Raviv Drucker Criticizes Lieberman's Stance on Draft Law and Government Formation
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Commentator Raviv Drucker criticized politician Avigdor Lieberman's openness to the 2018 draft law, stating it would fail judicial review. Drucker suggested Lieberman support a government with Ra'am's external backing to oust the current coalition, then negotiate with Haredi parties. He questioned if Lieberman's insistence on Haredi agreements was a tactic to secure the Prime Minister role.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Raviv Drucker criticized Avigdor Lieberman's willingness to revisit the 2018 draft law.
- Drucker argued the 2018 draft law would not pass judicial review or gain support.
- He questioned if Lieberman's stance was a tactic to secure the Prime Minister position.
- Drucker proposed forming a government with Ra'am's external support first.
- Lieberman had expressed openness to past draft law proposals following recent elections.
Commentator Raviv Drucker on Channel 13 sharply criticized politician Avigdor Lieberman's willingness to reconsider the 2018 conscription law, suggesting it would not pass judicial review. Drucker questioned Lieberman's motives, proposing that he support a government with external backing from Ra'am to oust the current coalition, and then negotiate with Haredi parties to join later. Drucker implied this approach would be more effective if Lieberman's primary goal is to replace the government, suggesting his insistence on prior Haredi agreements might be a tactic to secure the Prime Minister position.
Drucker's remarks were a response to Lieberman's recent social media post indicating openness to past proposals, including the 2018 draft law he championed as Defense Minister, in light of election results. Drucker argued that Lieberman is aware the 2018 law faces significant hurdles, not only from the Supreme Court (Bagatz) and the Attorney General but also from members of the "Change bloc." He expressed doubt that the old draft law could form the basis for new political agreements, deeming it "unworthy and unjust."
