February 2, 2023
The Jerusalem Post’s Lahav Harkov joins us this week to help us understand all of the big news from Israel, from U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit, to rocket attacks from Gaza, terror attacks in Jerusalem, ultimatums from Russia, massive protests, and proposed changes to Israel’s Law of Return. Harkov is the senior contributing editor and diplomatic correspondent for The Jerusalem Post.
*The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.
Episode Lineup:
- (0:40) Lahav Harkov
Show Notes:
Read:
Listen:
- Our most recent podcast episode: Surviving the Unimaginable: A Child's Story of the Holocaust
Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod
You can reach us at: [email protected]
If you’ve enjoyed this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, tag us on social media with #PeopleofthePod, and hop onto Apple Podcasts to rate us and write a review, to help more listeners find us.
Transcript of Interview with Lahav Harkov:
Manya Brachear Pashman:
This week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in Jerusalem as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dealt with more rocket fire from terrorists in Gaza, ultimatums from Moscow, and protests to propose judicial reforms and changes to Israel's Law of Return. Here to share what she sees and hears on the ground is Lahav Harkov, senior contributing editor and diplomatic correspondent for The Jerusalem Post. Lahav, welcome back to People of the Pod.
Lahav Harkov:
Hi.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So let's begin with the visit by Blinken. His jaunt to Jerusalem was on the calendar for a while. But given the escalation of violence in recent days, and the Cabinet support for legalizing more settlements, did Blinken's agenda change?
Lahav Harkov:
Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that you know, it's updated according to whatever is going on at the time, he has to be, you know, have his finger on the pulse. And so the issue of terrorism did come up. And he did make some really important remarks, just about how horrific it is and how just completely unacceptable it is to attack a place of worship, as a Palestinian terrorist did on Friday night. But of course, that was followed by another terrorist attack the next morning, in which two people were killed.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So his original agenda included a strategy of how to deal with the nuclear situation in Iran. Can you kind of update us on where Israel stands on that situation right now and how it's dealing with hostilities from Iran?
Lahav Harkov:
Yeah, you know, it's not so different from what it was in the previous government, right. There's some nuances that are different, but overall, Netanyahu opposes the Iran deal. But that deal is not so much on the table anymore anyway. Netanyahu openly says that Israel has done things to stop Iran from developing certain weapons, which seems to be a hint at an attack in Isfahan, which is a city in Iran, in what apparently was a drone manufacturing site. But of course, Netanyahu would not get into that level of detail. But there's been reports, it was first reported in The Wall Street Journal, that it was Israel that did it, sort of in coordination with the US.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
In other words, taking matters into Israel's own hands and taking care of the situation within Iran.
Lahav Harkov:
All the reports say generally that it is in coordination with the US. So you know, Israel is doing it. But I guess you could say Israel is taking matters into its own hands, but it's not acting, like at cross-purposes with the US.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So was there progress made in the conversations between Netanyahu and Blinken? I mean, are the United States and Israel still on the same page when it comes to Iran or were there sticking points?
Lahav Harkov:
Overall, I think that Netanyahu would like a more aggressive approach to Iran. You know, more sanctions, more willingness to strike, but I think that they're still in a good place. Overall, they're sort of, again, working towards similar purposes, working in the same direction. It’s not a point, you know, if Netanyahu was Prime Minister, I don't know, a year ago, and the Biden administration was really actively pursuing the Iran deal something Netanyahu thinks is a great danger to Israel and in the world. That's not where we are, right. The Biden administration has all but dropped the deal. And with the massive protests and the violent suppression by the regime, you know, the Biden administration is not in a place where it's looking to cut Tehran any slack. So, the differences, I guess, are, maybe they're not small, but they're not as big as they could have been, even just six months ago.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So another topic that Blinken had hoped to discuss this week was diplomatic relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. I don't know what that did end up on the agenda as significantly as was intended, but how likely is that to happen? And if it's likely, what's the timeline and what are the caveats?
Lahav Harkov:
So I think it's very premature to talk about a timeline. The Saudis themselves, in any public statement, when the top officials are asked about this issue, they say that there needs to be some sort of movement on the Palestinian file before there can be peace with the Saudis. That being said, that was the case for the entire Arab world for the past 23 years or so, and yet Israel established relations with four different Arab countries in 2020. And so it's possible that Netanyahu can once again make the seemingly impossible happen.
And certainly, you know, I think we saw maybe a baby step in that direction after Friday night's terrorist attack. One of the countries that condemned that attack was Saudi Arabia, which is not the usual thing. And so that was very interesting. But I still think that it's very premature to be talking about timelines. I don't know when it's gonna happen. But Netanyahu is really, really intent on trying.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So, Secretary Blinken also hinted that the proposed judicial reforms could undermine Israel's democracy, and that this common connection with the United States, this democratic connection, right. Let's talk about those reforms, which many legal scholars have said, could weaken the Israeli Supreme Court? Can you walk us through those proposed changes and why there's so much concern? And frankly whether that concern is overblown?
Lahav Harkov:
Yeah, I mean, first of all, I take a little bit of issue with the premise because there certainly were a lot of headlines that said that blinkin said what you said he did. But when you look at what he actually said, which anyone can find on the State Department website. He said that Israel and the US share democratic values. He said that the sort of very robust debate going on about the judicial issue, but he didn't actually mention the judicial issue, but it was in response to questions about it. And it's sometimes not, but he said the robust debate is indicative of a strong democracy. So none of these things to me sounded like Blinken chiding Israel, I think he was being very cautious.
And I would be surprised if he did support these judicial reforms, although really, he shouldn't take a position this way or other. But I think that he was a lot more cautious, and a lot more neutral in his statement than the way it had been reported in a lot of places. Now, I understand that behind the scenes, he did express caution.
But I think the way that this was reported on was sort of slanted and inaccurate, almost everywhere. But moving forward, look, the judicial reform, it goes very far in the opposite direction of where things stand in Israel right now. But where things stand in Israel right now is also extremely unbalanced. You know, you're supposed to have checks and balances between the different parts of government. And, there's only checks and no balances right now, like the court can really check anything that the government and the Knesset does. But the Knesset and the government have no bearing, no influence practically on what happens. The process of selecting judges, for example, is there’s a joint committee, that includes politicians and judges and the Bar Association. And essentially, it's slanted so that the judges have, you know, outsized influence, for example.
And all kinds of things like that. It takes a really long time to explain it. So I'm not gonna take our whole half hour to explain the judicial reform. But I will say two things. First of all, I often find it deeply ironic when Americans criticize the reform, because certain parts of it will just make it more like America’s system. Right? So when people say like, oh, it's not democratic, you know, to have politicians having too much of an influence on the judicial selection process, I think to myself, well, how do you think Supreme Court justices are chosen in America, right?
And then there's just like, another thing that happens in the Supreme Court in Israel is that you have an extremely broad concept of standing in the court, like an NGO can bring a case before the court, even though they have nothing to do with it. Like let's say, I don't know, an NGO can say that Israel is building on property that actually belongs to Palestinians, even if the Palestinians aren't suing, and haven't spoken to that NGO.
And in the US, right, the idea of who can have standing before the Supreme Court is much narrower than that. So to me, it's like people are hearing what's being said by certain figures that they like to read or hear from in the media and they're just echoing out without really thinking. That being said, I do think that the reform swings, it does like a one ad, right where you have an extremely powerful judiciary and you want to fix that unjust injustice of an imbalance.
But this reform, the way it stands now, creates a new imbalance, it's just in the opposite direction. But I think that, Israel’s system is built on compromise. We have a coalition system, you have a lot of different parties there. They're sort of push and pull and in the end, you have to agree on something. Now, it's true that this coalition, they all want to make big changes to the courts.
But I think that in the parliamentary process, which of course, includes the opposition, that they are active parts of the committee that's legislating this reform, I think it will end up more moderate than it is now.
And you know, and people can debate about the degree right, like to what level should there be reform? Netanyahu says that it's not going to be exactly as it was proposed at first, he says that I will hear the opposition out, and that there will be changes made. I know a lot of people just don't believe him. You know, he is a polarizing figure. But he's not the only person involved with this bill who says that. And so my hope is that that's what will happen in the end. And that, as Blinken, actually himself said, that hopefully they will be able to reach some kind of consensus or if not consensus, than just a broad section of the Knesset working together.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So what is fueling the protests? The direction of the imbalances is particularly sensitive. Is it just the polarizing nature of it being a Netanyahu administration? What's fueling the protests?
Lahav Harkov:
I actually think there's a little bit of both. I think first of all, there is a subsection of the protesters who are genuinely outraged by the reform, and maybe not the concept of reform itself, maybe they think it just goes way too far and puts too much of the power in the hands of the politician, as opposed to the courts. You know, there are people like that, certainly, you have a lot of figures from the legal world who joined the protest and speak at the various protests. On the other hand, for basically the entire time since we started our whole crisis where we had five elections in four years, there's been protests outside the Prime Minister's residence as Netanyahu was Prime Minister. So you know, almost the entire time, minus a year and a bit. And there was a protest movement, and it ebbed and flowed.
There were bigger protests and smaller protests. But I just think that this is an outgrowth of that. And honestly, it's been every week since the government was formed. I guess that's like six weeks now. And the first protests were not really so focused on the judicial issue, they were focused on other sort of social issues, which that's also something that we could discuss about this government. But, they then shifted to the judiciary, which I think gave them like, an intellectual gloss, sort of, it made it seem more serious than just people who are angry at this government. But I do think that it certainly was a building on an existing, anti Netanyahu protest movement.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So what are the social concerns causing concern and fueling protests?
Lahav Harkov:
There is a lot of sort of homophobic and very strongly anti-gay rhetoric coming from this coalition, coming from specifically within the religious Zionist party, and some of the things being said are very ugly, and I think like hurtful to people who are gay and there is a lot of concern about that.
And I would also add that there's misogyny coming from the same people as well, in terms of not even just women in the army, because I think it's fair to have a debate about, you know, whether it's appropriate for women to be in combat roles, et cetera. Like there's a debate to be had there. And I wouldn't jump to saying that's misogyny, but other things just about like women's roles in society that, you know, I wonder what year it is when you hear those people say these things.
What's interesting is that it's not the Haredim who are saying either the homophobic or the misogynistic things for the most part, because they, their idea is sort of, we have our community and we do things within our community one way and sort of, even if they disapprove of what other communities do, they're less involved. Let's put it that way.
But it's the religious Zionist party, which is, for many years, sort of a bridge between those two parts of society. But I would say in recent years, at least, the political religious Zionism, if not the actual communities, leads towards the Haredi direction. So anyway, it's been coming from them. Netanyahu has said that there's not going to be any anti gay laws, and nothing's going to change. I believe him that that's what he wants.
I would say that between the judicial stuff, and also, you know, these things about LGBT people, you know, Netanyahu can't say no to everything that his partners want, because then he won't have a coalition anymore, they'll quit, and we'll go to another election. And so I don't know where the breaking point is going to be. But in order for Netanyahu to maintain his coalition, there will be a breaking point somewhere. Somewhere, he's going to have to say yes, even though he really wants to say no.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So another change, proposed change, that has sparked tremendous concern among Jews, at least here in the diaspora, is the possibility that people who are not recognized as Jewish under Jewish law will be restricted. Right now the Law of Return allows every Jew to emigrate to and live in Israel as long as they have at least one Jewish grandparent. The definition of a Jew was based on the Nuremberg laws, in the original law of return. Now, there have been amendments since then that have extended Aliyah, to spouses to children, regardless of whether they're Jewish, how likely is this law to change?
Lahav Harkov:
So I think it is actually pretty low priority for this coalition. And if it's low priority, then there's always the chance that just with the passage of time, other things will happen. And this won't. So for starters, there's that like, I just don't think there's going to be some sort of rapid change there. That being said, I do think that it is something that people in this coalition want. And again, it's another thing Netanyahy doesn't want. And also Likud really doesn't want it. I mean, Likud doesn't want rights to be rolled back for gay people either. Don't get me wrong, but like, Likud doesn't want this, it goes against their voter base, a lot of Russian speaking Israelis vote for Likud. And this is viewed by them, and rightly so I think, as a way to stop immigration from the former Soviet Union.
Because especially now with the war going on, you have many people coming here who, let's say, probably didn't ever see themselves living in Israel and don't really see themselves as Jewish, but because they're sanctions on Russia, life is increasingly difficult there, it's easier for them to come to Israel.
It's one of these things where, the law of unintended consequences where where the politicians are thinking about one thing, but there are a lot of Jews in the Western world and you know, the majority of American Jews are married to marrying non Jews, you know, the numbers get higher all the time, and it affects people more people I think, than they were thinking about. So moving forward, they're gonna have to have that discussion and they're gonna have to think about it, you know, if they're gonna move forward with this, but I do think that politically they just don't have the numbers for it. I don't think Likud will want that. And Likud is half the seats in this coalition. So you need Likud in order for it to happen.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
So I want to shift gears a little bit and go back to Secretary Blinken, who doubled down on the United States support for a two state solution, both Israel and Palestinian state. But there are signs that public support for a two state solution is waning there. Is there really a lack of public support for that solution?
Lahav Harkov:
Polls have shown that support is waning, both among Israelis and even more dramatically among Palestinians. I don't think it's overblown. Netanyahu talks like someone who does not want a two state solution at all, but the Trump per parameters the Trump plan was, practically, it was exactly what Netanyahu would have wanted it, it's exactly what you're saying- I would accept any plan, which is that Israel can keep all of the communities in Judea and Samaria, and, and applied sovereignty to them. And the Palestinian state would be on parts of the West Bank that, you know, Israelis don't live on. And it would be a demilitarized state that would essentially be surrounded on all ends by Israelis. Now, that's not a two state solution that Palestinians will ever accept. But that is a two state solution that I think the majority of Israelis would accept if they were presented with that, right. So a lot of it really depends on how you ask the question. But if you talk about a two state solution based on pre-1967 lines, then I think the vast majority of Israelis would not want that.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
Okay, Lahav, the last time you came on this podcast, we discussed the really difficult spot that Israel was in, they were offering safety to Ukrainian refugees, they were providing humanitarian aid inside Ukraine, with Russia, right there on Israel's border with Syria. A lot has transpired since then, not least of which Israel has a new administration. So has Israel's position shifted?
Lahav Harkov:
Israel's position has not shifted openly. Israel's not like sending weapons to Ukraine right now. That being said, the attack on the drone manufacturing site in Iran, which is something that, reportedly Israel did, is something that helps Ukraine a lot. And so Netanyahu admitted it that also in the interview on CNN with Jake Tapper, he says something, you know, like that we we hit back at, you know, Iran's development of different weapons, and those are weapons that are also being used against Ukraine. And I believe it was Ukraine's defense minister, some important Ukrainian official. It slipped my mind now exactly who it is but after that attack tweeted something to like, We warned you Iran, which sort of hints to you that maybe Ukraine knew something about what was going on as well. So it seems to me that there are things happening behind the scenes. But Israel's not saying it upfront, in order not to antagonize Russia, which really is sitting on Israel's northern border.
Manya Brachear Pashman:
Well, Lahav, thank you once again for coming and sharing your perspective from on the ground there. I think that's really important because a lot of people are interpreting and reporting things without actually being there and there's always holes when you try to do that, so thank you so much.
Lahav Harkov:
All right. Thank you.
