“Schlaglicht Israel” offers an insight into internal Israeli debates and reflects selected, political events that affect daily life in Israel. It appears every two weeks and summarizes articles that appeared in the Israeli daily press.
Main topics covered in this Publication:
It took Hamas 10 years to completely ruin the Gaza Strip and prove to all that it can’t and is not worthy of ruling over its inhabitants. (…) The first place Hamas has looked for a solution is Tehran, which is looking to bring the group back into its fold after several years of severed ties. (…) Hamas can only receive unlimited weapons and money from the Iranians, even if doing so means it must sharply alter its positions. (…) At the same time Hamas is also working to improve its relations with the Palestinian Authority; more precisely it is trying to turn the PA into a human shield to perpetuate its rule over Gaza. (…) Hamas is unwilling to truly relinquish its power and will not allow, for instance, the PA’s security apparatus to deploy in Gaza. In this vein, it will permit the PA and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, to resolve the electricity crisis in Gaza and to try improving the economic situation there. Meanwhile, Hamas will still reserve ultimate say in Gaza and will be the only entity with weapons. Hamas, therefore, is trying to mimic the Lebanese model. In Lebanon, the government maintains diplomatic relations with the international community and is responsible for the welfare of the population and bettering the economy; Hezbollah, meanwhile, is the driving military force without bearing governmental responsibility for the fate of Lebanon. This is a comfortable arrangement, as the Lebanese government provides protection for Hezbollah and mainly absolves it of any responsibility for the Lebanese population.
Prof. Eyal Zisser, IHY, 01.10.17
Will Hamas really give up its armed ‘resistance’?
(…) Any hope Gazans have in unity as a solution to their suffering is largely neutralized by a long and now institutionalized hostility between Palestinian camps, over the course of which senior officials and whole bureaucracies have become beneficiaries of disunity, strengthening their interest in disabling an internal peace process. (…) the PA’s primary concern remains preventing Hamas’ reincarnation into a quasi-Hezbollah, a political force that doesn’t recognize legal controls over its military resources. (…) For Hamas leaders and for most Gazans, a disarmed Gaza would function as a mirror image of what is perceived as the demeaning life endemic to the West Bank: punctuated by degrading Israeli checkpoints, settler harassment and regular raids on a defenseless population, while the PA’s ‘collaborationist’ and ‘inherently corrupt’ security forces police the occupation and any signs of Palestinian counterinsurgency. (…) What has been Hamas’ contribution to Palestinian independence? Obsolete apocalyptic slogans and periodic military processions that do more damage to the Palestinian cause than it intimidates Israel (…) But Hamas’s “resistance” remains the word that keeps on giving. That resistance, or al-muqawama, is a crucial source of legitimation (…), synonymous with the “Palestinian struggle.” Therefore, not only will Hamas firmly refuse to have its resistance up for discussion, but it evidently aspires to extend it to the West Bank. (…) Reconciliation, despite being Palestinians’ most urgent necessity, remains a dark negotiating room whose exit doors are flung wide open. (…)
Muhammad Shehada, HAA, 02.10.17
Fatah and Hamas: Another failed attempt at reconciliation?
(…) In light of past experience, it isn’t surprising that many players in the region, including the Palestinian public, are suspicious and dismissive of the new agreement. (…) Abbas wants to gain control of the Rafah Crossing in the hopes of eventually bringing to an organized opening of the crossing. Hamas is very interested in opening the crossing, as it will significantly ease the 10-year blockade on the strip. (…) In all the appeased statements issued by Hamas leaders, there has not been a hint of willingness to give up the organization’s military wing and its arsenal. On the contrary, senior Hamas members Moussa Abu Marzouk and Mahmoud al-Zahar have clarified the weapons of the resistance are non-negotiable in the reconciliation talks. (…) it’s hard to see Abbas giving up and allowing Hamas to apply the Hezbollah model in Lebanon—in which the civil control is in one entity’s hands and the military control is in another entity’s hands—to the Gaza Strip. (…) Will the tough situation in the strip finally prompt Hamas to give up control, keeping the theoretical option of taking over the entire PA in future elections? Will Abbas waive his demand to disarm the military wing? (…) At this stage, it’s seems neither Abbas nor Haniyeh have the answers.
Elior Levy, YED, 02.10.17
Sick of running Gaza, Hamas may be aiming to switch to a Hezbollah-style role
(…) Slightly more than ten years after the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, when Hamas bloodily overthrow the PA’s regime there, a historic moment of unity is supposedly upon us. (…) One cannot avoid a sense of deja vu. Didn’t we see something rather like this (…) with a unity agreement and the establishment of a “national consensus government”? Unity did not ensue. (…) It is hard to imagine either one backing down on issues of substance (…). But some things really have shifted. (…) Hamas is now led by two men who live in the Gaza Strip and were born in its refugee camps. Ismail Haniyeh, from the Shati camp, who heads the political wing, and Yahya Sinwar, born in the Khan Younis refugee camp, who is the leader of Hamas in Gaza. (…) The change in personnel and tone in the Hamas leadership connects to an uncomfortable reality for the Islamist terror group: Hamas has been forced to acknowledge its failure of governance on the civilian level — life in Gaza is unremittingly grim under its rule — and the consequent danger that the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip will rise up against it. (…) Hamas (…) is showing clear signs of willingness to step aside, at least in the civic sphere. (…) This is dramatic, indeed. Hamas was born of the Muslim Brotherhood as supposed proof that “Islam is the answer.” Now, it is recognizing its limitations. (…). Abbas will want to know precisely what Hamas is offering, and is unlikely to rush into an agreement before he knows what the American peace plan will be. If there is to be a genuine reconciliation, it will this probably be a gradual process, unfolding after months of debate over the smallest details of many controversial topics. And the devil, as we all know, is in the details.
Avi Issacharoff, TOI, 01.10.17
The good news from Gaza
(…) The right-wing Israeli government is pulling its hair out, (…) hurrying to threaten the Palestinians not to unify (…) Only in Israel, domestic peace for your neighbor is seen as a ticking atomic bomb. (…) The news of unity from Gaza is also good news for the sane part of Israeli society. This is how it will be possible to speak with a single Palestinian leadership, instead of speaking with one side and fighting with the other. (…) If your neighbors are embroiled among themselves, it is not good for you either. It is good for the Jews because in addition to a single Palestinian leadership, enormous efforts are invested in implementing the principle of unified Palestinian arms. (…) Instead of humiliating Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who, it turns out, has not been “plucked naked” and can carry out such a far-reaching plan, Israel too must support the efforts for reconciliation. (…)
Odeh Bisharat, HAA, 09.10.17
(…) Hamas is not going away; they will probably be a major factor for years to come. (…) don’t boycott anyone who is willing to engage with me in dialogue in the attempt to understand positions that are very different (…). They deeply believe that Israel is committed to evacuating all of the land of Palestine (…) of its native Arab Palestinian inhabitants. (…) They also genuinely believe that Zionism is a colonialist enterprise, not the story of a people returning to their ancient homeland. (…) Hamas is much more of a Palestinian national movement than it is an Islamic movement, even though Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a pan-Islamic movement. (…) Hamas is much more interested in the creation of a Palestinian state than they are in an Islamic caliphate throughout the region or the world. (…) Hamas is not moderate, but they are pragmatic. (…) they have created systems confronting the reality of almost total dependence on Israel for electricity, water, importation of goods, currency, health care and more, and have enabled middlemen to communicate with Israel and Israelis on their behalf. (…) Yehya Sinwar, Gaza’s strongest leader has brought both the political and military wings of Hamas, which had often contested one another for power, under his direct control and he has turned out to be the leading pragmatist in Hamas. (…) Hamas will not lay down its weapons and will not put them under the control of the Palestinian Authority. (…) In a period of national consensus, the Hamas military will probably go underground – both literally and metaphorically. (…) Reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas may create opportunities for discrete dialogue and encounters behind the scenes. (…) If some serious talks did develop that include Israelis who could bring about some real policy changes as a direct outcome of those talks, it might be possible to open a door for progress. Hamas is part of Palestinian society and the recent steps towards increasing pragmatism should be met by pragmatic steps from Israel.
Gershon Baskin, JPO, 10.10.17
An unclear future
(…) Unlike past reconciliation attempts, the current negotiations between Fatah and Hamas seem far more serious. (…) Ostensibly, everyone benefits from the agreement: Egypt has regained its status as a relevant regional player; (…) Hamas will receive funding, relief for the energy crisis in the enclave, and mainly legitimacy; and Israel will enjoy at least temporary peace and quiet (…). the reconciliation agreement has many hurdles to overcome before it can be considered solid. The core issues, including disarming and dismantling the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing, holding municipal and presidential elections, and having Hamas join the Palestinian Liberation Organization have not even been discussed (…) What comes next will depend on whether the reconciliation attempt succeeds. Peace and quiet will reign if it does, but if it doesn’t, it may paint Hamas into a corner from which it would escalate the security situation.
Yoav Limor, IHY, 13.10.17
Israel should accept the Palestinian reconciliation deal
(…) Israel should welcome the agreement. (…) The last thing Israel needs is more declarations that would make it appear intransigent and extreme while the Palestinians seemingly (…) are trying to present unity that would allow for negotiations. After all, one of Israel’s excuses for the freeze in peace negotiations has been the division in the Palestinian camp. Now, however, there is one Palestinian entity. (…) Israel (…) just needs to (…) make it clear its positions are no different than those of the international community. If the unified Palestinian Authority wants legitimization, it needs to also accept the Quartet’s conditions. (…) Israel should accept what the European Union has already proposed: Demilitarization in return for the lifting of the blockade on the Gaza Strip. Only then should Israel cooperate with the PA and allow forces from the West Bank to enter the strip. (…) If the Palestinians reject the proposal, Israel could say Hamas was and remains part of global jihad, that it has no interest in reaching a compromise with Israel, and that it has taken the Palestinian Authority hostage. If the Palestinians say yes, it would be an historic turning point that would decrease the chances of another conflict in the south. And that is a lot to gain.
Ben-Dror Yemini, YED, 13.10.17
Palestinian reconciliation is good for Israel, too
The reconciliation agreement signed between Fatah and Hamas (…) is a source of hope for the Palestinians. (…) The commitment of Fatah, Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian factions will now be put to the test. (…) It will be tested on issues such as improvement in freedom of expression and freedom of political activity, both in the West Bank and in the Strip. The international community, mainly the United States and Arab states, have an important role in the process. They must provide financial assistance to alleviate the population’s distress and lead a move to ensure the Palestinians self-determination on the basis of the principles of the international community and the Arab peace initiative. Israel and its prime minister must understand that the key to a regional arrangement lies in the Palestinian arena. If Washington and Israel are really interested in advancing a regional drive that yields results, they must strengthen the Palestinian Authority and its leader and enable them to show the Palestinian people the prospect of a peace agreement, which will ensure a better future. Otherwise the current reconciliation will also remain an internal issue that will not have any impact on the end of the conflict. (…) This is one of those moments when good will and support are necessary, even on the part of a rightist government.
Editorial, HAA, 13.10.17
Use of Force: The Only Way to Stop Iran
(…) Iran is following its Persian imperial instincts that are reinforced by Muslim jihadist impulses. It already controls four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa (…). The international community, including the US, has little appetite to confront Iran. (…) Understanding very well the Western reluctance to take military action, Iran is emulating the North Korean scenario. (…) Israel cannot rely on the international community to stop Iran’s nuclearization. Unilateral cancellation of the nuclear agreement will only energize the Iranian nuclear program. Even if attempts to convince Iran to renegotiate the deal are successful, the Iranian talent for bargaining will prolong the negotiations for years (…). Similarly, putting in place a tough economic sanctions regime requires years of diplomatic struggle. (…) Only the use of force can stop Iran from fulfilling its ambitions. Israel is on its own in this. Nobody will deal with an Iran that is going nuclear. Therefore, Israel must prepare its military for a strike against the main components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. (…) Most states would be happy for Israel to do the dirty work (…).
Efraim Inbar, JPO, 01.10.07
Israel-Iran conflict in Syria reaching point of no return
(…) According to the Israeli policy in the current crisis, there is no diplomatic way of bringing about a significant change in Iran’s regional conduct.Thus the only way to deal with it is by stepping up the sanctions (…) or through “a different crisis” in the form of a military threat against Iran, in Syria or in any other arena in the region. The atmosphere created by the Trump administration against the nuclear agreement is contributing to the approaching hurricane. (…) it’s unlikely that Israel will be able to change the American defense establishment’s stance on the nuclear issue. It will be more successful in enlisting the Pentagon’s support for stepping up the war on Iran’s subversive expansion in the Middle East, from Yemen to Gaza and Lebanon. (…) This war fits very well into the alleged Israeli secret measures against the Iranian expansion in the region and against the arms smuggling. (…) If the Israeli diplomatic move fails to bear fruit, we are headed toward a conflict with the Iranians.
Alex Fishman, YED, 08.10.17
No one’s got a clue what’s next on Iran. Unfortunately, that includes Trump himself
(…) No one has any clue what is actually going to happen. (…) Trump has been so unclear about his strategy. (…) Many key positions in the State Department remain vacant, and Trump demonstrates neither the inclination nor the know-how to get European, Russian, and Chinese leaders to join his strategy. If such efforts have been undertaken, they have clearly, thus far, been ineffective. So Trump’s cheering section is celebrating an announcement that scarcely qualifies as a strategy (…). The sum total of Trump’s approach might well be to get tougher on Iran over ballistic missiles and support for terrorists (…) the risk of miscalculation with such an uncoordinated strategy is high. (…) Members of Congress must now use their own leverage with the Administration to try to steer this reckless action back onto safer ground that (…) develops a real strategy to extend its benefits, strengthen it as needed, and maintain international – and not just regional – support for confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities.
Daniel B. Shapiro, HAA, 15.10.17
Israel should talk to Iran
(…) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no need to plea or to panic. Israel is a strong state, stronger than any of its neighbors, with capabilities conventional and not. (…) With such a strong hand, it not only can, but must, talk to the Iranian regime. (…) A sober Israeli leadership must find ways of holding practical negotiations, clandestine at first, with the Ayatollah. (…) No hostility lasts forever. Iran’s hated shah, Israel’s erstwhile friend, was ousted four decades ago. (…) communication channels are required. (…) This can happen at the UN, between ambassadors, under the auspices of the UN secretary-general, or in California (…). Most of all this can happen through Netanyahu and Rohani’s mutual friend, Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is no more a fantasy than were the initial contacts with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat or PLO leader Yasser Arafat.
Amir Oren, HAA, 15.10.17
Strategic decisiveness, tactical caution
(…) Trump unveiled a new doctrine against this component of the Axis of Evil, a doctrine that is based more on red lines and clear thresholds that would trigger American action should they be crossed. This approach represents a creative blend of strategic decisiveness and tactical caution. (…) based on his recognition that a potential Iranian-American clash is not necessarily immediate, forceful or even inevitable. In other words, the White House has articulated a gradual process that gives Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a way out by mending his ways before the moment of truth arrives. (…) Trump’s decision to decertify the agreement doesn’t mean that he is bent on withdrawing from it. He is still going to play by the rules, but his new doctrine presents several powerful deterrent elements. (…) Through the newly announced sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which complement other steps the Pentagon has taken in the region to curtail Iran’s destabilizing activity, Iran now knows what’s at stake. (…) In one fell swoop, through a single speech, Trump put the ball squarely in Iran’s court.
Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi, IHY, 15.10.17
Trump’s Iran strategy presents new kind of challenge for Israel
(…) Donald Trump is presenting Israel with a new kind of challenge—dealing with an American president who repeats all of Israel’s claims unconditionally. (…) in his speech, Trump gave us a big embrace as far as Iran is concerned. The challenge is to prevent his embrace from turning into bear hug. (…) At the moment, the Iranian threat to Israel focuses on two issues that are not covered by the nuclear agreement—Iran’s progress in the development of precision-guided surface-to-surface missiles, and the growing Iranian influence in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. (…) Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has (…) invested more than $1 billion a year in Syria, in addition to $800 million in Hezbollah every year. Hundreds of Iranian officers and soldiers have been killed in the civil war. (…) Rouhani is demanding a large chunk of the funds that will be infused for the country’s reconstruction. He is also interested in Iranian involvement in Syria’s oil fields. (…) Rouhani’s main interest is expanding Iran’s economic ties with the world, which is why he hasn’t deviated from a single clause in the nuclear agreement. (…) There is no room for nixing the agreement at the moment; the American pressure should be used to push the missile threat away and moderate the Iranian expansion in the region. This pressure will match the interests of Rouhani and his supporters, as well as the interests of all world powers, including Russia. Israel can contribute its share. In fact it is already doing its part: (…) mainly through its influence in Washington. (…)Trump is creating an ultimatum with his rhetoric. (…) It’s a gamble that could end in a disaster—either war or the United States losing its credibility. (…) On the other hand, Trump’s attempt to rectify historic mistakes made both vis-à-vis the regime in Pyongyang and vis-à-vis the regime is Tehran is commendable. The gun has been placed on the table. No one knows how it will be used—not even Donald Trump.
Nahum Barnea, YED, 15.10.17
Sukkot is a state of mind
Traveling through a desert is journeying through a lonely place, completely forsaken. There is neither food nor water, nor any other form of sustaining substance. There is only the unbearable sun and its heat. (…) But a desert is also a magnificent locale, filled with grandeur and full of life. It is an area where many things can happen that are impossible in any other location. (…) there is no distraction and no competition. (…) In the emptiness and silence of the desert, an authentic inner voice can be heard while sitting in the sukkah, a hut that existentially gives protection but in no way physically shields. (…) It is a place with no excuses. But it can only be experienced by a people of the wilderness; a people who are not rooted in a substance of physical limitations and borders; a people who are not entirely fixed by an earthly point, even while living in a homeland. Their spirit reaches far beyond restrictive borders. They are particularistic so as to be universalistic. (…) They are a wandering people that can never permanently land because the runway is too narrow and they cannot fit into any final destination. (…) In a desert, people cannot prove themselves, at least not in the conventional sense. It doesn’t offer jobs that people can fight over and compete for. (…) There are no bosses to order people around, and no fellow workers with whom to compete. (…) People can only “be,” but never “have” anything, in a desert. (…) The desert is therefore a state of mind. (…) In a desert one can think without limits. (…) The desert is the ultimate liberty. (…) And therefore it is a place of miracles. (…) we sit in a sukkah, a place that has nothing to show for itself; only powerful simplicity. It is frail and unaccomplished, because it serves as a road sign for our lives and for what is really important: authenticity in all its nakedness.
Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, TOI, 03.10.17
Imagine if Jews were locked away behind concrete walls for 11 days
(…) When we cannot even imagine living together, we underestimate all the creativity, the money, the technology and infrastructure, and the hard work that has gone into keeping us apart. (…) We see only our suffering and our reasons, and we brandish the license of our losses. (…) Netanyahu seals the gates of the West Bank and Gaza for eleven days, to enjoy Sukkot. How flagrant, to confine millions of people in the name of a holiday that celebrates the flimsy, temporary nature of our walls. If Jews were herded behind concrete walls and locked away for eleven days, so that someone else might enjoy a Jew-free holiday, would we shrug that off? (…) Have we forgotten that statelessness was the problem statement of Zionism? Jews felt vulnerable and voiceless in a world comprised of states – yet we avert our eyes from the stateless peril of others. (…) Israel has imprisoned itself, and still finds it necessary to spend another $800 million, on yet more walls, to hide itself from immiserated Gaza. So, um, are we safe yet? No. There is no separate safety in our entropic time. Jews, and everyone else, will become safe in a tolerant world, when Jews enjoy the same rights as those human beings behind the walls. (…)
Marilyn Garson, HAA, 08.10.17
2017 Feast of Tabernacles Celebration in Jerusalem is Prophecy Fulfilled
(…) the “Feast of Tabernacles” plays a significant role in bringing us Jews closer to celebrating Sukkot the way it is described in the books of the prophets. A young King Solomon began to fulfill his father David’s desire to build a home for God (…). From its very inauguration, King Solomon established that the Temple would forever be a “house of prayer for all nations.” (…) The central prayers of Sukkot focused on rainfall, a universal need. (…) As a sign of the times we are in – the golden age of Jewish-Christian relations – one Christian leader took a strong position in the days leading up to Sukkot, calling for an end to Christian proselytizing aimed at Jews. Tommy Waller, founder of the Christian group HaYovel, which organizes volunteers to tend Israeli vineyards in the harvest season leading up to Sukkot, released a sharply worded video just a few days ago.(…) Waller represents a new generation of Christian Zionist leaders who reject missionary activity aimed at proselytizing Jews and look to be faithful supporters of the people of Israel in the land of Israel. We are living in a new age of Jewish-Christian relations. Today, thousands of non-Jews flock to Jerusalem as described in the Bible. Today, Christian leaders publicly renounce the centuries-old doctrine of Christian antisemitism. As such, the Jewish community should recognize these positive developments, which would have been unimaginable at any point in our history. (…)
Tuly Weisz, JPO, 08.10.17
Trump’s gift to the Jews
(…) There are good reasons behind the profound hatred that the global Left and various dictatorships feel toward the American president. In his colorful, blunt way, the man is deconstructing all the oversight mechanisms that the pseudo-liberal Left has worked very hard to install to monitor thoughts and language. These pseudo liberals talk a big game about pluralism and tolerance and acceptance but their thought process is totalitarian and full of hatred toward anyone who dares to think differently. (…) They only care about controlling the masses in a way that circumvents the democratic process (…). According to them, the Jews, unlike humans, don’t have a right to a state or to defend themselves against attacks by their enemies. Israel haters hoped that the Obama administration would force the Jews to agree to a diplomatic suicide deal and allow the establishment of a terrorist state on its border. (…) their hopes have been dashed, and the White House is now occupied by their biggest nightmare – our friend. (…)
Dror Eydar, IHY, 13.10.17
(…) the idea that the Chief Rabbinate (…) has a monopoly over the use of the word “kosher” is a bit weird. But that is the reality of the Jewish state in the 21st century. Thankfully, this reality is changing. We hope that soon the Chief Rabbinate will cease to exist – at least in its current form. (…) a growing number of devout persons are fighting for various levels of separation, not out of a desire to be free from religion, rather out of an understanding that only by allowing religious expression to develop unhindered will it be possible to protect the true beauty of faith and religious conviction from cynical politics, nepotism and corruption. (…) Since its inception, the Chief Rabbinate has suffered from inherent conflicts of interests, corruption and nepotism. (…) Breaking the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly would enable market forces to go to work. Kashrut supervision operations that provide good, reliable and inexpensive services would earn the respect of religious restaurant goers and owners who truly care about keeping kosher. Those services that don’t would be punished by the market. (…)
Editorial, JPO, 10.10.17
There´s More Than One Way to Fight a Boycott
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has become very popular (…), especially in Western countries such as the United States. (…) The BDS movement has capitalized on this shifted sentiment to encourage Americans and other nationalities to boycott Israel both culturally and financially. In response to the new anti-Israel flame, fanned by the BDS movement, Israel’s supporters have become more vocal. (…) In addition to legislative action, many who wish to show their support for Israel and challenge the BDS movement have done so by demonstrating at college campuses and participating in debates with BDS sympathizers and supporters. These actions are significant because they attack the legitimacy, rationale, and support for the BDS movement. (…) Having real-live people spreading a message of support for Israel and Israel’s pioneers can at times be the only way to cut through the massive amounts of liberal news headlines and social media clutter that fill the screens of the younger generations’ media devices. There is another form of pro-Israel advocacy that has been garnering support from the international community. This form of advocacy bypasses the BDS movement through the purchase of Israeli products. (…)
Aryeh Powers, TOI, 01.10.17
The right to protest: Determination is the name of the game
(..) The road to a change of government (…) may seem long, but citizens who are not necessarily carrying political flags are scoring achievements. (…) Take the disabled protestors (…). The fact their protest bothered Israel’s drivers was likely what drove politicians to jump up and do something. The struggle was (…) justified and disruptive, and unlike other public protests, it emphasized the police’s helplessness. Evacuating wheelchair-bound protestors by mounted police or dispersing the crowd with tear gas were out of the question, so it was clear that this protest could not be buried under another committee, as is Netanyahu’s modus operandi. (…) Determination, is seems, is the new name of the game here. (…) the most important protest (…) is the protest against government corruption (…). Hundreds and thousands of people have joined this protest in recent months, and its intensity has sparked a heated debate on the essence of Israeli democracy. (…)
Tami Arad, YED, 09.10.17
HAA = Haaretz
YED = Yedioth Ahronoth / Ynetnews
JPO = Jerusalem Post
IHY = Israel HaYom
TOI = Times of Israel
GLO = Globes
Published: October 2017
Dr. Werner Puschra,
Head of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel