Sitting on the fence

It has been a day since Labor leadership candidates Amir Peretz and Avi Gabbay advanced to the final round of voting, and everyone is waiting to hear which of the two will be endorsed by ousted chairman Isaac Herzog. In order to describe Herzog’s state, a similar metaphor pops up across all the Hebrew-language papers: He’s sitting astride the fence, one foot on either side, unable or unwilling to decide where to land.

In Yedioth Aharonoth, veteran contributor Sima Kadmon advises Herzog to avoid backing either Gabbay or Peretz. “Take a step back,” Kadmon implores him. “Sit quietly.” She explains that neither Herzog himself, nor the party in general, have anything to gain by him endorsing any particular candidate. “No one will see this as a weakness; on the contrary,” Kadmon continues. “Now is the time for Labor to make amends, not bring about more strife in the ranks of the party.”

Haaretz also makes use of the oh-so-Israeli sitting on the fence metaphor, and applies it not only to Herzog but to other prominent figures in the Labor party as well. The left-wing paper’s editorial celebrates the “democratic awakening” displayed by Labor, and commends the party for its ability to learn from past mistakes and move forward.

“[Labor proved that it] has the power to rejuvenate, and it is able to safeguard its dynamic and ebullient democratic mechanism,” the paper writes. The editor goes on to list Herzog’s blunders, focusing on his efforts, time and time again, to join Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, for the sake of advancing a peace deal with the Palestinians.

“Herzog believed in the possibility of making a difference from the inside and in the possibility that Labor’s mere presence in the coalition may help in blocking the country’s deterioration,” the editor writes. “But] the members of the Labor Party rejected this line of thinking… It is clear from their choice that they do not believe in Netanyahu’s honesty, and that Herzog acted like a political amateur by attempting to join forces with the prime minister.” Finally, the piece goes into what some would call wishful thinking mode, and muses about the possibility of a government led by Labor: “If the Meretz party and Labor will show fresh thinking, cease to be sectarian parties, are driven by democratic purpose in their message and internal structure — they will be the key to changing the political map in Israel.”

The pro-establishment Israel Hayom is short on opinion pieces, but does feature an interview with deputy Russian ambassador to Israel Alexi Drobinin, who comments on the state of relations between the two countries, especially in light of Russia’s backing of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Right off the bat, reporter Na’ama Lanski stresses that while Russia’s allegiance to Iran and Syria is not up for debate, Moscow’s commitment to Israel, on the other hand, is far less clear. Nevertheless, Drobinin makes sure to state that with regard to the fight against global terrorism, Israel and Russia are on the same side.

At the same time, however, the Russian deputy ambassador denies that the Syrian regime ever used chemical weapons during the country’s ongoing, bloody civil war, and attributes the use of unconventional arms to rebel factions fighting the government. And, just in case you were wondering or expecting a different answer, Drobinin stresses that he is unaware of any Russian involvement in the American presidential elections last year. “The political system in the US is obsessed every night and every day with a story that has no basis in fact,” Drobinin says.

Back in Haaretz, columnist Uri Misgav discusses the ongoing feud in the Israeli public over what some believe to be an increase in Jewish religious teachings at public schools throughout the country, and the response to the controversy by secular and religious politicians. Misgav takes aim at Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, calling him a “secular suck-up” after Lapid indicated that the controversy over religion at schools was simply a scare tactic devised by groups with particular interests. Lapid, who was once a poster child for Israeli secularism, has recently been situating himself as a bridgehead between the Orthodox and non-observant Jews of Israel.

Misgav notes that Lapid has in the past jumped on the bandwagon of causes that were popular and later changed his mind. Misgav implores voters not to forget this in future elections, and attacks Lapid for misrepresenting secularism in Israel, as the Yesh Atid leader sometimes utters statements which may be interpreted as equating disinterest in religion with ignorance, or dismissive of core secular and democratic values. “Secularism can’t be defined by weakness and dismissiveness,” Misgav concludes.