Stop The Nonsense

By JUSTIN POZMANTER

It has now been over half a year of the ongoing fight over the judiciary in Israel. At this point, it is hard to conclude which side has lost the script to a greater degree.

 Israel is a democracy, and a very imperfect and messy one at that.

One side says there is a tyranny of the justices, the other says that if reform passes Israel will become a dictatorship. Both claims are dangerous and hyperbolic nonsense.

Israel’s judiciary does not function as it should. It is too powerful and relies on murky or undefined legal structures such as “reasonableness” to justify ruling as it pleases and to get involved in matters it shouldn’t. It is desperately in need of reform.

However, with it functioning as it has, Israelis and Israel’s supporters, across the political spectrum, have proudly stated for decades that we are the only democracy in the Middle East and touted our values and freedoms to the world…and we were correct in doing so.

Despite the need for reform of the judiciary, the reform put forward by the current coalition has been done sloppily, with a heavy hand and is a gross overreach.

But even if there is an over-correction that is democratically damaging, a legislature elected in free and fair democratic elections with too much power rather than an unelected judiciary with too much power does not a dictatorship make.

When you hear either side screaming about a coup, questioning the legitimacy of democratically elected officials, or claiming everything they don’t like is equal to a dictatorship, anarchy or a lack of loyalty to the country, it says a lot more about the speaker than it does the process of selecting judges or the precise application of legal doctrine.

It isn’t a coincidence that the very same people leading the protests were those leading the anti-Netanyahu protests years before the reform was introduced, or he was indicted. Nor is it a coincidence that those who are the most uncompromising on the reform are the same people who for years have slandered anyone to their left (which is nearly the whole country) as traitorous leftists.

It usually tells you more about how these “leaders”, a term that should be used very lightly, feel about the PEOPLE they oppose than the judicial system or legislation they support. They either don’t like those who have been in power for years (secular and Ashkenazi) or they are afraid of those who may be in power for years to come (religious, traditional, Mizrachi). Opposing, or overzealously supporting, people or personalities rather than ideas or policies is almost always a recipe for disaster.

This is not to attack on those protesting. The rights to free speech and assembly and the right to protest that flows from them are as fundamental as any rights that exist in a democracy. And I believe most protestors’ hearts are in the right place – in support or opposition. But it only takes about five minutes observing either side to see there is a sharp divide on religious/secular/Ashkenazi/Mizrachi lines which should give any sincere activist pause.

The real danger is not in the current judiciary or in potential reform. It is losing the very thing that allows Israel to survive against sometimes daunting challenges – our sense of shared purpose.

I was recently in the United States having a conversation over dinner about the dangers of social media for kids. Someone made the point that sometimes social media is positive for teenagers because it can give them a sense of community and purpose, they feel they are lacking.

I responded that may be true, but that I didn’t think it applied to Israel to the same degree. Israelis – with of course many, many individual and sectoral exceptions - generally feel a part of something larger, something to which they belong and are willing to fight to protect. That shared sense of purpose has allowed Israelis to overcome nearly constant economic, diplomatic and, of course, military and strategic challenges for years.

Later that evening in my hotel room I felt an overwhelming sense of unease that maybe what I was so sure of, what makes Israel such a special and resilient place, is nothing near a sure thing, not just long-term, but even in the immediate future.

The greatest risk of the fight over the judicial reform is that it seems to be a far more intense and comprehensive proxy battle for the other serious challenges pulling at the fabric of Israeli society. Isn’t it odd that the battle lines on this issue are so clearly drawn on religious/secular, Ashkenazi/Mizrachi, center/periphery lines?

There really should be no connection between sectors on this issue. Smart people can disagree on the relationship between branches of government, but there is no reason why where you come down on judicial power should be so directly connected to your salary, neighborhood, where or if you pray, or where your grandparents were born.  

How did we get here? Maybe the country was never as cohesive as we’d like to believe. Maybe it’s a consequence of greater polarization across the western world to which Israel isn’t immune. Or maybe Israel itself has in fact changed.

Two things are clear: 1. The blame game is pointless. There are many culprits, and nobody will admit anyone on their side is one of them; and 2. Israel won’t be the Israel that any patriotic Israeli or passionate Zionist anywhere in the world wants if we don’t find our sense of common purpose. I only hope we still can.

---

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PODCAST!

SUBSCRIBE HERE!

Is Left-Wing or Right-Wing Antisemitism Worse?

By Justin Pozmanter

There has been a sharp rise in antisemitism in the United States. It’s not yet Europe, but the trendline is very disturbing for the American Jewish community. As antisemitism has increased, there has been an ongoing debate about whether antisemitism described as “right-wing” or “left-wing” is worse. This debate itself is extremely dangerous.

What exactly are we debating? Does it matter if an antisemite is white, black, Christian, Muslim, a Trump voter or a ‘squad’ supporter? If anyone attacks Jews, verbally or physically, they should be condemned. The only reason to debate which is worse is to try and minimize or justify the antisemitism coming from your side of the spectrum.

An anti-Israel group on campus pushed to exclude “Zionists” from the public square? “But what about what Donald Trump said about Jews and Israel? The right is the real problem, not my side.”

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made an egregious comment about Jews? “But what about what Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said? See, it’s really the left to worry about.”

If you care about the Jewish community, if you care about bigotry and hatred, there should be no ambiguity, there should be no debate and it shouldn’t matter if the bigot in question votes for the same party as you.

In fact, you should be more offended by antisemitism coming from your side. You should be more disgusted that someone otherwise aligned with you is a racist than someone otherwise opposed to you. And you should make that clear, publicly, without reservation or qualification.

It is much more powerful when a progressive denounces a progressive’s hate than when they condemn a conservative. Rather than minimize the antisemitism in your camp, call it out and eviscerate it.

Both right and left should make clear that antisemitism has no place in the conversative or progressive movements. Condemn the other side every chance you get, but if you don’t also deny the hatred in your backyard even a drop of oxygen, you are doing nothing to fight antisemitism. You are encouraging it.

Israel is often used as an excuse for antisemitism, and it is just that, an excuse. Even if every wild lie told about Israel were true, why would that justify antisemitism? A Lubavitcher Hasid in Brooklyn and a Reform Jew in San Francisco have at least two things in common: 1. They are Jews; and 2. They have no control over the policy decisions of the Israeli government.

Antisemites will use whatever excuse they can to justify targeting Jews. If they can point to an Israeli policy, they might. If not, they’ll make something up.

After the latest Israeli elections there has been concern that the rise of far-right candidates such as Itamar Ben Gvir will lead to a rise in antisemitism. There is no reason to believe this is true. I have no interest in defending Ben Gvir’s statements, many of which are indefensible, but the notion that he and Bezelal Smotrich leading a party that won around 10% of the vote somehow causes hatred of Jews in the United States is ridiculous.

Antisemitism is an evil that goes back over 2,000 years – it is not rooted in current Israeli voting patterns.

Over the last 18 months, Israel had a government that included six ministers from the farthest left parties on the spectrum (Meretz and Labor) and included the Arab-Islamist party Ra’am. Did antisemitism suddenly plummet? No, antisemitism rose. This had nothing to do with Israel having a broad government either, it simply had no effect. Even attitudes towards Israel itself saw no real change.

Those who hated Israel under a center-right government, hated Israel under a center-left government and will continue to hate Israel under a right-wing government. They hate Israel because it is the Jewish state, it does not matter if Israeli Jews are moderates, socialists or fascists, only that they are Jews.

Additionally, if political trends in someone’s ancestral homeland somehow cause a spike in racist attacks, why haven’t we heard about attacks on French Americans as Marine Le Pen rose in popularity, or people avoiding pizzerias because Georgia Meloni is Prime Minister of Italy? Not only have no attacks occurred, but there hasn’t been even the slightest concern they might.

If you believe antisemitic stereotypes or that Jews are any less worthy of safety, respect and self-determination, you are a bigot, no matter what else you can claim.

You can be supportive of the state of Israel for any number of reasons and still be an antisemite.

You can agree with the majority of American Jews on 90% of issues and claim thousands of Jewish supporters and still be an antisemite.

If you don’t believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, you are an antisemite even if you have Jewish friends, family or otherwise appreciate Jewish culture.

If you’re committed to combating hatred and bigotry only when it’s politically convenient, leave fighting antisemitism to others – criticizing the other side while ignoring or rationalizing antisemitism on your side does more harm than good.

If you are a true friend of the Jewish people, and find bigotry and racism vile no matter the source, speak up and make clear that the only tolerable level of hatred amongst your friends and allies is zero.

---

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

Israelis are not Americans

By Justin Pozmanter

When I moved to Israel four years ago, I assumed I would have fewer conversations about the President of the United States. I couldn’t have been more wrong. I almost never initiate the conversations, and they are almost always with Americans who have an unfavorable view of President Trump. The discussions generally start with a question along the lines of, “How can Israelis like Trump? Don’t they see he’s such a ____?” The questions are certainly normal, but their premise ignores a critical fact – Israelis are not Americans. Trying to understand Israeli views of the President, any President, by applying an American standard just doesn’t work.

Recently, inflammatory statements made by former President Trump in an interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid have made headlines. The statements have triggered the same questions, but really, they reinforce the basic fact that it is folly to try and connect Israeli views on a President to party, personality, or even their general competence as President. It is all about what they do in relation to Israel.

When it comes to a foreign leader, Israelis care first and foremost, if not exclusively, about how that leader’s policies impact Israel, and whether their actions and words demonstrate that they have Israel’s best interests at heart. Even more so, when the leader in question has more impact on Israel than any political leader other than the Israeli Prime Minister.

Most of what inspires or embarrasses Americans about a President’s conduct doesn’t have the same impact on Israelis, or the citizens of any other country, to the extent they are even aware of the issues. It can be dizzying for an American to try and follow the minute-by-minute outrages on broadcast, cable, and social media. To expect an Israeli to follow it all is completely unrealistic. While this should not come as a great shock, sometimes it still does.

Were an American to ask the average Israeli whether they like Obamacare, or if they think the debt ceiling should be raised, they would be as likely to get a comprehensive answer as if the Israeli asked them which Health Maintenance Organization they prefer, or whether they think buses should run on Saturdays. It isn’t that Israelis don’t care about the real human impact of immigration, health care or social policy in the United States; it is that they, like all people, are generally immersed in their own lives and the issues facing their family, community, and country. It is unfair to expect more.

This is not a blanket statement that covers all Israelis. For instance, it doesn’t apply to most American immigrants, people who have spent years working or studying in the United States, or those seriously engaged in foreign affairs. For each of these relatively small groups there is a reasonable expectation that they will have a greater interest and knowledge of internal American issues and politics. The fact that these are also the groups within Israeli society most likely to be in regular contact with American family, friends and colleagues only reinforces the false premise that most Israelis are immersed in American political discourse.

However, most Israelis, like the citizens of every country, really don’t follow the domestic minutiae of any other country. While many Israelis have an impressive command of English, most do not follow American news in detail. Current events in the United States do elicit more interest in Israel than events from just about any other country, but the debates that consume Americans still don’t register at nearly the same level.

Therefore, when asked if they approve or disapprove of the President in an opinion poll, Israelis don’t see the question the same way an American would see Presidential approval. They see it through an Israeli-specific lens. Most Israelis believe Jerusalem is the capital of the country, that the Golan Heights must remain part of Israel forever, that the JCPOA was a terrible deal and that normalization with Arab states is a very positive step. On each of those issues, most Israelis saw President Trump’s policies as more supportive than President Obama’s policies. That doesn’t necessarily mean they think President Trump was a better President, or that they would be more likely to agree with him on any other policy, if they were American citizens. It simply means they believe he was more supportive on the issues he dealt with that they directly care about.

This is not a phenomenon that will change. And it is not tied to American partisan politics. Israelis care if someone is a Likudnik or Laborite, they don’t care if someone is a Democrat or Republican. Bill Clinton was popular in Israel because Israelis felt he genuinely cared about their welfare, not because he was a Democrat. His utterance of a single Hebrew phrase at Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral, and the emotion he showed, meant more to most Israelis than his personal scandals or stewardship of a strong economy. Donald Trump was popular in Israel because Israelis believed his policies advanced Israel’s national interests, and therefore their welfare and that of their families. His partisan identification, and his controversial statements and actions were far less relevant.

To be clear, this is about Israeli citizens, not the Israeli government. The United States is unquestionably Israel’s most important ally, and any Israeli official engaged in foreign policy should be familiar with American partisan politics and domestic priorities.

But when it comes to the average Israeli doctor, business owner, cab driver, engineer or teacher, their opinion will be based on Israel and Israel alone. Just like anyone else, their opinions will vary based on their political leanings and personal experiences. But they won’t like or dislike a US President because of what they do domestically. They will form their opinion based on whether the President’s policies meet their view of what is best for Israel. 

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

An almost optimistic take on Israel’s new coalition

By Justin Pozmanter

I have previously written my cynical take on Israel’s elections. The elections were heavy on personality and light on substance, and it is easy to predict the current government will fall quickly under the weight of its own ideological contradictions.

The primary purpose of this coalition was, and remains, removing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power. Netanyahu served as prime minister for longer than anyone before him. He is a singularly talented politician and, if it turns out that he has served his last day in the Prime Minister’s office, he will have left behind a legacy of significant accomplishments for the state of Israel.

Despite this, or perhaps because of it, a national obsession has developed around his rule. Israel has reached a point where neither Netanyahu’s supporters nor opponents are able to objectively analyze his leadership or actions. No matter how brilliant, how committed, or how capable, it is highly problematic for any democracy to have a leader become the sole focus of public debate.

There are those who honestly believed Israel would have failed as a democracy, potentially as a state itself, had Netanyahu won another term. And there are those who genuinely believe Bibi, and only Bibi, can lead.

Israel will go on without him, even if it is difficult to imagine the country without the man who has dominated its politics for 12 years. Israel survived when David Ben Gurion left, survived when Menachem Begin left, survived when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated and when Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke, and it will survive the generation of leaders who will follow Netanyahu, beginning with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

The new Bennett/Yair Lapid government makes little sense on paper. There are right wingers, left wingers, religious Jews, secular Jews, and an Islamist Arab party (Ra’am) most closely aligned with the far left on security and with the ultra-Orthodox on social issues. Bennett must find a way to navigate all those differences with the slimmest of majorities – 61-59. Using even the most generous analysis, the coalition may well quickly fall, sending Israel back to the divisive business of electoral politics. But what if it doesn’t?

If this coalition can defy the odds and govern effectively, it might be the harbinger of a new political reality. The entire world, Israel included, has reached a point of ideological absolutism. The ideological poles are further apart than at any time in recent memory and those on opposite sides of the spectrum can barely maintain friendships, or have a civil conversation, let alone run a country together. But here in Israel, the right-wing, religious, former head of the Yesha Council (the umbrella organization of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria) is leading a coalition that cannot stand without the participation of Israel’s most left-wing and devoutly secular party (Meretz).

When the government was announced, and it became clear Israel would have its first religious Zionist, kippah-wearing leader, right-wing religious Jerusalem mourned, while left-wing secular Tel Aviv celebrated. This can largely be attributed to the horror, or euphoria, of Netanyahu leaving office, but it also speaks to the confusion and uncertainty over what this government might be.

It is still entirely unclear. However, if the coalition is successful in managing COVID, bringing down housing prices, improving the economy and healing some of the divisions between Jewish and Arab Israel, among many other issues, known and unknown, it may have an impact on how Israelis of different ideologies and backgrounds view one another.

At present, right-wing and left-wing Israelis tend to see the other’s worldview as an existential threat. The right and left governing together could change that. It is very unlikely there will be breakthroughs on major issues related to the Palestinians or the fundamental divisions between religion and state. However, working constructively together, for the first time in a generation, would hopefully bring the right and left to the point where they can acknowledge that political opponents, extremists aside, are not looking to harm the country.

Israeli Arabs generally view the government with suspicion at best, and with outright hostility at worst.

If Ra’am can achieve results on economic development, education, and bringing down the rate of crime in Arab communities, it would begin to remove the view of many Arab Israelis that they have nothing to gain from working with the Jewish majority and fully participating in the political process. And if Jewish Israelis see an Arab party playing a constructive role in governing the country, it could lessen some of their trepidation related to the goals of Arab political activism and leadership.

I do not believe this coalition will last. However, despite my strong misgivings about at least half of its parties, I hope it does. Israel has had enough elections. Israel has had enough of the perpetual divisions between right and left, religious and secular and Jewish and Arab.

Israel has never had a government quite like this. Previous governments, left-wing, right-wing, and unity alike, have succeeded in building the world’s sole Jewish state into an economic and military power, but they have not managed to heal Israel’s internal divisions. Maybe this one can. The opposition should be vocal and demanding, but this government has the backing of a majority of the Knesset, making it as legitimate as any other. It has earned the opportunity to prove what it can do.

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

We Remember

By Justin Pozmanter

Today, Israel remembers those who gave their lives so that we may live. Yom Hazikaron is a powerfully emotional day. I wasn’t fully prepared for the feelings this day evokes when I moved here.

Yesterday, driving down the main street in Raanana with my children, we saw every single street sign covered with black, and inscribed with the name of someone who died for the state of Israel and their age when they fell. Below is a picture of just one of the hundreds of street signs covered in this way:

For 10 minutes down Ahuza Street, we looked at them, knowing they represent just a tiny fraction of the horrible cost Israel has paid to exist. Most of the signs showed men and women far younger than I am now, taken from their parents, siblings and friends, and robbed of the opportunity to build families of their own, or watch their children grow.

Then the siren sounded. The siren is piercing, it fills your mind, you feel it in your heart, your bones, your very soul. Many thoughts and emotions run through my head every time I hear it. The first is sadness for those we all lost. Israel is tiny. It is always striking how much of a familial feel exists here. I didn’t personally know any of the those who perished, but in some way, I feel as if I did.

The second thing you simply can’t shake is the knowledge that the same siren blaring at any other time would send us rushing to a safe room for cover.

However, the emotion that overwhelms me is gratitude. Gratitude to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for Israel, for the Jewish people, for me and my family.

Yom Hazikaron comes shortly after another day of remembrance when the siren sounds in Israel, Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. On Yom Hazikaron this year, we mourn 23,928 fallen (God willing, that number will not change before next year). On Yom HaShoah, we remember 6,000,000.

23,928 is far too many, and for anyone who has lost a loved one, even that single loss is devastating, but the difference in the magnitude of those numbers has profound meaning. In less than ten years preceding the birth of the state of Israel in 1948, 6,000,000 Jews lost their lives because they had no place to go. In the pre-state Yishuv, plus the 73 years since the state’s founding, 23,928 heroes have given their lives so we will never again have no place to go. Their sacrifice is why over 6,000,000 Jews can now live in the state of Israel.

The world has not changed all that much. Evil still exists. Iran has nearly the same designs on the Middle East and the Jews living here as the Nazis had for Europe and the Jews living there. The difference is Israel.

So amidst the sadness and mourning of Yom Hazikaron, I also feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the rest of us as well as those currently serving in the IDF, border police and security agencies. And I am so thankful to live at a time when there is a robust, strong and thriving Jewish state.  

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

Israel Supports a Good Deal

By Justin Pozmanter

Now that the Biden administration has opened negotiations with Iran, we can expect familiar voices to claim that Israel, and the American pro-Israel community, oppose diplomacy and any agreement related to the Iranian nuclear program. To quote President Biden, that is a bunch of malarkey.

Israel is generally target number one for Iranian aggression. That being the case, who would benefit more from an agreement that actually prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability? It would be foolish, if not downright suicidal, for Israel to oppose such a deal.

This is also not a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. As a near total capitulation to Iranian ambitions, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is only a good deal if the target audience is Iran, Hezbollah and Bashar Assad.

When the JCPOA was finalized, there were those who claimed opposition was for partisan political reasons or because of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s poor relationship with President Obama. While it is true that Netanyahu and Obama had a famously rocky relationship, it is not the reason Israel opposed the JCPOA.

Israel opposed the JCPOA because it was at odds with Israeli interests and put Israeli lives in mortal peril now and in the future. While another Prime Minister may have handled their opposition differently, anyone who could plausibly be elected Prime Minister of Israel would have actively opposed the JCPOA, no matter who was serving as President of the United States.

A good deal that would justify removing sanctions on Iran would contain, at minimum, the following elements:

1.      It would verifiably remove every pathway to an Iranian nuclear weapons capability. It must include anytime, anywhere snap inspections. The Iranian regime has not earned the slightest benefit of the doubt. They have repeatedly lied and hidden nuclear materials, information and even entire uranium enrichment sites. If any place in Iran is off limit to inspectors, the inspections regime is insufficient, and the deal is not verifiable.

2.      It would address Iran’s development of ballistic missiles. Iran has the right to defensive capabilities, and even reasonable offensive capabilities, but if they are not seeking a nuclear weapon, they have no use for large long range missiles and certainly no need for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). These types of weapons are only meant to carry a nuclear (or potentially other nonconventional) warhead.

3.      Iran’s malign behavior in the region must be addressed. It is illogical to again provide sanctions relief when we know it will be used to fund and arm terror proxies and destabilize multiple countries across the region. Iran funds and arms Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, countless militias in Iraq and helped Bashar Assad slaughter half a million people. After the JCPOA, it was promised that being “welcomed back into the family of nations” would moderate Iranian behavior and they would focus on improving the lives of their own citizens. The opposite occurred. Iran, committed as ever to its revolutionary ideology, used the increased revenues to boost payments to regional proxies and has repeatedly and violently crushed attempts by its people to gain greater freedom.

4.      The restrictions must be permanent, or at the very least only eased based on improved Iranian behavior rather than an automatic sunset date. By ending restrictions automatically, the JCPOA allows Iran to reap the financial benefits of the deal permanently, while being patient and continuing nuclear research, before moving forward with their previous nuclear weapons designs from a much stronger and more advanced position. A good deal would not prevent Iran from developing one rudimentary bomb today, only to make it easier for them to build dozens of advanced nuclear weapons in a few years. A good deal would prevent them from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state.

Recent comments by the United States Special Envoy to Iran, Robert Malley, do not provide much room for optimism that the United States plans a tougher stand designed to reach a good deal with Iran.

If the JCPOA is revived, or another weak deal is reached that again enriches Iran while doing nothing to prevent it from using its greater financial strength to continue its most malign behaviors, Israel, as well as most of the rest of the region, will be opposed. If nothing else, when those most endangered by Iran vehemently oppose a deal as a fundamental threat to their national security, the rest of the world should listen.

However, if the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council + Germany) come to a deal that truly and verifiably prevents a nuclear Iran, prohibits Iran from developing the means to deliver nuclear weapons and reigns in Tehran’s support for terror support, they would find Israel, and pro-Israel Americans, the most enthusiastic supporters in the world.

---

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

It Ain’t (Totally) Broke, But We Can Still Fix It

By Justin Pozmanter

Before last month’s national elections, I wrote about the nature of the race and how it had been stripped of all ideology and meaning. With all the votes counted and coalition negotiations in full swing, it appears there will either be a shaky coalition of strange bedfellows led by Benjamin Netanyahu, a shaky coalition of strange bedfellows led by a rotation of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid or no coalition at all and yet another election.

Much of the political gridlock can be blamed on the fight over whether Prime Minister Netanyahu remains in power. However, even if he were to leave the political arena, or be acquitted of the charges against him, it is clear the system can use an overhaul.

The first item that must be addressed is the fact that the prime minister is under investigation. While Netanyahu is the first prime minister to serve in office under indictment, both Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon faced investigations while in office. The Prime Minister of Israel has one of the most difficult jobs in the world. Adding years-long investigations while serving is not in the interest of the country.

The prime minister should be immune from criminal investigation while in office – with exceptions for truly grave or violent crimes. The Knesset would, of course, maintain the prerogative to remove the prime minister from office. The criminal statute of limitations should be frozen while the prime minister is in office and there should be a term limit to prevent a prime minister using the office as a permanent shield from prosecution.  

The second glaring issue is that members of Knesset have no constituencies of Israeli citizens. In the cases of non-democratic parties (meaning those where the list of candidates is chosen exclusively by the party leader), such as Yesh Atid and Yisrael Beiteinu, the parties are essentially an alter ego of the party leader and the members of their factions owe their loyalty to the party leader alone. But even for the democratic parties such as Likud and Labor, after the primary, no members of the faction other than the party leader truly face voters or must concern themselves with constituent services.

The model suggested maintains the current basic structure. There would still be a unicameral 120 seat Knesset. However, only half the Knesset would be elected exactly as it is today. The parties would submit national lists and be allotted seats in the parliament based on their share of the vote total.

The major change is that the remaining 60 seats would be based on geographic districts. With close to 9.3 million citizens, that would amount to 60 districts of roughly 155,000 citizens.

Under this formula, ministers and deputy ministers would all come from the national lists, but committee chairs would mostly come from the constituent districts. This way, those most concerned with constituent services would be most focused on the granular details of legislating, while the leaders of the national slates would concern themselves with executive ministerial functions.

The candidates for the 60 constituent districts would be aligned with one of the parties submitting a national list and would be part of that party’s faction once elected to the Knesset. The national lists would still need to cross a threshold to make the Knesset, but even if they fall short, any candidate winning a local district-based election would enter the Knesset. While this could present a scenario where a single MK could be the “kingmaker” in a close election, the fact that these MKs would not be eligible for ministerial roles would greatly reduce the type of personal ransom a party of one or two, whose national list failed to clear the threshold, could demand to join a coalition.

The district lines would be drawn by a non-partisan commission of technocrats and approved by the full Knesset once a decade. While some manipulation to favor a party or demographic group is unavoidable, the commission’s mandate, anchored in law, would be to draw lines that are as contiguous as possible and keep municipalities together.

Because of the way the Israeli population is distributed geographically, drawing logical, contiguous districts should naturally create districts that will ensure every major demographic group will have at least some representation in the Knesset. And, unlike today, the main mandate of those representatives will be to provide their local constituency a voice in national politics.

This system would not remove party loyalty from the equation, but it would mean that half the Knesset would be attuned to the needs of their local constituency in addition to their party leadership, and that every periphery community would be guaranteed a voice in every Knesset. It would also allow voters the option to split their ticket. For instance, there could a voter with centrist views who nevertheless believes Benjamin Netanyahu is better suited to be Prime Minister than Yair Lapid. That voter would now have the option to vote for the national Likud list, while also supporting the local Yesh Atid candidate.

This short outline is oversimplified and leaves out a great many details. Revamping the Israeli electoral system will be complex and any attempt at change will surely be met with stiff resistance. However, it is imperative that such an attempt is made.

Israel’s electoral system has served it extraordinarily well. It is still nothing short of a miracle that people from dozens of countries, most with no democratic tradition, returned home after two thousand years to establish a vibrant democracy.

The system does not need to be torn down completely, nor will Israel collapse if we continue to elect the Knesset as we have. But as the country has grown, and with the benefit of seven decades of hindsight, it is clear the system can be improved. Given the current stalemate, the public should be as open as ever to major reforms that will make the system more responsive and representative. Now is the time to try.

---

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

A Campaign without Meaning

By Justin Pozmanter

Israel is about to go to the polls…again.  

Elections have always been popularity contests, with the personalities of the main candidates playing a huge role in the outcome. This is only amplified when there is a polarizing incumbent on the ballot. However, it is hard to recall an election that has been nearly 100% about a single individual. Even referendums on the incumbent are almost always connected to their views and perceived performance on national security, the economy, healthcare etc.

The 2020 election in the United States was all about Donald Trump, but even then, you heard repeated arguments related to his policies on immigration, COVID-19 and others. It was not at all difficult to see a clear ideological contrast between President Trump and now-President Biden.

Compare this to the 2021 campaign here in Israel. Newspapers once reported polls with ideological blocs of left and right. The stories today are about the “Bibi-bloc” and the “anti-Bibi” bloc.

Gideon Saar is firmly in the anti-Bibi bloc, but you would be hard pressed to find a single substantive issue that separates the two. Meretz is also in the anti-Bibi camp, but there is little else on which they and Saar agree.

This dynamic is damaging for the country. There are essentially three plausible outcomes –  with the caveat that implausible things certainly can happen in Israeli politics.

1. Prime Minister Netanyahu forms a coalition: In this scenario, Naftali Bennett’s Yamina party would likely be the senior coalition partner, joined by the ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, and the new National Religious Party. Prime Minister Netanyahu would continue to serve as an indicted prime minister while on trial. Whether you believe he is guilty on all counts, or that the charges are little more than a political witch hunt, it should be clear that a sitting prime minister under criminal indictment is less than ideal.

For this reason, the Knesset should move as quickly as possible to adopt some form of the so-called French Law (to apply beginning with the next prime minister), whereby prime ministers would be immune from prosecution while in office, but would also be term limited so as not to be above the law.

2. The anti-Bibi bloc forms a coalition: In this scenario Gideon Saar, Naftali Bennett or Yair Lapid (or a rotation) are able to cobble together a coalition of their own New Hope, Yamina and Yesh Atid parties plus some combination of Yisrael Beiteinu, Labor, Blue & White, Meretz and the Joint List.

Most polls show that any such coalition will be just a few seats above 60, so each coalition partner would have effective veto power over every action of the government. Given the highly disparate views of these parties, it is difficult to imagine this coalition lasting more than a few months, meaning Israel would be heading back to elections very quickly.

It appears the purpose of such a coalition would not be to actually govern, but to form a government that removes Prime Minister Netanyahu and then quickly dissolve in the hopes that he would not contest the next round of elections.

3. Nobody can form a coalition: As a result, Israel goes to election number five late this summer. It should be clear this is a bad outcome. Putting aside the expense of each election, and the budgetary gridlock caused by having perpetual interim governments, there will come a point where election after election will cause the Israeli people, and foreign observers, to begin to question the stability and value of our electoral process.

None of these outcomes arouses much excitement or confidence. And that is precisely the problem with an election that is heavy on personality and light on substance. While unchecked ideology is often problematic, and sometimes dangerous, a government run by those with some shared vision for the country, or at least similar enough views to reach plausible compromises, offers the potential for stability and positive action on behalf of the governed.

People want to believe in something, whether it is settlement of the land of Israel, Peace Now, or lower housing prices and higher wages. A government based purely on self-interest or spite will never inspire anyone.

It is also striking how much of a lost opportunity this moment may be for the right. Parties that are generally considered to the right – Likud, Yamina, New Hope, Yisrael Beiteinu, the National Religious Party, Shas and UTJ – are polling at around 75-80 seats over the last month.

The same polls show the centrist parties (Yesh Atid and Blue & White) at around 20-25, the left (Labor and Meretz) around 10 and the Joint List also at around 10. So, at the moment, polling indicates that over 80% of the electorate ranges from the center to the far right, with the Zionist left and predominantly Arab parties each at around 10% or less.

It is astonishing that after an election where 2/3 of the country will likely vote for a party to the right, a very possible outcome is something other than a right-wing government, whether it is a short-lived government of parties with no shared vision or the inability of anyone to form a coalition at all.

The result is a campaign stripped of ideology and meaning. In a place where ideological fervor and debate have always been part of the fabric of society, the current level of apathy and cynicism two weeks ahead of a national vote is alarming. We can only hope some portion of our leadership will take notice.

---

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.

President Biden: Promise & Pitfalls

By Justin Pozmanter

There is a new administration in Washington. When it comes to Israel, commentators across the spectrum are hard at work telling their readers and listeners what to think. Some say it is the dawn of a bright new day, others seem to think the sky is falling. However, despite what we all think may happen next, we need to wait for concrete actions before passing judgment.

The Trump administration was arguably the most pro-Israel in history. In this context “pro-Israel” means generally in agreement with the views of the democratically elected government of the state of Israel.

The actions taken by the Trump administration related to Israel were in line with the direction of the Republican Party, which has trended more and more pro-Israel over the last two decades. The Democratic Party, which has traditionally been just as supportive as the Republicans, has generally trended in the opposite direction, particularly since 2009.

However, despite this trend, very few Democratic voters are ideologues whose views reflect strong feelings toward Israeli policy. This is a key mistake people make when following this issue. The actions of Israel, or the current Prime Minister, generally do not guide partisan attitudes in the United States.

Polls show that Democrats dislike Prime Minister Netanyahu and Republicans like him, but it is doubtful that a significant percentage of respondents could site a single difference in the Prime Minister’s policies as compared to any of his opponents.

How members of each party view the Israeli Prime Minister has more to do with their relationship with the current President, or recent Presidents, and how the President publicly frames the relationship, than Israeli policies.

This is not to say Israel is blameless when there are rifts. Israeli actions, and just as often rhetoric, play a very prominent role in how administration officials, from the President down the line, as well as Congressional leaders, perceive and publicly address the US-Israel relationship.

The current trend of the Democratic party places an outsized importance on the Biden administration when it comes to the long-term strength of the US-Israel relationship.

Today, there is nothing that could be more beneficial to the long-term health of the US-Israel relationship than a Democratic administration perceived as strongly pro-Israel. While the attitude of party leadership has always been important, it is exacerbated in today’s era of hyper-partisanship.

Given the feelings of nearly every Democrat towards President Trump, the prevailing instinct is to oppose anything he supported. The Biden administration will distance itself from the Trump agenda almost across the board. Hopefully, they will realize that many of the Trump administration’s policies related to Israel and the region – recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, sovereignty in the Golan, leaving the JCPOA, and spearheading regional peace and normalization – are positives for Israel, the United States, and the region.  

While a Democratic President can have a broader and deeper impact on Democratic voters than anyone else, maintaining bipartisan support for Israel does not fall on President Biden and Democrats alone.

While some Democratic members of Congress have taken outwardly hostile stands against Israel, and in some cases Jews more generally, Republicans angling for pro-Israel votes by lumping all Democratic leaders, most of whom are generally pro-Israel, with the handful of hostile members is unhelpful.

Bipartisan support is not simply a talking point. It is indispensable to the ongoing strength of the bilateral relationship and a critical aspect of Israel’s strategic outlook. Therefore, everyone who cares about Israel should be thankful for support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

As things stand today, we do not know exactly where President Biden stands on specific issues. It has been over a dozen years since his last Senate vote.

In President Biden’s first foreign policy address at the State Department on February 4, he did not mention Israel or the Iranian nuclear program. His only reference to the Middle East was a few sentences related to the civil war in Yemen.

There have been a few indications since taking office, most clearly coming from his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, in a wide-ranging interview on CNN.

Secretary Blinken’s answers were a mixed bag. He was positive on Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords and by stating the administration recognizes that only Israel and the Palestinians can negotiate final status issues, he signaled that there will be no grand American plan neither side can accept.

However, he also fell into the false equivalencies of “unilateral actions on both sides” and while recognizing current Israeli control of the Golan, he also left open the possibility Israeli sovereignty could be called into question in the future.

There almost certainly will be disagreements on issues such as settlement construction. However, it appears the Biden administration, while perhaps not as accommodating to Israeli positions as its predecessor, is signaling a more realistic approach than that of the Obama administration.

On the JCPOA, Secretary Blinken’s comments were mostly, though not entirely, negative. It is clear the administration would like to rejoin the deal. This would set up a confrontation with Israel, regardless of who wins the Israeli election in March. However, despite the recent announcement of a willingness to initiate talks to re-enter the deal, there are also some signs that the approach to Iran will not be quite as accommodating as that of the Obama administration.

As with everything else, thus far the administration is simply signaling what they plan to do. Rarely does any administration do precisely what they say in their first 100 days in office, either because of a change of heart or changes in circumstances. Therefore, everyone who cares about Israel and the US-Israel relationship should wait and see what policies the administration ultimately pursues. There are reasons for major concern, but there are also reasons for optimism. The Biden administration certainly will not be the Trump administration, but it is also unlikely to simply be a third term of the Obama administration.

---

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.