Synchronized stubbornness

“Steadfast” is the word of the day in Hebrew-language newspapers Tuesday morning, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained how determined he was to bring his case regarding the wrongheadedness of a deal with Iran to the American Congress, and anywhere else that will have him.

Despite the unwavering attitude, papers themselves aren’t sure whether Netanyahu’s stubbornness is the sign of a great world leader or a leader of the village of Chelm.

The timing of Netanyahu’s statement Monday night, coinciding with a press conference halfway around the world where Barack Obama bolstered his position against Netanyahu’s arrival in March, is all the excuse the papers need to portray the controversy as a terse standoff between the two leaders.

Yedioth Ahronoth calls it a “confrontation on live TV” on its front page, despite the fact that the two leaders were not directly speaking to each other, nor were they even on the same channel, let alone the same continent. All the same, the paper notes that Obama “did not hesitate to knock what he presented as Netanyahu’s stubbornness,” and quotes the president’s comment that he also wouldn’t meet with Angela Merkel if she tried to pull the same shtick, which she would not.

Haaretz writes that the crisis between Obama and Netanyahu has worsened, though it offers no proof beyond the fact that both are sticking to their guns on how to deal with Iran, and even quotes each sides’ paean to strong ties between Jerusalem and Washington.

Writing in an analytic capacity, the paper’s Chemi Shalev offers that Netanyahu should actually be happy to see a deal with Iran get pushed through, since that will likely boost him in the polls back home.

“For Netanyahu the politician, a deal that seems imminent as he heads to Washington at the beginning of March would be nothing less than a godsend. Discussion of the merits or demerits of the deal would take center stage, while the details of Netanyahu’s diplomatic misbehavior would fade into the background,” he writes. “More significantly, and probably more importantly from Netanyahu’s point of view … the Israeli media is bound to focus obsessive attention on the emerging deal with Iran throughout the final weeks of the Israeli election campaign. This would undoubtedly work in Netanyahu’s favor: he is, after all, ‘Mr. Iran.’”

Israel Hayom tries to tip the scales by giving major play to support for Netanyahu coming from leading US neoconservatives, who unsurprisingly have been quick to bash Obama over the affair. “The Obama administration is afraid of the style of straight talk and honesty Netanyahu will bring with his speech,” it quotes former Bush apparatchik John Bolton as saying (in a retranslation of his words from Israel Hayom’s Hebrew back into English).

The paper is mostly concerned, though, with Netanyahu’s bashing of competing daily Yedioth, which they hope will put wind behind their own anti-Yedioth campaign that’s been going on since forever.

Seemingly given the proverbial green light via a Facebook message by Netanyahu accusing Yedioth publisher Arnon (Nuni) Mozes of slander, the tabloid, which is seen by many as a Netanyahu mouthpiece, devotes four pages to expose after expose about its competitor’s supposedly obsessive sophistry regarding the prime minister, and by proxy the Israeli right-wing.

“Who are you trying to work over,” Dror Eydar asks in a piece seemingly addressed at Mozes, who is caricatured as a puppet-master. “Look at your news editions and see how you’ve lost all sense of shame. You have claims against Israel Hayom – tell the truth about yourself first. Almost every news or current affairs item is devoted to lowly claims against half the people.”

Haaretz’s Yossi Verter sees the full frontal attack as just another facet of the ongoing election campaigning, accusing Netanyahu of being so deeply ensconced in Israel Hayom owner Sheldon Adelson’s bed that he called the elections just to keep the Knesset from voting through a bill that would outlaw the free paper.

“He turned what has been written and said here not long ago into a kind of analysis or estimation – that the birth of the current elections came with the passing on preliminary reading of the ‘Israel Hayom Law’ on November 12 of last year. The writing is screaming from the wall: Yes, it’s clear that this election is really just a SheldoNuni War,” he writes.

“Until proven otherwise, there’s no escaping the conclusion that in order to save the newspaper of the casino mogul from Las Vegas from the danger of a bill outlawing free papers, Netanyahu dragged the country into unneeded elections.”

Yedioth doesn’t touch that story with a 10-foot pole, instead busying itself with a lowly story about the Prime Minister’s Office disqualifying a number of judges from arts prize committees. The paper reports that two judges set to join the awards panel for the Israel Prize for literature and music were disqualified recently, after Netanyahu’s office took over the Education Ministry from Yesh Atid’s Shai Piron, who was fired from his post in a political shakeup.

Professors Avner Holtzman and Ariel Hershfeld weren’t given any reason for the PMO’s objection, nor was director Haim Sharir, who was told Monday he could not sit on the film prize committee, though the paper surmises the move was political.

“After it became clear that one of the candidates slated to join the committee supported draft refusal, it was decided to check anew the makeup of the committee,” the PMO offers the paper in a statement.

Some on the committee already are mutinying over the decision and asking to be removed, the paper reports, while others are using their mastery of the Hebrew language to register their dismay.

“Anyone who agrees to take part in the alternative panel propped up by the gang in power is an intellectual whore,” the always eloquent poet Meir Wieseltier is quoted as writing on Facebook.

In Haaretz’s op-ed page, Nehemia Shtrasler is fed up with all the small-ball being played by the left against Netanyahu and calls for Zionist Union head Isaac Herzog to land a decisive blow by beating the prime minister at his own game: security.

“The prime minister keeps saying he’s the only one who can protect our security, protect our children and stand up to those who rise up to destroy us. In such a situation, Bibi’s trips abroad, the garden furniture and the bottle deposits pale in importance. Life itself is in the balance here. And it’s on this very point that Herzog is making his biggest mistake. He has left the diplomatic-security stage to Netanyahu and is focusing on socioeconomic issues. As if anyone could be persuaded to vote based on the price of Milky pudding,” he writes. “What’s astounding about Herzog’s strategy is that he has ample opportunity to land a gut punch precisely on that decisive question: Who will better protect our children? But he isn’t throwing the punch.”