IGNORANCE AND MALICE AT HEART OF NETANYAHU ABUSE
Those attacking Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to address the U.S. Congress must be unaware of how the U.S. Constitution actually works.
By Moshe Arens HAARETZ Mar. 8, 2015
It has been a long time since there was so wide-ranging a consensus on a single issue in Israel as the threat that Iran would pose were it to possess a nuclear bomb. All the major political parties agree it would represent a great danger to Israel, and that efforts must be made to prevent such an eventuality. Moreover, it is generally recognized that the agreement currently taking shape in negotiations between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (the P5+1) and Iran – but actually between the United States and Iran – is far from satisfactory as far as Israel is concerned.
One might therefore have expected that Israel’s prime minister would have the blessing of the vast majority of Israelis when he took off for Washington, D.C., to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress – at the invitation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives – all united in the hope that he might be successful in bringing about a change in the course of the negotiations with Iran.
Considering the fact that the majority of the members of the U.S. Congress, including members of both parties, were known to be of the opinion that the present state of the agreement is unsatisfactory in terms of America’s interests, at first sight it did not seem that his journey to the U.S. capital was a hopeless quest.
But it was not to be. The strident voices of politicians and commentators were heard fiercely attacking Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to go to Washington. Was it just election fever? Was it ignorance of the U.S. political system? Or was it just plain malice in the belief that anything Netanyahu says or does must be wrong?
Self-appointed experts on the U.S. political system explained that foreign policy was the prerogative of the president, that Congress played no part in making America’s foreign policy, and that, consequently, there was no point in Netanyahu addressing both houses of Congress on the negotiations with Iran. They had evidently not studied the Constitution of the United States and do not understand the system of checks and balances at the root of the American system of government. While the president is the executor of U.S. foreign policy, Congress plays an important role as a check and balance to the president.
For example, the Constitution provides that any international treaty signed by the president must be ratified by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Senate. Although President Barack Obama insists that the agreement with Iran is not a treaty, and therefore does not need ratification by the Senate, a bipartisan bill has already been introduced in Congress requiring that the agreement with Iran be presented to Congress for approval. The sponsors are five Republican and five Democratic senators.
Next, the implausible argument was presented that Netanyahu would not convince a single representative or senator who did not have reservations about the agreement with Iran. In other words, he would be preaching to the choir. How could they be so certain of this prediction? As a matter of fact, press reports from Washington after Netanyahu’s address indicate that this is not the case. One of the Democratic senators sponsoring the bill calling for congressional approval of the agreement with Iran is Tim Kaine, who absented himself from Netanyahu’s address but is surely aware of its content.
But the most outrageous attacks over the acceptance of the House Speaker’s invitation claimed it would do irreparable damage to the relations between Israel and the United States. They came from people who lack an understanding of the fabric and texture of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, a relationship that serves the interests of both nations and is of mutual benefit to both.
To imagine that President Obama, in a fit of anger at Netanyahu’s appearance in Congress, would decide to “punish” Israel shows a lack of respect for the integrity of the president of the United States, who is pledged to further the interests of the country he was elected to lead.
Those attacking Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to address the U.S. Congress must be unaware of how the U.S. Constitution actually works.
By Moshe Arens HAARETZ Mar. 8, 2015
It has been a long time since there was so wide-ranging a consensus on a single issue in Israel as the threat that Iran would pose were it to possess a nuclear bomb. All the major political parties agree it would represent a great danger to Israel, and that efforts must be made to prevent such an eventuality. Moreover, it is generally recognized that the agreement currently taking shape in negotiations between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (the P5+1) and Iran – but actually between the United States and Iran – is far from satisfactory as far as Israel is concerned.
One might therefore have expected that Israel’s prime minister would have the blessing of the vast majority of Israelis when he took off for Washington, D.C., to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress – at the invitation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives – all united in the hope that he might be successful in bringing about a change in the course of the negotiations with Iran.
Considering the fact that the majority of the members of the U.S. Congress, including members of both parties, were known to be of the opinion that the present state of the agreement is unsatisfactory in terms of America’s interests, at first sight it did not seem that his journey to the U.S. capital was a hopeless quest.
But it was not to be. The strident voices of politicians and commentators were heard fiercely attacking Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to go to Washington. Was it just election fever? Was it ignorance of the U.S. political system? Or was it just plain malice in the belief that anything Netanyahu says or does must be wrong?
Self-appointed experts on the U.S. political system explained that foreign policy was the prerogative of the president, that Congress played no part in making America’s foreign policy, and that, consequently, there was no point in Netanyahu addressing both houses of Congress on the negotiations with Iran. They had evidently not studied the Constitution of the United States and do not understand the system of checks and balances at the root of the American system of government. While the president is the executor of U.S. foreign policy, Congress plays an important role as a check and balance to the president.
For example, the Constitution provides that any international treaty signed by the president must be ratified by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Senate. Although President Barack Obama insists that the agreement with Iran is not a treaty, and therefore does not need ratification by the Senate, a bipartisan bill has already been introduced in Congress requiring that the agreement with Iran be presented to Congress for approval. The sponsors are five Republican and five Democratic senators.
Next, the implausible argument was presented that Netanyahu would not convince a single representative or senator who did not have reservations about the agreement with Iran. In other words, he would be preaching to the choir. How could they be so certain of this prediction? As a matter of fact, press reports from Washington after Netanyahu’s address indicate that this is not the case. One of the Democratic senators sponsoring the bill calling for congressional approval of the agreement with Iran is Tim Kaine, who absented himself from Netanyahu’s address but is surely aware of its content.
But the most outrageous attacks over the acceptance of the House Speaker’s invitation claimed it would do irreparable damage to the relations between Israel and the United States. They came from people who lack an understanding of the fabric and texture of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, a relationship that serves the interests of both nations and is of mutual benefit to both.
To imagine that President Obama, in a fit of anger at Netanyahu’s appearance in Congress, would decide to “punish” Israel shows a lack of respect for the integrity of the president of the United States, who is pledged to further the interests of the country he was elected to lead.
Yep, let's keep talking to these maniacs while the centrifuges keep spinning.
- Advisor to Iranian President Rohani: Iran Is an Empire, Iraq Is Our Capital
On March 8, 2015, Ali Younesi, advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rohani and previously intelligence minister (2000-2005), said, "In truth the Iranian Plateau includes countries from the borders of China and the Indian subcontinent to the north and south Caucasus and the Persian Gulf - all of which are part of this union....If we disregard the region that lies within our sphere of influence, we will be unable to protect our interests and security."
"In the current situation, Iraq is not merely a sphere of cultural influence for us; it is also our identity, our culture, our center, and our capital....There is no way to divide the territory of Iran and Iraq."
hno:. You can thank the President and Military action you supported for the current situation in Iraq, and it's subsequent hand off to Iran.A "Good Deal" Needs to Bolt the Door on the Iranians Getting a Nuclear Weapon - Ronen Bergman interviews Gen. David Petraeus (Ynet News)
- "To accept that Iran's nuclear ambitions over the years have been exclusively peaceful would require a willing suspension of disbelief....The International Atomic Energy Agency has extensively documented the so-called 'possible military dimensions' of the Iranian program, which clearly indicate that - at least until a few years ago - the Iranians were conducting activities whose only rational explanation is that they wanted a nuclear weapons capability."
- "History suggests, however, that countries that get to that [nuclear] threshold do not stay there. And regardless, based on everything we know and see about the Iranian government, we cannot allow them to be on the brink of having a nuclear weapon."
- "To my mind, a 'good deal' needs to bolt the door on the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. In this respect, certainly large swaths of the program need to be dismantled or at least altered. I don't know that this requires an end to enrichment, but certainly it would seem to me that there need to be substantial limitations on how much enriched material Iran can possess and the percentage to which they can enrich, as well as restrictions on the research, development, and deployment of new, more sophisticated models of centrifuges."
- "An extremely robust inspections program is also necessary - going beyond the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, the inspections regime is, in my mind, the most critical component of a deal."
Gen. (ret.) David Petraeus served as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, and head of the CIA.
Week before election, polls give Zionist Union the lead
Two separate polls give Herzog and Livni's list 3-4 more seats than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.
By Haaretz | Mar. 10, 2015 | 8:09 PM
One week before the election, two separate polls place the Zionist Union in the lead over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.
A Channel 2 poll gave the Zionist Union 25 seats, Likud 21, and 13 for both Naftali Bennett's Habayit Hayehudi and the Joint List of Arab parties. Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid came in at 12 seats, Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu at eight, Shas at seven, Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu at six, United Torah Judaism at six, Meretz with five and Eli Yishai's Yahad with four.
49 percent of respondents said they prefer Netanyahu as the next prime minister, compared with 36 percent who would rather see Herzog as premier.
Earlier on Tuesday, a Knesset Channel poll gave the Zionist Union the lead with 24 seats, 3 more than Likud. Yesh Atid came in third at 14 seats — the party's best showing this election season.
The survey projected 13 seats for the Joint List and 12 for Habayit Hayehudi. Kulanu edged up to nine seats from eight, while Meretz has dropped to five seats from six.
Support for the ultra-Orthodox parties is stable. Shas is unchanged at seven seats and United Torah Judaism is down to six seats from seven.
In the poll, Yisrael Beiteinu comes in at five seats and Yahad at four. Parties must receive at least 3.25 percent of the vote — four seats — to make it into the Knesset.
The Knesset Channel polled more than 1,000 people, many more than usual for such surveys.
Two separate polls give Herzog and Livni's list 3-4 more seats than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.
By Haaretz | Mar. 10, 2015 | 8:09 PM
One week before the election, two separate polls place the Zionist Union in the lead over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.
A Channel 2 poll gave the Zionist Union 25 seats, Likud 21, and 13 for both Naftali Bennett's Habayit Hayehudi and the Joint List of Arab parties. Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid came in at 12 seats, Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu at eight, Shas at seven, Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu at six, United Torah Judaism at six, Meretz with five and Eli Yishai's Yahad with four.
49 percent of respondents said they prefer Netanyahu as the next prime minister, compared with 36 percent who would rather see Herzog as premier.
Earlier on Tuesday, a Knesset Channel poll gave the Zionist Union the lead with 24 seats, 3 more than Likud. Yesh Atid came in third at 14 seats — the party's best showing this election season.
The survey projected 13 seats for the Joint List and 12 for Habayit Hayehudi. Kulanu edged up to nine seats from eight, while Meretz has dropped to five seats from six.
Support for the ultra-Orthodox parties is stable. Shas is unchanged at seven seats and United Torah Judaism is down to six seats from seven.
In the poll, Yisrael Beiteinu comes in at five seats and Yahad at four. Parties must receive at least 3.25 percent of the vote — four seats — to make it into the Knesset.
The Knesset Channel polled more than 1,000 people, many more than usual for such surveys.
[h=1]On March 17, it will be a mitzvah to vote against Netanyahu the Toxic[/h] [h=2]Nine years into his rule, Benjamin Netanyahu has poisoned his country. Israel is broken and battered and weak with fear. He's taken serious problems, and made them into a miserable nation.[/h] By Bradley Burston 16:52 10.03.15
3
Benjamin Netanyahu has granted his people a rare gift. Thanks entirely to him – thanks, that is, to a political cost-benefit calculation he made months ago – this coming Tuesday, we can vote him out.
It will be an honor.
Nine years into his rule, he has poisoned his country. Israel is broken and battered and weak with fear. He could have worked to heal this place. The country would have backed him. But he always had other priorities. His legacy is decay. He's taken serious problems, and made them into a miserable nation.
Israelis have come to expect another war by the summer. A third of their children, nearly a million, live in poverty, many of them going hungry. A health care system which was once a source of national pride, has been neglected into collapse. Israel is a nation which has been instructed by its leader to expect nothing, change nothing, roll over and play dead.
And then vote him back into office.
His legacy is darkness. It is coded gratuitous hatred in legislative form, like the Jewish nation-state bill, which would excise equality as a principle of Israel, and drop Arabic as its official language.
It will be a privilege to vote against him.
There was a time, not long ago, when he commanded a 94-seat majority in the 120-strong Knesset – nearly 80 percent. He could have done anything he wanted. Built critically needed housing. Healed old wounds. Made a new future. But he had other priorities. He routed billions to remote West Bank settlements whose only purpose was to foil any possibility of diplomacy.
People who have worked closely with him, true Israeli patriots, have tried everything to sway him. They are rewarded with abuse. People like retired major general Meir Dagan, who served as chief of the Mossad for more than eight years under three prime ministers, and was in many ways Israel's, and Netanyahu's, point man in the effort to counter a nuclear Iran.
Following Netanyahu's speech to Congress last week, Dagan responded with a quietly blistering refutation of many of the prime minister's central contentions on Iran. He told Israel Channel 2 television that Netanyahu had knowingly misled Congress, lying about the "breakout time" it would take Iran to build a bomb, and about an Iranian capability of reaching the U.S. with missiles.
Then, on Saturday night, Dagan, 70 and seriously ill, spoke to tens of thousands of Israelis at an anti-Netanyahu rally in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square. He detailed criticisms of the prime minister's policies, of Netanyahu's refusal to seek diplomatic solutions, and the damage he had done to U.S.-Israeli relations.
Dagan spoke with emotion, moderation, and evident physical difficulty, of his fears that the intransigence of a new hardline Netanyahu government would mean that his children and grandchildren would live in an apartheid state.
In the toxic reality of the Netanyahu era, this is what happens to someone like Meir Dagan as a result: Ignoring entirely the substance of Dagan's remarks, Deputy Cabinet Minister and prominent Netanyahu campaign spokesman Ofir Akunis Sunday attacked Dagan for saying anything at all.
Akunis alluded to the fact that Netanyahu was among the many people who helped the ailing Dagan obtain a liver transplant abroad in 2012. The Netanyahu deputy conceded that he had no idea what role the prime minister actually played in the transplant effort, but stressed that Dagan, regardless of how vital the ex-Mossad chief believes Israel's challenges are, should have kept his mouth shut.
"If someone were to save my life, I would never, not once, until my dying day, come out against him, no matter what." Akunis said Sunday. "This [is rooted] in the moral standpoint, the standpoint of values, and also on the level of friendship, the most human of levels."
One of Netanyahu's supporters overseas took a different tack in assailing and dismissing Dagan.
Characterizing the surprisingly large turnout in Rabin Square as an apparent flop, Commentary Magazine senior online editor Jonathan S. Tobin highlighted Dagan in an article whose title ("The Problem With Anti-Bibi Derangement Syndrome") and thrust suggested that Dagan, a decorated veteran of three wars, wounded in action three separate times, was himself deranged:
"Dagan’s security credentials give him the standing to speak in a way that either Israeli or American pundits don’t possess. But the over-the-top nature of his attacks—the Times of Israel noted that he was so overcome by his passion against his former boss that he was close to tears when speaking last night—makes it hard to take him too seriously."
Of late, claiming to speak for all Jews everywhere, Netanyahu's influence has grown: He is poisoning his own people. In Israel, in America, in France, he has set Jew against Jew. So polarizing is his message, so toxic its representation, that Jews in many communities abroad have learned to avoid the topic of Israel altogether. It is too painful. Too dangerous.
Thanks in no small part to Netanyahu, Israel - once a reservoir of unity and pride - has become a loaded gun left sitting on the mantlepiece. World Jewry itself has fallen under occupation, gagged and self-censored, demoralized and alienated and bitter, and it can't find a way out.
Here and abroad, Netanyahu's ideology, his tools, and his achievements are one and the same: an Israel ruled by and prizing bullying, stonewalling, racism, kitsch. An Israel whose every answer on every issue is nothing if not consistent: Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran.
All in all, I wish Benjamin Netanyahu well. I truly do. I wish him success in whatever he may turn to after this. May he have nothing but naches from his kids. May his quality of life only improve.
On March 17, it will be a mitzvah to vote against him.
And, if Israel so chooses, it will be a relief fully as precious as life itself, to finally see him go.
| |
Benjamin Netanyahu has granted his people a rare gift. Thanks entirely to him – thanks, that is, to a political cost-benefit calculation he made months ago – this coming Tuesday, we can vote him out.
It will be an honor.
Nine years into his rule, he has poisoned his country. Israel is broken and battered and weak with fear. He could have worked to heal this place. The country would have backed him. But he always had other priorities. His legacy is decay. He's taken serious problems, and made them into a miserable nation.
Israelis have come to expect another war by the summer. A third of their children, nearly a million, live in poverty, many of them going hungry. A health care system which was once a source of national pride, has been neglected into collapse. Israel is a nation which has been instructed by its leader to expect nothing, change nothing, roll over and play dead.
And then vote him back into office.
His legacy is darkness. It is coded gratuitous hatred in legislative form, like the Jewish nation-state bill, which would excise equality as a principle of Israel, and drop Arabic as its official language.
It will be a privilege to vote against him.
There was a time, not long ago, when he commanded a 94-seat majority in the 120-strong Knesset – nearly 80 percent. He could have done anything he wanted. Built critically needed housing. Healed old wounds. Made a new future. But he had other priorities. He routed billions to remote West Bank settlements whose only purpose was to foil any possibility of diplomacy.
People who have worked closely with him, true Israeli patriots, have tried everything to sway him. They are rewarded with abuse. People like retired major general Meir Dagan, who served as chief of the Mossad for more than eight years under three prime ministers, and was in many ways Israel's, and Netanyahu's, point man in the effort to counter a nuclear Iran.
Following Netanyahu's speech to Congress last week, Dagan responded with a quietly blistering refutation of many of the prime minister's central contentions on Iran. He told Israel Channel 2 television that Netanyahu had knowingly misled Congress, lying about the "breakout time" it would take Iran to build a bomb, and about an Iranian capability of reaching the U.S. with missiles.
Then, on Saturday night, Dagan, 70 and seriously ill, spoke to tens of thousands of Israelis at an anti-Netanyahu rally in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square. He detailed criticisms of the prime minister's policies, of Netanyahu's refusal to seek diplomatic solutions, and the damage he had done to U.S.-Israeli relations.
Dagan spoke with emotion, moderation, and evident physical difficulty, of his fears that the intransigence of a new hardline Netanyahu government would mean that his children and grandchildren would live in an apartheid state.
In the toxic reality of the Netanyahu era, this is what happens to someone like Meir Dagan as a result: Ignoring entirely the substance of Dagan's remarks, Deputy Cabinet Minister and prominent Netanyahu campaign spokesman Ofir Akunis Sunday attacked Dagan for saying anything at all.
Akunis alluded to the fact that Netanyahu was among the many people who helped the ailing Dagan obtain a liver transplant abroad in 2012. The Netanyahu deputy conceded that he had no idea what role the prime minister actually played in the transplant effort, but stressed that Dagan, regardless of how vital the ex-Mossad chief believes Israel's challenges are, should have kept his mouth shut.
"If someone were to save my life, I would never, not once, until my dying day, come out against him, no matter what." Akunis said Sunday. "This [is rooted] in the moral standpoint, the standpoint of values, and also on the level of friendship, the most human of levels."
One of Netanyahu's supporters overseas took a different tack in assailing and dismissing Dagan.
Characterizing the surprisingly large turnout in Rabin Square as an apparent flop, Commentary Magazine senior online editor Jonathan S. Tobin highlighted Dagan in an article whose title ("The Problem With Anti-Bibi Derangement Syndrome") and thrust suggested that Dagan, a decorated veteran of three wars, wounded in action three separate times, was himself deranged:
"Dagan’s security credentials give him the standing to speak in a way that either Israeli or American pundits don’t possess. But the over-the-top nature of his attacks—the Times of Israel noted that he was so overcome by his passion against his former boss that he was close to tears when speaking last night—makes it hard to take him too seriously."
Of late, claiming to speak for all Jews everywhere, Netanyahu's influence has grown: He is poisoning his own people. In Israel, in America, in France, he has set Jew against Jew. So polarizing is his message, so toxic its representation, that Jews in many communities abroad have learned to avoid the topic of Israel altogether. It is too painful. Too dangerous.
Thanks in no small part to Netanyahu, Israel - once a reservoir of unity and pride - has become a loaded gun left sitting on the mantlepiece. World Jewry itself has fallen under occupation, gagged and self-censored, demoralized and alienated and bitter, and it can't find a way out.
Here and abroad, Netanyahu's ideology, his tools, and his achievements are one and the same: an Israel ruled by and prizing bullying, stonewalling, racism, kitsch. An Israel whose every answer on every issue is nothing if not consistent: Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran.
All in all, I wish Benjamin Netanyahu well. I truly do. I wish him success in whatever he may turn to after this. May he have nothing but naches from his kids. May his quality of life only improve.
On March 17, it will be a mitzvah to vote against him.
And, if Israel so chooses, it will be a relief fully as precious as life itself, to finally see him go.
[h=1]Bibi fatigue: Israelis are sick of Netanyahu, but can’t agree on his replacement[/h] [h=2]The tide may be turning against Netanyahu, but it is turning in many directions and the Israeli public just can't agree on a suitable alternative.[/h] By Allison Kaplan Sommer 17:10 09.03.15
2
“Israel wants change” was the rallying cry at the demonstration in Tel Aviv this week, as an estimated 35,000 gathered to hear former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and other speakers make the case for getting rid of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A campaign for hope and change – feeding on a desire for something new is obviously borrowed from the success of Barack Obama’s triumphant campaign against John McCain in 2008.
A new campaign commercial launched by the Zionist Union party, led by Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s main competitor for the job of Prime Minister, offers a take on then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s famous question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
In the ad, voters in the street are asked to name Netanyahu’s accomplishments over the past six years. The response? Long silences. People scratching their heads. A drawn out, thoughtful “Ummmmmm.”
The signs of Netanyahu fatigue are everywhere, and not only on the left. In south Tel Aviv, a quartet of multicolored signs greets you at every corner with the message: “Bennett is bad for the Sephardim: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US”; then “Lapid is bad for the middle class: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US”; then “Bougie (Herzog) is bad for the right-wingers: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US”; and then “Lieberman is bad for the Arabs: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US.”
Subtle.
With only eight days to go until election day, the non-stop hammering of Netanyahu from all sides appears to be taking its toll. From the left end of the spectrum to the right, a universal weariness with Netanyahu and the long shadow he has cast over the Israeli political landscape for so many years has set in.
It’s taken a long time, but many Israelis – even those who share his political views and appreciate his rhetorical flourish – are sick of Bibi and his foibles. His vaunted overpublicized showdown at Congress with President Obama over his Iran speech – now that the dust has settled seems to be have been something of a wash, the polls tell us – neither boosted his standing among voters nor damaged him significantly. His decision to dissolve the government and call these new elections, on the premise that they would improve his base of support within the government, has proved to be a terrible miscalculation.
But here’s the catch: While the “Anyone but Bibi” message seems to be getting through loud and clear, the Israeli public is very far from agreeing on the alternative to Netanyahu.
Signs throughout Tel Aviv noting that although specific candidates are bad for certain groups, 'Bibi is bad for all of us.' (Credit: Allison Kaplan Sommer)
This is not the U.S., where fostering disgust with the incumbent presidential candidate must necessarily coalesce around a single challenger, strengthening him. In Israel, if you don’t like the current product, there is a whole grocery shelf of “hope and change” possibilities to choose from. The tide may be turning against Bibi, but it is turning in many directions: on the right, to Naftali Bennett, Kahlon, or Lieberman, the centrists to Yair Lapid, and the left to Meretz. The crux of the problem is a major charisma shortage in the blue-blood tag team at the helm of the Zionist Union party - Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni - and the fact that while Bibi may be out of favor, much of the country wants a right-of-center leader in a frightening, unstable Middle East.
So when my American friends ask whether Netanyahu or Herzog is going to win, my answer is “It’s complicated.” I explain to them that while Netanyahu appears to be losing support, that doesn’t mean that Herzog is winning – and I remind them that not so long ago, in 2009, Tzipi Livni and the Kadima Party won more Knesset seats than the Netanyahu-led Likud, yet it was Likud who was able to assemble a coalition, putting Netanyahu in power.
Savvy Israelis aren’t fooling themselves: They know they won’t see a clear-cut answer to the question of who will government them on the morning after the elections. Instead, they are battening down the hatches for what appears to be shaping up for yet another round of long, drawn-out coalition negotiations following the election results filled with confusion, uncertainty, rumor and speculation.
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin is already reportedly preparing for this scenario. Channel 2 news reported on Sunday night that the president has been consulting advisors on what will happen if neither Netanyahu nor Herzog are able to muster support from the number of Knesset members needed to form a stable government. The report said that in such a case, Rivlin will try to force a coalition between the two large parties, paired with an initiative to change the electoral system to prevent “Israel from becoming Italy” with a chronically unstable government and frequent elections.
So yes, Israelis seem to want change, and it seems a safe bet that some form of change is on the horizon following the election on March 17. Whether it’s going to be change for the better – that bet is far less certain.
| |
“Israel wants change” was the rallying cry at the demonstration in Tel Aviv this week, as an estimated 35,000 gathered to hear former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and other speakers make the case for getting rid of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A campaign for hope and change – feeding on a desire for something new is obviously borrowed from the success of Barack Obama’s triumphant campaign against John McCain in 2008.
A new campaign commercial launched by the Zionist Union party, led by Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s main competitor for the job of Prime Minister, offers a take on then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s famous question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
In the ad, voters in the street are asked to name Netanyahu’s accomplishments over the past six years. The response? Long silences. People scratching their heads. A drawn out, thoughtful “Ummmmmm.”
The signs of Netanyahu fatigue are everywhere, and not only on the left. In south Tel Aviv, a quartet of multicolored signs greets you at every corner with the message: “Bennett is bad for the Sephardim: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US”; then “Lapid is bad for the middle class: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US”; then “Bougie (Herzog) is bad for the right-wingers: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US”; and then “Lieberman is bad for the Arabs: BIBI IS BAD FOR ALL OF US.”
Subtle.
With only eight days to go until election day, the non-stop hammering of Netanyahu from all sides appears to be taking its toll. From the left end of the spectrum to the right, a universal weariness with Netanyahu and the long shadow he has cast over the Israeli political landscape for so many years has set in.
It’s taken a long time, but many Israelis – even those who share his political views and appreciate his rhetorical flourish – are sick of Bibi and his foibles. His vaunted overpublicized showdown at Congress with President Obama over his Iran speech – now that the dust has settled seems to be have been something of a wash, the polls tell us – neither boosted his standing among voters nor damaged him significantly. His decision to dissolve the government and call these new elections, on the premise that they would improve his base of support within the government, has proved to be a terrible miscalculation.
But here’s the catch: While the “Anyone but Bibi” message seems to be getting through loud and clear, the Israeli public is very far from agreeing on the alternative to Netanyahu.
Signs throughout Tel Aviv noting that although specific candidates are bad for certain groups, 'Bibi is bad for all of us.' (Credit: Allison Kaplan Sommer)
This is not the U.S., where fostering disgust with the incumbent presidential candidate must necessarily coalesce around a single challenger, strengthening him. In Israel, if you don’t like the current product, there is a whole grocery shelf of “hope and change” possibilities to choose from. The tide may be turning against Bibi, but it is turning in many directions: on the right, to Naftali Bennett, Kahlon, or Lieberman, the centrists to Yair Lapid, and the left to Meretz. The crux of the problem is a major charisma shortage in the blue-blood tag team at the helm of the Zionist Union party - Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni - and the fact that while Bibi may be out of favor, much of the country wants a right-of-center leader in a frightening, unstable Middle East.
So when my American friends ask whether Netanyahu or Herzog is going to win, my answer is “It’s complicated.” I explain to them that while Netanyahu appears to be losing support, that doesn’t mean that Herzog is winning – and I remind them that not so long ago, in 2009, Tzipi Livni and the Kadima Party won more Knesset seats than the Netanyahu-led Likud, yet it was Likud who was able to assemble a coalition, putting Netanyahu in power.
Savvy Israelis aren’t fooling themselves: They know they won’t see a clear-cut answer to the question of who will government them on the morning after the elections. Instead, they are battening down the hatches for what appears to be shaping up for yet another round of long, drawn-out coalition negotiations following the election results filled with confusion, uncertainty, rumor and speculation.
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin is already reportedly preparing for this scenario. Channel 2 news reported on Sunday night that the president has been consulting advisors on what will happen if neither Netanyahu nor Herzog are able to muster support from the number of Knesset members needed to form a stable government. The report said that in such a case, Rivlin will try to force a coalition between the two large parties, paired with an initiative to change the electoral system to prevent “Israel from becoming Italy” with a chronically unstable government and frequent elections.
So yes, Israelis seem to want change, and it seems a safe bet that some form of change is on the horizon following the election on March 17. Whether it’s going to be change for the better – that bet is far less certain.
[h=1]Israelis want a different political agenda[/h] [h=2]Netanyahu compares himself with Winston Churchill. But Churchill was defeated in the 1945 election because the people wanted a leader with a different agenda.[/h] By Uzi Baram 05:27 10.03.15
0
For many years now, the Zionist left and center have been broadcasting defeatist messages that indicate a lack of genuine faith in their ability to effect change. The religiosity that has become ever more deeply rooted here points to faith in God, but also to virtually automatic support for the ultranationalist right. During last summer’s war in Gaza, the Israeli street was on the brink of neo-fascism.
For a long time, the alternative — which is not represented by any one party — did not believe in its ability to rule the state, and settled for trying to poach voters where it could. That no longer seems to be the case. The results of recent mock elections at high schools signal that the tide is turning. Growing numbers of young people are ready to turn their backs on the hard right, as characterized by the Likud leader, Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, and Habayit Hayehudi chairman Naftali Bennett.
I recently met a young Jerusalemite whose Yemenite-origin family had strong historical ties to the Irgun, the pre-state underground militia led by Menachem Begin. As we were talking, he suddenly interjected, with evident pride, “I’m Meretz, and my closest friends are voting for alternative movements and not Likud.”
Former cabinet minister Amir Peretz — a battle-scarred veteran of elections from those of the Sderot local council and the Histadrut labor federation to that of the Labor Party — says he too senses a shift in public opinion is changing: not a sharp turn, but the “No more Bibi” message has sunk in, he says.
When Meir Dagan became the Mossad chief, I was surprised and disappointed. He had been active in Likud in the 2001 election campaign, and seemed to me like an out-and-out right-winger, an ardent hawk. But after nine years in the post — he left in 2011 — he has led the “prosecution” against the prime minister’s foreign and defense policies. Ill and suffering from pain, he speaks to audiences in an effort to mobilize Israelis against the current course of the Netanyahu government.
Then there’s Shabtai Shavit, one of Dagan’s predecessors in the Mossad. I’ve met with him more than once in recent years; usually, we have disagreed on the issues. He seemed like a real hawk, but a level-headed person. When someone like him publishes an op-ed calling for a regime change, he brings to it all his experience and all his concerns for the future of Israel under Netanyahu.
It is true that the above anecdotes do not necessarily reflect a statistical trend. Nevertheless, it’s very likely that we are witness to a trend. The math is still in Netanyahu’s favor: Those who enjoy calculating the various possible coalitions swear that even if Likud’s Knesset representation drops significantly, the overall electoral picture will allow him to remain in power. But it’s permissible to demonstrate a bit more optimism and faith. Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog is gaining more and more legitimacy; Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid is proving his ability to survive; the fears for Meretz’s fate will help it cross the electoral threshold; the awakening among Israel’s Arab citizens in the run-up to the election influences the overall picture and creates a counterweight to Bennett and Baruch Marzel.
It’s hard to change the views of those of little faith, who think deterministically and ignore the sparks of change. Nevertheless, even though it isn’t certain, such a change is definitely possible.
Netanyahu compares himself with Winston Churchill. This is a dubious comparison, but as long as it’s been made it bears remembering that Churchill was defeated in the 1945 election despite his heroic victory in World War II, because the people wanted a leader with a different agenda.
In this election, it seems Israeli voters also want a different agenda. They want solutions to the housing crisis and the collapse of the middle class. Moreover, they want hope instead of an ongoing campaign of intimidation. Perhaps this will lead to a different government. We must believe it, and work to make it happen.
| |
For many years now, the Zionist left and center have been broadcasting defeatist messages that indicate a lack of genuine faith in their ability to effect change. The religiosity that has become ever more deeply rooted here points to faith in God, but also to virtually automatic support for the ultranationalist right. During last summer’s war in Gaza, the Israeli street was on the brink of neo-fascism.
For a long time, the alternative — which is not represented by any one party — did not believe in its ability to rule the state, and settled for trying to poach voters where it could. That no longer seems to be the case. The results of recent mock elections at high schools signal that the tide is turning. Growing numbers of young people are ready to turn their backs on the hard right, as characterized by the Likud leader, Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, and Habayit Hayehudi chairman Naftali Bennett.
I recently met a young Jerusalemite whose Yemenite-origin family had strong historical ties to the Irgun, the pre-state underground militia led by Menachem Begin. As we were talking, he suddenly interjected, with evident pride, “I’m Meretz, and my closest friends are voting for alternative movements and not Likud.”
Former cabinet minister Amir Peretz — a battle-scarred veteran of elections from those of the Sderot local council and the Histadrut labor federation to that of the Labor Party — says he too senses a shift in public opinion is changing: not a sharp turn, but the “No more Bibi” message has sunk in, he says.
When Meir Dagan became the Mossad chief, I was surprised and disappointed. He had been active in Likud in the 2001 election campaign, and seemed to me like an out-and-out right-winger, an ardent hawk. But after nine years in the post — he left in 2011 — he has led the “prosecution” against the prime minister’s foreign and defense policies. Ill and suffering from pain, he speaks to audiences in an effort to mobilize Israelis against the current course of the Netanyahu government.
Then there’s Shabtai Shavit, one of Dagan’s predecessors in the Mossad. I’ve met with him more than once in recent years; usually, we have disagreed on the issues. He seemed like a real hawk, but a level-headed person. When someone like him publishes an op-ed calling for a regime change, he brings to it all his experience and all his concerns for the future of Israel under Netanyahu.
It is true that the above anecdotes do not necessarily reflect a statistical trend. Nevertheless, it’s very likely that we are witness to a trend. The math is still in Netanyahu’s favor: Those who enjoy calculating the various possible coalitions swear that even if Likud’s Knesset representation drops significantly, the overall electoral picture will allow him to remain in power. But it’s permissible to demonstrate a bit more optimism and faith. Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog is gaining more and more legitimacy; Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid is proving his ability to survive; the fears for Meretz’s fate will help it cross the electoral threshold; the awakening among Israel’s Arab citizens in the run-up to the election influences the overall picture and creates a counterweight to Bennett and Baruch Marzel.
It’s hard to change the views of those of little faith, who think deterministically and ignore the sparks of change. Nevertheless, even though it isn’t certain, such a change is definitely possible.
Netanyahu compares himself with Winston Churchill. This is a dubious comparison, but as long as it’s been made it bears remembering that Churchill was defeated in the 1945 election despite his heroic victory in World War II, because the people wanted a leader with a different agenda.
In this election, it seems Israeli voters also want a different agenda. They want solutions to the housing crisis and the collapse of the middle class. Moreover, they want hope instead of an ongoing campaign of intimidation. Perhaps this will lead to a different government. We must believe it, and work to make it happen.
Likud MK hits back at ex-security officials
Likud MK Yariv Levin, head of the influential Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset, hits back at the former security officials who slammed Netanyahu earlier today, charging that they are “motivated by a hatred of the right-wing and of the prime minister.”
Levin also didn’t miss an opportunity to take a swipe at his party’s main rival, the Zionist Union, by linking the former commanders to its leaders, Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.
“Livni and Herzog’s generals already promised us peace and we got murderous terror across the country. They promised that the 2005 Disengagement [from the Gaza Strip] would bring quiet and we got thousands of rockets. They are wrong and misleading time and time again,” he says, according to the Ynet news site.
Likud MK Yariv Levin, head of the influential Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset, hits back at the former security officials who slammed Netanyahu earlier today, charging that they are “motivated by a hatred of the right-wing and of the prime minister.”
Levin also didn’t miss an opportunity to take a swipe at his party’s main rival, the Zionist Union, by linking the former commanders to its leaders, Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.
“Livni and Herzog’s generals already promised us peace and we got murderous terror across the country. They promised that the 2005 Disengagement [from the Gaza Strip] would bring quiet and we got thousands of rockets. They are wrong and misleading time and time again,” he says, according to the Ynet news site.
"Some of the miserable elements descrying others for failures of their own will be brought soon before freely elected courts.
Dagan “served” only to intentionally allow Iran to advance its nuclear program. No one sane would believe that that ensemble did anything but make believe James Bond idiocies to cover asses. I accuse Dagan and most of those chirping now to defend that item of willingly having brought the State to a desperate situation.
I was in the room when Sharon, in another of his ghastly decisions, introduced to us his nominee for the Mosad. Dagan. Spare me the “how dare you’s”. That was from the word go a snake in the grass item. Shifty eyes, uneasy body language. I worked many years with the US D o D Military Avionics Programs, Senior-Fellow Engineer and benefited from training on personnel interviews / screening for sensitive postings. No one outside the scum bucket establishment here would have hired that trotter for anything but cleaning garage floors.
Quite like other of the sheptzialishts in question. “Security” establishment treacherous items all. Focused on assaulting Jews rather than attending to true national security." ~ Shmuel HaLevi
Dagan “served” only to intentionally allow Iran to advance its nuclear program. No one sane would believe that that ensemble did anything but make believe James Bond idiocies to cover asses. I accuse Dagan and most of those chirping now to defend that item of willingly having brought the State to a desperate situation.
I was in the room when Sharon, in another of his ghastly decisions, introduced to us his nominee for the Mosad. Dagan. Spare me the “how dare you’s”. That was from the word go a snake in the grass item. Shifty eyes, uneasy body language. I worked many years with the US D o D Military Avionics Programs, Senior-Fellow Engineer and benefited from training on personnel interviews / screening for sensitive postings. No one outside the scum bucket establishment here would have hired that trotter for anything but cleaning garage floors.
Quite like other of the sheptzialishts in question. “Security” establishment treacherous items all. Focused on assaulting Jews rather than attending to true national security." ~ Shmuel HaLevi
When it comes to internal Israeli politics I never make predictions. But hopefully this guy is right and Spammy and his screeching hyena appeaser lemmings and sperm gulpers are wrong. This is from Spammy's favorite birdcage lining, Haaretz. Not surprised he didn't post it....
Five reasons Netanyahu can’t be replaced in these Israeli elections
Time for a reality check: Isaac Herzog will not be Israel’s next prime minister.
By Steven Klein, HAARETZ
Various media in Israel and abroad continue to speculate that Isaac Herzog could cobble together a coalition against all odds, and replace the incumbent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. They delude themselves that it’s 1999 all over again, the last time Netanyahu fell, that Herzog’s chances “appear” to be higher than earlier in the election campaign, or that a unity government with a rotating prime minister is a viable scenario.
Folks, it’s time for an intervention.
There is no scenario in which Isaac Herzog will be Israel’s next prime minister, no matter what he declares or what the press reports. Period.
All this talk reminds me of an interview I had as a PhD student in 2011 with a Sri Lankan civil rights activist about their civil war. I asked him about an article he had written in 2005 before the cease-fire there collapsed, in which he stated there was no going back to violence. On what basis had he made that prediction? I asked. He replied, “Wishful thinking.”
I know it’s harsh news, but the reality is that Herzog and company, while they are obliged to loudly declare their intention to win, have to prepare for becoming a fighting opposition the day after the election. And they should forget about the idea of being part of a unity government, which Netanyahu rejected in January, if he ever entertained it. Netanyahu went to the polls because the previous coalition was ungovernable; a unity government would be even less so.
Let’s do a reality check.
1) The Israeli public is indifferent to media “scandals” about Netanyahu. Ever since he brushed off an extramarital affair while running for the Likud leadership in 1993, Netanyahu has been able to frame any publicized misstep as attempted character assassination, and enough of the public has bought it to keep him in power. The fact that Likud has steadily held around 23 seats in the polls since the whole brouhaha over his speech to Congress and Sara’s bottle-gate began in January, compounded by reports about his personal expenses and the state comptroller’s report on housing demonstrate his Teflon quality.
2) Security and credibility. The left was permanently discredited by the failure of Oslo, and Herzog has nothing to offer to inspire public confidence that he would bring genuine change for which it would be worth giving up the status quo. Netanyahu, meanwhile, has successfully sowed the seeds of fear, helped by the occasional terror attack or war. In the mind of the public, security is #1. Consequently, he continues to garner the highest support as “most suitable for prime minister,” despite his low approval ratings.
3) The numbers game: Since being discredited by Oslo, the true left (Labor, Meretz and the Arab parties), which never held fewer than 48 seats through the 1999 election, has never had more than 34 seats since the 2003 election. While they should break through that barrier this election, the left is still looking at no more than 41-42 seats; hardly enough to make a serious bid to reach the minimum of 61. Yet, the Joint List refuses to join any government, so even if Zionist Union wins the most seats out of any party, it will still fail to build a left-wing coalition.
4) The center-left bloc myth: This myth, more than any other, keeps alive false hopes about post-election scenarios. It grew out of Ariel Sharon’s Kadima revolution, which gutted the Likud temporarily and sent it to a historic low in the 2006 election. However, once the public understood that Kadima was more than just Likud-light, Kadima collapsed and with it went the center-left bloc. Leaving out the Arabs, no conceivable center-left bloc tops even 50 seats, let alone 60. Why not? Besides the centrist Yesh Atid, the moment Zionist Union tries to corral right-of-center parties, it loses Meretz, because the right-wing parties won’t sit with this truly leftist party.
5) The political and socioeconomic status quos are still holding. The Israeli public has not voted for dramatic change except in the wake of significant blows to the status quo. The aftermath of the Yom Kippur War and the coming of age of Sephardi Jews swept Likud into power; the first intifada and the Russian wave of immigrants swung the pendulum back to Labor; and the onset of the second intifada gave Likud a comeback. Yes, Israel has fought wars in recent years, but the security situation is much more tolerable than it was during the years of the second intifada. And the economy is stumbling but unemployment is low; the stock market is high; and homeowners do not see rising housing prices as a crisis the way the media does. In short, the time is not ripe for change.
To quote Netanyahu’s favorite game: check mate.
Five reasons Netanyahu can’t be replaced in these Israeli elections
Time for a reality check: Isaac Herzog will not be Israel’s next prime minister.
By Steven Klein, HAARETZ
Various media in Israel and abroad continue to speculate that Isaac Herzog could cobble together a coalition against all odds, and replace the incumbent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. They delude themselves that it’s 1999 all over again, the last time Netanyahu fell, that Herzog’s chances “appear” to be higher than earlier in the election campaign, or that a unity government with a rotating prime minister is a viable scenario.
Folks, it’s time for an intervention.
There is no scenario in which Isaac Herzog will be Israel’s next prime minister, no matter what he declares or what the press reports. Period.
All this talk reminds me of an interview I had as a PhD student in 2011 with a Sri Lankan civil rights activist about their civil war. I asked him about an article he had written in 2005 before the cease-fire there collapsed, in which he stated there was no going back to violence. On what basis had he made that prediction? I asked. He replied, “Wishful thinking.”
I know it’s harsh news, but the reality is that Herzog and company, while they are obliged to loudly declare their intention to win, have to prepare for becoming a fighting opposition the day after the election. And they should forget about the idea of being part of a unity government, which Netanyahu rejected in January, if he ever entertained it. Netanyahu went to the polls because the previous coalition was ungovernable; a unity government would be even less so.
Let’s do a reality check.
1) The Israeli public is indifferent to media “scandals” about Netanyahu. Ever since he brushed off an extramarital affair while running for the Likud leadership in 1993, Netanyahu has been able to frame any publicized misstep as attempted character assassination, and enough of the public has bought it to keep him in power. The fact that Likud has steadily held around 23 seats in the polls since the whole brouhaha over his speech to Congress and Sara’s bottle-gate began in January, compounded by reports about his personal expenses and the state comptroller’s report on housing demonstrate his Teflon quality.
2) Security and credibility. The left was permanently discredited by the failure of Oslo, and Herzog has nothing to offer to inspire public confidence that he would bring genuine change for which it would be worth giving up the status quo. Netanyahu, meanwhile, has successfully sowed the seeds of fear, helped by the occasional terror attack or war. In the mind of the public, security is #1. Consequently, he continues to garner the highest support as “most suitable for prime minister,” despite his low approval ratings.
3) The numbers game: Since being discredited by Oslo, the true left (Labor, Meretz and the Arab parties), which never held fewer than 48 seats through the 1999 election, has never had more than 34 seats since the 2003 election. While they should break through that barrier this election, the left is still looking at no more than 41-42 seats; hardly enough to make a serious bid to reach the minimum of 61. Yet, the Joint List refuses to join any government, so even if Zionist Union wins the most seats out of any party, it will still fail to build a left-wing coalition.
4) The center-left bloc myth: This myth, more than any other, keeps alive false hopes about post-election scenarios. It grew out of Ariel Sharon’s Kadima revolution, which gutted the Likud temporarily and sent it to a historic low in the 2006 election. However, once the public understood that Kadima was more than just Likud-light, Kadima collapsed and with it went the center-left bloc. Leaving out the Arabs, no conceivable center-left bloc tops even 50 seats, let alone 60. Why not? Besides the centrist Yesh Atid, the moment Zionist Union tries to corral right-of-center parties, it loses Meretz, because the right-wing parties won’t sit with this truly leftist party.
5) The political and socioeconomic status quos are still holding. The Israeli public has not voted for dramatic change except in the wake of significant blows to the status quo. The aftermath of the Yom Kippur War and the coming of age of Sephardi Jews swept Likud into power; the first intifada and the Russian wave of immigrants swung the pendulum back to Labor; and the onset of the second intifada gave Likud a comeback. Yes, Israel has fought wars in recent years, but the security situation is much more tolerable than it was during the years of the second intifada. And the economy is stumbling but unemployment is low; the stock market is high; and homeowners do not see rising housing prices as a crisis the way the media does. In short, the time is not ripe for change.
To quote Netanyahu’s favorite game: check mate.
[h=1]Haaretz's final election poll: Zionist Union holds slim lead over Likud[/h] [h=2]With just five days to go to the election, Zionist Union pulls 24 Knesset seats, while Likud is down to 21. In third place is the Joint List, with 13 seats.[/h] By Yossi Verter 00:03 12.03.15
0
With five days before the elections, the Zionist Union is pulling 24 Knesset seats in the latest Haaretz poll, compared to 23 seats in the previous one, while Likud has lost two seats since the last survey, getting only 21.
The Joint List gets 13 seats, which would make it the Knesset’s third-largest party.
If the Zionist Union maintains this momentum over the next few days until the election, the chances of party leader Isaac Herzog forming the next government will be greatly enhanced. It’s no coincidence that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been reiterating during his public appearances that “if the gap in their favor increases, Tzipi [Livni] and Bougie [Herzog] will head the next government.” If Netanyahu looks worried, it’s no act. He has good reason to feel as if his seat is starting to wobble under him.
In addition, Herzog has strengthened his position among voters in terms of his perceived suitability to be prime minister; if some 10 days ago the gap between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was 26 percentage points in Netanyahu’s favor, it has narrowed to 14 percentage points. Of those questioned yesterday, 48 percent thought Netanyahu was most suited to the job, while 34 percent favored Herzog.
Over the past few days, Herzog’s public appearances have become more calm, statesmanlike, and most importantly, more mature. In the media arena, at least, he looks as someone who is slowly growing into the job. It should be noted, however, that even if Herzog gets the nod from President Reuven Rivlin to form the next government, actually putting together a coalition will be very difficult. He would have to persuade parties like Meretz and Yisrael Beiteinu to sit together, and convince one or more Haredi parties to cooperate with Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid.
Compared to the previous Haaretz poll, the center-right bloc has lost four seats, with the Likud losing two, Yisrael Beiteinu losing one and Habayit Hayehudi losing one, while Kahalon’s Kulanu has gained two seats, rising to 11.
Yisrael Beiteinu is now in the danger zone; according to the poll, whose results are based on responses of those who said they were definitely going to vote, Avigdor Lieberman’s party barely crosses the electoral threshold and will get only four seats. This could be tied to Likud’s intense campaign to return to its ranks voters who had previously defected to satellite parties; there are many similarities between Yisrael Beiteinu voters and those of Likud.
By contrast, both Meretz and Yahad have improved their positions, exceeding the electoral threshold by more than before; the poll shows Meretz getting six seats, and Yahad garnering five. Yesh Atid maintains its 12 seats, while Habayit Hayehudi loses a seat and gets 11 seats. It’s possible Habayit Hayehudi has lost voters to Yahad. The poll shows Shas remaining at seven seats, while United Torah Judaism loses one, dropping to six.
The poll was conducted by the Dialog organization under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University. This is the last poll Haaretz is publishing before the election. In this survey the analysis method was changed; as noted, the findings here reflect the responses of voters who said they were sure they were going to vote, while previous polls included the responses of those who weren’t sure. As the election gets closer, the more reliable data relates to those who are certain they will vote.
If one includes the responses of all the respondents, only two significant changes occur; Yisrael Beiteinu gains one seat, to five, and the Zionist Union loses a seat and polls only 23.
It should also be noted that the final polls before the last election did not successfully predict the results for several parties that surged in the last few days of the campaign, foremost among them Yesh Atid, whose 19 seats were not forecast by anyone. It’s possible that for one or two parties, the final results will be significantly different.
| |
With five days before the elections, the Zionist Union is pulling 24 Knesset seats in the latest Haaretz poll, compared to 23 seats in the previous one, while Likud has lost two seats since the last survey, getting only 21.
The Joint List gets 13 seats, which would make it the Knesset’s third-largest party.
If the Zionist Union maintains this momentum over the next few days until the election, the chances of party leader Isaac Herzog forming the next government will be greatly enhanced. It’s no coincidence that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been reiterating during his public appearances that “if the gap in their favor increases, Tzipi [Livni] and Bougie [Herzog] will head the next government.” If Netanyahu looks worried, it’s no act. He has good reason to feel as if his seat is starting to wobble under him.
In addition, Herzog has strengthened his position among voters in terms of his perceived suitability to be prime minister; if some 10 days ago the gap between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was 26 percentage points in Netanyahu’s favor, it has narrowed to 14 percentage points. Of those questioned yesterday, 48 percent thought Netanyahu was most suited to the job, while 34 percent favored Herzog.
Over the past few days, Herzog’s public appearances have become more calm, statesmanlike, and most importantly, more mature. In the media arena, at least, he looks as someone who is slowly growing into the job. It should be noted, however, that even if Herzog gets the nod from President Reuven Rivlin to form the next government, actually putting together a coalition will be very difficult. He would have to persuade parties like Meretz and Yisrael Beiteinu to sit together, and convince one or more Haredi parties to cooperate with Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid.
Compared to the previous Haaretz poll, the center-right bloc has lost four seats, with the Likud losing two, Yisrael Beiteinu losing one and Habayit Hayehudi losing one, while Kahalon’s Kulanu has gained two seats, rising to 11.
Yisrael Beiteinu is now in the danger zone; according to the poll, whose results are based on responses of those who said they were definitely going to vote, Avigdor Lieberman’s party barely crosses the electoral threshold and will get only four seats. This could be tied to Likud’s intense campaign to return to its ranks voters who had previously defected to satellite parties; there are many similarities between Yisrael Beiteinu voters and those of Likud.
By contrast, both Meretz and Yahad have improved their positions, exceeding the electoral threshold by more than before; the poll shows Meretz getting six seats, and Yahad garnering five. Yesh Atid maintains its 12 seats, while Habayit Hayehudi loses a seat and gets 11 seats. It’s possible Habayit Hayehudi has lost voters to Yahad. The poll shows Shas remaining at seven seats, while United Torah Judaism loses one, dropping to six.
The poll was conducted by the Dialog organization under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University. This is the last poll Haaretz is publishing before the election. In this survey the analysis method was changed; as noted, the findings here reflect the responses of voters who said they were sure they were going to vote, while previous polls included the responses of those who weren’t sure. As the election gets closer, the more reliable data relates to those who are certain they will vote.
If one includes the responses of all the respondents, only two significant changes occur; Yisrael Beiteinu gains one seat, to five, and the Zionist Union loses a seat and polls only 23.
It should also be noted that the final polls before the last election did not successfully predict the results for several parties that surged in the last few days of the campaign, foremost among them Yesh Atid, whose 19 seats were not forecast by anyone. It’s possible that for one or two parties, the final results will be significantly different.
Senior Likud sources: Netanyahu may not win election
'Speech to Congress should have strengthened Likud, but we didn’t achieve the desired outcome.'
By Jonathan Lis | Mar. 11, 2015 | 2:52 PM |
Senior Likud figures are increasingly acknowledging that party leader Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not win Tuesday’s national election.
“Something isn’t going the way it should. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last week should have created a turning point for us and strengthened Likud in the polls. It’s clear that we didn’t achieve the desired outcome,” a senior figure in Likud told Haaretz.
“We came to these elections thinking Netanyahu had no real rival. Now we understand that the picture is much more complex,” another Likud source said.
“I don’t discount the possibility that [Zionist Union co-leader Isaac] Herzog will win the election,” added another high-ranking Likud figure. “If that happens, I believe his coalition will hold out for a year and then Likud will come back to government.”
Likud must simultaneously tackle two major problems: One, a constant trickle of voters out of the party toward the centrist Yesh Atid and Kulanu. The second is the lack of motivation among Likud voters to get out and vote. “We have a major concern that a few Knesset seats will [be lost] due to voters who support Likud but just won’t vote, and it’s not clear if we will overcome this, the party figure said adding: “The problem is not Likud. People just don’t want to vote Netanyahu.”
Meanwhile Prime Minister Netanyahu and others close to him have repeatedly blamed “outside forces” for his lack of popularity.
“There is a huge global effort to bring down the Likud government,” Netanyahu told supporters at a meeting Monday in the Haifa Bay suburb of Kiryat Motzkin. “This is a very close battle,” he added. “Nothing is assured.”
Over the past few days members of Netanyahu’s inner circle have echoed his charges, citing foreign businesspeople who have invested funds to bring about a change of government in Israel, by funding organizations like V15, which is conducting a campaign against Netanyahu, or One Million Hands, the group that organized the anti-Netanyahu protest in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on Saturday night.
Political parties in Israel are banned from accepting money directly from overseas donors during an election campaign. But such funding is allowed under Israeli law for non-profit organizations espousing political viewpoints, and U.S. consultants have advised Israeli candidates for years.
Strategic and Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz spoke on the same issue on Tuesday, enumerating what he believed were the elements stacked up against Netanyahu: “The media is enlisted against him, the Palestinian Authority as well as elements in the United States. I see something that looks like support for the other side.”
Speaking in an online chat on Tuesday with Haaretz readers, Steinitz said: “All these forces come to bring about the absurd situation in which Netanyahu gives up his place to someone who has never proven anything,” he said.
“I think that most of the opinion polls show that despite this delegitimization, most of the public still prefers Netanyahu and his leadership talents,” said Steinitz.
'Speech to Congress should have strengthened Likud, but we didn’t achieve the desired outcome.'
By Jonathan Lis | Mar. 11, 2015 | 2:52 PM |
Senior Likud figures are increasingly acknowledging that party leader Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not win Tuesday’s national election.
“Something isn’t going the way it should. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last week should have created a turning point for us and strengthened Likud in the polls. It’s clear that we didn’t achieve the desired outcome,” a senior figure in Likud told Haaretz.
“We came to these elections thinking Netanyahu had no real rival. Now we understand that the picture is much more complex,” another Likud source said.
“I don’t discount the possibility that [Zionist Union co-leader Isaac] Herzog will win the election,” added another high-ranking Likud figure. “If that happens, I believe his coalition will hold out for a year and then Likud will come back to government.”
Likud must simultaneously tackle two major problems: One, a constant trickle of voters out of the party toward the centrist Yesh Atid and Kulanu. The second is the lack of motivation among Likud voters to get out and vote. “We have a major concern that a few Knesset seats will [be lost] due to voters who support Likud but just won’t vote, and it’s not clear if we will overcome this, the party figure said adding: “The problem is not Likud. People just don’t want to vote Netanyahu.”
Meanwhile Prime Minister Netanyahu and others close to him have repeatedly blamed “outside forces” for his lack of popularity.
“There is a huge global effort to bring down the Likud government,” Netanyahu told supporters at a meeting Monday in the Haifa Bay suburb of Kiryat Motzkin. “This is a very close battle,” he added. “Nothing is assured.”
Over the past few days members of Netanyahu’s inner circle have echoed his charges, citing foreign businesspeople who have invested funds to bring about a change of government in Israel, by funding organizations like V15, which is conducting a campaign against Netanyahu, or One Million Hands, the group that organized the anti-Netanyahu protest in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on Saturday night.
Political parties in Israel are banned from accepting money directly from overseas donors during an election campaign. But such funding is allowed under Israeli law for non-profit organizations espousing political viewpoints, and U.S. consultants have advised Israeli candidates for years.
Strategic and Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz spoke on the same issue on Tuesday, enumerating what he believed were the elements stacked up against Netanyahu: “The media is enlisted against him, the Palestinian Authority as well as elements in the United States. I see something that looks like support for the other side.”
Speaking in an online chat on Tuesday with Haaretz readers, Steinitz said: “All these forces come to bring about the absurd situation in which Netanyahu gives up his place to someone who has never proven anything,” he said.
“I think that most of the opinion polls show that despite this delegitimization, most of the public still prefers Netanyahu and his leadership talents,” said Steinitz.
[h=1]Poll: U.S. voters' support for Netanyahu drops in wake of Iran speech to Congress[/h] [h=2]Decline in backing stems from a drop in support from U.S. Democratic voters. Speech had little effect on Republicans' impressions of Netanyahu, Gallup reports.[/h] By Haaretz | Mar. 11, 2015 | 3:15 PM |
2
Largely due to a drop in support from U.S. Democratic voters, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval ratings in America have dropped since he addressed Congress with a warning about Iran, a new poll says.
Gallup, the Washington survey specialist, compared approval ratings for Israel's leader in the periods Feb. 8 through 11 and March 5 through 8. Netanyahu gave his speech to Congress on March 3.
In that period the percentage of Americans who view Netanyahu favorably dropped 7 points to 38 percent, Gallup reported. The percentage who view him unfavorably rose 5 points to 29 percent.
Among Democrats specifically, the Israeli premier's favorable rating sank 15 points to 17 percent, while his unfavorable rating shot up 14 points to 46 percent, Gallup reported.
The speech had little effect on Republicans' impressions of Netanyahu. His favorable rating rose 2 points to 62 percent while unfavorable views of him slipped a point to 16 percent.
Netanyahu's speech caused a diplomatic ruckus in Washington. It was arranged by Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer and House Speaker John Boehner, the Ohio Republican, with no coordination with the White House.
And it raised accusations of electioneering, since the speech was scheduled two weeks before Israelis go to the polls on March 17.
Two days ago Rabbi Eric Yoffie wrote in Haaretz that he sensed that American Jews, both Democrats and Republicans, were angry at Netanyahu because they considered the speech a slap at the president.
And a number of Haaretz writers and columnists have weighed in on the speech, both opposing and supporting the prime minister's decision to address Congress.
| |
Largely due to a drop in support from U.S. Democratic voters, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval ratings in America have dropped since he addressed Congress with a warning about Iran, a new poll says.
Gallup, the Washington survey specialist, compared approval ratings for Israel's leader in the periods Feb. 8 through 11 and March 5 through 8. Netanyahu gave his speech to Congress on March 3.
In that period the percentage of Americans who view Netanyahu favorably dropped 7 points to 38 percent, Gallup reported. The percentage who view him unfavorably rose 5 points to 29 percent.
Among Democrats specifically, the Israeli premier's favorable rating sank 15 points to 17 percent, while his unfavorable rating shot up 14 points to 46 percent, Gallup reported.
The speech had little effect on Republicans' impressions of Netanyahu. His favorable rating rose 2 points to 62 percent while unfavorable views of him slipped a point to 16 percent.
Netanyahu's speech caused a diplomatic ruckus in Washington. It was arranged by Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer and House Speaker John Boehner, the Ohio Republican, with no coordination with the White House.
And it raised accusations of electioneering, since the speech was scheduled two weeks before Israelis go to the polls on March 17.
Two days ago Rabbi Eric Yoffie wrote in Haaretz that he sensed that American Jews, both Democrats and Republicans, were angry at Netanyahu because they considered the speech a slap at the president.
And a number of Haaretz writers and columnists have weighed in on the speech, both opposing and supporting the prime minister's decision to address Congress.
