The man is the same man, but the texts are different: what happened to Netanyahu? | Israel today

Something happened to Binyamin Netanyahu in the current election campaign.

The man is the same man, but the texts are different, the tone has changed.

A little over a year has passed since he was seated on the opposition benches, and it seems that something has happened to the man.

During this period he completed the writing of his book, which will be published soon, he had free time for meetings and conversations with people with whom he rarely met when he was in office, and he also had the opportunity to feel the public better, to listen to the innermost thoughts beyond the council of advisers and the heavy security layer.

Netanyahu continues to emphasize his achievements above every stage and in every speech, and to attack his opponents, but unlike in the past - it seems that he is more correct to share the success this time with others as well, and the criticism sounds more matter-of-fact and much less angry than before.

The cynics will say that nothing has really changed.

Netanyahu simply realized that what is keeping him away from the throne this time are those "soft right" voters who dislike his extreme statements, and the hordes of bibists flocking after him with their coarse and extreme language.

They will say that Netanyahu remains the same vote-chasing cynic, and that what he thought at the time would bring him success - attacking the left and expressing extreme views against his opponents - does not stand the test, and that now it is better for him to keep his language clean and convey statesmanship.

This perception is also of course legitimate, especially when it comes to the most skilled and well-polished politician in the political system, who will not hesitate to use a means to return him to the leadership.

Either way, no one was ready for the statements he made in a closed forum in the last few days.

Whether it is a real soul reckoning or language calculated for propaganda purposes, no one had heard his words before, and no one thought he would ever utter them, including those closest to him, such as Levin's opponent who sat next to him, who could not hide his amazed face.

Especially when Netanyahu spoke candidly about mistakes he made when he was prime minister.

It was when he was asked by a person in the audience if he had learned anything during the time he did not serve as Prime Minister, and if, if he were to return to office, his conduct would be different.

"Sure," Netanyahu replied, "I'm returning to my position with a lot of insight. With more tolerance, and with humility."

According to him, "This period taught me to consult more, to learn from others as well, to listen to those who I may not appreciate but can still learn from. More modesty, more openness and tolerance."

He also said that "this year, it gives you more time... to look at yourself, you learn about yourself. And there are always conclusions. You learn about mistakes you made. You learn perhaps more about tolerance towards people."

According to him, "This is also reflected in the work I did this year together with my friends Yariv, Idit and Amichai (referring to Levin, Silman and Shiki who were present at the event; MT).

At work when you listen to each other, and consult with each other - consult all the time and not from the language to the outside and not just to mark a V.

Really to learn.

And this is perhaps the most important thing: listen to others, listen, you can learn.

And even people you don't particularly appreciate - everyone has something, there is some hidden gem, that you can learn from."

Netanyahu said these things at the first conference held with representatives of the liberal religious Zionist communities in Modi'in.

In the audience, about 250 people inside, and another 150 outside due to lack of space, many of his detractors, those who see themselves on the right but prefer to vote for Ayelet Shaked or even Bnei Gantz.

He maintained his moderate line even when asked about military events he managed as Prime Minister.

"My conservatism is in relation to the unnecessary sacrifice of our soldiers," he replied, "I have seen the bereaved mothers over the years. This does not mean that when it is necessary one does not sacrifice, but when it is not necessary - one does not sacrifice. My late brother told me that a good commander completes the mission with a minimum of casualties, A bad commander does not finish the mission and sacrifices many soldiers.

"The test is first of all - don't just sacrifice people and don't just go to idle wars. Don't get into traps that will later cost you a huge fortune in human lives."

This line, and the pursuit of this crowd, will also accompany Netanyahu in the coming weeks, with similar meetings among the national religious communities in Petah Tikva, Givat Shmuel, Ra'anana, in Rehovot and other concentrations.

Netanyahu does not intend to allow Ayelet Shaked to rise, in the hope that at the last minute she will resign, or at the very least she will not have many right-wing votes left.

government?

Not at any cost

Great satisfaction recently characterizes the election headquarters of the Yesh Atid party.

The negotiations on the maritime border agreement with Lebanon, in addition to the speech of the two countries at the United Nations, did indeed lead to sharp attacks against Yair Lapid on the right, but they positioned him as the leader of the left camp, and moreover, they managed to produce a significant agenda at a critical time of the election process, literally Towards the last straight.

And the more Shalapid manages to control the agenda - the more his party soars in the polls.

This is a slow and measured increase, but in recent weeks it has been quite consistent.

If this trend continues, the gap between Yesh Atid and Likud will stand on only a few mandates.

This fact is enough to cause further strengthening of Lapid, as happened in the past with parties that lined up against the Likud: from the front led by Tzipi Livni, through the Zionist camp of Livni and Yitzhak Herzog to Blue and White of Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid.

Benny Gantz, who is currently still enjoying a double-digit number of mandates in the polls, but it is not certain that he will be able to hold onto them until the end, as well as the other parties of the left bloc: Meretz, Labor and Israel Beitenu.

Lapid will not spare any of them.

He does not think about the bloc parties but only about his party.

His task is to bring Yesh Atid to its greatest achievement, even if a party or two from his bloc fall below the blocking percentage.

Unlike the others, Lapid does not require that another government be formed, and for his part, that no government be formed.

In the meantime, he remains the prime minister of the transitional government.

In an interview he gave to Yishai Cohen on the "Shabbat Square" website, Lapid said that he prefers six-year elections to a government with Netanyahu, thus signaling the direction of his priorities.

He himself will have a very difficult time putting together a coalition, but to prevent Netanyahu and Gantz from forming a government, if there are not 61 mandates for the right, he will try with all his might, lead to elections and remain prime minister for a few more months.

Unlike Gantz, he does not rely on defectors from the right, a rebellion in Likud or cooperation with the ultra-Orthodox factions.

One more election is enough for him and he is settled.

There is a future big enough for him to open another door.

If one of the bloc's parties does not pass the blocking percentage, which would guarantee 61 for Netanyahu, Lapid could decide to join him and not switch to the opposition.

It is true that it sounds far-fetched, but there are those who talk about this scenario at the top of Yesh Atid.

In their estimation, Netanyahu will prefer Lapid or Gantz, and will agree to make generous offers for that, including possibly keeping Itamar Ben Gabir out of the government.

Lapid will be able to present this as an achievement to his credit if that is the case, but this is of course on the condition that Netanyahu will have 61 without him.

If not, Lapid will be perceived as saving Netanyahu.

If so, he will present himself as the one who came to save the country.

All for nothing

Lapid also said that before approving the agreement with Lebanon, he consulted with former minister Yuval Steinitz.

Thus the impression was created as if he and Steinitz, on Netanyahu's behalf, went to the same place.

Steinitz, who had retired from political life in the meantime, was shocked.

Steinitz did meet with Lapid last week, for the first time since taking office, but only a very small part of the conversation dealt with the Lebanese agreement.

At the end of the conversation, which mostly dealt with the issue of Iran, Lapid asked Steinitz if he supported an agreement with Lebanon to regulate the economic border.

Steinitz replied in the affirmative, after all, he was responsible for the issue on behalf of Netanyahu in the previous government.

However, what Lapid did not tell is that there is a huge gap between the agreement that Netanyahu and Steinitz promoted, and the agreement that he intends to approve soon.

Steinitz, photo: Oren Ben Hakon

Steinitz was shocked twice.

For the first time from the fact that the conversation with him was leaked by Lapid himself;

And the second time - because he did not know the details of the agreement drawn up by the current government and they were not presented to him either

Steinitz was actually stunned twice.

For the first time from the very leak of the conversation and more by Lapid himself.

During the last year, when Bennett was prime minister, Steinitz met with Bennett regularly, once every month or two.

All this was done with Netanyahu's knowledge and away from the public eye.

The meetings were not leaked.

With Lapid met once - and already software is out.

And also partially and misleadingly: Steinitz did not know the details of the agreement drawn up by the current government, nor were they presented to him.

For the second time, Steinitz was amazed to discover the extreme concessions to which the government went as part of the agreement, which in his opinion is not even close to the agreement he was striving for.

While he and Netanyahu were ready to compromise, Lapid actually gave Lebanon 100% of its demands and left Israel with no achievement at all.

In his eyes, the statements as if Israel will accept Harish and a percentage of the Kana Foundation as an achievement are nothing more than a sad joke.

Moreover, bragging as if Harish was an Israeli achievement as part of the negotiations conducted by Israel is dangerous, because if the agreement eventually explodes - Harish, which is completely Israeli, will also be on the negotiating table.

After all, Lapid himself said that the shark is in our hands only thanks to the agreement.

If there is no agreement - maybe there is no shark either.

In Steinitz's eyes, this is a strategic mistake, which he and Netanyahu would never allow.

All conflicts in the world over economic water end in compromise.

All the Israeli governments that the issue came to were ready for negotiations. Netanyahu too. Bennett too. Not the entire border is critical to the State of Israel. With Netanyahu, the line was to go towards Lebanon for a concession of between 55% and 60%. No more. It was more or less also Bennett's direction Lapid gave Lebanon everything and was left with zero.

were we wrong

We will fix it!

If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us