Tzipi Livni - Kadima's New Leader

Al Jazeera - Israel's Livni claims Kadima win
Tzipi Livni (seen here pouncing on an unsuspecting Syrian)
won the leadership contest of the Kadima party, replacing the discredited Olmert. Either she puts together a new coalition (which is doable) or Israel goes to elections. There, the hawkish Likud party has a lead according to the polls.

By current Israeli standards, Livni doesn't seem to bad. At least she's clean (so far) of any of these perennial corruption scandals.

According to France 24, Livni is a "former" Mossad agent.

Doesn't really make much difference whether she is former or not given that she is now essentially the head of it.

cactus flower wrote:

According to France 24, Livni is a "former" Mossad agent.

Well, the whole thing's a plot to get her close to the Syrian President.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

According to France 24, Livni is a "former" Mossad agent.

Well, the whole thing's a plot to get her close to the Syrian President.

I have an unease, to say the least, with Heads of State who have an IS track record. Intelligence Services are inclined to see themselves as knowing better than the democratic government and to operate to their own agenda and standards.

I agree with you cactus, but I do not think it is surprising. There are many states in which the Government and the Intelligence Services are so intrinsically linked that there is rarely a Government official who does not have links to the Intelligence Services. Israel is an example of this, as is Russia.

Damned the Israeli politician that hasn't a military history. Livni's the best of a bad lot if all you think about is past dealings on foreign affairs. Focus on her present day position as a moderate rather than her past.

johnfás wrote:

I agree with you cactus, but I do not think it is surprising. There are many states in which the Government and the Intelligence Services are so intrinsically linked that there is rarely a Government official who does not have links to the Intelligence Services. Israel is an example of this, as is Russia.

wasn't bush snr a former director of the cia?
and wasn't robert kennedy the same? (thought he would have made a great US president)

You could say that having a member of one's own State IS as head of state is the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being having a member of someone else's IS in charge:

According to this, two Greek prime ministers were CIA employees.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Greece_KH.html

Absolutely zakalwe, but I would not be surprised that it was virtually a prerequisite of office in a state such as Israel that you have some form or Intelligence of Security Sevice background. This is not the case in America. That does not of course mean that you will never get Presidents who were/are involved with the intelligence service.

Is Israel even a real democracy? I don't say this as a slur on the state, I support the existence of both Israel and Palestine and God knows a member of my Alma Mater is a former President! However, the State has a single defined purpose, you have no real room of dissent from that purpose and no chance of election if you stray too far from that purpose. That surely would mean that there is not the extensive room for liberal discussion and thought which we would expect in a democracy. I mean you can argue for Ireland to leave or to stay in the EU, to join or to steer clear from the Commonwealth.. but I don't think you could argue for membership of the Arab League in Israel on the basis of the oil reserves that they might have access too!

If we settle upon the position that Israel does not fall into the traditional notion of a liberal democracy, we should surely not then frame their politics in a manner where we would find it surprising that there would be an even greater connection between the Intelligence Services and the Government than would be the case in a liberal democracy. There is of course always going to be a relationship as the Intelligence Service, ideally, should be serving the ends of any government. Note, ideally.

Unsurprising given the history of Greece, cactus.

johnfás wrote:

If we settle upon the position that Israel does not fall into the traditional notion of a liberal democracy, we should surely not then frame their politics in a manner where we would find it surprising that there would be an even greater connection between the Intelligence Services and the Government than would be the case in a liberal democracy. There is of course always going to be a relationship as the Intelligence Service, ideally, should be serving the ends of any government. Note, ideally.

Well, according to this list, Israel is a free country. It is also the 47th best democracy in the world - Ireland is eleventh on that list. The EIU describes Israel as a flawed democracy which I feel is fair. However, it must be noted that the next best in the region is Lebanon who come way down at 85th. Judged on a regional basis, Israel is actually doing pretty well.

I'm not entirely criticising Israel, Ard. I'm merely stating that it is unsurprising, given their position, that their senior politicians are very close to their intelligence services. It is not comparable to for instance, a string of Mi5 agents continuously becoming Prime Minister in the UK.

johnfás wrote:

I'm not entirely criticising Israel, Ard. I'm merely stating that it is unsurprising, given their position, that their senior politicians are very close to their intelligence services. It is not comparable to for instance, a string of Mi5 agents continuously becoming Prime Minister in the UK.

I wasn't trying to contradict you johnfás, I just went hunting for stats and reports which would flesh out the central veracity of your post.

The relationship between the security services and the government is an interesting one. Are we better having a greater separation or greater intimacy? There are arguments for and against.

1) You can have greater separation. This protects the citizen (and others) from the State using the intelligence and security services for political ends. However, it also allows the intelligence and security services a greater degree of independence. This can possibly lead to these services pursuing a path which is divergent and perhaps undermining to the elected Government.

2) You can have greater intimacy. The downside of this is obviously that it allows the intelligence and security services to be used as a political tool. It presumably also allows for greater regulation of access to the political classes. However, it has its upside in the form that it allows greater scrutiny of the actions and aims of these services.

Obviously the correct answer lies in a compromise between the two with various checks and balances in place. However, it is an interesting question. Which side should it lean towards because it will naturally lean towards one or the other.

johnfás wrote:

The relationship between the security services and the government is an interesting one. Are we better having a greater separation or greater intimacy? There are arguments for and against.

1) You can have greater separation. This protects the citizen (and others) from the State using the intelligence and security services for political ends. However, it also allows the intelligence and security services a greater degree of independence. This can possibly lead to these services pursuing a path which is divergent and perhaps undermining to the elected Government.

2) You can have greater intimacy. The downside of this is obviously that it allows the intelligence and security services to be used as a political tool. It presumably also allows for greater regulation of access to the political classes. However, it has its upside in the form that it allows greater scrutiny of the actions and aims of these services.

Obviously the correct answer lies in a compromise between the two with various checks and balances in place. However, it is an interesting question. Which side should it lean towards because it will naturally lean towards one or the other.

My worry would be more that at certain times the intelligence services would use the government for political ends. The case of Harold Wilson is an example of a head of state dragged down by unidentifiable IS forces. Intelligence services have access to information that can be used to blackmail politicians and have other ways of scaring them witless.

johnfás wrote:

Obviously the correct answer lies in a compromise between the two with various checks and balances in place. However, it is an interesting question. Which side should it lean towards because it will naturally lean towards one or the other.

And a person's answer to that question would depend on whether they were a liberal or conservative. A liberal would wish for less state intrusion through the secret services so would wish for an arm's length relationship to develop. A conservative would be more likely to want the government working with the secret services in order to protect the country and fight enemies of the state.

Livni's been trying get a coalition together in order to avoid elections. So far, her attempts have been unsuccessful, and time's running out.
Al Jazeera - Deadline looms for Israel's Livni