interviews001

INTERVIEW SERIES

INTERVIEW WITH MK DR. EINAT WILF

November 4, 2012 No Comments

DIMPOOL INTERVIEW SERIES

About Dr. Einat Wilf

Dr. Einat Wilf is a Member of Israel’s Knesset and Chair of the Knesset’s Education, Sports and Culture Committee. She also serves on the influential Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and is the Chair of the Knesset Sub-Committee for Israel and the Jewish People.

Previously, Dr. Wilf served as a Senior Fellow with the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a Foreign Policy Advisor to Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres and a strategic consultant with McKinsey & Company. Born and raised in Israel, Dr. Wilf served as an Intelligence Officer in the Israel Defense Forces and holds a BA in Government and Fine Arts from Harvard University, an MBA from INSEAD in France, and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Cambridge.

Dr. Wilf is the author of two books that explore key issues in Israeli society. Her first book, “My Israel, Our Generation”, is about Israel’s past and future from the perspective of the younger generation. It is available in Hebrew and English. Her second book, “Back to Basics: How to Save Israeli Education (at no additional cost)”, offers a detailed and feasible policy proposal for saving Israel’s ailing education system. It is available in Hebrew and Russian.

Political Journey

Dimpool: As an independent center we thought it would be suitable for us to interview one of the 5 Independence Party members of the Knesset. When we researched you and your career before your parliamentary membership, we realized that you are one of the few people who have an incredibly successful academic, military and business career, so our question is, have you always thought about being in a political area during your academic life, is this planned or did the events took you to a political career?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: I was always interested in public service. Especially in diplomacy, in foreign affairs and international issues, certainly anything that involves Israel and foreign policy. At one point I just realized that, despite all the bad things that people say about politics,  I want to do the thing I care about and that I am interested in, this is where I have to be. And I also realized that politics is not as bad as people made it out to be, so I always knew I want to be in public policy and at one point it just became clear that politics had to be the way to go there.

Establishing the Independence Party

Dimpool: And after the beginning of your political journey, in a short time period you took an active role in establishing the Independence Party. How would you define that period, splitting the Labour Party and forming a new party? Did you face any difficulties during the process?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: It was certainly a dramatic move and we all faced a lot of criticism, many people felt this hurt the Labour Party. Even though my personal view, and I think it has been proven correct, was that this was a necessary move that, both halfs, both sides of the Labour Party could go through a process of renewal. Because the party was suffering tremendous difficulties, it was in a process of long term decline, it was getting deeply dysfunctional and I found that the split was the only way to begin a new path, so I thought it was a simple decision in the sense that I felt there was no other way forward. But, it was certainly the one that accompanied by a lot of criticism.

About the Upcoming Elections

Dimpool: As a member of Independence party, what can you tell us about your expectations regarding the upcoming elections? Is there a chance that we can see you in the 33rd Government of Israel?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: I would certainly love to continue, I think there is a good chance of it but it is not going to happen without a lot of hard work. I do not know if you had a chance to follow the news last week, all of us still very much are processing this dramatic announcement that the Likud Party and Lieberman‘s Yisrael Beitenu Party are joining forces. It is a big change and it has thrown a political map into a bit of a turmoil, so right now I think there will many developments between now and elections, it is difficult right now to say how the political map will look on the day of elections. But I certainly feel that we are part of a parties that -when we split the Labour Party, we took with us what was considered the more security, defense foreign policy and perhaps a little hawkish oriented section of the Labour Party and this is very much missing now. In many of the parties that are last of the Likud, Ehud Barak is of course the Defense Minister is one of the very few personalities that are considered right now eligible for major leadership and defense position in any Israeli government, so I think we are a small team with a lot of substance and I believe that this will certainly matter in the upcoming elections, but the political map is still changing and to continue my work I will have to work hard in the next few months.

Dimpool: What would be your most important agenda if you got reelected in the upcoming elections?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: I plan to continue the thing that I have begun in this. First of all foreign policy will always continue to be my focus and that would be the defense of Israel on the international arena to combat various efforts to undermine Israel in the public opinion in the international bodies. Domestically my main focus is on education, especially on public education in defending teachers and defending of teachers and I also did a quite a bit work on the structure of the Israeli economy, making sure we have certain sectors of the Israeli economy that are not competitive -some sectors are very competitive but some are not- and there is a concentration of wealth and concentration of economic control in the hands of the few, and I do a lot of work to ensure that our economy is more open and more competitive and less rent-seeking.

Israeli Foreign Policy

Dimpool: Although you entered the Knesset in 2010, you became one of the most influential Israeli politicians regarding foreign policy and middle eastern politics so, considering your policy advisor career, how would you define and describe Israel’s foreign policy today?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: Well, Israel’s foreign policy always from day one was geared to one thing, first and foremost which was most simply survival, towards building its power and its strength in what it is considered a hostile area, towards insuring that it has powerful allies among the great powers -that is of course, first and foremost the U.S. but certainly in Europe and around the world-. This continues to be the cornerstone of Israel’s foreign policy. It is true that over the decades, economics have become a bigger part of the foreign policy and opening new markets making sure that Israel economy is open and integrated in to the world economy, has and over the years become a more important part of Israel’s foreign policy, but the cornerstone continues to be to secure Israel’s survival in the Middle East, to secure its strength and to ensure powerful allies.

Arab Spring and Israel

Dimpool: In one of your speeches I heard that you described the Arab Spring as a once in a century event. And we completely agree that, it was unbelievable for people to rise up against the undemocratic regimes against the dictatorships. As a result the regimes changed, the leaders have fallen, so basically everything changed except one thing, the anti-Semitism is still in raise. In your opinion what is the reason of that situation? Why the hatred towards Israel never changes in the region?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: First I also defined it as a once in a century event, literally my argument is that the Arab spring as much about the sweeping away of the post World War One order, which was created after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and this is why we are seeing so many of old, ethnic and tribal and religious and sectarian tensions bubble up after they were kind of kept under a lead of dictatorship for about a century. But first of all when we talk about anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism has no logic to it. A few studies the history of it in the western world certainly you will see that Jews were hated when they were poor and when they were rich, they were hated when they were different, when they were like us, when they were socialists and when they were capitalists. It has no logic; it is one of the most remarkable, disturbing human phenomena of centuries. It is certainly very strong in the Arab world in ways that we do not even see any more in the West. In televisions and in newspapers you see things that are typical of 1930s Germany in terms of their portrayal of Jews and Israel and Zionists. I know that people say it is because of the conflict, because of the Palestinians, but it is like arguing it is because Jews are poor, rich or socialist or capitalist, it is not a real explanation, it is something that I think of beyond rationality. What I do think important is that at least more and more of the World recognizes now that the problems of the Arab world has nothing to do with Israel, nothing to do with the conflict. The problems are poverty, the literacy, the religious intolerance, sectarian and tribal rivalries, treatment of women, minorities. I think there is an understanding now that any efforts tried to blame Israel is merely an excuse and has nothing to do with real problems and hopefully the Arab Countries will sort this on their domestic problems and not look outside certain to blame.

Dimpool: Do you think that Israeli foreign Ministry is carrying out a successful mission during the Arab spring, in order to fight against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: It is a very difficult job, certainly in the Arab world and at this point you can never fight anti-Semitism just from without, you need people from within the society to seal that this is a sickness, that this is wrong so, my guess is this will continue to be a sickness of the Arab world until they develop more of the society but I do not think a small ministry of Israel can successfully combat that.

Dimpool: So it has to be a coalition work or an alliance work?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: Yes, it certainly has to be an international alliance, certainly more and more of the world has to recognize what is going on inside the Arab world, there is a tendency sometimes to be very forgiving to excuse phenomena such as anti-Semitism, such as discrimination against women, against minorities. There is sometimes a tendency to forgive in to have very low expectations of the Arab world, I think this is a huge mistake and some of our responsibility is to bring attention at the world at large and build alliances that also was in the Arab world hopefully one day against this sickness.

Israeli – Turkish Relations

Dimpool: As you mentioned international allience against that anti-Semitism sickness, it brings to us to Israeli – Turkish relations. We all know that the relations hit all-time low recently. We are not going to ask how two countries reached this point, but at the moment we see that two countries have similar opponents in the area. Turkish – Iranian relations is worse than ever, and with Syria, Turkey is on the brink of a war. But at the same time there is no progress in the Turkish Israeli relations even though they have a lot in common. So do you think it would be wise to think that two countries should forget their past and should start to act together in the region?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: We certainly in Israel have nothing against Turkey and Turkish people and naturally would love to see the relationship become stronger. The sense is simply that the relationship has been used by the Turkish government as the way to appeal to the Arab and the Muslim world. Clearly as part of the Arab spring, as part of the sweeping away of the post Ottoman Empire World order, what you are seeing is a battle for regional hegemony between Turkey, between Iran, Saudi Arabia, a little bit Egypt, everyone is playing this game of regional power. In many ways Israel is just a very easy way to establish yourself as a leader in the Arab world and in the Muslim world and I think this is what happened. Turning against Israel was just a very easy way for the Turkish government and the Turkish President to say “see we are leader of the Arabs, we are leaders of the Muslims”. I do not know if this will change. And regarding Turkey’s demand for an apology: Israelis generally do not feel that they did anything wrong, they feel that this was a breach against them, against their policy, they acted in self defense and they feel the demand for an apology is not real. It has intended as a matter of humiliation against Israel, to show the power of Turkey in the region. If there is a real interest in renewing the relationship and the friendship, and not just using Israel as a way to show power in the Arab and Muslim world, I am sure the relationship will grow the warm again.

Dimpool: You mentioned that Turkish government is using its relations with Israel in order to appeal to the Arab world and to be the leader of the Arab world, yet when we look at the beginning of the deterioration of the Turkish – Israeli relations we saw that it started with Davos incident, and followed by Mavi Marmara and many analysts state that the AKP is using Turkey’s foreign policy as a tool for domestic policies so when the AKP bashes Israel openly, it gains votes in the Turkish public, so in your opinion, what is the reason for that public behavior? Why the sudden change?

MK Dr. Einat Wilf: Well, here I must admit I do not know very much inside Turkey, a bit of one I have been reading is that in general the rise of the AKP represents a shift in Turkish society towards the more rural, the more religious, the more kind of traditional and perhaps for them this Israel bashing is a way to build their sense of power their sense of pride. I am just speculating, I do not know enough, and again it is not real, to try to build something on going against Israel, on going against Zionism, on going against Jews, it is not real. It is not something constructive.

Dimpool: At the end of our interview we would like to thank you for your precious time, Thank you very much again.

You can follow MK Einat Wilf on Twitter @EWilf and on Facebook  facebook.com/einat.wilf

The Independence faction can be followed on Twitter @hatzmaut and on Facebook facebook.com/haatzmaut

michael-johns

INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL JOHNS

July 16, 2011 No Comments

DIMPOOL INTERVIEW SERIES

About the Tea Party

Dimpool: First of all, could you please give us some information about the organizational structure of the Tea Party? We know that the Tea Party does not have a central leadership, so how can it maintain the unity and solidarity inside the movement, and what is the ultimate goal of it?

Michael Johns: The movement is now two years old. From the beginning, however, I have been a proponent of keeping the movement as decentralized as possible. In my view, the Tea Party movement is, plain and simple, a movement of the American people. In a lot of respects, this approach is consistent with our approach to governing: If things can work in a decentralized way, that’s always preferable to centralizing them. That’s the essence of our Tenth Amendment: Let the power and the decisions lie with the people. Jefferson said that a free people derive their rights from the laws of nature, not from some chief magistrate. In my view, all we need is an energized, diligent and educated citizens’ movement that understands and can explain the laws of nature and the perils of deviating from them. If we competently and convincingly explain this concept, and how off course this current administration is with the vision of our founders, I know we will prevail. Elections get won on ideas, and ours are simply more proven. Theirs have failed historically, and–not surprisingly–are failing now.

Tea Party and the Republicans

Dimpool: Why do all the candidates who are supported by the Tea Party share the Republican mindset and how many candidates have made through the U.S. Congress via Tea party support?

Michael Johns: The movement is non-partisan, which is to say that it is based on ensuring that ideas, not parties, prevail. There are some Tea Party Democrats. There are many Tea Party independents and registered Libertarians. And there are many like me too, who believe that the Tea Party movement is not just key to saving the nation but also key to saving the Republican Party. Between the two major parties, quite obviously, the Republican Party is more associated with adherence to the Constitution, limited government and tax relief, so it should be no surprise that many members of this movement, like myself, are Republicans.

Anyone who followed the 2010 elections saw Tea Party-backed candidates win at Gubernatorial, Congressional and state assembly levels. The story of the 2010 election, in many ways, was one of a victorious Tea Party movement and message. In the U.S. House, we now have 60 of the 435 members formally affiliated with the House Tea Party Caucus, though I believe our support in the House goes much deeper than that. In the U.S. Senate, four of the 100 members belong to the Senate Tea Party Caucus, but I believe our support goes deeper there too. In any case, the measure of our success, in my mind, is not measured in Washington, D.C. It is measured in the spirit of resistance that is building against big government and in support of our nation’s founding values.

Comparing George H. W. Bush to Barack H. Obama

Dimpool: Former President George H. W. Bush has been criticized a lot, not only by the U.S. citizens but also by other nations, and many people hoped that President Obama would make the world a better place to live. Yet, nowadays, especially many U.S. citizens feel that they were unfair to George H. W. Bush. How do you explain this situation, and according to you whose administration was more successful: Former President George H. W. Bush or President Obama?

Michael Johns: Well, I worked in the George H. W. Bush White House, so I may not be the most objective voice, but I think it’s self-evident: George H. W. Bush managed the intricacies of the end of the Cold War. He dislodged Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, which, if left to stand, would have proven the largest set-back for American global interests since the fall of Saigon. He institutionalized some of the best ideas from the Reagan Revolution, and he once enjoyed over 90 percent favorable polling numbers with the American people. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is wrong on everything: He has grown this federal government in dangerous and perilous ways. He has weakened America’s standing in the world. He has embraced failed and failing ideologies.

This theme is persistent and goes very deep, but just start with a contrast of how George H. W. Bush handled the Kuwait crisis versus how Barack Obama handled the Green Revolution in Iran. Bush quickly defined the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as a threat, told the world the now famous line: “This will not stand,” and then followed through with an ambitious but realistic mission to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait. He delivered on every promise he made the world and his fellow Americans. With the Green Revolution, in my view, a similar opportunity emerged for the United States to define American interests and pursue them relentlessly, clearly and successfully. Instead, as brave students and resistance forces took to the Tehran streets, Obama sent conflicting signals, urging “restraint” and ultimately doing nothing as the Green Revolution was crushed. Thousands of freedom-loving Iranians were detained and arrested. And many, like Neda Agha-Soltan, Sohrab Aarabi and others were killed.

The mullahs prevailed, American interests were damaged, and Obama sent a very dangerous message to the world: If you support freedom, you are on your own. Don’t look to the U.S. for support. Instead, America should have stood boldly and firmly with the Green Revolution, and made it clear we supported their aims and were committed to the emergence of genuine freedom there.

Current U.S. foreign policy

Dimpool: How do you define President Obama’s foreign policy and how do you analyze his decisions regarding the Middle East, such as the removal of the U.S. forces from Iraq or Afghanistan?

Michael Johns: I see the Obama administration as being driven almost exclusively by political calculations in its foreign policy decisions. That’s certainly the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. America should never permit its national security engagements to be constrained by deadlines. Instead, we should specify our goals and then pursue them with diligence until they are achieved. Instead, the message Obama sent the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan is to just wait us out; we’ll be gone in 2014, no matter the conditions. That’s not a foreign policy. That’s not a national security policy. That’s a political policy catering only to a domestic political constituency.

Dimpool: One of the biggest criticisms President Obama faces is that he does not give enough importance to the U.S. – Israeli relations. Do you agree with this opinion and could you please explain why?

Michael Johns: I’d go further than that. I’d say that Obama is ripping the U.S.-Israeli alliance apart at the seams. He does not seem to care too deeply for the security interests of Israel, and he has empowered Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist forces by undermining Israel’s territorial security needs and sending a message of moral ambivalence on the Israel versus global terror struggle. I subscribe to the conservative thesis that Israel’s survival is critical to the West. We may differ with Israel here and there, but no one should doubt American commitment to her survival.

Osama Bin Laden’s death and its impacts

Dimpool: What are the impacts of Bin Laden’s death on U.S. politics? Do you think that Bin Laden’s killing gives Obama a boost on terrorism and Afghanistan approval?

Michael Johns: I believe it is critically important, for both strategic and symbolic purposes, that the primary al-Qaeda organizers of the September 11 attacks be held fully accountable for their actions. It’s a product of the relentless efforts of American military and intelligence forces that Bin Laden was neutralized. That said, al-Qaeda is a very amorphous force that is not dependent on one central leader, and the al-Qaeda threat to American interests will persist in a post-Bin Laden world.

2012 the U.S. Elections

Dimpool: What are your opinions about the 2012 U.S. elections? Do you think Obama will be elected as a second-term president?

Michael Johns: My view: No, he will not be reelected. Is that a foregone conclusion? No, it isn’t. It depends on what all of us do next, including seizing control of this policy debate and explaining how he has failed America. But I believe the emergence and vast influence of the Tea Party movement is pointing increasingly to the conclusion that his ideas and policies are being rejected. His policies have failed people everywhere, and the resistance to them is as passionate and organized as ever. I believe he is destined for one term, and I think any Republican nominee will prevail over him, no matter who it is.

President Obama and debates about his birth certificate

Dimpool: Even though President Obama nearly finished his term in the White House, debates regarding his birth certificates still exist. Why do you think Obama does not want to reveal those documents, and do you think that it is fair to hide those from the U.S. citizens?

Michael Johns: I find this one of the oddest things I have ever witnessed in 30 years of involvement in American politics, and I believe the controversy lies entirely on his shoulders. There is no explanation to account for why someone would go to such Nixonian depths and expense to conceal one’s birth documents. Certainly, it is not fair to hide them from the American people, as he did, and I support legislation that will require all candidates for federal office to provide the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with copies of all documents that demonstrate their eligibility for the office for which they are running. I also believe Obama owes the American people a full explanation of precisely why he went to such great lengths to conceal the long birth certificate and to answer directly the concerns about his eligibility. No one should be forced to take him at his word.  He promised to be the most transparent President in American history, and then set about doing nothing but raising walls of resistance to legitimate questions.

Tea Party’s role in the U.S. future

Dimpool: According to you, what is the most important issue facing the United States today, and what is a possible solution? Does the Tea Party offer a solution for those problems?

Michael Johns: I believe the most important issue is ensuring the continued growth and success of the Tea Party movement because I believe it is the key to saving the nation from the progressive agenda of big government, reduced individual liberties and abandonment of our Constitutional principles. Recent history indicates that, for all their admirable efforts, this nation is not going to be saved by Washington, D.C.-based conservative institutions or the Republican Party. It will be saved by the people, and the best avenue for that activism right now is through the Tea Party movement. Jefferson urged us to “educate and inform the whole mass of the people” because, he said, “they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of liberty.” So that is the biggest challenge I see now: Can this Tea Party movement reach the masses with the message of liberty and can we win the hearts and minds of the American people with the genius ideas that were at the core of this nation’s founding? For America’s future, I pray we can.

*Michael Johns is a health care executive, former White House and U.S. federal government official, and a conservative policy analyst and writer. He is one of several national founders and leaders of the U.S. Tea Party movement.  In addition to his extensive private sector career, Michael has served as a White House speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush, a senior aide to former New Jersey Governor and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean (R-NJ), and a senior United States Senate aide to U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Michael began his career as a policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation and as an editor of the foundation’s scholarly magazine, Policy Review. Michael has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, National Review, and other national media. He has appeared on CBS News, PBS, CNBC, C-SPAN, Al Jazeera, Fox Morning News, and other networks. He is a graduate of the University of Miami, where he majored in economics and graduated with honors.