"This is a Battle for the Identity of the State": MK Amichai Shikli in a Heated Interview

Despite being relatively new to politics, MK Amichai Shikli from Yamina displays impressive resilience and consistent opposition to replacing Netanyahu's right-wing government with a left-wing government led by his longtime associate Naftali Bennett.

Shikli, who headed the Tavor Zionist Leadership Academy before entering the Knesset, rejected attractive offers to maintain his stance against a government with Meretz supported by the United Arab List. He refuses to resign and allow another member of the Knesset to assist Bennett. In our conversation, he presents a nuanced view on the political situation, thoroughly explains his decisions, and tries to address the matters at hand without personal attacks.

What did you understand that your other party members did not?

"I would phrase it like this: Any move that changes the identity of the prime minister and other senior roles has long-term implications. I look at this event on a macro level, in the international arena. The conservative axis in the United States suffered a severe blow with the fall of the Republican Party, and this came with far-reaching changes in the Democratic Party. If, within a few months after Trump's fall, Netanyahu also falls–I'm referring to Netanyahu the icon, not the private individual–there is a strong message and momentum for the progressive movement worldwide. This strengthens figures like George Soros or the activities of the International Criminal Court in The Hague."

Shikli explains: "The progressive axis operates with a Chamberlain-like approach (referring to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister at the start of WWII, known for his appeasement policies with Hitler). This approach suggests that if you feed the beast, it will leave you in peace. The conservative axis believes you need to hit the beast over the head so it will make, at most, the noises of a small cub. That's what Trump did to Iran: He set Iran's economy back decades. And in Gaza, what happened to Hamas? Besides missiles, they showed nothing. If you ask me, Iran ran out of money, and it didn't reach Hamas. That's why Hamas weakened."

(Photo: Flash 90)

Shikli emphasizes that he doesn't necessarily oppose removing Netanyahu, "because we tried that from the right," he recalls, "but doing it the way it's being done now is a critical mistake. We need to ask: How will what's happening here be perceived in Iran? How will it be analyzed by the European Union? They will ask themselves: Maybe now is the time to apply more pressure on Israel's policies regarding Judea and Samaria, maybe this is the time to strengthen the BDS movement? They will draw encouragement and strength from the fall of a right-wing government, from Netanyahu's fall as an icon of Israel's conservative right-wing leadership." Shikli reiterates: "There are many issues with Netanyahu. We've attacked and criticized him harshly for them, but in the international arena, he's done amazing work. It's important to note: Iran is miserable only because of Netanyahu."

So when is it right to replace Netanyahu, in your opinion?

"I oppose toppling a right-wing government and Netanyahu without a critical mass of voters who support it from Likud and to the right of Netanyahu." For Shikli, this is not a technique but a fundamental point scrutinized by our enemies worldwide. "The current campaign is a huge victory for the 'Crime Minister' movement: This protest is much deeper than the 'Just Not Bibi' issue. It's a protest that created, in the public opinion of the elite, an opinion that influences Yedioth Ahronoth, Channel 12, and academia, the legitimacy that Netanyahu and his public are not legitimate.

"Essentially, it means that all those thirty mandates can simply be boycotted. Is there no problem with a prime minister for more than ten years? There is. Is it problematic for family members to be involved in policy decisions? Yes. We need term limits and leadership change. Yet, not all of the country's issues were caused by Netanyahu."

Netanyahu (Photo: Flash 90)

Shikli also dismisses the claim that Israel finds itself in repeated elections because of Netanyahu, pointing the accusing finger at the judicial system. "Part of it uses the powers granted to promote a political agenda. This might sound far-fetched, but Shai Nitzan and Dina Zilber said it themselves."

Shikli cites the decision to file an indictment against Netanyahu on the day he signed peace agreements with the Emirates: "On the evening of Netanyahu's incredible peace announcement, the legal advisor submits an indictment to thwart the celebration. Definitely intriguing timing. Could it not have been done two days before or after? The public, looking at this objectively, rightly says: This doesn't look like a coincidence."

So, in your view, this event is not just an internal Israeli matter but has a cosmopolitan significance of the battle between anti-national progressivism and conservatism.

"Certainly," he exclaims. "Being a person who considers himself on the conservative axis, a nationalist who wants a nation-state and not a flat world where all humans are seemingly the same, I am in opposition to the progressive axis in the deepest sense of the word.

"Therefore, as long as I haven't provided a conservative right-wing alternative with the confidence of the country's right-wing public, I want to think a lot before making a move like toppling Netanyahu. It's possible and necessary to criticize him, but meanwhile, he marks a national leader with a deep Jewish identity and also a democrat who sees equal value in every ballot.

"If Gideon Sa'ar had managed to secure twenty mandates, perhaps a new leader could emerge for the right, and then there's no problem saying: We're replacing Netanyahu. That's a natural replacement, not what we have now, which is an overthrow of a right-wing government by 'Crime Minister' with auxiliaries from the right. But Bennett and Sa'ar tried, and as you know, didn't succeed."

And when you see the religious Zionist movement divided on whether to support this government, does that also place its supporters on the progressive side of things.

"I think that's going too far, but there's definitely political sociology at play. In the end, a government is being formed that is essentially the first 'Israeli government' or 'mobile government,' as Dr. Gadi Taub defines it. What does it mean, 'the first Israeli government'? A government that is elitist by nature, a government that deeply excludes the popular classes, directly dismissing the free choice of a million Likud voters and another million indirectly; two million voters who elected Netanyahu as the head of the national-conservative camp.

"I hear the claim that the Likud will move Netanyahu, and everything will be resolved. And I say: Wait a minute, those thirty mandates knew there was a primary, and in that primary, Gideon Sa'ar lost. The choice of those thirty mandates is legal, democratic, and legitimate, and I respect it. When you say 'Just Not Netanyahu,' you're excluding thirty mandates. Isn't there a way to separate them after he was sent by them in the primary?"

Zionism or Equality

Shikli seeks to map the Israeli political landscape according to its Zionist and Jewish ties. "What is a Zionist party?" he asks to define, "The most basic thing: a party that accepts Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. It's so simple, and the moment we're unclear on this matter, we begin to get confused and start moving."

"We have Arab parties that, in the current situation, are anti-Zionist and openly support terrorism," he says, referring to the Joint List. "These are Israel's enemies in heart and soul. Ayman Odeh speaks of an intifada. And there are Arab parties who currently put that aside; they don't wave the Palestinian flag, so it's possible to cooperate with them," here he refers to the United Arab List. Shikli emphasizes: "Cooperation, yes, but United Arab List shouldn't be the deciding vote. They cannot be the 61st vote, so we cannot let them topple the government or cancel the Kaminitz Law to their satisfaction. They certainly should not chair the Interior Committee.

"Regarding other parties, we have Zionist parties, post-Zionist parties, and pseudo-Zionist parties. Therefore, New Hope, Blue and White up to Likud, including Shas, are distinctly Zionist parties."

MK Shikli now carefully formulates his view: "Regarding Yesh Atid, how do I say it gently, once you call for the repeal of the Nation-State Law and insertion of an equality clause, you are essentially stating that nationally there is equality. You are essentially questioning the assertion that from a national perspective, only the Jewish nation has national rights in the State of Israel."

(Photo: Flash 90)

He seeks to distinguish between civil equality and national equality: "The symbol, flag, Law of Return, and anthem, the attitude towards the state's capital, these are national rights solely for the Jewish people." According to Shikli, "The moment you're not clear on these things, you're entering a bad zone. That's why I don't say Yesh Atid is not Zionist, but when you're questioning Israel's legitimacy as the national home of the Jewish people, you're in the grey area. A party willing to work with political partners who are enemies like Ayman Odeh, who won't say Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, I'm not sure it is a Zionist party, and I have never heard Yesh Atid deny cooperation with those who reject Israel as a Jewish and democratic state."

If so, regarding Meretz and Labor, matters become much more decisive.

"In the Labor Party, there is a leader who in the past said not to send to the IDF. There is also MK Ibtisam Mara'ana, whose statements leave no doubt, and even if she apologized for this or that, she shows no support for Zionism in any shape or form. Regarding Meretz, what can I say? Just this week, Yair Golan said that the state was born by refugees and for refugees. Not at all! It was created by Jews and for the Jewish people while granting civil rights equality to all minorities in the state.

"Everyone says: What's wrong with sitting with Meretz, Labor, and Yesh Atid? It's problematic because it's essentially establishing a post-Zionist government. In this government, the entire left wing is truly in the grey area." Shikli exclaims: "To give up fifty mandates of the right and go to the left? That's suicidal! Unbelievable irresponsibility."

And all your colleagues in Yamina can't see this? Do you have an explanation for that?

"That's something you will have to ask them," Shikli notes respectfully about his colleagues.

Not a Game of Chicken

After this important principled discussion, we talk to Amichai Shikli about the political claims made this week.

All well and good, but Bennett claims he wanted the right, and Netanyahu proved he has no government.

"I dispute that," Shikli surprises. "Right after the election results were known, all parties showed determination and adherence to their promises to the voter, and only we were already flirting with the 'change bloc.' Many said, and I also thought, these were brilliant maneuvers to gain more power from Netanyahu - which is fine. But as time passed, and this happened when the mandate expired, the Rubicon was crossed, and I realized this wasn't a game of chicken or anything. We knew Lapid could go with the Arabs. So if you're risking forming a left-wing government, it means your commitment to building a right-wing government isn't serious."

Shikli agrees with Smotrich's assessment: "If we were ironclad on the right, New Hope people would come toward us and not the other way around. But now the momentum has passed to Lapid. My letter created a small bump in the momentum, and the military operation slightly hindered it because United Arab List said they were not ready to be in discussions, which is crazy."

Shikli says he isn't sure this was a pre-planned maneuver, but at any rate, "As soon as the sound of artillery died down, initially as a rumor, they said it was fake news, but everything returned to the table. I'm sure at least 60% of the voters found themselves stunned."

Bennett expects you to resign from the Knesset. They say you owe it to him.

"In many interviews, they repeat this sentence: Naftali took you, Naftali brought you, as if I'm a plant brought from a nursery. I left behind a successful organization with 25 employees and an annual budget of ten million shekels. I put my life's work behind me. The amount of hatred and fire from the 'correct and enlightened' camp is outrageous. I placed all my reputation behind Yamina, and I feel like I brought a nice dowry.

"I joined Yamina because I believed in what Naftali Bennett said. Bennett said his principles for government include that Lapid won't be prime minister because he's a leftist and Naftali is a right-wing man, and that we'll establish a functioning right-wing government. That's what he said and repeated in front of everyone. If anything, I'm the one who exactly represents those principles, so why should I resign?

"We are in a campaign to shape the character of the State of Israel. On the question of whether it will be the nation-state of the Jewish people without hesitation and without nonsense, whether we will be the homeowners in Lod and Judea and Samaria. And here I do have criticisms, of course, toward Bibi."

Shikli reiterates his call to his friends in the Knesset: "There are many partners who can join to promote these perceptions, and we will succeed in doing these things. Zionism is in a retreat battle, and we must change the trend."