“The historical argument between left and right over the fate of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria no longer exists; it was decided on the ground, aided by the failures of Oslo and the disengagement. Meanwhile, now that our possession of Judea and Samaria is axiomatic and no longer at the core of our divisions, we can also redesign the political map and concentrate all the good actors together.”
Last Saturday, I met with a group of friends who served with me in the army as officers, eons ago. What can I say? The State of Israel and the Jewish people have no finer people than these – all patriots, talented, and decent individuals. The overwhelming majority of them have historically voted center-left, and all had praise for now-former prime minister, Naftali Bennett.
They said they never imagined ever being satisfied with a religious prime minister, a former Yesha Council head, who even stuck to his values while in office. Another former comrade noted how the old political debate between the blocs was dead, along with the idea of establishing a Palestinian state. Hence a total consensus was achieved: What we need most is leadership that will lead patriotically, empathetically, and adeptly – characteristics they found in abundance during Bennett’s one-year tenure.
Many people from all walks of life have shared the same impression of Bennett with me. These are mainly people who never voted for Yamina and aren’t particular fans of Benjamin Netanyahu. The compliments pile up, despite everyone knowing that Bennett refused to negotiate with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, built just as many homes in Judea and Samaria as any Netanyahu government, prevented the establishment of a US consulate for the Palestinians in Jerusalem, was particularly assertive against Iran and Hamas, and didn’t follow the traditional center-left handbook.
Here we can see that the honest experiment conducted over the past year resulted in surprising, unusual success. The premier, justice minister, interior minister, housing and construction minister, and others, spearheaded policies that correspond with the right-wing worldview while receiving support from voters on the other side of the aisle. This experiment was proof that from the perspective of many voters, there is no other side. It’s enough to have a leadership that works on behalf of the entire public in a professional and fair manner, whose elected officials “came to work” rather than sling mud and obfuscate. It was proven that many center-left voters can, under the right circumstances, also live in peace with leaders from the Yamina and New Hope parties, if they trust their leaders.
This experiment is especially revealing because it deflates the artificial dispute that has divided us into imaginary camps for generations. Virtually since the Six-Day War, the line between “left” and “right” has been viewed within the prism of the fate of Judea and Samaria: Whether to give the territory back or not; whether we have a peace partner or not.
Each political camp was willing to pay any price to the Haredi parties, while Labor even flirted with the Arab parties, to allow them to tip the scales.
Now, however, we’ve seen the evidence that the Israeli public itself is far removed from this division and dispute. The bloody enterprises of Oslo and the Gaza disengagement shattered the left’s theories about peace, and regardless, the classic set of values pertaining to left and right has become passé.
This was especially apparent during the Netanyahu era, throughout which new right-wing principles were tailored to fit the leader’s interests. Thus a new ideological line in the sand was created – between those who love Netanyahu and those who hate him.
The outgoing coalition was the result of a political accident, due to the rotten reputation Netanyahu had built for himself in the eyes of his potential partners. By chance, we were able to discover what otherwise would have been impossible under normal circumstances: That old frames of thought are irrelevant. The historical argument between left and right over the fate of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria no longer exists; it was decided on the ground, aided by the failures of Oslo and the disengagement. Meanwhile, now that our possession of Judea and Samaria is axiomatic and no longer at the core of our divisions, we can also redesign the political map and concentrate all the good actors together.
No wonder Bennett quit politics.
My hope is that Bennett, Lapid and Gantz have now shown their hand by their current gestures that they will receive less backing from Israelis.
Why is this not being reported everywhere?
The political advisor to Bennett from the last election is claiming that the deal with the Left was setup even as Bennett made promises not to sit with Lapid.
A better telling of the report can be read in Tzvi Yaakovson’s news summary form last week:
https://yated.com/my-take-on-the-news-270/
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/2102567/adviser-reveals-bennetts-shady-political-deal-planned-to-be-pm-during-elections.html
Why is this not being reported everywhere?
The political advisor to Bennett from the last election is claiming that the deal with the Left was setup even as Bennett made promises not to sit with Lapid.
A better telling of the report can be read in Tzvi Yaakovson’s news summary form last week:
https://yated.com/my-take-on-the-news-270/
Why is this not being reported everywhere?
The political advisor to Bennett from the last election is claiming that the deal with the Left was setup even as Bennett made promises not to sit with Lapid.
A better telling of the report can be read in Tzvi Yaakovson’s news summary form last week:
https://yated.com/my-take-on-the-news-270/
@Sebastien Zorn
I think this is obvious – we should unite around those policies which preserve the existence of the Jewish people, and reject those policies which threaten its existence.
This should be easy to figure out without stamping these policies with a label such as “right/left”, “conservative/liberal”, “religious/secular”, etc.
The labeling serves two purposes:
1) to make one’s decisions automatic, more akin to what a sports’ fan experiences while rooting for a favorite team and its players;
2) to keep those who are attached to their favorite labels at each other’s throats which is the PTB’s favorite divide-and rule routine (it ensures that the divided subjects will not unite against the PTB which then can pretty much do whatever they want).
How do we know which are the right policies/ideas without being told first whether they have the right label?
So which ideas are beneficial to the existence of the Jewish people and their country Israel and which are not?
A country = its territory + its people.
It follows that if you lose either the territory or the people, the existence of the country is threatened.
You also have to be able to identify the threats but, more than that, you have to be able to face reality in order to deal with those threats, i.e., to not delude yourself that your enemies are really your friends.
You also have to care enough to defend the country and its (ultimately) Biblical borders, and the people, in the case of the Jews – worldwide, and to not divide the Jews into “us and them” depending on where they live, where they came from, etc.
Basically, even the stupidest person has an instinct for self-preservation and this is what needs to be emphasized and taught – that Israel is not an optional experiment, and as Jabotinsky said to the Polish Jews “Either you liquidate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will liquidate you!”
@Reader But unite around what policies? As Peloni pointed out the Left hasn’t abandoned the TSS but have simply put it on hold until a more propitious time. However in the meantime they will oppose anything that would make it impossible which is why building in E1 has been stopped. Building in E1 is a priority for the Right. Another recent example is the furor over the Nation State Law. The Left wants Israel to be a state of its citizens rather than a Jewish state.
@Reader
Let us ignore the policies that are similar between the Bennet and Netanyahu govts, and let us rather focus upon where they differed and consider how trivial these differences are, and then I will address your words.
The right wing worldview would not support the granting of Negev lands to the Bedouin. Nor would it support the massive spending bill placed at the discretionary use of the Muslim Brotherhood Raam party. It would not support establishing an international platform for Abbas in the Office of the PM of Israel from which to speak. It would not support the continuation of Jordanian Law #40. It would not support the continued rhetoric presented by Lapid of a hopeful return the policies of the TSS. It would not have requested the issue of the consulate be delayed til the passage of the budget to preserve both the negotiations with the US and the govt – they would have said no consulate, as they did in early 2021 disregarding the support of the US or the success of the budget. It would not have tolerated the meetings between Abu Mazen with first the HM and then the DM – the first of such meetings to take place in a decade. The language employed in each of these meeting speaking clearly of their hopes to resurrect the TSS would also not have been tolerated. The persistent projection of guilt and weakness presented by the Bennett govt was likewise quite counter to the Right wing world view.
In reality, to suggest that what similarities exist between the Bennett and Netanyahu govts are equitably similar, requires us to ignore all of the above listed coincident aberrations that exist between the two govts as being factually immaterial in nature, when in truth they are not only quite substantive, but their consequences are also quite damaging and far reaching.
You say
and yet at what cost this unity came seems to ever evade your discussion and the author’s notice.
You also support the idea that
The imagination is not so ephemeral as you suggest, as the Left has spent the last year resuscitating the TSS something that Netanyahu would not have done, and had he moved to do so, his party would have parted with him, and had they stood by him, the parties of Yamina, New Hope and Religious Zionist parties, one or all three, would have parted with Likud – because the artificial dispute is not artificial, but quite substantively distinct between the Right and the Left, and bribing the Brotherhood with land and stately prizes, along with supporting the long failed TSS are two basic pillars of this dispute.
You continue by asserting that
If this is true, then the Left should certify it, state it clearly that the TSS is dead and all of their actions over the past year were actually misconstrued or at least the last moves they care to pursue in support of the TSS. Instead we are to presume their momentary silence is support for what they did not support, even so recently as the experiment in which you and the author seem to find some support that they did.
Perhaps the Jordan Option will provide the Left with the opportunity to sever their tether to the TSS once and for all. I can see that this might be a possible manuever by which they could fashion a change in their very recent dispositions on this topic. I honestly hope this is likely, true, or even remotely possible. They continue however to pursue a persistent faith with this policy that persists to this day, as they move to suspend any actions that might currently threaten the TSS policy that the author and you seem to believe they do not still support.
@Sebastien Zorn
No, I actually meant to answer you.
Now that I have read Peloni’s post, I see that he didn’t quote the same passage (the two passages don’t have the same meaning).
Actually, my post could be directed to both of you because my point (and the author’s) was that the Jews must unite (and the “experiment” showed that they can do it) instead of continuing “the artificial dispute that has divided us into imaginary camps for generations” – this is why I find the use of the “wings” discourse to be “misleading, divisive, and unproductive”.
I think Paul Eidelberg identified the problem. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-origin-of-israels-faulty-democracy/
@Reader I think you meant to answer Peloni, who quoted that passage and whose argument contradicting it I agree with.
@Sebastien Zorn
A perfect description of the classic divide-and-rule technique – perhaps we should give up the “wings” discourse as misleading, divisive, and unproductive?
Poll shows Bibi will form strong rightwing government if Shaked joins it but Yamina will not cross electoral threshold if she makes a commitment in advance, Yamina being divided on that point. Not likely Lapid could form a government but his only chance would be to appeal to the right and form the same kind of coalition as Bennett did, but like Bennett only if he doesn’t admit to it in advance so that part of their following will need to be tricked. Democracy in action? Arutz Sheva showing I24 news video interviewing Israel Hayom analyst. Wow! Talk about coalition news reporting.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/355967
https://www.jns.org/opinion/yair-lapids-attempt-to-appeal-to-the-majority/
This is worse than the TSS and Oslo combined.
This means that Israel is going to disappear as a sovereign (even imperfectly) Jewish state and replaced with a confederate state with a new name, government, no internal borders, etc. (right away or eventually – have no doubt about it) with an Arab majority constantly screaming and complaining about the “white, colonial” Jewish minority creating an “apartheid state”, namely:
Gaza (not mentioned here but presumed) ~ 2 million – very young and highly fertile population (with a “Palestinian”-controlled tunnel or road cutting Israel at the waist to form the “Palestinian” part of the confederation);
the Green Line – 2 million;
Judea & Samaria – ~ 2.5 million;
Jordan – 11 million
The total is ~ 17.5 million Arabs vs. 7 million Jews who are already treated worse than the Arabs in the “Jewish National Home” within the Green Line.
Just glorious!
This really sounds, to put it mildly, like a very bad joke.
@Paton
Please tell us more about ConservativePapers and your background.
@Paton
Thank you for joining the discussion. The article you wrote and linked to was written over 10 years ago which precedes the Trump presidency and the advent of Mudar Zahran. As such, I suggest its outdated.
You go on to affirm “The only solution is an Israeli- Palestinian- Jordanian Confederation.” Agreed, but what does it encompass? Will it be what you foresaw 10 years ago and the Map published in 2020 or my vision “Trump’s Deal of the Century a.k.a The Jordan Option.”
I maintain that there will be no confederation as that would require Jordanian sovereignty over land west of the Jordan River. Instead, Jordan will simply take over the management of Area’s A. Thus the use of the term “confederation” would be a misnomer.
@Paton
Sounds like Oslo all over again with Israel to relinquish even more territory to terrorists who we are to believe want to turn over a new leaf.
The old two state solution is dead in the water.
The only solution is an Israeli- Palestinian- Jordanian Confederation.
https://conservativepapers.com/news/2012/12/27/an-israeli-palestinian-jordanian-confederation/
@Ted
Haetzni states that
If this were true, there would be no purpose in continuing to preserve the potential of a TSS to be enacted in the future. Maintaining the status quo would be quite counter productive to the conclusions to be drawn from Haetzni’s comment, in fact.
You suggest that the litmus test would be for the Leftist partners to not currently advocate any policy to employ the TSS. I actually agree that they will most likely not currently pursue any such attempt, but their motive is clearly not due to a joined objective with the Right to set aside the TSS, only to delay it to a later launch date sometime in the future while .
The Left have clearly lost voters due to their support of the TSS as you note, but their strategy is to move the dial of their support for that terrible project towards a temporary neutral position, preserving the current status quo while awaiting the future to once again pursue this nightmare scenario.
In fact Lapid acknowledges this very conclusion in the first article Sebastien cited below where it states that:
Their policy, which Lapid references as being one of doing no harm, in that same article, is actually a policy of doing no harm today while preserving the ability to pursue that harm in the future. If they have dropped all hope for the TSS, let them state that and stop preserving the ability to enact it at a later date, something that Lapid stated was his desire about a year ago shortly after forming his govt with Lapid:
I think Haetzni’s litmus test is actually an attempt to tease the toxicity of the TSS from the Left so they can grow in strength while still hoping to pursue it in the future. Perhaps I am too distrusting of their past actions, or perhaps I see too much potential for mischief in placing them back in power. Either way, for myself, their desire to preserve the possibility of returning to the TSS speaks loud enough for me to find support in my suspicions, such as they are.
@ Peloni
The reason the right wingers are growing in number today is I believe that the TSS, division of Jerusalem and settlement construction are losing their appeal to the left.
Let’s watch what policies Lapid, Gantz, Liberman and Sa’ar advocate for in this election. I suggest they will not be calling for any ot those things because if they did they would lose votes to the right. That will be the litmus test for Haetzni’s current view.
Consensus can always be claimed to be formed when the two sides speak of common goals, but the actions of the members of this Leftist govt were not fairly representative of the majority of the people who elected them.
Indeed Haetzni’s conclusions would be true if no solution were the solution found to be most desirable among the people on the Left and the people on the Right. The truth, however, is that this is very far from any fair interpretation of the truth. The Left still want their TSS, they simply state that the time for doing so is not now. The Right does not envision enacting the TSS now, then or ever. They recognize it as a death sentence for the State of Israel, based upon a flawed mentality that can only find comfort in the vacuous chasm serving as a brain center within those who foolishly champion the TSS.
Haetzni and others of the Left may find this to be a nuance of little import, but it is this nuance which actually provides the great breach between Left and Right blocks, and the breach has never been more sizeable, which is why the Right achieved their largest majority to date in this last election, despite the betrayals of so many of its members to prevent acting upon the mandate handed to them. Hence the consensus that Haetzni speaks of being achieve in this govt is only a sharp betrayal of the will of the voters by those for whom they voted.
Indeed, the warm consensus shared in the govt to maintain a status quo was actually an intervention by the Left to block the will of the people to support the policies and leadership by the Right, an intervention that was seen to be supported by two rogue parties of the Right, one motivated out of ambition, the other motivated by something far more nefarious. Regardless of the details, though, the contention between the two blocks is quite real, quite substantive, and terribly terribly distinct.
The desires of the Left to enact the TSS, today, tomorrow or some day in the near or distant future, still persist. Such a desire is an anathema to the Right and should be to anyone desiring to secure the fate of the future so that the state might survive long enough to be handed down to the coming generations. The Right desires to secure the sovereignty over Yesha, and forever block any possibility of the TSS while finally putting an end to the prolonged misery placed upon Jews living among the Judean plains, simply because they are Jews living among the Judean plains. If Jews can be denied the most basic rights in the Jewish state, how can we Jews hold the right to object when such rights are denied anywhere else in the world.
Also, we do not need the consent of the world to champion the rights of Jews in Israel to do what is correct, for which the Left still maintains an adherence. We simply need to have the representatives chosen to represent the will of the people to fulfill their obligations to actually represent the will of the people and not their own ambitions or diabolical plots. Consequently, there is no consensus between these disparate visions, only between the manipulative schemes of politicians in want of a true North to guide them, which seemed to have ensnared poor Haetzni in their deceptive dialogues.
So yes, Haetzni would be correct if the rogue members within the current Leftist govt spoke for the Right wing electorate. Fortunately enough for the future, and unfortunately enough for the past year, these rogues spoke only for themselves while defying the will of the Right wing electorate. Their manipulative, self-serving storm dance to the contrary should fool no one of the true motivations of their actions, even as it seems to have seriously fooled Haetzni.
And there have been reports that Sa’ars New Hope is mulling a merger with Ganz’s Blue and White. I think this is wishful thinking on the part of Israel Hayom which backed Bibi, when he was in charge, then Bennett when he was, and now appears ready to give Bibi the benefit of the doubt. I wonder how much of this confusion is fue to the change of ownership from Sheldon to Miriam Adelson and how much to opportunism. This is the paper that hired Caroline Glick under Bibi and fired her under Bennett. The jury’s out on Israel Hayom.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-696111
Haetzni suggests that the broad center of Israeli politics is currently aligned against the TSS, the division of Jerusalem, and a freeze on settlement construction. . I hope he is right.
My goodness, what will we fight about?