Senior opposition MK comes out against former intel chiefs for ‘undermining’ Israeli threat on Iran

Forget the fine promises we heard from Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz. Dismiss their repeated talk about a unity partnership forged to serve the national interest.

If Labor’s Isaac Herzog is right, the new Likud-Kadima coalition alliance, which has all the votes it needs to push through widely supported laws on electoral reform and mandatory service for the ultra-Orthodox, will fail to do either.

And why is that? Because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lacks “the guts” — lacks the stomach to force through electoral reform or to endorse a “dramatic solution” on military service that might push aggrieved ultra-Orthodox parties out of his coalition.

Well, Herzog would say that, wouldn’t he? Labor’s in the opposition. Its leaders are supposed to routinely castigate the government for ostensible duplicity, cowardice and all-round ineptitude.

Except that Herzog isn’t unremittingly critical and castigatory of the nation’s leadership. He chooses not to pile on further specific criticism of Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak over their handling of the Iranian nuclear crisis, and takes carefully worded issue with ex-security chiefs Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin for undermining the “clear Israeli line to the world that says if you don’t deal with this, we will have to.”

Still, he does accuse both the prime minister and his own former party leader Barak — who bolted Labor and formed a new faction, Atzmaut, in order to stay in the coalition last year — of being “prone to negligence” and of ignoring “black holes,” flaws which can later “cause mishaps.”

Those sound like devastating deficiencies, but having identified them, and thus provoked some concern from his interviewer, Herzog quickly provides reassurance. Don’t be too worried, he advises. Ultimately, the debate is healthy. Ultimately, everything will “balance” out.

That’s the Herzog way, it seems. An earnest, well-liked, hard-working politician, he is by nature and nurture a conciliator rather than a bruiser or a populist. The lawyer son of Israel’s sixth president (Chaim Herzog) and the grandson of modern Israel’s first chief rabbi (Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog), how could he be otherwise?

But behind the refinement and the youthful features that belie his 51 years, there is passion too — reserved especially in this interview for Israelis most unlike him, Israelis whose cause he championed for almost two years as minister of social welfare: Israelis who aren’t paid enough to provide for their families, who don’t have the funds to ensure their children get a good education or to look serenely forward to retirement, Israelis without good health care, Israelis who can’t be sure of the roof over their heads.

Their demands are not being properly addressed by the government, he says. But they must be. “One hundred years after the Bolshevik revolution, there is a demand around the world, and here, for a redistribution of wealth — but democratically,” he argues. And these are causes, he says, that are in “Labor’s DNA.”

Herzog spoke to The Times of Israel in his Knesset office before the Shavuot holiday. Excerpts:

How is Labor doing, now that early elections have been cancelled and Labor’s the main opposition party?

Isaac Herzog: The Labor party is showing resilience; it is strengthening. It’s a long process. When we left the government (a year and a half ago) we were in a shambles. Then we had leadership elections. We rehabilitated the party’s constitution. Shelly Yachimovich was elected. I immediately offered my cooperation.

She has gained incredible resonance with the public, who would like to insist on social justice. It’s amazing. Young people. Blue collar. Things we haven’t seen for years. Part of our challenge is to maintain the Labor old guard, the mainstream, who want to make sure that Labor sticks to its principles on the two-state solution, the economy.

Shelly is right to my mind to put her focus on social justice. She has a huge lead on social issues. Whenever the focus is on war and peace, and Iran, Netanyahu has a huge lead. And that’s the reason the game is played in this way.

I think Kadima might have disappeared had we held elections in September.

I agree.

And that we’re back on the path to two-party politics.

Yes. Just the other day, Adi Eldar, the mayor of Karmiel, announced his return from Kadima to Labor. He left Labor to join Kadima with Shimon Peres. Today he renewed his Labor membership.

But what do we do with the Yair Lapid phenomenon? When you speak of a center-left bloc or a return to the two-party system, can we encompass Lapid and his people as part of our camp? In many ways I believe we can come to amicable solutions. But it’s premature. It will be decided slowly and surely by the public later on. To my mind, Labor will strengthen and Lapid will weaken.

Who in Labor can bolster your credibility on security issues?

We are looking to add top military/security experts. We presented a bill to shorten the period for which major security personnel have to wait before entering politics from three years to one year. We failed. We were pleased to see (former IDF intelligence chief) Amos Yadlin open our recent ideological conference. He came as an expert but it was quite a big (achievement) for us that he came and lectured.

Labor has lots of high quality people. When it comes to foreign affairs, we have top people. Our flag was always defense, security and peace. We shrank because this agenda did not appeal to people who had lost faith in the (peace) process. What does appeal is the true, lucid, clear ideology of social democracy that Shelly represents.

Do you think the Netanyahu-Barak duo is exaggerating the urgency on Iran? Are they not qualified to lead the country, as Yuval Diskin says?

Iran is a serious, grave issue. This is the most grave issue in the international agenda. I did not like to hear what Dagan and Diskin have had to say; it counters a clear Israeli line to the world that says if you don’t deal with this, we will have to. It’s vital that the world understands  that this is for real, that Israel really has this option.

At the same time, Diskin and Dagan are serious people who were speaking from the heart. I’m sure their concern is real. That raises a question mark.

What motivated them, I believe, stems from a feeling among some of the generation who fought in the Yom Kippur War, who saw that their commanders were subsequently so sorry that they hadn’t raised the alarm before that fiasco. That still resonates. There are reserve generals still living with that trauma: Why did we not speak out? So now people speak out.

The correct approach, I believe, is the one followed by Yadlin, who said, Let’s keep the emotions out of this. We need to check the objective parameters: Is such an action (a military strike) worthwhile. Is it possible? What’s the exit strategy? What would happen afterwards?

In my opinion, personally, this is a last resort option. And now we have to stop talking and let the international community try to handle this complex, sensitive, difficult process.

I know there is concern and a lack of faith that even if the international community does reach an agreement with the Iranians, the Iranians will dissemble and cheat. They will take you for a ride. It’s a freebie, says the prime minister. So you have to build an agreement that deals with this fear. There need to be clear guarantees. And the international community will have to give the Iranians some kind of face-saving mechanism too.

Diskin’s criticism was personal. You’ve worked with Barak…

Yes, but Diskin said it is legitimate to attack Iran. It is an entirely legitimate alternative, he said.

But he spoke of (Netanyahu and Barak) as messianistic?

Diskin and Dagan both saw things that worried them. There are things that worry them. I just don’t think it’s right for them to emphasize that, at this time of all times, when Israel’s military option is prompting positive moves in the international arena.

Diskin and Dagan are motivated by the same concern: They want to sound the alarm so that there will not be a catastrophic error.

You sat in the security cabinet. You worked for years with Barak (including as his cabinet secretary when Barak was prime minister from 1999-2001)…

I want to be careful. I don’t want to mess anything up, particularly in these critical days.

I’m in the opposition. And I have lots of criticisms of Barak and of Netanyahu. On not a few occasions, they have a sort of negligence. In their vista, they ignore black holes. And that can later cause mishaps.

I’m not talking about ‘messianists.’ Not at all. But they are prone to negligence. So it’s very good that clear warnings are being issued on this issue too.

That’s very worrying.

Not very worrying. With the public debate, with the public argument, with the positions presented by security officials and other factors, everything balances around the table. At the same time, it’s good that there’s an opposition that issues warnings, it’s good that we talk about what concerns us. That’s the way it is in Israel.

What needs to be urgently fixed in the socio-economic fields?

Some of the important corrections are the most complex. The social gaps are unbelievable. Don’t say it’s only the Arab and ultra-Orthodox sectors that are lagging behind. There is a 20 percent poverty rate in all sectors. The system seems incapable of introducing new ideas and tools. The Trajtenberg Committee dealt with a demand that came from the protest camp; a genuine protest, that will also be felt in the next elections. But the protest emerged from the middle class. Weaker citizens, about to fall into the poverty trap, were unable to capture anyone’s attention.

As the minister of social welfare at the end of 2010, I can tell you there were four debates (on inequalities and socio-economic issues) in the Knesset, and the hall was empty. Not a single Likud member was present.

The moment that the economic pressures started burning the feet of the middle classes, the issue exploded. As with all revolutions, it is the middle class that set the pace.

One hundred years after the Bolshevik revolution there is a demand around the world, and here, for a redistribution of wealth — but democratically. It can be done via taxation changes; via mechanisms that regulate pay in the public sector; via regulation of the tycoons; via agreements on minimum wage, via work agreements.

The fact is that on one night last summer, 5 percent of Israel’s citizens gathered in a single square in Tel Aviv, without violence, and that issue remains very resonant with the public.

What has been offered as a solution? Free education for ages 3-4, which is very important but very problematic. What’s really needed is a much wider arrangement on labor relations. There needs to be far greater fairness in the allocation of Israel’s capital and resources. This has not been addressed. There are concerns about inheritance tax; collective agreements; capital gains taxes. These issues always come up. They need to be part of a wider resolution so that we enable people to live reasonably, with a reasonable salary, and to save for their children’s education and for old age, and to have a roof over their head, and good health care.

These are Labor’s issues. They are in our party’s DNA. Kadima did not have an agenda on these issues, or on the security issues, and that’s why it collapsed.

Do you believe this enlarged coalition will reach a solution on mandatory military/national service?

I don’t believe for a second that they will be able to reach an agreed solution with all the current coalition members. If they cook up an empty solution, everyone will be disappointed. If they draw up a dramatic solution, they’ll lose half the coalition and I don’t believe Netanyahu has the guts to do that.

And they won’t complete electoral reform for the same reason. They won’t succeed in an electoral year.

We actually presented a reasonable solution. Our party is not about hatred for others. We recognize the importance of Torah study; it has national value; it sustained us from generation to generation. At the same time, we certainly value the imperative to share the burden fairly.

I’ve dealt with this all my life. I sat on the Tal Committee (whose law on ultra-Orthodox service was struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year as unconstitutional, requiring new legislation). And I believe that the ultra-Orthodox community is undergoing a dramatic evolution, and we need to help ensure it reaches a successful conclusion and find a viable middle ground. We recommend the Ben-Gurion formula.

Which was?

At the establishment of the state, Ben-Gurion exempted 400 yeshiva students from military service out of a Jewish population of 600,000. Today, there are 6 million Jews in this country. Let’s reach a situation where half of the annual intake — 4,000 — are initially exempted from service. Today, about 25% of the intake are drafted. It’s possible to  reach 4,000 exemptions. To set a quota.

At the moment it’s 2,000 of the annual 8,000 potential annual recruits from the ultra-Orthodox community who serve?

About 1,700. We can raise that to 4,000.

I want to remind everybody that it wasn’t Ben-Gurion who agreed blanket exemptions for yeshiva students. It was Menachem Begin. He cancelled the quota, when he established his government.

So, until ’77…

There was a quota. It started at approximately 400, and went up a little every year. Begin gave (Agudat Yisrael) everything. He cancelled the quota and created a situation where an entire generation entered a ghetto; a virtual ghetto. They weren’t able to go to work and they weren’t able to do national service.

So, until ’77 there were thousands (of ultra-Orthodox young men) who served in the army?

Of course. Even the offspring of Knesset members who I knew from Agudat Yisrael, they were drafted. Granted, some for shortened service or to the military rabbinate. But they all served. Everyone served. Do you understand?

In the end, there will be no alternative but to fix this.

In ’98 when the campaign (for the ultra-Orthodox to serve) started and there was a petition to the Supreme Court, the demand was for the draft for all. Today, they’re already saying the draft or national civil service for everyone. The idea of civil service is the bridge via which lots of people can come to serve the community as their contribution to the state, including among the Arab public.

But you don’t see this coalition making substantive headway on this?

It’s hard to believe. Even Yair Lapid made an absurd suggestion. His idea would essentially grant an exemption to everyone. An entire generation would be completely exempt, and after that nobody would be drafted (from the ultra-Orthodox community). This is also utterly contradictory to the Supreme Court’s rulings.

Again, you don’t think this coalition, despite all the promises, will do anything?

There is no possibility. They couldn’t.

If Shas and the Aguda…

United Torah Judaism has a problem…

So what, if you’re the prime minister…

If he had the guts. But if he had the guts, he would have gone to elections and formed a coalition, a secular coalition. It was all there: with us, Kadima and [the Likud].

What does he have now? He’s stuck with Liberman and he’s also stuck with Shas. The two of them are going to tear him apart. I know them. They will threaten him. It’s a fact.

Tell me, finally, how you think the government is going to get around the Supreme Court decision on Givat Ulpana?

There’s a lot of hypocrisy on this issue. The assertion that this wouldn’t happen in Tel Aviv, for a start, is untrue. In Tel Aviv they would evacuate the building and destroy it within seconds. Drive down the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway: At Ein Hemed, you see, like sculptures, 10 empty houses that were evacuated. In Ein Hemed! They were built illegally. They had been sold to people. Unknowing, innocent people, just as (at Ulpana).

And therefore in terms of Ulpana, the law must be upheld. We are opposed to a law that would bypass the Supreme Court decision (that requires the demolition of the five illegal Ulpana buildings). All of the tricks and shticks are out of place.

The government should have come to the affected families and said, just like with Migron, we will build you a new neighborhood. Find yourselves temporary housing for half a year or a year and move there. No one wants to see people turned out of their homes. But what can you do? The law is the law.

And how do you believe Netanyahu will ultimately resolve this?

I don’t know. The government ostensibly opposes legislation to bypass the Supreme Court on this issue, but I don’t know if they’re not up to something behind the scenes.