govern and make the changes that are so needed in Israeli society.

If the lead-up to the new government contained its fair share of surprises, the process of forming the government has also been less than inspiring.  The prime minister has been forced to compromise on many fundamental ideas that his electorate stand opposed to, in the interests of attracting coalition partners into the government.  For example, he has been forced to go back on legislation, that was put in place during the previous government, to force ultra-Orthodox yeshivah boys to undertake military or national service like all others of their age.  He has also been forced to redirect huge sums of money to the ultra-Orthodox sector, at a time when the Israeli government has implemented large budget cuts as part of an austerity plan.  Many Likud voters are horrified at these and other concessions.

One of the persistent rumours that refuses to go away concerns the reported approach that Prime Minister Netanyahu made to Labour leader Isaac Herzog to join the coalition.  The prime minister is reported to have approached Herzog on condition that he agrees to abandon his pact with Tzipi Livni, and bring only the Labour faction into the new government while leaving Livni and her Hatnua members out of the coalition.  Herzog refused, thereby turning down the opportunity to be part of a national unity government, and provide Israel with a much more stable coalition.  Has he spited the people of Israel by preferring to see Prime Minister Netanyahu fail in his endeavours?  There are many who believe that he has chosen the egotistical path, rather than setting his ego aside in the interests of serving the Israeli electorate.

The make-up of the new cabinet is also not a huge source of inspiration.  For starters, there are a total of 21 ministers in the new government, surpassing the 18 ministers that were recently legislated as being the maximum allowed in any government.  Netanyahu was forced to pass an amendment law through the Knesset to allow him to appoint 21 ministers to have sufficient jobs to dish out to all coalition partners.  The important job of foreign minister has been left vacant and has been assumed by the prime minister.  He has also retained the communications ministry, ministry of health and ministry of regional cooperation for himself.  It seems as though Netanyahu may be reserving these in case he is able to convince Lieberman or others to join the coalition in the future.

Aryeh Deri, head of Shas, is the new economics minister.  He has recently served a jail sentence and now come out of an exclusion period, during which he could not serve in a public position, as a result of having been found guilty of taking bribes while a government minister.  Yoav Galant is the minister of construction.  This is highly controversial seeing as Galant was prevented from taking up his appointment as the IDF Chief of General Staff due to irregularities found in the construction of his personal residence on public property.  Miri Regev is the new minster for culture and sport, despite having made it quite clear that she really wanted to have the welfare portfolio.  Habayit Hayehudi's Ayelet Shaked is probably the most surprising and high profile appointment to the new government, having been appointed as the minister of justice.  In this position, she has a huge influence over the appointment of judges to the supreme court, as well as many other aspects of Israel's judicial policy and justice system.  She has also secured herself a seat in the security cabinet, the narrow inner cabinet that is responsible for formulating and implementing Israel's security, defense and foreign policy on a daily basis.  At 39 years-old, she is considered an extremely young appointment to a critical position, despite clearly being very capable.  It is reported that Likud old-timer Benny Begin only knew of his appointment to the cabinet, as minister without portfolio, at the moment that it was announced in the Knesset.

The Knesset session to present the new government was held on Thursday 14 May.  The session epitomised a circus more than a meeting of Israel's legislature.  At first, Arab members of Knesset created an intentional and sustained disruption during the prime minister's address, that resulted in  a number of them being evicted from the chamber.  A few other Arab members decided to leave of their own accord in sympathy, although they did return during the address by the leader of the opposition.  Miri Regev was also issued a warning for heckling and disruptive behaviour, although managed to survive without being ejected.  Leader of the opposition, Isaac Herzog, delivered a stinging rebuke and criticism of the prime minister and his new government.  He was heckled by members from the religious parties, who were also issued with warnings.  While the job of the official opposition (and its leader) is to ensure that the government is held to account, there are times when it is appropriate for the opposition to support the government and to show some unity in helping with its efforts.  There are many who feel that this occasion was the perfect opportunity to show some unity and support.

The inconspicuous start to the new government continued further with a reshuffle coming less than 10 days into the life of the new government.  Likud number 2, Gilad Erdan, decided that he would be better off working within the new government rather than from the back benches.  While his disagreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu has not been resolved, Erdan finally agreed to accept the ministries of public security, strategic affairs and public diplomacy.  Despite him trying to put a spin on why he changed his mind to justify his actions, it is clear to all that this is a big U-turn on Erdan's party.  Netanyahu was happy to reshuffle his new government in order to accommodate Erdan.  Benny Begin, who was asked to resign his position as minister without portfolio to accommodate Erdan joining the cabinet, was not happy to comply with the request.

Despite the problematic manner in which the government has finally come into office, it does not detract from the fact that new government has a lot of important work to do.  Israel is under much pressure on the international diplomatic front to move forward to a peace agreeement with the Palestinians.  It also has to maintain firm security against those who are determined to destroy her and her people while also addressing the social and welfare needs for the weakest members of society in a tough economic climate.  All of this needs to achieved in a climate of lower levels of government spending to manage the economy responsibly.  Israel needs a firm, stable and decisive government that can make the difficult decisions that confront it.  Even though the manner in which the new government has started out life does not seem to bode well for the future, we all hope that we will be confounded by the extent to which the government is able to achieve great things.  We wish them much success.

Egotism and Politics

There was a time when people went into politics with the intention of serving their community, and making a difference to society.  The main imperative was public service, and offering personal skills and talents for the benefit of the country.  Unfortunately, those days appear to be long gone.  These days, politicians seem more interested in the power that their position brings, and the personal benefits that can be gained by entering office.

This is seen in many, if not most countries around the world.   Israel is no exception.  This has been very clearly demonstrated over the past week with the announcement that Tzipi Livni has formed a new party to contest the upcoming election.  The new party, Hatnua (the movement), seems to bring nothing new to the political arena.  So why would Livni form the new party?  When the press announcement of the new party was made, the main subtitle under the name of the party on the publicity boards was the tag line "under the leadership of Tzipi Livni".  This is the main point which supports the new party.  It is a place where Livni can be the leader.

Livni has already been a Member of Knesset representing two parties in the past, Likud and Kadima.  When she was ousted as leader of Kadima, she decided to leave the party.  It demonstrated what was important to her as a member of Kadima - the fact that she could be the leader and have control over the party.  As soon as she was voted out of the leadership position, there was nothing left in the party to keep her there.  The election platform of Hatnua looks remarkably similar to that of Kadima, which is also not too far away from the ideologies followed by Labour.  The centre left space in Israeli politics is an incredibly crowded area, and the addition of a new party serves to create even more congestion and probably reduce the number of seats that they can collectively win at the election.  The only real difference between the parties, is the people who lead them.  Perhaps this explains why Kadima has gone from a party with nearly 30 Knesset seats, to predictions of only 2 seats in the next election.  The original leader, Ariel Sharon, is no longer there.  Without him, there is no real substance to the party.  Perhaps there was no real substance even while he was there?

The electorate would like to believe that Tzipi Livni is in politics to progress the cause of the State of Israel.  This is not an easy task at the current time.  Instead, we find that she moves from one party to another, seemingly dependent on how well each party serves her personal interests.  Getting lost in this pursuit of personal glory, are the interests of the State of Israel and her citizens.  One of the members of Kadima was fully justified when asking what Livni thinks she can achieve with her new party, that she failed to achieve with Kadima's 28 seats when she was at the helm.  I suspect that whatever she failed to achieve with Kadima will probably also not be achieved with Hatnua.

What is even more remarkable in the politics of personal egos, is the fact that the centre left parties were unable to find a way to unite their lists for the purpose of progressing their policies and platform in a more effective way for the election.  Egos once again got in the way of sensible politics, thereby diluting the real message that the centre left groups are trying to promote.

There are some who would say that the aphrodisiac effect of power is not such a new phenomenon.  Lord Acton wrote in 1887, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".  This seems as true now as it was then, and is clearly evident in these latest moves by Tzipi Livni and others like her.  Nobody expects politicians to do their job for free or without personal remuneration.  There is, however, an expectation that, in return for reasonable pay and reward, they will carry out the requirements of their office which expects them to serve the people by whom they were elected.  This is in short supply at this time.

While the new Hatnua party may well succeed in securing 8 or 9 seats in this election, the longer-term prospects seem slim.  Any party that is built on the strength of individual personalities rather than on the basis of solid ideologies and policies, seems destined to land on the rubbish heap of failed political parties.  Hatnua will almost surely end up in this junk pile in the fullness of time.

Despite Lord Acton commenting on political corruption all those years ago, there was a time not too long ago when politicians had a completely different and more modest approach to their work.  Names like David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin seem to be from a bygone era, even though they were both people who some of us still remember with fondness.  They were happy to live in a small apartment, and to invite members of the public to their official residences whenever they could, even while they were serving in a lofty public office.  Somehow, the office in which they served never allowed them to become corrupt, or to stray from the values that formed their character.


I have considered the possibility that the general public demand too much of politicians when we expect them to behave selfllessly in the interests of the electorate.  The more I think about it, the more I seem to convince myself that this behaviour is really the minimum that we should expect of politicians.   How can we trust them to act in the best interests of our country, and to build a future for our children if this is not the case?  Tzipi Livni has not only disappointed the public by her behaviour, she has let herself down and many others who do behave appropriately.  We cannot help but tar all politicians with the same brush, and she is setting the standard.

Bibi Does Election U-Turn

Within the space of three short days, early elections were on and then off again.  The timescale of this U-turn was quite astonishing.  On Sunday evening, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced to his Likud party convention that early elections would be held.  On Monday morning, the first reading of the bill to dissolve the Knesset was passed.  In the early hours of Tuesday morning, the new coalition agreement was signed with Shaul Mofaz and the Kadima Party, and early elections were cancelled.  By bringing Kadima into the coalition, Bibi has almost created a government of national unity.  The only main party which is now outside of the coalition is the Labour Party, and its new leader Shelly Yachimovich becomes the leader of the official opposition.

There are a number of people, both within political circles and outside, who feel that Bibi's conduct on the issue of the elections has been less than fair and honest.  It transpires that he was holding coalition discussions with Shaul Mofaz for at least a week before the announcement that an agreement had been reached.  This begs the question why Bibi decided to make a public announcement about early elections and allow the Knesset to debate the first reading of the dissolution bill, when he was on the verge of concluding a new coalition agreement?  Was this a negotiating tactic to force Mofaz to make the final concession?  The formal announcement that an early election would take place certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.  No sooner had electioneering got into full force, when it was all frozen.

Even though the way in which it was done raises big questions, I believe that the act of delaying the election is probably more beneficial for the State of Israel and its citizens than proceeding to early elections.  Israel is currently confronting a number of critical issues, and there was a huge danger of these issues becoming too wrapped up with a general election.  Despite the international focus having been moved away from Iran over the past few months, this issue probably remains Israel's largest challenge in the short to medium term.  Some parties are taking a much more aggressive approach advising Israel to take military action against Iran.  Others are advising a more cautious and conciliatory approach.  Even former heads of intelligence have weighed in with their "words of wisdom", only in an attempt to exact political revenge on those that they don't like.  This is a fraught subject that has major implications for Israel and her citizens.  A decision taken by a stable almost-unity government is surely better than airing this issue in election platforms.

There is also the controversial issue of the replacement to the Tal Law.  This is an issue which is split down party political lines as the religious parties are doing their utmost to convince lawmakers to enact a replacement law that will still allow yeshivah boys to be exempt from military service.  Opponents wish to see at least some minimum form of national service which will apply to all of Israel's citizens, without exceptions.  This is a messy political hot potato that is best kept out of election platform politics.

The passing of the new budget is almost always held to ransom by coalition negotiations.  Parties negotiating possible inclusion in the coalition frequently predicate their support of the budget on receiving key concessions in the coalition agreement.  At a time when the economic stability of many countries in the world is so much under threat, economic high jinks cannot be afforded in Israel.  It would be good to get the budget approved without the need to bow to parties looking to extract value from the coalition negotiations.

For Kadima, the extension of the Knesset term has saved it from election decimation.  There is little doubt that a general election at this time would have substantially reduced its Knesset faction.  At the same time the new coalition agreement has raised doubts in the minds of many Kadima members, particularly those who came from parties on the left of the political spectrum, about whether this is a first step towards uniting with the Likud.  The most senior of these doubters, Kadima council chairman Haim Ramon, immediately tendered his resignation from the party.  He was followed by many grass-roots members of the party in a move which threatens to split the party, even before a single ballot is cast in a general election.

The big winner in this move is Prime Minister Netanyahu.  He has shown himself to be a shrewd political player, even though he has trodden on more than a few toes in the process.  The upshot of all of his political manoeuvring is that Bibi is king of Israel, just as his supporters like to chant at public gatherings.  He currently holds all the cards in his hands, and has a very strong political position to see him through to the end of the Knesset session and into the next general election.  He will need to see out at least one more summer, which is promising to be a summer with greater social protest than we saw last summer.  This is certainly a threat to him, but the electorate has little or no alternative choices to select from.  Opposition parties to the Likud are disparate and decimated.

The electorate has been spared an election this summer.  This will save a substantial sum of money, and will delay the inevitable filthy negative politics associated with election campaigns for at least another year.  I hope that, by the time we reach the start of the next campaign in a year or 18 months from now, many of the critical issues mentioned above that urgently require attention will have been dealt with.

A Little Election Excitement

Despite the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been out of circulation as he has been sitting shiva following the death of his father, the Likud machine is working hard to arrange the next general election.  According to the law, the election could be called anytime until November 2013.  The prime minister and his advisers, however,  have decided to accelerate the date to September this year.

A bill to dissolve parliament ahead of the next election is due to be discussed in the Knesset today (Sunday 6th May) which could see the Knesset dissolved in one week’s time.  Even before the Knesset has been dissolved, I notice that campaigning has begun.  Advertisements have already been plastered onto buses and primary campaigns have sprung into action.  The election campaign has gained such rapid momentum that it is difficult to believe that only two weeks ago, there was no official speak of an election at all.

The prime minister has decided to call an election now because he is obviously riding something of a wave of popularity right now.  He has had a fairly stable term in office without any major ups and downs.  He has done nothing remarkable, but has also not really put a foot wrong.  His popularity seems largely to have depended on the things that have been happening in the other parties rather than actions of his government.  The other parties have been very helpful in assisting Netanyahu’s fortunes over the term of this Knesset.  The contest for the leadership of the Labour Party resulted in considerable damage to the party as the two main rivals bitterly vied for the top position.  Since then, the new leader, Shelly Yachimovich, has not really asserted herself in any major way in the public eye.  Now that there is talk of an early general election, she has suddenly made a public statement saying that Labour could defeat Likud in the election.  This is nothing more than wishful thinking.  Tzipi Livni’s defeat as leader of Kadima and her subsequent resignation from the Knesset have left the party languishing.  Opinion polls suggest that Kadima could be demoted from the largest party to the fifth largest after the next election.

In addition, the prime minister would have been dreading another summer of social protests.  He managed, somehow, to cling on last summer during the height of the tent protest when his government was being held responsible for the constant and dramatic increases in the cost of living.  He certainly would not wish to repeat that experience if he can possibly avoid it.  The election campaign over the summer months is, I think, partially designed to divert attention away from the social protests and bring other parties into play in the economic discussion.

It will take the Israeli public a little more time to get enthusiastic about the election.  The truth is that it would be very surprising if Netanyahu is not reelected as prime minister.  Most people have already resigned themselves to this outcome, and have moved on.  So what is there to be excited about in an election that is not expected to deliver anything new?  Many will be voting for Netanyahu to register a protest vote against the others, who all seem unelectable.  Even Ehud Barak, who is a previous prime minister, seems a million miles away from the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem’s Balfour Street in the eyes of most voters.  The minor details of whether the Likud gains 31 seats in place of its current 27 seats, or if Kadima is the largest or the smallest party in the Knesset all seem unimportant in the grand scheme of things.  Voters may be tempted to vote for one of the smaller parties if they believe that strengthening this party’s position within a coalition government may help to promote certain policies or legislation.  This been proven to be effective by the Yisrael Beiteinu party in the existing coalition, which has been prepared to vigorously pursue issues that are of unique interest only to its voting constituency.  It has enjoyed some success where this is concerned, and this fact is likely to secure it a similarly strong position in the next Knesset.

Despite the fact that the election seems not to inspire much excitement amongst the Israeli voting public, especially at this stage of the campaign, there are many reasons why Israelis should be excited and motivated by the election.  We need always to bear in mind that this is the only true democracy in the Middle East, a fact for us all to be proud of.  The election campaign is the greatest example of this democracy at work.  This is also, uniquely, a Jewish democracy.  This gives the chance to debate and vote on issues that are particular to us as Jews, and especially issues that concern our ongoing safety and security within the family of nations.  In this respect, the Israeli elections have an impact on Jews living outside of Israel as well as within her borders.  The more democratic the outcome of the election, the greater is our security and the more secure our future as Jews in the world.  We should remember that the Arab citizens of Israel are also voters, and have their own parties which will send representatives to the Knesset as they have done since Israel was founded.

This democracy is not only important to Israelis and Jews, but is also important to the free world.  Israel is a beacon of light in a dark Middle Eastern ocean that supports and finances Muslim extremism and terrorism in all corners of the earth.  The fact that Israel contributes to a first line of defense against the threats of Iranian nuclear plans, Syrian government violence and Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism amongst others things, will always be a source of comfort and relief to many in the free world.

Unfortunately, democracy does not always deliver the right or the desired result.  There are times that it could be argued that democracy has got things wrong.  The best thing about democracy, however, is that it ensures the people the right to have their say again within a few years, and to hopefully put the wrongs right.  This is certainly the character of Israel’s democracy, and is a cause for celebration.  For so many years, Jews were denied the right to vote in the countries of their residence, and yearned for the opportunity to control their own destiny even in the smallest way.  With the birth of the democratic State of Israel, Jews have been granted the opportunity to exercise this right under the Law of Return.  It requires simply to prove that you are the grandchild of a Jew, and to turn up at the immigration desk at Ben Gurion Airport.

So, while Israelis consider who will deliver the best economic solution for them for the next four years or who will give them the best religious or ecological answers, we should not lose sight of the big picture that this election represents for Jews within and outside of Israel.  Many generations of Jews would have been astonished and grateful for the little things that we take for granted.  We are living their dream.  Long live democracy in the State of Israel.

Bibi Under Fire

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (known as Bibi) is a little more than half-way into his four-year term, after being elected in February 2009. Having established his government and put his policies into place, Bibi has now hit some hard times and is not currently enjoying his most successful period.

The main issues that are currently dogging Bibi took place even before he was re-elected as prime minister. Although these problems are not related to his peformance as prime minister, they are exacerbated by the few successes that Bibi has clocked up as prime minister. He is going through a particularly turbulent patch right now which threatens to undermine the remainder of his term as prime minister. There seems to be a fair chance that he will not be able to recover from the latest attacks on him. There are those who point to his current problems as "mid-term blues", the well-known down period in any leader's term which often hits when he or she reaches the half-way mark. Bibi's current troubles threaten, however, to dog his second two-year period to the extent that they may even hinder his ability to see his term through in its entirety.

The prime minister has never enjoyed a good relationship with Israel's press pack. This strained relationship dates back to his first term as prime minister, and subsequent terms in other ministerial roles such as finance minister. Netanyahu has always felt that the press is after him in some way or another, and the press has always felt that Netanyahu has not been fair to them by not giving them the stories that they need. Bibi does seem to use speeches at public events and other occasions to make significant announcements, thereby avoiding the need to call a press conference and answer journalists' questions. He recently granted an extensive live interview to YouTube as part of its World View Project. Although he was the third world leader to do this following the examples of US President Barak Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, local press point to this as one of the examples of how Bibi denies them the news that they need to stay in business.

Under the circumstances, it came as no surprise when stories were aired recently which painted the prime minister in a less than positive light. Israel's Channel 10 aired a story accusing Netanyahu, his wife Sara and their children of accepting private sponsorship for luxury trips abroad, even after his decision to return to politics as a Member of the Knesset and minister of finance. In a separate story aired on Channel 10, Netanyahu was accused of contravening the campaign funding rules by not declaring all contributions to his primary election campaign in 2005 in accordance with the requirements of the law. Netanyahu responded to these reports by accusing Channel 10 and journalist Raviv Drucker of running a continuous effort over a number of years to besmirch his name and the names of members of his family. He has filed a libel suit against Drucker, the channel and its owners on the story of the campaign funding. The suit alleges that the parties published false information to purposefully damage the prime minister's good name.

Netanyahu has denied receiving privately-funded overseas trips, and has claimed that his trips abroad were funded by organisations which invited him to speak at events to present Israel's case abroad. Sara Netanyahu has also made public comments in an attempt to separately defend her own reputation. She has long been presented publicly as somebody who revels in being the wife of the prime minister for all the privileges and overseas trips that accompany the position. She has emphasized the fact that Bibi is the world's most sought-after speaker on Israeli affairs, and has tried to paint a picture that he is somebody who is really acting in the best interests of Israel and its public image by accepting the speaking engagements abroad. Whether or not Sara Netanyahu is something of a gold-digger as presented in some of the media, there is no doubt that she uses every possible opportunity to travel abroad with her husband and live a life which lacks for nothing. She has, however, used a statement in defending the Netanyahu reputation which rings a little hollow. This is the statement that they have behaved in the same way as others in their position, and she does not understand why they should be singled out for public criticism without including the others whose behaviour they have emulated. It seems to me that the decision to blindly follow the common practices adopted by others, without considering whether these practices are acceptable or not, cannot be reasonably used as justification. This is particularly true when considering the increased scrutiny which the Netanyahus claim to be under. The State Comptroller has already announced that he will be looking into the accusations. This serves to suggest that Netanyahu may well have a case to answer after all.

If these were Bibi's only worries, he may still be in a reasonable situation. The problem is that his concerns are much broader than this. In the 26 months since his election as prime minister, he has relatively little to show in terms of real progress on matters of real importance to Israel and Israelis. Economically, Israel seems to be bumping along following world trends by showing some growth in the economy. Whatever is happening in Israel seems more as a result of external factors, than as a result of government actions. Prices of basic foodstuffs are increasing, housing prices are still increasing and salary levels are not keeping up. This is driving poverty levels up, and satisfaction down. Despite the recent deployment of the Iron Dome defence system, missile attacks from Gaza have continued and even increased. Captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit remains in the possession of Hamas without any prospects of him being released soon, and Jonathan Pollard continues to languish in an American prisson. The production of nuclear missiles in Iran continues unabated and, perhaps most importantly, the peace process with the Palestinians currently lies in tatters on the floor of the prime minister's office. According to a Smith Research poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Post and published in the Friday edition of its newspaper, nearly half (45%) of Israeli voters hold Netanyahu individually or jointly responsible for the collapse of negotiations with the Palestinians. This is only marginally less than the 53% who hold Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas individually or jointly responsible. What is worse for Bibi is the fact that fully 30% of those who voted for Likud in the last election blame him for being part of the problem with the peace process. A quarter of all voters are undecided as to who is to blame for collapse of peace negotiations. This does not represent a vote of confidence in Netanyahu's efforts. The same poll shows that only 43% of Israeli Jews feel that Netanyahu is performing well (32%) or very well (11%). The remaining 57% believe that his performance to date is poor or very poor.

The winter session of the Knesset has now come to an end, and the Passover holiday is almost upon us. This will come as a welcome break for the embattled Netanyahu camp. The prime minister will need every bit of energy and resilience that he can muster up to navigate through the heat of the summer without losing further ground. The summer promises to be challenging full of controverisal issues. With the winter having produced only 70% of the average rainfall (where 100% is insufficient to provide adequate water for Israel's growing needs), water promises to be one of the critical issues for Bibi to confront. Unrest continues to sweep its way through many countries in the Middle East. While this serves to divert the eyes of the world away from Israel for a short period of time, the changing face of the region presents its own set of challenges for the prime minister and the Israeli government.

If Netanyahu hopes to be in office for a full term of 4 years, he will need to show substantial progress on one or two critical issues to satisfy the Israeli electorate. If he is unable to do so, we will likely be facing a general election in 2012 rather than 2013 as the law requires. The problem with an election in 2012 is that there is no obvious candidate who is positioned to harness the votes of those who would wish to vote against Netanyahu. Israel is sorely in need of an alternative candidate who will not only present Israel's case in the international community, but who can also be trusted by Israeli voters to act selflessly in the interests of the country. At this point in time, no obvious candidate is emerging to fill this position, and this may be Netanyahu's saving grace.

At a time when Israel's position in the international world is under considerable scrutiny and her very existence continues to be under threat, we can ill afford to have a prime minister whose intentions are under question, and whose attention is being diverted elsewhere. Netanyahu needs to refocus his efforts, not only for his own future, but also for the future of Israel.

Everything is Permanent Until it is Changed

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced last week that he was changing his tactics with regard to the negotiations with the Palestinians. Until now, his position on the peace talks was that he was not prepared to enter into any "interim" agreement. Instead, he wanted to strike a "permanent" agreement which includes agreement on all the so-called final status issues. Now, he has changed his approach and says that he is willing to come to an agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of "temporary" borders. Despite the different language being used, has anything really changed in his approach?

It is not entirely clear what was driving Netanyahu’s original position to prefer a permanent solution rather than a temporary one. My interpretation is that he was trying to delay the declaration of the Palestinian state by position himself to reach agreement on all the most difficult issues before the state is established. The unresolved issues with the Palestinians have been dividend into issues that can be solved in the near-term, and others which should be delayed until later to be resolved (more contentious and difficult). From the outset when late Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin initiated the dialogue with the Palestinians, he believed that it would be better to show initial success in getting some of the easier points agreed before tackling the more difficult issues at a later date. This approach gave rise to the so-called “final status issues” which referred to the more difficult points such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees etc. which were to be delayed until later. There are those who believe that Netanyahu was employing a tactic to look like he was making progress, while not really making progress at all. Netanyahu is actually on record as saying that he thought that the final status issues could be resolved within a year. I am not sure that there were many who believed him when he said it, and the lack of progress more than a year later has proved their scepticism to be well founded. Was Netanyahu really saying that he did not want to come to any agreement with the Palestinians at all? I am not sure, but I believe it would be difficult to prove this.

The difference between what is temporary and what is permanent is a matter of interpretation. Everything is temporary, even whatever is permanent, because things change all the time. By the same token, everything is permanent until it is changed. So the terms temporary and permanent are really used simply to invoke some sort of human emotion and expectation about the direction and speed of how things will evolve. The truth about Middle Eastern politics is that it is enormously difficult to change anything. So even the so-called temporary agreements prove to be somewhat permanent because they are often difficult to change afterwards. I think that it is the last point which may have contributed to Netanyahu’s change of approach over the past few weeks.

If he decides to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state with “temporary” borders, not a great deal changes from today’s situation. He is not forced to compromise on the difficult issues such as the status of Jerusalem, West Bank construction and the possibility of having to give up towns and settlements with substantial Jewish populations. Instead, he can agree to the establishment of the new state in the current configuration, by sending out the message that it is "temporary". Although agreement to the formal establishment of a Palestinian state will have dramatic political ramifications, the situation on the ground is unlikely to change much. The Palestinian Authority already rules over this land, so this aspect does not change. What changes is the level of international representation and recognition that such a state will have. Most importantly, such an act will serve to substantially reduce the international pressure that Netanyahu is currently under to agree to this state being established.

As soon as the temporary agreement is reached and the international pressure recedes, the daily reality of relations between Israel and the Palestinian state will probably continue along the same lines as today. The interdependencies between the two entities will not change dramatically and the security cooperation will continue as it does today. The unresolved final status issues will probably remain open for some time, as the pressure to agree these will decrease due to the fact that the Palestinians will have a state of their own. This temporary situation may, in fact, continue for tens or even hundreds of years in the current climate of the Middle Eastern politics.

What is likely to change once a Palestinian state comes into existence is the accountability of the Palestinian government. Today, it is a corrupt government that is not accountable to anybody except itself. Palestinain government officials frequently hide behind the fact that they do not have the same responsibilities as other countries as they are not an independent country. Their change of status will hopefully also mean that the international community will require certain standards of behaviour in the same way that these are demanded of other countries in the international community.

Netanyahu’s change of tactic superficially appears to change things substantially and, in some respects, it does bring about a big change in substance. I believe, however, that it reinforces the current status quo in more ways. It seems to me that the momentum towards the establishment of a Palestinian state is now unstoppable. Netanyahu recognises this, and will want to be seen to be supporting this process now that it is inevitable. At the same time, will wish to preserve as much of what he has at the moment without having to agree to give a great many things up. His idea of agreeing to the establishment of a state based on “temporary” borders is likely to satisfy the international community while not changing much on the ground.

The "temporary" solution seems to be Netanyahu's best chance of getting what he wants on both sides of the fence. This goes a long way to explaining his sudden change of heart.

Does the Uprising in Egypt Open the Floodgates for Other Countries in the Middle East?

President Hosni Mubarak is clinging on to power in Egypt by his fingernails. But this is clearly only a temporary situation, and an attempt for him to retain some element of dignity. His political career has been brought to an abrupt end and, with it, any aspirations that his son Gamal may have had to succeed him. The rule of this modern-day Pharaoh and his family is finally over.

Mubarak's rule over Egypt for the past thirty years has been difficult to characterise. He assumed power from the assassinated Anwar Sadat soon after Egypt was practically excommunicated from the Arab world for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Mubarak had the job of stabilising Egypt after the murder of its president, while also seeking out friends to use as a leg for its foreign policy. He has maintained cordial relations with Israel which have served to preserve the peace agreement between the countries. He has engaged with the USA and other western countries which has ensured that Egypt has had trading partners, has been at the centre of peace negotiations and has been the recipient of generous military aid packages. Internally, Mubarak has chosen to rule Egypt under the constant threat of the provisions of the state of emergency, and while ensuring that all opposition to his rule has been firmly stamped out. This has brought benefits to Israel and other western countries because he has been sure to crush the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which presents a real threat along with Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist organisations.

It is my assessment that the people of Egypt have enjoyed a fairly good existence during Mubarak's rule. As long as they were prepared to toe the line and support the regime, they could have enjoyed a fairly acceptable lifestyle and standard of living. Egypt has enjoyed economic success via its policy of engaging the west. It has been the destination for millions of western tourists with the economic benefits that tourist industry brings. It has established itself as a telecommunications crossing point with many telecommunication cable systems crossing Egypt undersea and overland in a link between Europe and the Far East. The western military aid packages have served to boost the Egyptian army and, with it, the military support for Mubarak's regime. For the average Egyptian, however, it seems that even this has not been enough. Mubarak's unwillingness to provide a political environment allowing Egyptians the freedom to determine their own political destiny has directly contributed to the current uprising. It is noticeable how the demonstrations in Egypt have been spontaneous expressions of frustration by people on the street, and not driven by political opponents. Ironically, the political opposition was extremely ill-prepared for this uprising, and has been unable to capitalise upon it. The Muslim Brotherhood have been virtually invisible throughout the past two weeks of protests, and opposition figure Mohammed El-Baradei was forced to hurry back to Egypt having been away from the country when the protests began.

It is clear that the prospects of political stability and economic prosperity that may have satisfied citizens of Middle Eastern countries in the past, are no longer enough to keep their rulers in power. Engagement of the west has proved to be a double-edged sword. In exchange for the economic benefits that the west has provided, Middle Eastern rulers should have been prepared for the export of democratic ideas and principles to their citizens. Even those countries which have not engaged the west to the same extent are finding that the new Internet age has facilitated the globalisation of democracy. It is for this reason that I suggest that the uprising in Egypt is just the start of similar uprisings in other countries and across the region.

We have already seen the overthrow of the Tunisian government. Protests have been held on the streets of Sana'a in Yemen and Amman in Jordan. Syrian President Bashar El-Assad is clearly thinking about the implications for his country as he has announced that he does not believe that this uprising will reach the streets of Damascus. I think that this is more wishful thinking than firm belief. Syria is clearly a candidate country for a similar uprising in protest against Assad's autocratic rule. The Iranian government is bracing itself for possible protests in Tehran. We may recall that Mir Hossein Mousavi fairly won the previous election, but was denied the office by Ahmadinejad and his thugs. He is now regrouping the opposition parties, and they seem ready to use the current climate to renew their own attempts to assert democracy. It is difficult to rule out possible protests in the Gulf countries and in Saudi Arabia where the monarchs' rule has been absolute. Substantial economic prosperity in these countries arising from oil revenues cannot entirely rule out the possibility of an uprising against their autocratic political regimes.

Indications are that 2011 will represent a major turning point in the Middle Eastern political landscape. Rulers were once able to isolate their citizens from developments elsewhere in the world to secure their own political situation. The Internet and other globalisation tools have changed all of that. People are now able to identify what they are missing out on, and are no longer happy to accept this fact. Those who maintain that western democracy cannot simply be transplanted into all environments, especially those in the Middle East, may well be correct. It is true that many Middle Eastern countries may not be able to successfully apply these principles to their own environments. But now, it is too late for such contentions. The wheel is turning, and its momentum seems unstoppable.

Is Barak Really Part of the Left?

One of the aspects of Israeli politics which has surprised me over the years, is the extent to which former military men have decided to become politicians for the Labour Party after retiring from the IDF. In my eyes, being a career soldier conjures up the vision of right-wing leanings, even though many of the most famous of Israel's military men have a kibbutz background. Despite this fact, there are a number of examples of former generals who have joined the Labour party, and even a few who have gone on to serve as Labour prime ministers. The most famous of these is the late Yitzchak Rabin who previously served as military chief of general staff (ramatkal in Hebrew). Another former ramatkal who went on to become prime minister is Ehud Barak. His true political views have, however, been brought into sharp focus due to events over the past week.

Barak announced last week that he has left the Labour party and resigned as its chairman. Instead, he has decided to form his own new party, the Atzmaut (independence) party. Were it not for the fact that he decimated Labour's Knesset faction by taking 5 out of Labour's 13 Knesset seats (including his own) out of the party and into the new Atzmaut Knesset faction, there may have been a small cheer from Labour faithful that Barak has left the party. For the Labour party, this Knesset has been characterised by splits and divisions over whether the party's true place is in the coalition government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Ehud Barak has been at the centre of this controversy.

Immediately following his unsuccessful term as prime minister which ended in 2001, Barak left the political arena for 6 years. Since returning to politics in 2007, he has served as minister of defence and a member of the cabinet. For Barak, this seems to be the position that he desires most, and it seems as though he is prepared to do almost anything to retain it. A number of Labour's Knesset faction were unhappy when Barak took Labour into the coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu. The main source of the dissatisfaction was the fact that the Labour party ministers are forced to sit around the cabinet table with Avigdor Lieberman, and other members of his Yisrael Beiteinu party. Less likely bed fellows would be difficult to find, and Labour party members certainly felt it.

Despite this fact, the Labour ministers have continued to serve in the government. In terms of government policies, the least comfortable aspect of serving in this government has related to the way in which the peace negotiations have been managed. It has been clear that many of the Labour party Knesset members have been extremely unhappy about being part of a government that has managed the peace negotiations in a way which is so opposite to that in which they would choose. A great deal of pressure has been exercised on the Labour leadership to withdraw from the government as a protest. Because this has not been the unanimous view of all members of the faction, it has resulted in a great deal of in-fighting and lack of unity amongst the 13 Knesset members. Interestingly, it has been party leader and defence minister Ehud Barak who has been one of those most eager to stay in the government.

By choosing to stay in the government, Barak has been accused of not remaining true and loyal to Labour party basic beliefs. He has preferred to bring about Labour's influence from within the ranks of the government, rather than from the opposition benches. There are those who have accused Barak of selling out on Labour's principles, and putting his own personal agenda ahead of the party and the country. He stands accused of keeping Labour in the government only to ensure that he is able to continue serving in a senior government role. This disagreement has proved too much for Barak, and is ultimately what led him to walk away from Labour to form the Barak Atzmaut party.

What is noticeable about the Atzmaut party is that it has only been presented as a "centrist Zionist party". We know little else about the party, its policies and what its election platform would be. Despite this fact, the party holds five Knesset seats and four government portfolios, including minister of defence. This is surely a highly unusual situation in a democratic country. For Barak, it is ideal. He can continue to be minister of defence without having to continuously answer to the Labour party faithful as to why he is not acting in a way which is true to the party's beliefs and policies. He is now able to act almost as he wishes. without having to account to any particular constituency.

Israel's political middle ground has become a very crowded space. Tzipi Livni's Kadima party is also in the centre, although I imagine probably to the right of the Atzmaut party. Both Labour on the left and Likud on the right have shown signs of encroaching on the middle ground. Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu attracted the support that it received. It is the only truly right-wing party in Israeli politics, and accordingly receives support of those on the right side of centre.

I would be surprised if Atzmaut has a long-term future in Israeli politics. It feels like a niche party to satisfy the whims of Ehud Barak. I feel more confident that Labour will recover from the act of decimating the party which has been carried out by its former leader. This is a party which has a history of fighting for its values, principles and ideals. It has a substantial base of support in the kibbutz movement and the trade union movement. Although I have never been a great supporter of Labour policies, I do respect and recognise the important role the party has played in building the State of Israel.

As for Ehud Barak, he will go down in history as a traitor and a person who used public office for the promotion of his personal status and agenda, rather than for the greater good. This is an enormous tragedy for him personally, and for Israel.