Showing posts with label Yo'el Meltzer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yo'el Meltzer. Show all posts
Monday, September 27, 2010
The Jewish Democratic State
Hol HaMo'ed Sukkoth 5771
*Please go to the original YNET article, and join in the debate in the comments section!
The Jewish Democratic State
Op-ed: Israel must make a choice, as it cannot be both truly Jewish and democratic.
Yoel Meltzer
September 22, 2010
Roughly 60 years after the establishment of the modern State of Israel, by far the most ubiquitous term employed today to describe the political and social nature of the country is that Israel is a Jewish democratic state. Be it in the media or on the lips of politicians, the use of the term has become so widespread that most people in Israel simply accept it as a given truth without so much as a passing thought. Nonetheless, despite the extensive usage of the phrase, it should be clear to anyone with a discerning eye that the term resonates with cognitive dissonance.
The term, or more properly the confusion that led to the term, started in the early days of the state. In May 1948, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel proclaimed the Jewish nature of the country by declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael." However, the same declaration also promised to “ensure complete equality of…. political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion….”
Thus, on the one hand Israel was to be a Jewish state while on the other hand it was declared to be a state of all its citizens regardless of religion. As a result of this ambiguity, right from the start there was a built-in contradiction of terms. Namely, was Israel to be a Jewish state that would incorporate some democratic aspects or was it to be a democratic state with a “Jewish feel?" Since these terms describe situations that are mutually exclusive, Israel could not possibly be both.
The Jewish component in the above equation was given precedence by the 1950 Law or Return, which stipulated that every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel. However, the subsequent 1952 Nationality Law reestablished the confusion by stating, inter alia, “A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen…. shall become an Israel national….” Thus citizenship, and with it the right to vote, was further anchored for the non-Jewish population.
This lack of clarity continued for decades and then in 1992 under the activist court of Justice Aharon Barak, the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom was passed in order to “establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Moreover, according to Justice Barak’s subsequent writings on the meaning of the vague phrase “Jewish democratic state,” it became apparent that his intention in the law was to define Israel as primarily a democratic state, albeit one that also encompasses a variety of Jewish aspects. Of course, Barak’s litmus test for these Jewish aspects was that they must be consistent with the values of a democracy.
Despite Barak’s true intention as to what actually took precedence, namely the democratic aspect, the neutral phrase “Jewish democratic state” has been promulgated ever since. This is a shame since the term is problematic for several reasons.
Most importantly, the term perpetuates confusion and avoids dealing with a very serious issue. Israel has a large Arab minority, the majority of which will never connect to the collective dreams and aspirations of the Jewish people and likewise will never really feel part of a Jewish state. To think otherwise is foolish. In addition, it is demeaning to the Arabs to expect differently since they naturally have pride in their own culture and a bond to the larger Arab nation.
Downplaying Jewish Component
Thus, in order not to antagonize or alienate the Arabs, as well as to avoid being condemned for making statements that are not politically correct, Israel downplays the Jewish component and promotes the democratic one. To its own Jewish residents, however, the majority of which has some connection to the land and the tradition, it sells the Jewish component under the amorphous “Jewish democratic state.” Thus, the term is very useful for placating the Jewish population, even if doing so is somewhat misleading. More importantly, by hiding behind the term “Jewish democratic state” Israel continues to shirk its responsibility in dealing with a very complex and difficult issue.
If Israel is a true democracy of “one man-one vote” then the Arab minority could hypothetically take over the country via the election process and change the nature of the state. However, since this is a scenario that most of the Jews in the country would never agree to and even fear, the phrase “Jewish democratic state” should stop being rammed down the collective mindset of the nation since it is only seeding more confusion. Moreover, should the Arabs ever get close to taking over the country, it’s a sure bet that most of the advocates of the phrase “Jewish democratic state” would be out of here in a flash, leaving the rest of us to deal with the mess.
On the diplomatic front, a Jewish state connected to its inner meaning, its heritage and its land, would never consider relinquishing part of its ancestral homeland. However, a democratic state for which the Jewish component is weak or sentimental at best has no qualms under difficult times of relinquishing land since ultimately the land has no deeper significance.
This fact is clearly understood by the Arabs as well as by all those who are pressuring us to surrender land. For this reason, the supremacy afforded the democratic component at the expense of the Jewish component has severely weakened Israel’s bargaining position vis-à-vis the Arabs. Moreover, since everyone knows that the term “Jewish democratic state” does not mean Jewish in any profound way, then constantly using the term to describe the State of Israel is only helping to facilitate its downfall.
At the end of the day, Israel must choose. Either it is a Jewish state with some democratic aspects or it is democratic state with a Jewish flavor. It cannot be both. The continued use of the term “Jewish democratic state” is simply a way to avoid making this choice. Moreover, it represents a state of denial that underlies all the confusion and weakness that abound here. For the survival of the country, the term “Jewish democratic state” must be discarded and in its place the real “Jewish state” must rise.
Esser Agaroth:
*This is my talkback which YNET has yet to publish,...and probably will not.
Meltzer is essentially correct. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The Israeli government is hardly Jewish, and hardly a democracy. It can't be a democracy without true freedom of speech, which we absolutely do NOT have. It is a crime to call goverment officials a name, so called racist incitement is a crime. Asking to vote for whether Jews should leave Gaza or hostile Arabs should leave instead is a crime.
Yet leftists protesting at the so-called security fence get away with violence toward Israeli law enforcement.
Clearly the famous line at the end of George Orwell's Animal Farm applies here:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
However, the eventual goal of the Jewish People is too have a Jewish government in the Jewish Homeland.
What is a Jewish government? ...one based on Torah with a king or a nassi and a Sanhedrin, the hachamim making the decisions which the masses should not have anything to do with.
See “Governance Of A Jewish State” for more information on this.
In the mean time, perhaps we could have a temporary democracy, yet those claiming the need for a constitution are mistaken. We already have one,...the Torah.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Jewish Criticism Of Israel
3 of the Fifth Month 5770
Yoel Meltzer
While criticizing Israel, US Jews must beware of biased agendas around them
When American Jews are confronted with actions of the Jewish state that they believe to be wrong or immoral, do they have the right to publicly criticize Israel? Moreover, assuming for a moment that they have the right, should they exercise it? In other words, is their criticism actually helping Israel or is it only providing ammunition for our enemies to further harm Israel?
While American Jews are faced with such difficult questions, not surprisingly their counterparts in Israel are strongly against Diaspora Jewry publicly criticizing Israel in any shape or form. In addition, feeling increasingly threatened and ostracized, Israel now more than ever expects to receive strong support from Diaspora Jewry, especially from the large and powerful American Jewish community.
What then is the proper path to follow? For starters, since the Jewish nation is comprised of every Jew and the land of Israel, eretz yisrael, belongs to every Jew, then certainly American Jews can speak their mind about events in Israel. No one is suggesting that these two cornerstones of our tradition, namely that all Jews have an intrinsic connection with each other as well as with a common land, be tinkered with. However, since we don't live in a bubble and the situation is obviously more complex, the subject needs to be further analyzed from both sides of the coin.
From the Israeli perspective, one argument frequently heard is that American Jews should not speak out against Israel since they have little or no understanding of the reality of life in the Middle East. Bluntly stated, Israel's neighbors are not Canada and Mexico. This line of thinking helps explain why many left-leaning Israeli Jews are frequently very different from their American counterparts.
Unlike a Jew living in America, the typical left-wing Israeli has to deal with army service, wars and terrorist attacks. Thus, although he may support certain policies that are considered left-wing, he usually doesn't do this out of a naïve belief that Jews and Arabs will soon become best of friends or that relinquishing more land will actually bring an end to the region's hostilities.
Another common assumption in Israel is that those American Jews who feel uncomfortable about Israeli actions or policies are probably struggling with their own Jewish identity. With assimilation ravaging American Jewry, it's only natural that one's Jewish identity frequently takes backstage to other identities that are a part of one's psychological makeup. For this reason, it should come as no surprise that the most steadfast supporters of Israel usually come from Jews who are more traditional since for them the Jewish component is a dominant factor of their identity.
Finally, on a psychological level some claim that Israeli activities that appear harsh or unjust would make an American Jew with a relatively weak Jewish identity feel uncomfortable in his non-Jewish environment. Thus, by criticizing Israel perhaps he is subconsciously trying to be accepted by the non-Jewish world around him.
These are some of the claims from the Israeli angle, in addition to the ubiquitous "if you don't live here, don't tell us what to do" claim.
Nonetheless, in spite of any truth that these arguments may contain, as previously stated American Jews have the right to express their beliefs. True, perhaps they should ask themselves why they are criticizing – to honestly help Israel or to merely alleviate their own uncomfortable situation – but this is a side issue. The point is they can criticize.
Non-Jewish Morality
Having said all that, perhaps there is something else going on here. Unlike the Middle Eastern culture that has an aspect of tribal affiliation and less internal criticism, American culture is hypothetically based upon an objective pursuit of truth and justice. Therefore, being influenced by the surrounding culture, American Jews tend to give precedence to what they consider the pursuit of truth and justice as opposed to simply granting unconditional loyalty to other Jews.
On the surface this is quite a noble quality, one worthy of exporting to the rest of humanity. However, this otherwise praiseworthy approach also contains two potential flaws. One is the assumption of objectivity and the second is the very understanding of such terms as “truth” and “justice”.
The combined effect today of both the media and the many powerful public relations, marketing and advertising firms is arguably more influential than ever before in shaping the mindset of the average person. Together with this powerful group there is the academic world with its own unique ability to penetrate all sorts of ideas into society.
The problem is that many of the people who have the power to influence are heavily biased when it comes to Israel. For instance, I remember being fed seemingly endless Edward Said and Noam Chomsky while working on my master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies. Although a small minority of students sensed that something was wrong and that the studies were biased, most did not have the tools to argue with our well published and seemingly brilliant political science professor. For the majority of the students, the professor's words were simply accepted as irrefutable truth.
The point is that there are many intelligent and powerful people, be it in the media or in the academic world, with a very biased approach when it comes to Israel and through their positions of influence they easily blow away the assumed theory of objectivity.
The second problem is frequently just an outgrowth of the first problem since it is people with an agenda that often shape our understanding of what constitutes truth and justice or right and wrong when assessing Israel. Moreover, even in the best-case scenario where this is not happening, the basic understandings that most American Jews have of these concepts usually come from non-Jewish sources. Although occasionally these are similar to Jewish concepts of morality, sometimes they’re not.
Thus rather than judging the Jewish State based upon the rich tradition of Jewish morality and ethics, Israel is ironically being judged by good-intentioned Jews according to non-Jewish morality.
To summarize, American Jews definitely have the right to express their opinion regarding the Jewish State since Israel, like any nation, is certainly not absolved from criticism. However, while continuing with the pursuit of the lofty ideals mentioned above, American Jews need to be more cognizant of the fact that both their understanding of these very ideals and of the actual events that transpire in Israel are frequently influenced by people with a very clear and biased agenda.
Cross-posted on YNET.
Yoel Meltzer
While criticizing Israel, US Jews must beware of biased agendas around them
When American Jews are confronted with actions of the Jewish state that they believe to be wrong or immoral, do they have the right to publicly criticize Israel? Moreover, assuming for a moment that they have the right, should they exercise it? In other words, is their criticism actually helping Israel or is it only providing ammunition for our enemies to further harm Israel?
While American Jews are faced with such difficult questions, not surprisingly their counterparts in Israel are strongly against Diaspora Jewry publicly criticizing Israel in any shape or form. In addition, feeling increasingly threatened and ostracized, Israel now more than ever expects to receive strong support from Diaspora Jewry, especially from the large and powerful American Jewish community.
What then is the proper path to follow? For starters, since the Jewish nation is comprised of every Jew and the land of Israel, eretz yisrael, belongs to every Jew, then certainly American Jews can speak their mind about events in Israel. No one is suggesting that these two cornerstones of our tradition, namely that all Jews have an intrinsic connection with each other as well as with a common land, be tinkered with. However, since we don't live in a bubble and the situation is obviously more complex, the subject needs to be further analyzed from both sides of the coin.
From the Israeli perspective, one argument frequently heard is that American Jews should not speak out against Israel since they have little or no understanding of the reality of life in the Middle East. Bluntly stated, Israel's neighbors are not Canada and Mexico. This line of thinking helps explain why many left-leaning Israeli Jews are frequently very different from their American counterparts.
Unlike a Jew living in America, the typical left-wing Israeli has to deal with army service, wars and terrorist attacks. Thus, although he may support certain policies that are considered left-wing, he usually doesn't do this out of a naïve belief that Jews and Arabs will soon become best of friends or that relinquishing more land will actually bring an end to the region's hostilities.
Another common assumption in Israel is that those American Jews who feel uncomfortable about Israeli actions or policies are probably struggling with their own Jewish identity. With assimilation ravaging American Jewry, it's only natural that one's Jewish identity frequently takes backstage to other identities that are a part of one's psychological makeup. For this reason, it should come as no surprise that the most steadfast supporters of Israel usually come from Jews who are more traditional since for them the Jewish component is a dominant factor of their identity.
Finally, on a psychological level some claim that Israeli activities that appear harsh or unjust would make an American Jew with a relatively weak Jewish identity feel uncomfortable in his non-Jewish environment. Thus, by criticizing Israel perhaps he is subconsciously trying to be accepted by the non-Jewish world around him.
These are some of the claims from the Israeli angle, in addition to the ubiquitous "if you don't live here, don't tell us what to do" claim.
Nonetheless, in spite of any truth that these arguments may contain, as previously stated American Jews have the right to express their beliefs. True, perhaps they should ask themselves why they are criticizing – to honestly help Israel or to merely alleviate their own uncomfortable situation – but this is a side issue. The point is they can criticize.
Non-Jewish Morality
Having said all that, perhaps there is something else going on here. Unlike the Middle Eastern culture that has an aspect of tribal affiliation and less internal criticism, American culture is hypothetically based upon an objective pursuit of truth and justice. Therefore, being influenced by the surrounding culture, American Jews tend to give precedence to what they consider the pursuit of truth and justice as opposed to simply granting unconditional loyalty to other Jews.
On the surface this is quite a noble quality, one worthy of exporting to the rest of humanity. However, this otherwise praiseworthy approach also contains two potential flaws. One is the assumption of objectivity and the second is the very understanding of such terms as “truth” and “justice”.
The combined effect today of both the media and the many powerful public relations, marketing and advertising firms is arguably more influential than ever before in shaping the mindset of the average person. Together with this powerful group there is the academic world with its own unique ability to penetrate all sorts of ideas into society.
The problem is that many of the people who have the power to influence are heavily biased when it comes to Israel. For instance, I remember being fed seemingly endless Edward Said and Noam Chomsky while working on my master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies. Although a small minority of students sensed that something was wrong and that the studies were biased, most did not have the tools to argue with our well published and seemingly brilliant political science professor. For the majority of the students, the professor's words were simply accepted as irrefutable truth.
The point is that there are many intelligent and powerful people, be it in the media or in the academic world, with a very biased approach when it comes to Israel and through their positions of influence they easily blow away the assumed theory of objectivity.
The second problem is frequently just an outgrowth of the first problem since it is people with an agenda that often shape our understanding of what constitutes truth and justice or right and wrong when assessing Israel. Moreover, even in the best-case scenario where this is not happening, the basic understandings that most American Jews have of these concepts usually come from non-Jewish sources. Although occasionally these are similar to Jewish concepts of morality, sometimes they’re not.
Thus rather than judging the Jewish State based upon the rich tradition of Jewish morality and ethics, Israel is ironically being judged by good-intentioned Jews according to non-Jewish morality.
To summarize, American Jews definitely have the right to express their opinion regarding the Jewish State since Israel, like any nation, is certainly not absolved from criticism. However, while continuing with the pursuit of the lofty ideals mentioned above, American Jews need to be more cognizant of the fact that both their understanding of these very ideals and of the actual events that transpire in Israel are frequently influenced by people with a very clear and biased agenda.
Cross-posted on YNET.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Overcoming The Rift
16 of the Fourth Month 5770
"Leftists, rightists must gain full understanding of Jewish nationalism"
Yoel Meltzer
12 Tammuz 5770/June 24, 2010
Israel today is facing a growing military threat, the likes of which it hasn’t seen for years. The Syrians and Iranians, together with their proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, are becoming increasingly more bellicose in their threats to use large and accurate long-range missiles against Israel. Considering that such a threat places nearly all of Israel within missile range, it should come as no surprise that the Israeli government recently began distributing gas masks to its citizens. Moreover, the addition of a belligerent Turkey to the above axis only heightens the tension in the region.
As pressing as this external threat is, internally Israel faces a challenge of a different nature. Amongst its populace there exists a great divide in understanding and relating to the subject of Jewish nationalism. More than just a difference of opinion, this division has been particularly destabilizing for years, preventing Israel from forming a unified consensus. However, if Israel wishes to survive, especially in the dangerous neighborhood where it is situated, it is incumbent that this rift starts to be mended. A nation internally divided, constantly facing external threats, can only hold on for so long.
Unfortunately, since two seemingly irreconcilable worldviews are involved, little attempt is usually made to understand the other with attacks frequently replacing dialogue. Nonetheless, with the current external threats rapidly mounting, Israel can no longer afford to sweep the issue under the carpet. The time has come to finally deal with and overcome this problem as a precursor for building a much-needed consensus.
For those who view Jewish nationalism positively, it is seen as the continuation of the never-ending Jewish dream, the return to Zion. This strong identification with Jewish nationalism is often expressed by ardent support for Jewish settlement in all of the land of Israel. Moreover, it holds the belief that Israel needs to firmly stand its ground and not capitulate to any external pressure that they consider anti-Israel. First and foremost, Israel must do what is good for Israel regardless of what anyone, even America, might say.
Opposing this view is a group that loathes the term Jewish nationalism. For them nationalism of any type, Jewish or not Jewish, is inherently bad. One only needs to look at history, they claim, to see how much blood has been shed as a result of nationalism. Moreover, since nationalism causes one to primarily focus on what is best for one's own people and country, it usually leads to distrust or hatred of the “other”. Thus, left unchecked nationalism can conceivably turn into chauvinism or even devolve, in its extreme form, into fascism. Not surprisingly, this group seeks to downplay the solely Jewish nature of the country and rather aspires to be more “human” or "international", finding commonalities that connect Israel and its citizens to the rest of humanity.
Light Unto Nations
The key to overcoming the rift is the understanding that both worldviews possess aspects of truth, yet both are also lacking. Since according to Judaism settling the land and building a sovereign state in the land of Israel is a central tenet for normative Jewish living, the nationalists are clearly on the right path. However, the same Judaism also makes it clear that this nationalistic aspect of Judaism is not an end-goal in and of itself but rather a platform that will enable us to fulfill our lofty "international role" of being a light unto nations. Many in the nationalist camp unfortunately forget this "international" aspect of Judaism.
Switching over to members of the internationalist camp, based on their worldview they seem to be concerned that many in the nationalist camp might be taking Jewish nationalism in a dangerous direction. Thus they recoil for what they perceive as overly aggressive tendencies when dealing with the "other." However, by rejecting the uniquely Jewish component altogether, they are shooting themselves in the foot since the modern state of Israel has little chance of surviving in a predominately Muslim neighborhood without it retaining its uniquely Jewish nature.
Like in any sporting event where one needs to focus on the present moment while simultaneously having an eye towards the ultimate goal of winning the championship, so too here. The nationalists need to continue focusing on the immediate goal of strengthening Israeli's sovereignty and its Jewish nature but at the same time they also need to have an eye towards the long-term goal of helping to elevate the rest of humanity.
The internationalists, however, need to realize that in order to have a meaningful interaction with the rest of humanity based upon a genuine respect of the fact that they are Jewish, they first need to strengthen the uniquely Jewish aspect of the country. Otherwise they will just blend in with the rest of the world and be exploited in order to damage, and not help, Israel. Quite simply, both positive aspects of the two opposing camps need to be merged.
A proper understanding of this dual aspect of Jewish nationalism is sorely lacking from the public discourse in Israel. Not surprisingly, the internal division continues to paralyze Israel. Moreover, "standard nationalism", the type that exists throughout the world and that most people continue to mistakenly attribute to Jewish nationalism, cannot succeed in uniting or inspiring the nation. For this reason it is essential that the real meaning and goal of Jewish nationalism is quickly brought to the forefront of public knowledge.
Cross-posted on YNET.
"Leftists, rightists must gain full understanding of Jewish nationalism"
Yoel Meltzer
12 Tammuz 5770/June 24, 2010
Israel today is facing a growing military threat, the likes of which it hasn’t seen for years. The Syrians and Iranians, together with their proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, are becoming increasingly more bellicose in their threats to use large and accurate long-range missiles against Israel. Considering that such a threat places nearly all of Israel within missile range, it should come as no surprise that the Israeli government recently began distributing gas masks to its citizens. Moreover, the addition of a belligerent Turkey to the above axis only heightens the tension in the region.
As pressing as this external threat is, internally Israel faces a challenge of a different nature. Amongst its populace there exists a great divide in understanding and relating to the subject of Jewish nationalism. More than just a difference of opinion, this division has been particularly destabilizing for years, preventing Israel from forming a unified consensus. However, if Israel wishes to survive, especially in the dangerous neighborhood where it is situated, it is incumbent that this rift starts to be mended. A nation internally divided, constantly facing external threats, can only hold on for so long.
Unfortunately, since two seemingly irreconcilable worldviews are involved, little attempt is usually made to understand the other with attacks frequently replacing dialogue. Nonetheless, with the current external threats rapidly mounting, Israel can no longer afford to sweep the issue under the carpet. The time has come to finally deal with and overcome this problem as a precursor for building a much-needed consensus.
For those who view Jewish nationalism positively, it is seen as the continuation of the never-ending Jewish dream, the return to Zion. This strong identification with Jewish nationalism is often expressed by ardent support for Jewish settlement in all of the land of Israel. Moreover, it holds the belief that Israel needs to firmly stand its ground and not capitulate to any external pressure that they consider anti-Israel. First and foremost, Israel must do what is good for Israel regardless of what anyone, even America, might say.
Opposing this view is a group that loathes the term Jewish nationalism. For them nationalism of any type, Jewish or not Jewish, is inherently bad. One only needs to look at history, they claim, to see how much blood has been shed as a result of nationalism. Moreover, since nationalism causes one to primarily focus on what is best for one's own people and country, it usually leads to distrust or hatred of the “other”. Thus, left unchecked nationalism can conceivably turn into chauvinism or even devolve, in its extreme form, into fascism. Not surprisingly, this group seeks to downplay the solely Jewish nature of the country and rather aspires to be more “human” or "international", finding commonalities that connect Israel and its citizens to the rest of humanity.
Light Unto Nations
The key to overcoming the rift is the understanding that both worldviews possess aspects of truth, yet both are also lacking. Since according to Judaism settling the land and building a sovereign state in the land of Israel is a central tenet for normative Jewish living, the nationalists are clearly on the right path. However, the same Judaism also makes it clear that this nationalistic aspect of Judaism is not an end-goal in and of itself but rather a platform that will enable us to fulfill our lofty "international role" of being a light unto nations. Many in the nationalist camp unfortunately forget this "international" aspect of Judaism.
Switching over to members of the internationalist camp, based on their worldview they seem to be concerned that many in the nationalist camp might be taking Jewish nationalism in a dangerous direction. Thus they recoil for what they perceive as overly aggressive tendencies when dealing with the "other." However, by rejecting the uniquely Jewish component altogether, they are shooting themselves in the foot since the modern state of Israel has little chance of surviving in a predominately Muslim neighborhood without it retaining its uniquely Jewish nature.
Like in any sporting event where one needs to focus on the present moment while simultaneously having an eye towards the ultimate goal of winning the championship, so too here. The nationalists need to continue focusing on the immediate goal of strengthening Israeli's sovereignty and its Jewish nature but at the same time they also need to have an eye towards the long-term goal of helping to elevate the rest of humanity.
The internationalists, however, need to realize that in order to have a meaningful interaction with the rest of humanity based upon a genuine respect of the fact that they are Jewish, they first need to strengthen the uniquely Jewish aspect of the country. Otherwise they will just blend in with the rest of the world and be exploited in order to damage, and not help, Israel. Quite simply, both positive aspects of the two opposing camps need to be merged.
A proper understanding of this dual aspect of Jewish nationalism is sorely lacking from the public discourse in Israel. Not surprisingly, the internal division continues to paralyze Israel. Moreover, "standard nationalism", the type that exists throughout the world and that most people continue to mistakenly attribute to Jewish nationalism, cannot succeed in uniting or inspiring the nation. For this reason it is essential that the real meaning and goal of Jewish nationalism is quickly brought to the forefront of public knowledge.
Cross-posted on YNET.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Perhaps An Apology?
Mossa'ei Shabbath Qodesh Parshath Wa'eira 5770
Yoel Meltzer
17 Teveth 5770/January 3, 2010
*Appeared on YNET as "A Feeling Of Déjà Vu."
A few days ago the top story on nearly every Israeli news site was the possible involvement of a teenage relative of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane in the arson attack last month on a mosque in the Palestinian village of Yasuf. With the well-known family name splashed across the home page of most major web sites, not surprisingly this story generated lots of interest and reactions.
As I browsed from site to site, both in Hebrew and in English, I was amazed at some of the reactions that were simply seething with hatred. Never mind the fact that the kid denied all involvement in the incident, that he claimed he had an alibi as to where he was at the time of the attack, that according to his lawyer he had a clean record, or that he was being investigated without a family member present despite being a minor, his family name alone was enough for him to be considered guilty in the eyes of many.
Where was the sympathy, the compassion for a kid whose mother and father were both murdered in a terrorist attack nearly ten years ago? How can it be that the hatred his family name evokes is stronger than the attribute of compassion, supposedly one of the defining characteristics of the Jewish people?
For many there was a sickening feeling when this story made the news, a feeling of déjà vu. In light of the recent freeze on building in Judea and Samaria and the near warlike preparation to enforce the freeze, it appeared that this was simply another well-planned attempt to create incitement against a particular population. Forget about the lack of evidence or simple human compassion for an orphaned kid, his family name and the powerful antagonism it elicits appeared to be too hard to resist.
Although no one knows for certain what is being planned for the future of the Jews living in Judea and Samaria, the gut feeling of many is that it is something in the direction of what was done to the Jews formerly living in Gaza. Of course following the Lebanon War, the Gaza War, and the overall horrendous treatment of the Jews who formerly lived in Gaza, removing even part of the Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria will not be an easy sell to the Israeli public. For this reason it appears that the incitement card is once again being employed. The more they are made to look extreme, the easier the sell to the Israeli public.
Although such a tactic is horrible enough in and of itself since we’re talking about turning Jew against Jew, it is beyond despicable to drag the Kahane kid into this just because his family name happens to be very, very useful. Once again we’re talking about a kid who together with his five sisters lost their parents when they were just children.
As it turned out, the kid was released after seven hours of investigation for both lack of any evidence and for verification of his alibi, a chain of events which only strengthened the belief amongst many that this was in fact an attempt to create incitement. Whatever the case, both those responsible for arresting him as well as all those who spewed hatred towards him, should do some soul searching and offer this kid and his family a public apology.
When will we finally learn that such internal hatred only brings upon us more and more calamities?
Yoel Meltzer
17 Teveth 5770/January 3, 2010
*Appeared on YNET as "A Feeling Of Déjà Vu."
A few days ago the top story on nearly every Israeli news site was the possible involvement of a teenage relative of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane in the arson attack last month on a mosque in the Palestinian village of Yasuf. With the well-known family name splashed across the home page of most major web sites, not surprisingly this story generated lots of interest and reactions.
As I browsed from site to site, both in Hebrew and in English, I was amazed at some of the reactions that were simply seething with hatred. Never mind the fact that the kid denied all involvement in the incident, that he claimed he had an alibi as to where he was at the time of the attack, that according to his lawyer he had a clean record, or that he was being investigated without a family member present despite being a minor, his family name alone was enough for him to be considered guilty in the eyes of many.
Where was the sympathy, the compassion for a kid whose mother and father were both murdered in a terrorist attack nearly ten years ago? How can it be that the hatred his family name evokes is stronger than the attribute of compassion, supposedly one of the defining characteristics of the Jewish people?
For many there was a sickening feeling when this story made the news, a feeling of déjà vu. In light of the recent freeze on building in Judea and Samaria and the near warlike preparation to enforce the freeze, it appeared that this was simply another well-planned attempt to create incitement against a particular population. Forget about the lack of evidence or simple human compassion for an orphaned kid, his family name and the powerful antagonism it elicits appeared to be too hard to resist.
Although no one knows for certain what is being planned for the future of the Jews living in Judea and Samaria, the gut feeling of many is that it is something in the direction of what was done to the Jews formerly living in Gaza. Of course following the Lebanon War, the Gaza War, and the overall horrendous treatment of the Jews who formerly lived in Gaza, removing even part of the Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria will not be an easy sell to the Israeli public. For this reason it appears that the incitement card is once again being employed. The more they are made to look extreme, the easier the sell to the Israeli public.
Although such a tactic is horrible enough in and of itself since we’re talking about turning Jew against Jew, it is beyond despicable to drag the Kahane kid into this just because his family name happens to be very, very useful. Once again we’re talking about a kid who together with his five sisters lost their parents when they were just children.
As it turned out, the kid was released after seven hours of investigation for both lack of any evidence and for verification of his alibi, a chain of events which only strengthened the belief amongst many that this was in fact an attempt to create incitement. Whatever the case, both those responsible for arresting him as well as all those who spewed hatred towards him, should do some soul searching and offer this kid and his family a public apology.
When will we finally learn that such internal hatred only brings upon us more and more calamities?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Why Make Aliyah?
7th Candle of Hanukkah 5770
For a Jew there is no better place than the State of Israel.
Yoel Meltzer
30 Kisleiw/December 17, 2009
Roughly 15 years ago I made a personal decision to leave the comfortable lifestyle and familiar surroundings of America in order to settle down and build my life in Israel.
As important as this decision was, it had nothing to do with any negative feelings that I had towards the US. In fact, just the opposite is true and most of my memories of life in America are very positive. From childhood vacations in the Lake George region of upstate New York, to a couple of cross-country ventures in my mid-20s, to a few years of life in the middle of New York City, I can honestly say that the United States is really one incredible, beautiful country. Furthermore, the variety of quality choices and lifestyles that are available in an enormous country of nearly 300 million residents truly makes settling down in America such an attractive option.
Nonetheless, despite all the wonderful things that can be said about America, I would not trade for a second the life that I have built in Israel. Moreover, I am 100% convinced that there is no place in the world that is potentially more suitable for a Jew to live than in the Land of Israel. To someone living outside of Israel this may sound like quite a bombastic declaration, but nonetheless this does not detract from the veracity of the statement.
The problem is the chicken and the egg factor. Only by living here and experiencing the reality of life in Israel can one honestly come to such an internal realization. Thus, to a Jew who still lives outside of Israel, it is only natural that such a statement will be somewhat incomprehensible or perhaps even irritating.
Nonetheless, I would like to present a short list of positive reasons for a Jew to consider building a life in Israel:
1. Percentage-wise the best chance to find a Jewish spouse is in Israel.
2. Statistically the lowest rate of intermarriage is in Israel.
3. Within a few short hours one can hike in the desert, swim in the Mediterranean, ski on the Hermon or float in the Dead Sea.
4. Jewish holidays are a natural part of the lifecycle here.
5. There is no Christmas shopping season in Israel.
6. The cost of Jewish education in Israel is a fraction of the cost in the US.
7. In Israel there is a feeling of "home" for the Jewish people.
8. Israel is the only Jewish country in the world. There are no others.
9. In Israel a Jew does not have to integrate into a non-Jewish society.
10. Although like any country there are many problems and issues, at least they are our problems and issues.
11. Mitzvah observance and their significance take on a whole different meaning in the Land of Israel.
12. There is only one Jerusalem in the whole world and it is here, in the Land of Israel.
13. After a few thousand years, Hebrew, the language of the Prophets, is once again heard throughout the Land of Israel.
14. Israel boasts the fastest growing Jewish population in the world.
15. After a long respite of nearly 2,000 years, Israel is once again the physical and spiritual center of the Jewish people.
16. History is literally unfolding here in front of our eyes. All that has transpired here during such a relatively short time period is nothing short of mind-boggling. As such, there is an incredible and unique opportunity available to any Jew throughout the world to come to Israel and to actually have an impact on the shaping of history.
Cross-posted on YNET.
For a Jew there is no better place than the State of Israel.
Yoel Meltzer
30 Kisleiw/December 17, 2009
Roughly 15 years ago I made a personal decision to leave the comfortable lifestyle and familiar surroundings of America in order to settle down and build my life in Israel.
As important as this decision was, it had nothing to do with any negative feelings that I had towards the US. In fact, just the opposite is true and most of my memories of life in America are very positive. From childhood vacations in the Lake George region of upstate New York, to a couple of cross-country ventures in my mid-20s, to a few years of life in the middle of New York City, I can honestly say that the United States is really one incredible, beautiful country. Furthermore, the variety of quality choices and lifestyles that are available in an enormous country of nearly 300 million residents truly makes settling down in America such an attractive option.
Nonetheless, despite all the wonderful things that can be said about America, I would not trade for a second the life that I have built in Israel. Moreover, I am 100% convinced that there is no place in the world that is potentially more suitable for a Jew to live than in the Land of Israel. To someone living outside of Israel this may sound like quite a bombastic declaration, but nonetheless this does not detract from the veracity of the statement.
The problem is the chicken and the egg factor. Only by living here and experiencing the reality of life in Israel can one honestly come to such an internal realization. Thus, to a Jew who still lives outside of Israel, it is only natural that such a statement will be somewhat incomprehensible or perhaps even irritating.
Nonetheless, I would like to present a short list of positive reasons for a Jew to consider building a life in Israel:
1. Percentage-wise the best chance to find a Jewish spouse is in Israel.
2. Statistically the lowest rate of intermarriage is in Israel.
3. Within a few short hours one can hike in the desert, swim in the Mediterranean, ski on the Hermon or float in the Dead Sea.
4. Jewish holidays are a natural part of the lifecycle here.
5. There is no Christmas shopping season in Israel.
6. The cost of Jewish education in Israel is a fraction of the cost in the US.
7. In Israel there is a feeling of "home" for the Jewish people.
8. Israel is the only Jewish country in the world. There are no others.
9. In Israel a Jew does not have to integrate into a non-Jewish society.
10. Although like any country there are many problems and issues, at least they are our problems and issues.
11. Mitzvah observance and their significance take on a whole different meaning in the Land of Israel.
12. There is only one Jerusalem in the whole world and it is here, in the Land of Israel.
13. After a few thousand years, Hebrew, the language of the Prophets, is once again heard throughout the Land of Israel.
14. Israel boasts the fastest growing Jewish population in the world.
15. After a long respite of nearly 2,000 years, Israel is once again the physical and spiritual center of the Jewish people.
16. History is literally unfolding here in front of our eyes. All that has transpired here during such a relatively short time period is nothing short of mind-boggling. As such, there is an incredible and unique opportunity available to any Jew throughout the world to come to Israel and to actually have an impact on the shaping of history.
Cross-posted on YNET.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
The Jewish Idea
"Without a new, profound sense of purpose, Israel’s days are numbered"
Yoel Meltzer
14 Marheshwan 5770/November 1, 2009
Most people are barely cognizant of the fact that many of their actions are a result of ideas that have seeped into the collective mindset of their community or society. A simple and clear example of this can be seen in clothing. In the world of fashion, some guru sitting in Paris develops an idea of a certain type of shirt that should be worn by a particular age group in the coming year. The actual physical shirt is then designed and produced, and then afterwards is cleverly marketed towards the target audience. Unsuspectingly, this audience falls in line and starts proudly wearing the latest "in" shirt. Then the following year, the same guru changes direction and promotes a previous "in" shirt with the not surprising result that once again the target audience follows suit.
While this is an oversimplified example, many societal behaviors and thought patterns can be traced back to ideas that have been implanted into the individual and collective mindset of the society. Frequently this is the result of a cleverly designed marketing campaign, especially when financial or political gains are the goal, although many times it's just a result of ideas that happened to appear at the right time and in the right place and connected to inner feelings and thoughts of the society. Such ideas, which are usually more altruistic by nature, answer to certain needs of the society, be it emotional, psychological, or spiritual.
Anyone somewhat familiar with the state of Israel today, be it a veteran or new immigrant, cannot help but be aware of the many problems that are plaguing the country. From the threat of Iranian missiles to increasing violence, the list goes on and on. Of all the problems, however, perhaps the most pressing for the long-term survival of the nation is the lack of a shared sense of purpose. Whatever held the nation together years ago, mainly the idea of coming together to physically build the country, has long since faded away. In its place, nothing has appeared which has been able to unite the country around a new shared sense of purpose.
Of course there are moments, especially during times of warfare, when the county comes together, but these are just passing moments that have no sustaining power after the cessation of hostilities.
Inspiring the nation
Moreover, parallel to the disappearance of the shared sense of purpose has been a constantly growing feeling of societal cynicism and disgust with many of the state's institutions. It is therefore clear that this country from top to bottom desperately needs to be provided with a new, profound, and lasting sense of purpose. Without it, its days are numbered.
This then is the need, both on an individual and societal level, which must be addressed. What is required, therefore, is the idea to answer this unmet need. Not just any old idea that comes and goes like the wind but rather, something of depth that can affect and inspire an entire nation. Of course the only idea that can possibly satisfy this need of the Jewish people is not surprisingly the old-new Jewish idea.
The intention here is not the watered down "religious idea," an oversimplified system of "dos and don'ts", but rather, the authentic and infinitely more profound "Jewish idea." Although it does include the standard religious aspect, the intention here is to something much broader and deeper which provides a clear sense of purpose and direction for both the individual Jew and the larger Jewish nation. Such a profound idea, based upon a deep understanding of the Jewish sources, history and life, has the potential to literally create a revolution. The Jewish people, and the rest of humanity with them, have the ability to soar to such heights if only the idea would be properly understood and internalized, since ideas are ultimately what cause actions and change societies.
The time is right for the reemergence of the true Jewish idea, the authentic Jewish dream, since the county has never been more in need of a renewed sense of purpose and direction. All that is needed then is the way to disseminate the idea.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
Cross-posted on YNET.
Yoel Meltzer
14 Marheshwan 5770/November 1, 2009
Most people are barely cognizant of the fact that many of their actions are a result of ideas that have seeped into the collective mindset of their community or society. A simple and clear example of this can be seen in clothing. In the world of fashion, some guru sitting in Paris develops an idea of a certain type of shirt that should be worn by a particular age group in the coming year. The actual physical shirt is then designed and produced, and then afterwards is cleverly marketed towards the target audience. Unsuspectingly, this audience falls in line and starts proudly wearing the latest "in" shirt. Then the following year, the same guru changes direction and promotes a previous "in" shirt with the not surprising result that once again the target audience follows suit.
While this is an oversimplified example, many societal behaviors and thought patterns can be traced back to ideas that have been implanted into the individual and collective mindset of the society. Frequently this is the result of a cleverly designed marketing campaign, especially when financial or political gains are the goal, although many times it's just a result of ideas that happened to appear at the right time and in the right place and connected to inner feelings and thoughts of the society. Such ideas, which are usually more altruistic by nature, answer to certain needs of the society, be it emotional, psychological, or spiritual.
Anyone somewhat familiar with the state of Israel today, be it a veteran or new immigrant, cannot help but be aware of the many problems that are plaguing the country. From the threat of Iranian missiles to increasing violence, the list goes on and on. Of all the problems, however, perhaps the most pressing for the long-term survival of the nation is the lack of a shared sense of purpose. Whatever held the nation together years ago, mainly the idea of coming together to physically build the country, has long since faded away. In its place, nothing has appeared which has been able to unite the country around a new shared sense of purpose.
Of course there are moments, especially during times of warfare, when the county comes together, but these are just passing moments that have no sustaining power after the cessation of hostilities.
Inspiring the nation
Moreover, parallel to the disappearance of the shared sense of purpose has been a constantly growing feeling of societal cynicism and disgust with many of the state's institutions. It is therefore clear that this country from top to bottom desperately needs to be provided with a new, profound, and lasting sense of purpose. Without it, its days are numbered.
This then is the need, both on an individual and societal level, which must be addressed. What is required, therefore, is the idea to answer this unmet need. Not just any old idea that comes and goes like the wind but rather, something of depth that can affect and inspire an entire nation. Of course the only idea that can possibly satisfy this need of the Jewish people is not surprisingly the old-new Jewish idea.
The intention here is not the watered down "religious idea," an oversimplified system of "dos and don'ts", but rather, the authentic and infinitely more profound "Jewish idea." Although it does include the standard religious aspect, the intention here is to something much broader and deeper which provides a clear sense of purpose and direction for both the individual Jew and the larger Jewish nation. Such a profound idea, based upon a deep understanding of the Jewish sources, history and life, has the potential to literally create a revolution. The Jewish people, and the rest of humanity with them, have the ability to soar to such heights if only the idea would be properly understood and internalized, since ideas are ultimately what cause actions and change societies.
The time is right for the reemergence of the true Jewish idea, the authentic Jewish dream, since the county has never been more in need of a renewed sense of purpose and direction. All that is needed then is the way to disseminate the idea.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
Cross-posted on YNET.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Good Zionists, Bad Zionists
Erev Shabbath Qodesh Parshath Pinhas 5769
Actually written seven years ago, this article is still relevant today.
Good Zionists, Bad Zionists
Yoel Meltzer, 18 Tammuz 5769/July 10, 2009
"Arabs don't make such trivial distinctions."
One of the unwritten laws of war is that the winning side is allowed to do as it pleases after the cessation of hostilities. This law is even more relevant when the victor turns out to be the side that didn't initiate the war, or didn't want the war to occur in the first place.
Thus we find Israel, after its victory in a war that it initially tried to avoid in 1948, utilizing its victory to expand its territory. For several years after this war, new communities started to appear on the map, such as Ashdod in 1956, Karmiel in 1964, Dimona in 1955 and Arad in 1962 (to name just a few).
Then, nearly 20 years later, and faced with the prospect of an Arab onslaught, Israel was forced to fight another war in 1967. Like the war in 1948, that war resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Then, once again, as it had done after its 1948 victory, Israel utilized this victory to embark on a campaign of expanding its territory. New communities started to dot the map, such as Kiryat Arba in 1972, Kedumim in 1975, Karnei Shomron in 1977 and Efrat in 1983 (to name just a few).
However, this is where the similarities stop. For some reason, the communities that were founded after 1948 have always been considered legitimate by the Israeli public, while the communities that were established after 1967 never quite managed to gain the same degree of legitimacy in the eyes of some sections of the Israeli public. They are, in fact, considered illegitimate by some here in Israel.
Of course, the argument that the latter communities were established in the midst of, or near, large Arab population centers, or "on Arab lands", doesn't hold much sway. This is so especially since the same can be said of many "more legitimate" communities started after 1948, and even of some communities started before 1948. If this is the case, then what is the reason for the different treatment of post-1967 communities as compared to that of their pre-1967 counterparts?
It seems that the only logical answer is that the earlier communities were founded by the Good Zionists (David Ben-Gurion and friends), while many of the latter, post-1967 communities were founded by a different type of Zionist; namely, by the type that believes settling Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah, and who draws his inspiration and motivation for such ideals straight from Judaism. This is the only plausible answer as to why this second group of Zionists and the communities they have built have become stigmatized and deemed illegitimate by so many here in Israel.
Unfortunately, what many here in Israel who deem such post-1967 communities as illegitimate fail, or perhaps refuse, to understand is that in the eyes of the Arabs, all of the communities (pre-1948, post-1948, post-1967) are illegitimate. The Arabs don't make such trivial distinctions. Only we, the silly Jews, make such distinctions.
Cross-posted on Arutz 7.
Actually written seven years ago, this article is still relevant today.
Good Zionists, Bad Zionists
Yoel Meltzer, 18 Tammuz 5769/July 10, 2009
"Arabs don't make such trivial distinctions."
One of the unwritten laws of war is that the winning side is allowed to do as it pleases after the cessation of hostilities. This law is even more relevant when the victor turns out to be the side that didn't initiate the war, or didn't want the war to occur in the first place.
Thus we find Israel, after its victory in a war that it initially tried to avoid in 1948, utilizing its victory to expand its territory. For several years after this war, new communities started to appear on the map, such as Ashdod in 1956, Karmiel in 1964, Dimona in 1955 and Arad in 1962 (to name just a few).
Then, nearly 20 years later, and faced with the prospect of an Arab onslaught, Israel was forced to fight another war in 1967. Like the war in 1948, that war resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Then, once again, as it had done after its 1948 victory, Israel utilized this victory to embark on a campaign of expanding its territory. New communities started to dot the map, such as Kiryat Arba in 1972, Kedumim in 1975, Karnei Shomron in 1977 and Efrat in 1983 (to name just a few).
However, this is where the similarities stop. For some reason, the communities that were founded after 1948 have always been considered legitimate by the Israeli public, while the communities that were established after 1967 never quite managed to gain the same degree of legitimacy in the eyes of some sections of the Israeli public. They are, in fact, considered illegitimate by some here in Israel.
Of course, the argument that the latter communities were established in the midst of, or near, large Arab population centers, or "on Arab lands", doesn't hold much sway. This is so especially since the same can be said of many "more legitimate" communities started after 1948, and even of some communities started before 1948. If this is the case, then what is the reason for the different treatment of post-1967 communities as compared to that of their pre-1967 counterparts?
It seems that the only logical answer is that the earlier communities were founded by the Good Zionists (David Ben-Gurion and friends), while many of the latter, post-1967 communities were founded by a different type of Zionist; namely, by the type that believes settling Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah, and who draws his inspiration and motivation for such ideals straight from Judaism. This is the only plausible answer as to why this second group of Zionists and the communities they have built have become stigmatized and deemed illegitimate by so many here in Israel.
Unfortunately, what many here in Israel who deem such post-1967 communities as illegitimate fail, or perhaps refuse, to understand is that in the eyes of the Arabs, all of the communities (pre-1948, post-1948, post-1967) are illegitimate. The Arabs don't make such trivial distinctions. Only we, the silly Jews, make such distinctions.
Cross-posted on Arutz 7.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Speaking The Truth
Erev Shabbath Qodesh Parshath Qorah 5769
YNET: Speaking The Truth
"Various parts of Land of Israel are more than just strategic security assets."
The original title was "Confusing Means and Goals." YNET also edited out a few sentences, found below in blue italics.
Yoel Meltzer
24 Sivan 5769/June 16, 2009
It is occasionally said that keeping the Shabbat is a good way to strengthen family unity and closeness. Since parents and children are together for a day without the usual weekly distractions, they are forced to spend quality time together. The problem is that this assumption reduces the Shabbat to a means for fostering better family ties. If it is only a means for nurturing better family ties, then someone else can rightly claim that a Shabbat barbecue on the beach with the whole family also fosters family unity. If so, what need is there to observe the Shabbat? The point is that the Sabbath has tremendous value in and of itself, regardless of what benefits one may or may not receive from observing it. Of course to make Sabbath observance a goal rather than a means and also to appreciate its true value, it must be concomitantly practiced and understood in its fullness. Otherwise it can turn into an external empty act devoid of any meaning.
The same can be said regarding the Land of Israel. Many good intentioned people state that the only reason Israel cannot relinquish any territory in Judea and Samaria is because these lands are vital for the strategic depth they provide to Israel. Once again, the problem with this approach is that it conveys the message that an Israeli presence in certain areas in the Land of Israel is only important as a means for acquiring security.
YNET: Speaking The Truth
"Various parts of Land of Israel are more than just strategic security assets."
The original title was "Confusing Means and Goals." YNET also edited out a few sentences, found below in blue italics.
Yoel Meltzer
24 Sivan 5769/June 16, 2009
It is occasionally said that keeping the Shabbat is a good way to strengthen family unity and closeness. Since parents and children are together for a day without the usual weekly distractions, they are forced to spend quality time together. The problem is that this assumption reduces the Shabbat to a means for fostering better family ties. If it is only a means for nurturing better family ties, then someone else can rightly claim that a Shabbat barbecue on the beach with the whole family also fosters family unity. If so, what need is there to observe the Shabbat? The point is that the Sabbath has tremendous value in and of itself, regardless of what benefits one may or may not receive from observing it. Of course to make Sabbath observance a goal rather than a means and also to appreciate its true value, it must be concomitantly practiced and understood in its fullness. Otherwise it can turn into an external empty act devoid of any meaning.
The same can be said regarding the Land of Israel. Many good intentioned people state that the only reason Israel cannot relinquish any territory in Judea and Samaria is because these lands are vital for the strategic depth they provide to Israel. Once again, the problem with this approach is that it conveys the message that an Israeli presence in certain areas in the Land of Israel is only important as a means for acquiring security.
However, if this is true, then other means can be found to supposedly provide security, such as a 20 meter-high security fence, international observers, electronic surveillance equipment, etc, etc. The point is that the Land of Israel - be it in Tel Aviv, Shiloh, Karmiel, The Jordan Valley or Arad - has tremendous value and meaning in and of itself, regardless of what benefits settling it might provide. Yet to make settling the land and establishing Jewish sovereignty a goal rather than a means and also to appreciate the real significance of the Land of Israel, the subject must be seriously studied and internalized.
In light of Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent Bar Ilan speech, this point should be kept in mind. The "taboo" has finally been broken and now every major Israeli political party officially endorses the "two-state solution." Moreover, the prime minister's stated conditions for the establishment of such a state – Arab recognition of Israel as Jewish state and an eventual demilitarized Palestinian state – will quickly be sidestepped or forgotten. Unless something miraculous happens we will be staring at a new Arab state in our midst within the coming years.
Security Argument Will Be Defeated
Of course this new entity, which in all probability will be quite hostile towards Israel, will require the forced removal of tens of thousands of Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria. In such an environment, all that remains is to speak the truth. Therefore, anyone with influence who really cares about the Jewish people and the divine mission they've been entrusted with, a mission which is integrally related to establishing Jewish sovereignty throughout the Land of Israel, needs to speak up.
However, if their defense of the Land of Israel is based solely upon security issues, they will eventually be defeated. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but with time they will be defeated since other means, no matter how problematic or controversial, will be adopted to allegedly provide security.
As appealing as the security argument might be, the truth is that various parts of the Land of Israel are not simply strategic assets that must be held on to for security reasons, any more than the entire land itself is merely a safe haven for Jews to escape pogroms and anti-Semitism. At this point in time, anything other than the truth will not hold up.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Towards A Jewish Mindset
Towards a Jewish Mindset
There are no shortcuts.
Yoel Meltzer
11 Sivan 5769/June 3, 2009
For more than 15 years Israel has been plagued by the "Oslo mindset". This way of thinking, which did not appear out of a vacuum but slowly evolved over the course of years, is still alive and kicking despite all that has transpired. Its current outward manifestation, the much talked about "two-state solution", is gaining momentum every day despite the obvious danger that undertaking such a measure would entail to the state of Israel.
Although the "Oslo mindset" has had many opponents, most have invested their energy in opposing the various outward manifestations of the mindset, rather than focusing on the faulty mindset itself. The result of this has been that Oslo opponents simply gained a reputation of always "opposing", like a group of pessimistic naysayers, without ever proffering any alternative of their own. Moreover, by constantly focusing on the outward manifestation, they repeatedly engaged the Oslo proponents in a battle they were sure to lose, since who can appear victorious when arguing against measures allegedly designed to bring "peace" or "improved security"?
Unfortunately, the Oslo opponents continue to make the same mistake. The real battle should have been, and still needs to be, against the mindset. Moreover, rather than simply wasting negative energy attacking a certain way of thinking, positive energy should be invested in promulgating a different way of thinking. This point is crucial, since changes in the way one thinks, be it as an individual or a nation, are frequently the catalyst for changes in the physical realm. Obviously, it would have been preferable if such an approach had begun 15 years ago, but nonetheless it's never too late to start. Therefore, I would like to briefly present some key points of what can hopefully become the cornerstone of a proper and healthy "Jewish mindset".
Although the following is certainly not an all-encompassing list and many of the points are not new, it is my firm belief that these ideas need to first be outlined in a clear and concise manner in order for them to be easily disseminated, discussed and internalized by as many Jews as possible.
The 18-point list, the basics for a healthy "Jewish mindset", is as follows:
1. There is a purpose to the unfolding events of history and there is a purpose to life. It's not all random.
2. Real, authentic Judaism is much more than what it has been reduced to, to a black and white system of "do's and don'ts". The halachic side, although very important, is only part of the picture.
3. The Jewish people have been chosen for a special role in the world.
4. This role can only be fulfilled by the collective Jewish nation living in the Land of Israel.
5. Establishing complete sovereignty in the Land of Israel and creating a model society, from top to bottom, according to the ideals and morality of Judaism, is essential for fulfilling this role. However, the nationalistic aspect of Judaism is not an end-goal in and of itself, but rather a platform that will enable us fulfill our lofty "international role" of being a "light unto nations".
6. Israel must interact with the world in order to have an influence, but at the same time must remain separate and independent, in order not to be further confused and fragmented by the assimilation of non-Jewish ideas and values.
7. Israel can and must sever the dependency on US economic aid.
8. The real goal of the Jewish state must be alive in our hearts and minds in order to affect our daily lives.
9. Without internalizing these ideas and changing our mindset, and eventually our lives, the endless killing in this region, as well as in the world, will continue.
10. The future of the world is dependent on the Jewish people getting their act together.
11. Properly understood, the real goal of the Jewish state is the most idealistic undertaking in the history of mankind.
12. Continuing along on the same path, functioning within our individual and collective "comfort zones", will not lead us out of the mess. We must, as individuals and as a nation, constantly strive to expand and stretch our comfort zones.
13. Every Jew should feel proud, yet humbled, in the role he has been given, and totally motivated and inspired to do his part.
14. Complaining will not change a thing and it is a waste of precious energy.
15. A positive, vision-oriented way of thinking is essential.
16. The Arab and Iranian threat are serious problems facing the Jewish state and, like any problem, they must certainly be dealt with. However, they are not the source of our problems, but the outward manifestation of our own internal problems. Thus, dealing with them alone will not bring us the desired harmony and salvation. The real problem is internally, within the Jewish people themselves, and stems from a lack of clarity as to our true purpose in the world. This problem, which is largely the result of a non-Jewish mindset prevalent amongst the Jewish people, is the real obstacle that stands in the way of ultimate salvation.
17. There are no shortcuts.
18. The world is waiting.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
There are no shortcuts.
Yoel Meltzer
11 Sivan 5769/June 3, 2009
For more than 15 years Israel has been plagued by the "Oslo mindset". This way of thinking, which did not appear out of a vacuum but slowly evolved over the course of years, is still alive and kicking despite all that has transpired. Its current outward manifestation, the much talked about "two-state solution", is gaining momentum every day despite the obvious danger that undertaking such a measure would entail to the state of Israel.
Although the "Oslo mindset" has had many opponents, most have invested their energy in opposing the various outward manifestations of the mindset, rather than focusing on the faulty mindset itself. The result of this has been that Oslo opponents simply gained a reputation of always "opposing", like a group of pessimistic naysayers, without ever proffering any alternative of their own. Moreover, by constantly focusing on the outward manifestation, they repeatedly engaged the Oslo proponents in a battle they were sure to lose, since who can appear victorious when arguing against measures allegedly designed to bring "peace" or "improved security"?
Unfortunately, the Oslo opponents continue to make the same mistake. The real battle should have been, and still needs to be, against the mindset. Moreover, rather than simply wasting negative energy attacking a certain way of thinking, positive energy should be invested in promulgating a different way of thinking. This point is crucial, since changes in the way one thinks, be it as an individual or a nation, are frequently the catalyst for changes in the physical realm. Obviously, it would have been preferable if such an approach had begun 15 years ago, but nonetheless it's never too late to start. Therefore, I would like to briefly present some key points of what can hopefully become the cornerstone of a proper and healthy "Jewish mindset".
Although the following is certainly not an all-encompassing list and many of the points are not new, it is my firm belief that these ideas need to first be outlined in a clear and concise manner in order for them to be easily disseminated, discussed and internalized by as many Jews as possible.
The 18-point list, the basics for a healthy "Jewish mindset", is as follows:
1. There is a purpose to the unfolding events of history and there is a purpose to life. It's not all random.
2. Real, authentic Judaism is much more than what it has been reduced to, to a black and white system of "do's and don'ts". The halachic side, although very important, is only part of the picture.
3. The Jewish people have been chosen for a special role in the world.
4. This role can only be fulfilled by the collective Jewish nation living in the Land of Israel.
5. Establishing complete sovereignty in the Land of Israel and creating a model society, from top to bottom, according to the ideals and morality of Judaism, is essential for fulfilling this role. However, the nationalistic aspect of Judaism is not an end-goal in and of itself, but rather a platform that will enable us fulfill our lofty "international role" of being a "light unto nations".
6. Israel must interact with the world in order to have an influence, but at the same time must remain separate and independent, in order not to be further confused and fragmented by the assimilation of non-Jewish ideas and values.
7. Israel can and must sever the dependency on US economic aid.
8. The real goal of the Jewish state must be alive in our hearts and minds in order to affect our daily lives.
9. Without internalizing these ideas and changing our mindset, and eventually our lives, the endless killing in this region, as well as in the world, will continue.
10. The future of the world is dependent on the Jewish people getting their act together.
11. Properly understood, the real goal of the Jewish state is the most idealistic undertaking in the history of mankind.
12. Continuing along on the same path, functioning within our individual and collective "comfort zones", will not lead us out of the mess. We must, as individuals and as a nation, constantly strive to expand and stretch our comfort zones.
13. Every Jew should feel proud, yet humbled, in the role he has been given, and totally motivated and inspired to do his part.
14. Complaining will not change a thing and it is a waste of precious energy.
15. A positive, vision-oriented way of thinking is essential.
16. The Arab and Iranian threat are serious problems facing the Jewish state and, like any problem, they must certainly be dealt with. However, they are not the source of our problems, but the outward manifestation of our own internal problems. Thus, dealing with them alone will not bring us the desired harmony and salvation. The real problem is internally, within the Jewish people themselves, and stems from a lack of clarity as to our true purpose in the world. This problem, which is largely the result of a non-Jewish mindset prevalent amongst the Jewish people, is the real obstacle that stands in the way of ultimate salvation.
17. There are no shortcuts.
18. The world is waiting.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Just Say No
Just Say No
Our leaders must clearly tell US that two-state solution not in our best interest.
Yoel Meltzer
29 Nissan 5796/April 23, 2009
With the American leadership intensifying its demand that Israel accept the “two-state solution,” the slogan “just say no” used by former first lady Nancy Reagan as part of the 1980s campaign against adolescent drug abuse keeps popping into my head. Although perhaps overly simplistic, many argue that her words went a long way in raising awareness to the problem. At this time, our present leadership would do well to adopt the same slogan.
Thus, the next time the Americans demand that Israel accept the two-state solution, just say “no.” Don't ignore their demands, don't try to evade answering them and don't present conditions for eventually accepting their demands; rather, just say “no.”
Kindly explain to them that although we understand the difficulties America is currently facing, as well as its need to appease various leaders in our region as a prelude to dealing with its own problems, a two-state solution is not in Israel’s best interest. Surely America, which like any sovereign state worries first and foremost about what is in its best interest, can appreciate another sovereign state doing the same.
Kindly remind the Americans that after removing our soldiers from Lebanon, missiles eventually fell in Haifa. Then, just a few years later, after dismantling thriving Jewish communities in Gaza and removing every last citizen, missiles eventually landed in Beersheva.
Moreover, please explain to them that it is nearly 100% certain that a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria will eventually bring missiles to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Equally important, make it clear to them that this is a prediction based upon Middle Eastern reality and not some sort of “scare tactic” or “right-wing analysis.”
National suicide
In addition, please remind them that suicide, in any shape or size, is forbidden in Judaism and therefore national suicide, which will be the result of a two-state solution, is clearly forbidden.
True, such an Israeli position would complicate America's regional plans. However, if firmly stated by our leadership, most Americans would probably respect it. Even more importantly, it would certainly gain the overwhelming support of the Jewish population in this country.
To conclude, the real problem is not America, but rather, our own leadership. For nearly 20 years it has avoided taking any stand against American “peace demands,” no matter how detrimental to the State of Israel these demands might be. Unfortunately, this is not a surprise. To a leadership that for the most part is not a faith-based leadership, taking such a stand is probably terrifying if not impossible. Nonetheless, the time has come. Either our leaders finally overcome themselves and take a stand, thereby averting a national disaster, or they will, heaven forbid, bring destruction upon us all.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
Our leaders must clearly tell US that two-state solution not in our best interest.
Yoel Meltzer
29 Nissan 5796/April 23, 2009
With the American leadership intensifying its demand that Israel accept the “two-state solution,” the slogan “just say no” used by former first lady Nancy Reagan as part of the 1980s campaign against adolescent drug abuse keeps popping into my head. Although perhaps overly simplistic, many argue that her words went a long way in raising awareness to the problem. At this time, our present leadership would do well to adopt the same slogan.
Thus, the next time the Americans demand that Israel accept the two-state solution, just say “no.” Don't ignore their demands, don't try to evade answering them and don't present conditions for eventually accepting their demands; rather, just say “no.”
Kindly explain to them that although we understand the difficulties America is currently facing, as well as its need to appease various leaders in our region as a prelude to dealing with its own problems, a two-state solution is not in Israel’s best interest. Surely America, which like any sovereign state worries first and foremost about what is in its best interest, can appreciate another sovereign state doing the same.
Kindly remind the Americans that after removing our soldiers from Lebanon, missiles eventually fell in Haifa. Then, just a few years later, after dismantling thriving Jewish communities in Gaza and removing every last citizen, missiles eventually landed in Beersheva.
Moreover, please explain to them that it is nearly 100% certain that a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria will eventually bring missiles to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Equally important, make it clear to them that this is a prediction based upon Middle Eastern reality and not some sort of “scare tactic” or “right-wing analysis.”
National suicide
In addition, please remind them that suicide, in any shape or size, is forbidden in Judaism and therefore national suicide, which will be the result of a two-state solution, is clearly forbidden.
True, such an Israeli position would complicate America's regional plans. However, if firmly stated by our leadership, most Americans would probably respect it. Even more importantly, it would certainly gain the overwhelming support of the Jewish population in this country.
To conclude, the real problem is not America, but rather, our own leadership. For nearly 20 years it has avoided taking any stand against American “peace demands,” no matter how detrimental to the State of Israel these demands might be. Unfortunately, this is not a surprise. To a leadership that for the most part is not a faith-based leadership, taking such a stand is probably terrifying if not impossible. Nonetheless, the time has come. Either our leaders finally overcome themselves and take a stand, thereby averting a national disaster, or they will, heaven forbid, bring destruction upon us all.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Importance of Sovereignty
5 Hol HaMo'ed Pesah 5769
The Importance of Sovereignty
Yoel Meltzer
Erev Pesah 5796/April 7, 2009
Following publication of my recent article "Sovereignty in Israel" - an article which suggested that Israel's passive compliance to the demands of American leadership questions the whole notion of whether Israel actually has true political sovereignty - I was asked by several people to explain how genuine sovereignty can be attained, as well as why attaining it is deemed so important. Moreover, regarding the latter point, there were several inquiries as to the meaning of the closing sentence of the article: "Finally, if Israel ever truly desires to fulfill its unique role in the world, then it will have no choice but to start thinking about itself differently and to realize why true sovereignty is in fact needed in order to fulfill this role."
In order to address these questions, I write this article. Moreover, since it is my belief that the key to understanding the significance of Israeli sovereignty can only be acquired by first properly understanding what is the unique role of the Jewish State, I would like to focus on this point.
What, then, is the point of a Jewish State? Although many believe that the building of the state of Israel in order to establish Jewish sovereignty is the goal of the Jewish people, the truth is that it is not. Of course it is very important and it has profound significance in and of itself, but this is not the whole story. If it were, then the building of the state of Israel would simply be a nationalist endeavor and nothing more. If so, then Israel would be no different from other nationalist endeavors such as France, Turkey, Argentina, etc.
While it is true that Israel is similar to other nationalist endeavors in that it too needs to build the country on a purely physical level - with firemen and bakeries, clothing stores and electricians - for Israel, however, there is much more. In addition to building a full-fledged country in every meaning of the word, Israel has to do this according to the beautiful ideals and morality of Judaism.
Done correctly, Israel is to create a socially just society. On the one hand, a thriving economy, strong army, educational and scientific achievements, and more, while on the other hand, a caring and equitable attitude towards the weaker segments of society, honest and dedicated public officials, polite discourse amongst the people, etc. True, this may sound like a dream, especially in the current state of affairs, but nonetheless this is the goal.
Still further, as beautiful as such a state would be, this is not the final goal. For what really separates Israel from other nationalist endeavors is that Israel also has an international agenda. Briefly stated, the building of such a socially just society is merely to serve as an example for other nations of the world. Thus, the nationalistic aspect of building the country, settling the land and establishing sovereignty is not an end-goal in and of itself, but rather a platform for bringing this message to the world. Described in the poetic language of the Tanach (Bible), this is what is known as being a "light unto the nations".
That is the real final goal and destiny of the Jewish people.
For a world that has been endlessly ravaged by wars, famines, suffering and lack of justice, constantly searching and hoping for a better way, the state of Israel is to serve as the paradigm of how to build such a socially just society and, eventually, a socially just world. This is the profound meaning of what is referred to as tikkun olam.
Thus, leading by example, the State of Israel is essentially charged with nothing less than rescuing the world from its own seemingly endless madness. This is quite a grand and lofty ideal, but nonetheless, it is the ultimate goal.
That is the real reason why political and economic sovereignty is so important for the State of Israel, for only thus can we fulfill the role that God has chosen for us. It's quite simple. We cannot be a "light unto nations" if we are subservient to another nation - be it politically, economically or in our way of thinking. Either we understand this and internalize it and start transforming ourselves, the country and the world, or we continue to ignore this and thus perpetuate the chaos in Israel and in the rest of the world.
Having answered the question of why sovereignty is important, what remains is the more challenging task of how to implement it. There are no simple or magical answers. Quite simply, the above message needs to be discussed and disseminated every which way possible until it becomes the mindset of individual Jews and the collective Jewish nation. There are no shortcuts. However, the potential and power that such a way of thinking would unleash if it were to seep into the consciousness of more and more Jews is nothing less than mind boggling. That's the power of real, authentic and passionate idealism. In addition to providing a clear sense of purpose, it creates excitement, it's catchy, it affects and motivates others, it causes action and generates revolutions.
Understanding this message, although seemingly so basic, should not be taken for granted. Only by internalizing it can the real importance of Israeli sovereignty be fully understood and appreciated. In addition, it is the tool that is needed to overcome our self-imposed limits and fears, to break out of our 'comfort zone', and to finally acquire true political and economic sovereignty.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
The Importance of Sovereignty
Yoel Meltzer
Erev Pesah 5796/April 7, 2009
Following publication of my recent article "Sovereignty in Israel" - an article which suggested that Israel's passive compliance to the demands of American leadership questions the whole notion of whether Israel actually has true political sovereignty - I was asked by several people to explain how genuine sovereignty can be attained, as well as why attaining it is deemed so important. Moreover, regarding the latter point, there were several inquiries as to the meaning of the closing sentence of the article: "Finally, if Israel ever truly desires to fulfill its unique role in the world, then it will have no choice but to start thinking about itself differently and to realize why true sovereignty is in fact needed in order to fulfill this role."
In order to address these questions, I write this article. Moreover, since it is my belief that the key to understanding the significance of Israeli sovereignty can only be acquired by first properly understanding what is the unique role of the Jewish State, I would like to focus on this point.
What, then, is the point of a Jewish State? Although many believe that the building of the state of Israel in order to establish Jewish sovereignty is the goal of the Jewish people, the truth is that it is not. Of course it is very important and it has profound significance in and of itself, but this is not the whole story. If it were, then the building of the state of Israel would simply be a nationalist endeavor and nothing more. If so, then Israel would be no different from other nationalist endeavors such as France, Turkey, Argentina, etc.
While it is true that Israel is similar to other nationalist endeavors in that it too needs to build the country on a purely physical level - with firemen and bakeries, clothing stores and electricians - for Israel, however, there is much more. In addition to building a full-fledged country in every meaning of the word, Israel has to do this according to the beautiful ideals and morality of Judaism.
Done correctly, Israel is to create a socially just society. On the one hand, a thriving economy, strong army, educational and scientific achievements, and more, while on the other hand, a caring and equitable attitude towards the weaker segments of society, honest and dedicated public officials, polite discourse amongst the people, etc. True, this may sound like a dream, especially in the current state of affairs, but nonetheless this is the goal.
Still further, as beautiful as such a state would be, this is not the final goal. For what really separates Israel from other nationalist endeavors is that Israel also has an international agenda. Briefly stated, the building of such a socially just society is merely to serve as an example for other nations of the world. Thus, the nationalistic aspect of building the country, settling the land and establishing sovereignty is not an end-goal in and of itself, but rather a platform for bringing this message to the world. Described in the poetic language of the Tanach (Bible), this is what is known as being a "light unto the nations".
That is the real final goal and destiny of the Jewish people.
For a world that has been endlessly ravaged by wars, famines, suffering and lack of justice, constantly searching and hoping for a better way, the state of Israel is to serve as the paradigm of how to build such a socially just society and, eventually, a socially just world. This is the profound meaning of what is referred to as tikkun olam.
Thus, leading by example, the State of Israel is essentially charged with nothing less than rescuing the world from its own seemingly endless madness. This is quite a grand and lofty ideal, but nonetheless, it is the ultimate goal.
That is the real reason why political and economic sovereignty is so important for the State of Israel, for only thus can we fulfill the role that God has chosen for us. It's quite simple. We cannot be a "light unto nations" if we are subservient to another nation - be it politically, economically or in our way of thinking. Either we understand this and internalize it and start transforming ourselves, the country and the world, or we continue to ignore this and thus perpetuate the chaos in Israel and in the rest of the world.
Having answered the question of why sovereignty is important, what remains is the more challenging task of how to implement it. There are no simple or magical answers. Quite simply, the above message needs to be discussed and disseminated every which way possible until it becomes the mindset of individual Jews and the collective Jewish nation. There are no shortcuts. However, the potential and power that such a way of thinking would unleash if it were to seep into the consciousness of more and more Jews is nothing less than mind boggling. That's the power of real, authentic and passionate idealism. In addition to providing a clear sense of purpose, it creates excitement, it's catchy, it affects and motivates others, it causes action and generates revolutions.
Understanding this message, although seemingly so basic, should not be taken for granted. Only by internalizing it can the real importance of Israeli sovereignty be fully understood and appreciated. In addition, it is the tool that is needed to overcome our self-imposed limits and fears, to break out of our 'comfort zone', and to finally acquire true political and economic sovereignty.
Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
An Open Letter to Manhigut Yehudit and the National Union
23 of the Twelfth Month 5769
Originally submitted 29 Shevat 5769/February 17, 2009, Arutz 7 has put it up only now, with a change in title and a few minor changes to the text. The original title is above, and the original text is below.
A7: An Open Letter to the Real Right
Yoel Meltzer
22 Adar 5769/March 18, 2009
Following the recent elections and the endless analysis of what happened, as well as the numerous predictions of what is yet to happen, one fact continues to remain quite clear. That is, the constant inability of any one party to garner the overwhelming support of the real majority in this country, a majority which clearly identifies, albeit in different ways and at different levels, with the 'three basics' of Judaism – the land of Israel, the Jewish people, and the Torah. (for more please see Who are the majority of Israelis?). For this reason, and in order to finally tap into this real majority, I would like to make a suggestion to Manhigut Yehudit (MY) and the National Union (NU). Quite simply, come together and join forces. Allow me to elaborate.
From the outset, I would like to state that my intention is NOT to form another marginal, right-wing, religious party, but rather a party whose clear goal is to tap into the real majority stated above in order to take over the reigns of leadership in the country. Anything less, is not worth the effort. True, this is basically what Moshe Feiglin and MY is trying to do from within the Likud. However, despite their good intentions, they are alienating many good people who simply cannot vote for Likud in the national elections. While many of us vote in the Likud primaries in order to advance the MY candidates, when it comes to the national elections this is a different story. The leadership of the Likud, both today and in the foreseeable future, simply prevents this from being a viable option. Thus, although voting in the Likud primaries certainly strengthens MY, many of us are just as convinced that voting for Likud in the national elections will only make it easier for the present leadership to hand over more Jewish land to our Arab enemies.
Moreover, even if hypothetically one day Moshe Feiglin rises to the top of the Likud, it is almost certain that the moment this happens the Likud 'powers that be' at that time (be it Bibi, or Silvan Shalom, etc) will simply take most of the party with them in order to form Likud-2 or Kadima-2, leaving Feiglin the head of a 5-10 seat party. True, these would be 5-10 very good people, but after many years of hard work and perseverance this would not be much of a consolation. Of course this brief analysis might be wrong, but is it worth the risk? Finally, before some will say that nothing would make Feiglin happier than all the Bibis and Shaloms and Livnats splitting from the Likud and leaving Feiglin the head of a small Likud party that he could rebuild in his own fashion, my answer is twofold. One, why go through all the process just to arrive at a small party, when small parties can be established now? Two, although it is true that Bibi managed to rebuild a small and shattered Likud after Ariel Sharon left to form Kadima, there is a big, big difference here. While Bibi is a well entrenched figure in the ruling establishment, with nearly all the power at his disposal, Feiglin is not. This is a massive difference that should not be lightly dismissed.
The point here is not to deride Moshe Feiglin or MY. Personally, I believe Feiglin has more clarity than nearly any other public figure in Israel. Equally important, he understands that the only way to take over the leadership in this country is by connecting to the broad majority mentioned above, and not by targeting a limited population group. This, however, is the problem of the NU. Although the people that comprise the NU are amongst the best, their recent campaign revealed that they, and many of their supporters, are stuck in the limited 'sectoral mentality'. Campaign adds focusing on the 'orange crowd' and 'values of the knit kippa community', as well as advertisements on Egged buses depicting a crying child being evacuated from his Gush Katif home, were all so very, very sectoral. Such a limited outlook is incapable of connecting to the larger majority stated above.
Thus, in order to change the political map of this country and to finally connect to the real majority, it is essential that MY and the NU join forces. On the one hand, Moshe Feiglin and MY need to fully understand that they are taking a big risk with their continued path in the Likud, while on the other hand, the NU needs to understand that their limited vision will get them nowhere. Only by joining forces, together with anyone else willing to come aboard (former 'Likud rebels', former Mafdal members, etc), with the clearly defined goal of connecting to the real majority, can authentic Jewish leadership finally be established in this country. The time to do this is now, in order to prepare for the next elections in another two to three years.
Yoel Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization.
Originally submitted 29 Shevat 5769/February 17, 2009, Arutz 7 has put it up only now, with a change in title and a few minor changes to the text. The original title is above, and the original text is below.
A7: An Open Letter to the Real Right
Yoel Meltzer
22 Adar 5769/March 18, 2009
Following the recent elections and the endless analysis of what happened, as well as the numerous predictions of what is yet to happen, one fact continues to remain quite clear. That is, the constant inability of any one party to garner the overwhelming support of the real majority in this country, a majority which clearly identifies, albeit in different ways and at different levels, with the 'three basics' of Judaism – the land of Israel, the Jewish people, and the Torah. (for more please see Who are the majority of Israelis?). For this reason, and in order to finally tap into this real majority, I would like to make a suggestion to Manhigut Yehudit (MY) and the National Union (NU). Quite simply, come together and join forces. Allow me to elaborate.
From the outset, I would like to state that my intention is NOT to form another marginal, right-wing, religious party, but rather a party whose clear goal is to tap into the real majority stated above in order to take over the reigns of leadership in the country. Anything less, is not worth the effort. True, this is basically what Moshe Feiglin and MY is trying to do from within the Likud. However, despite their good intentions, they are alienating many good people who simply cannot vote for Likud in the national elections. While many of us vote in the Likud primaries in order to advance the MY candidates, when it comes to the national elections this is a different story. The leadership of the Likud, both today and in the foreseeable future, simply prevents this from being a viable option. Thus, although voting in the Likud primaries certainly strengthens MY, many of us are just as convinced that voting for Likud in the national elections will only make it easier for the present leadership to hand over more Jewish land to our Arab enemies.
Moreover, even if hypothetically one day Moshe Feiglin rises to the top of the Likud, it is almost certain that the moment this happens the Likud 'powers that be' at that time (be it Bibi, or Silvan Shalom, etc) will simply take most of the party with them in order to form Likud-2 or Kadima-2, leaving Feiglin the head of a 5-10 seat party. True, these would be 5-10 very good people, but after many years of hard work and perseverance this would not be much of a consolation. Of course this brief analysis might be wrong, but is it worth the risk? Finally, before some will say that nothing would make Feiglin happier than all the Bibis and Shaloms and Livnats splitting from the Likud and leaving Feiglin the head of a small Likud party that he could rebuild in his own fashion, my answer is twofold. One, why go through all the process just to arrive at a small party, when small parties can be established now? Two, although it is true that Bibi managed to rebuild a small and shattered Likud after Ariel Sharon left to form Kadima, there is a big, big difference here. While Bibi is a well entrenched figure in the ruling establishment, with nearly all the power at his disposal, Feiglin is not. This is a massive difference that should not be lightly dismissed.
The point here is not to deride Moshe Feiglin or MY. Personally, I believe Feiglin has more clarity than nearly any other public figure in Israel. Equally important, he understands that the only way to take over the leadership in this country is by connecting to the broad majority mentioned above, and not by targeting a limited population group. This, however, is the problem of the NU. Although the people that comprise the NU are amongst the best, their recent campaign revealed that they, and many of their supporters, are stuck in the limited 'sectoral mentality'. Campaign adds focusing on the 'orange crowd' and 'values of the knit kippa community', as well as advertisements on Egged buses depicting a crying child being evacuated from his Gush Katif home, were all so very, very sectoral. Such a limited outlook is incapable of connecting to the larger majority stated above.
Thus, in order to change the political map of this country and to finally connect to the real majority, it is essential that MY and the NU join forces. On the one hand, Moshe Feiglin and MY need to fully understand that they are taking a big risk with their continued path in the Likud, while on the other hand, the NU needs to understand that their limited vision will get them nowhere. Only by joining forces, together with anyone else willing to come aboard (former 'Likud rebels', former Mafdal members, etc), with the clearly defined goal of connecting to the real majority, can authentic Jewish leadership finally be established in this country. The time to do this is now, in order to prepare for the next elections in another two to three years.
Yoel Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sovereignty In Israel
17 of the Twelfth Month 5769
Sovereignty In Israel
Yoel Meltzer
Shushan Purim 5796/March 12, 2009
Commenting on the role the sovereign nation state plays in the Western world vis-a-vis its role in the Islamic world, Samuel P. Huntington states: "The structure of political loyalty among Arabs and among Muslims generally has been the opposite of that in the modern West. For the latter the nation state has been the apex of political loyalty." He then adds, "In addition, the idea of sovereign nation states is incompatible with belief in the sovereignty of Allah and the primacy of the ummah." (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order, pp. 174-175)
Thus, while in the West the concept of the sovereign nation state has enormous importance, yet the idea of loyalty or belonging to a larger Pan-Anglo western nation has no relevance, in the Islamic world the situation is exactly the opposite.
Following this brief analysis of the West and Islam, it is rather interesting to consider the Jewish perspective. For just as in the case of the Jewish calendar, which is a combination of the lunar (used in Islam) and the solar (used in Christianity), so too here. In other words, for the Jewish people, like in Islam, there is the concept of the broader nation, am Yisrael, while at the same time, like in the West, there is significance to the sovereign nation state, the Jewish state of Israel. Since much has already been written about the problems facing the Jewish nation - specifically the divisions within Israeli society as well as Israel's relations vis-a-vis Jews living outside of Israel - I would like to focus here on the concept of the sovereign nation state. Specifically: How much sovereignty does Israel really have on a political level, and how is sovereignty perceived amongst the Israeli populace?
On the national political level, Israel certainly has some degree of sovereignty. Unlike the situation 2,000 years ago, when Israel was physically living under Roman rule, today Israel has its own state institutions such as a parliament, court system, army, etc. Moreover, Israel maintains diplomatic, cultural and economic relations with countries throughout the world, participates in a variety of international forums, is a member of the United Nations, and more. However, despite the outer appearance of full sovereignty, the last 15-20 years have told another story.
In a progressively more blatant manner, the upper echelon of Israel's political leaders have more or less said, both in words and in actions, that Israel must do as America says, regardless of whether or not this action is good for the Jewish state. Be it in reaction to Palestinian acts of terror, the nature and length of wars in Lebanon and Gaza, the sale of military equipment to China, etc., the deciding factor is whether or not we have the 'green light' from America. Similarly, the near consensus to work towards the creation of a Palestinian state, the 'two-state solution', is sheepishly moved forward with hardly a dissenting voice, despite the obvious dangers to all, simply because this is what America wants.
Apparently for many reasons, chief among them most likely economic and political, Israel's leadership is hesitant, if not frightened, to go against the will of America. They simply fear the consequence of going against a superpower, even one which is relatively losing it dominance compared to other powers in the world. Nonetheless, and despite whatever rationalizations they might have, many of which might be justifiable for various reasons, their open display of unabashed adherence to the demands of American leadership questions the whole notion of our true political sovereignty.
Another example that brought this question to the forefront was witnessed in the recent elections. Rather than seriously addressing the Israeli public about real issues and problems, the leading candidates invested a lot of time trying to prove who would work better with President Barack Obama. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with having good relations with America and its president; however, when this becomes a central issue in Israeli national elections, then certainly our whole status as a sovereign nation state becomes rather suspect.
Regarding the Israeli public, since their consciousness and mindset is heavily influenced by the words and actions of the ruling political establishment, it should come as no surprise as to how they feel. Although many will initially express statements and offer suggestions that appear to be more beneficial to the Jewish state than those that are heard from the political leadership, nonetheless they'll frequently end such discussions by saying that "America will not allow us to do such and such". For, similar to the political leaders, they can't imagine that we could actually do something which is in our best national interest without receiving the 'green light' from America. Once again, none of this is a surprise, since the Israeli public does not live in a vacuum. They are heavily influenced by the country's leadership, as well as by the messages and ideas that are continuously transmitted to them by way of the heavily biased media.
Clearly then, according to most Israelis, the concept of having true political sovereignty is either considered unrealistic or is simply not thought about at all. Perhaps the time has come for Israel to start thinking about this concept in a more serious manner. The world is changing and America's status as the lone superpower is becoming reduced; a change that will surely affect America's relations with many countries in the world, including Israel. Moreover, as America is forced to pursue policies in this part of the world that are in its best interest in order to save its teetering economic and political empire, it is safe to assume that some of these policies will be detrimental to Israel. Obviously, America is not to blame since America must, and rightly so, worry first and foremost about the needs of America. That's the role of any truly sovereign state.
The point here is not that Israel should 'switch allegiance' to another world power, be it Russia or China, but rather it should start taking notice of changing events and start looking inward. Such dependency on, and faithful compliance with, another country, no matter what the policies of that country may be regarding Israel, will not help Israel to develop the internal strength that it so badly needs in order to deal with the host of complex issues and problems that it faces. Moreover, although it might be true that at this particular moment in time Israel cannot simply act as a 100% truly sovereign state and only do what is in its best interest, regardless of what the rest of the world might say, nonetheless Israel needs to start thinking in this direction. Changes in the physical realm are frequently preceded by, and are a direct result of, changes in the way one thinks, be it as an individual or as a nation. Finally, if Israel ever truly desires to fulfill its unique role in the world, then it will have no choice but to start thinking about itself differently, and to realize why true sovereignty is in fact needed in order to fulfill this role.
Sovereignty In Israel
Yoel Meltzer
Shushan Purim 5796/March 12, 2009
Commenting on the role the sovereign nation state plays in the Western world vis-a-vis its role in the Islamic world, Samuel P. Huntington states: "The structure of political loyalty among Arabs and among Muslims generally has been the opposite of that in the modern West. For the latter the nation state has been the apex of political loyalty." He then adds, "In addition, the idea of sovereign nation states is incompatible with belief in the sovereignty of Allah and the primacy of the ummah." (Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order, pp. 174-175)
Thus, while in the West the concept of the sovereign nation state has enormous importance, yet the idea of loyalty or belonging to a larger Pan-Anglo western nation has no relevance, in the Islamic world the situation is exactly the opposite.
Following this brief analysis of the West and Islam, it is rather interesting to consider the Jewish perspective. For just as in the case of the Jewish calendar, which is a combination of the lunar (used in Islam) and the solar (used in Christianity), so too here. In other words, for the Jewish people, like in Islam, there is the concept of the broader nation, am Yisrael, while at the same time, like in the West, there is significance to the sovereign nation state, the Jewish state of Israel. Since much has already been written about the problems facing the Jewish nation - specifically the divisions within Israeli society as well as Israel's relations vis-a-vis Jews living outside of Israel - I would like to focus here on the concept of the sovereign nation state. Specifically: How much sovereignty does Israel really have on a political level, and how is sovereignty perceived amongst the Israeli populace?
On the national political level, Israel certainly has some degree of sovereignty. Unlike the situation 2,000 years ago, when Israel was physically living under Roman rule, today Israel has its own state institutions such as a parliament, court system, army, etc. Moreover, Israel maintains diplomatic, cultural and economic relations with countries throughout the world, participates in a variety of international forums, is a member of the United Nations, and more. However, despite the outer appearance of full sovereignty, the last 15-20 years have told another story.
In a progressively more blatant manner, the upper echelon of Israel's political leaders have more or less said, both in words and in actions, that Israel must do as America says, regardless of whether or not this action is good for the Jewish state. Be it in reaction to Palestinian acts of terror, the nature and length of wars in Lebanon and Gaza, the sale of military equipment to China, etc., the deciding factor is whether or not we have the 'green light' from America. Similarly, the near consensus to work towards the creation of a Palestinian state, the 'two-state solution', is sheepishly moved forward with hardly a dissenting voice, despite the obvious dangers to all, simply because this is what America wants.
Apparently for many reasons, chief among them most likely economic and political, Israel's leadership is hesitant, if not frightened, to go against the will of America. They simply fear the consequence of going against a superpower, even one which is relatively losing it dominance compared to other powers in the world. Nonetheless, and despite whatever rationalizations they might have, many of which might be justifiable for various reasons, their open display of unabashed adherence to the demands of American leadership questions the whole notion of our true political sovereignty.
Another example that brought this question to the forefront was witnessed in the recent elections. Rather than seriously addressing the Israeli public about real issues and problems, the leading candidates invested a lot of time trying to prove who would work better with President Barack Obama. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with having good relations with America and its president; however, when this becomes a central issue in Israeli national elections, then certainly our whole status as a sovereign nation state becomes rather suspect.
Regarding the Israeli public, since their consciousness and mindset is heavily influenced by the words and actions of the ruling political establishment, it should come as no surprise as to how they feel. Although many will initially express statements and offer suggestions that appear to be more beneficial to the Jewish state than those that are heard from the political leadership, nonetheless they'll frequently end such discussions by saying that "America will not allow us to do such and such". For, similar to the political leaders, they can't imagine that we could actually do something which is in our best national interest without receiving the 'green light' from America. Once again, none of this is a surprise, since the Israeli public does not live in a vacuum. They are heavily influenced by the country's leadership, as well as by the messages and ideas that are continuously transmitted to them by way of the heavily biased media.
Clearly then, according to most Israelis, the concept of having true political sovereignty is either considered unrealistic or is simply not thought about at all. Perhaps the time has come for Israel to start thinking about this concept in a more serious manner. The world is changing and America's status as the lone superpower is becoming reduced; a change that will surely affect America's relations with many countries in the world, including Israel. Moreover, as America is forced to pursue policies in this part of the world that are in its best interest in order to save its teetering economic and political empire, it is safe to assume that some of these policies will be detrimental to Israel. Obviously, America is not to blame since America must, and rightly so, worry first and foremost about the needs of America. That's the role of any truly sovereign state.
The point here is not that Israel should 'switch allegiance' to another world power, be it Russia or China, but rather it should start taking notice of changing events and start looking inward. Such dependency on, and faithful compliance with, another country, no matter what the policies of that country may be regarding Israel, will not help Israel to develop the internal strength that it so badly needs in order to deal with the host of complex issues and problems that it faces. Moreover, although it might be true that at this particular moment in time Israel cannot simply act as a 100% truly sovereign state and only do what is in its best interest, regardless of what the rest of the world might say, nonetheless Israel needs to start thinking in this direction. Changes in the physical realm are frequently preceded by, and are a direct result of, changes in the way one thinks, be it as an individual or as a nation. Finally, if Israel ever truly desires to fulfill its unique role in the world, then it will have no choice but to start thinking about itself differently, and to realize why true sovereignty is in fact needed in order to fulfill this role.
Monday, March 02, 2009
What Is "Extremist?"
7 of the Twelfth Month 5769
YNET: What Is "Extremist?"
I have A LOT of acquaintances, yet very few friends. I consider Yo'el Meltzer one of them. I hope my saying so publicly will not hurt his writing career. Yo'el has a certain knack for saying it like it is, reaching a relatively wide audience, yet without compromising principles.
The above link is to YNET, which published this article first and which has already hosted some lively debate on it. See my comments #20 and #25. If you prefer Arutz 7, you can click here.
Yoel Meltzer
5 Adar 5796/March 1, 2009
As coalition talks heat up, the phrase "extremist coalition" is frequently heard. At times, it is Kadima stating that they will not join an "extremist coalition", while at other times it is the leadership of the Likud saying they will form a right-wing coalition, albeit not an "extremist" one. With the term being bantered about so regularly, perhaps it should be clarified what exactly this term means.
For starters, according to one dictionary, "extremist" means "one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm." Hence, right from the start, it should be clear that "extremist" is a relative term. Moreover, something is determined as extremist only in relation to its position vis-a-vis the "norm" (which, of course, is also a relative term). Thus, for example, we find that according to this definition, Zeev Jabotinsky's frantic pleas in the 1930s to European Jewry "to liquidate the exile before the exile liquidates you," would certainly be considered extremist, since the majority of European Jewry (the "norm") did not agree with Jabotinsky's prediction. Nonetheless, history proved that Jabotinsky was unfortunately correct, while the majority (the "norm") was clearly wrong.
This is just one example of many to show that what occasionally is considered an extremist approach is, in retrospect, correct, while what is considered the norm is, in retrospect, mistaken. Of course, this is not a fixed law and sometimes the opposite is true. What is important, however, is to understand that these terms are purely subjective and relative. Thus, whoever designates an idea or approach as "extremist", and by default what is the norm, is doing so from his own personal, subjective point of view and world outlook. This is an important point that should be kept in mind when confronted by such terms.
A much healthier approach would be if public officials would clearly state what they consider extremist in another party, and why, and in the process clarify what is their own unique point of view and world outlook. Thus, for example, if Kadima or Likud were to state why they believe that Yisrael Beiteinu's calling for citizenship based on loyalty is extremist, perhaps Yisrael Beiteinu would respond with their own reasoning of why they believe that such a position is legitimate and required. Whatever the outcome of such a dialogue would be, at the very least the public would be presented with some clear ideas of what our public officials actually believe in, rather than being fed the usual cliches.
Turning to another dictionary, we find that "extremism" is "any political theory favoring uncompromising policies." Thus, for example, based on this definition Kadima could easily claim that HaIchud HaLeumi has an extremist point of view, since they are 100% opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state in any shape or size, in any part of the Land of Israel. In other words, they are totally uncompromising and therefore extremist. However, similar to the case above, if Kadima would only state this clearly, rather than talking in general terms about an "extremist coalition", perhaps some genuine public dialogue would ensue.
In such a scenario, HaIchud HaLeumi might respond by saying that Kadima's determination to establish a Palestinian state in the majority of Judea and Samaria - despite the experience of missile attacks from Lebanon and Gaza during the past few years and despite the direct threat that such a state would pose against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem - is not only foolish, but it is also extremist, due to Kadima's uncompromising commitment to bring such a policy to fruition. Or perhaps they would respond by explaining in an intelligent way that from a Jewish perspective their position is actually the norm, while everything else should be viewed relative to their position.
The debates could go on and on, but the point here is that rather than continuing to spend endless time delegitimizing and vilifying other parties who have different points of view, the time has come for Israeli pubic officials to start engaging in real discussions based upon actual ideas and approaches, rather than mere sound bites and cliches such as "extremist". The Israeli public deserves this from their elected officials.
Yo'el Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization.
YNET: What Is "Extremist?"
I have A LOT of acquaintances, yet very few friends. I consider Yo'el Meltzer one of them. I hope my saying so publicly will not hurt his writing career. Yo'el has a certain knack for saying it like it is, reaching a relatively wide audience, yet without compromising principles.
The above link is to YNET, which published this article first and which has already hosted some lively debate on it. See my comments #20 and #25. If you prefer Arutz 7, you can click here.
Yoel Meltzer
5 Adar 5796/March 1, 2009
As coalition talks heat up, the phrase "extremist coalition" is frequently heard. At times, it is Kadima stating that they will not join an "extremist coalition", while at other times it is the leadership of the Likud saying they will form a right-wing coalition, albeit not an "extremist" one. With the term being bantered about so regularly, perhaps it should be clarified what exactly this term means.
For starters, according to one dictionary, "extremist" means "one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm." Hence, right from the start, it should be clear that "extremist" is a relative term. Moreover, something is determined as extremist only in relation to its position vis-a-vis the "norm" (which, of course, is also a relative term). Thus, for example, we find that according to this definition, Zeev Jabotinsky's frantic pleas in the 1930s to European Jewry "to liquidate the exile before the exile liquidates you," would certainly be considered extremist, since the majority of European Jewry (the "norm") did not agree with Jabotinsky's prediction. Nonetheless, history proved that Jabotinsky was unfortunately correct, while the majority (the "norm") was clearly wrong.
This is just one example of many to show that what occasionally is considered an extremist approach is, in retrospect, correct, while what is considered the norm is, in retrospect, mistaken. Of course, this is not a fixed law and sometimes the opposite is true. What is important, however, is to understand that these terms are purely subjective and relative. Thus, whoever designates an idea or approach as "extremist", and by default what is the norm, is doing so from his own personal, subjective point of view and world outlook. This is an important point that should be kept in mind when confronted by such terms.
A much healthier approach would be if public officials would clearly state what they consider extremist in another party, and why, and in the process clarify what is their own unique point of view and world outlook. Thus, for example, if Kadima or Likud were to state why they believe that Yisrael Beiteinu's calling for citizenship based on loyalty is extremist, perhaps Yisrael Beiteinu would respond with their own reasoning of why they believe that such a position is legitimate and required. Whatever the outcome of such a dialogue would be, at the very least the public would be presented with some clear ideas of what our public officials actually believe in, rather than being fed the usual cliches.
Turning to another dictionary, we find that "extremism" is "any political theory favoring uncompromising policies." Thus, for example, based on this definition Kadima could easily claim that HaIchud HaLeumi has an extremist point of view, since they are 100% opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state in any shape or size, in any part of the Land of Israel. In other words, they are totally uncompromising and therefore extremist. However, similar to the case above, if Kadima would only state this clearly, rather than talking in general terms about an "extremist coalition", perhaps some genuine public dialogue would ensue.
In such a scenario, HaIchud HaLeumi might respond by saying that Kadima's determination to establish a Palestinian state in the majority of Judea and Samaria - despite the experience of missile attacks from Lebanon and Gaza during the past few years and despite the direct threat that such a state would pose against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem - is not only foolish, but it is also extremist, due to Kadima's uncompromising commitment to bring such a policy to fruition. Or perhaps they would respond by explaining in an intelligent way that from a Jewish perspective their position is actually the norm, while everything else should be viewed relative to their position.
The debates could go on and on, but the point here is that rather than continuing to spend endless time delegitimizing and vilifying other parties who have different points of view, the time has come for Israeli pubic officials to start engaging in real discussions based upon actual ideas and approaches, rather than mere sound bites and cliches such as "extremist". The Israeli public deserves this from their elected officials.
Yo'el Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Confusion On The Right
4 of the Eleventh Month 5769
A7: "Confusion On The Right"
Apparently, YNET left out a sentence, when it published this article. So, I have changed the link to the Arutz 7 (Israel National News) version which published the article in its entirety. The sentence in question is marked in red.
Yoel Meltzer
3 Shevat 5796/January 28, 2009
Following the disengagement from Gaza in the summer of 2005 and the complete negligence on behalf of the government to properly handle the forced evacuees, the subsequent war in Lebanon one year later, the endless missiles fired upon the south and the recent war in Gaza, many good-minded Israelis are clearly against the establishment of a Palestinian state, in any shape or size, in Judea and Samaria.
The direct threat that such a state would impose against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, as these two large population centers become incredibly vulnerable to missile attacks, is quite obvious. In addition, in light of the disastrous handling of the disengagement refugees, it is inconceivable to think that Israel would succeed with the much larger Jewish population currently residing in Judea and Samaria.
However, despite the opposition of many Israelis to the “two-state solution,” it is quite clear and understandable that the United States has a different agenda. As a result of both an economy in disarray and widespread dissatisfaction with the continued participation of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new president will likely do his utmost to bring the American troops back home and “turn inward” in order to deal with the faltering economy.
It is also just as clear that Israel will likely be required, as usual, to “pay the price” for American appeasement with the various Arab and Muslim countries. Moreover, this is not something that theoretically might happen a few years down the road, but rather, something which will most likely happen within the coming year. Once again, from an American perspective this is quite clear and understandable, since America needs to do what it must do in order to preserve its teetering empire.
Just as clear, however, is the relentless and intense pressure that will be applied to Israel within the coming year in order to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in either all or part of a Jewish-free (or somewhat Jewish-free) Judea and Samaria.
Don’t be fooled
Having said all this, and in light of the quickly approaching national elections, it is truly amazing to see that the confusion on the Right is once again rearing its all too familiar head. Although there are several political parties that define themselves as “national” or “right-wing” - Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, The Jewish Home, The National Union – only one of these parties says, in clear and straightforward terms, that it is 100% opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, in any shape or size, in any part of the Land of Israel.
This party, The National Union, speaks clearly and directly with a real Jewish soul without worrying about political correctness. Moreover, its message, which is correct from a security perspective, is correct from a Jewish perspective as well. On the other hand the Likud, including several of its key members who recently cried “we told you Gaza would turn into Hamastan”(while conveniently forgetting to mention that these same key members voted in favor of the disengagement!), speaks about a demilitarized Palestinian state with Israel controlling the border security.
Yisrael Beiteinu, although different than Likud, also supports a two-state solution and suggests the trading of large population blocs (for example, Umm Al-Fahm and the “triangle” would be transferred to the Palestinian Authority in return for Israel officially annexing some Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria.) Finally, there is The Jewish Home, which is basically a reincarnation of the increasingly parve and boring National Religious Party. Some nice people, but not the type of party I would turn to when the future of the country is literally on the line.
It should be obvious then that anyone who truly cares about the future of this country should be voting for The National Union on Election Day, since it is the only party that is 100% dedicated to trying to stop the madness here. For this reason I am alarmed to hear of many good intentioned right-wing voters who are ready to place their vote with either the Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, either because they are unaware that both these parties support a two-state solution or because they think that strengthening these parties will somehow “provide the answer.” Please don't be fooled. The future of our country is at stake.
Yoel Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization. More of Yoel's articles can be found by clicking here.
A7: "Confusion On The Right"
Apparently, YNET left out a sentence, when it published this article. So, I have changed the link to the Arutz 7 (Israel National News) version which published the article in its entirety. The sentence in question is marked in red.
Yoel Meltzer
3 Shevat 5796/January 28, 2009
Following the disengagement from Gaza in the summer of 2005 and the complete negligence on behalf of the government to properly handle the forced evacuees, the subsequent war in Lebanon one year later, the endless missiles fired upon the south and the recent war in Gaza, many good-minded Israelis are clearly against the establishment of a Palestinian state, in any shape or size, in Judea and Samaria.The direct threat that such a state would impose against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, as these two large population centers become incredibly vulnerable to missile attacks, is quite obvious. In addition, in light of the disastrous handling of the disengagement refugees, it is inconceivable to think that Israel would succeed with the much larger Jewish population currently residing in Judea and Samaria.
However, despite the opposition of many Israelis to the “two-state solution,” it is quite clear and understandable that the United States has a different agenda. As a result of both an economy in disarray and widespread dissatisfaction with the continued participation of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new president will likely do his utmost to bring the American troops back home and “turn inward” in order to deal with the faltering economy.
It is also just as clear that Israel will likely be required, as usual, to “pay the price” for American appeasement with the various Arab and Muslim countries. Moreover, this is not something that theoretically might happen a few years down the road, but rather, something which will most likely happen within the coming year. Once again, from an American perspective this is quite clear and understandable, since America needs to do what it must do in order to preserve its teetering empire.
Just as clear, however, is the relentless and intense pressure that will be applied to Israel within the coming year in order to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in either all or part of a Jewish-free (or somewhat Jewish-free) Judea and Samaria.
Don’t be fooled
Having said all this, and in light of the quickly approaching national elections, it is truly amazing to see that the confusion on the Right is once again rearing its all too familiar head. Although there are several political parties that define themselves as “national” or “right-wing” - Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, The Jewish Home, The National Union – only one of these parties says, in clear and straightforward terms, that it is 100% opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, in any shape or size, in any part of the Land of Israel.
This party, The National Union, speaks clearly and directly with a real Jewish soul without worrying about political correctness. Moreover, its message, which is correct from a security perspective, is correct from a Jewish perspective as well. On the other hand the Likud, including several of its key members who recently cried “we told you Gaza would turn into Hamastan”(while conveniently forgetting to mention that these same key members voted in favor of the disengagement!), speaks about a demilitarized Palestinian state with Israel controlling the border security.
Yisrael Beiteinu, although different than Likud, also supports a two-state solution and suggests the trading of large population blocs (for example, Umm Al-Fahm and the “triangle” would be transferred to the Palestinian Authority in return for Israel officially annexing some Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria.) Finally, there is The Jewish Home, which is basically a reincarnation of the increasingly parve and boring National Religious Party. Some nice people, but not the type of party I would turn to when the future of the country is literally on the line.
It should be obvious then that anyone who truly cares about the future of this country should be voting for The National Union on Election Day, since it is the only party that is 100% dedicated to trying to stop the madness here. For this reason I am alarmed to hear of many good intentioned right-wing voters who are ready to place their vote with either the Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, either because they are unaware that both these parties support a two-state solution or because they think that strengthening these parties will somehow “provide the answer.” Please don't be fooled. The future of our country is at stake.
Yoel Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization. More of Yoel's articles can be found by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)