Israel and the Middle East News Update

Tuesday, December 3

Headlines: • Attorney General Allocates Netanyahu 30 Days: Immunity or Trial • Netanyahu Mocks Long Witness List in Charge Sheet • Netanyahu, Gantz to Meet for Talks Today as Third Election Looms • Committee Sets Feb. 25 as Earliest Date for Possible 3rd Election • Saar’s Supporters Demand Party Primary be Discussed • Jordan Holds Military Maneuver Simulating War with Israel

Commentary: • Ha’aretz: “3 Scenarios: The Good, the Bad and the Horrendous” − By Chemi Shalev • Jewish Light: “2 Events 1 Week Apart: Which Represents St. Louis Jews?” − By Rabbi Jeffrey Stiffman, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Shaare Emeth, St. Louis

S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace 633 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 The Hon. Robert Wexler, President ● Yoni Komorov, Editor ● Yehuda Greenfield-Gilat, Associate Editor

News Excerpts December 3, 2019 Jerusalem Post AG Allocates Netanyahu 30 Days: Immunity or Trial Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit published a list of 333 prosecution witnesses on Monday in the public corruption indictment against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including highly prominent names like Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer and former Mossad director Tamir Pardo. In addition, Mandelblit informed Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein that the 30-day period for calculating when Netanyahu must decide whether he will seek immunity from the Knesset from prosecution based on his being an MK will start as of Monday. Mandelblit published the witness list as part of a letter to Edelstein informing him that the trial against Netanyahu was set to take place in the Jerusalem District Court before a panel of three judges.

Times of Israel Netanyahu Mocks Long Witness List in Charge Sheet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday claimed the high number of witnesses named by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the charge sheet handed to the Knesset earlier in the day was evidence of his innocence. Mandelblit published a list of 333 prosecution witnesses, including a veritable who’s who of Netanyahu associates and confidants, Israeli security chiefs, politicians and journalists, and numerous names not previously known to have been associated with the case. “When there’s a real case, you don’t need 333 witnesses, and when there’s no real case, even 333 witnesses won’t help,” Netanyahu argued in a Twitter post. “The need for hundreds of witnesses attests to the difficulty to convince [judges] of the validity of the false allegations,” Netanyahu wrote Monday in a subsequent Facebook post. See also, “American billionaires named as witnesses in Netanyahu criminal indictment” (Ynet News)

Jerusalem Post Netanyahu, Gantz to Meet for Talks as Third Election Looms Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White chairman Benny Gantz will meet Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. at the Kirya in Tel Aviv. Earlier Tuesday, Blue and White officials said their negotiating team would not meet again with Likud until they were ready for Gantz to go first in a rotation in the Prime Minister's office. Likud responded that while Netanyahu has conceded in agreeing to serve for only five months, Blue and White had not conceded on anything. Gantz has said that instead of Netanyahu going first as prime minister, he could be vice prime minister and laws could be passed enabling him to deal with his legal situation. Next Wednesday is the last day for an MK to draft the support of 61 MKs and avoid a third election in under a year. Yisrael Beytenu leader and possible coalition kingmaker Avigdor Liberman appeared to reconsider the formation of a right-wing government on Tuesday. "I don't know what is worse- a narrow government or election," Liberman said. See also, “Shaked Says Bloc Will Stick w/ Gantz if PM Breaches Rotation Pact” (Ha’aretz) See also, “Report: Yisrael Beytenu MKs pushing for right-wing government” (Israel National News)

Times of Israel Committee sets Feb 25 as Earliest Date for Possible 3rd Election The Central Elections Committee has identified February 25, 2020 as the earliest possible date that fresh elections, an unprecedented third vote in less than a year, can be held if the current political deadlock remains unbroken. Two rounds of elections, in April and September, failed to produce an elected government — a first in Israeli political history. The Knesset now has a December 11 deadline for at least 61 lawmakers to agree on an MK to form a government, or parliament will be dissolved and third elections set.

Ma’ariv Saar’s Supporters Demand Party Primary be Discussed Tensions within the Likud are running high in advance of the Likud Central Committee meeting that is scheduled to be held on Thursday. One of the principal bones of contention is the question of whether a party primary needs to be discussed at the meeting. In keeping with an agreement that was reached between Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Central Committee Chairman Haim Katz, the only issue that will be on the agenda of the Central Committee meeting is a motion to cancel an internal party election for the list of candidates that will run in the next general elections. A group of Likud Central Committee members associated with MK Gideon Saar has asked Katz to change the agenda and to add a discussion about holding a party primary for the party leadership. Meanwhile, Saar has continued to expand his base of support within the party. The long list of Likud mayors and other local leaders who have announced that they would support Saar was complemented yesterday by Rotem Ohana, the chairman of the Likud’s Akko branch; Akiva Yitzhaki, the deputy mayor of Netanya; and Emil Hadad, the chairman of the Likud’s Lod branch. Sources close to Saar said that the list of his supporters could be expected to expand further in the days ahead.

Jerusalem Post Jordan Holds Military Maneuver Simulating War with Israel Jordan held a military drill simulating an attack on the Hashemite Kingdom's western border with Israel amid rising tensions with the Jewish state, Arab media reported on Monday. Jordanian King Abdullah II oversaw the maneuver, codenamed "Swords of Karama", and watched from up close alongside Jordanian Prime Minister Omar Razzaz, army and government senior officials and military attachés from several unidentified countries. The maneuver comes two weeks after Israel returned the two enclaves of Tzofar and Naharayim under Jordanian sovereignty. The king and his son have since visited the enclaves and prayed there. King Abdullah then said that the relationship with Israel has sunk to "its worst state ever". See also, “Analysis / Why Jordan Conducted a Major Military Drill Against an Israeli Invasion” (Ha’aretz)

Ha’aretz – December 2, 2019 Three Scenarios for Netanyahu’s Chaotic Climax: The Good, the Bad and the Horrendous Salvation, stagnation or capitulation – These are the ways Israel’s paralyzing political stalemate might be resolved

By Chemi Shalev

• (…) With ten days left for the Knesset to get its act together and agree on a new prime minister and government before it automatically disbands and plunges Israel into a third and even more polarizing election campaign within a year, confusion reigns supreme. Israel is a political and constitutional basket case in a twilight zone, from which it can emerge into three basic scenarios: The Good, the Bad and the Horrendous. • THE GOOD in terms of Israel’s safety, sanity, and future wellbeing – it's easy to define: All it requires is for Netanyahu to vacate his office and remove himself from politics in order to stand trial and, if one believes him, to prove his innocence. Netanyahu’s exit would free Israel from his omnipresent domination, allow it to return to what passes here for normalcy, and pave the way for Israel to return to the bitter, divisive but nonetheless functioning democracy it used to be. • There are four basic pathways to Netanyahu’s ejection: The least dangerous or injurious would be for Benny Gantz, or anyone else other than Netanyahu, to garner 61 signatures from current members of the Knesset, receive the presidential mandate and cobble together a new government before the December 10 deadline for dispersal. Netanyahu could be history within two weeks. • A second and more precarious avenue could present itself if it is Netanyahu who succeeds in collecting 61 signatures, and by doing so, compels the attorney general to decide whether an indicted criminal defendant is barred from forming a new government (as opposed to staying in office, as mentioned above.) If Avihai Mendelblit’s answer is no, the ensuing turmoil could spark the long-awaited uprising in the Likud that would see Netanyahu replaced with another, probably his only declared rival, Gideon Sa'ar. • The good news is that Netanyahu would be removed to safety. The bad news is that if it is the attorney general who sends the prime minister on his way, and his decision is upheld by the High Court of Justice, Netanyahu might not go quietly. Thousands of his ardent followers, locked and loaded against his supposedly illegitimate ouster, are at Netanyahu’s beck and call. • The third variation that leads to Netanyahu’s exit is a presidential clemency deal that would quash his prosecution in exchange for leaving office and promising never to return. The presidential pardon is normally reserved for convicted criminals but the clemency given to Shin Bet operatives in the infamous 1984 Bus 300 affair could serve as precedent.

• Opponents believe a pardon, especially one that does not require Netanyahu to admit any guilt, would undermine the concept of equality before the law. Supporters believe that such an arrangement provides the best option for getting rid of Netanyahu while maintaining peace and quiet among the restless natives. • The fourth and longest route to a good ending – which may also be the wisest - is through the impending third elections, slated to be held in March, which no one seems to want. Despite current polls that show Likud maintaining its power, many Likud and right-wing politicians smell potential disaster for their camp if Netanyahu remains at the helm. • A decisive vote against Netanyahu by an electorate fed up with his Get-Out-Of-Prison-Free campaign could relieve Israel of his suffocating presence, and possibly push the Likud to take a lengthy vacation for recuperation in the opposition. A clear-cut loss would also stifle claims that Netanyahu had been ousted undemocratically, though resentment would continue to fester in right-wing circles. • THE BAD scenario is a prolonged extension of the current stagnating stalemate, with Netanyahu continuing to call the shots. In case of a March election – even one he loses – Netanyahu will remain in power until the ballot is held, and for as long as it takes his successor to set up a new coalition. This will give the prime minister many more weeks in which to try and circumvent his expected trial by inflaming passions against the legal system, and by appointing kowtowing toadies to sensitive positions – e.g. Justice Minister Amir Ohana who is demoralizing ministry officials and is illegitimately claiming the right to name a replacement for the outgoing State Attorney. And Shai Nitzan, who has been cast as chief villain by Netanyahu supporters. • Just to be clear: If current polls are correct, the results of the next elections won’t be markedly different than the previous two held this year. Which means that the entire rigmarole, so expertly manipulated by Netanyahu, would start all over again in what can only be described as an Israeli version of Groundhog Day: Elections come and go, the political dead end remains in place, as social and political polarization deepens and an indicted criminal defendant continues on as prime minister, until either he or the rule of law is broken. • THE HORRENDOUS scenario has two versions, one worse than the other. The tamer version, ironically, is civil strife and public mayhem, most likely as a result of a legal edict that evicts Netanyahu from office before his trial, and possibly in the wake of his conviction in a court of law. The prospect of angry right-wingers taking to the streets or resorting to violence against suspected participants in the delusionary anti-Netanyahu plot is unlikely - but far less inconceivable than previously thought. Much will depend on the exact circumstances of Netanyahu’s forced exit – a full trial, with all the evidence on hand, could dampen the anger and sap the energy of his cadres. Netanyahu’s political career would end with a whimper rather than a bang. • Of course, if Netanyahu stands trial and is somehow exonerated, there is a slight chance he could return as a triumphant Caesar with the entire country groveling for his forgiveness. But given the notorious length of Israeli court proceedings, even if they are fast-tracked for Netanyahu, by the time appeals are heard and decided in the Supreme Court, reality on the

ground will have shifted. Netanyahu’s hypnotic allure might wane, and the prospects for his victorious return will have dissipated with the passage of time. • Which leaves us with the absolute worst-case for anyone who views Netanyahu’s continued tenure and dark influence over the Israeli electorate as a clear and present danger. It is neither violent, illegitimate nor undemocratic: A resounding Netanyahu victory in the upcoming March elections, which may seem improbable but is far from impossible. • Although Netanyahu’s personal popularity has been slowly but gradually receding in recent months, and while Israeli voters yearn for the political stability that he is steadfastly undermining, any serious security flare-up on Israel’s northern or southern borders – never mind an actual outbreak of hostilities with Iran – could turn the tide. Netanyahu’s experienced hand at the wheel could loom larger in voters’ minds than his alleged criminal transgressions. • One should never underestimate Netanyahu’s well-known political ingenuity or his newfound Trump-inspired penchant for the unthinkable or outrageous. Netanyahu will fire all his cannons and use every trick in the book in order to frame the election campaign not as a personal referendum, but as a clash of civilizations. He will drive as deep a wedge as he can between Jews and Arabs, right-wingers and leftists, secular and religious, and Ashkenazim and Sephardim. He will cultivate tribalism; spark resentment, and nurture hate in order to rally his voters, including those personally disappointed by his conduct, against the elitist barbarians at the gate. And he could very well succeed. • A clear-cut Netanyahu triumph at the polls would pit his renewed popular mandate against a besieged and beleaguered legal system. It would pave the way for the Israeli right to piggyback on Netanyahu’s law-defying victory as they wreak their longed-for havoc and destruction on the liberal trappings of Israeli democracy. • An electoral victory would give Netanyahu the excuse to supplant Israel’s checks and balances with majority rule, which, in his case, means that one man will rule alone. Netanyahu would be free to investigate his inquisitors, prosecute his prosecutors, grant himself immunity, upend Israel’s constitution, and do away with the Supreme Court’s ability to review executive decisions. And finally get rid of all the gatekeepers and guardians and snobbish feinschmeckers that, in the eyes of his supporters, conspired against him. • Netanyahu could then remold Israel in the increasingly belligerent, intolerant, authoritarian and self-aggrandizing way he has conducted himself in office in recent years. Which would be, for democracy-cherishing Israelis and their supporters abroad, the most horrendous nightmare of all.

St. Louis Jewish Light – November 29, 2019 Two Events One Week Apart: Which Represents St. Louis Jews?

By Rabbi Jeffrey Stiffman, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Shaare Emeth • I recently attended two programs dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The audience reactions were a dramatic study in contrasts that disturbed me greatly. I am not a member of any of the organizations presenting the programs. I attended each to listen and learn. • The first, on Nov. 13, was a well-publicized open discussion with four former Israel Defense Forces soldiers representing “Breaking the Silence,” sponsored by J Street St. Louis and hosted by Congregation B’nai Amoona. The soldiers each related incidents that happened during their military service, which bothered them ethically. They did not condemn the whole IDF or the Israeli government. They spoke gently and did not scream or shout. They expressed their personal feelings that “The Occupation” was not true to the soul of Israel. They disliked certain aspects of the military orders that they had to obey. They were sincere, polite and expressed their continued love of Israel. • The audience was not polite. Some shouted as each soldier gave his or her testimony. Cries of “liar” and “traitor” were the mildest of many insults thrown at them. Rabbi Carnie Rose asked the people to please show respect and be silent. The din continued. A commentary in the Light before the meeting condemned Breaking the Silence and questioned whether or not they should not be allowed to speak in Jewish communities. Many of the supposed questions turned into long tirades of disagreement with the speakers. The evening ended with bitter divisions between those who came to support the speakers, those who came to boo the speakers and those who applauded the speakers to show their support for freedom of speech. • The second meeting on Nov. 21, sponsored by Shaare Emeth and the Jewish Community Relations Council, featured two speakers from a group called Roots/Shorashim/Judur. One was Orthodox Rabbi Hanan Schlesinger, with full beard, wearing tzitzit, etc. and the other was a Palestinian named Shadi Abu Awwad. Schlesinger told how he had made aliyah at the age of 18, settled in Judea and Samaria in Alon Shevut, Gush Etzion. A few years ago, he realized that he never had a meaningful discussion with a Palestinian, even though he had lived near them for many decades. The Palestinians were “the other,” the ones to be feared. He became involved in a small group that had started near his home. He related how this changed his life and opened his eyes to the fact that Palestinians lived in the land that they called Palestine and he called Judea- Samaria. He viewed his home as being in Israel while the Palestinians considered it a settlement in their land. • His partner in the program, Shadi Abu Awwad, described in vivid terms how demeaning it is for a Palestinian to live in a land under constant surveillance, with soldiers viewing each person as a possible terrorist. He comes from a prominent step of speaking with their Jewish neighbors. Both speakers described their sorrow and frustration with the situation in their land. They speak with each other regularly, trying to understand the other’s fears, frustrations and sorrows. • The experiences that each speaker described were compelling. The question-and-answer period was one in which audience members asked serious question about feelings of insecurity on both sides, the fear of terrorism and the feelings of oppression. Everyone in the 7

audience left with a feeling that we had learned from two eloquent witnesses — a Jew and an Arab — of the good that can be done by trying to reach out and understand each other. There was no shouting. Disagreements were expressed openly. But respect was the tone of the evening. • A few of us who had attended the two events realized that speakers in both presentations described the same conditions. When the words came from a rabbi who lives in Judea- Samaria, they were not booed or denied. When the description of life under Israeli rule was described by the Palestinian, our feelings were touched. But the same tales of being in Judea- Samaria from the soldiers the week before were shouted down. How did this happen? • I know that a concerted effort was made to bring people to the J Street program to disrupt and challenge the speakers. I received three such emails myself. All described the sponsoring organizations as anti-Israel, destroyers of Israel, etc. Is it a wonder that the meeting ended in pitting Jew against Jew and deepening the divisions among us? • I preferred the audience reaction to the second meeting. People listened and did not agree with everything that either speaker presented. Hard questions were asked, and the speakers responded with honesty and kindness. This represented St. Louis Jewry to me. We have lots of differences on many subjects, yet we listen, we dialogue, we share our faith and ideals and still feel that we are one people. • I believe that we should treat our Jewish brothers and sisters with the respect that each deserves. Hopefully we can learn from both meetings. Hopefully we can move forward with respect and care for each other, even when we disagree. I feel that this is important for our community and our faith. • Jeffrey Stiffman is Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Shaare Emeth, Chair of the Sh’ma: Listen! Speaker Series advisory committee, and President of the National Association of Reform Rabbis.