It should not be surprising that ruling party Kadima leads the trend in dishonesty (and corruption as well), as its very creation was an act of dishonesty.
By DANIEL TAUBER
Is there any promise an Israeli politician will not break? It may be common knowledge that politicians lie, but in the last few years, this country's politicians have reached new lows, breaking their promises on matters both large and small. Their word has become as solid as an appointment with the repairman - the kind that does not care to inform you that they he is not coming until he has already missed the appointment.
Before becoming a leading Kadima member, MK Tzahi Hanegbi was a Likud veteran of 17 years and a settlement supporter. As a member of Ariel Sharon's cabinet in 2005, Hanegbi voted against the disengagement along with Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu. In November 2005, after Sharon resigned as Likud chairman to form Kadima, Hanegbi was appointed acting chairman of the Likud.
Upon assuming the chairmanship, Hanegbi said that "there are roots that can't be uprooted." Two weeks later, Hanegbi deserted the Likud and joined Kadima, saying, "Sometimes ideological matters are diminished; it's a personal move."
Similarly, in December 2005, after Sharon resigned from the Likud, Shaul Mofaz announced his candidacy for the leadership of Likud, promised to remain in the party, but then left for Kadima.
It should not be surprising that ruling party Kadima leads the trend in dishonesty (and corruption as well), as its very creation was an act of dishonesty. Kadima founder Ariel Sharon was for almost 30 years a proponent of settlements and decried their removal as "tyranny of the majority." In the 2003 elections, as head of the Likud, Sharon defeated his opponent, Labor candidate Amram Mitzna, by attacking Mitzna's plan for unilateral withdrawal from the territories. But shortly after the election, Sharon proposed and executed this exact plan.
Within the Likud, Sharon faced substantial opposition regarding the disengagement. Sharon thus called for a referendum on the issue, expressly stating he would abide by it. Yet when Likud members voted against the plan by a 20 percent margin, Sharon ignored the results and carried out the disengagement anyway.
After betraying long-held principles and often-made declarations, resulting in the loss of the support of his party, Sharon formed Kadima. Much of Kadima's membership included Likud politicians who supported settlements and opposed territorial concessions such as Sharon, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert, Hanegbi and Mofaz.
BUT KADIMA'S coalition partners have carried their load of the dishonesty burden too. In November 2007, Shas, the Sephardic haredi party and a valuable coalition partner, made it clear that it would not remain in the government if Jerusalem was negotiated. "Jerusalem is above all political considerations," Shas chairman Eli Yishai said, "I will not help enable concessions on Jerusalem."
But for months Olmert conducted negotiations with Palestinian officials based on an agreed recognition that Jerusalem was one of three core issues to be negotiated. Shas officials remained in the government, lamely rationalizing that Olmert had promised them that negotiations on Jerusalem would be left until the end. When reports surfaced in Februarythat Jerusalem was being secretly negotiated, Shas still remained in the government.
Similarly, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the official spiritual leader of Shas, went so far as to declare that Hurricane Katrina was a divine response to American support for the disengagement. Yet when Olmert, the principal proponent of the disengagement, was elected prime minister, Shas quickly joined his government, with Yishai becoming vice premier. After the Winograd Report on Olmert's poor conduct of the Second Lebanon War was released, Shas had an opportunity for an easy exit. But Yosef told Olmert, "Fear not, and do not be dismayed, for I am with you."
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the leader of the Labor party-the second largest party and the most valuable of Olmert's coalition partners-is guilty of similar conduct. During the election for Labor's chairmanship, Ehud Barak made a campaign promise: "If on March 28, I am elected chairman of the Labor Party, and the prime minister has yet to reach personal conclusions," which Barak clarified to mean that Olmert would resign, then "I will act to form a wide consensus in my party and with the faction leaders to determine an appropriate and agreed date for elections."
Yet Olmert did not resign until September 21, six months later. All the while, Barak remained in the government. as defense minister.
What is truly alarming about all these examples, however comical and ridiculous they may be, is that they are indicative of something more sinister than politics as usual: the abandonment of principle and ideology that has taken hold of Israeli society.
The writer is an Israel activist and a third-year law student at Fordham University School of Law. His articles can be found at www.hadarnews.com
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store