While Netanyahu is judged on his performance, his critics are judged on their statements • But how can actual actions be compared to general statements?
• "Who is right-wing?"
The recent controversy within the right, which can be summed up as the title of the "Israel Today" project with the words "who is right-wing", is important and principled.
For apart from the practical political questions of the present age and the personas used in it, more basic elements concerning the worldview, the perception of politics and the meaning of the world of right-wing ideas are also under discussion.
Netanyahu: "Saar and Bennett are lying - they will go with Lapid" // From Facebook
Roughly speaking, the controversy can be described as follows: The group of Netanyahu critics on the right make two complementary arguments: a.
Netanyahu is not right-wing on a long list of issues (there are variants in the arguments here);
B.
Its competitors are more right-wing.
Hence the conclusion: to replace it is a right-wing interest.
Netanyahu's supporters, on the other hand, usually claim that: a.
There are explanations, excuses, circumstances to justify Netanyahu's deviations from the right path (Obama, Kahlon, the ombudsman); B. His achievements are taken for granted, but this is a mistake, because these are achievements on a historical scale. Netanyahu will lose his achievements and in any case the right-wing interest is in his perseverance.
If we analyze the arguments, it can be identified that this is a discourse that is conducted on two completely detached levels.
While Netanyahu's supporters make claims of a pragmatic nature, concerning the context in which a leader operates and a complex reality that includes prices for achievements - his opponents usually cling to an ideal and theoretical level: they intensify the price column, downplay the achievement column and shout: "It is possible otherwise!"
The prices, the consequences and the compromises
In this context it is difficult not to notice a certain level of double standard exercised in political judgment.
While Netanyahu is being judged on performance, his competitors are being judged on statements.
One of the most prominent in this industry is Naftali Bennett, who produces an exponential amount of programs of various kinds - in education, economics, security, Corona and what not.
What they all have in common is eye-catching general statements, which lack the important details - budgetary sources, ways of realization and broad meanings.
In other words: the prices, the consequences and the compromises.
Many of the arguments in Bennett's booklet "How to beat an epidemic" and in his Facebook statements have already been proven wrong (the German model, the obsession with testing, etc.), but he has never been required to take responsibility for it.
This is the nature of statements.
But Netanyahu - snatching right and left for any 0.001 increase in the coefficient of infection, this is the nature of responsibility.
Bennett announced: "I will run for prime minister"
Ronen Shoval's column "The Likud has forgotten what it means to be right-wing" suffers from similar failures.
Shoval's argument consists of three stages:
First, he defines who is right-wing according to a particular basket of beliefs - "The right supports the Land of Israel. It is in favor of a determined position regarding national security, it is in favor of a small government, low public spending and a free market; it is in favor of elected government and not officials." In favor of law and order. "
He then claims that Netanyahu is not right-wing.
However, the basis for this claim does not come from Netanyahu's beliefs, but from the practical record of his government: he formed governments with the left, did not touch the justice system, did not evacuate Khan al-Ahmar, and so on.
The bottom line is that other politicians, like Gideon Saar, are right-wing.
And why?
Due to their basket of beliefs.
Netanyahu was judged according to his performance, his opponents according to the statements.
It has to be decided: if a leader is judged according to his beliefs, it is possible that Netanyahu is supremely right-wing.
He also published two books and gave quite a few speeches praising the Land of Israel and the free market.
But if a leader is judged by his actions, by what criteria can he be compared to others?
Saar on tour in Eilat // Photo: Ran Shauli
Bennett and Saar did not stand the test of the act of running a government, maintaining a coalition and international pressures.
To compare their statements to his performance is unfair in principle and intellectually wrong.
If already comparing, then let there be apples to apples and performance to performance.
And here the son asks: In his functions as Minister of Finance, Netanyahu did not advance a right-wing agenda in a much more effective way than Bennett and Saar in the Ministry of Education, for example?
This logical-intellectual failure leads to the following: The most difficult allegations against Netanyahu are that he sat with the left in his governments - Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni - and the recent attack by "Netanyahu is not right-wing" is remembered after his proposals for Avi Gabay were revealed Current.
But what is the solution of his "real" right-wing critics?
Form a government with the whole left to get Netanyahu out of Balfour.
Even Gideon Saar has already counted himself in the left bloc on full.
So in order to replace the man who formed out of a political constraint of right-wing governments with the participation of a left-wing faction, the "real" right-wing demands that a center-left government be formed with the participation of a right-wing faction.
And that should somehow lead to the advancement of the right-wing agenda.
Even before even the actual test of deeds began, Netanyahu's critics were collapsing at the political level like Klanter and Goldfarb at the time.
It is no longer even the "Sharoni" known things seen from here not seen from there.
Because all things are seen from the here and now.