Is the Presidency Worth It?

The vote to elect the 10th president of the State of Israel is due to take place in a few days' time.  President Shimon Peres is nearing the end of his seven-year term, and the Basic Law that governs the term and responsibilities of the president dictates that there is no possibility to re-elect the president once he has completed his term.  For Peres, who is now 91 years old, perhaps this may finally force him into retirement.  It is easy to believe that Peres would seek re-election for a further seven-year term, if the law allowed for it, even at his advanced age.

The election campaign has attracted public attention for all the wrong reasons.  With the vote for the president granted only to the members of the Knesset, the Israeli public has no direct vote in this election and is relegated to being a mere spectator as the campaigns of the candidates play themselves out.  The public is a spectator with a huge vested interested, as the successful candidate will represent the State of Israel and the general public on the domestic and international stage for the next seven years.  The most recent unfortunate event, is the withdrawal by Benyamin Ben-Eliezer of his name from the list of candidates competing for the coveted office.  He decided to withdraw following the announcement by the attorney-general that an investigation would be launched into allegations that Ben-Eliezer has received illicit funds.  The timing of the allegations were clearly timed to damage his bid for the presidency, an objective that was achieved.  But this was not the only controversy during the lead-up to the election.

Before the final list of candidates was even confirmed, Minister of Regional Development Silvan Shalom suffered a similar public allegation.  He was accused of sex crimes dating back a number of years.  The attorney-general immediately launched an investigation into the allegations, and decided to close the case without taking any further action.  Shalom was effectively cleared of the allegations, but the public damage had been done.  He decided that he could not pursue his candidacy for the office of president under the circumstances.

There has also been controversy surrounding the candidate who currently leads the opinion polls, Reuven Rivlin.  He is the candidate from the ruling Likud party, and the one that you would expect to receive the natural backing of the prime minister and members of the government.  Due to personal clashes in the past, Prime Minister Netanyahu was extremely reluctant to publicly declare support for Rivlin. Only once the final list of candidates was published, and it was clear that the prime minister could not justify supporting any of the candidates, did he finally pledge his support for Rivlin.  This support, hesitant and begrudging as it was, had an unhealthy smell about it.  There are those who believe that the prime minister saw the writing on the wall in terms of an inevitable Rivlin victory, and realised that he could make his life in the future extremely difficult if a president is elected who did not receive his support.  Rather than suffer this situation, he understood that it would be better to publicly support Rivlin.

These allegations and controversies serve to taint the office of president, and not for the first time.  We have the unbelievable situation where a former president is currently serving a jail sentence after being found guilt of rape and other sex offences, some of them committed in the president's residence.  The office of president is considered to be above politics, and that of an elder statesman who keeps himself above the dirt and sleaze that has been associated with politics and public life in recent times.  Apparently, even this is not beyond the presidential office.  If any of the allegations made of the candidates have even the slightest basis of truth, the office of president is tainted.  And if the allegations are entirely without foundation, the office of president is tainted by the fact that people feel justified in using dirty tactics to prevent individuals from attaining the position.

When considering the role that president plays in Israeli society, it makes me wonder whether it is worth having the position at all in light of these shenanigans.  It is a position that is expected to be filled be a squeaky clean individual who is entirely trustworthy, and can proudly represent Israel on the public stage.  This image is being blackened more and more, but those who try to falsely fill the position, and by those who falsely try to prevent people from filling the position.  Even President Peres, who has very high public recognition as having done a good job as president, has come under criticism for being overly political in the job.  Does a person exist in Israel who can truly and honestly fill the position?  I am not sure.

The president has two key powers under the Basic Law.  The first is to call upon the leader of the winning party in a general election to form a government.  The second power is to pardon or commute the sentences of both soldiers and civilians.  The latter power is usually only exercised upon strong advice from a special committee set up to consider the matter.  The president also ceremonially signs bills into law (except those affecting the powers and responsibilities of the president), and has a number of other ceremonial roles, including the appointment of judges to courts and the receipt of credentials from ambassadors posted to serve in Israel.  The ceremonial roles are undertaken on the advice of others, and do not require the president to exercise his judgement or executive powers.  In my view, the role of president could be removed without a great loss to Israeli society or to its democratic nature.  It could also serve to save the treasury a few million Shekels a year in salary and running costs of the office and residence of the president.

It seems as though the type of person that was envisaged as the president of Israel may no longer exist.  The notion of a thoroughly clean and upstanding individual who represents each and every citizen of our country seems now to be only an illusion.  The mere fact that most of the candidates for president are current or former politicians tells a story of its own.  So do we push forward with electing somebody to the office who seems unable to fit the expectation, on the understanding that it is the best we can do?  Or do we abolish an office which seems to have little importance to the daily functioning of the country in our modern day?  It is a question that may be asked about monarchs across Europe, and non-executive presidents in other countries as well.  My vote would be to abolish the office, and clean up the dirty tricks that surround it.

A Damaging Debate

The debate about whether Israel should or should not attack Iran's nuclear facilities has broken out into the public arena in the strangest possible way.  Over last weekend, the press reported a disagreement between the prime minister and the president over whether attacking Iran at this time is the correct course of action.

Indications are that Prime Minister Netanyahu is one of two lone voices calling for Israel to take military action to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb.  Ironically, his only supporter is Defense Minister Ehud Barak.  This is ironic due to the completely opposite ends of the political spectrum that these two politicians come from.  At the moment, however, they are bedfellows in calling for the IDF to act in the near future to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities.  President Shimon Peres is advocating a completely different approach.  He would prefer to allow America to take the lead, and is currently trusting President Barack Obama's approach in waiting to see whether the sanctions will bring the desired result.  Ultimately, Peres is opposed to Israel acting unilaterally against Iran.  Peres, always a dove in his approach over many years, was also opposed to the strike that Israel carried out on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in1981.  We know how crucial that operation ultimately proved to be.

Peres is not alone in Israel in his opposition to an attack on Iran.  From recent press reports, it is understood that the military leadership in the IDF is also opposed to such an attack.  This does not mean that they are not prepared to carry out such an attack, or that they would not do so if the government decided that this is the correct approach.  It is just that military leaders, in their individual and professional capacities, believe that this would not be the best approach.  In addition to this, it is reported from surveys undertaken, that most Israelis also do not support military action.  The Israeli public seems concerned about the safety of the home front in the event of an attack on Iran.  It is well understood that Iran will almost certainly take retaliatory action in the event that there are strikes on her nuclear facilities.  This puts the Israeli public at risk, as Iran's Shihab missiles are armed and ready to fire towards Israeli territory.  Clearly, this nervousness is influencing the view of the general public such that they are opposed to attacking Iran, even if this is by a slim majority.  Some Israelis feel so strongly that we should not be attacking Iran, that an online petition has been launched imploring Israeli air force pilots to reject orders to strike Iran if called upon to do so.  While the prospect of Israel's pilots not carrying out orders is something we could not contemplate, I guess that it does show the strength of the feelings.

The fact that this entire debate is being conducted via the press and in the public, is not positive.  While democratic principles are important in our society, and especially maintaining the right to freedom of speech, I believe that certain discussions are much better held out of the public domain.  This particularly refers to matters of national security, which this clearly is.  It may be true that President Peres should not be interfering in government business, and that he has previously made incorrect calls on whether the IDF should attack targets or not.  I feel, however, that these points should be made directly to him rather via articles in the weekend newspapers.  My choosing to use the media to canvass internal support for their respective positions, the prime minister and the president may have forgotten that our enemies (including Iran) have intelligence officers who are scrutinising every article that is published.  What sort of message are we sending to them?  I believe that sending a message which shows a lack of unity in our government potentially weakens our situation in  the eyes of the Iranians.  If we cannot even agree on the fundamental issue of whether we should be taking military action to protect Israeli sovereignty for ourselves and future generations, how are we expected to agree on more substantial matters?  Iran has reacted as we would expect, by making fun of our internal squabble, and by continuing at full steam to develop a nuclear weapon.

It is a good thing that we have an environment which supports internal debates and disagreements, and that we have the freedom to be able to express ourselves openly in the national media.  Better decisions are often made when there is a minority that disagrees, and that is strong enough to bring the majority to consider their view before the final decision is made.  Where issues relating to how we deal with Iran are concerned, the debate should be held in the well-secured hallowed halls of government and the IDF, and not in the press.  Although we are very used to playing out party political agreements in the media, there are times when this approach is not appropriate.  This is clearly one of those times, and the national security of the country must surely take preference over all other matters.

Time to Take Stock and Learn Lessons

Israel's most shameful episode in its short history came to a head late last week in the Tel Aviv District Court, when former President Moshe Katsav was found guilty of rape and sexual assault. This took place during his period in office as tourism minister and president of the State of Israel. The country has had to deal with scandal and shame in the past, but this episode must surely rank as the most shameful incident in history. What sets this story apart from other cases of rape and sexual assault, all of which are abhorrent, is the fact that this man used his power and position to force himself on women against their will.

Moshe Katsav was born in Iran and immigrated to Israel at the age of 6 years old with his parents and family. The family settled in a transit camp near the city of Ashdod. This camp went on to become the town of Kiryat Malachi, where Katsav and his family live to this day. At the age of 24, he was elected mayor of Kiryat Malachi and took his seat in the Knesset for the first time 8 years later. During his 23 years in the Knesset, he held a variety of government positions including three ministries and the post of deputy prime minister. He was elected as the president of Israel in 2000 in a surprise victory over his rival, Shimon Peres. Peres eventually succeeded Katsav in 2007 when he stepped down to face the charges levelled against him.

There can be no doubt that Katsav's Iranian background served to reinforce the prevalent Middle-Eastern culture of a society where males dominate. This attitude can also be found in many parts of modern Israeli society despite indications to the contrary. Many aspects of Israel project equality between the sexes to the international world. These include the fact that Israel was only the third country in the world to have a female prime minister, and the fact that girls are also subject to the draft and are obliged to serve in the military along with their male counterparts. Despite these measures of equality and others that can be found in Israel, the reality is that Israeli society continues to be dominated by males. This will also have been a contributing factor in setting the scene for the crimes that took place in the offices of government and in the residence of the president of the state.

When the accusations against Katsav first surfaced, he was already safely ensconced in the president's mansion. The fact that one woman had the courage to come forward to accuse the man in the highest position in the country, emboldened others to accuse him of similar crimes. Soon, a number of women were telling of their experiences at the hands of Katsav. Because of the seniority of his position in government, the women did not have the courage to come forward until this moment. Once the first of the stories were told, it opened the floodgates until the police were unable to ignore the accusations. It took some brave actions on the part of police and prosecutors to bring this action against the sitting president.

Katsav was offered the opportunity to avoid scandal and embarrassment when the police offered him a plea bargain. In return for dropping the most serious of the charges, Katsav was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to lesser charges and receive a suspended sentence. Astonishingly, he rejected the plea bargain in favour of a court trial in a quest to "clear his name". It is unclear whether he thought that he could use his political influence to engineer an innocent verdict from the court, or whether he genuinely felt he had done nothing wrong. I rather suspect that it was the former, but his audacity in rejecting the plea bargain added insult to injury in the eyes of the judges and the public. In this case, the Israeli legal system showed itself able to maintain its independence under enormous political pressure. Following a lengthy trial and an equally lengthy period while the judges considered the evidence, the three judges on the bench returned with a unanimous verdict - guilty! The former president's fall from grace was complete, together with the embarrassment that he has heaped on Israel.

The hearing to sentence Katsav will be held during the course of January, and he is expected to receive a long custodial sentence. Even the former president is not above the law. and he will be subject to the same punishment as all other citizens. Despite being accustomed to scandals of all types, the public has been shocked by the nature of the crimes and level of coercion and abuse of powers that has become evident from the case.

The story, however, cannot be allowed to end when sentence is passed. Israeli society needs to take a long hard look at itself in order to identify the flaws in society that allowed such a crime to take place. Even though it is the most high profile of its type, it is certainly not the only example of such abuse of power to commit criminal acts. It is high time for such behaviour to be stamped out. It is easier said than done, however, with almost every aspect of Israeli society affected.

An example needs, firstly, to be set by the country's senior leaders. They need to make it clear that such abuse of position and encroachment on the privacy of women is unacceptable. They also need to behave in a way that reinforces this position. A huge undertaking is required within the ranks of the military where such behaviour is reported to be rife. The central position of the IDF to Israeli society means that this action is essential and urgent.

I recognise that a change of this magnitude will take years, if not generations until a noticeable change is seen in Israeli society. In the meantime, it is important for me that my children and their peers will grow up understanding what is right and what is wrong, and holding the relevant people responsible for behaving accordingly. We cannot undo the damage done by Katsav, but it is our responsibility to learn lessons from this case to ensure that it does not happen again.