Genesis of Evil

Posted on March 8, 2012 | Comments Off on Genesis of Evil

One of the more enigmatic statements of Chazal asks, from Masechet Chulin 139b, “where do we find Haman mentioned in the Torah?”And the Gemara cites G-d’s statements to Adam after he was exposed in the Garden of Eden: “Hamin ha’etz…” – “did you eat from the tree from which you were expressly commanded not to eat?” “Hamin ha’etz…”  is like… Haman. One need not be a deep analytical thinker to ask: what in the world is the connection between this verse and Haman? It’s not even Haman, it’s Hamin?

Why did our Sages root Haman’s presence in the Torah in that verse, and why was it necessary to find a source for Haman in the Torah altogether? After all, the story of Purim occurred during the late Biblical period, between the era of the two Temples, and long after the Torah was given. The question itself is anachronistic. Rashi says it is the juxtaposition of Haman and ha’etz – Haman was hanged on a tree – but there must be more to it.

Haman’s existence, and that of Amalek and all evildoers down to and including our day, raise the most troubling questions. How do human beings become so evil, so corrupt, so depraved, as to decide to dedicate their lives to destroying other lives? It is one of the great dilemmas of history – starting from the first such villain – Nimrod – until today. How do human beings continue to produce evil people – who can murder in the millions? Or, in just a cursory look around the world today – scoundrels like Assad, the Castro brothers, Mugabe and others – people who kill and incarcerate their own; or an Ahmadinejad and his cohorts, people who are actively and overtly plotting to destroy another nation. How does all this evil endure, and where does it end?

And there is smaller evil as well, that affects not millions or thousands, but cruelty to even one other person that is inexplicable. How can we comprehend people who will willingly and eagerly destroy their own lives for the dubious “pleasure” of destroying someone else’s life – a spouse, a child, a co-worker, or an employee – regardless of the rationalizations they use and the emotional illnesses from which they suffer?

In a sentence, “where do we find Haman mentioned in the Torah?” Where do we find the roots of evil in the Torah?

And Chazal answered quite cogently and brilliantly – it all started in the Garden of Eden, with the stumbling of Adam and the collapse of the pristine, ideal Paradise. Rav Eli Horowitz, hy”d, quoted Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook that the cardinal sin in Eden was “peirud”- separation or estrangement – separation of man from G-d for sure, but especially separation of the Tree of Knowledge from the tree of life. When knowledge is used properly, it promotes life, prosperity and happiness. But when knowledge and life become separate and distinct, they become antagonistic as well, and there will be those who use their knowledge for malevolence, for wickedness, for absolute evil.

Evil results from estrangement from G-d. Obviously, that is the source of the evil of atheists (like Stalin, Mao and others) but also is the source of the evil of those with a false conception of G-d. And even Jews who otherwise practice many mitzvot but are cruel and heartless to others are ultimately estranged from G-d.

What a question: Hamin ha’etz… ?! “Did you eat from the tree from which you were expressly commanded not to eat?” What is the genesis of inv and all his imitators? All the world’s troubles stem from this sin – the tension between men and women, the tension between man and his environment, and the tension between man and G-d – and especially the disconnect between man and the way he is supposed to live – capable of living – and the way he actually lives. All evil is still rooted in that first sin. And its offspring lives – either the seed of Amalek or the spirit of Amalek, and sometimes both.

How then do we remedy the world’s troubles and diminish the lingering effects of Amalek and Haman? Well, certainly by remembering Amalek and celebrating Purim, but also by restoring the state of Eden as best we can – by reconnecting with the Torah in all aspects of our lives, by not despairing when we see bad Jews or bad people, by rededicating ourselves to the  mandate of Gan Eden – to serve and to preserve. To paraphrase Rav Kook, we can curse the darkness or we can light a candle. It is better to light a candle.

The Gemara sounds inscrutable – “whence do we know Haman from the Torah?” – but in fact Chazal here elucidate one of the most complex and troublesome issues of our world. It is all part of the divine system – even the potential for failure and especially the opportunity to rectify it and elevate it, to eradicate evil one bit at a time. Therein lies our purpose, and the gift of eternity awarded to us in the words of the prophet Shmuel, that the Eternal One of Israel does not lie – in His promises, His guarantees, or in His assurance that as He did for our ancestors miracles and wonders for them at this time’ so will He for us.

Happy Purim to all !

Comments Off on Genesis of Evil

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Holidays, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Sad, Tragic, Insane

Posted on February 28, 2012 | 3 comments

I was apprised this morning of the following, circulated on the Internet, and cited in pertinent part:

     “There are unfortunate reasons that people have become hesitant to trust Batei Din. Rabbis throughout the United States have sought to expose fraudulent Batei Din and those that do not conform to halacha, but Steven Pruzansky is probably the worst example of such abuse of the Torah and its heritage at the hands of unscrupulous sadists who use the idea of a “Bais Din” to steal, rob and otherwise promote their own ego.
Steven Pruzansky was recently selected as a “dayan” in a case involving marital issues. Pruzansky showed his true colors:
– Although the husband agreed to go to Bais Din, Pruzansky threatened the husband, snarling that “(he) would make things very bad for him”
– Pruzansky arranged for someone who had previously tried to beat up the husband to sit within one foot of him throughout the proceedings.
– Pruzansky tried to physically accost the husband when he kept reading from a paper in his hand, in an attempt to rebut a friend of the beater who was called in as a “witness”
– Pruzansky threatened to display private emails between the husband and his wife for the purposes of intimidation, which is a felony
– Pruzansky only stopped his assault after the husband dialed the first two numbers of 9-1-1. …..”

I will be delighted to identify the miscreant who wrote this, but first the facts. Ordinarily, I would never discuss any litigation on which I have sat, but the time has long passed, and the Internet is much too pervasive, to allow even the ranting of a madman to define me in the public domain. The above is undoubtedly the work of the “husband,” as below, in whose delusional world the fictitious organization he created (Vaad l’something or other) actually exists.

I was asked to sit on an out of state  Din Torah this past January in a sensitive divorce case. The wife had claimed physical, verbal and emotional abuse, and had separated from her husband after he had struck her, been arrested and spent five days in jail. Since that time, beginning in November 2010, the wife had sought a Get and a civil divorce. The civil divorce was obtained in June 2011, but the husband still refused to appear before a Bet Din, any Bet Din, or give a Get to his ex-wife in any forum. He insisted he wanted to remain married to her, and that she really, really loves him, deep, deep down.

I became involved when the matter transformed into a zabla in which each side picks one dayan and the two dayanim choose a third. The husband herein had nixed several of his ex-wife’s selections as her dayan – even though Jewish law does not give him that right – and I was “approved” as the wife’s dayan. The other two dayanim were local Rabbis in that state. Check one above: husband resisted going to Bet Din, which took over six months to arrange. The suggestion that I “snarled” anything, especially that I “would make things bad for him” is ludicrous and false.

So too the suggestion that I “arranged” for anyone to sit anywhere, or even to attend altogether. I had one brief conversation with the wife over the telephone, and merely asked her to bring whatever witnesses and documentary evidence she had. In truth, I find the zabla format troubling, as it occasionally tends to turn dayanim into advocates for their “side,” and adjudication of any legal matter should not be prejudiced by any knowledge of the case. Aside from knowing that the wife wanted a Get, I indeed knew nothing else about the case, nor did I personally know any of the litigants, witnesses or Rabbis involved. Check two above.

Then began one of the most grueling ordeals that I had ever experienced. The ex-wife began her testimony, and within minutes, the husband was interrupting her with cries of “Shut up, shut up!” Having sat on dozens of Dinei Torah, it was the first time I had ever witnessed such a breach of decorum and simple decency. When I insisted the husband stop – he would have the right to respond when his turn to testify came – he unleashed his venom upon me: “Shut up, you pig! Shut up, you punk! Shut up, you fool!” He would then regularly, through the course of the proceedings, refer to the Bet Din as “clowns,” part of the “circus” to which he had been persuaded to attend.  I was told to “shut up!” at least 15 times by this individual. My mind was spinning with possible retorts (I’m originally from the Bronx after all) but I held my tongue.

I said nothing, except once responding, “If you think you can intimidate me with that language, you are wrong.” At one point, he tried to curry favor by informing me how much he agrees with my writings on Israel (almost leading me to question everything I had written in the past!). But the curses, the invective, and the tirades continued – for six hours. It was as if he was incapable of stopping his diatribes – as if he was even unaware that he was behaving improperly, abnormally, insanely.

The abuse I felt was palpable, tangible. I said nothing because I did not want to give this person a excuse to get up and walk out. (He threatened that at least once anyway.) The wife had labored for almost a year to put a Bet Din together. If he walked out before he testified, or before all the evidence had been adduced, it would be more difficult to justify a final decision even though it would have been possible. I, and to a lesser extent the other two rabbis, took one for the greater good of trying to help this woman who had been threatened for months by the husband that she would be an aguna  for the rest of her life. (She is in her mid-20s).

Unbeknownst to the husband, clearly mentally unbalanced, every time he opened his mouth he harmed his case. We, the dayanim, but especially myself, were recipients of a small dose of the more extensive abuse the wife had claimed she suffered for the several years of their marriage. All he wanted was mandated counseling (five sessions? Ten sessions?) that he thought would re-unite them. Those who listened with not only an open mind, but even just a functioning  mind, realized that those sessions would simply be further opportunities – mandated by Bet Din (!) – for him to berate, belittle and demean the wife, after which he would likely find another pretext not to give a Get. If Bet Din had ordered “counseling,” that itself would have been abuse on our part. Our decision was issued a week after the case, and we unanimously ordered him to give a Get within seven days. Almost immediately, he began with written threats of corruption, lawsuits, improprieties, etc. – all from a simple inability to recognize that his marriage is over and that his wife deserves a new beginning with a less “challenging” husband. Unable to intimidate anymore, he has been lashing out at the Bet Din that splashed the cold water of reality on his troubled face.

Did I “physically accost” him ? That is laughable. One witness had presented a “letter” from a named lawyer threatening the witness with a lawsuit if…whatever… is not done for the husband. The lawyer in question denied ever sending such a letter, and the husband let it slip (during my questioning) that he had forged and sent such a letter in that lawyer’s name. That is when I asked to see the letter, he refused to show it to me (even though it belonged to the other side). When I approached and asked to see the letter, he began threatening to dial 911 – at which point I said, “please do so.” He desisted. That was the assault he mentions. Checks three and five above.

And the “private e-mails”? In his delusional world, he once tried to induce his wife to return to him during their long separation by sending her a graphically nude photo of himself. She was willing to introduce it into evidence, but we declined to see it. It was embarrassing for him, although he seemed to take pride in his initiative. (By the way, she wasn’t impressed by anything she saw.) It was when he rambled on about his high moral level, and impugned that of his wife, that I asked him whether he wants to admit the photos in evidence. The response was unbridled rage and invective. It is hard to imagine, but this husband functioned as a “rabbi” of sorts, and even remains a “baal koreh” in some shul (albeit a “mediocre” one, according to the testimony of one witness). Check four above.

All this is an unpleasant reminder of an event that was physically and emotionally draining for me, and one that I would not have written about but for the personal attacks directed at me from this lunatic and his fictitious organization.

So I write really for one reason. It is not to defend my good name; anyone who knows me will intuit that the allegations are insane and false. It is rather to highlight a problem in the Rabbinate and the Jewish public. People often ask “what are rabbis doing to help agunot?” and the answer is, “much.” But the fact that these vicious attacks on my character are a consequence of getting involved in this sensitive area might (and does) inhibit some rabbis from getting involved. I had no real nexus to this case. I didn’t know any of the parties, and it was occurring more than 1100 miles from my home base. I didn’t have to get involved. There was nothing in it for me. But it does come at a price. It is well possible that more people will read the crazed indictment than this response. And some who read both will say, “hmmm… maybe there is truth on both sides.” This maniac will nourish some doubt in people’s minds about my character.

Yet, knowing what I know now, I would do it again, and so would many of my colleagues, only because it is the right thing to do. But the public is also on notice: don’t read everything, and don’t believe everything that you do read. Chazal’s admonition is well-taken, that one should not listen to lashon hara (disparaging talk) and should not believe the lashon hara that you do hear. It is almost impossible not to believe some of it – that is human nature – but it is still harmful.

Here’s where we stand now: the husband last year threatened suicide and was hospitalized, but it is possible that he used that as a tactic to avoid arrest for a violation of the restraining order the wife had against him. But I do not for a moment doubt that he might be dangerous. I even apprised the wife – after the proceedings – that there is a potential, G-d-forbid, for a murder-suicide (he, the ex-wife, and their children). She has notified all the appropriate authorities, but there is no absolute defense against someone bent on his own destruction.

The husband now has two weeks in which to give his wife a Get. After that, he has the possibility if he so chooses, of getting his life in order, making something of himself, and acting as a decent Jew, father and citizen. He even suggested that there are people in his community who want to set him up.

If he does, we can all move on and I will forgive the attacks on me, considering the source. But if he does not give his wife a Get in that time frame, I will gladly reveal his name to the public, and the scorn of the Jewish world can fall upon him. And deservedly so.

 

 

3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life

Quick Takes

Posted on February 28, 2012 | Comments Off on Quick Takes

   Something is pathologically demented about people and a religion that protests the burning of a book by murdering human beings in cold blood. That such should engender “apologies” from Americans is another sign of how far the US has fallen from its perch as moral leader of mankind since the Obama administration took over. These Qur’an were burned because they allegedly contained inscribed, inflammatory messages. But the Qur’an itself – with its explicit calls for the death of Jews, Christians and infidels – is inflammatory. Perhaps those who are so up in arms – literally – about the burning should explain that, and apologize for it, and all the evil perpetrated in its name. Instead, the moral are busy apologizing to the immoral, and thereby ensuring more evil and immorality.

———————————————————————————–

Word came, again, last week that Mormons were baptizing the dead, including Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal’s parents, and even the living like Elie Wiesel, who called upon Mitt Romney to rebuke his church. The latter is certainly misplaced – the Mormon Church has already denounced it – but I have a different reaction: who cares? Does the conversion of the dead mean anything in the real world in which we live? Can a conversion that does not involve the voluntary embrace of a set of ideas, practices and values really mean anything? There are some who are matriculated at the School of Perpetual Outrage. I find it hard to get worked up about something that is inherently meaningless, and reserve my outrage for things that really matter, in the real world, not the fantasy world.

————————————————————————————–

When gas prices spiked to more than $4.00 per gallon in 2007, the media were rife with accusations that the increases were due to President Bush’s desire to enrich his oil friends. “Bush was to blame!” and it was up to him to rein in his friends and force them to lower their prices. Well. Obama has largely escaped criticism for the recent rise in fuel prices, even though his restrictions on drilling off the coasts, in Alaska, and his rejection of the Keystone pipeline has played havoc with the reliability and pricing of future supplies. Obviously, media bias is apparent, as high oil prices might devastate President Obama’s re-election chances (one reason why he is outspoken in pre-empting any criticism before it even comes). But only two other possibilities present, the latter more plausible: the media has learned that presidents do not control the price of commodities, but the laws of supply and demand do. Or, that somehow, behind the scenes, George W. Bush is still responsible, manipulating oil prices to help enrich his oil friends. That’s about right.

————————————————————————————–

   PA “President” Mahmoud Abbas, whose term expired around the time George Bush’s did, announced that Israel is trying to destroy any evidence of Arab Jerusalem. Rather than expose him as the liar and fraud that he is, and suspend “peace” talks indefinitely, PM Netanyahu castigated him in the strongest terms as … “not how one makes peace,” and not what Israel expects from someone who is supposed to be “pro-peace.” How pathetic, how inadequate to the task! In fact, the exact opposite is true – it is the Arabs who have for a decade erasing Jewish history from the Temple Mount one bulldozer and truck at a time, with a pusillanimous response from Israel. When Netanyahu wastes his breath speaking of a “peace process” with such brazen, shameless liars, he reveals himself to be an unserious man. And when he freezes construction permits in Yerushalayim – as he did again in the last few days to prevent any Obama contrived criticism when the PM arrives in DC this week – he demonstrates again a remarkably thin grasp of history, and undermines Israel’s claim to its own land. Yet, brilliant musings like those will win standing ovations at the AIPAC Policy Conference next week when Netanyahu speaks. It is far better to clarify what is real and true than to pursue facile and fatuous applause lines.

In a related note, the Arab world now wants the UN to investigate the “Judaization” of Jerusalem. This is a typical Arab gesture – accusing their enemies of doing exactly what they wish to do (massacres, genocides, poisoning, etc.) To save time and money, Israel should admit the charge but point out its untimeliness: Jerusalem was “Judaized” 3000 years ago.

————————————————————————————–

It is hard to remember the last time any Congress passed legislation because it thought it was good for the country, rather than being good for the special interest groups that ply the victors with money or the blocs of voters that furnish them with votes.

—————————————————————————————

Saw this somewhere, perhaps the great Thomas Sowell:  “Always be yourself, because the people that matter don’t mind, and the people that mind don’t matter.”

——————————————————————————————–

Isn’t it uncanny (or something else?) that Parshat Zachor is read again this coming Shabbat, and once again the Jewish people are forced to deal with a diabolical, genocidal dictator bent on our extermination – just like Amalek, Haman, Hitler and all the others. “Remembering Amalek” is real, because it reflects the past and the present – and the future – simultaneously. That is why it is a mitzvah to remember Amalek. That is why dealing with Amalek is a dynamic and substantive part of Jewish life.

Comments Off on Quick Takes

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History

The Likud Voter

Posted on February 23, 2012 | Comments Off on The Likud Voter

     Prime Minister Netanyahu is a political genius or a political hack, a man of deep principles or pure expedience, a worthy captain of Israel’s fortunes during perilous times or a clueless, shifty, power-hungry follower of trends and polls. Or perhaps all of the above.

     One thing is certain: more than most politicians he has learned from his mistakes in his first tenure as prime minister in the late 1990’s and is able to control his political destiny in a way that for most previous premiers was the stuff of dreams. Routinely, Israel’s prime ministers since the Six Day War have resigned in disgrace, lost re-election or met untimely fates. Few have been re-elected, and most have been forced into early elections through the collapse of their coalition and then scorned by the voters. Netanyahu has been spared that – essentially he can serve unimpeded until October 2013 or call for new elections at his pleasure – by undermining the main source of power in Israel: the hyper-partisan media that controls the popular and electoral fate of almost all public officials.

He accomplished that through a typically-clever and somewhat underhanded maneuver that he parlayed into media immunity: the co-option of the Labor party, and especially Defense Minister Ehud Barak (the keen strategist who presided over the hasty retreat from Lebanon in 2000), into his government. This took some doing. Recall that Likud had the second­-most mandates after the election in 2009 – 27 seats to the 28 won by Kadima (itself a Likud offshoot). By all rights, Kadima’s Tzippi Livni should have been asked to form the government. But Netanyahu pre-empted that by offering the Ichud HaLeumi (the National Union Party, led by Ketzele) to join his coalition – giving him a guaranteed 31 seats to Livni’s guaranteed 28. Netanyahu then formed his coalition – and promptly betrayed the NU by summarily kicking them out of the coalition, bringing in Labor, and achieving his parliamentary majority. It was a scheme that the NU predicted, but classic Netanyahu – and the National Union remains in opposition.

That enabled Netanyahu to partner with Ehud Barak, a once-darling of the left, and that itself shielded the PM from accusations of being an “extreme right-winger,” a “warmonger,” a “destroyer of peace,” and several other monikers left over from 1999. It became impossible for the leftist media to assault Netanyahu – in either his peace-making or his defense policies – because Barak, the stalwart of Israel’s established leftist party, stood at his side. And even when Labor imploded and Barak detached himself and formed his own party, the die was already cast. Using and abusing the National Union was sneaky; linking with Barak was brilliant and an echo of Menachem Begin’s appointment of Moshe Dayan, another Labor icon, as his first Foreign Minister, to the consternation of the Likud even then.

In effect, it was brilliant maneuvering. Excluding the National Union on the right and Kadima/Meretz on the left enabled Netanyahu to position himself right in the center politically, diplomatically, and more importantly, popularly.

Of course, all these personnel games obscure a more basic point: Netanyahu’s policies are inscrutable, except to the extent that they serve to keep him in power. There is no good recommendation on how to resolve the Iran problem. Obviously regime change is the ideal solution, but it is not imminent or even foreseeable (for that missed opportunity, Barack Obama deserves obvious opprobrium). Regime change requires both resources that Israel does not have and the extensive cooperation and leadership of an American president that is absent, or so it seems. Diplomacy is an ongoing joke, as neither the pleas of the striped-pants set or the much-vaunted sanctions will have any impact. To bomb Iran is certainly not easy nor will it necessarily be effective. Israel’s plight is not helped by Obama administration officials’ musings about when Israel will bomb, how they will bomb, what they will target, and how they should not do it. My guess is that some combination of air power and inside sabotage will be necessary, with the latter playing more of a role. But Netanyahu is in an unenviable position – a strike against Iran will result in Hezbollah unleashing its 50,000 rockets that now pervade Lebanon (see, Barak, above) against Israel’s north and center. That will be devastating. A rocket and missile attack from the south can also be expected. So, it is untenable that Iran should acquire a nuclear weapons capability, and difficult to foresee how it can reasonably be prevented. I don’t envy the Prime Minister.

Iran aside, what has the Likud voter gained from his Prime Minister? Likud voters are nationalists, pro-free enterprise, pro-defense, pro-settlement and pro-tradition. They also seem to be among the least discerning voters in the world, because they never quite get what they vote for. The Likud’s inferiority complex usually induces them (Shamir was the exception) into reaching out to the leftist parties to occupy key positions. The odds are slim that Netanyahu would have been elected had he announced before the vote his intention to appoint Ehud Barak the Defense Minister. Certainly the votes Likud attracted from the settlers would have dissipated had they known of Barak’s second coming, recalling the stranglehold he placed on settlement during his prior tenures.

The Likud voter would have abandoned Netanyahu had they anticipated the first-ever settlement freeze that lasted almost a year that accomplished nothing diplomatically or politically, except – again – buying Netanyahu some peace and quiet from the Israeli media and the Obama government. But it set back the settlement movement for years, announced to the world Israel’s uncertain and hesitant claim to its ancestral land, and has still not been fully reversed. Barak maintains a tight lid on building permits, in effect sheltering Netanyahu from criticism – as if he is not supportive of the policy. But Likud voters look away.

Netanyahu has also presided over a number of settlement demolitions in recent months, almost all carried out in the dead of night, and all under Barak’s auspices. This adds to the Likud’s sorry record of settlement destruction – including Gush Katif and north Shomron, and as far back as Yamit. It seems that only the Likud destroys Jewish settlements; if a leftist party would try, an opposition Likud would scream bloody murder, betrayal of the land of Israel, an exile mentality and even worse invective. But when it ascends to power, all that is forgotten by the leaders – and, apparently, by their voters. Curious.

The recent Migron “resolution” is a case in point. This “outpost” of approximately 90 families just a few miles north of Yerushalayim, who have lived there for years, in permanent housing, with community centers, shuls and even a basketball court, has been subjected to endless litigation based on the claim that it was built on Arab land. When that claim was rejected several months ago by the High Court – no Arab produced any title to the land and the whole lawsuit was a leftist fabrication – one would have thought that Migron’s status would have been finalized. Instead, a compromise was reached that Migron would be moved two hilltops over, and its buildings either razed or maintained (depending on who explains the compromise). But, if the land is state land, and Migron can be legalized, then why should it be moved ? This has yet to be explained, but it seems reasonable to suggest it is only to torment and weaken the settlement movement – that has, nonetheless, endorsed the resolution (probably hoping that it will never be implemented, which is always possible).

It is striking that Israel is a center-right country that is always governed by a center-left, or left, government. That is hard to fathom. There are persistent rumors about the mercurial Netanyahu who has alternately offered to surrender the Golan (14 years ago), the Jordan Valley (two weeks ago), and who consistently floats trial balloons of possible surrenders that lead his interlocutors to feel misled and betrayed, and should mystify his voters – if they paid attention. But they don’t. The Likud voter seems to respond to contrived grievances, the “dire” consequences if some other party is elected, and promises that are never kept. It is as if power is the real objective – and the patronage goodies being in power permits – and policies are secondary.

Most people on the right, and these days many on the left, always saw the “peace process” as a chimera, and today as a dead letter. It would be nice – and honest – to actually hear that from an Israeli prime minister, which would undercut the traditional Arab assertion – yesterday, it was King Abdullah’s turn, from the mythical kingdom of Jordan – that Israel is at fault for the lack of peace. (He is a tiresome figure.) The traditional Likudnik sees through that bogus argument and is unafraid about challenging it openly. Certainly the articulate Netanyahu can – but won’t, again, because such honesty is politically incorrect, even as the failure to articulate such truths sets the stage for the next round of concessions.

Credit Netanyahu for Israel’s economic vibrancy, and, in another wise departure from his last term, staying out of the media. His appearances in public are minimal, his interviews are rare and controlled, and he seems more in control focused on power and control, the politician’s stock in trade. He often leads “from behind,” like Obama. He is a weather vane, seeing where the people are and following them. He opposed the Tal Law (on Haredi service in the military) after the High Court invalidated it, after previously supporting it. He is outraged and rhetorically robust after a terrorist attack, when the people are, but usually tolerates the daily rocket attacks on the south, because the people do as well. He promises reform of the appointments to the leftist High Court, and then scuttles any reform proposals. He will toss the right a bone, and then the left another bone; he is adept at feeding the religious parties a glatt sandwich (money for their causes) and the seculars some “white” meat (legislation). He both co-opted and marginalized Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu. Everyone gets something of what they want but never all of what they want, which would be divisive and politically fatal.

It has been a masterful performance but the question remains: is this what the average Likud voter wants or expects? Perhaps. Is this the best that Israel’s right-wing voters can do? Likely not. The time has come for a genuine Religious Zionist to aspire to leadership – not of a small sector of the population, and not a flame-thrower – but a person of ideas, substance, wisdom and character. To those who suggest there is no such person extant, try this: Rabbi Professor Daniel Hershkovitz, current Minister of Science and Technology, a professor of mathematics at the Technion, the Rav of several communities in Haifa, and currently the leader of the Bayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party. While one can always pick out a policy or statement with which to disagree, he is judicious, honest, has good instincts and values and a strong ideological commitment that is delivered in reasonable doses.

The flirtations with secular-right parties have often ended as disastrously as the flirtations with the secular-left parties. Binyamin Netanyahu has been a solid bridge figure, and the current stability has to win him plaudits, but more leadership is required. The Likud might still win, but a strong Religious-Zionist contingent becomes a more powerful and natural ally. More importantly, it will show self-confidence of the religious voting public that there indeed are people who represent both Torah and political leadership.

Memo to right-wingers: if you want right, vote right.

Comments Off on The Likud Voter

Posted in Current Events, Israel