Comment and Opinion
Israel Hayom: The dissolution of the Plesner Committee is an unnecessary crisis, by Matti Tuchfeld
[ssba]
The political crisis that broke out prematurely following the dissolution of the Plesner Committee is an unnecessary crisis. From a bird’s-eye view, it is difficult to understand what all the commotion is about. After all, in terms of interests, [the parties] have more in common than what divides them. When it appears that none of the factions in the coalition want elections, why is it so difficult to stop the train that is charging towards the wall?
But there are apparently some who want this crisis. In the past days, various advisers have been whispering in Mofaz’s ear that the partnership with the Likud should be brought to an end, and the only way that may remain to revive the political corpse called Kadima is to insist on principle in the matter of drafting the Haredim.
In general, it would appear that Mofaz is in a lose-lose situation. If he compromises and stays, people will say that he zigzagged again. If he leaves—they will mock him for leaving after having joined [the coalition] just a month and a half ago. If he stays—Livni’s supporters will quit the party, leaving him facing the polls that predict his downfall. If he leaves—they will still quit. They will find some excuse, and run to the warm embrace of Tzippi Livni and Haim Ramon.
Among Netanyahu’s close associates, there are also apparently some who wanted the current crisis. Many of the Likud members do not conceal their sense of distaste with Kadima, and none of them will shed a tear if Mofaz and his friends leave the government and scatter in the wind. The last thing they need is for the partnership to succeed and for Netanyahu to decide to reserve spots for some of [the Kadima members] on the next Likud list.
Since the latest crisis began, the leaders of the protest organizations have been attacking the prime minister for deciding to go with the Haredim and against the conclusions of the Plesner Committee. They also say that Netanyahu missed an historic opportunity.
From their perspective they may be right, but on one matter they are misleading. Netanyahu never promised before the elections to draft the Haredim. That was not the ticket on which he was elected. That is not how he intended to make history. The High Court of Justice forced him into this. After the ruling, Netanyahu committed himself to a fundamental change on the matter, but who says that it is the path of Plesner or the “suckers’ tent” that will lead to a change? Perhaps the path of Yair Lapid, who said that yeshiva students should be given a complete exemption for five years, is the answer? Only the test of the outcome will determine whether the plan works or not, but this is something we will only know in about five years. In the meantime, it would be best to maintain a modicum of modesty and restraint; that never hurts.