https://www.jns.org/writers/ruthie-blum/
In its editorial on Monday, the Israeli daily Haaretz called Yamina Party chairman Naftali Bennett’s efforts to form a national-unity government “cause for optimism.”
Lest loyal readers of the far-left newspaper gasp at the mere suggestion that any move made by Bennett should be seen in a positive light, they can relax. Where the attempt to “put an end to the toxic regime of [Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu” is concerned, siding with an ideological nemesis is rendered kosher.
To ensure that no more of their dwindling subscriptions are canceled, Haaretz justified the softening of its stance towards a figure it used to trash as a dangerous fanatic by invoking the pragmatism card. This method enabled it to launder other political foes—unofficial Yamina co-chair Ayelet Shaked, New Hope Party leader Gideon Sa’ar and Yisrael Beiteinu chief Avigdor Lieberman—each of whom it usually describes as individual and collective stains on liberal thought.
As if to commiserate with its audience, the editorial stressed that nobody on the left “has any illusions” about the above right-wingers. Indeed, it acknowledged, “The ideological gaps between the people of the center-left … and Bennett, Shaked, Sa’ar, Lieberman and their colleagues are fundamental and considerable.”
Nevertheless, the editorial stated, “We must hope that Bennett and Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid succeed in their mission to enlist them all to a unity government … because it’s critical to end the rule of a criminal defendant who knows no restraint and who puts himself before the state.”
But that’s not the only reason to wish for such a coalition, according to Haaretz. More importantly, if such a government is formed, it will include Yesh Atid, Labor, Meretz and Blue and White, with the backing of Ra’am and maybe even some members of the Joint Arab List. This, claimed the editorial, is “good and hopeful news” in spite of the “right-wing views” of Bennett, Shaked, Sa’ar and Lieberman.
The group in question, the editorial said, shares positions on “annexing the territories and the solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, and thinks similarly about Israeli policy toward the Gaza Strip and Hamas. The four are convinced of the need for a judicial revolution, believe that the state should be tough on asylum-seekers, identify with the so-called nation-state law and are hostile to human-rights organizations—everything that must be fought in normal times.”