Bibi’s big decision

Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove

Guest

Shalom Lipner

Shalom Lipner spent 26 years as an adviser in the Israeli Prime Minister's office and served under seven Prime Ministers, including Netanyahu.

Episode Summary

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu’s place in history is now secure. He may not always be the longest-serving PM, but he will always be the first sitting PM to be indicted on criminal charges. It’s those corruption charges that many of his critics are saying are the motivation for his new judicial reforms - which aim to limit the power and independence of the Supreme Court, and make it harder for a Prime Minister to be ruled unfit for office. While Netanyahu may be motivated by self-preservation, it is also a bit more complicated than that - he also has to keep together a fragile coalition of the most right-wing, religious, and nationalist governments in Israel’s history, with partners who have their own reasons for disempowering the judiciary. Netanyahu may have postponed pushing through the controversial legislation - but the debate will return later this month. One Decision speaks to Shalom Lipner, who spent 26 years as an adviser in the PM’s office. He’s served under seven Prime Ministers including Netanyahu.

Listen & Subscribe

• Watch on YouTube
• Listen on Apple Podcasts
• Listen on Spotify

Transcript

INTRODUCTION

Mcfarlane: You're listening to One Decision, the podcast that looks at the choices made that affect us all. I'm your host, Julia McFarlane. In December, longtime Israeli strongman Benjamin Netanyahu was sworn in for his sixth term in office, not served consecutively. After a spell in opposition, he returned to office and the role that he has occupied for more than fifteen years, the longest of any Israeli leader. But some things are now different. He's been indicted on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, and his government is comprised of the most right wing religious nationalist parties in Israel's history. For months now, Israelis have been out on the streets calling for his downfall. Angry protesters describe him as a tyrant, a dictator, a criminal. What has angered the Israeli populace now more than at any time in recent years is Netanyahu's bid to reform the judiciary. New legislation that would give parliament and Netanyahu's allies in government more control over which judges get appointed, what the supreme court is able to rule on, and even power to override its decisions. It's the biggest shakeup of the judiciary since the founding of Israel in 1948. And now we're seeing something close to mutiny across Israeli society. Trade unions, universities, even government employees were threatening a general strike to paralyze the economy. Reservists in the army said they would not attend to their duties. Ministers in Netanyahu's cabinet even spoke out against his bid to push through the legislation early. As Israel prepares to celebrate the holy Passover, Netanyahu has been biding his time. He postponed the controversial legislation and has engaged in talks with the opposition. The reforms will return to the Knesset when it is back in session in a few weeks' time. The protesters, meanwhile, have continued to gather in force on the streets. They vow they will not stop until the reforms are withdrawn. They say they are fighting for the future of Israel and for its democracy. Netanyahu has a choice before him, to choose what is clearly being expressed as the will of the people of Israel and its allies, or to choose his position in government, the will of his coalition members not to back down. Someone who's been at his side through many of his decisions is Shalom Lipner. He's been an adviser in the prime minister's office of Israel for more than two decades, advising seven prime ministers on matters related to foreign policy, public diplomacy, and Jewish affairs. He sat down with us to discuss this fraught moment in Israel's history and what brought us here.

INTERVIEW WITH SHALOM LIPNER

Lipner: Well, I mean, it certainly does feel like the perfect storm. You know, this isn't the only time that there have been bumps in the road. It's a body politic that is vibrant, as they like to say. And not everything has always been smooth. Think, though, you've got protests, which would seem to have expanded beyond the reach of anything we've seen before. Have an international dynamic that is so wholly polarized. So, we've seen a lot of different elements of this, again, think akin to the legislation itself, which a lot of people have said could pass if it was a little more modest, but seems sort of overkill and coming. I've compared it, I've called it everything everywhere all at once. Just got all these different things on the table at the same time. It seems to be some sort of legislative feeding frenzy. So I think similarly, that's how we've seen this whole debate play out. I mean, you've got all kinds of different stakeholders with overlapping but not identical objectives. So you have a lot of things in conflict domestically, internationally, and that's kind of unique for its intensity.

Mcfarlane: You mentioned that there are different goals and different sort of forces driving the legislation. Abroad, it's been very much sort of characterized, if not explicitly stated, as Netanyahu himself trying to neuter the Supreme Court in the context of the corruption charges that he's facing. And if you read a bit more into it, there are religious parties in his coalition who want to limit the power of the supreme court for a number of reasons, particularly because those people say that the supreme court has gotten in the way of legislation that they see as favorable to their own minorities. And so do you think the picture that is being reported overseas is accurate? Is it mostly Netanyahu who is driving this for his own personal political survival, given that he's facing these corruption charges? Or is it also his religious coalition partners who have just as much at stake in the so called reforms as he does.

Lipner: Yeah. No. Unquestionably, I agree with your characterization. I think that it's simplistic to suggest this is just about him. You know, he obviously has what to gain from this personally, shall we say, but his fellow travelers have parallel agendas per se. And in fact, I think from the formation of this government, I mean, it seems to have borne itself out that he has been riding a tiger in that respect because they are very hungry for some of the reasons which you stated. It extends as well to his ultra orthodox partners as well, which would like some of this legislation to be able to legislate the override in parliament to not allow the court to step in if they're able to pass a draft exemption. So you've got, again, we talked about earlier, I think you've got a lot of different constituencies that are focused on different outcomes here. If we are talking about the Prime Minister's personal situation, that conceivably he could settle for less, shall we say. He doesn't necessarily need all the components that some of the other partners have put into play to satisfy his objectives, if that's all that he's focused on. But the extent that he perceives his role, whether it's just confined to I need to be in that chair because I'm hoping that I can leverage the position into some sort of get out of jail free card, or even if it's something more grandiose in terms of how he's conditioned the public to believe that nobody else is up to the task after him having sat in the chair pretty much for the past fifteen years consecutively, whether he sees it as being up to the challenges that are ahead of us and for that reason, he needs to hold on to this position. The price of that survival and that position has been acquiescence to the demands of the partners, even on this particular issue. So, as I said, he might be able to settle for less on that particular goal, but to the extent that the larger requires him to remain in that position, he's had to sort of pay his due as well to the things that they want. And we've seen the position we're at until now, it had been reported anyway that the justice minister, for instance, suggested that he would tender his resignation if the legislation was halted, which would have put the coalition in jeopardy and obviously had a deterrent effect on the prime minister. At the stage we're at now, I think that he was clearly able to convince those that were resistant that I'm committed to moving ahead with this. I'm agreeing to a temporary pause. People have spoken in favor of dialogue, and I'm offering that right now. But I haven't derailed that train, so please stay on for the ride. In the case of his national security minister in charge of the police, he's agreed to establish and fund a private security force under his—

Mcfarlane: This is Ben Gvir? Correct.

Lipner: So those seem to be the immediate prices paid at this stage of the game to keep everybody on board with ultimately all bets being off at this point for where we'll be a month from now. The parties are in dialogue right now. People are very skeptical of the chances for success in that conversation. Virtually no trust between the parties there.

Mcfarlane: There was a lot of heated rhetoric between Washington and Jerusalem at the prime minister's office last week. Biden said that he hoped Netanyahu would walk away from this legislation. He went as far as saying, I'm very concerned they cannot continue down this road. I mean, that's quite unprecedented criticism from The US really. They try not to get involved in Israeli domestic affairs, and they certainly don't like telling the Israelis what to do. And then Netanyahu issued his own statement in response to that in the middle of the night, after midnight Israeli time, I believe, saying he rejected foreign pressure, saying Israel is a sovereign country which makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends, adding that he's known Biden for over forty years and appreciates his long standing commitment to Israel. What is at stake here? Is The US Israeli partnership potentially in jeopardy if this legislation goes ahead? How worried are you about not only how this whole crisis is playing out, but also how it's playing out in Washington.

Lipner: I preface by saying when we talked about the unprecedented nature, I think what's maybe sort of upgraded this moment, I guess, is that this criticism is public. In other words, there have always been an exchange of views. Think for the most part, things like this have stayed behind closed doors and maybe were somewhere else or somewhere different today. I don't think it's just been rhetorical over the years that people have said the relationship is stronger than any two leaders. We see the cooperation continuing. It's clearly strengthened by the fact that leaders are in sync, but it really is grounded in these shared values and shared interests, some of which are changing, at least morphing. And I think that's the larger issue. What we see now is maybe symptomatic of that. President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu do know each other for many years. President Biden is a long standing friend of Israel. He talks about how he himself is a Zionist. I mean, he's been very clear about that. But we all saw the Gallup poll last week, talked about record lows of democratic, capital V, support for Israel. There are all kinds of reasons we talk about an occasion for that. People are concerned about that. So I mean, it's more a question of trend lines. This is not a good moment. This will not be sending good signals. Both American society and Israeli society are becoming increasingly polarized. So it's a tense moment. I don't think the problems necessarily started overnight. I don't think we're going to be in a terrible reality tomorrow. And as far as the Prime Minister's statement, there's always a tendency in those camps to sort of blow back and say, well, Israel is a sovereign, independent state. It can do whatever it wants. And my argument is, that's true. At the end of the day, that is true. But actions have consequences. So my response to the Prime Minister to the extent that he wants it now would be that, that's true. You're fully within your rights. But I mean, you cannot guarantee that The United States will be on board with all those changes. We've seen the effect that this has had, a corrosive effect, I would argue, on the relationship between Israel and the American Jewish community. People who historically, the State Of Israel has relied upon them for sort of support and to speak on behalf of the bilateral relationship.

Mcfarlane: You worked in the prime minister's office for, I hope you don't mind me saying, a great many years. Twenty six years, I believe. You have worked under Netanyahu. You know him personally. This is his sixth term in office, I believe, that he was sworn in last December. What do you make of Netanyahu six point o? Is he behaving authoritarian?

Lipner: It's hard. I mean, I would argue not in this sense. People say, is he really in charge? Right? It's an interesting question. I mean, he's in charge. On the other hand, remaining in charge requires these accommodations he's made with others. If those things were not to happen, he would no longer be able to remain in charge because they would bolt. Right? So part of this tug of war, what do I have to be able—how much ground do I have to cede in order to stay in charge in that respect? So I mean, it's not some sort of a—I don't think we can look at this as some sort of a personal on an individual level because obviously, whether it's he has to be responsive to the needs of his coalition partners to keep them on board. And again, in the pause that we're in right now, we also see ultimately, he had to be responsible for the pressures coming from the street and the international community without which I don't think we'd have the pause we have now. So limited authoritarianism at best.

Mcfarlane: You briefly mentioned the ultra orthodox and something very interesting that has stayed with me for a long time. I don't know if you ever came across Paul Danahar when you were in government, who was the former BBC Jerusalem bureau chief. He wrote a book on The Middle East a few years ago, and it was at one of these talks that he was doing promoting that book where he mentioned something very interesting about Israeli society and largely liberal. Why is it they never come out in support for Palestinian rights? And he said that one of the big sort of misunderstandings overseas is that in Israeli society, a lot of Israelis despise the ultra orthodox way more than they despise the Palestinians. For them, that is the real issue. The issue with the ultra orthodox because they see them as having a much easier time. They're exempt from serving in the military. They get all kinds of benefits. And there's a lot of resentment felt by taxpaying Israeli citizens. What do you make of that assessment, and do you think this is playing into the protests that are coming out in force?

Lipner: It's been fascinating to watch this unfold. Scary, but fascinating. I don't think there's any question that this current situation has unleashed a lot of genies who were maybe dormant for a while. A lot of this goes back seventy five years to the creation of the state. I wrote recently that essentially a lot of accommodations were made at the beginning to make sure that statehood could take root. And a lot of disputes were sort of brushed under the rug and we'll deal with them at a later point. And now that many of the sort of bars to public conflict, shall we call it, have been broken, a lot of things are coming out. That is certainly one of them. That is the axis along which this battle is being sought now. I don't think it's coincidental that the ultra orthodox politicians have tried to be constructive and lower their head, have tried to say, this isn't our fight. But that's certainly another fault line that is evident in these protests. I mean, we've seen haves and have nots, religious and secular, and conservative. I think a lot of these sort of fissures are coming into play in these conversations. This is very much an inside the family fight as you indicated. You see some blowback, there's always a subtext conversation of when were the Arab citizens of Israel in these protests also, are they in favor of this government? Why aren't they in the streets? And they too don't want this to become necessarily about them. And in fact, the conversation is not, as you say along these lines, it's not entirely about them as well. Like, it would sort of divert the focus and none of these people want to say like, we want to become the center of attention right now. So in a sense, some things have become peripheral to this argument, and the others have just become like a very rowdy family dinner. The food is flying in all directions, and that is certainly one of the things on the table. That's been Israeli politics. Isn't it just?

ANALYSIS WITH SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE

Mcfarlane: Shalom Lipner speaking to us earlier this week. And now time for me to bring in my co host, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of MI6, for his thoughts on Israel's current crisis. Shalom Lipner has obviously spent a very long time, three quarters of my life advising Israeli prime ministers. And while it might seem like Netanyahu could possibly do with a lot of advice right now, it does seem like he might be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Dearlove: Yeah. I mean, I agree with you that he's in a difficult position, and of course his reputation is as a political magician who waves his magic wand and maneuvers himself out. And he has a specific reputation for being able to do that. But I think I would go back to something more basic and say that he's the prisoner of proportional representation. I mean, what's happened in Israel, in particular with this government, is he's dependent on the majority, which includes some very extremist views. And I think this is one of the liabilities with proportional representation, is that you have these really hardline extreme parties that don't really represent popular views, they're highly sectional, they get brought into a coalition and then they force the coalition to look in the direction of very hard line policies, which do not have popular support or popular backing. So I think Netanyahu in this instance is in a really, really difficult position, because if he backs out, he risks losing his majority and there being yet another election in Israel. I mean, I'm not an expert on Israeli politics, but I've been to Israel a number of times and certainly sort of mixed with Israeli politicians. And, I mean, it is the most extraordinarily rumbustious democracy. I mean, the intensity of political debate, whether you're sitting around the dining room table or whether you're actually in a clear political environment—I suppose a dining room table in no way has a political environment—but the debate is just so volatile and so hard and so confrontational. But usually the Israelis find their way through. I think this time Netanyahu is in a really tough position.

Mcfarlane: Its identity as a democratic state, it is of course a claim that comes with some caveats because democracy is not available to everybody who lives in Israel or under Israeli authority. Yet it seems like this legislation that Netanyahu is wanting to push through and his colleagues in government who have just as much of a vested interest in pushing this through as he does, they don't seem to be particularly worried about Israel losing its credibility when it comes to claiming it is the only democracy in The Middle East. I mean, we've been debating Israel's democracy since the Intifadas, since the creation of the State of Israel really. But what we have now is an argument that's got nothing to do with the Palestinians, nothing to do with the occupation. This is Israeli citizens who are coming out in unprecedented number calling against their government, calling Netanyahu a dictator. We are seeing Israeli leaders in defense, in the military, in the security services, in intelligence, the reserves who have a very special place, a very respected place and a role in Israeli politics, saying that they will refuse to go to their posts because as far as they are concerned, Netanyahu is leading the government down the path of dictatorship. And it is extraordinary to see those sorts of words and criticisms and claims coming from people like the former head of the Shin Bet, the defense minister, the justice minister. We're seeing discord in the Israeli government that we haven't really seen before. And particularly, that criticism from the White House, the Israelis cherished partnership with The United States, and yet Netanyahu, he did not take very well to President Biden warning Israel about the path that it was potentially going to go down. He used words of foreign interference, which I thought was very interesting because in an interview he did in London recently at a time when there were thousands and thousands of Israelis on the street, he wasn't in Israel. He was in London, having meetings, and he did an interview with Piers Morgan. And when Morgan challenged him on the protests, he blamed the West. He said that a lot of the protesters were ignorant of a lot of what the bill contained and the legislation and that he didn't really understand what it was that they were protesting against. And he blamed the West. He said that there was foreign interference in those protests and that this was something that was instigated from abroad. I mean, that is a line that you tend to hear from people like Alexander Lukashenko, from Putin, from dictators abroad, and not something that we're really used to hearing and seeing from a prime minister of Israel.

Dearlove: Well, I'm not so sure about that because, you know, Netanyahu in the past has shown the ability to be pretty rude about any of Israel's allies if they've sort of crossed him politically. And I mean, I do remember him being incredibly rude about some incident to do with The UK at some point in time in the past. You know, he really does let rip, and that's part of his sort of charisma.

Mcfarlane: But as a to the White House. Well,

Dearlove: ultimately, I think this is why the track he's on at the moment is going to prove politically problematic for him, and he may well have to compromise. I mean also, Netanyahu said he hasn't actually abandoned the legislation, he's backed off. And I mean basically my understanding is the core of this piece of legislation is rather than the judiciary appointing the judiciary, it actually boils down to parliament, i.e. presumably the government, appointing the judiciary, so that the independence of the judiciary is lost.

Mcfarlane: Yeah. Yeah. The override clause, which would give the Israeli parliament power to pass laws which have been previously ruled invalid by the Supreme Court, is obviously a very big part of it. There is also a part of the bill that would change the makeup of the committee that selects Supreme Court judges, which would help in politicizing the Supreme Court. And then there's that other part of the bill which, if passed, would make it difficult for a sitting Prime Minister of Israel to be declared unfit for public office. It's basically the twenty fifth amendment version in Israel's constitution, which interestingly is unwritten, apparently just like the British.

Dearlove: It's really a philosophical point, which is actually debated here sometimes in The UK, not very often, but it which is the issue of parliamentary sovereignty. Are the judges subject ultimately to parliamentary sovereignty or not? So and I'm not going to argue it either way, I'm just pointing out that there is an anomaly here. Ultimately, in terms of passing legislation, is that the final court of decision? Or is there a separate judicial power that overrules parliamentary sovereignty? I'm just pointing it out for listeners listening to us discussing this, because I think that's a very interesting philosophical issue. People like Jonathan Sumption, who are the most distinguished legal thinkers in The UK, have much debated and written and spoken about this issue. And I mean, some people in The UK would say, in some areas now, lawyers have become unaccountable. I mean, can parliament challenge the decisions of a high court? And it actually has application for The UK in terms of the European Court of Justice. So the ECJ makes decisions which are totally unchallengeable by—well, the situation has changed post Brexit, but would have been totally unchallengeable by the British people voting.

Mcfarlane: I think that's a really, really cogent point and to sort of compare and contrast with many recent examples of this very same debate happening in The UK and all of the stuff about Brexit and the Supreme Court. The point of the judiciary is to apply the law. And the dangers of politicizing the judiciary and having political appointees is where you then run into trouble. And there are all sorts of checks and balances in our democratic system. Parliament is one of them. The judiciary is another. The House of Lords also, which sometimes works not quite in tandem, but at opposite ends of the House of Commons. But I think the fact that you have a sort of the balance of power is shared among different parts. I mean, separation of powers is fundamental and of course it's most clearly expressed in the American constitution.

Dearlove: I mean, in our constitution it's unwritten. We have a constitution created by precedent really. And of course the independence of the judiciary is a really really fundamental issue. But I guess what I'm saying is there are points where if parliament makes law does that overrule the judiciary or not? And I'm not a legal philosopher as I was pointing out. I think in the case of this legislation— I mean, obviously it's a chicken and egg situation, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. But there's a violation here of what, obviously a large chunk of Israeli voters. And as I said, it's a very rambunctious democracy.

Mcfarlane: I have a question for you, Richard. You mentioned principles and values. Is there a reason why such a close defense and security ally as Israel, less to The UK, more towards The United States. Is there a reason why there is not the same kind of security relationship or intelligence sharing relationship that it has with The United States than it does with, for example, the Five Eyes Network. Is it because this idea of Israel being a truly democratic state is actually one that Western allies are not entirely bought into. Why isn't Israel a hugely powerful security and intelligence leader in the world? Why isn't Israel in Five Eyes like the Australians and the Canadians?

Dearlove: Well, it's a good question. And I think it reflects maybe the history of the creation of the state of Israel and its complex and difficult relations with the Arab countries surrounding it with which The UK in particular has had close historical relationships. So, I mean, I think that the reason that The United States has had that fundamental relationship with Israel for a long time, I think, is the consequence of the strength of the Jewish lobby and their presence in American politics. And of course, that's not replicated at all in The UK. So The UK has, as it were, taken a more balanced stance in the Middle East. And of course, we were obviously responsible for the Palestinian mandate at the time of the creation of Israel, and therefore, let's say our relationships got off to a pretty rocky and complex historical start. I wouldn't say from which they've never recovered. I'd say that this has a long and complicated past, but one which, if you study it, is very interesting. I mean, look, in my career, we had good relations with Israel, I don't want to go into detail, but that relationship was quite complex.

Mcfarlane: Oh go on! Please do go into detail.

Dearlove: Well I mean obviously I've had dealings with the Israelis in an intelligence capacity, and very interesting they are too, but we are also closely related in terms of our alliances with some of the countries that surround Israel too. So it's a very complicated relationship.

Mcfarlane: Very similar alliances, many areas of strategic cooperation and aligned priorities. How was it working with Israeli intelligence and how much could you feel you could trust them and share with them? Because the Israeli security services and their intelligence, they do go rogue from time to time. They do things like take out Iranian nuclear scientists and things like that, the sort of thing that the Brits and the Americans don't tend to do, or do they?

Dearlove: Well, yet again, I'm maybe constrained in it. Look. Let me put it like this. The Israeli military and Israeli intelligence and security is devoted to one objective, and that one objective is the survival of the State Of Israel, the security of the State Of Israel. They are ruthless in their interpretation of that mission, for which I applaud them, that's why they're there. I'm not criticizing them for that. But it does mean that they view all relationships in the context of that perspective. So let's put it like that. And dealing with Israelis is therefore quite complicated sometimes, however friendly and close to them that you are. The other thing that I said at the beginning, you have to in some respects divide internal politics and the extraordinary way that they're conducted in Israel from Israel's security situation. I mean, what's extraordinary about it is the fertility of the industries, particularly those that are connected in some way with the defense, things like cyber security and all the other things that they develop. I mean Israel is like a sort of almost like a reactor producing continuous flashes of extraordinary power. I mean they are really—it's a remarkable country and I think that it's not gonna fall apart because of what Netanyahu is doing. It will find a way through these problems, and that may be very, very awkward and difficult politically, but it will definitely come out the other side. That's it for this week's episode of One Decision. We drop new episodes every Thursday.

Mcfarlane: Like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Drop us a line. Tell us your thoughts. What decisions have impacted you and where you live? You can write to us. Our email is 1decision@1decisionpodcast.com. From me and the team, thank you for listening, and see you next time.