Category Archives: Israel

      The new star of the Israeli election season (mercifully short, at approximately three months) is Naftali Bennett, leader of the “Bayit Hayehudi,” the Jewish Home. That party, a merger of the old National Religious Party and a break-away, the Ichud Haleumi, National Union Party, itself is an accomplishment that ranks as a minor miracle: for the first time in memory, religious right-wing Israelis have a united home and need not split their votes among splinter parties, and for the first time ever, such a party has natural appeal even to Israelis who are not necessarily right-wing or religious. The ever-fickle polls still show that Habayit Hayehudi is poised to become Israel’s third-largest political party after these elections, and possibly even the second largest party. How did this happen?

     Bennett himself is that rare politician who combines background and attributes that make him appealing to large sectors of the population. Born in California, he spent his early years here in Teaneck, with his family proud members of our own Congregation Bnai Yeshurun. (On a visit here just two months ago, he stopped by his old house and spoke in shul as well). His parents made aliya while he was still a child, he studied in the Israeli educational system, and served 22 years in the IDF including a long stint as an officer in the elite commando unit Sayeret Matkal. He is religious, but married a woman from a secular family. He is independently wealthy, having co-founded and then sold a high-tech company specializing in anti-fraud software. He served as chief-of-staff to Binyamin Netanyahu (before the latter returned to high office) and head of the YESHA Council. He is fiercely pro-settlement, but lives in tony Raanana.

Think of the demographics targeted: New immigrants, veteran Israeli fighters, religious Jews, secular Jews, settlers and entrepreneurs, i.e., almost everyone who votes. And his party includes representatives of those groups, as well as municipal leaders from struggling communities who can be the voice of Israelis who have not yet been lifted up by the waves of prosperity in Israel. For the first time, a so-called “religious-Zionist” party has a Knesset candidate – Ayelet Shaked – who describes herself as “secular,” based on the sensible and compelling premise that the “Jewish Home” includes as well non-observant Jews and Israelis who care deeply about Jewish life and continuity. It is composed of Ashkenazim and Sefaradim. It is a far cry from the NRP of old, which saw itself essentially as primarily responsible for religious life and therefore served (with some exceptions) as religious functionaries, “kashrut supervisors in the Socialist government.” Bennett aspires to more – leadership, and national leadership at that – and why not? He has more life experience in a variety of fields at age 40 than did a certain community organizer who himself rode the perfect political storm to victory in the United States.

The credibility of Bennett’s challenge to the political establishment and the possibility that this election cycle could be the beginning of a new revolution in Israeli politics has, of course, frightened that very establishment which has attempted to discredit Bennett in a number of typically cynical ways. Most recently, Bennett was accused of fomenting a mutiny in the IDF by calling on soldiers to refuse orders to expel Jews from settlements. That accusation was blatently false.

Said charges grew out of an interview that Bennett gave in the Israeli TV hot box known as Mish’al Ham (Hot Mish’al) presided over by veteran Israeli reporter Nissim Mish’al. Mish’al provokes, antagonizes and tries to bully his interviewees, unabashedly distorts their words, cuts them off mid-sentence –and achieves high ratings in the process. Israelis love it. I watch it, and it must be like watching a mud wrestling match in which the viewers themselves are splattered with mud, and emerge exhausted and sweaty.

For example, after the contretemps over refusal of orders, Mish’al asked Bennett (translation mine): “Your primary concern is the settlements. But 800,000 Israeli children live below the poverty line. Why doesn’t that interest you?” And that was followed by this journalistic doozy: “Why do you hate Arabs?” (Hmmm… and when did you stop beating your wife?) Mish’al’s style evokes that of the relentless attack dog Mike Wallace, but Mish’al is an attack dog with rabies. When one of Mish’al’s panelists – more like a cheering squad of fellow journalists – began to explain that Bennett has to encourage refusal and must hate Arabs “because he leads a party of extremists” – and Bennett started to protest – he was interrupted by Misha’l who explained “that was a statement, not a question; there is no need for you to respond.” To be fair to Mish’al, he torments and abuses all his guests, not just the right-wingers.

That background is useful in understanding what preceded it: Mish’al’s question: “what would you do as a soldier if you were told to evacuate Jews from their homes.” Bennett answered that he would be incapable of carrying out such an assignment in good conscience, and would ask his commander to be excused from it.

Well, that unleashed a torrent of criticism that Bennett was inciting refusal, which would cause anarchy, provoke a civil war and lead to the destruction of the Jewish state and an end to the Zionist dream – all, probably, within a few minutes of each other. When Bennett insisted he was not calling for refusal but conscientious objection – and reiterated that several times – the distinction was lost on his interviewer, the panel, and the gaggle of squealing politicians across the landscape who immediately heaped abuse upon him.

Shame on them, and not only because anarchy, civil war and self-destruction will result from further expulsions of Jews and not because of the conscientious objection of soldiers who joined the IDF to defend Jews rather than persecute them, but rather because the nuance of Bennett’s reasonable response was either intentionally or unintentionally missed in the intense atmosphere of the program and the campaign.

On a practical level, soldiers have frequently opted out of participating in these violent acts against fellow Jews; that is why one rarely sees a kipa-wearing soldier among the expelling forces either in Gush Katif or some outposts in Judea and Samaria. Intelligent commanders have respected that and not placed their soldiers in the awkward positions of having to expel their parents and friends from their homes.

And there is a profound difference between conscientious objection and insubordination. A refusal of orders challenges the authority of the entity that gave the order, and delegitimizes it; a conscientious objection accepts the legitimacy of the order, but declares that that recipient of the order, on a personal level, is unable to carry it out and wishes to be excused. That distinction should be patently clear, even in the heart of an obsessive election season, but for the barefaced hypocrisy that abounds.

How reasonable is conscientious objection, aside from the fact that every military among the world’s functioning democracies recognizes it?  No less an “authority” than Ariel Sharon said on July 13, 1995 that a soldier who is called upon the act against his conscience (and he meant the expulsion of Jews from their homes) “should turn to his commander personally, say that he cannot carry out such an order, and pay the price for it.” That Sharon later changed his opinion, among other changes in his life, should be attributed to nothing less than crass politics. A 2004 proclamation calling the expulsion of Jews “ethnic cleansing” and a “crime against humanity,” and imploring the government not to issue such orders and for the soldiers to “listen to the voice of their consciences – national and human – and not participate in activities that will stain them,” was signed by hundreds of prominent Israelis from across the political and religious spectrum – including Benzion Netanyahu (the PM’s late father), Shmuel ben Arzi (the PM’s late father-in-law) and Ido Netanyahu, the PM’s brother. Yet, PM Netanyahu chose here to excoriate Bennett.

Was Bennett’s statement so extreme? On the contrary, it was reasoned, principled, moral and just – none of which have anything in the slightest to do with politics, and hence the ferocious and contrived overreaction. Bennett’s response – read and heard unfiltered, and without the caustic, duplicitous commentary of the chattering classes and their political patrons – struck the electorate as so balanced and decent that, almost immediately, Habayit Hayehudi gained several seats in the polls, and so the issue was dropped, sure to re-surface in distorted form and at a time and place when Bennett cannot respond adequately.

Until then, one can only hope that Bennett’s electoral appeal continues to broaden. He is proudly pro-settlement and firmly against a Palestinian state (for cogent reasons that Likud politicians long advocated but quickly abandon when in power). He advocates cooperation on economic and quality-of-life issues with the Arab leadership that can only improve the conditions under which their residents live, which itself might reduce tensions. He favors strong military responses to attacks on Jews, and, of course, he promotes deepening the Jewish character of the state in a way that most Jews, even those not defined as observant, appreciate and would embrace.

Democracy is a most unwieldy form of government, and the Israeli electorate has a history of bewildering and unpredictable choices. Likud has disappointed in the past, and Netanyahu’s future statecraft is a mystery, both to his party, to his voters, and maybe even to himself. His party will win a plurality of the votes and he will again serve as Prime Minister (although the merger with Likud Beiteinu is shaping up as a colossal blunder that will cost them seats).

The natural home for fearful Likud voters, and for so-called secular Israelis who cherish tradition and want to safeguard the Jewishness of the State of Israel, is the Jewish Home, which, together with its leaders and its platform, has a beautiful ring to its name.

     Here in Israel, where I have spent this past week, life goes on. One would never know, outside the communities of the south that are still under threat, that just ten days ago Israel had absorbed 1500 Arab missiles and rockets on its towns and cities, its men, women and children. That the “south” is located about 35 minutes’ drive from the “center,” where I am, adds to both the relief at the (temporary) end to the bombardment and to the quality of the ordinary citizen who is able to resume his daily life unimpeded.

     These skirmishes, including wars, are perceived as temporary glitches from which people are expected to rebound quickly and quietly. Indeed, many people seemed more concerned with the effects of Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York than on the effects of Hurricane Hamas here, even though the former is long gone and the latter retains its potency.

      But resilience comes at a price. The strength of character is remarkable to behold – it is almost natural, except for the children in the southern communities who have grown up under the fear of rocket attacks. Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, the inevitable result of years of daily rocket attacks that allows roughly 15 seconds to decide where to take cover.

    The price is complacency, an acceptance of a state of affairs that in normal countries would be intolerable and would lead to a swift and thorough rejection of the politicians who permitted this situation to occur and fester. Instead, the opposite happens. Failed politicians are routinely recycled, and accountability is non-existent. The election season here, mercifully just three months short (as compared to the interminable American process), finds the same faces, personalities and policies seeking public for the future failures that will buttress their resume of past failures. There is always a new face promising the world (this year it is TV journalist Yair Lapid, who at least is presenting more thoughtful clichés than others), but also more of the same. Tsippi Livni announced to mild fanfare her return and creation of a new party. Ehud Barak has retired from politics “forever;” wait, that “forever” retirement occurred in 2001. “Forever,” apparently, is not as long as it used to be. He, too, will be back, his “retirement” an admission that he could not win election in his own right. Ehud Olmert hems and haws about running (he won’t), freshly convicted of corruption related offenses, but no matter. All three have the stain of Lebanon on their records – Barak presiding over the night retreat in 2000 that eventually allowed Hezbollah to take power, and Olmert/Livni over the failed war of 2006.

     Memories are short. Contempt breeds familiarity, and familiarity wins elections. And of course, Olmert, Livni and so many others in government bear responsibility for the retreat from Gaza and the expulsion of its Jews in 2006. How many others? Even PM Netanyahu voted for the expulsion before he was against it. So did Limor Livnat, Yuval Steinitz, Tzachi Hanegbi and assorted others who still shape the Likud and assert strong right-wing credentials. Not many seem to remember or care, until you consider that the ruling party will only garner roughly 25% of the popular vote in this parliamentary democracy. And the president himself, Shimon Peres, escapes responsibility for Oslo, Lebanon, Gaza and other debacles – either compassion to an elder statesmen or the traditional lack of accountability that governs political life here.

     The week’s entertainment is provided by the Palestinian Authority, which is abrogating the Oslo Accords (again) by seeking UN General Assembly recognition of its statehood. It is bizarre for several reasons. Israel is unlikely to void the agreements, which in any event has only required its unilateral adherence but has always exempted the Arabs from compliance. Abbas, the “president,” has seen his role and power eclipsed and needs to show something, anything, for his eight years in office. His “term” expired four years ago, but since he cannot win re-election, he simply does not allow elections. His tenure in office is protected by the Israelis, for whom he displays nothing but derision.

    For its part, both Israel (and its current government) and the American government are on record as supporting a Palestinian state, so why the objections? That the “state” is supposed to emerge through negotiations seems like a technicality. Another technicality – that a state should have defined borders and sovereignty over those borders – also does not apply here because the traditional rules and definitions are often waived for those given to wanton violence against innocents and opponents alike. Contributing to the farce is that the vote took place in the UN General Assembly, infamous for its passage of numerous, non-binding anti-Israel resolutions, including the “Zionism is Racism” bit of moral splendor in 1975. The vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions, is about what the world of decent people could expect. Once again, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands stand with the Jewish people. G-d bless them.

      It should not be overlooked that the foundation for this vote was laid by the Israelis many years ago. The Oslo Accords, whatever the technical language, was obviously designed to create a Palestinian state. That agreement was an explicit admission by the Jewish state that the Jewish people are not the exclusive sovereigns in the land of Israel, despite G-d’s eternal promises set forth in the Bible. Governments of the left and the right embraced that outcome in one form or another. Menachem Begin himself recognized (in 1978) the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” a phrase that stuck in his craw but that he accepted based on his lawyerly interpretation that the words “legitimate rights” could be interpreted to mean anything he wanted it to mean and not what the other signatories understood it to mean. So the chickens of Oslo, Lebanon, and Gush Katif have indeed come home to roost.

     And yet, whatever the psychological value (and most Arabs will assume that the vote means something that it does not, and fire their weapons in the air in celebration), the vote has no effect in the real world. Nothing changes here, today, anymore that Arafat’s declaration of statehood amounted to anything in 1988. A General Assembly vote has no legal status at all. Abba Eban said it eloquently: “If Algeria introduced a General Assembly resolution that the world is flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would find overwhelming support in the Arab world” and elsewhere. And he said it almost forty years ago. Nothing has changed there, either.

     Abbas still needs to be propped up by Israel. There is no Palestinian state. The PA and Hamas are still bitter rivals, and Abbas knows that his political career ends the moment the people are given the right to vote him out, whenever that is. The UN carnival, typically, just distracts the world from the real crises in the region – Iran’s nuclear bomb, Syria’s civil war and Egypt’s ongoing unrest. Anyone who still needs proof of the mendacity and hypocrisy rampant in the Arab world needs to consider only the howls of protest when 150 Arabs were killed and several hundred wounded in the clashes in Gaza – squeals that were intended to awaken the world to the horrors of a nation (Israel) exercising its right of self-defense – while the Arab world is dormant at the massacres in Syria of more than 35,000 people, and the turmoil in Egypt where already more than 500 people have been injured.

    It’s not the civilian deaths or injury that seem to disturb the Arab world and its malevolent allies across the world; it’s that the cursed Jews are doing it, and in defense of their right to exist.

    There are two obvious conclusions to this vote. One, that Oslo is officially dead, and this declaration vitiates its very premises of negotiations over final status issues, and, two, that the United States is now bound by law to cut its funding of the Palestinian Authority. But neither will happen and the blatant violations will be finessed, because neither the US nor Israel has any real interest in changing the dynamic of the struggle. That complicity is emblematic of the failures of Israeli politicians for decades that have seen Israel’s strategic position deteriorate slowly but inexorably.

    Nonetheless, in the beleaguered town of Sderot, barely two miles from Gaza and the recipient of thousands of missiles and rockets in the last ten years, one encounters today personal strength and courage, a desire to rebuild, lifelong residents who have no interest in moving to safer zones. Their resilience is an inspiration to all Jews, and their heroic story will yet be told. In the new communities built to house the Jewish refugees driven out of Gaza in 2005, one encounters the same determination, along with sadness about what was lost and the unshakeable (and usually unmentioned) feeling of “I told you so,” the unheeded warnings of what would befall Israel if they retreated under pressure from Gaza.

    All these brave souls have been betrayed by governments with convoluted miscalculations, wishful thinking and illusions disguised as policies, unkept promises repeated in every election cycle, or statecraft that is often illogical and self-destructive.

   The people of Israel deserve better; if only they would realize it and act upon it.