What does Netanyahu-bashing say about Israel's political discourse?

 (Last update: June 22, 2021)

Within a single 19-hour news cycle this week, two attacks on former Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu splashed across Israel's news horizon. These attacks may be instructive. They may indicate that, as long as Netanyahu has any political life potential whatsoever, he will continue to be bashed.

The first of these two attacks came from within Netanyahu's own Party, Likud. Currently, Netanyahu is head of Likud. But now, he has a serious challenger in Likud's Yuli Edelstein.

On Sunday night, June 19, 2021, Edelstein, seeking to win an internal Likud vote to depose Netanyahu, accused Netanyahu of having made "every possible mistake" while losing the Premiership (here and here). But this accusation was just that--an accusation. It seemed more overreach than precise.

Netanyahu did not lose his command of the Premiership because he made "every possible mistake". That is too big an accusation. Netanyahu lost because the entire nation was trying to survive an unprecedented four-elections-in-less-than-two years-nightmare to elect a new Prime Minister. The entire nation was in uncharted waters. No one in Israel knew the 'right' formula to win. No one. 

I doubt that a fair assessment of Netanyahu's failure to create a coalition government can be made with the statement that Netanyahu made 'every' possible mistake in his loss. But certainly, a biased and unfair conclusion can be made.

Edelstein wants to lead Likud. By his own admission, he wants to 'win'. Clearly, he seems willing to do 'whatever it takes' to accomplish that goal. He will bash the boss (Netanyahu) to depose the boss.

Does Edelstein believe that the 'ends justify the means'? This saying suggests that, so long as an action accomplishes a desired goal, virtually any action that gets that job done will be termed, 'good'.

For a Machiavellian politician, the achieving of a desired outcome--no matter how unethical--will always justify the means. But then, Machiavelli has never been known for his ethical behavior. He is instead known more for ruthlessness than morality. A politician who might use a 'Machiavellian' tactic will not win any awards for moral behavior. But he could win his political fight. That seems to be what Edelstein does.

Therefore, if an Israeli politician--Edelstein--wants to push out Netanyahu, and a Machiavellian approach would work, what else would he say to help dislodge Netanyahu? Would he tell Likud members how wonderful Netanyahu was? Of course not.

Instead, a ruthless Machiavellian politician--Edelstein?--might choose to employ an ethically slippery accusation (one that is possibly or probably false) to motivate Likud members to turn out Netanyahu. Is this what Edelstein has done? 

Some in Israel will say yes, this is exactly what Edelstein has done. They might even say Edelstein has used an ethically questionable argument. 

Others, however, will disagree. They say, nothing wrong here; Edelstein is correct, for that is exactly what Netanyahu did when he lost. He made only mistakes; he made every possible mistake.

Still, is bashing your opponent the best way to win? For too many in Israel, it is.

The second attack against Netanyahu may have been more  sophisticated than Edelstein's. This second attack came in the form of a comment that, shrewedly, seemed to attack Netanyahu, but only subtly. 

On June 20, 2021, newly appointed Foreign Minister Yair Lapid declared that, as the new government began the process of taking over different Ministries, "The destruction and damage we found in government ministries is inconceivable. We are not starting from scratch, but from minus" (here). 

Since Netanyahu was the Prime Minister over these Ministries, Lapid's implied allegation was, 'look at the havoc this man--Netanyahnu--brought to the government! He had created a mess so awful it will take a very long time to clean up.

There's just one problem with this accusation. It is too unfocused to be meaningful. You see, many of the Ministries during this last government were not controlled by Netanyahu's Likud Party. Yes, in the 16 (of the proposed 35) Ministries that were controlled by Likud (here), such a claim by Lapid could be correct, depending upon the details of the 'mess' Lapid said had been found. 

But in the 19 Ministries not controlled by Likud (ibid), Netanyahu had little-to-no control. That control had been granted to the political Party to whom those Ministries were given. Placing the blame on Netanyahu for any mess in these 19 Ministries might be construed as a lie.

In Israel, after an election, as in other democracies, the winning Party gets to take over government Ministries. But unlike some other democracies, in Israel, Ministries do not all go to the one winning Party. For in Israel, to form a 'government', a winning Party must recruit other, rival Parties to join the winner in a 'coalition'. The winner must offer 'spoils' to these rival Parties--to entice then to work with (and not against) the newly elected PM. These 'spoils' typically come in the form of handing out control over one or more government Ministries. 

Once a rival Party is assigned control of a Ministry, the Party that rules the Prime Minister's office can lose a greater or lesser amount of control over that specific Ministry. If the government Ministries referred to by Lapid were not controlled by Likud appointees, then Netanyahu cannot entirely be blamed for the mess created there. That blame should go more directly to the political Party that controlled that--or those--Ministries.

In the last government, 19 of the government's 35 Ministries had--by political agreement--to be filled by other Parties, including a second-best 12 Ministries to be controlled by Benny Gantz's Blue-White Party. Given how Israel's political system works, some of the failed Ministries might not have been controlled by the Prime Minister. Because Gantz controlled so many Ministries, some of the failed Ministries could have been his responsibility.  

Therefore the question is, which Ministries was Lapid referring to--Ministries run by Likud, or by other Parties? Lapid's vagueness creates questions, not answers. His implied accusation becomes--because of vagueness--irrelevant. 

I believe the purpose of Lapid's claim was not to accuse anyone. I think its intent was to suggest that the supposed 'great' Netanyahu not only turns out to have had feet of clay, but feet of an incompetent clod, as well.  For Lapid, a vague, unspecified report or claim works to make this suggestion without being specific enough to run the risk of being branded a liar.  

Right now, these two Netanyahu-bashing suggestions (by Edelstein and Lapid) that have appeared in the same 19-hour news cycle are important only because they reveal the low level of political discourse in Israel today. Unfortunately, that level is very low.  

Netanyahu-bashing lives on even after his 'defeat'. For Israel, the dirty truth about the nation's political stage is that politicians here will bash the former PM for as long as the bashing gets headlines. As soon as those headlines stop, the bashing will stop. 

This bashing hurts Israel. It sullies our reputation. It pushes political discourse into the gutter. The gutter seems too, too familiar to Israeli politicians. 

Really, now, is this the best Israel can do on its political stage?