Gas on the back burner, Netanyahu on the hot seat

The 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas sitting in prehistoric bedrock beneath the sea in the appropriately named Leviathan field are bigger than any one person in the State of Israel, in terms of potential impact. But as papers report on a landmark High Court ruling striking down a government-brokered deal to extract the gas, the coverage is filtered through one thing: how each of them feels about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Thus you get headlines like Haaretz’s focus on the court statement that the deal “crosses every line of what is permissible in a democracy,” versus Israel Hayom’s, which zeroes in on Netanyahu’s response that the decision will cause “heavy economic damage.” And then there’s the biggest Bibi-basher of them all, populist Yedioth Ahronoth, which makes sure on its front page to gloatingly remind readers of Netanyahu’s statement when pushing through the gas agreement that “when I want something, I get it.”

It is a theme repeated again and again in the paper’s coverage.

“It’s superfluous to mention the amount of time, energy, nerves and political machinations the prime minister put into his attempt to pass the gas outline,” columnist Sima Kadmon writes. “Instead of that, he’ll be forced to deal now with the severe consequences of his stance: firstly, a show of weakness in front of foreign American investors, but also a show of weakness in front of the Israeli political system. Yes, this is the same man who not long ago said on the same subject: In the end I always get what I want.”

Haaretz’s Avi Bar Eli gives a no-nonsense report on the court ruling, which even seems to somewhat downplay its historic importance. After quoting the politicians who blessed or cursed the decision based on their ideological leanings, he also quotes the Leviathan partnership formed to exploit the field, which takes a more sanguine approach than does Netanyahu.

“The court in its decision accepted the entire framework except the stability clause. For this we laud it,” the paper quotes it saying in a statement. “We will work with the government immediately to create stable conditions inside a rapid timetable that will enable us to meet the framework’s goals, first and foremost to develop Leviathan by the end of 2019.”

The partnership’s even-keeled response contrasts sharply with a statement by Noble Energy, the main American partner in the consortium, which late Sunday blasted the decision. And the self-same Bar-Eli, writing as a columnist, predicts the company might not make do with just harsh words but also ask Netanyahu to pony up, as the main points of the deal were confirmed and the only thing struck down was the so-called stability measures that benefit the firm.

“Now, the ball is in Noble’s court. As was explained in these pages months ago, if it wants, Noble can agree to compromise on the immunity from regulatory reforms in exchange for an extra financial package it can demand for developing Leviathan in time. Or if it wants, it can blow up the whole deal,” he writes.

That’s exactly what the folks at Israel Hayom, parroting the government’s stance, fear. The paper’s Hezi Sternlicht offers readers a helpful Q&A in explaining the byzantine decision, though his information is far from objective.

“From a world financial standpoint, this decision is tough, as it will make it difficult for investors and foreign firms to invest in Israeli business,” he writes, in response to a “question” about possible consequences. “The significance is that government decisions are not final and that the justice system can overturn them.”

Doubling up as a columnist, Sternlicht doubles down and then some on his harsh censure of the court for putting the deal on the back burner, in a piece headlined “The money will stay under the sea.”

“This is a tough day, as I see it. A black day for Israeli finances. The economic repercussions will be very expensive. Delaying the development of the gas field for years, and also, and maybe mainly, scaring off much potential investment in Israel, putting a price on this that can’t be known,” he says.

The case of a soldier who has been charged with murder after shooting a wounded and supine Palestinian assailant also continues to make headlines, as the story moves from a military courtroom to the government cabinet, where ministers are squabbling over the incident.

Yedioth plays the story as a battle between Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who backs the army decision to put the soldier on trial, and Education Minister Naftali Bennett, who thinks the infantryman is being sold down the river.

The reporting, though, is basically a play by play of Sunday’s cabinet meeting, as Bennett – promising the family of the soldier he will support him – showed up angry and ready to hijack the conversation.

“The incident in Hebron was not supposed to be on the agenda, but Bennett looked for a chance to bring it up. During a discussion on a law to up penalties on underage stone-throwers, the prime minister said he needed to leave the room. Bennett, fearing he would miss his chance, blurted out ‘Why pass judgment before it’s investigated? You’ve confused good and bad. I praise the law but it’s not enough. We are in a battle against murderous Palestinian terror.’”

The paper reports Ya’alon was absent from the meeting, but notes that later Sunday, the defense chief accused “irresponsible ministers of managing an unprecedented campaign of incitement against the army.”

In Haaretz, columnist Yossi Verter writes that Bennett is actually somewhat right about the government rushing to judgment too early, but notes that given the way the case looks around the world, the army and political leadership had to respond the way they did. By continuing to harp on it, though, he says the education minister is putting Netanyahu in an impossible spot.

“If we are to use a phrase from the battle terminology so favored by Education Minister Naftali Bennett, what he did Sunday to the prime minister was to fire a (political) bullet at him right between the eyes. Despite the discomfort of using this metaphor under the circumstances, there’s no other way to describe the dispute between them at the cabinet meeting,” he writes. “There was no way Netanyahu could come out ahead in Sunday’s argument. The narrative had turned emotional, not legal or moral.”