Naftali Bennett: Characterized by contradictions

Over the last few weeks, I have been following political maneuvering in Israel. Finally, Naftali Bennett has been installed as Prime Minister, with limited time at his disposal and facing massive threats from outgoing Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. 

If Muslim Ummah wishes to develop ‘working relations’ seek peace, prosperity and security for Palestinians, it has to know the man characterized by contradictions.

I am inclined to quote Anshel Pfeffer, a columnist for Israel’s left-leaning Haaretz newspaper. He wrote in a recent profile of Bennett, “A Jewish nationalist but not really dogmatic. A bit religious, but certainly not devout. A military man who prefers the comforts of civilian urban life and a hi-tech entrepreneur who isn’t looking to make any more millions. A supporter of the Greater Land of Israel but not a settler. And he may well not be a lifelong politician either.”

He is a former ally of Benjamin Netanyahu who has partnered with centrist and left-wing parties to end his 12-year rule. His ultranationalist Yamina party won just seven seats in the 120-member Knesset in March 2021 elections, the fourth such vote in two years. By refusing to commit to Netanyahu or his opponents, Bennett positioned himself as a kingmaker. Even after one member of his religious nationalist party abandoned him to protest the new coalition deal, he ended up with the crown.

Bennett has long positioned himself to the right of Netanyahu. But he will be severely constrained by his unwieldy coalition, which has only a narrow majority in parliament and includes parties from the right, left and centre.

He is opposed to Palestinian independence and strongly supports Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians and the international community see as a major obstacle to peace.

He briefly served as head of the West Bank settler’s council, Yesha, before entering the Knesset in 2013. Bennett later served as cabinet minister of diaspora affairs, education and defence in various Netanyahu-led governments.

“He’s a right-wing leader, a security hardliner, but at the same time very pragmatic,” said Yohanan Plesner, head of the Israel Democracy Institute, who has known Bennett for decades and served with him in the military. He expects Bennett to engage with other factions to find a “common denominator” as he seeks support and legitimacy as a national leader.

The 49-year-old father of four shares Netanyahu’s hawkish approach to the Middle East conflict, but the two have had tense relations over the years.

Bennett campaigned as a right-wing stalwart ahead of the March elections and signed a pledge on national TV saying he would never allow Yair Lapid, a centrist and Netanyahu’s main rival, to become prime minister.

But when it became clear Netanyahu was unable to form a ruling coalition, that’s exactly what Bennett did, agreeing to serve as prime minister for two years before handing power to Lapid, the architect of the new coalition.

Netanyahu’s supporters have branded Bennett a traitor, saying he defrauded voters. Bennett has defended his decision as a pragmatic move aimed at unifying the country and avoiding a fifth round of elections.

Bennett, a modern Orthodox Jew, will be Israel’s first prime minister who regularly wears a kippa, the skullcap worn by observant Jews. He lives in the upscale Tel Aviv suburb of Raanana, rather than the settlements he champions.

Bennett began life with his American-born parents in Haifa and then bounced with his family between North America and Israel, military service, law school and the private sector. Throughout, he has curate a persona that’s at once modern, religious and nationalist.

After serving in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, Bennett went to law school at Hebrew University. In 1999, he co-founded Cyota, an anti-fraud software company that was sold in 2005 to US-based RSA Security for $145 million.

Bennett has said the bitter experience of Israel’s 2006 war against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah drove him to politics. The month-long war ended inconclusively, and Israel’s military and political leadership at the time was widely criticized as bungling the campaign.

Bennett represents a third generation of Israeli leaders, after the founders of the state and Netanyahu’s generation, which came of age during the country’s tense early years marked by repeated wars with Arab states.

“We will topple dangerous government”, says Netanyahu

It was a national embarrassment. The religious-Zionist parties in the opposition staged a walkout, and Likud MKs refused to let Bennett speak. He went out of his way, as he should have, to thank outgoing prime minister for his ceaseless efforts and years of service to the country. 

Instead of a gracious reception and an orderly transfer of power, Bennett was met with a malicious, pre-planned verbal attack of chaos and venom directed at him and the new coalition.

Netanyahu’s speech was far more antagonistic and aggressive than Bennett’s. There was no sign of goodwill, no acknowledgment of stepping down, and no indication that he’s going to sit quietly in the opposition.

Netanyahu said he will not be leaving politics despite leaving the Prime Minister’s Office. He told his supporters he intends to remain opposition leader, head of the Likud and the party’s candidate for prime minister in the next election.

Netanyahu told his supporters they should keep their heads held high despite losing power. “We will continue to work together,” he said. “I will lead you in a daily struggle against this dangerous left wing government to topple it, and with God’s help, it will happen much faster than you think.”

In contrast with the constant heckling during the speech of incoming Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, MKs in the coalition being formed was completely silent when Netanyahu spoke, making a point of showing him respect.

Mocking Bennett, Netanyahu said after hearing him talk tough about Iran, he was even more worried since “Bennett always does the opposite of what he says.” The new government is unfit to lead the country for even a single day, he said.

“An Israeli Prime Minister needs to know how to say no to the president of the United States,” Netanyahu said, praising his own speech to Congress against the Iran deal and lamenting that there will be no one left who could stand up for Israel that way.

Had Bennett told Israelis he would form a government with Lapid, he would not have gotten elected at all, Netanyahu said, calling him “Fake Right.”

He listed his successes as prime minister, including the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the construction of new roads and railways and the improvement to quality of life in the country.

“All of this didn’t happen by chance,” Netanyahu said. “It happened because we ran a smart and focused security policy that made our enemies pay a price.”

The government oversaw “courageous” operations behind enemy lines to keep Israel safe, he said.

The accomplishments turned Israel from a “marginal state” into a leading country, Netanyahu said.

Bennett sworn in as Prime Minister of Israel, ending Netanyahu era

Knesset voted to approve the new government formed by Yamina leader Naftali Bennett and Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid. This ended Benjamin Netanyahu’s record-breaking term as prime minister on Sunday night. The new government passed with the support of 60 MKs, while 59 opposed it. Ra’am (United Arab List) MK Saeed Alharomi abstained. 

The MKs in the new coalition and their family members in the visitors’ gallery erupted in applause when the results were announced. The ministers then took turns being sworn in. Bennett was sworn in as Israel’s 13th prime minister and Lapid as the 14th.

When Bennett started his speech introducing his government, Religious Zionist Party Head Bezalel Smotrich and other MKs shouted, “Shame,” while waving posters of victims of terrorism. They were removed from the plenum.

“I am proud that I can sit in a government with people with very different views,” Bennett told his hecklers in the Knesset plenum, adding that they seemed to have a problem with losing power.

Bennett called on all sides of the political spectrum to display restraint. In recent years, Israel had stopped being managed as a country, he said.

“The loud tone of the screams is the same as the failure to govern during your term in office,” Bennett snapped back at the Likud MKs.

Shas and United Torah Judaism MKs heckled Bennett, calling him a liar and a cheat. But Bennett promised to help the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) sector, even though its MKs would not be part of his government. He pledged to build a new haredi city for the sector’s growing population.

“This is not a day of mourning,” Bennett said. “There is no disengagement here. There is no harm being caused to anyone. There is a change of government in a democracy. That’s it. And I assure it is a government that will work for the sake of all the people.

“We will do all we can so that no one should have to feel afraid. We are here in the name of good and to work. And I say to those who intend to celebrate tonight, don’t dance on the pain of others. We are not enemies; we are one people.”

In the address, Bennett said his government would prevent the nuclearization of Iran and would not permit rocket fire on Israeli citizens from the Gaza Strip. Bennett thanked US President Joe Biden’s administration for its support during the war in Gaza and pledged to maintain bipartisan support in the US.

Bennett made a point of starting his address by praising outgoing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his hard work over the years for the State of Israel and his wife, Sara, for her dedication. Netanyahu deserved credit for his outreach to Ra’am head Mansour Abbas, he said. The new government would take unprecedented steps to reach out to the Arab sector, he vowed.

Lapid canceled his planned speech and merely said the behavior of MKs in the outgoing government reminded him, his mother and all citizens of Israel why it was so important to replace them.

While Netanyahu spoke, MKs in the coalition being formed were completely silent, making a point of showing him respect. The only MKs who heckled him were from the Joint List, until Meretz leader Nitzan Horowitz mentioned the criminal charges against Netanyahu near the end of the address.

A crisis was avoided earlier when Ra’am MK Saeed Alharomi said he would not oppose the new government, following a threat.

Nothing could interfere with the swearing in of the new government on Sunday night, Abbas told reporters at the Knesset, adding that “we will all vote in favor of the government.”

In return for his support of the new coalition, Alharomi demanded that a clause in the coalition agreement regarding illegal construction in the Negev be canceled.

Netanyahu and interior minister Arye Deri pressured Alharomi and offered him assurances, including on the topic of the Kaminitz Law that addresses illegal construction, in an attempt to get him to vote against the government.

Netanyahu would remain in power if the prospective new coalition’s razor-thin majority were to lose the support of even one MK in a vote of confidence in the Knesset. If Alharomi abstains in the confidence vote, Joint List MKs could come to its rescue and vote in favor.

The Likud responded that it would be shameful if the government were formed through the backing of MKs who support terrorists and do not recognize Israel as a Jewish-democratic state.

Can India take credit of Maldives election as President UN General Assembly?

This time, President of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has to be elected from the Asia-Pacific region. In the election, held on 7th June 2021, Abdullah Shahid, Foreign Minister of Maldives defeated his only rival, the former Afghan Foreign Minister, Dr. Zalmani Rassoul, by a wide margin, 143 to 48, in a total of 191 votes, with no abstentions. 

Afghanistan had held the post as back as in 1966-67.

The election of Shahid as the 76th President of UNGA could not have come at a more opportune time for the island nation. It must be a moment of glory for Maldives as its foreign minister wins the position of UNGA President. Shahid brings with him vast and varied experience as the Foreign Minister under two regimes— Presidents Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (2007-08) and now under President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, since 2018.

On his election India was prompt in taking credit saying, ‘from a larger neighborhood perspective, election of Shahid and elevation of Maldives in the international arena is a silent acknowledgement of the deployment of India’s soft power at the UN without being an all-important P-5 veto power, as yet. It is this kind of support that neighbors expect from India, given their own inherent inadequacies in terms of size’.

Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar was amongst the first to congratulate his counterpart Shahid. “Heartiest felicitations to Foreign Minister of Maldives Abdulla Shahid on his election as President for 76th UN General Assembly,” wrote Jaishankar in a twitter post. “This is a testimony as much to his own stature as to the standing of Maldives. We look forward to working with him to strengthen multilateralism and its much-needed reforms,” he said further.

India claims also to be the first nation to endorse Shahid’s candidacy as early as November last year. In Maldives on an official visit, Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla publicly reiterated the “commitment made by our External Affairs Minister earlier during the Virtual Meeting with Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid that India will support his candidature”. Secretary Shringla also said that with his “vast diplomatic experience and leadership qualities, Foreign Minister Shahid has the best credentials to preside over the General Assembly in these tumultuous times”.

But, it is on record that India-Maldives bilateral relations suffered recent setbacks despite months of multilateral cooperation on multiple developmental projects in the archipelago, under the Solih stewardship. The avoidable controversy over the Indian decision on tourism development, amongst others, in the remote island territory of Lakshadweep, is one irritant.

United States admits its failure in acquiring airbase near Afghanistan border

The US military has already started conducting over the horizon operations as it withdraws from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Thursday. 

Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Austin declined to confirm a report in The New York Times that the military is considering continuing to provide air support to Afghan forces if Kabul or another major city starts to fall to the Taliban after US troops leave.

But he said that capabilities such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) have already started to be flown into Afghanistan from outside the country during the withdrawal.

“In terms of our efforts to establish over-the-horizon capability, I would just point to the fact that, as we have retrograded a lot of our capability out of country, we are doing a lot of things over the horizon now,” Austin said. “ISR is being flown from Gulf countries. A lot of our combat aircraft missions are being conducted from platforms in the Gulf. And so we have the capability now to do that.”

As all American troops withdraw from Afghanistan in line with President Biden’s order to be out by September, US officials have insisted the military will be able to keep terrorism threats in check through what’s known as over the horizon operations, or those launched from outside the country.

But plans for exactly how those operations will work and where those troops could be based are still being crafted.

The United States does not have any basing agreements with Afghanistan’s neighbors, and various geopolitical concerns, such countries’ relations with Russia, appear to make any such agreements unlikely.

Pentagon officials have touted the military’s presence elsewhere in the Middle East, such as the Gulf region, as being able to provide over the horizon capabilities, but Gen. Frank McKenzie, the top US commander in the region, has also warned that means longer flying times to and from Afghanistan, which in turn means less time for assets to be over the country.

At Thursday’s hearing, Austin said the military is looking to shorten the distance for those over the horizon forces.

“What we are looking for is the ability to shorten the legs going forward by stationing some capability in neighboring countries. That is still a work in progress,” he said, adding he does not have a timeline for when the plan will be done.

Another open question as US troops withdraw has been the fate of Afghans who helped them and are at risk of being hunted down and killed by the Taliban.

Lawmakers and outside groups have been pushing the Biden administration to evacuate those Afghan allies to a safe location such as Guam amid slow processing of their requests for Special Immigrant Visas.

Pressed on the issue Thursday by Sen. Angus King, neither Austin nor Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley specifically committed to evacuating Afghans, but vowed, as they have before, to “keep faith” with those who helped the United States.

 “In terms of specific actions, Department of State has the lead on the Special Immigrant Visa program and some other programs with respect to those Afghans that have supported us,” Milley said. “That planning is working through the system right now, but I can commit to you that it's my belief that the United States government will do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety and protection of those that have been working with us for two decades.”

King replied that “the term working through the system is what gives me some concern,” to which Milley responded, “I understand.”

“This is very important to us and we're pushing as hard as we can on our end to move as fast as we can,” Austin added. 

Is Netanyahu hoping against hope?

The musicians aboard the Titanic continued playing as the ship went down, acting as if they were oblivious to the disaster taking place that would soon submerge them. Similarly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a point of looking like he is continuing to do his job, as if this coming weekend will not be his final days at the Prime Minister’s Residence. 

There are no moving trucks. There has been no speech acknowledging defeat. And of course, there has been no contact whatsoever with incoming Prime Minister Naftali Bennett or anyone close to him.

There are interesting references in private conversations to Ariel Sharon’s last-minute success in blocking Shimon Peres from forming a government in 1990. Sharon helped Agudat Yisrael MK Eliezer Mizrachi go into hiding, protected by bodyguards hired by Sharon, leaving Peres to face the wrath of his wife, Sonia, who made a rare appearance in the Knesset plenum’s visitors’ gallery for naught.

Five of the seven MKs in Yamina have been assigned bodyguards to protect them, as has New Hope leader Gideon Sa’ar. But the guards are there to enable them to vote, not to help them avoid voting. If anyone goes into hiding, it might be backbench Ra’am (United Arab List) MKs Walid Taha and Saeed Alharomi.

It would only take one MK to vote against the coalition for it to lose its narrow majority and keep Netanyahu in power. Sources close to those involved in preventing the government’s formation said there was still a 15% to 20% chance that they could manage to stop it.

They said that the leak of the coalition guidelines to Channel 12’s political analyst Amit Segal was proof that there is somebody within the new coalition who is working to sabotage it. Clauses in the coalition deal that would have prevented a Netanyahu comeback were changed after the backlash from the leak that night, and that was already an achievement for Netanyahu.

Knesset Speaker, Yariv Levin has deliberately set the vote on the new government for Sunday in order to add an extra day between the publication of the coalition guidelines and the vote, hoping to maximize the effect of an outcry to potentially wavering MKs. Levin also got away with scheduling it for late Sunday afternoon, not the morning, to allow more time for tension to build.

Only after the agreements are signed will the final appointments be revealed. Labor leader Merav Michaeli has been hiding the role of MK Gilad Kariv, a Reform rabbi whose appointment to certain roles could be considered very controversial. Nachman Shai, who is not an MK, is expected to be named Diaspora Affairs minister, but Kariv, who finished second in Labor’s Knesset primary, will either receive a deputy minister’s post in a sensitive ministry or be put in charge of an influential Knesset committee.

Shas, United Torah Judaism and Likud intend to use Kariv to attack the coalition, continuing their efforts to turn Reform into a dirty word. Kariv’s support for the American left-wing lobby group J Street will undoubtedly be highlighted. Netanyahu already attacked J-Street’s founder, Jeremy Ben-Ami, on social media this week in an effort to paint the Bennett-Lapid leadership as a “J-Street government.”

The comparisons of the new coalition to Iran, Syria and North Korea are just the start. Netanyahu’s associates say he truly believes the entire world will be threatened if Israel’s enemies perceive the Jewish state as weakened without him in power.

His critics, of course, say his actual motivation is to avoid the wrath of his wife, Sara, not Iran. It is no wonder that all compromise proposals Netanyahu negotiated had he been part of a coalition kept his family living on Balfour Street, even during the time he would have rotated out of the premiership.

With that much at stake, it is no wonder that Netanyahu will leave no stone unturned ahead of Sunday’s vote. Only if the vote happens and he is officially out of power will Netanyahu play his final song and get ready to move.

“It’s not over yet,” said a source close to Netanyahu. “He always prepares for the worst scenario, but there is more happening than meets the eye. Let’s see on Sunday.”

Why does United States want an air base in Pakistan?

According to reports coming through western media the Government of Pakistan (GoP) refuses to publicly acknowledge that it has allowed the CIA operations and will want to proceed cautiously with a new relationship. In the recent past, the US has used a base in Pakistan to launch drone strikes against militants but, the facility had to be vacated in 2011, when US relations with Pakistan unraveled.

William J. Burns, Director CIA, recently made an unannounced visit to Islamabad to meet the chief of the Pakistani military and Head of the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence. US Defence Secretary Lloyd J. Austin also has had frequent calls with the Pakistani military chief about getting the country’s help for future US operations in Afghanistan.

Historically United States has maintained bases in Pakistan and details can be tracked down starting from cold war era spying of USSR. At one time it became a security threat for the very existence of the country.

During long Afghan war the bases located in Pakistan were to be used for logistic support, but their use for drone attacks was common. While the rulers tried to cover up the deal, public dislike got louder with the passage of time.

The saga of the use of these bases is very interesting, at one time air support was provided to Afghan fighters, known as Taliban involved in Jihad against USSR. However, in post 9/11 era these bases were used against the same Taliban, labeled bad Taliban. In this regard Shamsi base remained in limelight for a long time.

All the times the United States has used ‘arms twisting’ tactics to get control of airbases in Pakistan. In this regard, a conspiracy theory got public attention, when the aero plane of chief of Pakistan Air Force was blown up in air. A number of other senior officers on board were also killed. It was said that his plane was blown up only because he was vehemently opposing establishment of the US air bases in Pakistan.

Alleged killing of air chief, makes solving of jigsaw puzzle easy. Afghanistan is a landlocked country and air support from Arabian Sea is not only too expensive, but time consuming also. Therefore, base/bases have to be established in countries enjoying common border with Afghanistan.  

India could be used but it is too far. United States does not enjoy cordial relations with Iran. Qatar is also too far. In such limiting conditions only Pakistan offers sustainable and cost effective option.

For the incumbent government of Imran Khan allowing establishment of the US bases in Pakistan is not an easy task. It is but obvious that this decision could become a security threat for Pakistan.