It's been three months since Ayelet Shaked gave her last interview to Israel Hayom and it seems more like three years. Since then we've had turbulent elections, a political shakeup, the coronavirus pandemic, and a huge unity government.
Shaked, it must be said, foresaw in February what would happen to her and her party members. "The Likud likes the religious Zionist camp to be small, weak and pathetic, with the Science and Space portfolio," she said, and added that "in a right-wing government with Blue and White, we're not necessary."
Q: If what happened was so predictable, then either you have mystical powers, or you're a sucker.
"True, I foresaw it all. I knew what Netanyahu would do if Gantz joined him. I warned, I spoke out, I explained to our public. But what can be done, we didn't convince them. The truth must be said, Netanyahu was more convincing. After that we didn't really have any other options."
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Q: You could have joined the right-wing bloc and a government with Gantz.
"We couldn't enter a coalition supported by the Joint List. We preferred to stick to our ideology and be honest. We preferred to wake up in the morning in the opposition, and be able to look ourselves in the mirror."
And so, for the first time since she became a lawmaker in 2013, Ayelet Shaked looks at herself in the mirror from the opposition benches. "It has its advantages," she says, "the main one being freedom. When you're part of a coalition, you're committed to coalition discipline. When you're in the opposition, you have complete freedom to agree or object to whatever you want. To say whatever you want. And we have a lot of political scores to settle. We're just getting started."
Q: When you were in the coalition did you stay silent on ideological issues, as well?
"We were never silent about that. We always spoke up. We never compromised. Someone told me that Netanyahu has it easy with the ultra-Orthodox because they don't give him trouble like we do. We're an ideological faction, our job is to cause trouble. That's what we were elected to do."
Q: Maybe because you're such difficult partners, you found yourselves on the outside.
"We found ourselves outside because Netanyahu made a strategic call to break up the right-wing bloc, which led him to where he is now, and to go with the left. Coalescing the bloc was a brilliant political move on his part, without which he could not be prime minister. The bloc guarded him, prevented the formation of a different government, and now, from his standpoint, the bloc served its purpose and is no longer needed. In my view, that's a severe political and strategic mistake."
Q: The Likud says you demanded too much given that Yamina only won six seats in the elections.
"The Likud is wrong. When we set out on this journey, Netanyahu committed to safeguarding what the partners had, that the partners would not be harmed. He indeed left the Haredim everything they had, and even gave them more. That's fine, I applaud them, it's not my business. He can give them whatever he wants.
"He didn't maintain what we had, and that was logical, we understood that, we don't live in a disconnected world. We understand we held three senior portfolios and we knew we only had that because it was an interim government, we understood it wouldn't stay like that. But even the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, which was ours – Nissan Slomiansky headed it from 2015 to 2019 – he didn't agree to leave with us. He shamed us and forced the committee on the Haredim.
"And that is the clearest sign that he simply doesn't want us. If he had wanted us in the government, he would have held intensive negotiations with us. He had one talk with us, by Zoom. That says it all.
"Netanyahu gave the justice portfolio to [Avi] Nissenkorn and refused to give us the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, so there would be some kind of balance to the justice minister. He gave the defense portfolio to the Left. We said from the beginning that we had no intention of being the Left's doormat."
Q: You're saying it's a left-wing government, but if you had gotten the health ministry and entered the exact same government, it would no longer be considered Left?
"We wanted influential positions to balance the fact that it's a left-wing government. When we're part of the government we have the ability to influence and we know how to pull it to the Right."
Q: Which portfolios did you demand?
"Two significant portfolios, where one can influence. Not portfolios like the ones he made up for politicians who are looking for scraps and don't want to work. There are ministries that have no meaning. Not one of us agreed to be the 'minister of nothing.'
"Don't get me wrong, our first choice was to be influential in the coalition, we didn't want to be in the opposition. But it wasn't our call. One of the ultra-Orthodox politicians said to me 'from the get-go, we understood Netanyahu wants to throw you into the opposition.' Today Netanyahu is not the leader of the right-wing bloc, he's the leader of the Likud."
Q: What does that mean?
"That part of the Right is not under his leadership today. That today a large swath of the right-wing public opposes him."
Q: He offered you the education portfolio and the issues of settlements and national service. Serious issues, important to the Zionist religious sector.
"I very much wanted to be education minister in this government. It's an important, significant portfolio. But it's only one portfolio. You're falling for Netanyahu's spin. These issues were always in the hands of the religious Zionists. We don't need a minister for National Service issues or a minister for the settlement enterprise. These are units inside ministries.
"For a whole year, we got generous offers from Blue and White. We could have gotten defense, justice, transportation, anything we wanted. We said no and remained loyal to the right-wing bloc."
Q: So you're suckers.
"No. This bloc was good for the Right, the alliance of the Likud with the religious Zionists and Orthodox is a right-wing alliance. The problem is that the moment he had a new bride, he kicked out the old bride."
Q: The Likud claimed the problem was with you, that you, Bennett, Smotrich and Peretz – each of you wanted a senior portfolio.
"Nonsense. We would have agreed between us on rotations and other solutions. We're good friends. Bennett, I and Smotrich know how to work together. But we refused to take an offer that shames the Right and the religious Zionists, an offer that gives them no power in the government. To be powerless in a huge government, when the centers of power that are important to us are in the hands of the Left, that wouldn't work."
Q: You talk about what the ultra-Orthodox were given, but Shas won nine seats in the election.
"United Torah Judaism got seven seats, it's almost like us, not a big difference."
Q: And they were given only one ministry and two committees.
"They were given the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Construction and Housing Ministry with the Israel Lands Authority. Very significant issues. I'm telling you that if it was the opposite, if we had seven seats and they had six, the offer would have been the same. I applaud them, I'm not jealous, they do a good job, but it's not right for Netanyahu to have this double standard with his partners.
"He tried to make us smaller, to put us in a position that is only sectorial. The religious Zionists are not a sector that only takes care of themselves, they care for the entire Israeli public. I took the justice portfolio not only for the religious Zionists but to change and introduce right-wing ideology, in which the religious Zionists also believe. The religious Zionists don't want us to only take care of things that are important to them. These are leading figures in the army, economy, the public sector, the media. This was an attempt to embarrass us."
Q: If you say you care about everyone, why is there a need for a sectorial party? Why isn't it enough to have a right-wing Likud party?
"The Likud's job is to be a ruling party, but you also need an ideological party to the Likud's right, that brings together everyone who sees themselves as right-wing ideologically, with the religious Zionists. It has an important job for three reasons: To be the ideological backbone of the government, to take care of issues important to the religious Zionist sector, and to take care of Jewish identity amongst the secular public, in the state-secular school system.
"Before I entered the Justice Ministry, Netanyahu gave the Justice portfolio to then-Kadima MK Tzipi Livni, and no one protested. For years he bragged and boasted about how he was defending the justice system, but he's the one who prevented any change to it. When Bennett and I entered politics in 2013 we began to talk about sovereignty, no one spoke of it until then. They talked about the [2009] Bar Ilan speech, two states for two people, and we started to talk about sovereignty. They thought we were crazy. And here we are, seven years later, and the US president is talking about sovereignty.
"It's our job to be the backbone. We've seen before the dark days of the Likud. This is a party that has implemented left-wing policies."
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories
"We took care of the needs of the religious-Zionist sector very well. In the past the sector would receive an additional budget from the coalition, NGOs and institutions were dependent on politicians. In the last few years we arranged everything into the base of the budget and the rules, and today the budget of national-religious institutions is more orderly. That's why a party is needed. As to the Jewish identity within a secular audience – the secular parties don't deal with that. Neither do the Orthodox. That's where we come in."
Q: If there's a need for a sectorial party, why did you and Bennett abandon the Habayit Hayehudi and establish The New Right?
"You will never find me quoted saying that there's no need for a national religious party. We thought we could increase our strength. We saw that in Habayit Hayehudi there are groups that offset each other – the national-Orthodox think the party is too liberal, and the liberals think it's too national-Orthodox. We thought it would be right to maximize power by dividing. That was a mistake.
"In the second round of elections I said I wouldn't return if we didn't unite with everyone, and that's what we did. Today as well the Habayit Hayehudi, the National Union and the New Right should be united into one party, with primaries."
Q: Before the April 2019 elections you were talking about a double-digit result, and in the end you only brought seven seats.
"There was a big battle, head to head, between the Likud and Blue and White. Netanyahu appealed to our public and told them not to vote for us, since we'll be in the government anyway, and if he loses to Gantz then we all lose. He asked our voters to vote Likud, so he'll have power in the face of Gantz. And in the end, he went with Gantz."
Q: What does Netanyahu have against the religious Zionists?
"Netanyahu prefers weak politicians close to him. We're not weak. He prefers weak religious Zionists. In 2013 he announced we were going to the opposition, and the only reason we managed to get in [the coalition] was the alliance with Lapid. In 2015 he signed first with Tzipi Livni, gave her the Justice portfolio and made her chief negotiator with Palestinians, and with us he didn't sign until the last minute. Only when Liberman announced he would go to the opposition, he signed with us in the last two days. It's a recurring behavioral pattern."
Q: Maybe he has enough religious Zionists in his party. Ze'ev Elkin, Yuli Edelstein, Tzipi Hotovely.
"They don't do anything, they have no political power over Netanyahu. I understand them, when you're in the Likud, you're part of a team, you support the prime minister. You can't come out against him."
Q: You can't ignore the claims that he has something personal against you and Bennett.
"Unjustified. We worked and served with great loyalty when we were his assistants."
Q: Do you feel it's all personal?
"Of course. His treatment of us is personally unpleasant. But when working together, we work in a practical fashion."
Q: What did you do to make him so angry at you?
"We did nothing. We served him loyally."
Q: There are rumors he blames you for getting him messed up in the "Bibitours" case.
"Lies and falsehood. The next person to say I leaked 'Bibitours' will be sued for libel."
Q: So what does he have against you? Maybe his family doesn't like you?
"They have no reason not to. But you should ask him."
Q: Maybe Sara Netanyahu does not want you next to him?
"I don't want to comment on that."
Q: You got the defense portfolio surreptitiously. You said you would go with Gantz, and pressured Netanyahu until he gave you defense.
"We held no negotiations with Gantz. We got a good offer from Blue and White – defense, justice, anything we want. Netanyahu saw the numbers, understood the situation and gave us defense."
Q: Likud negotiation MK Yariv Levin says you were just moments away from going with Gantz.
Shaked smiles. "It's called being a good negotiator."
Q: It's called a political trick.
"It's completely legitimate. We were never suckers, certainly not with Netanyahu. Even with eight seats we got good portfolios. Even when he wanted to throw us to the opposition in 2013, he found us in the coalition thanks to the alliance with Lapid."
Q: After the last elections you were sort of suckers. You pledge allegiance at every possible opportunity.
"We didn't pledge every time, there was a time where we said enough, this is ridiculous. In retrospect we should have made him pledge to us. That was the mistake. OK. Lesson learned.
"I preferred to live with my ideological choice, even if it's in the opposition. Being in the opposition is not the end of the world. Every politician should know how to be in the opposition. I began working with Netanyahu when he had 12 seats in the opposition. I saw him grow. It's not the end of the world."
Q: Where did you go wrong?
"In the third elections, I don't see many places where we could have acted differently."
Q: So you went like sheep to the 'political slaughter'?
"When we looked at all the options, there was no choice. I would rather be in the opposition and not enter a government with the Left. Most of the Blue and White members are Left."
Q: Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi are leftists?
"Blue and White is left-wing, you'll see soon, they tried to blur it. I don't get why they're ashamed of it. Why should they be ashamed of their views? I'm not sorry we didn't go with Gantz. I'm fine with where I am."
Q: How do you feel about Rabbi Rafi Peretz leaving Yamina for a ministerial post?
"I can't say I was surprised."
Q: Where did you hear about it?
"In the media. He didn't bother calling to tell us."
Q: You foresaw that as well. You said in closed discussions that he's the weakest link, that he'll leave.
"True, we know who we're working with."
Q: So what happened?
"I don't want to elaborate on this. I wish Rabbi Raffi Peretz much success in the Jerusalem Affairs Ministry."
Q: Do you think he's fit for politics?
"I think it's his choice, and he made a mistake. During all the negotiations after the elections Naftali updated everyone about everything. The minimum requirement was for Rabbi Rafi to speak with us before he made that move, it would be more respectable. But we also took that into consideration."
Q: Do you believe Gantz will be prime minister?
"You can never know in politics."
In the past week, Yamina members have been dealing with the sovereignty bid. They met with Yesha Council members and speak often in public about the plan, mainly about what is sees as its dangers.
"President Trump is the friendliest president Israel has ever had," says Shaked. "There never was a president like him, and probably never will be. Ambassador David Friedman is part and parcel of the settlement movement, he helped build Beit El. We are full of gratitude for them. They are good people who want the best for the country.
"Actually, the Trump plan was drawn up by Netanyahu. It should be called the Netanyahu plan. For many years, since the Bar Ilan speech, Netanyahu has been talking about a demilitarized Palestinian state, smaller than the one Olmert and Livni talked about, but still a Palestinian state.
"We object to a Palestinian state. For me to support such a plan, a few changes need to be made. First, change the map. In the maps that I saw there is Palestinian contiguity and Israeli enclaves. It should be the opposite - Israeli contiguity and Palestinian enclaves.
"Also, according to the map we have, over 100,000 Palestinians will be granted citizenship. If we're talking about annexing all of Area C, we can swallow citizenship for 100,000 people, but when you're applying sovereignty to only 30 percent of the area, it's not worth it.
"Furthermore, the issue of not building in isolated settlements must be removed. If heaven forbid a Palestinian state is created, large settlements will become disconnected islands, and the plan will call for no building there as well. Har Bracha is a settlement that can have tens of thousands of homes. Freezing now would cause it to wilt.
"According to the plan, 50% of Area C will be under a freeze. No building, Jewish or Arab, for at least four years. It should be brought down to three years, and made clear that after three years building can resume."
Q: Why three years and not two?
"Two years is excellent, three years is realistic. If Trump is reelected, three years is still when he's in office."
Q: The plan poses some difficult conditions for the Palestinians, and they already said they will not accept it.
"That's true, but who can guarantee me that a different administration won't take over the US, that will not be committed to the conditions detailed today and will only be based on the Israeli agreement for a Palestinian state on half the territory? We must not accept a plan that recognizes a Palestinian state. The Israeli government never recognized a Palestinian state, not even in the Oslo Accords."
Q: The pragmatic Right says that in order to reach an historic event such as applying sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria, concessions must be made.
"What we see is that what works is the Mapai method - wherever you build, there's sovereignty. Even if it's unofficial. Therefore we're not ready to have an agreement that says half of the territory goes to Palestinians. In that situation, we prefer to wait another 50 years. We have patience."
Q: When you were in government you spoke of the Trump and Netanyahu declaration in the White House as a miracle that signals "the beginning of our redemption". How has it suddenly become a danger?
"Our position on sovereignty does not depend on a political position. Even when we were Netanyahu's partners we said it's a plan that could endanger the settlements. From that press conference, one could understand that in a day or two sovereignty could be applied with no commitment whatsoever. Suddenly we saw that things were different."
The justice system has been part of the public discussion in the last few months and has caused many disputes. Shaked, the former justice minister, speaks of the large distrust the right-wing has for the system.
"You need to separate between the prosecution and state attorney to the courts. When I started the job, I had one goal - to balance the justice system towards a more national and conservative direction. I did that by controlling the judges' selection committee. We appointed conservative and national judges to every court, and we can see it today in all the rulings, even in the Supreme Court and also in the lower courts, although there it's seen less. Once there used to be in the Supreme Court only one justice like Noam Solberg. Now there's a conservative camp, together with justices like Yosef Elron and David Mintz.
"This is a trend that should have continued. If I had another term in the Justice Ministry, I would have appointed another two or three conservative judges, and then the Supreme Court would have been balanced, half and half. Half of the judges conservative-nationalists, and the other half liberal-progressives."
Q: Do you agree with the claims that people in the State Attorney's Office have it out for Netanyahu? That there is selective enforcement?
"Ehud Olmert was a left-winger, he negotiated with Abu Mazen [Abbas], he gave up on Jerusalem, and they still charged him. It's not only against right-wingers. There were cases against all types of people with different opinions. You need to remember that Shai Nitzan is a Netanyahu appointee, he and Tzipi Livni brought him. When they brought his name to be approved by the government, the Jewish Home ministers were the only ones who tried to stop this appointment because they saw he had a very 'prosecutorial' attitude whenever it came to settlers in Judea and Samaria. Bennett spoke with the prime minister and told him not to bring this appointment to the government, and Netanyahu said that Shai Nitzan is very worthy of the position. Those are the facts. That's reality.
"There's a different problem with the prosecution: they criminalize politics. When I was justice minister, I spoke all the time with the prosecutor management and told them to be careful with this. A political process is an issue of give-and-take, it doesn't mean there's corruption. Not every meeting between two people with interests is a conflict of interests. We must be careful not to turn political practice into something criminal."
Q: What are your plans for the future? Smotrich told us he and Bennett are working on the foundations of a new, unified party. Are you out of the loop?
"We are three, and the three of us think we should unite the Habayit Hayehudi, National Union, and the New Right into one big party, that will gain the trust of the public through primaries, and grow from there."
Q: Meaning, the idea is to continue with a sectorial party?
"The idea is to build a larger, more significant party. Not one that will compete with the Likud, these are two parties with different roles. The Likud is a ruling party, and this is an ideological party for the Zionist right and religions Zionists."
Q: Have you dropped the idea of being prime minister? You once said one can only become prime minister through the Likud.
"It's true that if you want to be the prime minister you must go to the Likud."
Q: Miri Regev says she blocked your attempt to move to the Likud.
"Last year, when we didn't pass the threshold, people from the Likud came to me and told me it was time to join the party and work there."
Q: And why didn't it happen?
"The political system went on to another round of elections, and I saw the opportunity to unite the three parties, and that's what we did."
Q: In the future will you want to move to the Likud and be a contender for prime minister from there?
"Right now that's not on the agenda. I don't know what will be in the future."
