Spinmeisters say proposed showdowns may disintegrate into mud-slinging

Are Israeli leaders really cut out for a US-style televised debate?

By TOVAH LAZAROFF
bibi barak livni trio 224 (photo credit: AP)
bibi barak livni trio 224
(photo credit: AP)
Nine years ago, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was a no-show in the last televised debate among prime ministerial candidates. Given that a chair had been set up for him in the studio, he was noticeably absent during the slugfest, in which Yitzhak Mordechai surprisingly bested one of Israel's more masterful orators, Binyamin Netanyahu. So it is with a certain bit of knowing irony that strategists for both the Kadima and Likud party leaders are warily viewing an invitation issued by Barak this week to hold a series of three debates among the top three contenders for the premiership ahead of February's elections. "He didn't show up for the last one," noted political strategist Roni Rimon, who advises Netanyahu. "So what?" retorted a source close to Barak. When it came to debates, one should look forward and focus on the reasons why a debate would be helpful, rather then diverting attention by chastising Barak for his failure to debate in the past, said the source. Back in 1999, Barak, who was ahead in the polls, was commended by many columnists, including one in The Jerusalem Post, for his wisdom in staying away and thus above the debating fray. In that heated free-for-all, those watching learned a lot about the candidates' ability to exchange stinging barbs, but little was said to illuminate them on issues of substance. And in the end, the empty chair won. It was Barak, not Netanyahu or Mordechai, who become prime minister. Which leaves both Lior Chorev, who is a strategic consultant for Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, and Rimon fearful that a debate this time would also disintegrate into an exchange of insults. What, they want to know, would that contribute to the electoral process? Ever since the first televised US presidential debate in 1960 was credited with securing a victory for John Kennedy, the younger and more inexperienced of the two contenders, this kind of direct political exchange on the issues has become a cornerstone of American election campaigns. Still, its potency initially scared away presidential contenders and incumbents, who turned down requests to debate until the 1976 election campaign, when Jimmy Carter squared off against Gerald Ford. Israel is no stranger to this kind of political sparring, but it has not institutionalized it as the Americans have, said both Chorev and Rimon. "In America the rules are set down in advance and no one breaks them," said Rimon. More to the point, participation is expected and in a way, mandatory, he said. American presidential candidates nowadays really have no choice but to debate. "It is a totally different approach," Chorev added. "Having a debate in the same manner as in America is good for democracy. It is a tradition that America can be proud of." It is also a necessary informational tool in America, where most of the public is learning about the candidates for the first time, said Chorev. Until this election, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was an unknown junior senator, Chorev noted. The same was true before the 1993 victory of former president Bill Clinton, who headed out onto the campaign trail as the governor of Arkansas. "For many Americans, Obama came to life only in the past two years. They do not know who he is or where he came from," said Chorev. But Livni, Netanyahu and Barak have been around for a long time, and Netanyahu and Barak have already been prime minister. "People here know who their candidates are," Chorev said, so the instructional value is less. But a source close to Barak disagreed, saying the public only thinks it knows who the candidates are. All it really knows is who these politicians have been in the past. "These are also people who have changed with the times," said the source. Barak was a prime minister eight years ago. Since then, a lot has changed, said the source, and there should be a forum that would give the public substantive information about the candidates' positions on major issues today. Unfortunately, in past debates, decorum has quickly disintegrated, said Rimon. "It's chaotic. Everyone shouts and interrupts each other," he said. Rimon said he would not comment on what whether Netanyahu would want to debate or whether his 1999 loss would influence his decision. Netanyahu has participated in a number of such debates, notably including one against then-prime minister Shimon Peres in 1996, in which he held his own with more success than in 1999. As a person who believes in democracy, said Chorev, he can say that debates are helpful. But as a strategic adviser in Israel, where debates do not have the same almost mandatory status as they do in America, he said, politicians are free to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a debate is in their interest. So during last month's Kadima leadership primary, he supported Livni's desire to debate her top challenger, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, though the latter ultimately refused. "I always have to ask: do I have anything to win or lose?" said Chorev. In Livni's case, he said, "She had a lot to gain. She was leading. She had a better platform than Mofaz." But in the 2001 and 2003 elections, former prime minister Ariel Sharon's political interests were better served by refusing to debate. The same was true for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2006, Chorev said. In this instance Barak, according to a source, wants not just one debate, but a series of eight. Three would be between the party leaders of Labor, Kadima and Likud, and five between representatives of all the parties. Each one of those five debates would focus on a specific topic such as security, economics, welfare, the rule of law and diplomatic matters. "This isn't an ultimatum, it is a suggestion," said a source close to Barak. There is much the public can still learn from these candidates about their positions on Jerusalem or what they would to help Israel weather the global economic crisis, the source said. Chorev said that such debates could be helpful and informative as long as they adhered to a high form of etiquette. Chorev said, "If we are offered a sincere debate that would be hosted according to ethical and professional standards, we would decide then." But ultimately the decision for the Livni camp, he said, would be a political one. "The funny thing is that Barak is speaking as if he were the leading contender," Chorev noted. Should there be a debate, he said, the focus would be on Livni and Netanyahu and there, he said, he was certain that Livni would hold her own quite well. In general in the campaign, he predicted, Livni would give her rivals "one hell of a fight."