(Yossi Verter- Haaretz)....Yesterday's vote by the Likud central committee on Netanyahu's proposal to postpone elections for party institutions was supposed to conclude at 10 P.M., after this section of the paper goes to press. In the days preceding the vote, Netanyahu devoted almost his entire agenda to mustering votes from central committee members he normally doesn't give two hoots about. Some of them will have voted against him yesterday - just to teach him a lesson.
In the meetings the prime minister held this week, he continued to turn a marginal phenomenon in Israeli politics into an existential threat to the Likud and the foundations of the country's democracy. He reached the conclusion that this was the only way he could shake the 2,500 committee members out of their apathy and drag them to 28 polling stations around the country.
"Only the daring win," he likes to say - quoting the slogan of the ultra-elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, in which he served. Netanyahu's assessment was that if he did not devote every ounce of energy to this issue, he would definitely lose, but he could win if he threw everything at his disposal into the campaign. In the meetings, Netanyahu spoke against messianism and rejectionism, and in favor of the Supreme Court, against extremism and in favor of a peace treaty with the Palestinians. Yet even though he was supporting the side of all the sane values that the majority of the nation espouses, he woke up yesterday to a virulent, mocking and skeptical media, which excoriated him for trying to sabotage internal Likud democracy and also cast doubt on the sincerity of his motives.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between Netanyahu and his predecessor as head of the Likud, Ariel Sharon: Preserving the internal democracy in the Likud was of less interest to Sharon than the condition of the wool on the sheep at his ranch. During his time as Likud head, he balked at no maneuver, when it served his purposes, to trample the party's constitution. In the face of the central committee members' thuggery, Sharon was also able to make use of the values of political moderation, sloughing off the messianic elements and declaring a commitment to the courts.
The difference is that in the case of Sharon, all this worked. He always had the sympathy of the media in the battles he waged against the extremist elements in Likud. The more he ignored the party's constitution and its binding decisions (such as the referendum among party members about the Gaza disengagement, a vote he lost) - the more his public popularity grew.
It's not that Sharon wasn't sometimes under pressure. When he was concerned that he might lose to Netanyahu in the party primary, he convened an urgent press conference, had air force commander, Dan Halutz, who was also a family friend, sit down next to him and shouted: "Go and vote!" That too was hysteria.
But Sharon was forgiven for everything, whereas we are not willing to pardon Netanyahu for anything.
In the meetings the prime minister held this week, he continued to turn a marginal phenomenon in Israeli politics into an existential threat to the Likud and the foundations of the country's democracy. He reached the conclusion that this was the only way he could shake the 2,500 committee members out of their apathy and drag them to 28 polling stations around the country.
"Only the daring win," he likes to say - quoting the slogan of the ultra-elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, in which he served. Netanyahu's assessment was that if he did not devote every ounce of energy to this issue, he would definitely lose, but he could win if he threw everything at his disposal into the campaign. In the meetings, Netanyahu spoke against messianism and rejectionism, and in favor of the Supreme Court, against extremism and in favor of a peace treaty with the Palestinians. Yet even though he was supporting the side of all the sane values that the majority of the nation espouses, he woke up yesterday to a virulent, mocking and skeptical media, which excoriated him for trying to sabotage internal Likud democracy and also cast doubt on the sincerity of his motives.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between Netanyahu and his predecessor as head of the Likud, Ariel Sharon: Preserving the internal democracy in the Likud was of less interest to Sharon than the condition of the wool on the sheep at his ranch. During his time as Likud head, he balked at no maneuver, when it served his purposes, to trample the party's constitution. In the face of the central committee members' thuggery, Sharon was also able to make use of the values of political moderation, sloughing off the messianic elements and declaring a commitment to the courts.
The difference is that in the case of Sharon, all this worked. He always had the sympathy of the media in the battles he waged against the extremist elements in Likud. The more he ignored the party's constitution and its binding decisions (such as the referendum among party members about the Gaza disengagement, a vote he lost) - the more his public popularity grew.
It's not that Sharon wasn't sometimes under pressure. When he was concerned that he might lose to Netanyahu in the party primary, he convened an urgent press conference, had air force commander, Dan Halutz, who was also a family friend, sit down next to him and shouted: "Go and vote!" That too was hysteria.
But Sharon was forgiven for everything, whereas we are not willing to pardon Netanyahu for anything.