The Shas Campaign

TO THE EDITORS:

David Hazony’s editorial in the last issue of AZURE (“What Do You Mean, ‘He’s Innocent’?” AZURE 8, Autumn 1999) was, at best, disappointing. In his editorial, Hazony seems to have circumnavigated the main issue of whether the judicial system and the associated institutions of law enforcement in Israel today serve their function or not. A secure and objective judicial system is absolutely necessary to the orderly business of any state, and “a Jewish politics” certainly does not negate that fact. However, Jewish politics also cannot allow rampant hubris to dominate the relationship between the ruled and rulers, especially in a judicial system from which there is hardly any redress of grievances.

It is entirely incorrect to suppose, as Hazony seems to, that the Supreme Court just happens to be overstepping the legitimate bounds of the separation of powers. There are historical reasons behind their claim to unlimited authority. At least one of these reasons has been stated by Supreme Court President Aharon Barak himself: They have a mission to impose the values of the Israeli ruling elite on the rising Jewish masses. Is it not likely that the motivation driving this holy mission compels the overstepping of the bounds of judicial decency in other areas as well?

Hazony’s implication that people were incited, manipulated and misled to vote for Shas, or for Lieberman’s Yisra’el Beitenu party or United Tora Judaism for that matter, is erroneous. These parties garnered twenty-six mandates in the Knesset because their voters have for some time had no confidence in the judicial system, in the Attorney-General’s Office, in the government’s public prosecutors or in the senior police officials. There are many more people who share the opinions of those who voted for these parties. Hazony’s pieties will not help to make the situation any better. It is truly a serious crisis.

In The Peloponnesian War, it is related how the Lacedaemons founded the colony of Hereclea not far from Thermopylae in order to check the spread of Athenian power in that area. Many people from all the tribes of Greece joined the effort without hesitation, encouraged by the promise of security which a Lacedaemonian colony seemed to offer. However, the place was quickly left in ruins. According to Thucydides, the father of European historians, this was because the colony’s inhabitants were frightened away by the severe and unjust practices of its governors.

In the book of Jeremiah, it is related that Zedekiah, the last king of Judea, convinced his nobility and elite to free their Jewish slaves. At the time, the country had been overrun by the Babylonians, and Nebuchadnezzar was besieging Jerusalem. The elite freed their slaves, and shortly afterwards Nebuchadnezzar had to lift the siege because he was called away to meet a military crisis on his northern border. Within the year, however, all the freed slaves were once again enslaved. How was it possible? The answer must be that the elite controlled the financial operations of the state and the law enforcement institutions. They believed that they were able to do whatever they wanted. The next time the Babylonians invaded, a few short years later, their conquest was final and total.

The Der’i case would be just another questionable case of possible gross injustice if it were not the most cynical expression to date of the desperate and hopeless, the anti-democratic and anti-Jewish mission to quash the only real opposition to the corrupt way of life of the “Zionist” elite. It is too bad that Hazony has seen fit to put himself in the same camp with people who literally “know no bounds,” with people who would sell Hazony himself down the river rather than share power with the Jewish rabble.

Shabtai Teicher
Jerusalem

The Political Stupidity Of the Jews

TO THE EDITORS:

In “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews” (AZURE 8, Autumn 1999), Irving Kristol writes the following: “It is fair to say that American Jews wish to be more Jewish while at the same time being frightened at the prospect of American Christians becoming more Christian. It is also fair to say that American Jews see nothing odd in this attitude. Intoxicated with their economic, political and judicial success over the past half-century, American Jews seem to have no reluctance in expressing their vision of an ideal America: A country where Christians are purely nominal, if that, in their Christianity, while they want the Jews to remain a flourishing religious community.”

I agree that it is arrogant and add that it is also hypocritical to hope this. That being understood, the attitude of distrust of Christians is due to rational fear of zealous Christians based on periodic attempts to oppress the Jews in the past, even though today some zealous Christians are “philo-Semitic,” and anti-Semitism is less of an ever present concern.

In this case, fear of Christian religious zealotry has weighed more heavily in Jewish thinking than worries over having an obvious double standard concerning religious fervor.

Peter Stevens
Paoli, Pennsylvania

Crisis in Politics

TO THE EDITORS:

Ofir Haivry’s editorial, “Everything is Personal” (AZURE 7, Spring 1999), calls for more politics, not less. While it is true that we are witnessing a shift from substantial issues as determinants of elections, Israel’s “profound disappointment in political ideology” may not be the fault of its leaders.

Haivry points to Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin as betraying their voters. This is first and foremost a misrepresentation of the truth. Further, it is this glib interpretation of complex ideologies which robs the public of their right to richly woven beliefs in the political realm.

The unintentional juxtaposition of these two topics—Begin and ideology today—offers a unique opportunity to combine them in a search for meaning.

First, to the issue of “betrayal”—there is no more consistent a leader and visionary than Begin. Relinquishing the Sinai, which was not part of the ancient land of Israel, in exchange for a serious peace agreement was exactly the step that emphasized Begin’s belief: The land of Israel was not for sale, no matter what the price. This distinction was clear; it clarified the Jewish people’s historical right to specific areas and not to others.

Thus what Haivry judged a “monumental reversal” of policy was, in fact, the expression of those tenets.

In terms of the search for ideology, Menachem Begin’s vision was long-term and intricate. Respect for the law, coupled with the moral obligation to protect human rights, plays an intrinsic role in a worldview often characterized one-dimensionally as hard-line.

History provides numerous examples of Begin’s liberal policy, some of which are clear only in hindsight. What Begin saw as the Jewish people’s “historic right” does not obfuscate individual rights “that come before the form of human life called a state” (1959). In February 1962, Begin presented a draft proposal for a bill abolishing the emergency defense regulations, claiming no relation between the military government and Israel’s security needs. Examples pursuant to these tenets are abundant and represent Begin’s consistent, however complex, politics, skillfully balancing individual and national rights.

It is the current prime minister, Ehud Barak, who consistently relates to Menachem Begin not as a right-wing maverick, but as the original architect of a Middle East peace. As he told a Washington audience last July, “In this spirit we now follow the road of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin... and we will follow in their footsteps.”

How can Menachem Begin’s heritage help us in today’s search for ideology? We are agreed that society today does show an alarming lack of healthy politics. It is currently the trend to point a finger at our political leaders. I, however, refuse to place all the blame on the politicians and propose instead to look inwards.

Our society displays an impatience with complexity of any sort. The search for a quick-fix microwave dinner has its expression in the search for innovation in all walks of life, including politics. Attempts to raise issues in the media result in a casual dismissal: “It’s not interesting,” or “the message is too complex to be understood.” These are the excuses we encounter and which prohibit serious debate, usually to the relief of those involved. Long-winded details do not sell papers. And it is more difficult to convince an audience, however educated and well versed, with complex details.

Many of us have not yet recognized the harm inherent in stripping issues of their essence. The heart and soul of our society lies in bravely exposing our differences, rather than glossing over them or, worse, taking a stand only for calculated gain. The twentieth century’s great leaders, such as David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin, were not afraid of declaring their policies openly and decisively, basing themselves on morality and consistent worldviews. Indeed, Begin’s last public address ended with an appeal to us all, stressing the importance of believing, of encouraging us to fight for what we believe: “The just cause will always win the day.”

Yes, we must reawaken our senses and seek true debate. But by misplacing the blame for our lack of content, we miss the opportunity to bring about that change ourselves. We, together with our leaders, must not be afraid to take a serious, moral stand on the issues debated in society today. In this, our leaders of the past can light the way for a more inspired future.

Ruth Jaffe-Lieberman
Menachem Begin Heritage Center
Jerusalem

PDF Format

previous (page 3 of 3 - view all)