And here I was, all ready to write about how Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for early elections in September meant A) he didn’t have the domestic backing to lob bunker busters in the general direction of Tehran and B) he was rolling the dice in order to try to get a better result. Turns out I was right in a sense. He just bypassed the whole early elections and democracy thing on the way.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition chairman MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) reached a surprise agreement early Tuesday morning to form a national unity government.
The move came as the Knesset was preparing to disperse for early elections, which were expected to be scheduled for September 4.
Under the agreement, Kadima will join Netanyahu’s government and commit to supporting its policies through the end of its term in late 2013. Mofaz is expected to be appointed deputy prime minister, as well as minister without portfolio.
Mofaz will also serve as a member of the security cabinet, and Kadima members will serve as chairmen of the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committees, the economics committee, and any others that are agreed upon by both sides.
Mofaz ousted former Kadima head Tzipi Livni a couple weeks back as head of the opposition. Ambitious doesn’t begin to describe the guy, apparently. Now thanks to Mofaz, Bibi is holding all the cards and the rest of his coalition government can suck it. Dice were loaded all along.
So the question now is what will Bibi do with his new instant majority government? We know what Mofaz is getting out of it.
As talk of early elections heated up in recent weeks, polls have shown Kadima losing significant strength, winning perhaps a dozen seats rather than its current 28, a clear incentive for Mr. Mofaz to make the unity government deal. Several other centrist and left-leaning parties would have each won about a dozen seats, according to the polls, leaving a divided opposition that would likely only have increased Mr. Netanyahu’s power and hold on the government.
Plus he’s now Bibi’s right hand man and Vice Minister. And as such, Netanyahu now has free reign to do whatever he wants for the next 18 months or so. I actually have to hand it to the guy, this is a pretty epic win on his part. Opinions differ on what Bibi will do with his new power but nobody’s disputing he has it. Somewhere, a bunch of Republicans are looking into how to pull this off here.
I’m sure this will end well for everyone involved. Yep.
c u n d gulag
The saber’s, they be rattlin’!
‘What’s the Matter With Israel?’
kdaug
This is our protectorate why, again?
Chris
The “centrists” of their spectrum are just as great a pack of balless, right-wing stooges as ours? That’s almost hard to believe.
So, the practical result of this is what – that Israel’s now basically a one-party state? At least for the next year and a half? That’s cheerful: exactly what we need in the context of this Iran thing.
General Stuck
One of the upsides to a representative republic created for two parties and divided government and with minority rights built into the system. Can you imagine what a zoo this country would be with a parliamentary system? Provided the likelyhood of long ago turning ourselves into smoldering ruins. We would have elections every few weeks, and no one could trust anyone on their own side, to not give away the keys to the realm for reasons of personal ambition alone.
Cathyx
War for thee and we.
4tehlulz
Did Bibi take Iran strikes off the table to stay in power?
He’s an MBA, so I would not put it past him to trade away (what he claims is) a vital security interest for his own short-sited gain.
General Stuck
OT
And folks wonder why Bush Cheney and the rest of the torture gang haven’t been arrested and tried for war crimes.
Even the most liberal court in the land, wants nothing to do with accountability for the evils of the Bushies in the GWOT. And brings out the patriotic broom to sweep torture under the national rug.
Yevgraf
@c u n d gulag:
Nothing that an epic ass kicking at the hands of a combo of Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Turkey won’t solve, followed by dismantlement of their security apparatus and mandatory non-separate elections that include Gaza and the West Bank.
Of course, knowing those apartheid racists, they’d go nuclear the moment that they realize that they’re soft after spending so many years stomping on demoralized, disarmed people during their lengthy occupation.
Chris
@General Stuck:
Yeah, pretty much. As we saw from the unmitigated outrage when Obama was perceived as “apologizing” for America.
CraigoMc
Not that Netanyahu is not an asshole – but what exactly is undemocratic about this? Both Likud and Kadima were (unfortunately) elected by the voters of Israel, their term has yet to expire, and the coalition government has a majority in the Knesset.
Proclaiming democratic results that you don’t like as illegitimate is a habit that should stay on the right.
lacp
@General Stuck: That whole article is worth reading. The absurd reasoning – upsupported by anything – that yielded such an outcome (from, as you note, the most liberal federal court in the USA) is something usually identified with kangaroo courts in totalitarian states. If we’ve arrived at the point where all three branches of the federal government are endorsing the 1%er’s empire, maybe it’s time to cash out.
Yevgraf
@CraigoMc:
Which is why I don’t want to hear about the fate of “poor, beleaguered Israelis” when their warmongering turns to shit.
amk
Nice palace coup worthy of neighboring saudis and other oilgarchies there. Suck on it voters.
CraigoMc
@Yevgraf: It’s hard to believe that a few short years ago Likud was virtually annihilated by Ariel Sharon. I can’t believe that bastard turned out to be Israel’s last best hope for a relatively sane government – everything’s gone to shit since he fell ill.
campionrules
Hardly undemocratic.
Do you understand how a parliamentary system works? It may seem weird to us, but this is a common outcome – essentially he’s forming a new coalition government – under a multi-party system.
We just don’t have anything like it – so it does appear strange.
I will say that Netanyahu made a particularly shrewd move – just a stretch to call it ‘undemocratic’.
rikyrah
you are on point, Zander
Merp
Well great. Kadima’s done. The one thing Ariel Sharon did that wasn’t a war crime. The broadest force for “not completely fucking shit up immediately” in Israeli politics. Just done. Great.
Knockabout
@campionrules:
No. He doesn’t understand how anything works.
Yet his vapid ignorance is still tolerated here.
Scott S.
Hey, look, it’s Knockabout, the guy who’s wrong about everything but still won’t shut up.
JoeShabadoo
@Chris:
Parliamentary systems have their own problems but our country would still be plenty functional as one, at least compared to right now. The crazies would all be split into their own fundie, anti-immigrant and libertarian parties where they would have less voice then they do in the current repub party they wag. The undemocratic senate also wouldnt give them more power due to geography. Without the GOP to bring a big tent these one issue nutballs would be seen as that much more easily.
Most importantly American political culture would be entirely different without decades of the us vs. them, both sides do it mentality that would have a more difficult time rooting in the parliamentary system.
RP
Yes — thousands of people getting killed in a war would be awesome.
Moron.
chopper
@RP:
thousands? israel has nukes.
handsmile
@campionrules: (#15)
Certainly agree that this move was “hardly undemocratic.” Ruthless and bare-knuckled, to be sure, however. Shrewd as well, as it undercuts Defense Minister Ehud Barak who would have been Bibi’s most potent challenger if September elections had gone ahead.
Netanyahu’s motivation to obtain this coalition with Kadima is disclosed, albeit ironically, in this passage from the first Haaretz link Zander provided:
JGabriel
@JoeShabadoo:
I’m not entirely sure that the US’s “both sides do it” mentality is significantly more cynical than the “all sides do it” view of many people under parliamentary systems.
That said, I suppose it must be recognized that the only thing separating our two-party system from a single party tyranny is … one party. We really could do with a few more relevant (i.e., electable) parties, if only for the safety mechanisms afforded by redundancy.
.
Alex S.
In a parlamentarian system, the party with the plurality of votes usually tries to get small coalition partners to achieve parliamentary control. Small coalition partners demand fewer concessions. It`s unusual that Netanyahu chose Kadima because Kadima is, at least for the moment, another big party and could demand more concessions, but if they really are in such a downward spiral it’s a win-win situation.
Grand coalitions are not that unusual. Germany had them twice. The two centrist parties of Greece aimed for one before the elections. They are not necessarily undemocratic since they represent a big chunk of the vote. But usually, discontent with a grand coalition will lead to a stengthening of the fringe opposition. And Netanyah’s mid-term change looks a little shady because the last vote was some time ago and the current setup of the Knesset might not reflect the current will of the people anymore.
Villago Delenda Est
@Yevgraf:
During the opening days of the ’73 war, when things did not look good, allegedly the cabinet discussed launching the nukes in a glorious statement of “if we’re going down, we’re taking you motherfuckers with us.”
JGabriel
campionrules:
Seconded (or thirded, or whatever).
If Netanyahu were to cancel the mandated 2013 elections, that would “bypass democracy”. But to call off scheduled early elections is just one of the vagaries of parliamentary systems — hardball, to be sure, but within the democratic constraints of that form of government.
.
deep
But, OF COURSE, if you criticize the Likud party then you’re an anti-semite.
pseudonymous in nc
So, the Kadima experiment is probably over: I assume a rump will choose to split off from power-sharing, but when the scheduled election comes around, I doubt there’ll be much of it left.
I agree with everyone who says that it’s just extremely good politics from Bibi to exploit the weakness of his opposition. (Kadima is the largest party in the Knesset, but 28 seats out of 120 doesn’t get you over the top.) The fact that Israeli politics is sufficiently screwed up right now to allow it to happen is another thing entirely.
Kadima’s side of the deal is to shape reform of the laws that allow ultra-orthodox men to avoid military service (and work) by enrolling in yeshiva. The last attempt to square that political circle was struck down earlier in the year, and Bibi can now take it on without worrying that the religious parties will bring down the government.
daveNYC
@Villago Delenda Est: To be fair, “if we’re going down we’re taking you down with us” is the standard use case for nukes.
catclub
@daveNYC: “… is the standard use case for nukes.” Except for the US.
We did it cause we could. American exceptionalism indeed.
trollhattan
I understand Israeli politics about as well as I understand particle physics, but I still conclude John Bolton’s boner has already passed the four-hour danger threshold.
Freedom Bombs(tm)!
Joey Maloney
The only good thing I can see coming from this is that, if Likud + Kadima get enough seats, Bibi can tell the religious parties to suck it. They’ve been holding the balance of power for the past 20 years and more, which is why no government could do anything to lessen the stranglehold of the rabbinut on public policy. Provided the whole region doesn’t go up in nuclear fire, that opens the possibility of all kinds of needed (and broadly popular) social reforms.
For good or ill, I think we’re past the point of a 2-state solution being viable over the short-to-medium term. My personal pipedream would be to reinvent Israel and Palestine as post-national states. In broad outline, it would be two legal regimes sharing the same geographical area. You could hold Israeli or Palestinian citizenship, either of which would give you full rights to travel and live anywhere in Greater Israel. There would be parallel legal codes and parallel administrations, with some kind of coordinating body to handle the interface between them – for instance to develop civil and criminal procedures for when there are parties of different citizenships.
As a history geek, I’m modeling this after the system of the Old Icelandic Free State where each freeman had allegiance to a sort of chieftain who probably but not necessarily lived in the same geographical area and there was lots of interpenetration. They had this whole system for adjudicating disputes between neighbors who were in law to different chiefs, plus a national parliament, and it worked pretty well for a couple of centuries.
chopper
shorter Kadima: say, Bibi, do you wanna lay down with me?
Paul in KY
@CraigoMc: That is freaky. Sorta like how I had to revisit my opinion of Reagan, once I had received a good dose of Bush/Cheney.
mdblanche
I hate to say this, but Israel is beginning to look as unreformable as the Soviet Union.
...now I try to be amused
@Joey Maloney:
That’s fascinating. Hell, we probably need something like that here as well as in Israel/Palestine.
Brachiator
@JoeShabadoo:
This isn’t necessarily true at all. The UK was fuckin deadlocked until the Conservatives and the Lib Dems formed a government, even though the Lib Dems becamse largely irrelevant despite getting a seat at the table.
Greece has been unable to form a government since the recent elections. Worse, the rabidly bigoted Golden Dawn party has finally achieved some power.
Anyone want to see a parliamentary system in the US in which a formal Nazi or Klan party might win some seats?
It took Belgian more than a year, 541 days, to finally break a political deadlock and form a government at the end of 2011.
The US two party system ain’t perfect, by any means. But I’m not seeing any clear improvement with a parliamentary model.
pseudonymous in nc
@Brachiator:
Oh, c’mon: “a parliamentary model” is technically meaningless in this context, because it’s not one-size-fits-all.
Israel’s problem is that its single-district, low-threshold list system encourages and rewards small religious/ethnic factional parties; Belgium’s is that you have two parallel party structures (Flemish and Walloon) that need to be integrated in the national government; Greece’s specific problem is that, as Krugman noted, when you have an unpopular national unity government, protest votes go to either extreme.
The structural problems in the US aren’t related to the party system, because “Dem” and “GOP” are more like the loose groupings of multi-party democracies anyway; they’re related to the House gerrymander and the fucked-up Senate rules that make it impossible to get shit done.
Interrobang
I don’t think a two-state solution would work, either, because if you look at where the Palestinians are (that would be Gaza and East Jerusalem), there’s no contiguous land mass, even if you assume the 1967 borders (and that Jordan keeps up with its end of the 1948 agreement, which, oddly enough, nobody but me ever seems to mention). So either you’re going to have one state, or three.
I like the idea of alternate and parallel state systems operating in the same geopolitical area, though, in part because I know a lot of the infrastructure to do it is already in place, at least at a low level (things like bilingual schooling requirements and suchlike); it would more or less be an expansion of the “Arab Israeli” culture that already exists.
Brachiator
@pseudonymous in nc:
I agree. And this makes it even more ridiculous when people advocate a parliamentary system for the US as the automatic answer to everything.
I agree with you here as well.
@Interrobang:
Has this worked anywhere?
CraigoMc
@pseudonymous in nc: I agree with most of this (2% to enter the legislature? C’mon, Israel, man up and go to 5%), but the literature I’ve read on the subject indicates that the importance of gerrymandering is overblown.
There is a real problem, as you allude, with veto points and: We have two houses, a ridiculously malapportioned upper house, a strong executive that can veto legislation, a legislative-executive divide, a strong committee system, a Senate filibuster, life terms for federal judges, and a federal system. Short of going full-blown Poland-Lithuania, you couldn’t design a more dysfunctional system.
You could make a plausible argument in favor of any of these in isolation (though I oppose most of them personally); but packing them altogether was a recipe for gridlock. The system works fine only when the two parties are broad-based and non-ideological; if they’re in actual ideological opposition, there are just far too many places to throw a wrench into the system.
People like to blame “politicians,” and they be right, but that’s confusing symptoms with the cause of the disease. The system is designed to support the status quo.