If one listens to Likud MKs these days, they appear to have perfectly justifiable complaints about the alleged heavy-handed and degrading policy of the coalition toward them in the Knesset.
The main issue is the makeup of the permanent and special committees in the Knesset, most of which have not yet started to operate, allegedly because of the stingy distribution of seats in them to the opposition in general and the Likud in particular. The coalition has also kept for itself the Economics Committee, which together with the State Control Committee, make up the two more important committees traditionally left in the hands of the opposition. Finally, the opposition MKs complain that the coalition tries to silence them, both in the committees that are operating, and in the plenary hall, by either cutting them short, or calling them very frequently to order, and then having them physically removed.
The issue of the distribution of seats in the committees seems to be the most justified of the complaints. Even Speaker Mickey Levy (Yesh Atid), publicly expressed his discomfiture with the situation, while Meretz offered the opposition one of the committees that had been allotted to it – the Immigration and Absorption Committee – to which former deputy chief of staff Yair Golan had been appointed chairman, though admittedly in return for a ministerial post for Golan as deputy minister of economics and industry.
It is said that in the coalition, it is Housing and Construction Minister Ze’ev Elkin (New Hope) who is responsible for the policy regarding the distribution of committee seats. Elkin is no longer an MK, since he gave up his Knesset seat within the framework of the “Norwegian Law,” but he is one of the most experienced political wheeler-dealers the coalition has due to his experience in such matters in the Likud – his previous political home.
Traditionally, the distribution of seats in the committees is done on a proportional basis, in accordance with the number of seats that each parliamentary group has in the Knesset. This would indicate that due to the fact that the opposition has just one or two seats less than the coalition, it should have only one seat less than the coalition in committees, and since the Likud has 30 seats (actually 29, since one of its seats “belongs” to Religious Zionism), half the opposition seats should be given to it. The coalition has allotted the opposition two seats less than to itself in most committees, and only two seats to the Likud in many.
But the apparent coalition stinginess has a reason, which is to try to protect itself from the publicly admitted policy of the Likud, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, to create as much chaos in the Knesset as possible, and do everything possible – legitimate or illegitimate – to bring down the government, while mercilessly badmouthing and defaming it and its leaders. Does anyone have any doubts that in the current situation, if the Likud were to hold the number of committee seats that it traditionally deserves, it would use its power obstructively?
If one needed a reminder as to what leader of the opposition Netanyahu is up to, on July 21 we were shown a video of him telling us that he had spoken twice to his good friend Albert Bourla – CEO of Pfizer – about millions of additional vaccinations for COVID-19 that Israel should receive immediately, so that the citizens of Israel can all receive their third vaccination.
WE KNOW that Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also spoke to Bourla, apparently a week or two earlier. What Bourla thought of Netanyahu’s phone calls we do not know, and will probably never know. We are told that the man is a gentleman, but he must certainly be aware of the fact that today Netanyahu does not speak for the government and does not reflect its policy.
Did Netanyahu bother to contact Bennett and tell him about what he thinks Israel’s vaccination policy should be? Did he speak to him about Israel’s policy towards Jordan? Did he speak to him about Israel-US relations? On all these issues, the policies advocated by Bennett and Lapid are different from those advocated by Netanyahu. We know that Netanyahu devoted to Bennett a miserly half hour before handing the Prime Minister’s Office over to him, and it is unlikely that he will come to Bennett’s office once a month to receive political updates from him, as is customary between prime ministers and leaders of the opposition in Israel.
Netanyahu simply spews criticism of Bennett’s and Lapid’s political moves over the media, without filters, and without a single grain of self-consciousness. It is embarrassing. I have been told that in Germany when chancellors leave their positions after having lost an election, they are offered professional assistance to adjust to their new circumstances. It is doubtful, however, whether Netanyahu would admit that he needs help. He seems to be in a state of total denial, and nobody around him appears to be telling him the truth.
As to the coalition’s decision to keep the Economics Committee to itself, it is merely repeating what Israel’s previous coalition did. The same, in fact, applies to the alternate prime minister arrangement, the Norwegian Law, and many other moves the coalition has adopted. This does not justify or excuse any of these moves, even though I happen to believe that the Norwegian Law is the most practical solution to the problem of a relatively small parliament and large governments in parliamentary democracies, which leaves the parliament undermanned.
The only other solution to this dilemma is to increase the number of MKs. In Israel, the number 140 has been mentioned as the desired number of MKs, in the absence of the Norwegian Law. Either way, the change involves increasing the state’s budget for the salaries of the new MKs – those who replace the ministers and deputy ministers who resign from the Knesset, or the 20 additional MKs, should the number of MKs grow to 140.
As to attempts by the coalition to silence the opposition, all I can say is that when I hear Deputy Speaker Eitan Ginzburg (Blue and White) politely thanking an MK from the Likud, one of the haredi parties or from Religious Zionism, who has just delivered an inciteful speech, full of half-truths and outright lies, and defamatory statements about the government and its leaders, all I can do is wonder if in any other parliament in the democratic world, members would get away with such rhetoric.
If there is anyone among the Likud MKs who can be seen sitting silently in the plenum, like still guppies in an aquarium, performing their duty and voting with the opposition, sometimes through the night, and usually to no avail, it is a group of 60 and 70 year-olds, who are not silent because someone from the coalition has silenced them, but because they are visibly unhappy with the performance of some of their younger colleagues, and perhaps also with he who is directing the performance.
And no, I do not think the coalition is beyond reproach – far from it. I just think it has mitigating circumstances.