‘Sorry’ state of affairs

It was in ancient Greece that Plato first published “The Apology,” an account of philosopher Socrates’ defense of himself against charges of believing in foreign gods and corrupting youth. Over 2,000 years later, Israel has its own Apology, this time coming from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who expressed remorse Tuesday over remarks he made during Election Day decrying a high Arab voter turnout.

Or did he?

While Socrates’ apology left the world with the famous quote that “an unexamined life is not worth living,” (and he got the death sentence for his troubles), Netanyahu’s version inspires the press to realize that an unexamined statement is not worth giving coverage to. A media scrum ensues with writers squabbling over what he said, what he meant, how sincere he was and whether we are all just shackled inside a cave and only think we heard an apology.

All three papers lead off with Netanyahu’s statement, made to a group of Arab community representatives in Jerusalem on Monday in a rare show of contrition. Yedioth Ahronoth answers the mystery of who was at the meeting, excitedly clapping and hugging Netanyahu in a seeming sign that had all had been forgiven, while in actuality the apology was swiftly rejected by Arab lawmakers.

“The community was represented by regional council heads, representatives from Arab towns and religious figures. Included in the group was the head of the Beit Jann city council Biyan Kabalan, and Mayor Younis Marii and the priest Gabriel Naddaf from Nazareth,” the paper reports, adding that they asked Netanyahu to include an Arab minister in his new government, something the prime minister said he will consider.

Haaretz reports that the meeting was organized by Likud MK Ayoub Kara, an Arab himself, and notes that Marii was likely the only Palestinian Arab there, the rest made up of Druze, Bedouin and Circassian leaders.

At least half the representatives there hailed from the Likud party, the paper notes, with one source saying nearly all of them were card-carrying Likudniks.

Israel Hayom makes little mention of who was at the meeting, but reports that “it seems that the wider target audience was not impressed with the comments, at least for now,” referring to the Arab community.

Yedioth’s Nahum Barnea posits that the actual audience was not the Arab community that Netanyahu so offended, but the Obama administration which did little to hide its unholy fury at the comments and others made by the Likud leader, as well as the American Jewish community, which has been similarly riven by Israeli electoral brawling.

“Just like with the affair of the Palestinian state, also with Arab Israelis Netanyahu is attempting to quickly flip-flop backwards. The incitement did its work, and so the incitement can go, until it’s needed again,” he writes.

In Haaretz, Barak Ravid agrees that the US was the real catalyst for Netanyahu’s atonement, but says his attempt didn’t even add up to an apology.

“Netanyahu read out a type of apology, although the word ‘apologize’ was not used,” he writes. “He didn’t apologize for the outrageous statements he made on Election Day, but merely expressed regret for the fact that his words had insulted Israeli Arabs. Immediately afterward he began praising himself for the investments he had made in the minority sector. The contrast between the unrestrained campaign on Election Day and the forced, weak apology a week later was quite upsetting. It was like publishing a one-column-inch apology on the obituary page for deliberately libeling a person on Page 1. It left a sour impression of wanting to get away with the minimum necessary.”

Israel Hayom’s Boaz Bismuth, as is his wont, comes to Netanyahu’s defense, putting the onus on the Arab community for being offended by what he says were words “that came from legitimate political considerations and not racism.”

Writing that “The White House has crossed every line,” words which were then plastered as the paper’s front page headline for some reason, Bismuth then asks what more everybody wants from Netanyahu now that he’s walked back his controversial statement. He focuses his anger both on Washington and on the Arab lawmakers who said no thanks to the apology.

“The head of the Joint List, Ayman Odeh – the level-headed, so they say – was quick to reject the apology,” he writes. “What exactly does he expect from Netanyahu? To reject, maybe, the choice of the voters? To give his 30 seats to [Odeh]? Or maybe Likud itself should join the joint unity headed by Odeh?”

Musical ministries

While none of those suggestions are at all realistic, there are a number of parties that will have the power to make demands of Netanyahu and his party as coalition talks gather steam, after 67 Knesset members official endorsed the prime minister to remain prime minister, handing him the keys to form a government, though President Reuven Rivlin won’t formally announce the move until Wednesday.

Yedioth reports that Likud is troubled by the fact that Netanyahu is suppressing his inner Oprah and does not plan on handing out a fancy prime ministerial post in the new government to everyone in the Likud faction. 

“We have a lot of seats, but the law lets us appoint only 18 ministers, so there are only a few open posts in Likud,” one source tells the paper.

Another apparatchik whines that “Netanyahu is not clearing the fog and is keeping silent. He needs to assure us that senior positions will remain in our hands. So far, it seems only one of the three senior posts, defense, will stay in the Likud – and that’s on a good day.”

It’s not only sweetheart ministerial posts everyone is after. Haaretz writes that Likud and Jewish Home already pow-wowed Monday about pushing forward the nation-state bill, a controversial measure that could shift Israel’s balance from democratic to Jewish and which both nationalist parties are itching to get enshrined.

The paper gives few details, but notes that Jewish Home head Naftali Bennett also presented his party’s so-called NGO bill, which would penalize left-wing groups and has been decried as an unconstitutional attack on free speech, as a prerequisite for his entrance into the coalition.

One man who has a lot to say about free speech of anyone but those who disagree with him is Israel Hayom’s Haim Shine.

The commentator continues his daily lessons on the role of the press, this time writing that leftists, with rival Yedioth as pinko No. 1, should get a medal for hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness for their front page headline Monday brazenly calling for an end to racism. Because apparently Israel Hayom is the only one allowed to be sanctimonious in headlines (see today’s front page for reference)

“Israel has never had an election season so rife with incitement from morning until evening; and then suddenly from its defeat Yedioth comes out with a headline ‘enough racism,’” he writes. “I don’t know where they get the bull-headed nerve to rejoice openly as if they won the election, to dance on the respect of Israeli Arabs and with repulsive cynicism to use them for their depressing journey and failure.”