Politics

Does Lebanon Have Complete Control Over its Diplomatic Agenda?

September 23, 2024 By Bella Davidov Leave a Comment

For the past eleven months, Hezbollah, the pro-Iranian militia, has been fighting Israel in solidarity with Hamas in Gaza. While neither Hezbollah nor Israel appears to seek an all-out war, the situation could spiral out of control. On the ground, the risk of escalation is very real. Washington and Paris have decided to “coordinate closely” concerning Lebanon to avoid such an escalation.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to expand its influence. In addition to the financial support it receives from Iran (several hundred million dollars yearly according to the U.S.), the militia receives donations from the Lebanese Shia diaspora and profits from both its legal and illegal (drug trafficking) businesses. Since the 2000s, Hezbollah has developed an integrated economy organized around a bank (al-Qard al-Hassan), powerful charities, and the al-Sajjad network of local supermarkets, offering discounts on basic goods. These economic structures insulate the southern region from the rest of Lebanon, and now, protect it from the effects of the national economic crisis.

Hezbollah has adopted a wait-and-see attitude. With patience it takes its time, counting on the slow disintegration of the country, weakened by double-digit inflation.

*Michel Aoun – Image from Simple Wikipedia*

Lebanon has been governed by a caretaker cabinet since Prime Minister Hassan Diab resigned in August 2020 amid protests demanding accountability for the Beirut blast, when a stockpile of highly explosive ammonium nitrate was stored improperly at Lebanon’s most vital port. Michel Aoun, the Lebanese president at the time, accepted the resignation of the government and the Prime Minister and asked the government to stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new cabinet was formed.

On 10 September 2021, Mikati was able to form a government of 24 members after long negotiations with President Aoun, and the various political parties. When he took office, Lebanon was in the grip of a very serious economic crisis: the collapse of the national currency, galloping inflation (the cost of food had jumped by 700% in the previous two years), massive layoffs, a poverty rate of 78% according to the UN, frequent power cuts, fuel shortages, etc. Mikati is depending on the solidarity of the Arab world to help the country out of its crisis.

Mikati has been backing the Shiite groups, Hezbollah and Amal, but faces resistance from Christian lawmakers. Mikati himself does not represent a political party.

Najib Mikati, a Lebanese politician and businessman, has served as the Prime Minister of Lebanon since September 2021. Mikati said after his nomination that his priority would be to implement a French-backed reform plan that would unlock much-needed foreign financial aid.

*Lokman Slim, Image from Times of Israel*

Different sectarian groups are operating in Lebanon. Lebanese politics is based on a power-sharing system among these groups, including Hezbollah. Hezbollah, a Shia Muslim organization that emerged in the 1980s, has by now near total control over its own community, which it also represents in parliament. Dissenting Shia voices against Hezbollah have all but disappeared following the assassination of a Shia public intellectual and vocal Hezbollah critic, Lokman Slim, in 2021. Supporters of Hezbollah had previously threatened Slim’s life.

The leaders of Lebanon’s two major communities, the Sunni Muslims and the Christians, and those of the smaller but politically powerful Druze community, have issued statements urging caution and restraint. Yet, some Sunni and Christian groups in particular are sympathetic to Hezbollah.

Unlike the secular Sunni Muslim Lebanese, who call for restraint, religious Sunni Islamist groups are now siding with Hezbollah against Israel since the start of the Gazan war and some have even gotten closer to the organization over the past nine months.

In the past, many Sunni Islamists in Lebanon were against Hezbollah after an intense brief burst of violence in 2008, when Hezbollah attacked Sunni supporters of the then-Lebanese government.

Another Sunni group is the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Al-Fajr forces, however symbolic and limited, have participated in the hostilities against Israel in southern Lebanon alongside Hezbollah since late October 2023, and even lost seven of their fighters in May of 2024.

Lebanese Christians are divided into three political parties, and so is their position towards Hezbollah: the Kataeb and the Lebanese Forces (LF) on the anti-Hezbollah side, and on the other side the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) which has broadly supported the Shia Hezbollah party since 2006.

In recent months, the leaders of both the LF and Kataeb have opposed Hezbollah’s war of attrition against Israel which they claim is provoking Israel to attack and devastate Lebanon. However, they are powerless against Hezbollah. Nevertheless, they complain that Hezbollah is acting and making decisions in the name of all Lebanese citizens.

Two other important Christian groups are the Patriarch of the Maronite church, Bechara Boutros Rai, and a rightwing private militia in eastern Beirut called Jnoud al-Rab (Soldiers of God).

*Bechara Boutros Rai, Image from Catholic Weekly*

Jnoud al-Rab claims that Hezbollah’s actions are endangering the country and Lebanon’s Christian community. In January 2024, the group hijacked flight screens at Beirut airport and displayed a message warning Hezbollah against engaging in war with Israel.

Since November 2023, Patriarch Rai has regularly issued statements against Hezbollah’s involvement in the Gaza war and has urged officials of the need to protect Lebanon.

In June 2024, he described Hezbollah’s activities in the south as acts of terrorism, which caused the Shia religious leadership to boycott the Patriarchate’s June spiritual summit.

*Gibran Bassil, Image from the Arab News*

As for the FPM party that has been favorable to Hezbollah, the relationship has become increasingly strained since October 2022, when the then president Michel Aoun’s term came to an end and Hezbollah refused to support EPM’s leading candidate as the new president and Aoun’s son-in-law, Gibran Bassil.

In April 2024, Bassil came around and declared that the FPM supports “the Resistance” (Hezbollah’s adopted name), but “rejects Hezbollah’s position to participate in the Gaza war without internal national consensus”.

Druze

The leading Druze politician, Walid Jumblatt, is the weathervane of Lebanese politics. Despite being retired, he remains an important voice for the Druze (who constitute around 5% of the Lebanese population).

In October, he called on Hezbollah “not to be dragged into the war”. He also took to social media asking Hezbollah not to participate in the war.

However, he clearly stated at the beginning of the conflict that he would side with Hezbollah should Israel attack Lebanon. And, since then, Jumblatt has noted that “the rules of engagement have changed”.

Lebanon’s major communities have largely been consistent in urging restraint and would prefer to see Hezbollah avoid a war with Israel. Should war break out, however, the sects of Lebanon will probably all rally around Hezbollah, as was the case in 2006.

History of Wars Between Israel and Lebanon

Since the end of the Six Day War, Palestinian terrorist militant groups have initiated attacks from south Lebanon against Israel, and even against Lebanese Christian militias inside Lebanon in the mid-1970s. In reprisal, the IDF, Israeli Defense Force have attacked in different operations, the most notable of which was the Litani Operation in 1978.

In 1975, the Lebanese civil war broke out, which lasted until 1990. With its own army operating freely in Lebanon, the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) had created a state within a state in south Lebanon. By then, more than 300,000 Palestinians lived in Lebanon. Lebanon’s Muslims and leftists who supported the PLO sought more political power. The Christians, seeking to maintain their political dominance, opposed the PLO. The factions fought fiercely through early 1976, and Lebanon became divided, with the Christians in power in the north and the Muslims in the south.

Israel helped the Christian Maronite militias by supplying them with arms, tanks, and military advisers. Initially, Syria, fearing loss of commercial access to the port of Beirut, supported the Maronites who had the majority in the government. Later, however, Syria switched sides by supporting the Palestinians instead.

In 1982 the Israeli army entered southern Lebanon with the goal of destroying the Palestinian guerrilla bases. The battle resulted in the expulsion of the PLO from Lebanese territory and their relocation to Tunisia.

In 1989, Christian leader Gen. Michel Aoun attempted to drive Syria out of Lebanon but was defeated and the Arab League mediated a peace deal. Aoun’s removal from power in October 1990 marked the end of the civil war and eliminated one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the 1989 peace accord.

Following the PLO’s expulsion from Lebanon, the Israeli military and Lebanese Christian militias began fighting the growing Iran proxy Shia Muslim terrorist group, Hezbollah, in south Lebanon, marking the beginning of the ongoing fighting between Hezbollah and Israel.

Reform in the Israeli Judicial System

January 28, 2023 By Bella Davidov Leave a Comment

Should Supreme Court Judges be elected instead of appointed?

Should Judicial Pronouncements be subject to Knesset approval?

The Supreme Court’s main purpose is to interpret the law and defend the Constitution. It must assure that laws follow the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in the U.S.

In the most democratic republic, the US, the court’s main purpose is to interpret laws passed by the legislature, to defend them, and adhere to the Constitution which is the foundational governing document of the country, adopted and amended by “We the People.” Supreme Court Justices may hold their position as long as they choose unless the Senate impeaches them. Anything else is a usurpation (the act of taking control of something without having the right to do so, especially of a position of power.)

The US Supreme Court functioned as an antidemocratic institution when it declined to enforce federal laws because the unelected judges disagreed with Congress about whether they are constitutionally appropriate.

While President Lincoln was in office, the court decided that Congress had no power to restrict the spread of slavery. President Lincoln gave reasons why Congress, and not the Supreme Court, should have the final word on what the Constitution requires. He stated:

“The candid citizen must confess that if government policy upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the Supreme Court,” the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Lincoln was in essence saying that a self-governing people (elected by the majority of the citizens) should have the power to determine what their fundamental law meant.

Lincoln’s argument wasn’t that the Constitution shouldn’t be enforced, but that democratically, Congress was the best institution to enforce it. If people or state governments disagree about a law’s constitutionality, they can campaign to repeal that law. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress. Currently, there are nine justices in the US Supreme Court.

However, if the Supreme Court decides not to enforce a federal law, the majority of justices actually declare that their view is superior to everyone else’s. Even if the president, more than 500 members of Congress, and the four other justices interpret the Constitution as permitting a law, if five justices disagree, then the law is not enforced.

The Supreme Court In Israel

In Israel in the last three decades, the left lost the elections except for the last government that was formed with a minority of voters since the right-wing parties, headed by the largest party, Likud, was shy of one Knesset Member in order to form a coalition.

About 25 years ago, the Supreme Court headed by leftist judge Aaron Barak gradually took control over government policies and Knesset legislation by doing exactly what President Lincoln was against. Israel is the only country in the world where the Supreme Court makes laws without a conscious decision by the government legislative authority.

There is now an absurd situation where the government is restricted from expressing its position, which represents the majority of its citizens since it is bound by the non-elected few legal advisers. The notion that a group of judges protects democracy better than legislators has no basis, nor should there be a difference between the rule of law and the rule of judges, which is now the case in Israel.

Through the years, the attorney general, government legal advisors, and the Supreme Court have managed to block successive Likud governments from advancing their policies across a great number of issues. They gave themselves the authority, binding decisions to overturn any government decision and law, which is unreasonable in their opinion.

The new Justice Minister Yariv Levin has proposed a series of changes aimed at curbing the powers of the judiciary, including allowing lawmakers to pass laws that the High Court of Justice has struck down.

The suggested reforms in the judicial system will first of all further politicize the process for electing judges, giving the government control of appointments, the government’s involvement in the election of the High Court’s Chief Justice; thus allowing the government to create a new position of State Prosecutor.

Now, with Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s judicial and legal reform plan representing the first real threat to their grip on power, the judicial system and its supporters in the media and the far left are threatening to overthrow the government.

Levin has proposed a law that would empower the country’s 120-seat Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions with a simple majority of 61 votes. Levin also proposes giving the government control of appointments, and the government’s involvement in the election of the High Court’s Chief Justice, making it more difficult for the Supreme Court to abolish bills and allowing the Knesset to overturn such rulings; bar the Supreme Court from intervening on Basic Laws and with a majority of 61 Knesset members, allow the Knesset to re-legislate laws the court does manage to annul. Legal advisors to public ministries will be appointed by the ministers, and absolve ministers of the requirement to abide by their legal advisors’ guidance, weakening the position of the legal advisor to the government.

Levin plans to restore power that was grabbed by overly intervening judges back to elected officials.

Another critical limitation on the court that is necessary by the reformation is removing the court’s ability to use the clause of “reasonableness” which is not actually a law but decisions that are “reasonable” in the judge’s opinion, which they have used for years to abolish important government and local authorities decisions. Because “reasonableness” is based on opinions and not actual laws, the new government opposes it and proposes to change it.

“We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us… that is not democracy,” Levin said last week when outlining the major components of his reforms during a press conference in the Knesset. These reforms will strengthen the legal system, and restore the public’s trust in it. They will restore order: It will allow the legislatures to legislate, the government to govern, legal advisers to advise, and judges to judge.”

The leftists fear that the government will have ultimate power that it will use not only against LGBTQ rights and illegal immigrants but also in elections and free speech and anything it wants. These fears are unfounded since the government is bound by the existing Basic Laws.

Democracies

December 7, 2022 By Bella Davidov Leave a Comment

US Democracy/Republic

Unlike the ancient Greek democracy, the US system is at its core, not a pure democracy, but a constitutional republic with democratic elections, as clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” This differs from the original ancient Greek democracy, which the American founders believed to be a corrupt form of government. There are fundamental differences between pure democracy and constitutional republic forms of government.

The Difference between a Democracy and a Republic

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system, where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.

In a republic, a constitution, or charter of rights, protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.

In a so-called pure democracy, the majority is not restrained in this way. It can impose its will on the minority. It also differs from a representative democracy in which constituents choose leaders to govern according to their interests.

The US is a democratic republic that guarantees fundamental rights and liberties and features an electoral system combining direct elections for legislators and indirect voting (through an electoral college) for the President.

Other Nations

Given that the US is a republic with democratic elections, Americans may not understand how it compares with other forms of government.

For example, unlike the United States, the United Kingdom has a constitutional monarchy that has democratic elections. Although the UK has a legislative system, its Parliament’s historical foundations are not entirely democratic. Whereas the House of Commons is an elected body, the House of Lords is hereditary, though its authority to originate legislation has been curtailed over the years. Yet, unlike Israel, its government is rarely delegitimized.

Some Muslim countries, like Malaysia, enshrine Islam as the national faith; citizens must be Muslim to be considered ethnic Malaysians. Even though they have constitutions and legislative bodies, certain rights and freedoms are subservient to Islamic law as applied by Sharia courts, and there is no separation between religion and state (which is seen as a purely western invention).

Israel

Israel is a parliamentary democracy, consisting of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Its institutions are the Presidency, the Knesset (parliament), the Government (cabinet), and the Judiciary.

The system is based on the principle of separation of powers, with checks and balances, in which the executive branch (the government) is subject to the confidence of the legislative branch (the Knesset) and the law guarantees the independence of the judiciary.

The President in this system has just a few symbolic duties, with no political power. Defined by law, his duties are mostly ceremonial and formal, such as ceremonially opening the first session of a new Knesset; accepting the credentials of foreign envoys; signing treaties and laws adopted by the Knesset; appointing judges, the governor of the Bank of Israel and heads of Israel’s diplomatic missions abroad. He can pardon prisoners and commute sentences, on the advice of the minister of justice.

The President is elected once in seven years by a simple majority of the Knesset from among candidates, nominated based on their personal stature and contribution to the state.

The Israeli parliament, The Knesset is the legislative authority elected in a general election.

The Knesset, through its committees, conducts general debates on government policy and activity, as well as on legislation. Debates are conducted in Hebrew, but members may speak Arabic, as both are official languages; simultaneous translation is available.

Every citizen is eligible to vote for the Knesset from age 18 and to be elected to the Knesset from age 21. Knesset elections, for a tenure of four years, are general, national, direct, equal, secret, and proportional, with the entire country constituting a single electoral constituency. The Knesset may dissolve itself or be dissolved by the Prime Minister before the end of its term. Until a new Knesset is formally constituted following elections, full authority remains with the outgoing one.

Knesset elections are based on a vote for a party rather than for individuals, and the many political parties, which compete for election to the Knesset, reflect a wide range of outlooks and beliefs. Knesset seats are assigned in proportion to each party’s percentage of the total national vote.

The Government (cabinet of ministers) is the executive authority of the state, charged with administering internal and foreign affairs, including security matters. Its policy-making powers are very wide and it is authorized to take action on any issue, which is not delegated by law to another authority. Like the Knesset, the government usually serves for four years, but its tenure may be shortened if the Prime Minister is unable to continue in office due to death, resignation, or impeachment when the government appoints one of its members (who is a Knesset member) as acting Prime Minister.

In the case of a vote of no confidence, the government and the Prime Minister remain in their positions until a new government is formed. All the ministers must be Israeli citizens and residents of Israel; they need not be Knesset members, but a majority usually are. Ministers, with the approval of the Prime Minister and the government, may appoint a deputy minister in their ministry; all deputy ministers must be Knesset members.

To date, all governments have been based on coalitions of several parties, since no party has received enough Knesset seats to be able to form a government by itself.

The Judiciary – Israeli law guarantees the absolute independence of the judiciary. Judges are appointed by the President, upon recommendation of a special nominations committee, comprised of Supreme Court judges, members of the bar, and public figures. Judges’ appointments are for life, with a mandatory retirement age of 70.

The Override Law

November 18, 2022 By Bella Davidov Leave a Comment

God’s kingdom is not a democracy. He is the Supreme Judge and we must abide by His rules and law. We affirm, “the world is filled with His glory.” We appropriate the concept of His divine sovereignty. Until Lord Yeshua returns and establishes His Kingdom on earth, ungodly dictatorships rule many nations. Although there are democracies elected by the people, these are also ungodly, but at least they are not dictatorships.

In a democracy, there must be a separation of powers, in which the essential tasks of governance are divided among the three branches of government in accordance with the perceived strengths of each.

The coalition: the Legislative branch, which in almost every democracy is the main, most important power. It is first because it is elected by the people, and represents most of the people.
The second is the Executive branch, ensuring the state is doing what it legislated. This is equally important.
The third ruling power is the Judicial branch, which is appointed (not elected) to oversee that the government acts according to the law it legislated.

In every democracy, the Judicial branch is independent of the other branches. They cannot force the judges in their rulings.

According to Israel’s state law, only the law is above any judge. The Judicial branch is the lesser of the three branches since it is not elected by the people. Its authority is not from the people, who are sovereign in a democracy. This was the condition of the ruling powers in Israel until the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s.

Early in the 80s, a gradual change in the balance of powers occurred when the Judicial branch slowly became the most important branch imposing its power on the other two branches.

How did it happen?

In all democracies, the Judicial branch is the third in power. Even when it supervises the actions of the government according to its authority, it is limited in the scope of supervision it allows itself over the Executive branch, and especially the Legislative branch, which in Israel is the Knesset. The Judicial branch must restrain itself as the law permits since it is not an elected body. Judicial doctrines were developed to give substance to that restraint.

Judicial Restraints Removed

The first doctrine is the separation between the elected government, the ruling power, from the appointed Judicial branch.

This separation discourages courts from intervening in political questions best left to more representative branches of government. The Supreme Court’s role is to safeguard the rule of law and protect individual rights, ensuring that government action violates no explicit law while reviewing the activities of the Executive and Legislative branches. The Judicial branch has no right to abolish government laws or make up new laws that were not voted on and approved by the government. However, such is the case now in Israel wherein exists a sort of Supreme Court dictatorship.

In recent years, the State of Israel has undergone a constitutional revolution, especially with the 1992 passage of the Basic Law: ‘Human Dignity and Liberty.’ This law has only 6 conditions, not including freedom of speech or the right for the Supreme Court to abolish or add laws.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court gave itself rights and the power to abolish Knesset legislation that in the Supreme Court’s opinion violates normative human rights guarantees.

The result is that today virtually every controversy in Israeli public life ends up, sooner or later, in a courtroom.

Justice Aharon Barak

The Supreme Court’s unprecedented power to shape the ideological debate in Israel started and is now dependent on Aharon Barak’s judicial worldview, which is mainly left-wing progressive liberal, with the excuse that the views serve the values of Israel as a “Jewish and democratic” state.

A brilliant and accomplished lawyer and judge, Aharon Barak was Attorney-General in 1975, and in 1995 became the Supreme Court president, a post he held until he retired in 2006.

Barak’s legal philosophy is that the law always has its say, on everything, and that every human behavior is subject to a legal norm, including politics, by keeping the actions of the government under his view of the law.

However, in a democracy, the court’s capacity to protect the rule of law is limited by the judge’s inherently passive role in politics. No matter how much a government action may offend his sensibilities, a judge can only review a case that comes before him in court, and even then only if the plaintiff has a sufficiently direct interest in the case, and if the issue at hand is of the kind that courts are allowed to adjudicate.

There are principles that limit the power of the judges:

The principle of “standing” dictates that only a party or someone who has suffered an injury to a right or personal interest can be heard (stand before a judge.) This restriction is important for courts to protect themselves from being overwhelmed by what the legal literature calls “unnecessary” litigation cases that do not require a judicial remedy, whose adjudication only distracts the court from properly being used. In other countries, there are laws concerning the principle of standing and the desired scope of limitation. The higher the level of limitations, the less involvement of judges in the ruling of government cases. So, the first thing that Aharon Barak did was to eliminate this requirement for the right of standing from the Israeli Judicial system. Now everyone can petition the Supreme Court in any case and matter, and the government has to be subject to the Judicial branch, meaning his view of the law.

The second principle Aharon Barak canceled was the principle of non-judgment or “justifiability;” determining which issue the court will hear. Because it is the third branch, subject to the other two elected branches, the court should exclude itself from being involved in political matters such as the conduct of foreign affairs best left in the hands of the Executive or Legislative Branches.

However, now, the Supreme Court can rule in any case and matter presented, without exception, especially in political matters.

Aharon Barak cannot stand the prospect of restricting the Supreme Court, therefore it must intervene even in government, which is an elected legislative power that in a democracy must stay separated from the appointed judiciary power.

Thirdly, Aharon Barak added to the Supreme Court the principle of reasonableness. The Supreme Court decides what is reasonable and what isn’t. Now the Supreme Court can cancel any decision made by the government without exception just because it isn’t reasonable in the judges’ opinion.

Therefore, from now on the name should be: “The Supreme Court of Reasonableness” – the “authority” without authority the Supreme Court gave itself to cancel and add laws.

These are some of the foundations Aharon Barak formed that made the Supreme Court the supreme and only ruler in the State of Israel, not in order to enforce the law, but to make the Supreme Court the ruler of law enforcement, which is contrary to real law enforcement.

The Supreme Court is now the body that decides in any matter, big or small.

Just two examples:

1. Lately, opposing the office of finances’ opinion, the Supreme Court ordered that loose tobacco be taxed.

2. When Netanyahu was PM last time and legally held several portfolios, the Supreme Court ordered Netanyahu to give up some of them.

To get rid of, not the original Supreme Court, but this Supreme Court dictatorship, there needs to be a Basic Law that will be called, “the law of separation of the ruling powers”, separating the authority of the courts in public law enforcement. This Basic Law will destroy the foundations of the Supreme Court dictatorship formed by Aharon Barak by re-establishing the laws that the Supreme Court abolished without authority. The Supreme Court would be once again the way it is supposed to be.

In recent years, former Supreme Court President Barak and his fellow justices have overruled a number of governmental decisions and actions.

Today any government official in Israel can be brought before the Supreme Court. Indeed, a sizeable number of government moves have already been stopped by the Supreme Court with the excuse of enforcement of the “rule of law.” It has become an ever-expanding empire ruled by judges. As a result, there are serious difficulties for Israel’s democratic political system, and society as a whole. The new government intends to do something about it.

Understanding the NEW Israeli Government

June 4, 2021 By Bella Davidov 1 Comment

Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.
And because lawlessness will abound,
the love of many will grow cold.
But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
Matthew 24:11-13 NKJV

In the last election on March 23, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud party won the most seats (30) but together with his right-wing allies, THIS was not enough to form a coalition. Consequently, the mandate to try to form a government went to Lapid.

Yesterday, Lapid announced he had the Knesset’s confidence to swear in a government, thus potentially unseating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Yamina leader Naftali Bennett agreed to join Lapid and would be the first to serve as Prime Minister in a rotation deal. Ra’am, the kingmaker Arab party, signed on the bloc at the last moment.

Hence, the so-called “change coalition”, which is based on left-wing parties as well as some right-wing factions and lawmakers that parted ways with Netanyahu, have – at least on paper – enough votes in the Knesset to win a plenum vote that would end the premiership of Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving Prime Minister of more than 12 consecutive years on top of another three years in the 1990s.

But Netanyahu still has about a week to convince enough MKs (Parliament Members) in the “change coalition” to vote against it, thus preventing a swearing-in. As the saying goes: “it’s not over until it’s over.”

Understanding the New Want-to-be Israeli Government

When the children of Israel left slavery in Egypt to become a nation and enter and possess the Promised Land, they had two types of leaders. There was “prophetically-inspired Moses” who was loving but stern, following God’s lead in what the people of Israel needed and not what they wanted. And there was “Aaron,” A people-pleaser who listened to the desires of the people of Israel and fulfilled them by making the Golden Calf.

Today, Naftali Bennett, the head of Yamina is neither of the above.
Bennett has little public support and no legitimacy to serve as prime minister (he wasn’t voted in by the majority of the people.) In the last election, he got only 7 seats compared to Netanyahu who got 30 seats.
Nonetheless, he has convinced himself that he is a figure of historic Biblical proportions.

Bennett claims that everything he does is for the sake of “My People”. This is the recurring theme of his social media posts and interviews:
“When I see “my people” suffering because of leadership failures, I cannot stand idly by; I love my people; My people are hurt, and I will dedicate my whole life to healing the wound.” These statements are a justification for his lies and betrayal.

According to Bennett, not only is the Likud, under the leadership of PM Netanyahu, the only reason behind all that ails the people of Israel, but everything will be “fixed” only once he becomes PM.

The Yamina leader may soon become a Prime Minister with little public support (as we said, 7 seats he received from mostly right-wing voters). His voters are now remorseful and feel betrayed as they believed his platform of not sitting in government with the anti-Zionist Arab representatives. “His people” – the people of Israel – have become irrelevant and are ignored (the majority of Israelis are right-wing and voted for Netanyahu.)

To form a government, a party leader usually needs the support of a 61-seat majority in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) and a vote of confidence. When no one party has a majority, a coalition is built with smaller parties, sometimes from opposite sides of the spectrum.

Currently, the anti-Netanyahu bloc, composed of small mostly left-wing parties, appears to have the edge. Some small parties were originally right in ideology but are acting like the left, although some right-wing MKs in the bloc may eventually defect back to the right block.
As of now, there is

Center-left: Yesh Atid with17 seats (its leader Lapid will be next PM in rotation after Bennett,);
Center-left: Blue-white with 8 seats; Yamina (originally Right) with 7 seats;
Israel Beiteinu: – lost their Right identity, mainly anti-Bibi – with 7 seats;
Labor: Left with 7 seats;
New Hope: – Right in ideology but mainly anti-bibi with 6 seats; and
Meretz: – Extreme left – with 6 seats.

These parties total 58 seats and they are claiming to be able to form the 61 seat government.

Yet, to pass any legislature, Bennett’s government would need the support of Ra’am, the anti-Zionist, left Arab Muslim party.Read more about Ra’am in this article.

How did these parties ever come together?

The new prospective (“Mish-Mash”) coalition’s diverse members share little in common apart from the desire to end the 12-year run of Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader of right-wing administrations.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Sunday that Yamina leader Naftali Bennett’s decision to partner with the Left to form a so-called “change government” would spell disaster for Israel and was a form of betrayal of the Right.

He addressed Bennett directly: “Naftali, your values are not even light-weight; not a single person would have voted for you had they known what you were planning to do (join the Left and the anti-Zionist Arabs).”

Naphtali Bennett shrewdly hid his true intentions while preparing for this moment when he revealed, by his actions that his party “Yamina” is Yamina In name only (Yamina means “to the right” in Hebrew.) Bennett has abandoned his right-wing ideology and is going to the left instead.

Apart from a handful of Yamina supporters, the vast majority of those who are backing Bennett and his latest moves are supporters of Labor, Meretz, and Yesh Atid. The left-wing parties will be happy to see him as Prime Minister, allowing them to have major offices in the new government, especially Labor and Meretz who hardly passed in the last elections.

On Sunday, for the first time, Bennett ripped off his mask and told everyone the truth, including the journalists and media people who followed him. As of now, it seems that most members of his small party will follow him, unless at the last minute some may have a bit of value or ideology left in them to leave. Here is an account of one of them:
“I did everything I could in recent months so that the Yamina Knesset list would garner a significant number of votes in the elections and Naftali Bennett would be Israel’s Prime Minister. I believed in him, his integrity, and his love for Israel and Zionism, and I supported him with all my might… Yet this is not the path. He said loudly and clearly: “I won’t be Prime Minister with 10 mandates. That [is] not moral, and it’s not democratic” (Amichai Chikli, an MK as part of the Yamina faction.

He is right. The premiership should express massive -+ public support we didn’t earn.

Every decision he makes as Prime Minister will require the de facto approval of the Yesh Atid party (that is on rotation bases co-partner in premiership), a party that is three times as large as Yamina but shares none of its founding principles [platform]- neither questions of the relationship between the legislative and judicial authorities or questions of policy or public security.

There is no real agreement on issues concerning the State of Israel’s DNA either (Zionism). Yesh Atid identifies with President Reuven Rivlin’s talk of a “collection of tribes” and opposes the nation-state law (the State of Israel’s definition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people). Yamina, on the other hand, supports it, accusing PM Netanyahu of spreading fake news about him, Bennett said:

“Bibi’s spin is an absolute lie. These are my principles for the next government:

Lapid will not be prime minister. I am a man of the Right, as are a majority of the voters (even though they gave Netanyahu 30 and Lapid 17).
The next government that will be established will be a right-wing government that cares [about its voters].”

In retrospect, it turns out the spin was Yamina’s (Bennett): allowing, on a rotation basis, Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid will be prime minister (after Bennett’s 2 years), and although a majority of Yamina’s voters are members of the Right, the government that will be a Left, Center-left government, with the addition of a few “fig leaves” from the Right. (Bennett’s Party) Yamina broke a majority of its promises to voters, through the gross violation of the most basic of democratic codes: Tell the truth to voters and make an honest effort to meet your commitments to them.

Now for the significance of the decision to establish a left-wing government – from a societal standpoint, this is in no way a “unity” government, but rather a government that excludes over a million right-wing voters.

Now that Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked (his second in command ) two self-proclaimed “leaders”) who started as ideological Right-wing (hence the name Yamina, “to the right”) defected from their home base to form a leftist government supported by anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian Arab parties, what could be the national consequences of their move?

The Danger from Outside

The ministers in this new government who support the Biden administration’s Middle East policies will hold an absolute majority.

Iran. The Biden administration’s commitment to returning the US to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran leads only in one direction. Biden’s Iran policy guarantees that Iran will achieve its goals of developing A nuclear arsenal by 2030, after receiving billions of dollars in cash payments in the form of sanctions relief and new lines of credit. This will aid the Khomeinist regime’s ambition to deepen its control over Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to expand its war against Saudi Arabia while compelling the Gulf States and maybe even Jordan to surrender. After that, it will target Egypt and the Sisi government in order to replace it with Muslim Brotherhood leadership. Unfortunately, unlike the former Trump and Netanyahu governments, the Left-wing west, including the US and the new Israeli government is too naïve to see or understand the above scenario and even support it.

The leftist government that Bennett and Shaked are about to form will not be able to oppose Biden’s policies because most of its cabinet ministers support those policies.

The Abraham Accords. And this spells the demise of the Abraham Accords. The rationale behind those peace deals was faith in Israel’s willingness to confront Iran even in defiance of the US. Once that is gone, the Abraham Accords will not be able to survive.

The Biblical Heartland – Judea and Samaria. As far as the territories in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, the leftist government that Bennett and Shaked are now forming will allow for the Palestinian Authority’s complete seizure of Area C (area controlled by Israel,) which the Palestinians have undertaken with funding by left-wing international organizations, endangering Israel’s strategic interests and imperiling its communities. Most of the members of a mostly left government will object to any steps to secure Israel’s rights and strategic interests in the territories. Not only are they themselves ideologically committed to undermining Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria, but they also will never dare to defy the Biden administration, which supports Palestinian control over the area. Israeli PM Netanyahu could have stood against Biden as he stood firm against Obama.

Hamas and Gaza. Under the leftist government, Hamas will rebuild its military capabilities in a matter of months. With the economic and political support from the Biden administration, the EU, and the UN, Hamas will be able to import all the building materials and other products it requires without limitations. Here too, a majority of the cabinet members support the US plan to “rebuild Gaza” for “humanitarian” reasons, unaware of Hamas’ strategy to use these materials to rebuild its underground “Metro” of tunnels to infiltrate Israel to kill Israeli citizens and/or kidnap Israeli soldiers.

The Danger From Within

In the international arena, the establishment of a left-wing government that includes those who side with the International Criminal Court will be yet another blow to the nationalist-conservative parties. We can expect to see victorious rejoicing in [Biden’s] Washington, Ramallah, the Gaza Strip, and above all else, Iran. (They will be happy to see strong right-wing Netanyahu go.)

The new government can be formed only with the support of the anti-Zionist Muslim Arab party Ra’am, which has expressed the desire for Israel to be a nation of all its citizens and not only a state of the Jews. [Please check our blog about the Nation State law in Israel.]

When it comes to the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches, the State Attorney’s Office and the judicial branch will be handed a victory. The justices of the Supreme Court (mostly left-wing) and attorneys in the Attorney General’s office and state prosecution, WHOSE aim is to have complete power over the Knesset and Government offices, supported by a large majority of ministers in the leftist government now being formed, will be able to exercise unchallenged authority over all aspects of public life. The chance of restoring the powers of Israel’s elected leaders and returning sovereignty to the people will be gone the minute this government is sworn into office.

This is going to be (if it happens AT all) the most radical and weakest government Israel has ever known.

A Little History

In 1990, in rotation with Yitzhak Shamir (right-wing) Shimon Peres (left-wing) secured the signatures of 61 MKs to set up a government with himself as PM. At a celebratory Knesset session, convened to swear in the new government, two members who had promised to back Peres failed to show up. Mr. Peres announced his intention to make peace negotiations with Palestinians his new government’s top priority. The defectors opposed a government that depended on Arab members of parliament for support, and also rejected the return of occupied land in exchange for peace. Peres failed to get the needed 61 MKs to form a coalition, so the Right remained in power for another two years.

We hope and pray that it will happen again, with one difference. Back then, it was Peres and the Left who were subverting the Right. Today, it’s Naftali Bennett, from the Right who is willing to hand over power to the Left.