Shaking Netanyahu's hand or Yuval Dayan avoiding shaking hands; Bennett's embarrassed glances or Lapid's baffling hugs – none of these are really important, it was all just for show. The real event took place behind the scenes. The results of Biden's visit – whether it was seen from the start as an esoteric layover in Israel or as a promise of a renewal of vows for Israel and the US – include content that does serious harm to Israel's diplomatic and security interests.  And lest there be any doubt, the fault lies with the Israeli government, not the Americans.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The three days of media exuberation are over. Even if there was a drop of mild criticism here and there, it was restricted to the current state of the Biden administration, and said nothing against the government of Israel and its leaders. The reports about the joy and excitement in Jerusalem continued to feature in newspapers through Sunday, but even before the dust settled from the wall in the cabinet room where Lapid hung the "Jerusalem Declaration," its true meanings were already becoming clear.

The Saudi foreign minister took care to make it clear that normalization with Israel would be possible only after a two-state solution was implemented. In other words, at the end of the peace process, not the beginning. Instead of extending its hand to Israel in peace, the Saudis are actually extending it to Iran. A provocative Iranian announcement about its nuclear capabilities and intentions was swift to come. Thus, the Jerusalem Declaration leaves us barely the western half of the city. Commitment to Israel has turned into commitment to a Palestinian state, and the American promise that Iran would never become a nuclear state – while insisting on returning to the 2015 nuclear deal – has led to the opposite.

Above all, it became clear that while the Americans had come to the region to make up with the Saudis, Lapid had engineered a PR opportunity for himself – a chance to blind with his smiles, for which he upended Israeli diplomatic and security policy.

Whereas the Abraham Accords based peace with Israel on recognition of its diplomatic power and defense independence as well as a desire to cooperate with it, now Israel is being portrayed as a protégée state that the US is partly mediating with, partly leading.

In the Abraham Accords, there was a shared interest on the part of moderate Arab states and Israel in creating a regional alliance against Iran. Now, Saudi Arabia is revealing how close it is to Iran, and the United Arab Emirates is already in a hurry to send an ambassador there.

The Abraham Accords put a stop to the insistence on resolving the Palestinian problem before progress on any other Middle East question can be made. Now we're back to the two-state manta, and there is even a demand that upcoming regional summits include Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.

If, with the Abraham Accords, the US was the one providing the partner states with economic and security benefits to encourage the important alliance and partnership with Israel, now Israel is the one paying – whether by agreeing to transfer control over the Red Sea islands Tiran and Sanafir to the Saudis (in exchange for nothing) or relaunching discourse about a Palestinian state.

Even the Saudi decision to allow Israeli flights to use its airspace, which was made because of tourism considerations rather than diplomatic ones, goes against the rationale of the Abraham Accords. If, as one Haaretz writer put it recently, "Every plane that lands in Dubai delivers another blow to the idea of territory in exchange for peace," then under the new policy line, every flight that goes over Saudi Arabia will be confirmation of the Palestinian state narrative.

Thus, Israel's foreign policy, which Benjamin Netanyahu laid out and built up for years, culminating in Israel signing four peace accords based on those countries' recognition of Israel's strength, is reduced to the "Palestinian problem" and resisting Iranian nuclearization. The ceremony that Lapid started this past march, when US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited the Negev Summit, ended this week. Moving from the Abraham Accords paradigm to the concept of the Saudi "peace" initiative is complete.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post From the Abraham Accords to the Saudi 'peace' plan appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Another election is coming and along with it calls from a host of "right-wing" pundits seeking to remind the public that Benjamin Netanyahu isn't exactly right-wing. Those who endorsed the boycott of a right-wing government by Naftali Bennett, Gideon Sa'ar, and Ayelet Shaked, and who accepted with equanimity a government consisting of left-wing parties and the anti-Zionist Ra'am party, cannot let Netanyahu live down the fact that in 2009, for example, he failed to form a right-wing government. Because when it comes to Netanyahu, they only recall the tiny details and forget all of his strategic achievements, while blatantly ignoring the historical context in which he operated at the time.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

On the strategic level, Netanyahu – who fought an all-out war against Iran's nuclear program and was a catalyst for the United States' withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, the re-imposition of sanctions, and the inclusion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the US list of terrorist organizations – is not right-wing enough for them. The person who took Israel's tiny, centralized, and socialist economy and spearheaded capitalistic-free market policies, alongside advancing its natural gas project against all of its opponents, turning  Israel into an economic power – is not right-wing enough.

The person who pioneered a series of new alliances in Europe, Africa, and Asia, and above all else four new peace agreements that completely altered the pre-existing pro-Palestinian paradigm in the Middle East – is not right-wing enough. Indeed, the very same Netanyahu, under whose leadership the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria doubled over the past decade without conceding an inch of land – is not right-wing enough. Despite all of these mega-achievements, those same "right-wing" pundits kept protesting: "But he didn't evacuate Khan al-Ahmar."

Moreover, in addition to the exaggerated weight assigned to minor issues, they also endeavored to obfuscate the historical context in which he operated. After all, it's impossible to understand the Hebron Agreement, for instance, without understanding the entire Oslo period. Netanyahu's inclusion of the reciprocity clause at the time of the agreement's ratification, which essentially prevented the Oslo Accords and the entire diplomatic process from progressing, was a dramatic initiative.

In appreciating this context, we must also revisit his 2009 Bar-Ilan speech. These were not the heady Donald Trump years, and Israel was not as strong or influential as it is today. These were the post-Olmert government days and the ink from its plan to evacuate all of Judea and Samaria and divide Jerusalem was still wet. Barack Obama had entered the White House, ushering in doomsday prophecies of a diplomatic tsunami against Israel. In this context, Netanyahu spoke about the historical right of the Jewish people to their land and Israel's security needs, and in indirect terms also discussed the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state under strict conditions, in order to avoid diplomatic concessions.

Similarly, we can discuss the judicial reforms that never came to fruition. Even in the full right-wing government established in 2015, Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu party had 10 Knesset members, who acted as veto agents against such changes. They received a degree of support from Shaked, Sa'ar, and Benny Begin. Not to mention the fact that the public mood at the time was relatively indifferent to such issues. Few people, if any, understood the gravity of the matter at the time and its ramifications in terms of the country's Jewish and democratic character, as many have come to understand it today.

We can continue debunking all the various grievances that try in vain to weaken Netanyahu's right-wing credentials. But perhaps the time has come to ask those who can't appreciate the tectonic changes he instituted here – preferring instead to support a government with Ra'am, Meretz, Labor, and Yesh Atid – about their own right-wing credentials? It would also be interesting to see when they finally shed the false prophecies of "right-wingers" such as Bennett, Sa'ar, and Shaked. Are they waiting for a government with Balad to wake up? And how is it possible that these same "right-wingers" haven't aimed one iota of the criticism unleashed against Netanyahu throughout the years at the current government and the dangerous initiatives it has pursued?

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Who is 'right-wing' these days? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Historically speaking, those further to the right of the mainstream right-wing camp would challenge its more centrist representatives. We saw this when challenges were issued to the Likud over Menachem Begin's promotion of a peace deal with Egypt that led to Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Ever since, regardless of who it was that happened to be further to the right of the Likud at the time, members of the right-wing camp have all behaved in a similar pattern. The satellite parties have all become ardent opponents of the ruling party, so much so that they were even willing to topple the coalition.

In 1992, the right-wing Moledet, Tzomet, and Tehiya parties all quit then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's government over his participation in peace talks in Madrid. The talks, held at a time when Jordan was still Palestine and with a prime minister who ceded American guarantees to not have to give them anything in return, were not right-wing enough for them. We know how this ended. Tehiya did not pass the electoral threshold, and the Left under Labor leader Yitzhak Rabin came to power. If that weren't ironic enough, it was representatives of the Tzomet party that ended up helping to approve the Oslo Accords.

Has the lesson been learned? Of course not. In 1996, it was Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu that members of Moledet and the National Union took issue with. For New Hope MK Benny Begin, who is now a part of a coalition government with Ra'am and Meretz and has the support of the Joint Arab List, Netanyahu was not right-wing enough at the time. The result: Opponents of yielding 3% of the territory in the Wye River accord brought us Labor leader Ehud Barak's government, which ceded 97% of the territory. Ironically, the successors to opponents of the Wye accord recently refused a deal to impose sovereignty on Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and 30% of the territory.

Time and again, the pattern remains the same. This becomes even more troubling when we look at what has transpired in the meantime on the Left. In 1992, Meretz's election campaign called not to replace Rabin for not being sufficiently leftist but rather to "incentivize" him in this direction. To allow Rabin to form a government, Meretz compromised on issues of religion and state, beginning with accepting Shas in the coalition and even having one of their own, Shulamit Aloni, resign from the Education Ministry in accordance with the Haredi party's demand.

In 2008, Meretz's election campaign asked voters to choose between Kadima's Tzipi Livni and Netanyahu, once again bolstering the head of the left-wing camp. No one argued that Livni should not have their vote because she wasn't sufficiently left-wing.

By contrast, the Yamina party recently refused to join a coalition headed by Netanyahu and Blue and White party head Benny Gantz because the 6-Knesset seat party was offered three senior government positions instead of four.

Meretz's current willingness to swallow the toad to ensure the coalition remains intact is a model of political loyalty and humility the likes of which we have yet to see in this country. Meretz has set no conditions and issued no threats toward the government. The right-wing satellite parties, by contrast, have never treated the Likud in such a manner.

Having apparently had our fill of the various reincarnations of Habayit Hayehudi, Yamina, and New Hope, and having seen the "unapologetic" Right" prefer their "brother" Yesh Atid head Yair Lapid and go from satellites to the deciding factor in the government and from there, Bennet's swift transformation into a left-wing premier, there are those who still fail to recognize the pattern.

The alternative to purely right-wing policies is a blatantly left-wing government. Those who insisted on focusing on the illegal Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar not only failed to get a more right-wing or moderately center-left government but rather got the new left-wing bloc, which includes Ra'am and the Joint Arab List, in its place.

It makes no difference who is at the helm of the right-wing satellite parties: The lesson must be learned. The main party must be bolstered and incentivized, not bullied. Without the mothership, the satellite will remain lost in space. And this void will quickly be filled by a left-wing government comprised of loyal players capable of compromising quite a bit for the benefit of the greater cause.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories! 

The post When will the Right stop eating its own? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When Yamina MK Idit Silman's vote moved to the opposition, left-wing coalition members rushed to explain that there were still another six representatives of the Joint Arab List the government could work with. And although Joint Arab List leader Ayman Odeh's calls for rebellion obscured the potential, a solution – the isolation of Joint Arab List MK Ahmad Tibi – has been found.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The man who was an adviser to arch-terrorist and Palestine Liberation Organization head Yasser Arafat and who visited and embraced murderers in prison is already a partner to the coalition government. The Balad and Hadash parties that comprise the Joint Arab List are problematic, but he is a brother. It turns out that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas thinks just like them, and reports of his efforts to enlist Ra'am and Ta'al in the effort to maintain the government were soon to come.

It is interesting to think exactly what diplomatic promises were made in return for Tibi's loyalty. The governments headed by the late Yitzhak Rabin and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak are beginning to appear hawkish in comparison to the government currently in place. The right-wing flank of the coalition, which for 10 months cooperated with the establishment and maintenance of the government that sold the Negev Region to Ra'am, allowed wild Palestinian construction in Area C, canceled the enforcement of illegal construction, passed the so-called electricity bill connecting illegally built homes in the Arab sector to Israel's electricity grid, evacuated the outpost of Evyatar, demolished the Homesh settlement, accepted an Iran nuclear deal upfront, brought the Palestinian issue back to the forefront, and canceled significant judicial reform, has suddenly begun to acquire something of nationalist spirit now that the scent of elections and the prospect of electoral thresholds are in the air.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett referred to himself as a "true right-winger" who does not transfer suitcases of money to Hamas and reverted to using the phrase "Judea and Samaria." Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar passed a resolution to hold a hearing for candidates for the Supreme Court. Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked announced the establishment of five new communities in the Negev. Together, they all celebrated the legal authorization for connecting young settlements to Israel's national electricity grid.

But then it turned out that the funds to Hamas were now being transferred through banks, that Sa'ar had himself opposed Likud MK Yariv Levin's law to hold a hearing so that the Knesset and not the justices themselves would be tasked with appointing new appointments to the court, and that Shaked's "new" plan was in fact based upon a plan for the establishment of 11 communities dating back to 2011. And while the young settlements ultimately received approval, so too did all Israeli and Palestinian communities in Area C.

The essence of the story is clear: The Right does not have 70 Knesset seats because there aren't 70 right-wing Knesset members. The public did vote for the Right in mass, but those elected officials abandoned the camp. As with every other ideological position, a right-wing stance is not a matter of genetics. It must be translated into political decisions. The excuse that they came from right-wing parties and were to the right in the past is no longer enough. Was the late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon considered right-wing after the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip? Are Tzipi Livni and Dan Meridor still right-wing? Is Ehud Olmert, who as prime minister ceded everything to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a right-winger?

Yamina party members in the coalition ceased to be right-wing the second they chose personal whims over ideology. Despite the nationalist statements, they continue to rule out the possibility of establishing a right-wing government with Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu. They prefer to stay with the Meretz and Ra'am parties, are dragged into "koshering" the Joint Arab List, and are at peace with realizing the PA's interests. Therefore, in contrast to the repeated and nonsensical demands for Netanyahu to move aside so that they can join a right-wing government, we must clearly say that there cannot be a right-wing government in the current Knesset because not a single trace of their "right-wing ideology" remains.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Yamina has forgotten what it means to be right-wing appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Many arguments have been made about this current wave of attacks, that it is the result of crime that escalated into terror, that Islamic State representatives are in Israel, and that this terrorism has no name or address. It is only the term "Palestinian terror" that has disappeared from the discourse. When the government is not interested in backing off its promises to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah II, and even US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, every term and statistic must be used to cut what is happening off from the broader diplomatic story. Just as, for over a decade, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's tenure was the quietest from a security perspective, so too have the most difficult periods of Palestinian terror taken place against a weak diplomatic background. We saw such violence, which would later develop into the Second Intifada, during the terrible days of the Oslo Accords and under former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram  

Yet the more Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's spokespeople attempted to explain to the media that terrorism has always been here and has nothing to do with the security situation and that the current wave was just the newest and inevitable and uncontrollable variant of the coronavirus, the more reality rebelled against their claims. Last week in particular made clear the connection between the diplomatic and strategic arenas.

When Blinken left for the Negev summit, the US State Department released two statements that day. The first concerned Blinken's Israel visit and the important bilateral alliance. The second, which was not covered by the media, concerned the Palestinians. Blinken did not just reiterate his commitment to the two-state solution but rather announced the US would transfer half a billion dollars to Palestinian organizations, $417 million of which would go toward the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, that same organization for the perpetuation of the refugee problem that is involved in incitement to terrorism and violence, including the concealment of missiles in its buildings. This promotional trailer merged with the diplomatic failure of the summit: the paradigm of the Abraham Accords has been turned on its head, and the Palestinian conflict has returned to the center of discourse.

Just like with the mistaken concept of the Oslo Accords, the diplomatic rationale is now to let someone else worry about our security. At that time, they brought in Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat's gangs and armed them with weapons to "maintain peace." Now, they expect Abbas and Abdullah to defend us. In return, government representatives promise financial loans to the PA, with the knowledge Abbas is continuing to financially support the families of terrorists and those from Israel in particular. In addition, the pilgrimages to Jordan, which include guarantees of extensive easing of restrictions during Ramadan including no age limits on worshippers and the addition of Wakf guards at the Temple Mount, continue apace. This same Wakf was found last week to have been involved in Hamas operations in Jerusalem. Finally, the government has remained silent in the face of Blinken's calls to prevent violence "on both sides" during Ramadan and Passover.

Bennett attempted to conceal this tragic diplomatic reality in press conferences over the weekend. On one hand, they wrote: "Forty-seven people were murdered in the [so-called] knife intifada under Netanyahu" without explaining that the painful statistic was spread out over 16 months. Nor did they note that beginning in 2009 and throughout Netanyahu's time in power, 134 people fell victim to terror. A terrible comparison no doubt. But the truth must be told. On the other hand, journalists were called to take the weak public to task for failing to "deal" with the events. Either way, whether through false briefings or the demands for indifference, their goal is to disconnect the security situation from the current political reality.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Tragic diplomatic reality has sparked a terrorism wave appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Russian envoy to nuclear talks in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov said last week that Iran got much more than it expected. In early December, Richard Nephew, the US special deputy for Iran, who previously worked under former US President Barack Obama, resigned from his role over the current administration's conciliatory approach to Tehran. The "objective" European Union official sent to mediate the talks, Enrique Mora, traveled to Iran six months ago to attend the inauguration ceremony of President Ebrahim Raisi.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The necessary conclusion Israel must draw from all this can only be that no deal is better than a bad deal. Those willing to compromise on a deal believe such an accord will stall Iran's nuclear program and that diplomatic processes will moderate Iranian aggression. They are mistaken. A policy that merely "stalls" the Iranian nuclear program is in direct contrast to Israel's and the world's commitment to keeping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Moreover, the economic aspects of the original 2015 deal only served to increase Iran's aggression.

The latest mistaken belief presented by supporters of this bad deal is that following the US withdrawal from the accord, Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons increased. On the contrary, based on International Atomic Energy Agency data, Iran did not revert to enriching uranium at high levels in 2018, when then-US President Donald Trump abandoned the deal, but rather in 2021, when Biden entered the White House.

Moreover, there is evidence Iran violated the accord as soon as it was signed – with its military nuclear program, for example. In addition, the European states remained parties to the accord despite Washington's unilateral withdrawal. Imagine what would have happened had the accord been accompanied by massive global sanctions. In reality, though, they activated indirect mechanisms for the transfer of funds in violation of the sanctions.

While a bad deal allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium and bolster its nuclear framework for "research purposes," in the absence of a deal, all this would be illegal and would allow for action to be taken against it. With the US and all the other world powers signatories to the accord, will Israel dare – let alone be able – to attack Iran? What will the response be to Israel's blow to the "world peace" these countries have created in their minds. And when the economic sanctions are removed and the economic and energy ties between Europe and Iran grow, will Europe be able to – or even interested in – acting against Iran should that become necessary? See, their handling of the Russian gas issue as one such example.

Former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said the withdrawal from the agreement wasn't a problem because the accord wasn't the solution. A return to the accord at this point in time isn't the solution but the problem. A bad deal will bolster Iran's economy, which will lead to an all-out escalation in the region, and ultimately its transformation into a nuclear state. In such a reality, Israel and the world have a moral obligation is to prefer no deal to a bad deal.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post The Iran nuclear deal is not the solution but the problem appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In August 2012, in response to the claims that chemical weapons could be used in Syria, then-US President Barack Obama said "any movement of chemical weapons constitutes crossing a red line, and could impact the American response." The first signs that chemical weapons had been used came some two months later. In August 2013, more than 1,400 people were killed in a chemical attack in Ghouta, but the American response never followed. Obama sufficed with a deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons, whereby it would sign a non-proliferation treaty and transfer any chemical weapons in its possession to Russia. At the same time, the treaty allowed Russia and Iran to further entrench their footholds in the country and re-establish the Assad regime's sovereignty (which failed, of course).

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Several political explanations were offered in the wake of the fiasco: proximity to the presidential election in the US, and an aversion to fighting in Syria in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan. What wasn't highlighted enough, however, was that at that time, and perhaps even due to the war in Syria, the US had already initiated efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran.

As early as 2012, the Obama administration was already engaged in secret talks with Iran behind Europe's back, and had expressed a willingness to recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium and to remove all economic sanctions. These concessions paved the path to the other understandings stipulated in the deal, which was signed and ratified in UN Resolution 2331. In December 2015, Obama alluded to the link between the nuclear deal and the war in Syria, saying that he "respected Iran's assets in Syria." Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon later revealed that consideration for Iran played a role in Obama's decision not to order a military strike in Syria following the use of chemical weapons.

A decade later and we are now faced with a similar scenario. On one hand, US President Joe Biden and the West have imposed a series of significant sanctions against Russia. Meanwhile, a similarly significant decision was made not to send soldiers to fight in Ukraine. Indeed, despite the heavy economic sanctions imposed on Russia, it appears the banks involved in energy commerce were exempted from these sanctions. Here, too, we can find various political explanations for not going "all the way." But if we add the feverish nuclear talks currently taking place in Vienna to the equation, other questions arise. Does this have anything to do with the desire to preserve Russia as a mediator in the negotiations with Iran? Is Iran, for its part, exploiting America's eagerness to rekindle the deal to mitigate the economic harm to Russia? It was more explicitly reported this weekend that Russia demanded a guarantee from the US that the sanctions imposed on it for invading Ukraine would not infringe on its economic cooperation with Iran within the framework of restoring the nuclear deal.

Absurdly, and even dangerously, the war in Ukraine and the nuclear deal with Iran are two sides of the same coin. The war is overshadowing a disastrous return to a deficient nuclear deal and the "achievement" of securing a deal as war rages in Ukraine provides an illusion of diplomatic victory for which the West is so desperate. Thus, even as the US and Europe are publicly opposing Russia's violation of the world security order, they are simultaneously concealing their mutual interests with Russia in regards to a nuclear deal with Iran. In doing so, they are tragically laying the groundwork for the next world war, which could be nuclear against a new/old enemy: Iran.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post The ominous link between Ukraine and Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The unresolved debate over former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's potential plea deal with the State Attorney's Office focused this week solely on the question of moral turpitude. Apparently, not only is the issue of turpitude not anchored in law and is dependent on the moral view of each respective judge, senior legal system officials have also tied the question of turpitude to the defendant's political positions toward the legal system itself. And yet, those (on the Right) who understand the turpitude clause is just another legal tool in the overall tool kit being used to carry out a political coup, are – even unintentionally – also making the same mistake and playing by the same rules of the game and using the same frame of discourse as determined by Netanyahu's detractors.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The commencement of the trial, for the sake of exposing the system's inherent ills and injustices – is of utmost importance. At the same time, however, the claim that a plea deal will stain Netanyahu's legacy, or heaven forbid erase it – gives false credence to the narrow legal narrative as the end all and be all. Netanyahu's legacy is greater and stronger than any legal perspective. We must not, errantly, partake in efforts to rewrite history.

Let's assume for a moment that Netanyahu sees his trial to the very end and even that the verdict completely vindicates him – will those same people who have shouted "moral turpitude" and cried "bribery, breach of trust, and fraud" for the past four years change their minds? The question is rhetorical, of course. The submarine story is a clear example. Even after the police investigation concluded unequivocally that Netanyahu had nothing to do with the matter, those same conspiracy theorists refused to accept the decision and continued searching for another avenue through which to harm him, this time through a commission of inquiry. Because the persecution of Netanyahu, after all, didn't begin with this indictment and didn't start this past decade. Netanyahu was labeled a "dangerous man" in 1988 by Yossi Sarid in a Haaretz article, even before his political career had significant traction. But the potential that he could one day become the leader of the nationalist camp made him obviously dangerous.

The current attempt to establish turpitude is just another means of destroying his public image, which has thus far failed despite the immense pressures brought to bear on the public over the years. Because when it comes to the person who turned the State of Israel into a diplomatic, military, and economic power, there is only one story. One legacy. A legacy of strength. There isn't enough space on these pages to detail all of his accomplishments, but I will list a few. In the economic arena, Israel for the first time since its inception entered the prestigious club of the 20 leading economies in the world. Within a decade, Israel went from depending on Egyptian gas to supplying gas to Egypt and Jordan, and is already on course to ship gas to Europe. Meanwhile, Israel has become a high-tech and cyber superpower. And above all else, the country completed its transition to a free-market economy. In the diplomatic-security sphere, Israel has doggedly spearheaded the fight against Iran, through all channels and on all fronts. Netanyahu reduced the "Palestinian problem" to pre-Oslo proportions, and signed four peace accords that together paved the path to nothing less than a strategic revolution. He also forged new international alliances in Europe, South America, and Africa – making Israel a regional power.

This legacy – which has affected every single home in Israel, looms large over every diplomatic meeting and is hailed by leaders across the globe. This cannot be tarnished by any amount of "turpitude" engineered through legal acrobatics. Because we are here to document it and tell the story, as it is.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Even turpitude can't tarnish Netanyahu's legacy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The ideological division is no longer between the "classic" Right and Left, but between the supporters of a Jewish state and the supporters of a state of all its citizens. And although many understand this, not all see that the effort to make Israel into a state of all its citizens is taking on a new form. If in the past such efforts focused on a discourse of democratization, today it is done through undermining that same democracy.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Already before the "revolution" of 1997, when the Likud won a plurality of seats, ending almost 30 years of left-wing rule, the Left claimed that the Right was "dangerous," because it was not democratic enough. Right-wing leaders were described as nationalists seeking the realization of messianic ideas. Menachem Begin was dubbed a "fascist," and Yitzhak Shamir a "terrorist," with both being portrayed as a threat to democracy.

The discourse in democracy, which is legitimate in its nature, turned into a sophisticated means to oppose Israel's Jewish character. The 1990s were the "golden age" of this trend, with the emergence of such organizations as the Israel Democracy Institute and the Movement for Quality Government.

The way Civics was taught in schools changed, special advisory groups were set up to introduce more democratic messages into the education system, and the Knesset Basic Law unified the law recognizing Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state. However, this was not enough. The ideas planted by the left-wing elite did not manifest politically as desired.

Still, the national camp succeeded in garnering the majority of the votes. Not only was the Law of Return not rescind, but the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People was passed.

And in 2021, we see the emergence of a new trend: instead of encouraging democratization, anti-democratic practices aimed at curtailing the power of the national camp and changing the state's Jewish character are developing.

Firstly the criminalization and disregard for the importance of democratic institutions, such as party centers and primaries (especially those of the Likud).
Secondly, the emergence of discourse in governmental corruption, not as an empirical phenomenon, but as a kind of inherent trait of elected officials, which diminishes the value of them having been chosen through a democratic vote.

And lastly, the birth of "substantial democracy" and the further erosion of the status of the Knesset, by the expropriation of its powers by the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court of Justice.

One should only look at the trial of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the potential plea deal, in particular. It is the culmination of the transition from a discourse in democracy to undermine the Right, to taking steps to restrict democracy so as not to allow the majority of the people to vote for the leader.

The Left will either prevent Netanyahu from running for premiership again or annul the vote retrospectively through a legal procedure that will remove the elected from the democratic game. When the Right loses its essential ability to choose and be elected, the war against Israel becoming a state of its citizens will also be lost.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Left focuses on the end, not the means appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"We need to reunite the right-wing camp" is a saying that has been reiterated recently. But the general message of peace has clouded the substance: how did we reach this stage of "disunity"? The Right was actually united, until a party was established that divided the camp when it overwhelmingly opposed sitting in a government with Benjamin Netanyahu, and another party abandoned the camp after the elections, preferring the role of prime minister in a coalition with anti-Zionists to a united right-wing camp.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Are these calls for unity about reaccepting New Hope and Yamina into the right-wing camp? Or are they directed at supporters of these parties, who only now are beginning to regret their actions? Right-wing unity is important, but it can only happen once the latter understand that those who left the camp passed the point of no return. Right-wing unity will only be possible when there is an understanding that there can be no revival when parts of the camp are ready to reject the votes of their colleagues and to allow members of the opposing camp to decide who their leader will be. And finally, right-wing unity will only be possible when the cries from the right-wing camp towards anti-democratic injustices will be at least as strong as those connected to the damage to their estate.

Last week Yifat Erlich wrote in this newspaper that it's possible to be angry at those who established a government with Ra'am, and at the same time "to be angry at the Likud that repeatedly failed to appoint a leader that would win in the elections and unite the camp." In this way, a nearly symmetric picture is presented between the ideological crossing of the lines by Yamina and New Hope, which led to the fall of right-wing rule, and the democratic choice of Likud members to elect Netanyahu. Moreover, here the anti-democratic persecution of Netanyahu (as the head of the right-wing camp) isn't what's frustrating, but precisely the right's insistence on re-electing him.

In another interview, Haggai Segal explained that this government is not the "end of the world." And elsewhere he also supported "moving" Netanyahu (to the presidency) for the sake of another candidate who could form a coalition. Daniella Weiss added that "an alternative is needed" to the existing government, without acknowledging Netanyahu, who stands at the head of the largest right-wing party, as such.

These quotes aren't important in and of themselves, but the collective spirit that blows from them and is reflected within them still reflects a fundamental error. The persecution of Netanyahu is not personal. The 315 unfounded clauses could have been attached to an indictment of any other right-wing prime minister. The fight is over the cause. And the cause is no less than the continued existence of a Jewish and Democratic Israel.

For years a certain elite has tried to reduce the Jewish character of the state. Whether it was the issue of conversion or immigration or the Palestinian question – all of these were advanced by this elite in a framework of values that was presented as even more important for its members – the value of democratic governance. But when the yearned-for change wasn't achieved, and when the people didn't agree to its message, they came to an understanding that it's possible to narrow the democratic space and to slowly transfer public decisions into the hands of unelected officials.

"The moving" of Netanyahu is part of this same struggle against the common people. If you will it, first it will be less democratic, and afterwards less Jewish. When the entire Right understands the connection between the personal and the collective, between the democratic struggle and the Jewish one, not only will the union happen spontaneously, but its ideological path will be secured.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Right-wing unity begins with Netanyahu remaining leader appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.