Grades 1- 4 to return to school on Nov. 1
First-, second- graders to study three days a week • Businesses to reopen Sunday
After a long day of stormy debates, the coronavirus cabinet decided on Sunday that first through fourth grades will go back to school on November 1.
First- and second- graders will study three days a week in capsules while third and fourth graders will study a full week in capsules.
Businesses will also open on November 1, according to an agreement between the Health Ministry and the Finance Ministry. The issues of afternoon programs and transportation will be decided Monday by the two ministries, mediated by the National Security Council.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the corona cabinet meeting: “I believe that fines should be raised upwards, and that action should be taken resolutely against those who violate the guidelines – whether it is weddings, events or anything else that causes mass infection.”
Frustrated parents anxious to know whether and when they can send their children back to school had to wait until nearly 10 p. m. to get answers.
But few restrictions were changed on Sunday. The cabinet resolved that opening of afternoon programs for children and businesses will be discussed tomorrow between the Health and Finance ministries, and that the National Security Council would mediate between the two sides.
The Health Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office announced early Sunday evening that they would extend the existing restrictions on the economy until next Sunday. The cabinet did decide to
addressed the nation to discuss the historic deal with the UAE that was announced four days earlier. The announcement came after weeks of speculation as to whether Israel would extend its sovereignty under US President Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century” to large parts of the West Bank.
“Last Thursday, together with US President Donald Trump and Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, I declared the historic peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates” Netanyahu said.
“This is the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country in 26 years. It is different from its predecessors because it is based on two principles: ‘ peace for peace’ and ‘ peace through strength. Under this doctrine, Israel is not required to withdraw from any territory and together the two countries openly reap the fruits of a full peace: investments, trade, tourism, health, agriculture, environmental protection and in many other fields, including defense of course,” the prime minister said.
The defense establishment – from Defense Minister Benny Gantz on down – was blindsided by the deal, had no inkling of what was going down and had to turn to the Pentagon to ascertain whether it included the sale of the F- 35s to the UAE. According to a bombshell story in Yediot Aharonot that appeared on August 18, the answer was a resounding yes.
Netanyahu furiously denied this. His office issued a statement calling the report “fake news,” and said that “the historic peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates did not include Israel’s consent to any arms deal whatsoever between the United States and the UAE.”
Yet here we are, two months later, and the administration informed Gantz last week that it will notify Congress shortly of its intention to sell “certain weapons systems” to the UAE. In other words, the F- 35s.
Gantz, in dueling communiques with Netanyahu on Friday, doubled down on his claim that the prime minister knew during the negotiations about the sale but did not inform the Defense Ministry. Netanyahu has denied this, saying that he never agreed to the sale during the negotiations over the Abraham Accords, and that the Americans asked him about it only after the deal was signed.
What is problematic here is the process, not the end result. It stretches credulity to think that Netanyahu was unaware that one of the byproducts of the deal – even if not part of the formal agreement – would be the sale of these planes.
And that raises two questions. Why did he keep the security establishment in the dark that the deal was imminent, and why was he not completely frank with the nation when announcing the accord, and instead simply say that it includes a US sale of advanced weapons to the UAE?
Regarding why he did not loop in the defense establishment – which obviously should be the first to be apprised of any potential arms sales that could impact the region’s military balance – this is similar to the Foreign Ministry having been shut out of key diplomatic decisions and developments since Netanyahu took office in 2009.
Netanyahu, even when he himself was foreign minister, boxed the ministry out to a large extent because he just doesn’t trust many in the senior echelon. The UAE plane saga is an indication that he is now distrustful of the Defense Ministry as well, with this distrust surely having to do with the fact that the ministry is in the hands of his chief political rival.
Netanyahu’s governing style has long been marked by a sense of “I know what I am doing – trust me.”
Many do trust him, which is why he has remained prime minister for as long as he has. But, increasingly, many others do not. And the “trust me, I have the country’s best interests at heart” argument falls flat with those convinced that ulterior motives – political, personal – are factored into decisions he makes, decisions where other relevant voices, like in this case, are inexplicably side- lined.
The second question is why Netanyahu was not completely frank from the very beginning. Why didn’t he say, when he announced the deal, that there are ongoing discussions in Washington about selling F35s to the UAE?
After weighing the pros and cons and doing a cost- benefit analysis, Israel – and the defense establishment – certainly would have still applauded the deal. This analysis would probably have concluded that normalization with a UAE in possession of F35s is preferential to no ties with a UAE not in possession of those same planes.
Then why not just come out and admit it up front?
Because that would have made hollow Netanyahu’s claim that this deal was one of “peace for peace.” Apparently, this deal was not straight up “peace for peace,” but necessitated Israeli concessions: not extending sovereignty over the West Bank and turning a blind eye to US sale of advanced arms to the UAE.
Netanyahu pointed to the “peace for peace” deal with the UAE as vindication of his long- held belief that if Israel only remains strong and tough, it can make peace on its own terms without needing to give up any land or sacrificing any security interests. Admitting that the arms sale was part of the bargain, even if not a formal part, would spoil that narrative – a narrative that is strong to campaign on.
And in this country – where the last 20 months seem like one endless election campaign with no end in sight – what perpetually campaigning prime minister would want to spoil such a strong narrative? • announced peace deal with Sudan that “there is no basis for the claim” by Defense Minister Benny Gantz that he kept that aspect of the deal hidden from the Defense Ministry.
Gantz, on the other hand, has doubled down on his accusation that Israeli officials involved in the talks knew of the secret clause, but that it was kept secret from the defense establishment.
He released a statement publicly contradicting Netanyahu, saying that, “as defense minister, I can say definitively that the defense establishment did not know of and was not informed of the negotiations to provide advanced weaponry to the UAE by the prime minister.”
“The Defense Ministry did not have the information necessary to properly and responsibly conduct the process,” the statement added.
Gantz isn’t the first defense minister and chief of staff from whom Netanyahu has kept such important defense deals hidden.
“He did it in the past as well,” MK Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon ( Yesh Atid- Telem) told The Jerusalem Post, referring to approval of the sale of two advanced submarines to Egypt by Germany. “It’s so clear and obvious not to do it behind the back of the defense establishment,” he said.
Ya’alon was defense minister when Netanyahu approved the sale to Egypt – which was then being led by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi – in exchange for a reported $ 500 million discount on the purchase of a sixth submarine for Israel.
The deal was done by Netanyahu without informing Ya’alon ( who later quit the role following disagreements with Netanyahu) and then- chief of staff Gantz on the grounds of state security. He also initially consistently denied the reports and claimed that Germany never asked for his approval to sell Cairo the submarines.
Ya’alon told the Post that although he supports such deals with Arab countries, he nevertheless stressed Netanyahu should not be lying about the clauses of the deals.
“I heard Netanyahu’s announcement in August announcing the Abraham Accords, and he forgot to talk about the price we had to pay,” Ya’alon said, “meaning sovereignty and the Israeli approval for the F- 35 supply and other sophisticated weapons to be procured by the UAE. I also listened to officials in Trump’s administration and voices from Abu Dhabi and realized it was a lie. It was a lie that was exposed by our defense establishment as well. Why lie – why hide?”
According to him, Netanyahu’s move of “saying yes to the US administration without any reservation” made it so that Gantz and his team had to “recover and keep Israel’s QME.”
“It should have been done in a very different way; experts should not be involved after the horse has left the stable,” Ya’alon said.
When asked if he thought that Israel should have a mechanism in which any defense deal must first be approved by the cabinet and other government bodies, Ya’alon said it was a “reasonable” idea, but that Israel had not needed any sort of legislation before.
“It should have been discussed in our defense establishment, cabinet and Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. It should be discussed in advance without being approved only by Netanyahu,” he said. “It’s so reasonable; it’s so clear that the prime minister can’t do it by himself. He’s the first in the government, but he can’t [ make the decision] himself. The cabinet and Knesset should be part of it.”
Maj.- Gen. ( res.) Amos Yadlin, executive director of Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, also called the deal with the UAE “important and historic,” but noted that it was a “tripartite deal with normalization, the cancellation of annexation and, despite the prime minister’s denials, advanced weapons for the Emirates.”
The former head of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate added that the “graver issue here is not the weapons for a distant, moderate country that is in our camp vis- à- vis Iran – rather, it is a recurring pattern: false denials by the prime minister after he once again concealed a significant security decision from senior cabinet ministers and the defense establishment.”
It’s the Submarine Affair all over again, except this time switching naval platforms for the advanced F- 35 stealth fighter jet. Deliberately misleading the defense establishment and the public seems to be a pattern for Netanyahu, who claims to be “Mr. Security.”