The “one address” motif is engraved on the Book of Chronicles of any attempt to improve the quality of public service. Fewer clerks, fewer windows, fewer phone numbers. But why settle for reducing bureaucracy? Why not also reduce the scope of the decision-making echelon?

Imagine that one person would decide everything, or almost everything. Imagine that it was enough to pick up the phone to him, provided he himself answers the phones. After all, we know the longings for the strong leader, who is strong because he is not provoked, and he is not provoked because he is, how to say, unique.

“He is the King of China!” Cried Donald Trump, when he visited President Xi Jinping in Beijing in 2017. The Communist Party of China then came to the inevitable conclusion that in a country of 1.4 billion people only one worthy of governance has no substitute, and should be exempted from any time limit. Isn’t this an admirable decision?

Although China has in the past paid a heavy price for identifying the country with a single leader, from whence should the lessons of the past be learned, especially when it is so easy to see what a periodic rotation of leaders does to Western democracies.

Mr. Netanyahu, in exile in Caesarea, lamented last week about the “Iranian laws” that the opposition government plans to enact against him. It follows from them the assumption that an unlimited deposit of power in the hands of an individual over time does not necessarily comply with the rules of the game.

Mr. Netanyahu has learned to value his channels to “one address” at the top: to Vladimir Putin in Sochi, to Victor Urban on the Danube, to Narendra Moody between Tantura Beach and the Ganges, and of course to Donald Trump who was-and-is-no-more-but-maybe-more -will be.

Decipher the north of Putin and Erdogan

Is it permissible to guess that Mr. Netanyahu gritted his teeth last week, when the ruling henchman Bennett, disrupting the proper succession arrangements, used the “unit address” to rescue the Istanbul detainees from prison? This was his patent, Mr. Netanyahu’s patent. He used to boast of the extreme benefit that his personal relationship brings to the national interest.

We hear that from all the Istanbul affair there may be a benefit to Israel. Perhaps the Anpin rabbi in the Thousand Rooms palace in Ankara will want, and his heart will turn to love. Finally, President Erdogan has not stopped tying up his diplomatic moves in the honor classes that foreigners shower on Turkey, that is to say on him (for example, he slammed a door on the Glasgow climate conference because its organizers refused to host his huge bodyguard). Perhaps Israel has finally found its way into the heart of the tyrant.

The hearts of tyrants are the desire of Israeli diplomacy. Zeev Elkin repeatedly drags Israeli prime ministers to Russian president because Israel has become accustomed to assuming that Jews born in the Soviet Union provide the key to Putin’s soul (who believes the fall of the Soviet Union, next month 30 years ago, was “the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century” ).

Of course, how to get to Putin is a first-rate question. A series of terrible US mistakes in the last ten years, especially under the Obama presidency, has turned Syria into Russian-Iranian-sponsored territory.

Russian generals lick their lips whenever Russian missiles intercept Israeli missiles. The Russian ambassador to Tel Aviv, Anatoly Viktorov (in an interview here 11), reprimands Israel for attacking Iranian targets in Syria and dismisses fears of Iranian subversion. It’s just hard to believe this cynicism, which is now the constitutional bread of Russian diplomacy.

What does Putin want in the entrances to Quneitra? who knows. But the behavior and style of speech of his emissaries are nicely reconciled with Russia’s conduct in eastern Ukraine and along the Belarus-Poland border. She seeks confrontation, and she almost tries to fight it. This is exactly how it is perceived these days in Washington and in the capitals of Europe. What confrontation, under what circumstances and for what purpose, perhaps Zeev Elkin knows.

A lesson in Herodian diplomacy

Should Israel endorse its diplomacy with “one-size-fits-all” tyrants who do not need coalitions and security cabinets: Putin, Erdogan, and in the coming years perhaps Xi Jinping.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal revealed that China was building a secret naval base in the Persian Gulf. It already has a visible naval base in Djibouti, at the entrance to the Red Sea. It has a strategic partnership with Iran. The Prince of Saudi Arabia is also interested. Maybe we should look for a Chinese-speaking wolf Elkin?

Israel was once accustomed to basing its diplomacy on the claim that it belongs to the family of democracies. Democrats were comfortable accepting the claim. Now they are a little less comfortable, and perhaps Israel needs less visibility.

Perhaps Foreign Ministry cadets need a course in Herodian diplomacy, from the end of the first century BCE. In this diplomacy there is no more public opinion, not really. She must descend to the end of the tyrant’s mind at a given moment, and convince him that she is ready, just like Herod the Great, for the status of a violent weasel, that is, a junior partner with muscle and autonomy, but without too much independence. What’s there, Herod even sent warships to the Black Sea from the port of Caesarea, to further the interests of Augustus Caesar.

The problem is that the admirer himself learns to prefer the discourse members cast in his mold. Maybe one day a Chinese tyrant will say he is no longer willing to talk to governments with a 61-seat majority.

By Editor

Leave a Reply