Rosner’s Domain: Ideology or Stability?

At the end of May 1904, Winston Churchill switched sides. He was elected conservative, then crossed the line to become a liberal. If Israel’s Member of Knesset e is looking for inspiration, Churchill can set the example. 

Of course, Chikli is no Churchill, nor is Israel like Britain. And yet, the story of the MK and his party that made headlines in Israel this week is worth telling. It is a small story beyond which big questions about politics loom. 

In a nutshell: Chikli was a member of Yamina, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s party. He joined the party when it was a staunch member of the hardcore right, and couldn’t believe his eyes when Bennett decided to establish a coalition with the center-left. So Chikli decided to jump ship and voted with the opposition. For a year or so, the party was forgiving. But when another MK abandoned the party, Bennett decided to act: he asked that Chikli be formally tagged as an official “defector,” which would legally prevent the young MK from joining other parties in the next election. It’s a move of deterrence, to prevent other KM’s from toying with the idea of moving elsewhere.

Chikli’s case for defection is strong. But so is the case against him.  

Chikli’s case for defection is strong. Hence, he argued forcefully that the action taken against him was tenuous and illegal. 

The case of those who oppose Chikli’s move is also strong. Thus, the coalition pursued its case without regard to his complaints. 

This is where we begin a short yet serious discussion of the significance of Chikli’s move. Political gossip is important, but essence is more important. And the essence of this case stems from two questions: a party’s commitment to the platform it presented to the public, and the power of a lone MK. To these two questions, there is no clear legal answer. Therefore, the expected result of the process is a court case. When it gets there, Chikli will argue that a Knesset Member is committed to the ideological path of the party on whose behalf he was elected, not to the party’s political leadership. The law was intended to prevent MK’s from changing parties to get jobs or benefits, not to prevent them from doing what they promised the voters they’d do. And indeed, when Chikli ran in the last election he vowed that Yamina will not sit in a coalition with Meretz or Labor or other leftist parties. He did not change his tune since – the leaders of his party did. 

The main consideration that is at the foundation of the other side’s argument in this debate is the need for stability. If every MK is free to decide for himself, there will be chaos in the Knesset, and no coalition to speak of. In fact, Chikli’s opponents will present the current law as proof that the legislators understood the necessity to balance the need for stability and the need for ideology. The supposedly balanced law will be Chikli’s problem in court. It says that a faction of three MK’s is allowed to desert a party and join another party without penalty. So if a party has deviated from its ideology, there is a way for MK’s to respond appropriately, as long as they are not alone in arguing that the party no longer represents its voters. 

Does this mean Chikli’s case is a lost cause? Not necessarily. As mentioned, the law is not entirely clear. It only refers to MK’s who jump ship in return for some reward, which Chikli did not receive. The Knesset’s attorney has complicated the case, when he previously set a quantitative test for declaring an MK a defector. That is, how many times has he or she voted against his party’s position? But Chikli argues that this is the wrong test. How can we vote, he asks, if a party can say one thing on the eve of the election, and do the opposite the day after the election, and punish the one MK who is willing to stand his ground? 

This will be an interesting test for the court. This is also an interesting test for us, the voters. Even those amongst us who are not happy with Chikli’s decision should recognize that he has a strong case. Even those amongst us who are happy with Chikli’s decision should recognize that his censors also have a strong case.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

Following a Jewish Electorate Institute poll from which we learned that most US Jews support a return to the nuclear agreement with Iran, I wrote this:

We tend to attach undue importance to the influence of the Israeli prime minister on America in general, and on the public opinion of American Jews in particular. American Jews live in America, their political reference group is American, their main sources of information are Americans. When it comes to a big question like Iran, sympathy (for the Bennett government) or its absence (for the Netanyahu government) does not make a difference. Netanyahu – in his aggressive moves against the Obama administration – did not convince US Jews to support Israel’s stance. Bennett and Lapid – who decided to be polite with Biden – also did not gain the support of US Jews for Israel’s stance.

A week’s numbers

The war in Ukraine is still ongoing, and most Israelis would agree to take in refugees in significant numbers. 

A reader’s response:

Jennifer Templeton asked: “Is it really true what you wrote that many Arabs still deny the Jewish connection to Temple Mount?” Well – yeah. A poll proving it is here: https://jppi.org.il/en/article/index2020/.

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.