Erdan tapped as US and UN envoy, clearing Likud logjam
Dermer to return to Israel after US presidential elections
Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan accepted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to be Israel’s next ambassador to the UN and to the US, Netanyahu’s office announced on Monday night.
Erdan will replace Danny Danon as ambassador to the UN and Ron Dermer as ambassador to the US. Erdan said it is possible to fill both roles and that he will travel between Washington and New York.
“I am proud and emotional about the honor to fight for the justice of our cause in the international arena and defend Israel in the face of the challenges ahead,” Erdan said in a statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office.
Netanyahu said Dermer would remain in his post until after the US election in November and Erdan will serve until Blue and White leader Benny Gantz is set to take over as prime minister a year later. Erdan said Abba Eban served in both roles in the 1950s.
“I’ve known Gilad for many years, his skills and experience and his determination to serve Israel, so I was happy that Gilad accepted my offer,” Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu met with Erdan on Sunday and tried to persuade him to become an ambassador after rejecting many opportunities to serve as ambassador to the UN in the past.
The appointment of Erdan will allow Netanyahu to promote other Likud figures as he appoints ministers for his next government. Outgoing Justice
Minister Amir Ohana is expected to replace Erdan as public security minister, while the
Transportation Ministry that Erdan coveted is set to go to current Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev.
It remains to be seen if former Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein will accept Netanyahu’s offer of the Education portfolio. There is still a tight competition for the remaining portfolios that will go to Likud, because there are 15 current Likud ministers and there will be only 10 portfolios for the party if Yamina does
not join the government.
Deputy Defense Minister Avi Dichter said that after winning the 10th spot on the Likud list, he must be appointed a minister. He noted that in 2015, Netanyahu appointed the top 14 candidates in Likud as ministers and he was 16th, so he accepted that he would not get a portfolio, but this time he would not accept rejection.
To further help solve the logjam in Likud, Netanyahu asked Gantz on Monday to allow the cabinet to have 36 ministers instead of 30. Gantz did not rule out the possibility.
Gantz announced that the formation of the government would be postponed to 1 p.m. on Thursday instead of Wednesday, due to the visit of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Israel on Wednesday. The delay gives Netanyahu until Wednesday afternoon to try to reach an agreement with Yamina, because coalition agreements must be submitted 24 hours in advance of when a government is sworn in.
Chances of Yamina joining the government took a hit on Monday when Yamina leader Naftali Bennett harshly criticized Netanyahu in an online press conference. Bennett said Netanyahu cared only about his own criminal cases and not real reforms in the Justice Ministry.
On diplomatic issues, Bennett warned that Netanyahu would create a Palestinian state. Bennett said Netanyahu has had chances since 1996 to apply sovereignty to land in Judea and Samaria and never has.
“Levi Eshkol and Menachem Begin applied sovereignty but Netanyahu has not,” Bennett said, referring to the third and sixth prime ministers, respectively.
Bennett lamented that Netanyahu did not give him the Health Ministry as part of the new government and vowed to be part of a fighting opposition.
“This is not a national-emergency government,” he said. “I didn’t ask for the Foreign Ministry and cocktails and to be foreign minister by Zoom. This [Netanyahu] is not what a man who wants Yamina in the government looks like.”
Bennett warned Netanyahu that if he abandons a political ally on the Right, he would not be able to depend on Yamina when he needs it. He revealed that the Likud offered Yamina three small portfolios but that he rejected the offer, because he wanted real influence over a serious problem like the novel coronavirus.
The Likud reacted by accusing Bennett of joining Balad MK Heba Yazbak in the opposition instead of joining a right-wing government that will apply sovereignty.
Channel 13 reported that Likud offered current Yamina Education Minister Rafi Peretz to be deputy minister of Jerusalem Affairs and other responsibilities if he joined the coalition on his own.
Lahav Harkov contributed to this report. • and the hard Right, which have already disconnected annexation from the Trump plan and have rebranded the US document as one that will exclusively lead to Palestinian statehood.
It does not matter that at issue is a demilitarized Palestinian state on 70% of the West Bank with only a minimal footprint in the outer edges of Jerusalem. It is the most minimal offer any US president has ever made to the Palestinians.
For a hard-line right-winger like Bennett, any statehood offer poses an existential threat. On Monday, Bennett spoke clearly of his intention to battle the Trump plan’s vision for a Palestinian state from the opposition.
In doing so, he made public the growing tensions on the Right, which have simmered over the last months, and reopened the battle between himself and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the leadership of the Right.
Bennett laid the blame for dividing the right wing squarely on Netanyahu, charging him with not wanting his Yamina Party in the government and for trampling on the expressed desires of right-wing voters.
“We were faithful to the rightwing bloc and not to a specific person. It is true that Netanyahu stood at the head of the Right bloc. What Netanyahu did dismantled the right-wing bloc. Once he did so, he did so,” Bennett said.
Now that Netanyahu has broken the right-wing bloc, Bennett explained, there is no reason why he has to abide by it.
“Once it’s splintered, it’s splintered,” he said, adding that “there is no bloc.”
On one hand, Bennett’s position comes as no surprise. As a former Yesha Council director-general, Bennett has been an outspoken opponent of Palestinian statehood even before he entered politics. He has never wavered on this matter and never minced words.
But this time around, Bennett spoke as the head of the clearly identified right-wing party Yamina, which at this point is about to exit a right-wing government after a bitter 15-month election cycle to beat out the left wing.
One would have expected Bennett to jump through hoops to be a part of this particular coalition, which is likely to go down in history as the government that applied sovereignty to the settlements.
As one of the first high-level politicians to speak in support of annexation, it was presumed Bennett would want to take a well-earned victory lap with his colleagues when such sovereignty is applied.
His pending departure is almost akin to an actor playing the hero in a play, who fails to stay on the stage for the climactic lines.
BENNETT WAS almost at this juncture, once before.
During the first round of elections in April 2019, angry voters failed to give him and former justice minister Ayelet Shaked enough support to send them to the Knesset.
For a moment it seemed like a strange black hole had opened up within right-wing politics. At the time, Netanyahu had first started to speak of annexation. Yet here were the two most vocal annexation proponents, supposedly heading home.
That time around the issues all appeared to be about personal politics and ego. There is an attempt now as well to spin it the same way and reduce this to a battle about ministerial seats. This exit, however, is not some form of Groundhog Day, where the drama recycles itself.
Frantic calls from the Right, including from settler leaders in the Likud, for Bennett to stay are in some ways a recognition that what is at stake here are real issues, which makes his exit to the opposition suddenly so natural. Chief among them is opposition to a Palestinian state. Those who have appealed to Bennett want him to block it from within the government, not from without, and maintain the appearance of rightwing unity.
In the first surprised shocking moments in January, when the Trump plan so openly endorsed sovereignty, there was a euphoric moment of unity on the Right.
But almost immediately, the other shoe dropped, as the hard
Right woke up to the cold reality that Trump’s plan also spoke of a demilitarized Palestinian state.
The issue split the settler movement and the Right. Hard-liners vacillated between euphoria and mourning. The split was patched over, as the Right pushed forward to electoral victory.
If Bennett makes good on his exit threat, it will rip the BandAid off those fissures. Bennett has always been the bad boy of the Right when it comes to diplomatic issues regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Bennett held his ground both during the Obama years and again in January and through the election period. It was presumed until only recently that Bennett would find a way to stay in this government as well. It seemed that Netanyahu’s pivot in the direction of Blue and White and Labor, rather than heading to yet a fourth election, opened the door for Bennett to remain, given that his votes would no longer be needed.
Bennett has pledged to support sovereignty from the opposition and it is unlikely he can rob Netanyahu of his moment in history, should annexation be applied to the settlements.
But if Netanyahu had dreamed of both sovereignty and the mantle of a right-wing leadership, Bennett has now begun the campaign to snatch that title from him from the opposition.
It’s a campaign that would be more muted from the government. But even if he is in the coalition, Bennett would still press forward in his opposition to Palestinian statehood, having already taken credit for blocking it under Obama.
The question for Netanyahu moving forward will be, as difficult as it might have been to pursue Palestinian statehood with Bennett in the government, can he afford him in the opposition with so much at stake? •
AT THE SAME time, the Tel
Aviv-Jaffa Municipality and others are pushing the Health Ministry to open beaches, but thus far, the ministry has refused. On Monday, it released a public statement saying that “the subject is being discussed with the relevant municipalities. Only after the standards we set for ensuring the public’s health are able to be met will the beaches be allowed to open.”
Earlier in the day, the municipality had submitted its plan for immediate return to the beaches, which it called “Blue Sea, Purple Ribbon” and presented a proposal ensuring that beachgoers would keep two meters apart and strictly adhere to the ministry’s hygiene guidelines.
“After many weeks of closure, the people of Israel need some air,” Huldai said.
However, the cabinet did approve some amendments to emergency regulations and made a decision to allocate NIS 6 million to returning Israelis from abroad during a late night meeting on Sunday.
Now, Israelis entering the country who can prove the ability to self-quarantine in their home or another private residence will no longer be required to enter a “coronavirus hotel.” If they do not have a place to stay, a hotel will be made available at the state’s expense.
The cabinet approved a rule that people returning from abroad cannot take public transportation to their place of quarantine, except for cabs, in order to prevent potential infection. Travelers must wear masks and keep windows open on their drive to their place of isolation.
Any traveler who is in violation of these rules will be fined and required to complete the quarantine in a hotel.
So far, there have been 5,534 isolated or ill patients in the quarantine hotels, of whom 3,134 have returned to their homes, according to the IDF.
Twenty-three hotels and hostels were opened by the Defense Ministry through the Home Front Command: 12 recovery hotels for patients who had minor cases of coronavirus and 11 isolation hotels for Israelis returning from abroad. About half of the hotels are privately owned and about half were part of larger hotel chains, the Defense Ministry said, adding that about half a million meals costing NIS 79m. were served to occupants.
To date, according to deputy head of procurement in the Defense Ministry Bracha Hertz, all but four of the hotels are closed.
The cabinet put police in charge of enforcing the quarantine with the assistance of Population and Immigration Authority inspectors.
For local Israelis, some restrictions were also eased.
The public may sit or walk in public parks or playgrounds and may take advantage of outdoor exercise equipment, maintaining the two-meter distance required from others. Municipalities will oversee the cleanliness of the equipment.
The restriction on using playgrounds in public parks or other public areas is still in effect.
The cabinet also reduced restrictions on the activity of businesses and stores in the evening hours during Ramadan in communities where the majority of residents are Muslims. Going forward, this restriction will only be applied to “hot” or “red” zones with a high level of infection.
Finally, patients undergoing psychiatric treatment are no longer required to wear masks even if they are fewer than three meters from their care provider.
The new emergency regulations are in effect through Tuesday, May 19.
The government approved on Monday new criteria for unemployment benefit applications, shortening the required work period to just six months prior to being laid off. In addition, the eligibility period for benefits was extended until the end of May for all claimants whose benefits were scheduled to expire at an earlier date. received harsh criticism from members of the government and media for his conservative stance against lifting restrictions even as the number of active cases of coronavirus has been declining.
Director-generals are almost always typically replaced and Bar Siman Tov’s resignation could be an attempt by him to set the terms of his departure without being seen as if he was dismissed by the incoming minister, whomever that may be.
“Maybe he is concerned he won’t get along with the new minister and wants to prepare the ground for his departure,” a former Health Ministry director-general told the Post. “It is common that a new minister has the right to nominate his own director-general.”
Finance Ministry director-general Shai Babad formally announced on Monday that he would be leaving his role after five years leading the ministry’s operations.
Babad, who assumed the position in June 2015, informed incoming Finance Minister Israel Katz that he would step down following the swearing-in of the new government and imminent ministerial change. The exact date of Babad’s departure will be decided in due course.
“During the past five years, I have been granted the greatest privilege of my life to service the citizens of the State of Israel in one of the most influential and important positions in public service,” Babad said. “I thank Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon... I also wish Minister Katz great success in the Finance Ministry. His success is our success.” •
THE DEBATE over judicial activism has been hot in both the US and Israel for some time now, since at least 1973 in the US and since at least 2006 in Israel.
In America, 1973 was the year of Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized first-trimester abortion. In Israel, 2006 brought the retirement of Aharon Barak as president of the Supreme Court. Barak was viewed alternately as the father of Israel’s informal constitution (by fans) and of judicial activism (by detractors).
Barak used the Knesset Basic Laws in the 1990s to create an informal constitution and greatly expand the areas where the court would declare laws unconstitutional.
No counterattack could hold water while he was in office, either due to his hold on power or his singular brilliance as an interlocutor.
The last time the question of making more permanent boundaries between the judiciary and the other branches came close to Knesset legislation was in spring 2018. At that point, the Knesset actually held initial votes toward some kind of a 61-MK-vote Knesset override of the court.
However, before the bill got to any really advanced stage, Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit and High Court President Esther Hayut had dramatic meetings with Netanyahu. They managed to convince him either not to move forward, or only to move forward if the magic number for a Knesset override was hiked up to 70 MKs.
MANDELBLIT AND Hayut’s implied agreement to a 70-vote override was likely a tactical retreat (other former justices have opposed any override without a constitution or said the override should be set at 80 MKs) based on two assumptions.
First, they recognized that their standing in public opinion was down after issuing a series of unpopular rulings regarding migrants’ rights (which the vast majority of the public has little sympathy for), as well as rulings that angered the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) political parties and other issues, and that agreeing to some kind of an override could regain them the high ground in the court of public opinion.
The general public majority is itself hard to pin down as it often disagrees with the court about striking down specific Knesset laws, but also dislikes the idea of a broad wipe outstyle showdown with the court.
Incidentally, former deputy chief justice Elyakim Rubinstein in past interviews with The Jerusalem Post has said critics ignore how many cases there have been where the courts take a backseat for years, trying to help coax rival sides to resolve their differences out of court on such issues as haredi conscription and conversion.
Sometimes, he said, the justices would literally plead with the government to resolve issues, especially those pertaining to the rights of non-Orthodox movements. But often, the government stubbornly avoided resolving such matters, Rubinstein said.
A SECOND reason Mandelblit and Hayut likely agreed to a 70-MK vote was a calculation that such an override might be a “poison pill,” since the then-influential Bayit Yehudi Party would not agree to such a large number.
The 70-vote number also would mean that the coalition at the time would have needed to win over opposition MKs to use the override, since it had far less than 70 MKs.
In addition, the 70-vote number had been supported by Rubinstein in previous interviews with the Post and by the committee of a former respected justice minister of Netanyahu: Yaakov Neeman.
Former justice minister Ayelet Shaked and her camp say this is too onerous. They say that it is extremely difficult to get the entire coalition of at least 61 MKs to all vote for the same thing. Requiring a 70-MK vote she says would be unrealistic and render the Knesset’s override ineffectual.
Proponents of the 70-vote number say that any time a coalition invokes coalition discipline, it can pass a law with at least 61 votes. They add that such a low vote cutoff would essentially end judicial oversight and could undermine Israeli democracy itself by reducing the judiciary’s ability to protect minority and human rights and power grabs beyond the pale.
No one wished to comment to the Post this week on the 70-MK number with the current constellation where the government itself will have a 72-MK majority.
In any event, Netanyahu decided to keep the issue potentially alive in spring 2018, but put it on indefinite pause, which took much of the air out of it.
Was Netanyahu convinced by the legal establishment? Did it just not happen because Shaked and Bayit Yehudi opposed a 70-vote override? Or did Netanyahu possibly think such a delay of the issue might get him more lenient treatment around half a year later when Mandelblit was expected to decide whether to indict him or not?
We may never know.
IN ANY EVENT, Mandelblit still indicted Netanyahu – and few observers now doubt that he would have gone to a fourth election if the High Court had disqualified him from being prime minister. Also, he would have run on a promise to bring about a 61-MK override to nix the court’s nixing him and to radically limit the judiciary’s powers.
Many on the Right were still unsatisfied with the High Court’s 11-0 vote to green-light Netanyahu because they were disturbed that the justices even viewed the issue as something they had the power to review.
Those on the Right were also upset that the justices threatened the coalition into making changes to the deal and implied that they would force some additional changes after the government is sworn in.
On the Left, the High Court is criticized as having left their legal minds at home to desperately search for any way they could to clear Netanyahu out of fear of what he would do to them if they gave him a red card.
But this is only half of the story.
Even Barak has said he would support a Knesset override if it comes as part of a constitution.
In Barak’s reading of the conflict between the branches of government, the reason that fear of the public and of threats between the judiciary and the political class play an outsized role is because the High Court has had to invent checks and balances, which most countries have set in their constitutions, their culture or both.
SPEAKING TO the Post after the High Court ruling on Netanyahu, former High Court justice and current head of the Israel Press Council Dalia Dorner said that all of the hoopla surrounding the decision, “raises the problem… that we don’t have a constitution or set rules of the game. You cannot make rules addressing a situation on the spot.”
She quoted Netanyahu himself, who had demanded Ehud Olmert resign as prime minister simply because Olmert was under investigation, but then refused to resign himself when an indictment (far more serious than a probe) was filed against him.
“The court expects the Knesset to weigh the public faith and the public’s interests – like in England – but our nation doesn’t have these concepts. In this country, anything that is not illegal, people will do it,” said Dorner.
“The Knesset must set some principles which they can’t change even when they want to change them.
“I still expect in my lifetime that they will set rules in advance: Not everything should be a personal law and based on the need at the time,” with no thoughts about future implications and long-term stability, explained Dorner.
“Our democracy is weak because we have no constitution, or even a set of rules,” she said.
Maybe Dorner is on to something with the idea of a set of rules.
The Basic Laws were an attempt to slowly piece together a quasi-constitution without having to deal with all of the country’s complex issues at once.
But one reason they have failed to set clear boundaries is because they can be changed by a bare majority vote of any new government.
Even without a constitution, a set of some rules that could not be changed except by a supermajority of 70 or 80 MKs could stabilize relations between the branches, increase judicial consent to a Knesset override law and reduce public pressure on the courts in the rawest sense of the term.
But who has an interest in such rules in a new government that changed more Basic Laws for personal reasons than any other – and as the prime minister goes on trial?
At least until the Netanyahu legal saga resolves – one way or the other – the instability between the branches and the mix of public pressure into those relations will likely continue, and potentially continue to deteriorate. •