“I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself”. “After a while you could get used to anything”.

“The Stranger”, by Albert Camus.

The last and unusual scandals of the private and public life of the Prime Minister of Israel introduced a significant question mark regarding the political future of Netanyahu. As dramatic, disturbing and surprising as the question is, in fact, for the future of Israeli society, it is totally irrelevant whether Netanyahu is obliged to resign his current position or to remain in office for a long time as both It anticipates. Without any link to their projects on the national or international front (of which there is much to be said), Netanyahu’s institutional and behavioral heritage is a consummate fact that will surely condition future generations of Israeli society leaders. The current Prime Minister of Israel left a shameful and indelible mark that increasingly distances Israel and Judaism from universal democratic values.

There is no need for a complicated search for evidence to conclude that Netanyahu’s behavior as responsible for the helm of a nation broke with all the schemes required of a Democrat leader. He himself is responsible for offering them daily and publicly.

The last week we witnessed a series of events that very clearly state that at the top of Netanyahu’s scale of values ​​in his position as Israel’s leader lies his purpose to remain forever in that role.

The misunderstanding of the ministers absence in the funeral of soldiers who were victims of the latest terrorist attack was followed by a much greater and significant nonsense in their attempt to overcome the shameful situation. Netanyahu gave the order to create a commission to draft the protocol for such cases, because “I do not want to see any grieving father for the death of his soldier son demonstrating in the street.” Let’s say: I do not care about the parents of soldiers killed. The most important thing is that they do not go out to demonstrate.

Undoubtedly, the summit was the leak of recordings that show Netanyahu administering issues of state for personal benefit in encounters with influential millionaires that much resemble a council of gangsters who distribute their loot.

Como concilio de mafiosos

Like gangster’s council   

What is unheard of in this case is that Netanyahu himself was responsible for demonstrating that his conduct in the direction of the country is guided primarily by his personal interests. In his Facebook said that “I produced the fall of my previous government and the consequent call for new elections, among others, for the rebellion within the government of those who promoted the law.” In this case, it refers to that rule which was intended to prohibit the circulation of the daily newspaper Israel Haiom, printed media distributed free of charge and financed by his friend the American millionaire Adelson, with the publicly recognized image of serving mainly as spokesman of Netanyahu and flatter his function.

Netanyahu acknowledges that he did not advance the elections in front of a crucial decision for the destiny of Israel. Not an existential or security dilemma, nor a drastic change in domestic or social policy. Only and exclusively was his particular interest in eternalizing the function.

Ilana Dayan, a prestigious Israeli journalist, pointed out the personality of Netanyahu as reflected in these days once the famous recordings and the suspicions of a personal life with ostentation of opulence and exuberance were spread as a result of confused relations with certain millionaires.

Republica Bananera

Netanyahu with his millionaires friends

Dayan states that “for years I was sure that Netanyahu was not corrupt. What Netanyahu has are personality problems. Part of the problem is that it has been for so long, perhaps too much time, in power, which it began to identify the state with himself. He believes that what is good for the state is good for him and what is good for him is good for the state”. Let’s say, the image of King Bibi XIV of Israel.

With his well-known political prowess, Netanyahu managed to establish a type of de facto absolutist monarchy in the only democracy in the Middle East with free and periodic elections.

Every rational being is surely asking the following question: in a country that is governed basically, though not in every aspect, with democratic norms, how is it possible to allow the eternalization in the power of a leader with such clear demonstrations of corruption and inclination to absolutism? Where is the opposition? Are the people foolish?

The answer is again within the framework of Netanyahu’s admirable political and media skills. A prolonged, though accurate set of frightening messages mixed with virtual projects with symbolic benefits, transformed the “political man” of Israeli society into a lamb that is allowed to be guided without complains by a pastor with absolutist pretensions. Large sectors of Israeli society lost their critical minds to become politically malleable masses.

The opposition, fundamental element that can assume the function of barrier that avoids that slip of the full democracy, unfortunately also fell victim to the preaching of Netanyahu.

It is safe to say that Netanyahu succeeded in injecting the Israeli opposition in the last decade with the bacterium of political alienation. That microbe determines a citizen attitude of renunciation of their civil rights and obligations to project in the whole population that lack of interest in political activity and participation. By the easiest way, they prefer to continue with their projects of political mimicry looking for the opportunity to fold to the official coalition to become one more cards in the hands of Netanyahu. Before fighting against Netanyahu, they seek to resemble him with the naive intention of capturing supporters from the rival.

Not for nothing Netanyahu does not care about the opposition and focuses on attacking ferociously the media cataloging them pejoratively “destitute leftists”. It is, along with the judicial power, also under threat, the last bastions that can avoid the definitive conformation of the absolutist monarchy.

It can be said that both Israeli society and the Jewish people are slowly losing that habit of questioning themselves to get accustomed to the new king, no matter their path. With or without Bibi, Israeli democracy is unlikely to regain its past.

Daniel Kupervaser

Herzlya – Israel 19/1/2017

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.