Behind the Headlines the First 100 Days of Rabin

In the middle of September Premier Yitzhak Rabin marked 100 days of his Premiership. He was in Washington at the time discussing with President Ford and Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger the next steps to be taken in the Middle East peace efforts, and probably too busy to look back on his first 100 days as Premier. However, in Israel the political community is beginning to evaluate Rabin’s government. The 100-day anniversary brought an expected spate of articles in the press, dealing with the way Rabin is functioning as Premier.

Until now, the Israeli press and public showed a rare measure of tolerance towards the Rabin Cabinet. After the shock of the first few days–the result of the sudden disappearance of the previous leadership–the Israeli press demonstrated a positive attitude towards the new government. Most of the Cabinet’s decisions–whether on security or economic issues–were accepted with little criticism. Now, however, there are signs that the “honeymoon” between the Cabinet and the press is slowly coming to an end. Recently the three largest dailies published articles criticizing various aspects of Rabin’s Premiership.

Commentators observed that Rabin has established neither a National Security Council nor a Ministerial Committee for Security Affairs. The establishment of these two institutions was warmly recommended by the Agranat Committee which is investigating the functioning of the government and the army before and during the Yom Kippur War. The Agranat Committee concluded that there was an acute lack of multiple assessment of intelligence data in the previous government. The Golda Meir Cabinet gathered its intelligence information and evaluation essentially from a single source: the army intelligence service.

RECOMMENDATIONS NOT IMPLEMENTED

The Agranat Committee (which is headed by Dr. Shimon Agranat, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) suggested as a remedy the creation of a multi-disciplinarian forum of experts to aid and advise the government. The Agranat Committee also recommended the creation of a small ministerial committee which would deal with daily security subjects. This recommendation was contained in the first report of the Agranat Committee, which implicitly criticized Golda Meir’s “kitchen cabinet” system–the ad hoc grouping of Labor Party ministers in which major security and political decisions had been taken in the past.

Thus far Rabin has not carried out any of these recommendations. Neither have there bees any basic changes in the pattern of the Cabinet work (although he brought to the office a new style and more easy-going atmosphere). The same departments that existed in the Meir government are functioning under the Rabin administration, too: he has not changed the twisted structure of the governmental administration; he has done little to streamline the governmental bureaucracy: he has even been reluctant to initiate any personal change in the Prime Minister’s office.

Rabin is also criticized for the role he plays–or does not play–in the activities of his party. Many Labor Knesseters say the party is looking for a leader to guide and control its parliamentary activity. They claim that the party’s various policy forums have not been summoned for too long a time. They feel that because of the lack of leadership many of the Labor Knesseters feel they can violate party discipline in the House. These Laborites ask why Rabin is reluctant to fill the vacuum created in the upper rank of the party after the departure of Golda Meir.

RABIN’S STYLE SIMILAR TO DAYAN’S

In private discussions many Labor Knesseters warn that the paralysis of the party’s institutions may lead to its ultimate destruction. The Labor Party comprises three factions: Mapai, Achdut Ha’Avoda, and Rafi. While the two latter factions are homogeneous groups, Mapai is amorphous. However, Mapai is the main factor in the Labor Party. It numbers two-thirds of the party’s Knesseters. Yet, Mapai has no leadership. All the previous Premiers belonged to Mapai, but Rabin is an outsider.

Rabin did not come to the Premiership after a long period of activity in the Mapai faction (as did most of the Mapai members in the present Cabinet and as all the party’s former Premiers did). In fact, he does not like the gray routine work of party worker. The frequent but necessary meetings with the various party branches and key workers bore Rabin. In this sense his style and personal predilections are reminiscent of those of former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who feels the same on this issue.

Yet, the political fate of Dayan demonstrates the crucial need of a party’s backing. Dayan has no support in the Labor Party because he failed to accumulate political power by doing the gray and boring work of a politician who had to constantly woo his constituency. Members of the Mapai faction say that Rabin must avoid Dayan’s fault. They stress that active participation in the life of the party is essential not only for the personal future of Rabin as a politician but for the fate of the party itself. They blame him for ignoring the party’s needs, noting that he shows a dangerous hesitation to act as its leader.