Author Archives: Rabbi

Headlines

Posted on June 26, 2012 | 1 comment

ISLAMIST ELECTED PRESIDENT OF EGYPT – Islamist, of course, is the politically correct method of referring to radical Muslims, distinguishable from moderate Muslims in ways that are somewhat ambiguous. If one wants to posit that there are Muslims who oppose terror, suicide bombings and the beheading of innocents, then I not only accept that but I also celebrate that and wish those Muslims were more numerous and especially more outspoken than their extremist brethren. In fact, they do exist, but they are either intimidated into silence, or they are perceived as less committed than the radicals. Thus, the defining characteristic of Islam in today’s world is its radical nature, rendering the term “Islamist” somewhat redundant but politically necessary.

To date, every country that has seen a struggle between radical Islam and either secularism or moderate Islam has seen the radicals prevail. I assumed this would happen in Egypt as well (like in Turkey, Libya, Gaza, etc.) but I thought it would take several years, not several months. It is disheartening that across the Muslim world, people given the choice between liberty, the crown of democracy, and a narrow and harsh form of Islam, have always opted for radicalism. Churchill’s dictum leaps to mind: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” It is hard to conjure a situation in which the tide is reversed without bloodshed, as it is to conjure even having another free election in any of those places. The forms of democracy are abused in order to produce a government that is devoid of the substance of democracy.

All of this places Israel, which already has enough problems, in a serious pickle. Certainly the peace treaty with Egypt, linchpin of Israeli diplomacy for more than 30 years, hangs by a tenuous thread. Its fate rests not in the hands of the Israelis but in the need for Egypt to continue receiving its $3B annually from the United States (probably stopped if the treaty is summarily vitiated), or to find some method where they can renounce the treaty and still receive the money. The Egyptian military, of course, is the party most interested in maintaining the US financial pipeline, and Egypt is headed for serious strife in the months ahead as its two power structures negotiate some political arrangement. Nonetheless, whatever agreement signed by the Muslim Brotherhood will be breached as soon as it suits them, and eventually the military will come under their control with the general-holdouts killed, exiled, or imprisoned.

Thus is demonstrated again the folly of democracies negotiating long-term agreements with dictatorships. For sure, there was a value in 30 years of non-belligerence on Israel’s southern flank. Thirty years is nothing to scoff at. Several times the Book of Shoftim (Judges) notes that after the reign of certain judges, “the land was tranquil for forty years” (once even for eighty years!). It is only now (aside from scattered terrorist attacks over the decades) that the loss of Sinai to the Egyptian dictatorship will be keenly felt.

Both Egypt and Israel have to navigate treacherous waters ahead. Egypt, as noted above, has to temper its radical agenda in order to retain the American largesse that enables it to feed its population until such time as it can have both – both the money and the radical agenda. Such is not at all farfetched. There will come a time when Egypt has long forfeited its justification for American assistance which will nonetheless be forthcoming in order to allow the US to “retain its influence in the region.” (That is why the PA is still funded notwithstanding its open association with Hamas.)

Attempts are already being made to humanize the Muslim Brotherhood, and to project onto them Western values and political interests (“they must produce or they will be voted out.” See above.) That trope was applied to Bashar al-Assad when he took power – he’s Westernized, an ophthalmologist, not like his father, etc. – and that hasn’t quite worked out.

And the Assad failure will not stop the liberal sages from pontificating about the “newfound moderation” of the Islamists who rule Egypt. Barry Rubin of the Gloria Center has it right (http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/06/egypt-a-muslim-brotherhood-president-does-not-prove-that-we-are-all-chimps/). Check out the acrobatics of the persistently-wrong Thomas Friedman. A few months ago: “The popular trend is not with the Muslim Brotherhood.” Now: “That the Brotherhood and the Salafist Nour Party have garnered 65% of the votes in Egypt’s elections should hardly come as a surprise.” Give that man another Pulitzer, or at least make him a meteorologist. Only naïve Westerners assumed that the protests in Tahrir Square, and the Arab Spring itself, would bring greater liberty to the Muslim world.

Israel’s dilemma is profound. The treaty with Egypt bars the introduction of Egyptian military forces into Sinai beyond a small number that can carry only light arms. Ariel Sharon in his day already allowed Egypt to violate this treaty in order to prevent terrorists from south Gaza and Sinai from invading Israel after Sharon expelled thousands of Jews from Gush Katif, destroyed their homes, and abandoned Israeli control over the Philadelphi corridor in the south. But now, with the increase in Hamas-sponsored terror from Sinai, Netanyahu can ask the Egyptians to send in even more troops with heavier equipment to patrol the Israel-Egypt border in order – get this – for the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt to stop its ideological brothers in Gaza from attacking Israel. Once that is done, then the Sinai is no longer demilitarized, and Egyptian troops will again be massed on Israel’s southern border, as they were on the eve of the 1967 Six Day War.

In effect, Netanyahu can effectively waive a key clause of the treaty and allow the Egyptian army into Sinai, or…what? There is no other option, as Israel cannot itself encroach on Egyptian territory to preclude a terrorist assault. It is bad if the Egyptian Army comes and it is bad if the Egyptian Army does not come – quite a Hobson’s choice. In a normal democracy-democracy treaty, both sides could easily re-negotiate, as over the years relations between democratic parties to a treaty generally improve. But relations with Egypt have only grown colder over the three decades of the treaty, hence the trepidation on Israel’s part – a trepidation that might induce Israel again (as in Gaza) to accept a certain level of terror, death and mayhem, as long as it doesn’t exceed some mysterious level in either intensity or casualties.

For times like these, prayer on a Biblical level (Ramban’s opinion) was created and rational decisions focusing on Israel’s interests – not, for example, expending energy evicting settlers – are necessary. Egypt should be made aware that Israel will respond harshly to any provocations, and that Egypt in its own interest should coordinate with Israel.

ISRAEL DEDICATES MONUMENT TO WORLD WAR II RED ARMY – This sounds as bizarre as it reads. Tomorrow, off the main square in Netanya (where I have family roots for over 40 years), Israel will unveil a monument to the heroism of the Soviet Red Army that was triumphant in defending the motherland during World War II. Russia’s President (for-life) Putin will be present, along with President Shimon Peres and PM Netanyahu. One may ask, WHY?

The short answer is that Netanya has among its residents hundreds, if not several thousand, Russian-Jewish veterans of the World War II Red Army, and the monument is a tribute to their service. Of course, it is hard to imagine the Russians erecting a monument in Sochi to the outstanding contributions of Russian Jews to the IDF (to be unveiled in time for the Winter Olympics in 2014), and it is exceedingly rare for any country to pay any tribute to the military of another country that is not allied with it in wartime.

The longer answer might involve Israel’s need to curry favor with Putin, who can greatly influence the potential resolutions in two hot spots for Israel – Russian allies such as Iran and Syria – and especially when the US seems today like a less reliable ally, and certainly less influential across the globe. I do not doubt that occasionally one has to swallow one’s pride and pay tribute to the less-than worthy in order to achieve some noble end, nor do I doubt for a moment the valiant contributions of Jewish soldiers to the Red Army. But really? Honoring the Red Army?

Anyone with a faint sense of history can recall that the Red Army at the beginning of World War II was allied to Hitler and joined the Nazis in invading Poland. Thousands of Jews were killed in its territory – not systematically, as in Nazi-controlled areas – but killed nonetheless. The Red Army only found itself on the side of the angels when Hitler renounced his treaty with the USSR (see above about negotiating with dictators) and launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941 that saw a massive and brutal invasion of Russia. That same Red Army oversaw the deaths by starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930’s, and together with the other elements of the Security Services of the USSR, administered the banishment and persecution of Jews before, during and after the War. Granted, this was all at Stalin’s behest, and granted as well, Jews were conscripted into the Red Army like all other citizens during the War. But to honor the Red Army? In Israel? In the presence of its most recent dictator?

It shouldn’t be that difficult to remember that most of the Israelis who were citizens of the former Soviet Union lived as prisoners, without basic human rights, and tormented by the KGB for whom Vladimir Putin was a faithful agent.

Not every bad idea is meant to be implemented.

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Supreme Court Preview

Posted on June 20, 2012 | 2 comments

The US Supreme Court decision in State of Florida v. US Department of Health and Human Services, and related cases, better known as the Obamacare decision, is but days away. Throwing caution to the wind, I offer this preview.

By a 5-4 vote, the Court will rule the “individual mandate” provision of the health-coverage bill unconstitutional. What should surprise is the closeness of the vote, the narrow margin provided as is customary by Justice Anthony Kennedy. That is because the individual mandate – requiring every American to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty – is an unprecedented expansion of Congressional power. For the first time, Americans will be told that as a condition of citizenship, they must enter the private marketplace and buy a commercial product. That is, frankly, extraordinary.

It is harsh to draw this conclusion and it sounds biased, but justices who vote in favor of the individual mandate are exercising a political, not a legal, judgment. They are essentially saying that there are really no limits to government power or government intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. Such runs counter to the Constitution, the ethos of American life, and the fundamental concepts of liberty as traditionally embraced by Americans. Those liberal justices must maintain: that government can, in fact, order every American to eat broccoli, and/or that the great good of universal health coverage supersedes the constitutional norms that have governed the lives of Americans for more than 220 years. They must also politically support universal health coverage, and wish to defer their constitutional role to Congress and the Executive Branch.

It is interesting that Congress could have chosen to raise taxes to fund a universal health program – but that was politically unpalatable. So the Dems chose the underhanded approach of asserting that the fee Americans must pay for failure to procure insurance a fine, not a tax, but, curiously, a fine to be collected by the IRS. So how can the minority of four rationalize the individual mandate under current Constitutional conceptions?

Much of the current debate is rooted in the Court’s understanding of the Commerce Clause, that part of the Constitution that allows Congress to “regulate commerce…among the several states.” In a strained manner, they make reference to cases like Wickard v. Filburn, a strange 1942 (wartime) case in which farmer Filburn was fined for growing too much wheat on his farm and thereby violating wartime quotas, even though he claimed the wheat was for his family’s use and not for commercial sale. But in that case, and other similar cases, the Court essentially ruled that Congress can order an American not to buy something, or not to sell something, or not to possess something – all of which might ostensibly affect interstate commerce. But the “individual mandate” would be the very first time that Congress ordered Americans to actually buy something from the private sector, and not simply abstain.

Often, misleaders have pointed to obligatory automobile
insurance as analogous to the “individual mandate” but such is duplicitous. Auto insurance is a state, not a federal, requirement, and is only required of automobile owners. The analogy would be precise if, for example, the government ordered everyone individual American to buy auto insurance, whether or not they own a car, to defray the cost of the illegals who drive without insurance and cause uncompensated harm to others. That dog won’t hunt.

The American conception of liberty does not allow for such intrusions on government’s part into our lives.

The law itself, and not just the “individual mandate,” should be invalidated; yet, I sense that the law itself – minus the mandate – will be upheld 5-4, with Justice Kennedy again providing the swing vote. This – in maintaining the perch he has created in the center – keeps him in the good graces of the liberal press and legal scholars, who will leap to praise his moderation, judiciousness and deference (as opposed to a “no” on the entire bill, for which those same writers would immediately castigate him for being partisan, a right-wing Neanderthal, a prisoner of the conservatives and probably a racist as well).

In effect, such a vote is a distinction without a difference, between Obamacare hinges on the “individual mandate” designed to thrust into the system billions of dollars of young people’s insurance premiums – those who will have to pay into the system but owing to their youth and health are rarely medical consumers. Thus the law would be sent back to Congress, die there – but at least Obama could partially save face. Many are worried about the fate of the “popular” aspects of the bill – especially the “child-on-parents’-insurance-policy-until-age-26,” also known as the “Infantilization of the American Adult Clause.” How pathetic is that, a telling indication of the success of the nanny state. (Why stop at 26? Why not 46?)

The politics are also labyrinthine. Obviously, a defeat for Obamacare in whole or part would be a blow to the President, who would have wasted so much of his and Congress’ time on a quixotic bill while the economy foundered. It would also undermine his self-anointed credentials as a distinguished legal scholar, having taught Constitutional Law (as an adjunct) at the University of Chicago Law School – and despite never having published any scholarly articles. To have his primary domestic achievement reversed would be embarrassing, and should be another nail in the coffin of his re-election hopes.

Nevertheless, there would be a bright side for Obama even in the case of a reversal. After all, his signature legislation is wildly unpopular, and he would not have to run while defending it. He would also then find himself in his most enjoyable position – campaigner on the stump making promises (health care done right, more amenable justices on the Supreme Court, close Guantanamo, etc.).

In effect, he wins by losing. The theory is good, but the reality is that the spin placed on it will dictate to many non-thinking Americans what exactly they should think. And there is a precedent for such a Pyrrhic defeat (!) In 1935, the Court ruled much of FDR’s New Deal unconstitutional, which infuriated the president, led him to devise a scheme to pack the Court with his supporters – but only after he won re-election by a landslide in 1936. The fact that FDR was rebuffed by the Court was no bar to his re-election.

Obama, though, lacking FDR’s gravitas, record and substance, will not fare as well. He especially lacks FDR’s grace under pressure and is not likely to accept defeat with poise and dignity. On balance, a reversal of Obamacare will harm the President and his re-election efforts, and just as well. Added to the wobbly economy, an incapacity to internalize blame, and a lack of a plan to extricate the US from this economic morass deeper than “tax the rich,” Obama’s defeat on Obamacare should make his re-election more difficult – better for America and the world.

We’ll see soon enough.

[Click on my lecture on Florida v HHS and the Torah’s View of Obamacare for more.]

2 Comments

Syria’s Challenge

Posted on June 13, 2012 | Comments Off

The ongoing massacres in Syria raise a number of compelling issues. The most obvious is the state of the world when the United States takes a back seat in world affairs, or, as in the Obama Administration’s precious phrase, prefers to “lead from behind.” Leading from behind has made the US (and the world) bystanders to the murder and brutalization of more than 10,000 people, all the rhetoric of compassion notwithstanding.

And the massacres have indeed unleashed a torrent of rhetoric, a nuclear arsenal of verbiage designed to accomplish nothing more than placate the feelings of the bystanders and make a record for posterity. The record? That the civilized world did not stand by idly and watch children being dismembered alive but intervened with forceful and articulate denunciations of such vile conduct. Hillary Clinton might have joined a bit late (as of February, she was praising an Assad-led government for its stability) but her recent and strident declarations of “Assad must go!” resonate with almost-biblical passion. Of course, no one has yet done anything beyond the rhetoric, and only the hopelessly naïve believe that Assad will surrender because he cannot bear to have his feelings hurt enduring the insults of world leaders.

Chalk this up as another great Obama foreign policy success. Few remember that the prior administration had isolated Assad, but the Obama team chose to re-engage with Syria, even sending back the US Ambassador after a long absence. That re-engagement has worked out as well as the “reset button” with Russia which has easily manipulated the US into dismantling the missile defense in Eastern Europe already even as Russia awaits further US concessions after “my election,” as Obama was carelessly recorded saying “when I will have greater flexibility.” Putin plays Obama like a marionette. And the failure is compounded by Russia (and China’s) stonewalling on a UN resolution even condemning Syria for its atrocities, and Russia’s arming of the Syrian government today with the means to kill even more people.

Obviously, history’s narrative requires – demands – UN resolutions as de facto proof of the world’s concern, but of course it doesn’t really matter. A few choice editorials praising the resolutions and denouncing evil are icing on the cake. This recalls the famous statement of W.R. Inge, Dean of London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral, who said in 1915: “It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.” No UN resolution – and no sanctions, as we see from Iran’s case – will persuade evil people to desist from their evil. The calculus of evil is completely different from that of a normal, healthy psyche. One who doesn’t care about murdering the young and innocent will care even less about sanctions that starve them. And, as shocking as it sounds, murderers have also been known to lie, and even to renege on written agreements and commitments. Yes, shocking!

The bottom line is – and I know I am breaching propriety and the etiquette of nations – that no one really cares about the death of Syrian civilians. A cynic might argue that no one cares because the rebels in Syria are either worse than Assad or slightly less evil than Assad but they are evil, contemptible people regardless. Dictators – as noted here several essays back –bring a sort of macabre stability to their countries, and even though Assad and father were global trouble-making, Jew-hating murderers for more four decades, they did bring some type of predictability to their affairs. That same cynic might further contend that no outcome here is good for Israel – in fact, what benefits Israel is a long, drawn-out war that devastates Syrian society, much like Israel (and the civilized world) benefited from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s, and probably why the US armed both sides in that protracted conflict. As no one has any great love for Syria or its people, the argument goes, let them stew. Their personal plights are a misfortune but their national collapse and weakness on the international scene is a net gain for all. Additionally, there is no vital US interest at stake, except insofar as the US has occasionally intervened to prevent human suffering – not always but certainly more than any other nation.

We need not be such cynics, but nor do we have to tolerate the rank hypocrisy that passes for the diplomatic discourse in this sphere. The fact is no one cared when Assad Sr. massacred more than 20,000 rebellious residents of the town of Hama in 1982, and then leveled the town to boot. Nor did anyone really care when 800,000 Rwandans were massacred in 1994 – although its aftermath produced a lot of hand-wringing and even a fine movie. But to actually do something ? No. And the massacres in Darfur in the 2000s, in Cambodia in the 1970s, and even the Holocaust for that matter, confirm the sad reality that people just don’t care. And if America does not take the lead – even though it suffers intense criticism for it – then people are murdered in staggering numbers.

That is part of the anomaly – and hypocrisy – in world affairs. Americans will be criticized for invading countries to save the citizens from their dreadful dictators – and then criticized again for not intervening in other places. Faced with such fraudulence, the easiest approach is just to do nothing and say everything – condemn loudly and wave a wet noodle. But then we have to endure the verbal duplicity that is so prevalent and grating, empty expressions of concern and “prayers” for the welfare of the victims.

Or, countries can do the right thing, and the right thing might not always entail military intervention. The simplest form of succor is shelter for fleeing refugees, and any sensible Syrian (or denizen of any dictatorship) should want and attempt to flee given the opportunity. This is primarily the burden of the Muslim neighbors of Syria, but don’t expect much. Indeed, as one wise physician pointed out to me, it is puzzling that Turkey and surrounding countries have not organized a flotilla to sail to Syria with humanitarian aid (and arms). After all, thousands are killed, wounded and imprisoned in Syria, versus none in Gaza, to which the much-ballyhooed flotilla was launched. Curious? Of course not –that is standard hypocrisy. Where is the Mavi Marmara when it is really needed?

Sometimes force is useful in rectifying these situations, and then only the US which remains the world’s dominant power is capable of exercising it. But when the military does not engage and negotiations are obviously unsuccessful, then simple integrity would demand that platitudes and crocodile tears be eschewed, and citizens be encouraged to fight their own battles against their own tyrannies. Syria, like many dictatorships and most Arab countries, is ripe for civil war.

There is something embedded in the spirit of the Left that equates words with actions, and loves to congratulate itself on its rhetoric. (President Obama, last week: “The economy is not doing fine. That’s why I called this press conference,” as if his press conference will somehow improve the economy.) It is difficult to live in a world where civilian life is cheap and dispensable, but spare me the soppy sentimentality, the feigned distress and the cries of “Assad must go.”

For Bashar Assad, the determined dictator, is likely to be in power longer than Barack Obama, the leader from behind.

Comments Off on Syria’s Challenge

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

Unity Blues

Posted on June 5, 2012 | 1 comment

Unity is among the most cherished qualities for the Jewish nation, so much so that it was the hallmark of, and perhaps even the condition precedent for, the Revelation at Sinai. “’And Israel encamped opposite the mountain,’ like one man with one heart” (Rashi, Shmot 19:2). The harmony of Sinai contrasts sharply with the acrimony and discord associated with most of our sojourn in the wilderness. So, if unity is a virtue, why are reasonable people anxious about Israel’s “unity” government?

Several reasons suggest, the first being a distrust, or at least apprehension, of the motives and future plans of the current Prime Minister that is symptomatic of the dysfunction of Israel’s political system. Simply put, no person has a clue as to the intentions of his government, short-term or long-term. His ministers are largely at cross purposes. PM Netanyahu – wisely, from a political perspective – rarely gives interviews, and when he does, or speaks publicly, he talks in clichés, platitudes and bromides that can mean different things to different people. Often, he will embrace right-wing rhetoric to mollify one segment of his coalition while allowing ministers to implement policies that are the antithesis of that rhetoric and hostile to the concepts of land and peace. Then he will embrace left-wing rhetoric to keep the media off his back but petrify the right-wing. His core principles remain a mystery. His words are belied by his deeds, but his words provide cover to the gullible voters for his party and members of his coalition.

Thus, Kadima’s new chieftain Shaul Mofaz called Netanyahu a “liar” and “incompetent” whose government he would never join – just weeks before he joined that very government. Certainly, Mofaz realized that his party and career ambitions would be devastated by imminent elections, with polls showing Kadima losing some 75% of its mandates. In the grand tradition of Israeli politics, his personal fate played the leading role in the unfolding political drama of today.

That underscores another reason for the anxiety engendered by this government – the utter disarray of Israel’s political system. It is impossible to take seriously any statement made by any party during any campaign. It is almost impossible to match any party’s platform with its actual policies or performance once elected. Politicians often lie – usually whenever their lips are moving – but the disconnect between Israel’s political parties and their policies is staggering. There is no real opposition – vital to any democracy – because the defeated parties hope to dine on the spoils of power anyway, in some subordinate role. Kadima “won” the last election (more seats than Likud) but lost power when Netanyahu made a deal with the National Union party, a natural ally with Likud (one would have thought). Once designated to form a government, Netanyahu immediately reneged on that deal to make a new deal with the leftist Labor Party installing Ehud Barak, the failed prime minister of a decade ago, as Defense Minister. Consider this: how much support would Netanyahu have lost among Likud voters has they known during the campaign that the Defense Minister in a Likud government would be Ehud Barak, sworn enemy of the residents of Judea and Samaria? Suffice it to say, he would not be prime minister today.

And this deal with Labor followed Netanyahu’s arrangement with Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beteinu party, avowed antagonists to Labor’s leftist policies – and Lieberman agreed, only to be effectively marginalized in his Foreign Minister post while awaiting indictment on political matters that date back many years. Shas and Aguda, k’darkam bakodesh, sell their souls for money and their parochial needs that they conflate with the glory of Torah, even as they are junior (and now unneeded) partners in an enterprise whose future course is completely unknown to them and likely hostile to their interests. The “Jewish Home” party –brought in because the “National Union” was considered too outspoken and unreliable a coalition partner – has actually acquitted itself well, and may be the first domino to fall from this government, even as its real strength is non-existent. At least it has principles to which it adheres.

The flip side of the government’s political stability is its unpredictability, and that volatility can shake Israel’s core to its foundations. Witness the current imbroglio over outpost construction in various parts of Samaria that many elements in the government, and the High Court, want to see destroyed. The leftist High Court operates from a presumption that the land in question is “Palestinian” land, and renders its decision based on that presumption even though there is a scarcity of hard (or soft) evidence adduced to prove it. As bizarre as it sounds, an Arab will come forward – usually at the initiative of Peace Now or some similar group – and assert that the land has been in his family for generations without a shred of evidence, documentary or otherwise. This is the story in Migron, for example, in which Peace Now withdrew the Arab claim to the land – which prompted the High Court, nonetheless, to rule that the homes in Migron must be dismantled. Undoubtedly, these confrontations and planned expulsions are designed to intimidate the settlers and apprise them to look at the handwriting on the wall, for they serve no other rational purpose.

A unity government, in theory, could accomplish much for Israel’s polity. It could unify the disparate parties in the event that an attack on Iran is deemed necessary (much like the unity government that preceded the Six-Day War – but no other war in Israel’s history, and prompting much of the bitterness of the last 30 years);

– it could take unilateral measures like annexing Judea and Samaria while giving autonomy to the Arab residents of that region;

– it could secure Israel’s borders and respond forcefully to attacks on its citizens without concern for the sniping of political opponents;

– it could declare the Oslo Accords a failure, renounce its provisions, acknowledge the impossibility of peace in our time and focus on maximizing Israel’s strengths and assets;

– it could further move Israel away from the economic legacies of the Socialist welfare state that hampered its development for decades and from which the State is emerging to become an economic powerhouse;

– it could refine the protocol for appointing Supreme Court justices so they are not almost uniformly secular leftists from north Tel Aviv;

– it could declare halacha the official law of the land of Israel;

– it could even come to some workable arrangement regarding military or national service for all citizens – religious and non-religious, Jew and Arab.

That would assume that the values of the leaders are fixed and resolute. What typifies this government, though, is the wall-to-wall secularism (right and left) of the majority of its participants which never bodes well for long-term statecraft. As one distinguished Rosh Yeshiva once explained to me, if one could achieve the same result (he meant, in context, love for the land of Israel) through the Torah and not-through-the-Torah, then you would not need the Torah. Hence, a secular love for Israel will cease at a certain point, the left before the right, but both will eventually cease. There is a palpable and realistic fear that such is on the horizon, in pursuit of the same fantasies and chimeras that produced the Oslo debacle.

A secular national unity government, legitimized by the presence of a group of beards and hats feeding at the public trough and who thereby grant the kashrut supervision to all activities, can do untold damage. Some possibilities have already been floated – e.g., another “unilateral withdrawal,” this time from much of Judea and Samaria in order to “take advantage of the lack of a peace partner” and thereby “move the peace process forward.” (If the preceding sentence makes no sense to you, then that is a good sign that your brain is still functioning.) A unity government unencumbered by a vibrant opposition can basically do anything – unravel the social fabric with anti-Torah legislation that seeks to weaken the study of Torah, recklessly throw open the Treasury in order to reward supporters, punish opponents and buy votes, dilute the Torah by amending the laws of conversion, the qualifications for rabbis and the definition of Jewishness. They could even vote to make Shabbat come on Friday or Sunday, not that religious Jews would listen. They could so secularize the country as to make it unrecognizable to the Jewish people – and not pay any political price for it.

A democracy without a functioning opposition looks more like an elected dictatorship but actually operates as an oligarchy of the powerful. And elections in which no political party is held accountable by the voters for gross deviations from its platforms and stated purposes is more akin to the voting on reality-entertainment shows than to elections that produce serious governance. Ultimately, countries get the leaders they deserve. So do people – a message to Israel’s religious Jews, perhaps a third of the country – who routinely vote for secular parties and assume that only a secular Jew of the right, left or center can guide the nation properly. This is a tragic error that lingers in the Israeli electorate which specializes in recycling discarded and failed leaders of the past.

As the Gemara (Sanhedrin 26a) states in a different context “a confederacy of the wicked is not counted.” Confederations are esteemed, and unity is a treasured goal in Jewish life. But sometimes the benefits of creative conflict and thoughtful opposition outweigh even those of a contrived unity. While we should not leap to label Israel’s current government a “confederacy of the wicked,” its capacity to do good or to commit mischief is almost unlimited. Hence the trepidation, as we await the true unity of the future when all Israel will be “like one bond to fulfill Your will with a complete heart.”

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel