Israeli politics are mimicking American politics more and more by the day; not necessarily for the better. The modern State of Israel and many of its leaders have always sought to compare Israeli democratic values and those of the U.S., although Israel is a parliamentary democracy, while the U.S. is a presidential one. For the past several decades in functional terms the American democracy has been operating as a “single party rules” or by no rules. Chaos and disruption have dominated political discourse. Winning and political gains have over-ridden the need to govern. Defeating the opposition has been more important than legislating or governing the nation. Senator Mitch McConnell said precisely those words after the 2010 off-year Republican congressional victory when he said his only goal for the next two years was to defeat President Obama in 2012.
President Trump spent four years seeking to undo anything constructive that had been accomplished by his predecessors. The goal of the Republican Party in Washington was to insure that the Democrats would achieve no victories. The Affordable Healthcare Act was to be opposed and dismantled not made more effective and administratively more manageable to improve healthcare for all Americans.
In watching the political jockeying in Israel, it is readily apparent that former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is determined to force the current Bennett-led Government to fall and force new elections. Netanyahu has maneuvered his Likud Party to the point that it voted against increased educational benefits for Israelis who have completed their military service. Although his own previous Government had created the package of services for which the soldiers already had registered, he would rather bring down the Government than provide soldiers with educational benefits.
Netanyahu might be correct that the country is not enamored with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s leadership, but Bibi does not yet comprehend that many in the Israeli Parliament and even within his own party are no longer enamored with Bibi’s own leadership. Bennett’s extremely broad coalition may be fracturing at the moment with much of the difficulties coming from members of Bennett’s own small party.
Bennett continues to recognize the need to compromise and negotiate with diverse elements within the coalition and in the Knesset in general. It appears as well that many of his own party’s members are also determined to score wins even if it brings the Government down. Bennett, meanwhile, needs to continue to balance his wide-ranging coalition or he will have to face an election much sooner than he would wanted.
The open question is if in his desire to maintain power, Bennett went too far in conceding to the demand of his right-wing faction to permit them to march through the Arab Quarter of the Old City on Jerusalem Day. As it has in the past, this march of flag waving, young, religious Zionists could very likely set off a serious reaction both from a security perspective as well as from a political one. This march could precipitate a military confrontation as well as bring down the Government, if the Arab Ra’am Party were to leave the coalition.
----------
Meanwhile Back AIPAC
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is now reaping the crop which it foolishly sowed. AIPAC’s desire to participate further in elections as part of engaging in the political process so far is producing very mixed results as witnessed by a success in an Ohio congressional primary and the apparent defeat of their candidate in primary in Pennsylvania. Considering the amount of money AIPAC reportedly has spent, this general approach could well undermine AIPAC’s ability to influence both the Congress and the White House to sustain and strengthen a bipartisan U.S.-Israel relationship. Having watched J Street create a PAC as well as recognizing that Republicans and Democrats were making their own pro-Israel political action committees, AIPAC created their own PAC to make direct donations to candidates, beginning in this year’s congressional election cycle.
The problem for both AIPAC and the Government of Israel, going forward may be more complicated than they assumed it would be. Historically, AIPAC’s major clout was in representing Israel’s concerns and needs in a bi-partisan manner before Members of Congress. As AIPAC was not donating money to campaigns—certainly not directly—Members felt that their engagement with AIPAC strictly addressed substantive concerns which Israel had, and which Members as well as their staff sought to understand. By entering the political contributions “game”, AIPAC was adding a dimension to their previous lobbying only work. The serious question will be whether AIPAC money will have a serious impact on AIPAC’s advocacy work on behalf of Israel.
It most definitively will affect their ability to profess to be bipartisan, as contributing to campaigns is the most obvious example of partisanship. AIPAC’s future ability to lobby a Member to support the U.S.- Israel relationship could now be challenged by any Member who can point to the fact that previously AIPAC financially had supported the Member’s opponent. In the past, AIPAC always had plausible deniability when they lobbied a Member of Congress whose opponent had been supported by AIPAC members but not by AIPAC itself. Henceforth, responding to AIPAC could be seriously challenged and Israel’s needs could suffer.
コメント