Upcoming Israeli Elections

Leader of Joint Arab List, MK Ayman Odeh blesses and greets the "al-Quds youth"- marking second week of lynch attacks on Jews
by Arab gangs in the streets of Jerusalem



60847e8e509c0a95.jpg
 
Last edited:

So, are you hoping that Netanyahu will become the prime minister again? And how it can lead to a parliamentary monarchy? Because the model of Western style democracy has proven itself not too efficient in Israel?

Cultural Archetypes in Politics

Before all, the answer is based on the assumption that You know what are collective archetypes, at least in principle, and how they project into politics. Thus to understand the underlying thread of all Israeli politics, past and future, one has to remember that the tribes of Israel are essentially the children of Leah A"H and the children of Rahel A"H:

  • The House of Binyamin, is the royal line among the children of Rahel A"H. The periods of histery when they're at the leadership, represents the kingdom, or as more commonly called Messiah Ben-Yossef. To understand the natural roles and manner of their rule, look into the harachters of Yossef A"H the ruler of Egypt and king Shaul A"H, the first king chosen in Israel.

  • The House of Yehudah, is the royal line among the children of Leah A"H/ Their leadeship is the kingdom or Messiah Ben-David. Look into the charachters of king David A"H and his son king Slomah A"H.
Since we're addressing the collective rather than individual aspects of these charachters, it's easier to conceive of them as complementary ideals expressing alon the stages of realization of the national and universal roles of the Hebrew civilization.

From Binyamin Herzl Zt"a to Mr. Binyamin Netanyahu, the last 150 years have been marked by unprecedented pace and magnitude of events in Hebrew history, realizing what no generation merited to achieve in almost two millenia of diaspora combined. The House of Binyamin lead Israel to national revival from lowest pit, return to sovereignty through withstanding great wars and establishing the Abrahamic Accords.

Naturally this process introduces bigger challenges in comparison to the responsibility involved with the daily survival in a ghetto of some distant village. In a way, enjoying the minority status, with it presumed moral distance from the challenges that come with running a nation state and the responsibility to use deadly force.

Bigger problems are function of the generation's readiness to reach for ideals bigger, than what the 'old tools' are capable. 'Tools' in this context are the expression of different characters, to face challenges of magnitude typical to their role in Hebrew history.

Today we're living the transition, some would say already decades in, that initiated in the Oslo accords, culminating with the demonstration of the exact extent of the Ben-Yosef charachter, that at this stage limits Israel in reaching its fullest potential.

For more context on the typical transition from the House of Binyamin to the House of House of Yehudah - look into the Book of Shmuel.

 
Last edited:
Because the model of Western style democracy has proven itself not too efficient in Israel?

Dr. Bin Nun on Democracy

Since there're at least 12 Monarchies in the west, that also happen to be on top of human development and implement the most progressive policies, - I think we agree there's no principle contradiction.

While when any form of Monarchy is brought up in context of the Middle East, the association is usually with Saudi Arabia, or even the likes of Iran.

But this is a false dichotomy, that only exists in lack of foreseeable alternative. And it would be crazy to to suggest that the alternative, is abandoning Democracy, because it served us fabulously. And neither the alternative, is striving for the other extreme by definition.

Rather the common Israeli expression - 'yallah bye', says it all, everything has its proper place. As You don't expect to eat a whole dinner meal with a spoon so (is) with Democracy. Israel is a bridge, not only geographically, between the West and the East.

Let me refer You to a recent controversial prime time address by Dr. Bin Nun,
on one of Israel's main TV channels, where he emphasized 4 points:
  1. The problem is not individual to Israel, its universal.
  2. Democracy has been hacked by shallow populism.
  3. Only once intellectually abandoned, can we find alternatives.
  4. Intellectual elites, academia, raise the issue to the center of public discourse.
This is a good example of how for lack of foreseeable alternative, one is stuck in populism, that prevents expression of ideas but in their most caricature manner, just to provoke for them some attention, ideas that otherwise, expressed clearly in the proper context of a fitting alternative, are mostly correct and true.

Despite this infantile approach to the complex challenge, it actually caught attention of a variety of experts from the academia, and immediately followed up with a more extensive discussion addressing the challenge at face value.

What Dr. Bin Nun did here was merely translate to most common 'secular street' language, what has been at the forefront of our collective (un)concious for decades.

Thus, as Dr. Bin Nun repeats, in contradiction to the shallow populism seen on the surface, in contradiction to all the irrational projection on the person of PM Netanyahu, it has nothing to do with the personal, with the man himself or whatever he does. Because of blind admiration among some of his voters, the undemocratic manner in which the minority opposition seeks to seize position, likely projecting onto him almost inhuman responsibility and and blame, along with cases about wine, cigars and decades back then even furniture... it's so trivial that it proves the opposite, nothing to do with the personal.

Rather the underlying fundamental question, is the nature and extent of the leadership position in the nation, in principle.

 
Last edited:

So, are you hoping that Netanyahu will become the prime minister again? And how it can lead to a parliamentary monarchy? Because the model of Western style democracy has proven itself not too efficient in Israel?

Presidency - infrastructure for next generation

The hope is for Israel to lead beyond the dichotomy, transitioning as smoothly as possible. Prime minister, left or right is more of the same, but in light of the alternative I'm describing:

Presidency - mr. Netanyahu should transition to the role of presidency, and transform the office from merely formal-ceremonial, to fit the extent of his function.

There's no simple way to reconcile the weight of image and extent of power projected onto his persona, and because it would be deeply unwise to outright abandon the advice of his extensive experience, connections, better leveraged to a practical expression,
with less friction, in accordance with the trajectory of the process.

How does this lead to Parliamentary Monarchy?
The authority of the king in Israel extends to:
  • Issuing taxes.
  • Command of military strategy.
  • Sentence capital punishment on individual cases.
  • Formal representation in communication with the families of nations

It's quiet strange to imagine Mr. Netanyahu in the role of a judge, neither seem himself would be 'in his shoes' as the royal in the middle of a ceremony on the Temple Mount, but most of the mentioned roles above, finance, army and foreign relations, are exactly the talents and unmatched expertise for which he's best known.

Thus what initially seemed a compromise, for lack of foreseeable alternative, is actually the ultimate move forward. Adding to his heritage, not that he's short of historic achievements,
the legacy of inheriting a political infrastructure prepared for the introduction
of the Monarchy element by the new generation.

IHoCE2.jpg

*Mind You -
don't take it literally, no one actually expected them to pretend,
whom they don't want to be, the picture is an old joke on the Israeli forums...
 
Last edited:
I think it will not be too surprisingly when Netanyahu will become the prime minister again. I have read though that to form a coalition he will need the seats of one of Arab blocs. I wonder whether it is possible and what the reaction of his voters will be.

First, nice to see You again, really appreciate the level You bring to our conversations here.
Second I'm just going to say what I've already tried to explain, and sum up for myself.
when writing an answer to Your comment yesterday.

I couldn't finish the thought because it was too overwhelming,
but seeing today's news assures my intuition about the state of things.

In short, what I think we're witnessing is - TRANSITION INTO PARLIAMENTARY MONARCHY.

The entire political crisis is not about Left vs Right or PM Netanyahu himself.
At least 70% vote for the national camp, and all those parties belonging to that camp who oppose Netanyahu, despite based either much valid pragmatic criticism of policy and conduct, or on personal grudges and character judgement, all were just offered leading positions, to virtually take over the biggest party by joining it together as a coalition from inside, a clear path for any capable candidate to Prime Ministry. And despite claims that the media talk about a possible compromise of offering PM Netanyahu an alternative position as President, a mostly formal non-government position, being his own test-balloon of public opinion to evade trial, I think it's in our best national interests to assure a dignified transition of power from the longest serving, and arguably the most outstandingly successful PM in Israel's modern history, a respect he, his legacy and voters fully deserve. However no one assures us that the 70% vote won't be given to the opposition, if case he, and most importantly his voters, accept such a compromise.

I'm not naive about the options, and neither believe this is something to be proud of, or morally preferred conduct to strive for, but from pragmatic strategic point of view, hope that with G-d's help, he again manages to 'pull something' no one expects.

The underlying question is more about the crisis of core cultural archetypes, being at odds with western standards of political expression among the developing nations. Israel is viewed as both the ideological source, and the last frontier of fundamental Western shared ideals to be tested at standing the ground of relevancy for the future. The solution will come from here, not from the West or East, but here in the exact middle meeting point. And thus we're dealing with the core crisis of both worlds in a concentrated form, that only here can reach an organic conclusion.
Thanks for your attempts to express your thoughts as much as possible, but I dont fully understand what your stance is, I am afraid.

So, are you hoping that Netanyahu will become the prime minister again? And how it can lead to a parliamentary monarchy? Because the model of Western style democracy has proven itself not too efficient in Israel?

The Liberal case for Parliamentary Monarchy

Aside from the prestige in being a royal subject,
Monarchy has the elements to encourage Democracy and strengthen it.

You see, one of several reasons for the recent political deadlock, is that the party which I've voted for, rejected any notion of giving hand to forming a government with an Islamist party, event at the price of ending up in the opposition or even elections. And I respect them for that, yet at the same time, believe the most needed discourse, to directly address the fundamental challenges of the generation - is between these two.

But even when the situation is fit, and there appears correctness to start addressing those challenges in a pragmatic framework, it's susceptible to foreign influence invested in the conflict, and the zero-sum power struggle overburdening the representative body from directing the energy needed for a constructive value-based discourse. Thus by introducing the element of Monarchy, will take the element of the power-struggle out of the equation, strengthening the element of Democracy to function in its capacity. Lower the electoral bar, to encourage the most ideologically colorful and vibrant Parliament to sort out the ideologies and challenges true to the reality of the marketplace of ideas on the street.

The key here, not to replace Democracy with Monarchy,
rather that they fulfill each-other.


 
Herzog vs. Peretz: MKs to choose between two very different presidential candidates

Former minister, Labor leader and son of previous president Yitzhak Herzog seen
as favorite, while settler Miriam Peretz - who lost saw two sons fall during
military service - would be Israel's first woman president


S1v3b6fF00_0_0_640_360_0_large.jpg


Two candidates are running — Isaac Herzog, a veteran politician and scion of a prominent Israeli family, and Miriam Peretz, an educator who is seen as a down-to-earth outsider.
Herzog, 60, is a former head of Israel’s Labor Party and opposition leader who unsuccessfully ran against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the 2013 parliamentary elections.
He is scion of a prominent Zionist family. His father, Chaim Herzog, was Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations before being elected president. His uncle, Abba Eban, was Israel’s first foreign minister and ambassador to the United Nations and United States. His grandfather was the country’s first chief rabbi.

SJgtvfvX500_0_289_3000_1688_0_large.jpg


Herzog has served as head of the Jewish Agency, a nonprofit that works closely with the government to promote immigration to Israel, for the past three years since resigning from parliament. Given his deep ties to the political establishment, he is widely seen as the favorite to win.

Peretz, 67, is seen as a more conservative, nationalist candidate.
She immigrated from Morocco as a child and has worked as a teacher, educator and lecturer on Judaism, Zionism and grief. Two of her sons died serving in the Israeli military. In 2018 she was awarded the Israel Prize, the country’s top award, for lifetime achievement.

10724609_0_56_980_552_0_large.jpg


If elected, Peretz would be the first woman to hold the office and also the first settler. She and her family lived in one of Israel’s settlements in the Sinai Peninsula until a peace treaty was struck with Egypt in 1979 and the territory was returned. Peretz then moved to the West Bank settlement of Givat Zeev, just north of Jerusalem, where she lives today.

To win, a candidate must receive at least 61 votes in the 120-seat Knesset. If neither does, a second round of voting will be held. Once elected, the country’s 11th president will hold office for a single seven-year term starting July 9.

The winner will succeed President Reuven Rivlin, who is set to leave office next month, and the new president will take office at a politically crucial time.


LIVE: Israeli Presidential vote:

 
Ayelet Shaked - If Bennet Doesn't run I'll head Yamina

1076123.jpg


Channel 12 News reported that Shaked will clarify that she does not rule out sitting with the Likud and MK Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the first option, from her perspective.

And that she will try to provide a solution for all the Israelis who were not happy with the current government, but do not want to vote for Likud or Religious Zionism.

The greatest question is whether the number of people who believe in
Shaked's message is great enough for the party to pass the electoral threshold.

 
In the US you’re screwed until the next scheduled election.

I don't see how a 2 party system can allow much expression to begin with.

That said, Israeli leaders also tend to serve longer than American counterparts.
 
In a parliamentary monarchy, the king/queen doesn't have a say in internal political processes.

Ideally, a Jewish king is responsible for the economy,
and has a veto on key issues involving the next generations,
authority to sentence to death penalty in special cases when courts can't.
Essentially the king rules on foreign policy, economics and military strategy.

The parliament's role is to express contrasting ideologies and set public policy.
 
Last edited:
Ideally, a Jewish king is responsible for the economy,
and has a veto on key issues involving the next generations,
authority to sentence to death penalty in special cases when courts can't.
Essentially the king rules on foreign policy, economics and military strategy.

Parliament has more freedom to express contrasting ideology and public policy.
In other words, the parliament is for some philosophical debates with no real authority. But that is not a parliamentary monarchy.

You want death penalties to be in a legal code? For what crimes?
 
In other words, the parliament is for some philosophical debates with no real authority. But that is not a parliamentary monarchy.

You want death penalties to be in a legal code? For what crimes?

There's education, infrastructure, tourism, health etc.
in a way the main focus is to allow more freedom
and contrast in political discourse, by relieving
the parliament from certain destabilizing
burdens and power-struggles, and lower
the electoral threshold.

Death penalty is already in legal code,
the King has the authority to sentence to death
when the courts can't and he sees correct for deterrence.

What crimes?
Nazi officers were hanged.
Others were dealt with in other ways.
'Amalekites are not to enjoy long nights.
 
There's education, infrastructure, tourism, health etc.
in a way the main focus is to allow more freedom
and contrast in political discourse, by relieving
the parliament from certain destabilizing
burdens and power-struggles, and lower
the electoral threshold.

Death penalty is already in legal code,
the King has the authority to sentence to death
when the courts can't and he sees correct for deterrence.

What crimes?
Nazi officers were hanged.
Others were dealt with in other ways.
'Amalekites are not to enjoy long nights.
But if the king will have the last word in forming the budget and deciding on taxes, all these parliament rights on tourism, infrastructure, health services will have little meaning.

Lower the electoral threshold? I thought Israel needs quite the opposite. To block minor parties getting in the parliament and dictating their demands.
 

Forum List

Back
Top