Political neophyte Yair Lapid gave his first television interview since announcing his entry into politics, on Channel 2 evening news on Tuesday. The media man thus generated plenty of media, from journos eagerly waiting for him to move his message beyond cyber-campaigning into the traditional realm.
Much of the interview involved the usual politicking and dancing around questions. Then to my surprise, Lapid did something that hardly any of the other candidates did during the almost-campaign kick-off last month, and certainly haven’t dared to do since: He mentioned the P-word. Or if you will, the C-word.
Not only did Lapid dare to raise the topic of Palestinians and the conflict, but he actually said something bold and accurate, and he seemed to mean it:
Benjamin Netanyahu has a coalition today that is leading him to places that make the State of Israel look leprous around the world. The fact that he is a good English speaker – and he is a good English speaker – does not salvage the situation. Here is the situation we’re in: Binyamin Netanyahu has decided that he does not care to do anything so that there will ever be a chance of peace for the State of Israel.
What does it mean that we’re not sitting at the negotiating table? That means that he took the most complicated, bloodiest problem of the State of Israel – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and said: “I am not interested in it. I’m too afraid of [far-right Likud member Moshe] Feiglin, I’m too afraid of [Likud faction chairman Zeev] Elkin – I don’t care about the Palestinian problem – I’ll kick it over to our children, let them break their heads over it.” That is irresponsible. (Here’s the full interview, in Hebrew)
It’s been hard to discern just what Lapid really stands for, other than his declaration that he represents a middle class, when everyone knows he represents the upper class. But if the determination in his eyes was any indication, this conflict is pressing for him – which is more than can be said for any current leader in Israel today.
Two minor points were disappointing: first, the print media coverage in several papers I saw followed up this quote by noting that Lapid refused to give a straight answer about whether he would join the Netanyahu government or not – which was the next question asked. Why didn’t any of the articles point out that now Lapid owes the public a detailed description of his approach to the conflict?
Why didn’t the mainly-excellent Yonit Levy, the Channel 2 anchorwoman who interviewed him, follow up and say: “Well, Mr. Lapid, that’s quite a strong statement you’ve just made. How would your approach to the conflict differ from Mr. Netanyahu’s? What is your vision for a resolution, and how do you propose breaking the current deadlock to get there? How would you work more cooperatively with the rest of the world on this? More specifically: would you stop settlement construction in order to re-start negotiations?”
Second (and this really is so fussy), consider that last line: “[Netanyahu says] ‘I don’t care about the Palestinian problem…’ ”
It could have been an oversight. But if Lapid believes that it’s a “Palestinian problem” rather than a huge problem between Israel and the Palestinians – well, that’s a problem.
Related:
Popular anchorman’s entry into politics likely to secure PM’s rule
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Kolumn9
You are being harsh on Yonit Levy. She is very good at interviewing and attacks him incessantly on his slippery words. Even had she asked that question he would have danced around the question. Also my god he is an arrogant prick.
Greg Pollock
I fail to understand why (in Israel) one cannot be opposed to the vangaurd settler’s proactive stance against resident Palestinians while remaining neutral on the status of the larger, middle class settlements. As it is, Bibi’s policy attaches the ideology of the vanguards to itself by allowing their actions. Perhaps someone like Lapid could take such a dangerous stand: stop the burning of fields, stop taking water resources without direct State approval, stop pulling the trigger on weapons, stop price tag incidents that really don’t happen except that they do. It’s hardly a peace policy, but it does distance the State, potentially, from such acts–and, who knows, maybe part of the electorate would see some sense in it.
.
Baby steps.
.
On the other hand, maybe such a stance would label one as a self-race hater. Why not a hater of all existence for good measure? Sorry. I am reminding, with headache, of American antebellum politics in the two decades before Civil War.
Kolumn9
Greg, I don’t agree with your formulation. There are plenty of people in Israel, even among the settlers, who oppose those actions of Israeli settlers that are illegal under Israeli law on basis of supporting the rule of law. Hence the coming evacuation of Givat Ulpana. At the same time the ability of the Israeli government to stop such actions is somewhat limited as is the capacity of any government to stop crime from happening in their country. How do you stop graffiti?
.
At the same time there is no ideological basis on which an anti-settlement activist can be opposed to one group of settlements and not another. Practically I see your point, but activists are generally driven by ideology, especially where their odds of successfully changing a policy are so close to being zero.
Piotr Berman
Kolumn9: at the modest minimum, the government has the power of stopping agents of the state from committing crimes. There is a discrepancy between international law and the law as seen by Israeli courts, but additionally there is a considerable discrepancy between the latter and what the government does.
Basically, all private Palestinian land should be return to free use by Palestinians, a modest step that would be quite welcome. All outposts that break Israel law should be at the modest minimum abandoned, no protection and no services, security transferred to PA. There is no need for IDF to dismantle these outpost, just stop supporting the scofflaws.
Concerning “price tag” hooliganism, it is true that each society has some share of hooligans. Again, a modest minimal step would be to prosecute all acts of vandalism witnessed by IDF.
Lapid is still Yair Vapid. It is nice to criticize that Mr. A or Mr. B do not address a problem, but without offering a shred of his own program, it is quite hollow. Which for a moment may be politically astute, but only up to a point. I also remember a photo of Lapid in conversation with a settler leader, showing full concern and attention on his handsome face.
Greg Pollock
K9, I stipulated the vanguard settlers–not those in the larger, subsidized, middle class towns, but those burning fields, taking water resources without direct State authorization, pulling the triggers of guns, establishing settlements without prior State authorization, and, let me add, burning mosques (which hardly counts “graffiti.”
.
Many in Israel may be opposed to such things, but the State has never taken clear, consistent, prolonged action to this end. The ideology thereby attaches to the State: for your inspection, incitement to riot in South Tel Aviv; moving Ulpana buildings (!) at high cost, authorizing more housing not too far away, asserting the judiciary system will never be used to prevent settlements.
.
By not arresting and trying the vanguard, you become as they.
.
Decide.
Kolumn9
@Piotr, illegal outposts should be evacuated but the problem with actually implementing this on the ground is that each evacuation becomes a crisis. This is the case regardless of whether the government is left or right. The policy of abandoning the settlers in outposts to their own defenses isn’t one that works for an Israeli government either. The people that set up outposts aren’t going to move and if any of them are killed by Arabs the government will have to answer why it let Jews be killed.
Kolumn9
@Piotr, sorry submitted the post before finishing it. Hooligans are prosecuted, then they do it again. Some people get arrested dozens of times.
.
@Greg, settler violence is heavily overblown. It is actually a relatively uncommon phenomenon, which is why it gets so much attention when it happens. For the issue with unauthorized outposts see above. The same problem applies with dealing with the ‘vanguard’. No Israeli government has an interest in entering into open conflict with this group and its supporters except in the case of an imminent peace deal which is not on the horizon. A couple of houses here and there is one thing, but there is absolutely no silver lining for an Israeli government to go after them systematically. There is no possibility of a peace agreement in the near future so why undermine internal stability?