I should begin this article by admitting a certain affection for Israel’s new Minister of Culture and Sports. I should come clean and say that I worked under her command (as an IDF reservist) some years ago. I sat at meetings with her, I submitted recommendations to her, I argued with her and got instructions from her. Not many, but some. Miri Regev is not the most subtle person I’ve ever met. And I have no recollection of her giving the impression that culture (or sports for that matter) is her great passion. In fact, it is fair to assume that Regev’s heart is not in books, paintings, the theatre, or classical music. Thus, when she was appointed as the Minister of Culture there was reason for Israelis to wonder about her ability to excel in this role.
Regev is a blunt, in your face, street warrior of Israel’s right wing. To Israel’s center and left she symbolizes all that they can’t fathom about Israel’s right. She is loud, she is aggressive, she is as far from political correctness as a politician could be – and in Israel that is pretty far. She is a trouble maker – PM Netanyahu could tell you a story or two about it. She is big mouthed. From time to time she says regrettable things such as calling illegal immigrants a “cancer” (when I mentioned this reprehensible quote in writing about this topic I refrained from mentioning Regev by name).
As one looks at Netanyahu’s new government one has to wonder about Regev’s appointment, and about other appointments. Many of them don’t seem quite fitting. Many of them seem to give one the impression that Netanyahu was joking around as he was picking his new ministers. Of course, in a political system like Israel’s, when the ministers are picked for political reasons and not for professional compatibility, we should expect some appointments that don’t seem natural. Avigdor Lieberman did not seem like the right fit for Foreign Minister, but he was nevertheless appointed (in the previous term) because of political reasons. Yair Lapid did not seem like the right fit for Finance Minister, and yet he was appointed for the job – again, for political reasons.
In fact, the case of Lapid is a good one with which to begin wondering about Israel’s new government. He was the head of a large party – Yesh Atid – and hence demanded a significant portfolio. In Israel this means one of three ministries: Defense, Foreign Affairs, Finance. Obviously, the right fit for Lapid, a former columnist and TV anchor, would be the Foreign Ministry, where he could have engaged in talking and in looking presentable. Netanyahu forced him to become Finance Minister, because he wanted his popularity to decline. He wanted to see him failing. So yes, making Lapid Finance Minister was the right political move from Netanyahu’s viewpoint. It was the wrong decision from an Israeli viewpoint.
The current government has several such appointments – good politics, but not necessarily good for Israel. I don’t know if the appointment of Miri Regev is one of them. She might surprise some people, as she often has in the past – Regev has a tendency to overcome obstacles and move up the ladder when other people assume she has reached her ceiling. But much like with Lapid, one gets the impression that Netanyahu was making a crude joke in appointing her as Minister of Culture. Only this time the joke is not just on Regev herself – who’s not Netanyahu’s dearest ally – it is on Israel’s cultural establishment. The lefty, arrogant, easily shocked, detached from Israel’s reality, cultural establishment.
Netanyahu, by making Regev the Culture Minister, deliberately rattled the establishment. He once again proved to Israelis that he can rock the boat. And yes, it was a well-deserved blow to a group of people that too often produces a political climate that is hardly cultured. It was a well-deserved reality check to this group – as some of the crude responses to the appointment proved. Actor Gavri Banai called Regev a “behema” – a beast. Other artists responded in similar ways. Singer Ahinoam Nini responded by saying: “Miri Regev as Culture Minister? I don't believe it. Shock and amazement”. Apparently, Israel’s group of self-appointed cultured people did not learn their lesson from the pre-election Yair Garbuz fiasco – when an Israeli painter damaged the left by being condescending to the right in a rally a few days before Election Day.
Then again, is rattling a group of people reason enough to appoint someone as a minister?
Ayelet Shaked was appointed Minister of Justice to make a point against the legal establishment.
Regev was appointed Culture Minister to make a point against the cultural establishment.
Danny Danon was appointed Minister of Science and Technology – I don’t know why.
The arrogant reception, the mockery, and the ridicule that these new ministers have to suffer these days is reprehensible. A few days ago I wrote here that “there was no dignity in the bombastic response” to Shaked’s appointment as Justice Minister, and the same holds true for Regev and Danon and other members of the government. Not one of them is as bad as the opposition makes them seem. Not one of them is going to damage Israel as much as the opposition pretends they will. In fact, the harsh rhetoric used against them is more damaging to Israel’s political environment than the damage these ministers are likely to inflict on Israel’s institutions of justice, culture, and science.
Then again, there is something not quite endearing about some of these appointments. Last week, writing about Netanyahu’s coalition for The New York Times (Israel’s Churlish Coalition), I argued that “after yet another victory, Israel’s governing coalition apparently has not yet internalized its majority status and still behaves like an insecure opposition movement”. Regev’s appointment could be another demonstration of my point. The new government has not accomplished much yet, has not done anything yet – but it can already wear the questionable accomplishment of being deeply annoying to many Israelis.
Of course, some of this annoyance is unavoidable. It is because of the opposition’s inability to accept defeat. And it is because the “left” has a tendency to be condescending and to assume that the right can’t produce solid, thoughtful, politicians. It is because of the establishment’s tendency to perpetuate its control of important institutions. Thus, we must assume that no government led by Netanyahu would have received a decent reception from the opposition.
Alas, some of it is also because of Netanyahu and because of the choices he makes. Because his choices too often reflect a desire to annoy his opponents more than a desire to have an able, functional, government.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.