Israel elections 2022: what the Diaspora should know

Israel’s latest elections appear to have broken the prolonged stalemate between the two ‘blocs’.  I don’t mean ‘left’ and ‘right’ – terms that make very little sense in the current Israeli political context; I don’t even mean ‘doves’ and ‘hawks’; no, I mean the anti-Netanyahu and pro-Netanyahu camps – that’s the only accurate way to describe the two political tendencies that participated in the latest electoral contest.  Were it not for Netanyahu and his legal ‘tzores’, Israel would have had a stable government, without the need for those unprecedented five national elections between April 2019 and November 2022.

While there’s many a slip twixt election results and a coalition government, the victory certainly belongs to the pro-Netanyahu bloc, which garnered 64 seats of the 120 available in Israel’s unicameral parliament – the Knesset.  The anti-Netanyahu bloc won only 51 seats, with the remainder of 5 occupied by the majority-Arab Hadash-Ta’al party – which adopted its usual ‘plague-on-both-their-houses’ strategy (read: they ruled out joining any governing coalition with ‘the Zionists’).

Most Israelis were not surprised; but the results sent a huge tremor in the ranks of the self-described ‘progressives’.  And not just because they signalled the almost complete demise of what some insist on calling ‘the Israeli left’ (that is, Meretz and the Labour Party); but even more so, because of the rise of Religious Zionism, the ‘far-right’ or ‘hawkish’ alliance.

Fair disclosure

Had I participated in these elections, my vote would have gone to National Unity – Benny Gantz’s party.  No, not because of the (rather naff) name; nor because I like its leader – though I think he is a decent guy.  Finally, not because I don’t like Netanyahu.  Though I’ve never been a great supporter, I do think that Netanyahu has, by and large, been a good leader.  Even his most bitter adversaries cannot deny that he has presided over a period of economic growth and prosperity; that he has pursued Israel’s vital interests without engaging in adventurous military conflicts in places like Syria and Lebanon – let alone Iran; that he has somehow managed to expand Israel’s diplomatic reach beyond what many thought possible.  His adversaries will attribute those achievements to luck or circumstance; but if one manages to stay lucky for 12 straight years as Prime Minister of Israel – I for one will nevertheless applaud!

True, Netanyahu hasn’t made peace with the Palestinians.  But if this is the only measure of success, then all Israeli leaders have been failures – so why single out Netanyahu?

Many accuse Netanyahu of dishonesty.  It is true that, in his political dealings, he often broke promises and told lies.  But politics is not a business for the faint-hearted; and if we were to crucify all disingenuous politicians – there’d be a lot of hammering in the great halls of many a parliament.  As for his purported corruption – that must be assessed in a court of law; and that’s all I have to say about it.

So if Netanyahu is such a great guy – you ask – why would you not vote for him?  Well, mainly because he has been in power too long.  Israel needs some new blood at the helm; and she isn’t getting it, because nothing grows well in the shadow of a big tree.  And yes, also because, in his quest for power, Netanyahu has now made some unsavoury alliances.  For all those reasons, Israel must – sooner or later – wean herself from Netanyahu, just as she did in the past from Ben Gurion.

Still, I am not particularly worried about Netanyahu winning again: he is 73 and – unless he has the grace to draw a line himself at a propitious time – nature and a few political vultures will at some point do it for him.

As for the ‘Religious Zionism’ extremists, I have nothing but contempt for them: their way isn’t my way and their Zionism is a very far cry from mine.

Still, I don’t share the ‘gewalt’ atmosphere that some (especially in the Diaspora) dishonestly create around these elections, and that others naively ingurgitate – hook, sink and proverbial liner.

A bit of history

For many, the major ‘item’ in these elections is the meteoric rise of Religious Zionism: led by the ‘far-right enfant terrible’ Bezalel Smotrich and including Itamar Ben Gvir – an extremist and former disciple of Meir Kahane – Religious Zionism more than doubled its parliamentary footprint; it won 14 out of the 120 Knesset seats, becoming the 3rd largest political group.

It is worth examining the history of this party: its first embodiment was T’kuma (Revival), a small splinter of the National Religious Party (known in Israel mostly by its Hebrew acronym – Mafdal).  The latter was formed as early as 1956 and initially leaned left, operating its own trade union and cooperating in coalition governments with the Labour Party.  It increasingly turned right, mainly in reaction to what it perceived as the Labour’s neglect and lack of interest in Jewish faith and tradition.  The founders of T’kuma left Mafdal in 1998, over its perceived ‘softness’.  Between 1999 and 2013 it survived by forming, breaking and reforming alliances with other small parties on the ‘right’ fringe of Israeli politics.  Bereft of real power and influence, the leaders of T’kuma were reduced to attempting to gain some measure of notoriety through political stunts and outrageous statements.  They featured often in the reports of foreign journalists intent on showing extremism in Israel; but most Israelis dismissed them as irrelevant, big-mouth non-entities.

In 2014, the Knesset approved a bill which increased the threshold for entering the parliament from 2% to 3.25% of the votes – meaning that the smallest possible political group represented in the Knesset was 4 members.

The brilliant Israeli political analyst Haviv Rettig Gur described the move:

"The reform passed in the Knesset relatively easily. Its purpose, as articulated by the bill’s sponsors at the time, was to reduce the government’s dependence on tiny, marginal factions and thus increase stability and governability.

There are too many parties jostling around in the Knesset, went the argument. Prime ministers must satisfy as many as half a dozen – in the case of the outgoing government, eight! – separate factions to keep the government alive. A dozen factions might negotiate over any piece of legislation. This complexity and dependence on small parties warped decision-making and was a major source of political instability. Simple governance had been rendered nigh impossible by the sheer messiness of it all."

 At the time, most Israeli political analysts either applauded the move as ‘a step in the right direction’ or dismissed it as cosmetic tinkering, demanding more radical changes.

It was opposed, of course, by the small parties that were likely to be left out of the parliament.

The Arab parties saw the move as directed against them – as they tended to win between 2% and 4% of the votes; they lost no time in calling it yet another ‘racist’ measure aimed at denying Arab Israelis their political rights.  But the increase in threshold was seen as affecting the Jewish far-right even more – those small parties generally won below 3%.  Hence, T’kuma and others on the fringe right called it ‘anti-democratic’ at the time.

The prospect of getting rid of the small far-right parties (and, possibly, to attract more votes from the Arab sector) caused many ‘progresives’ to support the bill.

Haviv Rettig Gur reminds us:

"President Isaac Herzog, then a senior Labor party lawmaker, had proposed an even steeper increase to 5% a few years earlier."

 The increase in parliamentary threshold from 2% to 3.25% should forever be studied as a textbook example of how the Law of Unintended Consequences works in politics.

In the years to come, some of the measure’s fiercest critics were to benefit from it – while some of its supporters would suffer.

The 3.25% hurdle would force more of the small parties to merge or at least form temporary, pre-election alliances.  Thus, the Arab parties (who had so vehemently denounced the higher threshold) formed the ‘Joint List’ – which won 13 seats in September 2019 and 15 in March 2020, becoming Israel’s 3rd largest party.  Conversely, in 2022 the Jewish left (which had mostly supported the bill) failed to unite, which left the hard-left (Meretz) out in the rain, while the more moderate Labour narrowly scraped in, with just 3.69% of the vote.

Ever the wily political operator, Netanyahu understood the significance of the increased threshold: since parties gaining less than 3.25% would not get any seats in the Knesset, fragmentation in the ‘pro-Netanyahu’ camp risked wasting votes and thus pushing his putative coalition below the minimum required majority of 61 in the 120-large parliament.

In 2021, he engineered an alliance between T’kuma (which had meanwhile been renamed ‘National Union’ and was already led by Bezalel Smotrich) and two other tiny parties: Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength) and the anti-gay No’am.  Netanyahu assessed (correctly, most analysts would say) that in the absence of such a pact both Otzma Yehudit and No’am would fail to pass the electoral threshold, thus wasting votes for his camp.  Otzma Yehudit was generally seen as the weaker partner in the alliance, which is why Ben Gvir was placed not on the second place (after Smotrich), but only on the third.

As it happened, the new alliances (dubbed ‘Religious Zionism’) won only some 5% of the votes, resulting in 6 Knesset seats.  As we know, Netanyahu failed to cobble together a coalition, while his opponents from hard-right to hard-left) managed to rise above their huge ideological differences and form a – however feeble – governing coalition.

From irrelevance to ‘victory’

So what caused Religious Zionism to more than double its electoral strength between March 2021 and November 2022 – from 5.12% to 10.83% of the votes, or from 6 to 14 mandates?  It was certainly not its legislative achievements: the party was in opposition and (apart from fiery speeches and annoying stunts) contributed absolutely nothing.

Some – both in Israel and abroad – are eager to ‘explain’ the party’s success so as to show Israelis in the worst possible light.

Esawi Frej (an Arab Israeli politician representing the hard-left Meretz party in the Knesset and Minister of Regional Cooperation in the outgoing government) tweeted:

"14 mandates to Ben Gvir is 14 mandates to hatred of Arabs. The 3rd largest party is racist, Kahanist, violent… it doesn’t want me or my children here. It’s no longer a slippery slope. It’s the abyss itself."

Frej’s post was written in Hebrew, but the text was translated and gleefully re-tweeted in English by Yachad, a self-described ‘progressive’ British Jewish outfit whose raison d’être is ‘criticising’ Israel.

But why would ‘hatred of Arabs’ (assuming that’s what impelled people to vote for Religious Zionism) rise from 5% to almost 11% of the population in just a few months?  And how is ‘hatred of Arabs’ consistent with the quasi-general support for the Abraham Accords, including masses of Israelis eager to visit and do business with some of the newly-accessible Arab countries?

In reality (as I’m sure both Esawi Frej and Yachad know, but choose not to say), the rise of Religious Zionism is the result of a ‘perfect storm’, consisting mainly of two factors.

Firstly, in May 2021 Israelis experienced yet another mini-war with Gaza.  Denied participation in the Palestinian elections (it was widely expected to win them, which is why Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas ‘postponed them sine die), Hamas decided to bolster its credentials as ‘the’ defender of Palestinians by launching a rocket assault on Israel.  This in itself would not have been so traumatic: it happened quite a few times before.

But something completely new happened this time: massive riots by Arab citizens of Israel, randomly targeting Jews and Jewish property.  The riots were particularly violent in the ‘mixed towns’ (i.e. places where Jews and Arabs live together, such as Lod, Ramle and Acco).  In those places, the riots resembled pogroms, with bands of young Arabs attacking passing Jews (two were killed and several others injured), throwing rocks at cars and setting fire to Jewish houses, cars and synagogues.  What’s more, many testified that some local Arab citizens, while not participating themselves in the violence, pointed out Jewish homes and cars to the rioters, who proceeded to attack or burn them.  The Arab riots (and the Jewish ‘counter-riots’ that soon followed) continued for a whole week, forcing the government to impose a state of emergency.

To complete the grim ‘score line’ of this episode of violence: the Arab rioters set 112 Jewish homes, 10 synagogues and 849 cars on fire (as well as an Arab house, which they mistook for being inhabited by Jews).  386 Jewish homes were looted and another 673 damaged.  There were more than 5,000 recorded instances of stone-throwing against Jews.  On the Arab side, 13 homes and 13 cars were burned by rioting Jews and there were 41 recorded incidents of stone-throwing.

It is hard to exaggerate the traumatic effect of these riots.  Imagine cowering in your home with your family, while rioters are already burning houses and cars a few blocks away; imagine driving home from work one evening, your car pounded with large rocks from both sides of the road, while large mobs appear to be baying for your blood.  While only a small percentage of the Israeli population directly experienced the riots, practically all others watched them on television, or on videos circulating on social media.  Israelis have a keen sense of history and the images of Jews experiencing pogroms in their own country were devastating.

Timing is of the essence here, too: the riots started in the evening of 10 May 2021, almost at the same time as 150 rockets were launched from Gaza at random targets in Israel.  They continued while Israel was pounded with hundreds of additional missiles.

To make matters worse, once the riots died down, (on 18 May 2021) Arab Israeli politicians declared a general strike – in support of their ‘brothers’ in the West Bank and Gaza.  This may be a ‘symbolic’ act; but hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews saw their Arab colleagues refusing to come to work (in hospitals, schools, factories and offices), in the midst of a war, in ‘solidarity’ with the enemy.  The strike pulled the rug from under the feet of those (among them the Israeli left) who preached coexistence and insisted that the riots involved only an unrepresentative, violent minority.  Conversely, it bolstered the far-right propaganda, seemingly vindicating their portrayal of Arab Israelis as a ‘fifth column’ ready to act in concert with the country’s existential enemies.  There were Arab voices that publicly condemned the riots; but the general strike drowned them down or rendered them meaningless.

Many of the votes for Religious Zionism are, no doubt, a reaction to the May 2021 riots and to the general strike that followed.  But another factor contributed, as well.

Those who, like me, follow the meanders of Israeli politics would have noticed a significant absence in the 2022 elections: that of Yamina (Rightwards), the party led by Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked.  In the March 2021 elections, Yamina won 7 seats.  Although ideologically to the right of Netanyahu’s Likud, Yamina decided to side with the anti-Netanyahu bloc.  It thus enabled that bloc to form a wide governing coalition, including Labour, the hard-left Meretz and the Islamist Arab party Ra’am.  Naftali Bennett initially headed that coalition, as Prime Minister; he later kept his promise and stepped down to enable Yair Lapid (leader of the centrist Yesh Atid/There’s a Future) to assume the premiership, as part of a ‘rotation’ agreement.

But many in Yamina’s right-wing constituency took a dim view of this alignment with the left, seeing it as a ‘crossing of the lines’ and a betrayal of the mandate that the voters gave that party.  So strong was that backlash, that Bennett decided not to run in 2022.  His decision was vindicated when the party of his political partner Ayelet Shaked failed to even come close to the electoral threshold.

Betrayed once and not about to be fooled again, Yamina’s voters (typically religious people leaning right) looked around for a political home.  But, given that Netanyahu had orchestrated an alliance of the small right-wing parties, the pickings were slim.  Some no doubt chose to vote for the religious Mizrakhi Shas, which would explain that party’s rise from 9 seats in 2021 to 11 in 2022; but many more chose Religious Zionism – not necessarily because of its extremism, but because it was the only party left that represented the two aspects that ‘talked to’ these voters: religion and nationalism.

Esawi Frej is wrong – and he knows it: it is not ‘hatred of Arabs’ that propelled Religious Zionism to its apparent prominence.  Many of those who voted for this party did so not because of its extremism, but despite it – in reaction to events that that party neither triggered nor engineered – but simply profited from.

Of course, I’m no naïve: there is, unfortunately, little love lost (and quite a lot of rancour, actually) between Arabs and Jews in Israel.  Frej is no doubt right that Ben Gvir would rather he and his children did not live in Israel.  I suspect that Frej would also prefer ‘the Zionists’ not to have ‘settled’ in ‘Palestine’ in the first place.  Fortunately, neither Ben Gvir nor Frej has any choice in the matter: both communities are there to stay and must find a way to satisfy one’s aspirations without impinging too much on the other’s.

But while many Israeli Jews feel some degree of hostility, fear and mistrust towards their Arab countrymen – that isn’t (as the likes of Yachad want us to believe) ‘racism’.  It is not a conviction that Arabs are racially inferior that’s behind most Israeli Jews’ attitude.  Rather, this is the ‘normal’ resentment caused by 100 years of a conflict beseeched by existential threats and fears, by abominable acts of violence, by denial of humanity, aspirations and history and by outlandish accusations of ‘Nazism’ and ‘apartheid’.

That hostility is akin to the one felt by Brits towards Germans in World War I; not to that propagated by Nazis against Jews in World War II.  There’s an ocean of difference between the two; and those who try to merge them into one problem are either blatantly dishonest, or something is seriously wrong with their moral compass.

While not constituting ‘racism’ and while being understandable in the context of the conflict, the rancour between the two communities remains a bad thing.  We (Jews and Arabs) must strive to rise above it; we must fight those (from either side) who seek to exacerbate it.

I’m an optimist: given how deep, long and hurtful this conflict has been, the levels of hostility are actually surprisingly low.  It might be disturbing to see Arab rioters on the rampage in a Jewish neighbourhood – and Jews ‘responding’ with violence against other, uninvolved Arabs.  But, despite everything, the two communities soon returned to ‘normal’: working in the same hospitals, schools, factories and offices; interacting in a civil – if not very warm and cuddly – manner.  Compare that with what’s happened just a short distance away, in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria; or even in Egypt; and, in the past, in Jordan – and more recently in Iran…

Gewalt – racists on board!

Of course, that does not mean that Smotrich and (especially) Ben Gvir – and some of their supporters – aren’t racists.  I believe they are.  But they learned to dissimulate it, to moderate it just enough to allow them to squeeze below the standard of proof required by law.  Ben Gvir claims that he has no desire to expel Arabs for being Arabs, but only those who are ‘disloyal’ – meaning they engage in or support acts of violence or subversion against the state.  Personally, I doubt he is sincere about that; but in a democracy we cannot stop people from running because of what we suspect they actually think; but only because of what they say and do.  That’s why Ben Gvir (unlike his former mentor Kahane) was declared ‘kosher’ to run.  As the Israeli expression goes, he may be ‘kosher, but stinks’.

But, if this is the situation, should we not be terribly worried?  I mean, Ben Gvir may soon be Public Security Minister – in charge of the national police!

So maybe the likes of Yachad are right to ‘demand action’ from the Diaspora – to ‘save Israel from the Israelis’?  Maybe the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and other bombastically named Jewish ‘leadership’ bodies are right to express ‘grave concerns’?

Well, I think the Diaspora ‘armchair activists’ are all wrong.  I think they talk through their arses, have no genuine understanding of Israel, her history and her politics and, if anything, only do harm.

Some people have short memories: we’ve actually seen this film before.  When the tough-talking Menachem Begin became not just minister but Prime Minister, many warned of an impending catastrophe.  After all, Begin was a former leader of the Irgun – seen as a terrorist organisation in Britain and elsewhere. The same Irgun which perpetrated the bombing of the King David hotel (which, however, ‘happened’ to be the headquarter of the British Army); the organisation that captured two British sergeants and hanged them in retaliation to the hanging of its own captured operatives; the organisation that attacked Deir Yassin.

Begin had been a promoter of ‘Greater Israel’ – including not just the West Bank, but territories on the eastern side of the Jordan River, if and when they were captured (or ‘liberated’).  Yet Begin was the Prime Minister that relinquished 100% of the Sinai peninsula (which constituted some 70% of the territory under Israeli control) in return for a ‘cold peace’ with Egypt.  In the process, he even uprooted Jewish ‘settlers’ – something that ‘the experts’ assessed he’d never do.  Prime Minister Begin (for whom even uttering the term ‘Palestinian’ was anathema) became the first Israeli leader to accept the idea of ‘autonomy’ for the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza.

Some people never learn.  So, when Ariel Sharon became first Minister of Foreign Affairs and then Prime Minister, we were treated to the same predictions of impending doom.  After all, as a military commander Sharon became famous for his ultra-aggressive actions – sometimes in open defiance of orders.  As a politician, he became a major promoter of settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza.  As Minister of Defence, he presided over the war in Lebanon, which ended with expelling the PLO ‘troops’ far from Israel’s borders – but also with the massacres at Sabra and Shatila.

Yet Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was the Israeli leader who unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.  In the process, this ‘darling’ of the ‘settlement movement’ evacuated (forcibly when necessary) every Jewish ‘settler’ from that territory – and (as a sign of further intentions) also from 4 West Bank ‘settlements’.  The ‘extremist’ Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke and became permanently incapacitated before putting in practice his intentions to extricate Israel, one way or another, out of most of the West Bank.

There was also a certain Avigdor Lieberman.  He, too, had the reputation of being a ‘meshugener’ – an unreliable hothead.  Among other things, it was reported that he opined that, in the event of a war with Egypt, Israel should bomb the Aswan Dam.  No more and no less!  His intemperate outbursts directed at members of the Knesset from the Arab parties were (in)famous – and so were his threats directed at anyone who, in his view, incited terror against the State of Israel.  No wonder that his 2016 appointment as Minister of Defence caused trepidation.  Yet Avigdor Lieberman did not start wars and did not get involved in any military adventure.  In fact, his major contribution as Defence Minister was… coming down very assertively in favour of equal rights for LGBT soldiers.

In fact, Israel’s short modern history is replete with ‘colourful’ characters who talked wildly but acted with surprising restraint and prudence.  And on the few occasions that a real extremist came out of the woodwork – such as Meir Kahane in the 1980s – the Israeli political body spit it out.

“Hold on a minute” – I hear you say.  “Netanyahu needs Religious Zionism in order to form a coalition and, then, to remain in power.  They have him by the short and curlies!”

Well, it’s true – at least apparently.  Netanyahu seems intent on forming a coalition with Religious Zionism and the two Haredi parties – Shas and United Torah Judaism.  But ‘seems’ may be the operative word in the sentence above.  He may do what everybody expects him to do – or he may surprise us all.  After all – unlike after the previous four rounds of elections, he now has a clear path to majority.  That, paradoxically, may open a range of possibilities – and few are as adept at playing the political game as Bibi the Fox.

But, even if he does proceed along the obvious route to power, how likely is Netanyahu to – in practice – relinquish some of that power to the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?  True, he needs them; but, in reality, no more than they need him.  They may be extremists – but stupid they’re not: when the inebriating fumes of victory disperse, they will realise (if they haven’t already) that their success is the result of a very peculiar set of circumstances, one very unlikely to occur again.  The next round of elections is likely to see them cut down to size again.  In particular if they are seen to have inflicted yet another round of elections on the people of Israel – after just a few months.  And you can bet your bottom shekel that Netanyahu will make sure they are seen in that light.

That there is no love lost between Netanyahu and either Smotrich or Ben Gvir is the world’s worst kept secret.  Netanyahu has stated in the past that Ben Gvir is not ministerial material.  And while, for obvious reasons, he has recently changed that particular tune, no one believes he also changed his mind; least of all Ben Gvir.  In the midst of the recent elections campaign, a recording surfaced – and the entire country could hear Smotrich disparaging Netanyahu in stark, even vulgar terms.  The entire country could hear – including of course Netanyahu himself.

In fact, Netanyahu has already started to put Religious Zionism in its place.  Several times during the campaign, he made it clear that the major ministries (Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defence) will be under Likud’s control.  More recently – and in response to vague ‘plans’ by Religious Zionism to ban LGBT pride events – Netanyahu made it clear that his government will not allow any worsening in LGBT rights, including no limitations on pride parades.  The Israeli media referred to those signals coming from Netanyahu’s office as “slapping down [his] far-right partners”.

One does not win multiple elections in Israel without learning a trick or two.  If, drunk on their lucky electoral success, Ben Gvir and Smotrich pick a fight with Netanyahu… well, that conflict can only see one winner.  Netanyahu – who has seen off much worthier opponents – will chew them both for breakfast

Let’s not forget: Bezalel Smotrich has been a minister before – he held the Transport portfolio between June 2019 and May 2020.  But – whether he learned some restraint himself or whether because Netanyahu kept him on a short lead – his short stint as minister was utterly unremarkable.

But, let’s leave aside Netanyahu and his great talents or utter lack of scruples – choose one according to your inclination.  Let’s, instead, look at Israel’s track record.  In her 74 years of modern existence, the country has faced tremendous, unparalleled challenges – military, economical, political and social.

Haters will hate, Cassandras will forever prophesise impending doom, and for some people the glass is always half-empty.  But, despite all those challenges, Israel is today not just undefeated militarily, but economically successful, democratic and generally flourishing.  This young country is ranked 19th in the world by Human Development Index – on a par with mighty Japan and higher than France, Italy and Spain; 12th in the world by life expectancy – higher than Sweden, Norway, France and Canada (UK is 29th, USA 46th); the International Monetary Fund predicts that between 2021 and 2027 the Israeli economy will grow at an average annual rate of almost 4.5% – one of the highest in OECD.

Yet some in the Diaspora never seem to see this; or if they do see it, they don’t quite believe it; or if they do believe it – they see disaster looming just around the corner.  Why?  Is it really Israel’s fault?  Or is it the diaspora spirit – forever fearful, forever uncertain, forever plagued by guilt?

Not the rising antisemitism, nor the rampant assimilation...
Are these really "our worst fears"?

It’s time for this worried Diaspora to chill and learn a bit of optimism.  Why not start with that great Hebrew expression:

!יהיה בסדר (It’ll be fine!)

Have a little faith, folks!

Taking the Mick out of Davis

If I were a rich man,

Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.

All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.

If I were a wealthy man.  […]

And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong.

When you're rich, they think you really know!

An absolute giant of Yiddish literature, Sholem Aleichem populated his stories with all the colourful characters of the Eastern European shtetl.  And one of the most convincing is the ‘gvir’: the rich Jew; the parvenu, the village boss who mistakes subservience for respect and trades ‘charity’ for influence and power.

The Jewish shtetl is a thing of the (nostalgic) past; not so the gvir; that tragi-comic character, it seems, still struts around: among us, but not quite one of us.

*** 

Sir Mick Davis is a very rich man.  He made his money in mining (coal, metals, petroleum); but don’t picture him in a hard hat with black on his nose – I suspect that he mines primarily from the comfort of a well-upholstered, directorial armchair.  And I guess he’s put that money to good use: he is an important donor to the Conservative Party (Labour also likes money; but it doesn’t like Jews – let alone rich ones!)  Davis served as Treasurer and – until recently – Chief Executive of the Tory Party.

I know, I know… a miner called Davis… what a cliché!  But no: Sir Mick ‘the Miner’ isn’t Welsh – he’s Jewish.  So, naturally, he also took an interest in the affairs of British Jewry: in 2009, he became Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council.  How, you’re asking?  Well… previously, the JLC had been led by an elected official: the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.  It looks like Mr. Davis took advantage of a change of guard at the helm of the Board to shoulder aside the new President.  Or (to use the far more delicate language employed by the Jewish Chronicle)

he grasped the reins of its [the JLC’s] executive.

The newspaper commented – perhaps with a hint of irony – that this

may not have been exactly a palace coup but it showed who was boss in town.

Didn't it just!  I should warn you here: irony plays a big role in this story; where are you, Sholem Aleichem, when we most need you?

Mr. Davis first courted controversy in 2010, when he opined (in English and in public) that Israel ‘could become’ an apartheid state.  Some may see quite a bit of irony in that: Mick Davis was born and lived his formative years in Apartheid South Africa.  And… I might be wrong here, but I’ve never seen his name listed among the many South-African Jews who actively fought that appalling regime; unless, that is, one considers immigrating from South Africa to the UK as a brave act of social protest.  If indeed young Mr. Davis omitted to valiantly combat the apartheid in his home country, it must’ve been just a matter of  perspective: it seems it’s easier to recognise (and, consequently, criticise) potential apartheids that ‘may occur’ thousands of miles away; it’s not always easy to spot an actual apartheid operating under one’s very nose.

Mr. Davis’s comments on Israel’s putative apartheid-hood so outraged many in the British Jewish community that a petition was written demanding his resignation from public community positions.  But it was quickly withdrawn, when Sir Mick threatened to let the whole weight of his… err… indignation bear – by threatening to deploy his heavy legal artillery against the poor... err... much less indignant petitioner!  Not, God forbid, that Mr. Davis believes that freedom of speech is for him, but not for others; no, it’s just that, apparently, the petition had ‘misrepresented his positions’…

More recently, Sir Mick has once again become the talk of the (virtual) shtetl: in the cover-page article of the (almost bankrupted, but fortunately freshly resuscitated) Jewish News, he accused “Israeli politics” of “violat[ing] values of the Diaspora”.

I find the article full of (unintended) irony.  So let me read it to you with a running commentary.

Says Sir Mick:

Israel remains surrounded by hostility but its emerging existential threats come from within.

Now, when he’s right – he’s right: the Jewish state is indeed surrounded by enemies: there’s for instance Iran (80 times larger than Israel in area, 9 times in population, 5 times in economic output), whose Holocaust-denying leaders call for Israel’s blood every day – and twice on Saturday.  Leaving aside its nuclear ambitions, Iran has a large, strong and well-equipped military, which is currently busy entrenching itself in Syria, as close as it dares to Israel’s borders.  Another of those borders precariously separates Israel from an Iranian ally: Hezbollah – and its 100,000+ rockets.  To the south, there’s Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; i.e., tens of thousands of rockets and mortar rounds, some capable of reaching targets hundreds of miles away.  In Sinai (a territory 3 times larger than Israel, which the Jewish state once controlled but ceded in return for peace and security) lurks a very active branch of the Islamic State.  You know – those nice people who’ve recently beheaded, crucified and burned a broad swath of blood and tears through Syria and Iraq.  And that’s before one thinks of threats that currently seem – for whatever that’s worth in the Middle East – less imminent: such as a certain manic dictator with neo-Ottoman ambitions.

Yet Sir Mick has decreed that these are not really existential threats.  ‘The problem’, he seems to preach to those Israelis who face the rockets, the bullets and the knives, ‘the problem is not that they want to kill you.  No, let me tell you what the real problem is: it’s your own suicidal tendencies!’ 

Now, Mick Davis is certainly entitled to his opinion.  It would be good to understand, however, on what specialist knowledge it is based?  Because, although Costa Coffee has hosted many a debate on grand strategy, it doesn’t actually count as an accredited military academy.

But, as we know, people don’t actually need to have a clue what they’re talking about – they can still talk.  The problem, says Sir Mick, is Israel’s 

own dysfunctional political system.  

And why is that political system so bad?  First, he explains, there are

the hazards of proportional representation.

And I thought “proportional” was actually a positive thing… stupid me!  I thought that it meant that each citizen gets a vote that is worth exactly the same; that the makeup of the Parliament is a true reflection of the views of the electorate, warts and all.  That’s not what ‘first past the post’ delivers. In 2019, for instance, 1 in every 8 Brits (circa 12%) voted for the Liberal Democrats; but, because of the ‘first past the post’ system, that party only has 11 MPs – i.e. a mere 1.7% of the House of Commons.  

In a proportional system, with 12% of the votes they would have gotten, of course 12% of the seats in Parliament – that’s what “proportional” means.

Don’t get me wrong: one can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of either system – till one’s blue in the face; if one donates to the Tories, I suppose that ‘first past the post’ is wonderful – it results in more bang for the buck; if I were to ask Liberal Democrat supporters, they might feel differently.  But is the “proportional representation” any less democratic?

So what is Sir Mick’s beef with Israel’s “proportional representation”.  Well, he tells us:

the outcome is a government the public didn’t vote for, led by a prime minister seemingly driven by holding onto power and propped up by parties who had previously pledged on principle not to govern with him.

So, Mr. Davis doesn’t like the outcome of the elections.  I get that.  I just don’t think that’s a good enough reason to change the system.  No disrespect, Sir Mick!

But why is this new government one “the public didn’t vote for”?  It represents a broad coalition, from left (the Israeli Labour Party) to centre (Blue & White) to right (Likud).  The prime minister will be Benjamin Netanyahu (leader of the largest party, which received 29% of the votes), followed by Benny Gantz (whose party received 27% of the votes).

True, before the elections Gantz promised not to serve in a Netanyahu government.  You caught him there, Mr. Davis, Sir!  He’s a terrible, terrible man – the first politician ever to break a pre-election promise.  I’m sure nothing like that ever happened while you were Chief Executive of the Conservative Party.  (In Gantz’s defence, he may have followed bad examples: before elections, every US president in the past 25 years promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.  It took a quarter of a century to find one that actually did – and I doubt you like him much.)

It is, I agree, terrible that Israel has such a “dysfunctional political system”.  It gets people frustrated.  So unlike UK’s wonderfully functional political system; the one that produced a pro-Remain Parliament despite a clear pro-Brexit referendum; plus 3 years of paralysis, a government begging for elections and an opposition courageously opposing them, etc. etc.

Where Sir Mick is right is that Israel will now have (for a while, at least) a Prime Minister who faces “corruption charges”.  Netanyahu stands accused of having traded favours in return for a ‘kinder treatment’ at the hands of a major news outlet.  British politicians would certainly never do anything like that!  Although there were things… I seem to remember quite a few MPs (including ministers and shadow ministers) dipping their hands rather dishonestly into the public purse…  But that’s a different thing altogether!

Oh, I do admire Sir Mick’s principled stance.  In fact, I herewith demand that Netanyahu’s sorry ass be put in prison – if found guilty by a court of law.  It’s just surprising for me to hear rumours that, in the past, Mr. Davis may have taken a less righteous position against alleged corruption by one of his own underlings.  Well, given those false rumours, I’m sure that Sir Mick cannot but agree with me that people (including the Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council and the Prime Minister of Israel) are innocent, unless proven guilty.

It’s only halfway through his article that Mr. Davis comes to the issue that really awoke his ire: the planned annexation by Israel of parts of the West Bank – in accordance with the latest US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan.

When we talk of existential threats to Israel, then annexation is the genuine article.

That’s, of course, a valid opinion.  Unfortunately for Mr. Davis, it is just the opinion of an outsider.  Sir Mick is not Israeli; he is a British citizen, paying his taxes in the UK.  It is Israeli citizens (i.e., people who live in Israel, pay taxes in Israel, serve in the army in Israel and risk being bombed to smithereens in Israel) that are entitled to decide (as opposed to opine) what constitutes genuine existential threats to Israel.  And a clear majority of those Israeli citizens voted for parties that accepted the US proposal.

But it doesn’t look like Sir Mick is content with ‘just’ an outsider’s opinion:

The keep your wallets open and mouths shut model of Israel-Diaspora relations was viable when Diaspora Jewry saw in Israel’s political leadership an embodiment of its values rather than a violation of them.

The “wallets open” was understood – and not just by me – as a hint.  After all, as the Jewish News says, Sir Mick is not just any outsider; he is

[o]ne of Britain’s biggest philanthropists to Israel.

I just wonder if, when Mr. Davis decided to give whatever he gave “to Israel” (or, more likely, to whatever causes and organisations he finds useful in Israel), he informed people that those donations came with a clear caveat: ‘I pay – I get the say’.  ‘Coz, had he said so to me (I’m Israeli), I would’ve told him to keep his money.  I have no idea what Sir Mick’s experience is with donations to the Conservative Party; but Israel is a sovereign country.

Isn't 'philanthropy' something done without ulterior motives?

Apparently, however, some sovereign countries have duties to set up other sovereign countries.  How else am I to understand Sir Mick’s sententious determination that Israel has a

moral and strategic imperative to extricate itself from ruling over [the Palestinians].

Before I read Sir Mick’s wise words, I rather stupidly thought it’s the task of every nation that doesn’t yet have independence to “extricate” itself from its rulers.  Including by making the necessary concessions and compromises to achieve that goal.  As Jews – and Indians, and Pakistanis – did in 1947.  In Sir Mick’s perfect world, however, it is the sacred duty of Israel to   offer

a tangible alternative on this issue.

Well, a (or, rather, another) “tangible alternative” has just been offered by the US Administration.  It may not be an administration to Sir Mick’s liking; it may not be an “alternative” he likes, or that the Palestinians like.  But, surely, Mr. Davis hasn’t made his millions by walking away from deals, simply because the opening offer wasn’t to his liking.  While the US document unsurprisingly expresses a US ‘Vision’, it also leaves the door wide open for negotiations:

The peace agreement that will hopefully be negotiated on the basis of this Vision should be implemented through legally binding contracts and agreements (the “ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE AGREEMENT”).

In fact, the reputed architects of the ‘Vision’ have gone to great pains to make that clear.  Speaking about the Palestinian leadership in an interview he gave to an Egyptian media outlet, Jared Kushner said:

If there are things they want to change, if they don’t like where we drew the lines, they should come and tell us.

Were they able and willing to make peace, the Palestinian leaders could simply have said ‘We agree with the principle that there should be an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.  Everything else – let’s negotiate.’

In the absence of such a response, Israel’s ‘duty’ of providing “a tangible alternative” becomes a duty to provide ‘a tangible alternative acceptable to the kind of leadership for whom no alternative was acceptable in the past 100 years’.  I am not as knowledgeable as Sir Mick – but I found no such ‘duty’ in the Torah.  Maybe it’s in the Statutes of Values of the Diaspora that he appears to own.

But the relationship with the Palestinians isn’t Sir Mick’s only imputation towards the Jewish state.  Israel, he intones

must radically improve social mobility within its own society.

And why does he think that Israel has such poor social mobility?  Because

for an OECD country, Israel’s gaps between rich and poor are extraordinary.

Some may view as ironic that a multi-multi-millionaire preaches about narrowing the “gaps between rich and poor”.  But beyond the irony, according to OECD data, Israel has a Gini Coefficient of 0.35.  UK’s is 0.36. Gini is a widely used measure of income inequality: 0 (zero) corresponds to perfect equality, 1 (one) to worst possible inequality – so the lower, the better.  Well, I’d like to think that Sir Mick applies more rigorous research and due diligence to his business dealings than he does to his pronouncements on social issues.  Otherwise, I’d say such sloppiness is… how should I put it… “extraordinary”!

Income Inequality in OECD countries.  Israel in red.  The UK is the 4th bar to the right of Israel.

Next, Sir Mick’s bounces from pseudo-economics back to pseudo-politics:

Israel advocates around the world, of which I am one, boast about the full citizenship rights of Israel’s Arab citizens and their role in Israeli life. However, the MKs those citizens elect are still considered governmentally trayf.

Firstly, on behalf of all my countrymen, I’d like to thank Sir Mick for his unparalleled advocacy.  It’s valiant defenders like him that make us feel so much safer!

However, the rest of the passage is a bit of a spin.  Those MKs are not considered “governmentally trayf” because they are Arabs (indeed, one of them happens to be Jewish); nor because they are elected by Arabs (there are Jews who vote for the ‘Arab List’ and there are Arabs who vote for the ‘Jewish’ parties);  no, the problem is not the ethnicity or religion of those MKs or of their supporters – but the political views that they represent.  It’s about Zionism vs. anti-Zionism, yes – but not just.  The Arab Joint List includes a communist party; a hyper-nationalist party; and an Islamist Party.  Given the record of those ideologies in the region and the world, mainstream Israeli politicians may perhaps be forgiven for not wanting such parties in the governing coalition.

But the issue is more fundamental than that.  In a parliamentary democracy, there is a right to vote, to elect their parliamentary representatives (and be elected as such); I wasn’t aware that there was a right to have one’s representatives included in the governing coalition – whatever their politics.  Are you making up democratic rules as you go along, Mr. Davis?

Apparently, Sir Mick’s list of Israel’s many violations of ‘values of the Diaspora’ also includes the fact that the Jewish state has failed to teach British Jews Hebrew:

How for example, can we nurture a thriving and mutual beneficial sense of shared peoplehood, when so many Diaspora Jews, particularly in the English-speaking world are unable to speak Hebrew, the language of their homeland?

That is indeed a problem – and I must thank Mr. Davis for pointing it out.  Too bad he pointed it out… in English; in a Diaspora Jewish English language newspaper!

And it’s not Israel’s only linguistic and cultural sin.  Mr. Davis also determines that:

Jewish Israelis need more and better education in Arabic and Arab culture. Arab Israelis need more and better education in Jewish culture and history.

Don’t you just looove one that always asks for “more and better” – but fails to even mention what has already been achieved?  To start with, most Israelis (or their parents or grandparents) hail from Arab lands – so Arab culture is hardly unfamiliar to them.  Arabic is part of the curriculum in most Israeli secular schools – at all levels.  True, it is not compulsory to study Arabic – it’s one of the optional languages students can choose to study (and many do).  In recent years, more teachers of Arabic are employed in Jewish schools – no doubt because Mr. Davis has determined that this is the way forward.  Most Arab Israeli parents understandably choose to give their kids an education in Arabic schools – but that education includes the study of Hebrew.

And actually, may I suggest that – before he idly shoots his mouth off again – Sir Mick takes the time and the trouble to watch the excellent Israeli series ‘Fauda’?  It is available on Netflix.  With English subtitles, Sir Mick; no worries!

Don’t get me wrong: Mr. Davis can actually have a say on how Israel looks like – and how she should look like in the future; once he comes to live there, of course.  I’m sure he has enough money to buy himself a decent flat in Sderot!

But, let’s face it – he is unlikely to make Aliyah.  In fact, he doesn’t even envisage such possibility.  He bashes Israel ‘as a Jew’ from the Diaspora.  Why?  A very charitable explanation would be ‘because he cares’.  It’s a very strange way to show it, but hey-ho…

Unfortunately, I am more inclined to believe an explanation that Sir Mick himself let slip at some point:

I think the government of Israel […] have to recognise that their actions directly impact me as a Jew living in London, the UK.  When they do good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it's bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel.

There are no less than 4 rather emphatic me’s in that short peroration.  It would seem that Mick Davis does care deeply… about Mick Davis!

Well, Mr. Davis Sir, as an Israeli who served for 20 years in the IDF, I am sorry for all the inconvenience that we caused you!

Oh, and… for whatever it’s worth, this Jewish Israeli (of the Ashkenazi variety) loves the Arabic language and culture.  Take for instance this brilliant proverb, which applies so well to you and your hatchet-job of an article:

الكلاب تنبح والقافلة تسير

It means: ‘The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on’.  So long, Sir Mick!

The President That Didn’t

A youthful promise: Senator Obama

Former US Presidents resemble zombies: physically, they seem alive; but for all practical purposes, they are as good as dead.  That’s why any attempt to sum up their term in office inevitably sounds like an obituary.

About nine years ago, a relatively young, unknown US senator was bursting into the limelight of world’s attention, as presidential candidate.  Although few would admit it, it was – initially at least –the colour of his skin and his unusual name that made him a favourite, not just among African Americans, but also among liberals of every race and nationality, those eagerly seeking oppressed minorities in need of saving.

But Barack Obama was not just another African American candidate.  He was the perfect one: the exact opposite not just of George W. Bush, but also of Jesse Jackson.  He won over large parts of the American mainstream vote, because he was calm and not angry; because his demeanour was cerebral, rather than emotional; because he spoke on behalf of all Americans, not in the name of African Americans.  More than his policies, his charisma, his personal charm and his obvious intelligence carried him to fair and square victory not in one, but in two presidential elections.

Luck was on his side, too: he presided over no major national calamity – no 9/11, no Hurricane Katrina; by the time he took the helm, the worst of the credit crunch was over – and that financial disaster certainly couldn’t be attributed to him.

President Obama's second term job approval percentages

He seemed to hold (no pun intended!) all the trump cards.  And yet… and yet Barack Obama spent the bulk of his second presidential term with negative approval rates.  Why?

To understand the reason, one has to go back in time, to 22 January 2009.  In his second day in office, newly-anointed US President Barack Obama issued his first Executive Order: he directed that the Guantánamo Bay prison camp be closed within a year.

Yes, within a year.  But, eight years later, ‘Gitmo’ is still there – and around five dozen prisoners still linger in geographical and legal limbo.  Obama’s supporters will say that his deep, sincere desire to close down Guantánamo has been not just opposed, but sabotaged at every step.  And perhaps it was.  But that’s no excuse for a man in his position: after all, it was another US President (Truman) who displayed on his desk a sign with the wistful words ‘The buck stops here!’

More than anything else, it is the Guantánamo debacle that characterises Obama’s presidency.  And, more than anything else, that combination of good intentions and little to show for them explains the popular verdict of under-performance.  Because, in the eyes of the most pragmatic nation on earth, he seemed to want a lot, but do very little.  Sure, he was opposed; no doubt, the US political system – designed by America’s Founding Fathers above all to prevent tyranny – strongly curtails presidential power.  And yet, ‘The buck stops here!’  Navigating that difficult political system (not by issuing executive orders, but by cajoling and threatening, by wheeling and dealing) is – or should be – one of the President’s most essential skills.

Nobody gains respect by failing.  And when one is President of the United States of America and fails to implement what is – when all is said and done – an internal American decision, how can that President gain enough respect, how can he gather sufficient clout to implement foreign policy?  To carry with him, by dangling hopes and fears, other leaders – with smaller economic resources, but perhaps larger egos and stronger determination?

On the international scene, where America is either a leader or a scapegoat, Barack Obama just didn’t.

He was ideologically favourable to the Arab Spring and wanted to help – but didn’t; he wanted to save the Libyans – but didn’t: that failed state is no longer a country; nor is Syria – another place where Obama didn’t; Egypt’s anti-Islamist regime now draws succour from the Saudi theocracy, not from the US democracy, whose President just didn’t.

For the first time in a long while, Russia felt its heavy fists free to punch – not just in Ukraine, but in the Middle East.  Secure in the knowledge that the President That Didn’t – wouldn’t.

In 2012, the Obama Administration announced – with quite a bit of fanfare – a dramatic change of foreign policy focus, a ‘strategic pivot to Asia’.  Can someone tell me – without hours of intricate research and scalp scratching – what are the top three moves United States did as part of that new strategy?

That new US strategy was supposed – as everybody understood – to reassert and defend America’s interests in the face of China, with its newly found economic might, political weight and augmented military capability.  I won’t even discuss whether the ‘pivot’ was a sensible decision.  Wisely or not, the US Administration had decided to ‘pivot’.  Only… it didn’t.  Last time I looked, China was still building up its military and civilian presence in disputed South China territories.  Beijing has brushed aside with contempt a UN tribunal’s ruling, which rejected the Chinese territorial claims.  The United States did… exactly nothing.  ‘Pivot’ – my foot!

Not only ‘the enemies’ were contemptuous, however.  Even America’s closest allies were left unimpressed.  In October 2013 (i.e., in the midst of the American ‘pivot’), then British Chancellor George Osborne made a widely publicised visit to China, in search of tighter trade links.  Oblivious of the ‘special relationship’ between the United Kingdom and the (‘pivoting’) United States, Mr. Osborne declared (in a public speech and without even blushing) that the UK and China had "much in common".  That overture was followed less than a year later by the visit to the UK of China’s Prime Minister.  China’s President was given a red carpet reception when he visited the UK in 2015 – and a very thick carpet it was, too!

Israel is another ‘special relationship’ ally.  Soon after being sworn in for his first presidential term, Obama publicly pointed at Israel’s West Bank settlements as the main obstacle to the ‘two state solution’.  Eight years and about 200,000 ‘settlers’ later, Secretary of State Kerry tells us that... they still are.  Little has changed – if one ignores the difference between Obama’s cold, measured delivery and Kerry’s strident ‘gewalt!’

Now, there is much to be said – and much has already been said – on whether ‘the settlements’ are indeed the problem, or whether ‘two states’ is really the solution.  But that’s not the point.  The point is: if Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, believes that they are and that it is; if, moreover, the issue is so hugely important to him as to qualify for the very last gesture of his presidency, then how come he didn’t manage to do a thing about it?  In eight years of being the uncontested leader of the most powerful nation on earth?  Sure, sure, there are mitigating factors: Netanyahu is obstinate… or perhaps the Palestinians are vengeful and intractable…  Whatever: ‘The buck stops here!’  The bottom line is: the President didn’t.

I’ve no idea if Trump will be a better, or a worse President.  Who knows?  I claim no clairvoyance towards the future.  But I can analyse the past and one thing is clear: 2017 finds America with colder friends and bolder enemies than it had in 2009.  As for Barack Obama, he is about to enter history as The President That Didn’t.

The Israeli Civil War

According to an old Israeli anecdote, Charles de Gaulle once complained to David Ben-Gurion, over a glass of (kosher) cognac: ‘Although I am Monsieur le Président, I have to deal with the Prime Minister, and he’s such a potz! You are sooo lucky, Davíd: your Président is just a figurehead; as the Prime Minister, you have all the power…’  ‘Oh, you have no idea!’ said Ben-Gurion with much chagrin.  ‘You see, I have to deal with Jews in Israel.  That’s currently two and a half million aspiring Prime Ministers and each thinks he can do a better job than I do…’

There are now almost 7 million aspiring Prime Ministers in Israel and about the same number in the Diaspora.  And while every Jew thinks s/he can be Prime Minister, some act as if they already are.

Those who closely follow Israeli politics should be familiar with the phenomenon of high-level retired security and military personnel (sometimes even still-serving high-level security/military personnel!) making controversial public statements on political issues.  Such statements, often quoted out of context and sometimes creatively ‘interpreted’, invariably cause embarrassment to the country’s political leadership.

The case of the so-called ‘Gatekeepers’ (former chiefs of the ‘Shin-Bet’ Internal Security Service who went public with their own analyses of the situation – mostly critical of Israel’s political leaders) is very well-known – not in the least because they are often cited, both by Israel’s sworn enemies and by various ‘concerned friends’.

What contributes to this situation is the fact that, in Israel, retired security and military ‘celebrities’ very often aspire to (and quite often achieve) top political positions.  Out of the six ‘Gatekeepers’, four have been involved in politics after retirement; a fifth (Yuval Diskin) flirted with politics for a couple of years, before deciding to remain just a commentator – at least for the time being; the sixth ‘Gatekeeper’ (Avraham Shalom) is the only one who could never enter politics: he had to resign from the Service, after allegedly ordering the summary execution of two captured Palestinian terrorists – and thus becoming a political ‘hot potato’.

Given Israel’s fully proportional election system, anyone aspiring to climb the ladder in politics must achieve national (rather than local) recognition.  This is particularly important for security chiefs who – until not so long ago – operated mostly in the shadows, away from the public eye.  And the sure-fire way to quickly achieve national (and also international) recognition is… to make controversial statements, of the kind that garner media attention and stir the interest of an already jaded public, one that is bombarded with ‘news’ umpteen times a day.  Combine that with the Israeli/Jewish penchant for wild exaggeration and bombastic communication (traits that anyone familiar with the country and its people is well aware of) and you’ve got an explosive mixture – at least from a media point of view; a perpetual generator of cheap journalistic ‘scoops’.

The latest such scoop concerns one Tamir Pardo, former head of the Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations).  His potential political ambitions are, for the moment at least, unclear.  But it’s very early in the day: Mr. Pardo retired from the Institute only in June 2016.

A public speech Pardo made a few days ago contained some controversial remarks.  Controversial enough, it seems, to attract the attention of Israeli media and – as always – of various interested parties outside Israel.

The Iranian Press-TV, for instance, stated with some glee:

“Israel heads toward civil war: Ex-spy boss”

The ‘forever-worried-over-Israeli-policies’ US Jewish organisation J-Street lamented:

“Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said that the biggest threat to Israel’s security is the conflict with the Palestinians and not Iran’s nuclear program.”

So what did Tamir Pardo actually say?

In an article entitled ‘Ex Mossad chief: Israel's biggest threat is potential civil war, not Iran’ the Jerusalem Post quoted Pardo as stating:

“There is no outside existential threat to Israel, the only real existential threat is internal division […] Internal division can lead us to civil war – we are already on a path toward that.  If a society crosses a certain line in its division and hatred, it is a real possibility to see a phenomenon like a civil war.”

The Times of Israel’s report, entitled Israel ‘at risk of civil war,’ says ex-Mossad chief, boasted the following quote:

“The internal threat must worry us more than the external threat […] If a divided society goes beyond a certain point, you can end up, in extreme circumstances, with phenomena like civil war.  To my regret, the distance [until we reach that point] is shrinking. I fear that we are going in that direction”

On the face of it, the two quotes are similar; though even ‘on the face of it’, one needs to ask why they are not identical.  Words are important; especially words uttered by a former Head of Mossad on such grave political matters.  Words printed between quote marks in a serious newspaper are supposed to represent accurate records of what has been said – untainted by journalistic interpretation.  How difficult can it be to produce an accurate transcript and translation?

But if we drill down beyond ‘on the face of it’, the two quotes show important differences not just in wording, but in substance, too.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Pardo said that there is no worrying external threat to Israel.  But according to Times of Israel, he implied the opposite: there is such an external threat, though it is not quite as worrying as the internal one.

The Jerusalem Post has Pardo talking not just about ‘division’ in the Israeli society, but also about ‘hatred’ – a rather more loaded term that does not appear in the Times quotation.  The Times also has Pardo qualifying that civil war can happen “in extreme circumstances”.  The Post’s quote contains no such qualification and has a graver, more urgent tone.

I won’t trouble you, dear reader, with a comprehensive analysis.  Suffice to say that all major Israeli media outlets (Israel HaYom, Ynet, Ha’aretz, etc.) covered the same speech; all included quotes from it.  Yet no two quotes are identical; and some differences are quite substantial.

And that’s just the quotes – before we deal with their selection and interpretation.  (And it seems that, the more ‘liberal’ the newspaper, the more liberal the interpretation, too.  Pun intended.)

The words “civil war” exert an undeniable fascination; but, while jumping on that juicy bone Pardo threw them, some of the distinguished members of the press appear to have a problem comprehending (and reproducing for the benefit of the readers) the overall message of that speech.

Ynet reports that, talking about divisions in the Israeli society, Pardo has also said:

"We live in a world dealing with a serious problem of distrust between the citizens and their governments.  Take, for example, the referendum in Britain several months ago.  After all, if you look into how many among the population truly understand the ramifications of leaving the EU, you won't even reach one percent.  The same applies to the primary elections in the US.  We need to be careful not to end up in a similar situation."

None of the other outlets I researched have reproduced this part of the speech.  And yet, if indeed this is what Pardo said, that’s extremely important context.  It changes the meaning of the whole thing, because Pardo appears to say that social divisions in Britain and USA are worse than in Israel.  The passage thus becomes less a criticism of a terrible, unique Israeli problem and more an advance warning to avoid “end[ing] up in a similar situation".

Other passages from Pardo’s speech appear to support such reading:

"At the end of the day, there is more that unites us than divides us, but there are those within Israeli society who prefer to emphasize what divides rather than what unites us.  I can't put a finger on one group or leader; (this phenomenon) exists among all sectors in the country. […] A state is a combination of unity and individuality.  We each have our own unique characteristics, but we also have things that unite us.  Some want to apply their unique characteristics to the entire society—and they fail."

This reads more like a very reasonable plea for unity and less like the hysterical diagnosis of some unique, incurable social pandemics.

The Israeli society is divided, no doubt about it; so is every other democratic society.  In Israel, there are Arabs and Jews, left and right, religious and secular, rich and poor, Ashkenazi and Mizrachi…  Some of these social fault lines are arguably unique to Israel; but so is the social glue that binds the country together.

Israel has fought excruciating wars, heard blood-curdling threats, suffered acts of infernal terrorism, withstood international isolation, experienced deep economic crises, absorbed massive rocket bombardments and took risky steps towards peace with existential enemies.  Claiming national interest, Israeli governments have – at least twice so far – forcibly evicted their own citizens from houses legally acquired.  Trials like these would stretch the social fabric of any nation; yet the patchy Israeli quilt was not torn asunder – not even close!

Meanwhile, real civil wars rage in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia… Military coups are staged… no, not in ‘militaristic’ Israel, but in Egypt and Turkey.  And similar cataclysms are waiting to happen pretty much everywhere else in the Middle East, where dictators hold on to power (and hold together crumbling societies) by the skin of their teeth.  With all her undeniable challenges, Israel is the one oasis of stability in arguably the world’s bloodiest region.  I'm sure Tamir Pardo – when not speaking in front of journalists – would agree!

Not that things are peachy outside the Middle East: even the oh-so-civilised, oh-so-progressive Europe is facing fearsome challenges: the continent’s loudly-professed ‘liberal’ ideals fail when tested in the fire of mass immigration; extreme-left and extreme-right movements spring up like mushrooms; deemed ‘things of the past,’ ethnic divisions return with a vengeance; and ‘ever-closer union’ is now ever the butt of jokes and sarcasm.

In the UK, in France, USA and elsewhere, multicultural populations turn out to be not very cultured; while multiracial societies are more than a bit racist.

There are in the world those loudly boasting of ‘progressive steps’ to drown out the clunking noise of chains; in Israel, some are doing the exact opposite: trying to shroud bright achievements in shrill criticism.

Of course, no one can (or should) stop politicians, generals and mere people in the street from expressing their opinion; I just wish that they’d express it with a tad less bombastic hyperbole.  But then, these guys are all Jews, you see; they belong to that people of 14 million Prime Ministers – always self-critical, forever tormented by self-doubt and argumentative to a fault.  After all, what is the Talmud, if not a collection of arguments among Jews?

The media is wrong, you see: that guy who spoke of ‘civil war’ wasn’t Tamir Pardo, former head of the Mossad, but Tamir Pardo – aspiring Prime Minister.  He was just being Jewish.

So, despite what he and other ‘Gatekeepers’ may or may not have said, let me advise the Iranian mullahs in charge of Press TV: don’t hold your breath; to our concerned friends at J-Street I say ‘worry not.’  Israel isn’t collapsing into civil war anytime soon!

Gewalt yidn! Israel’s democracy in danger – again

In a previous series of articles, I described the cohort of 'Israeli Non-Governmental Organisations’ (NGOs) funded – directly and indirectly – by foreign (mostly European) governments.  We are not dealing with pennies or eurocents here, but with massive finance: according to NGO Monitor (an organisation aiming to research and publicise the extent and influence of such funding)

“European governments provide at least $100 million annually to Palestinian, Israeli, and international NGOs that utilize these funds for anti-Israel campaigns and promote BDS under a façade of promoting human rights, peace, and capacity building.”

In fact, such enormous funding is without parallel.  NGO Monitor provides the following example:

“in 2014, civil society in Israel received €3,754,133 from EIDHR, and adding NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza €5,630,323 – the majority of which are related to the conflict. In contrast, Ukraine – a deeply flawed democracy with a population roughly five times the size of Israel’s and at the time (2014) a war zone affected by severe human rights violations – received just €3,400,575.”

EIDHR stands for ‘European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights’ – this is just one of the many channels through which money is distributed.

How Europe invests in democracy and human rights: bubble size represents EIDHR per capita funding, as per the 2015 Annual Action Programme

This is why I ended a recent article by stating

“As a democracy, Israel should be (and very much is!) open to criticism.  But it should not be a push-over.  The most basic tenet of democracy is, after all, that it is the people that makes the decisions.  ‘The people’ as in ‘those who live, pay taxes and vote in that country’.  To preserve that basic tenet, a democracy has the right (nay, has the duty!) to defend itself – not just against the enemies who want to physically overcome it, but also against the false friends who attempt to undermine it.  It is high time Israel told Europeans, in no uncertain terms, to mind their own business.  And their own (rather heavy!) conscience.”

Well, I don’t know if the powers that be in Israel read my humble articles, but someone decided to do something about it.  The country’s parliament (the Knesset) has just passed an amendment requiring NGOs that rely on foreign governments for more than 50% of their annual budget to disclose that fact on their official reports, adverts and formal communication with elected officials.

The law was proposed by the Justice Minister, supported by the government and lambasted in harsh terms by the opposition.  So far, so good – that’s the role of opposition in a democracy.  The amendment has also been attacked, naturally, by the NGOs in question.  No surprise there, either.

But – here comes the issue – it has also been criticised by foreign powers: the Obama Administration and the European Union.  Both have cried ‘gewald yidn!’ (or the English equivalent), decrying the new law as a threat to Israel’s democracy.

If I had a dollar for each time I heard that Israel’s democracy is in mortal danger – I’d be a millionaire.  Last time I checked, the country was still very much the only democracy in the Middle East – so I guess it has somehow managed to duck those grave dangers.

But hey, one never knows…  So I thought I’d look into the issue, to check whether the Israeli democracy was really on its last legs.

To start with, I read the proposed law in its latest version; I know, I know: I’m such a sad person!  But at least, now I can assure you: the text does not declare any NGO illegal; it does not force them to disband – or else; in fact, it does not impose any restriction whatsoever upon NGOs’ activity.  All it does is require them to state clearly, in their public and official communications, that they are funded by foreign governments – and to list those governments.  But only if that constitutes the majority of their total funding.  If, for instance, just 49.9% of an NGO's budget comes from foreign governments and the balance from non-governmental sources (either Israeli or foreign), then the law places no special requirement on that NGO.

'So what’s the big deal?' you’ll ask.  'How does a mere requirement to disclose information constitute a threat to democracy?'  Well, according to the law’s critics, the new amendment discriminates between left wing and right wing NGOs.  For instance, one such critic – an organisation called Americans for Peace Now (APN), claims that

“The bill requires no transparency from right-wing groups – who are promoting an agenda that lines up comfortably with that of the current government – although they are massively funded by foreign donors.  As such, the clear objective of this bill is to enhance the hegemony of this government’s narrative by silencing dissent.”

Worried, I read the law again.  It says nothing about left, right or centre: it refers to all NGOs, with no regard to their political agenda (or lack thereof).

So I turned again to Americans for Peace Now, for an explanation.  Here it is, from the horse’s mouth: the bill, they say,

“require disclosure […] only with respect to foreign government funding (which goes almost entirely to progressive civil society NGOs and NGOs working on peace and human rights)…”

It does not, on the other hand, require disclosure

“with respect to foreign individuals (who provide massive amounts of funding for right-wing NGOs).”

You got that?  It’s not the Israeli law that discriminates between left-wing and right-wing NGOs.  It’s actually the foreign governments that make that difference: they provide funding only to left-wing NGOs, but not to right-wing NGOs.  Err… why??

As an aside, it seems to me that Americans for Peace Now have committed a bit of a Freudian mistake in their passionate argumentation.  I don’t know about you, but their reference to “left-wing NGOs” and “right-wing NGOs” kinda grates on my ear.  Aren’t charities supposed to be apolitical??  Are these human rights organisations, or political outfits?  If the latter (a conclusion that the left-wing/right wing classification inexorably leads to), then why do foreign governments bankroll political movements – of a particular tinge – in a fellow democracy?

Still, what about APN’s basic argument?  Why does the law refer only to funding by foreign governments and does not apply also to donations by foreign individuals?  Well, individuals are fundamentally different from states and governments.  As an individual, I can give money to whoever I please; it’s my private money.  Not so a government; it operates with public money.  Which is why an individual is entitled (in law and in practice) to privacy; conversely, governments are required (in law and in practice) to exhibit transparency and be open to public scrutiny.  Hence, there is a reasonable argument that a requirement to publish names of individual donors might spook them; it would amount to an infringement of their privacy.  Not so in the case of governments, to which the opposite principle applies: the duty of transparency, rather than the right to privacy.

Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary (an Irish national, i.e. a foreign individual as far as the UK is concerned) is reputed to have used his own and his company’s money in support of the ‘Remain’ campaign.  ‘Leave’ campaigners must have resented that, but nobody said it’s illegal.  But what if the government of Ireland (a foreign country with interests not necessarily aligned with those of the UK) would have done the same?  What if – say – Israel’s government would have donated tens of millions of pounds to organisations promoting Brexit?

There is another issue, too.  See, I always thought (and most people do, I’d guess) that ‘NGO’ stands for Non-Governmental Organization.  But how ‘non-governmental’ is an organisation if the majority of its funds come from governments?  At the very least, the public is entitled to know that this or that particular Non-Governmental Organization is… rather governmental in terms of its finances.

Americans for Peace Now disagrees, however:

“this bill clearly portrays Israeli civil society organizations – organizations that obey the law and work to advance an agenda that differs from the current government’s worldview – as ‘foreign agents’ which are disloyal to the state, which represent foreign interests, and which act to undermine the state and its institutions. This bill does not only seek to stigmatize these progressive groups but also seeks to humiliate them by demanding that they stigmatize themselves through slapping a ‘warning label’ on their public communications.”

Well, “Israeli civil society organisations” have every right “to advance an agenda that differs from the current government’s worldview”.  Nobody disputes that right – I certainly don’t!  What raises eyebrows, however, is the fact that the majority of their funds are contributed by foreign governments.  One would think that “Israeli civil society organisations” would be able to raise the funds needed for their operation from within that civil society.  Moreover, since the fact of the matter is that they don’t, that they are mainly bankrolled by foreign governments, why should that fact be concealed from the “Israeli civil society” – i.e. from the Israeli public and its elected representatives?

Since Israel is a democracy, “Israeli civil society organisations” can (and should!) question government policies; they have the right to criticise them and claim that they are bad for the country.  But those organisations cannot at the same time demand to be themselves above scrutiny.  Doesn’t the Israeli public have the right to question their wisdom – and, yes, even their loyalty?  After all, foreign governments – even friendly ones – are driven by their own national interests, which are not necessarily aligned with and may even drastically diverge from Israeli interests.  Shouldn’t the Israeli public be given the tools to question and decide for themselves whether a particular organisation claiming to speak for the “Israeli civil society” really does?

Furthermore, if those “Israeli civil society organisations” consist of “progressive groups” of loyal patriots “that obey the law”, then what do they have to hide?  How does disclosing the source of their funding – in a format easy to grasp by the public – “stigmatise” them?  Since when does the truth (nobody disputes that it is the truth) “humiliate”??

The lady doth protest too much, methinks!  It would seem that somewhere, somewhere deep inside, those “Israeli civil society organisations” feel that what they do, while legal, is not exactly… shall we say… cool.  It may be kosher, but it stinks.

If that is how they feel, I think they are right.  In fact, a similar conclusion has recently been reached by a bipartisan US Senate inquiry.  It found that the Obama Administration (through the Department of State) funded an NGO called One Voice.  In turn, that NGO used the funds to campaign (through an “Israeli civil society organisation”, of course) against Benjamin Netanyahu, during the latest parliamentary elections in Israel (2015).  The Senate inquiry found that the transaction had been legal – no US law had been infringed; it just wasn’t ethical, fair or democratic.  In other words – kosher, but stinking to high heaven.  Both the Democrat and the Republican Party co-chairs criticised the Administration, with the latter stating:

“The State Department ignored warning signs and funded a politically active group in a politically sensitive environment with inadequate safeguards.  It is completely unacceptable that US taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed — immediately after the grant ended — against the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East.”

Sorry, “Israeli civil society organisations” – but I don’t see at all how the new law is undemocratic.  That doesn’t mean I have no problem with it – I do.  I suspect it’ll be ineffective.  Money is fungible and it is all too easy to move it around and disguise its sources.  As I’ve explained elsewhere, charities such as Oxfam get a huge chunk of their budgets from the British government and the various purses it controls.  So when Oxfam funds – say – Breaking the Silence (as it did), is that to be counted as government money or not?  How about if Oxfam funds a charity which bankrolls a programme with another charity which pays a third charity to commission a report from “Israeli civil society organisation” Breaking the Silence?  You get my drift…

Legislation is a good thing.  Over-legislation isn’t.  And when it comes to foreign interference, legislation is often toothless and weak.  It is defensive.  And – as Israeli soldiers know and Israeli footballers unfortunately don’t – sometimes offence is the best type of defence.  The way to put an end to foreign – especially European – subversion is not to protest and legislate, but simply to establish, quietly but effectively, that two can play at this game.

Take for instance Spain.  The country is a major donor to “Israeli civil society organisations” – including extreme-left fringe outfits such as ICAHD.  Israel can return the compliment by providing funds to secessionist movements… err… civil society organisations in Catalonia and the Basque Country.  Not directly, of course – but through a charity funding another charity…

Peaceful protest on the streets of Barcelona. Not funded by Israel.

France is another country that seems to care deeply for Israel’s civil society.  Certainly more than it does for its own Roma population, which faces widespread, systematic racism, discrimination and even persecution by the authorities.  Morality will surely oblige Israel to fund French civil society organisations fighting France’s rampant antiziganism.

British police forcibly evict inhabitants of the Dale Farm travelers’ camp.

And so on…  Don’t worry, this won’t cost a lot of money: political activists are cheap – one can buy a dozen for the cost of one honest worker.  And they specialise in generating maximum noise for the buck.  Once a few European countries get a taste of their own medicine, I’m sure that brutal, 'anti-democratic’ legislation will become unnecessary.  A gentlemen’s agreement between fellow democracies is a much better solution.

Because Israel’s democracy is indeed under threat.  Not from Knesset’s legislation, of course; but from the anti-democratic, subversive practices of some ‘friendly foreign governments’.  Well, every stick has two ends; and old Hillel said it well:

“What is hateful to you, do not unto your neighbor.”

Those ‘friendly governments’ could do with a reminder.  After all, what are friends for??