Elections in Israel: The Majority that Became a Minority

by Avi Greentzeig, journalist and political strategist, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Clearly, last week's elections, and their results, have aroused many more questions than answers. For instance: Did Netanyahu win, in that he received the support of a majority of the Jewish electorate, or did he lose, for not being able to form a nationalist government?

Or, consider the Shas party: Aryeh Deri, founder and long-time leader of the Sephardic religious-hareidi party is considering resigning, after Shas dropped from 11 Knesset seats to 7. How did this happen, and is Deri to blame?

[The Arab parties, which received an all-time high representation in the Knesset of 19 seats – will they be able to repeat this achievement if new elections are held soon? Or will the reports of voting "irregularities" and Qatari funding obviate this result next time? Note that nearly 1,000 votes for these parties have already been disqualified.]

In my opinion, the main story is not who won, but rather who lost, and the change-of-story that has resulted.

Until now, the sector often known as "liberal secular," represented across the spectrum by Yair Golan on the left to Avigdor Lieberman on the right, has basically felt that it is the majority here. In fact, in all Israeli governments up to but not including the outgoing one, this group had representation and influence, in addition to the numerous power centers it holds, such as the judicial system, the media, academia, and large sectors of the capital market and high-tech.

In last week's election, this group mobilized the maximum possible power for its victory. It legitimized Bennett and Lieberman, both of whom were not long ago quite high on its enemies list; it flew in tens of thousands of voters from abroad; it organized itself for Election Day efficiently so as not to waste a single vote; and it invested heavily in an aggressive campaign to lure many voters who otherwise would not have been expected to support it.

Above all, it enjoyed impressive starting conditions – primarily in relation to the hot issues on the table, such as the military draft issue and the Oct. 7th commission of inquiry or lack thereof. In addition, there were not insignificant levels of right-wing disappointment and frustration with the Netanyahu government. Haredi voters were not enthusiastic about going out to vote, the Noam party made a conscious decision to burn religious-Zionist votes, and several other groups in that sector decided to switch sides for various reasons.

But all that didn't help – and for the first time in Israel's history, this group is beginning to grasp that it is actually a minority. Pre-election polls gave it close to a majority in the Knesset, or at least in the neighborhood of 56, when in fact it reached only 48. It has only three choices for a political alliance if it wants to return to power: the Arabs, the hareidi public, or the religious-Zionist public. Each of these sectors on its own would give Eisencott-Bennett-Lapid-Lieberman a working majority of the Knesset. Are any of them realistic scenarios?

Regarding the Arabs: Given that support for terrorism and a Palestinian state is a very large if not absolutely major part of their platforms, and that this not expected to change in the coming decades, no Zionist party that seeks to survive another election campaign will agree to such a partnership.

The religious-Zionist public should potentially be a good choice. This camp shares with the "Just-not-Bibi!" camp cultural closeness, as well as Zionism and nationalism in general, and even the "covenant of those who serve" [in the army]. However, the obstacle is that the Smotrich-Ben Gvir camp is not willing to settle for minor roles in the government. The days have long gone when it agreed to have control only over of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. It is simply not likely that Yair Golan will agree to Smotrich's construction and housing plans in Judea and Samaria, that Lapid will agree to gender-segregation in the army, and that Bennett will return again to the conservative views he held when he headed the Yesha Council. All this will not happen.

The least-unlikely option, then, is that the secular-liberal camp will join up with the haredim – a sector that has few demands beyond its own autonomous issues. The problem, of course, is that even this narrow space was one of the core issues of the campaign. Is it in any way possible that a coalition agreement can be drawn up that would enable the haredi sector to avoid full-scale recruitment into the IDF? This, after all, is precisely what Bennett and partners have been screaming about for months and years.

And yet, a scenario of this type appears very rational at this point. Yes, there has been talk of a national unity government, but this is not likely to happen without Eisencott first trying to form a narrow coalition.

If none of the above materialize – and keep in mind that neither the Arabs, nor the hareidim, nor the religious-Zionists have expressed particular interest in joining Eisencott and crew – new elections are likely. If this happens, my prediction is that the liberal secular camp will lose even more decisively – and will lead to even more of a "revolution" than the 1977 elections were [when the Likud first came to power]. You heard it here first!

Naftali Bennett: For Israel's Sake – Time to Renege on Your Campaign Promise not to Join a Netanyahu Gov't

by Dr. Amir Kitron, Director-General of Isbei Kedem, translated by Hillel Fendel.

An open letter to former PM and former Yesha Council leader Naftali Bennett, whose party won 11-12 seats in this week's election and is counted in the anti-Bibi camp. The letter is long and therefore here condensed.

Dear Naftali, 

I voted for you every time you ran, except for this most recent election. I believe you that you are guided by what you believe would benefit the State of Israel. Even when you decided to establish a government with [the Arab party] Ra'am, I understood that you felt that the alternative was yet another election campaign, following four previous ones in less than two years, with no end in sight to the political paralysis and the lack of a national budget.

I wasn't happy when you were attacked in the Knesset, when you were called a traitor, liar, and crook. It's clear that in politics, sometimes, for the sake of the country, one has to break election promises. Binyamin Netanyahu, too, broke promises in the past, and sometimes he had justified reasons. 

I have no doubt that you were very hurt by the protests outside your home, by the personal attacks against you, and by the way in which your coalition government fell apart [with the resignation, under outside pressure, of MKs from your party].

But politics often involves competition, power struggles, and disappointments. Leaders sometimes fight against those who seek to inherit them. This was the case even with King Saul against David, among others. History teaches that alliances change, rivals become partners, and sometimes the path to getting things done requires cooperation with surprising associates. 

This is what happened with you, in 2020. You made a political alliance with Yair Lapid and a sector that was not previously part of your "base," and later you adopted some of its messages; you even coined the term "covenant of those who serve" [as opposed to those who avoid army service].

Your success in connecting with a sector that is wary of hareidim, settlers, and Likud supporters is valuable. That sector, too, is a precious part of Am Yisrael, and you were never detached from it: You met them during your army service, in the hi-tech world, and in your personal life. Now after you have once again acquired political capital, you are in a unique position. You bear the confidence of a public that previously did not see you as its representative, and have strong familiarity with the nationalist camp in which you grew up. This gives you the chance that not every political leader receives: to renew ties between camps that have grown apart.

Naftali, Israel faces many external dangers, including Iran, Lebanon, and terrorism within Judea and Samaria. But internally, as well, there is what to be concerned about regarding the rise of those who negate critical fundamentals of Israel's identity as a Jewish state. There are those who support the "return" of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who lived here before 1948, who wish to change Israel's national character, and who legitimize those who massacre our citizens. This is especially concerning when we see that these positions are held by leaders of political movements [such as the Arab parties in the Knesset].

Without placing historic responsibility upon an entire public, we know that we cannot be complacent. We must face head-on the dangers of ideological incitement and hostility. We must treat with the utmost severity expressions of support for terrorists, commemorations of murderers, and education to incitement. Such phenomena cannot be tolerated, especially when they are backed by public officials.

At the same time, there are some other grave problems [in the Arab sector] that cannot be overlooked: Rampant illegal construction, organized crime, hoards of illegal weapons, and lack of governance with parts of the country, especially the Negev. These problems require firm action on the part of the government. A Jewish, democratic Israel must be able to protect its identity, its sovereignty, and its citizens' security, without ceding the rule of law and the rights of all its citizens.

Naftali, your parents went out to protest against the Oslo Accords with great self-sacrifice, and they taught you love of the Land and commitment to the future of the State. I believe that these values still guide you, even if your political path has changed. Standing before you now is the opportunity to prove that it is possible to rise above the grievances of the past. Do you have within you the strength to break yet another political promise - the promise to boycott Netanyahu – but this time for the sake of national Zionist unity?

I know how difficult this mission is. I know that the wounds of the past have not yet healed, and that the lack of trust between the camps is very great. But if you were able to cross the political lines in the past and form a government with partners you never dreamed of, why shouldn't you be able to do this again – but this time, in order to unite the broad Zionist camp?

Use your experience and capabilities to form alliances. Recruit your current partners, and together find a way to a genuine Zionist outline for unity. What we need is unity not "against" Bibi, but "for" Likud voters, centrist voters, religious-Zionist and hareidi voters, as well as liberal and secular voters. 

We need unity that will recognize that national service is not expressed only in the military, but also in Zaka, in Ezer MiZion, Chabad in Israel and around the world. All of these are part of the mosaic of the Jewish People. The "covenant of those who serve" that you speak of can be expanded to all spheres of national responsibility and mutual commitment.

Argue – But Work Together

This does not mean that there will not be disagreements. You can still argue about policy, leadership, the judicial network, and the future of Yesha, and you can even continue to criticize Netanyahu. But these disputes must not prevent us from cooperating vis-à-vis our common challenges.

All I ask, Naftali, is to utilize the political daring you showed in the past – and this time, for the sake of bringing our political camps closer. You have shown that you can surprise the political establishment and do what others thought was impossible. Has the time not come to do it again? Who knows if this is not your destiny!

Israeli-Arabs Upon Us? Waking Up Before It's Too Late

by Hadar Miller, media personality and former Associate Deputy Mayor in Lod (written for the religious zionist periodical - Matzav Haruach), translated by Hillel Fendel.

Just last week, we marked the third anniversary of the Simchat Torah massacre. These were days of poignant soul-searching, of immense pain - and of drawing necessary conclusions for the future. We succeeded, it appeared, in awakening not only as a nation, but also in our government and our security agencies. The misguided conceptions of many years were shattered, and we understood much more clearly the type of cruel enemies we were facing, and on how many different fronts. We realized that we could no longer sweep the threats under the carpet, and that imaginary quiet does not provide genuine security. 

But there is still one front that to which we have not awakened, and it is possibly the most dangerous, explosive, and complex of all. It is the danger of the hundreds of thousands of illegal weapons flowing unhindered within the Israeli-Arab public. We're talking about an insane arsenal of shoulder missiles, M-16 and Kalachnikov rifles, and hosts of other advanced weapons.  

Do we not remember the discovery of a portable unguided missile and launcher in a children's nursery in Lod in two years ago? The nursery, thankfully, was closed at the time for the Passover holiday, but it is located adjacent to major highways and Ben Gurion Airport. The implications are chilling.

I experienced the Arab riots of May '21 on my own flesh. To put it simply, they tried to murder me. When I speak of the weapons on the Israeli-Arab street, I know very well what I'm talking about. It was then that I woke up to the depth of the problem. [Translator's note: That very month, the author resigned from the Lod Municipality governing coalition, saying she could not sit together with an Arab member who took part in a march calling for "blood and fire to redeem the shahid."]

Ever since then, I have been crying out that the riots of those days were just a small promo of what the future holds, even without the much greater means of destruction the Arab public now has. It could be that those who do not live with the threat from up close do not realize its full extent. But the simple fact is that the police, with all due appreciation, do not have the ability and means to deal with an extreme scenario of myriads of armed Arabs. And of course, even worse is the frightening prospect of coordination between the Arabs of Judea and Samaria and those of Israel, in which case the Jewish towns and cities of central Israel would face an immediate and absolute threat. 

Beyond Criminal

There is a dangerous tendency to treat the mountains of weapons in Arab hands as a "criminal" issue. Every time there is a shootout in Arab population centers – not an infrequent occurrence – the police release a statement ending with, "The incident was of a criminal nature," i.e., not terrorist. Nothing could be more ostrich-like. A fundamental principle in political thought is that whoever holds the weapons, holds the power. Just about a month ago, we saw how the Arabs of Majd al-Krum [in the Galilee, west of Carmiel] threw out a law-abiding shepherd from Jewish JNF lands, simply because he was Jewish. They did it because their weapons enabled them to do it.

The fact is that inter-Arab violence in Israel continues to be very costly: Well over 180 Arabs were killed so far this year, following last year's record high of 252 murders. If the police and Shabak would treat every shooting in the Arab public as if a Jew had been killed, we could start talking about a solution to the problem. 

The legal framework required to cleanse Arab localities of weapons is already in place. What's lacking is the armed or even military force to do so, and even more so, the motivation and daring. For no matter what, it takes a great deal of courage to confront the clucking of the global Left, which doesn't like strong enforcement against Arab crime in Israel and considers it "racist." This simply ignores the fact that the real racists are those who treat spilled Arab blood lightly.

One who thinks that we'll be able to take effective action only when Jews are the targets, is liable to find out, too soon, that it's already too late. 

We may no longer hide our eyes and pretend that the problem will be solved on its own. Nor may we rely on the police working alone to prevent a mass uprising in the heart of Israel. We must look the situation in the eye and realize that the broad strategic threat developing under our noses has nothing to do with maintaining routine law-and-order.

Now that we have remembered and commemorated the 7th of October, and been forced to take new stock of our approach to the threats we face on various fronts, the time has come to be truly strong and brave. We must take care of this dangerous problem right now, not later, thoroughly and without compromise. We can absolutely not afford to be caught once again by surprise – and this time, in the middle of Israel.

Europe Burns – But its Problem is Israel…

by Yossi Achimeir, Israeli journalist, former politician, and director-general of the Jabotinsky Institute. Translated by Hillel Fendel

"Slam Israel and Save Europe." That seems to be the hidden motto behind the recent attacks and sanctions waged by European countries on Israel. They actually seem to think that their acute problems can be solved by blaming Israel…

The scenes playing out on their city streets are reminiscent of the Intifada we experienced here in Israel. Paris and environs are ablaze, as massive mobs transform the City of Lights into a city of bonfires. Keffiyehs, PLO flags, clubs, stones, and posters in support of Hamas and the massacre it perpetrated on Oct. 7, 2023 – these are the sights there now. A "Third World" reality seems to have taken hold there and elsewhere. Yet, Prime Minister Macron, as well as his counterparts from Spain, Belgium, England, Ireland, and the Netherlands, are primarily concerned with the so-called "genocide" in Gaza. Yes, their leaders did shed some crocodile tears when the October 7 massacre happened, but have sharply changed direction since then.

Dutch Prime Minister Jetten recently stated that "the region has deteriorated into a cycle of conflict and suffering. Tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army since the Hamas attack. The consequences of all this violence are deeply felt even today." 

Then Oslo strikes us once again by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an Israel-hater from South Africa. Wasn't Arafat's "peace" enough for them? [Arafat, too, often considered the father of modern-day terrorism, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.]

What can explain why so much of Europe has turned against us? Latent anti-Semitism that cannot be contained, hatred of Israel, jealousy of its achievements, and an escape route from burning domestic problems – these are certainly most of it. We must also add the well-oiled Arab propaganda that is eagerly consumed in the many, if not most, increasingly-Islamic countries. Their gates have been opened wide, as is well-known, to absorb masses of immigrants from Asia and Africa, most of whom are fanatic Muslims darkening the "enlightened" continent.

France is no longer the same France we knew, nor are England and Spain, and even the Netherlands, to our great disappointment, has changed its stripes.

European hypocrisy is all the rage in these countries. England, for instance, still enforces its claims over the Falkland Islands, south of South America some 8,000 miles away. [Translator's Note: The 1982 British offensive there cost the lives of over 900 people, mostly Argentinians. And when Indonesia sought its independence in 1945, the Dutch responded with a four-year war that involved great violence and killed between 100,000 and 300,000 Indonesians.] 

Holland also still claims some Caribbean islands. Yet these imperialist countries still insist that Israel must retreat from its own historic and defensively-imperative territories within its own borders and permit the establishment of an enemy state. Double standard, anyone?

Of course, the island of Curaçao, near Puerto Rico, is happy with its status as an autonomous country under Dutch defense and diplomatic control, and the populace of the Falklands is similarly pleased with its self-government under the auspices of the British kingdom. But does Europe really believe, or care, whether the Palestinians suffice with the autonomy that the currently have?

It is well-known that behind the PA demands for a full-fledged state, even if currently only in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is their declared intention to destroy and replace the Jewish state altogether. If Europeans dream of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, they are living in a Virtual Reality – perhaps because they think they won't exactly miss Israel if it would actually disappear.

Let us tell Europe most directly: The thousands of dead Gazans is the fault of Hamas and no one else! Hamas is the entity that brought such great catastrophes upon both Israel and the Gazan populace. From the day we disengaged from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has been preparing for Oct. 7th by acquiring weapons, building tens of miles of concrete tunnels, training Nukhba terrorists, and indoctrinating their youth.

Yes, Hamas succeeded in surprising Israel. But they did not take into account our determination to fight back and actually defeat them. That is, they should have known what would be our response, but they did not care. And just as they did then, they continue to oppress their people without mercy. A wild mob streamed behind thousands of Nukhba terrorists to loot and burn out communities in Gaza. And now Hamas is taking advantage of our strong military response to spread poisonous lies against Israel.

After Israel willingly left Gaza with hope in our hearts – as misplaced as it was – and was then forced to absorb and repel the murderous massacre, it is now stands accused by the Dutch Prime Minister of genocide?? He and everyone else should understand that there are no innocent bystanders in Gaza, and for their own sake, they should begin planning their emigration, as President Trump originally foresaw.

A deep friendship existed between Israel and Holland during certain time periods over the last several decades. But the sad truth is that this relationship was apparently built upon the weakest of foundations - beginning with Dutch citizens who turned their Jewish neighbors over to the Nazis, and continuing now with the sanctions that Holland is placing against Israeli goods made in Judea and Samaria. Their willful blindness to the truth, and the Dutch government's joining the hate-Israel camp, will not be forgiven them. Our Foreign Minister Gideon Saar is to be commended for responding appropriately and firmly to the anti-Israel stance of Amsterdam and other European governments.

Will Spain's hostility towards Israel change when its government is replaced? And after Macron is replaced in France, will France return to a more balanced position? Perhaps. Meanwhile, let us not be deterred or alarmed by the anti-Israeli campaign accompanying the deterioration of so many European countries. Israel is strong enough to stand up not only to the terrorist organizations in these nations, but also against the propaganda lies disseminated about us from near and far.

Israeli Concessions and International Legitimacy

by Dr. Erez Shoshani, International Relations Lecturer at Ruppin Academic Center, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The public discourse around the recently-released anti-Israel movie NAZA (Collateral Damage) is a distraction from the very root of the problem that the movie expresses.

That is, the discussion should not be whether the citizenship of the Israeli directors should be revoked, or whether they should rather be praised for interviewing 24 anonymous Israeli military and intelligence personnel who say they were involved in operations in Gaza and accuse the IDF of apathy to "collateral" civilian deaths there.

Rather, this very debate shows the consequences of the ongoing Israeli misconception that our concessions, withdrawals and gestures lead to international legitimacy for our attempts to defend ourselves.

This mistake has accompanied us for decades. For instance, when the Knesset was presented with the proposed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (the Disengagement) in October 2004, the proponents maintained strongly that it would lead to international support for any Israeli self-defense actions that we might need to take as a result.

This of course did not happen. What should have been obvious at the time, but is certainly obvious now, is that there is no way that a democracy such as Israel can deal with cruel terrorists who use their own populace as human shields, without facing acute international criticism. Already in 2009, the UN's Goldstone Report [later largely retracted by its lead author, to no avail] accused Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead a year earlier. It stated that actions such as dropping warning pamphlets in advance of an attack, and other similar warnings, are not sufficient prior to anti-terrorist attacks if civilians will be hurt, and that such offensives must therefore not be carried out.

Furthermore, given that the world is given to the shackles of systemic anti-Semitism, as reflected time and again in Anti-Defamation League surveys, it should have been clear to all that no withdrawal or other Israeli peace gesture would legitimize in international eyes any Israeli military action resulting in significant numbers of civilian casualties.

Accusations of Israeli genocide in Gaza became rampant throughout the world following the Oct. 7th Hamas massacre of over 1,200 Israeli civilians – despite documented findings by many leading research institutes in Israel and around the world that totally negate these conclusions.

In short, the approach by which we seek to arouse support for our actions to wipe out our terrorist enemies by highlighting our attempts to make peace, has been shown to be a failure. The Oslo Agreements signed nearly 35 years ago, the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and the Disengagement, all show that these withdrawals do not build our esteem in international eyes.

Quite on the contrary. They provide a backwind on steroids for Palestinian terrorism against Israel, culminating with the massacre of Oct. 7, 2003. And then, when Israel takes counter-action to protect its citizens, the result is not international acceptance, but rather accusations of genocide and the employment of sanctions.

Israelis who continue to insist even now that Israel must withdraw from Gaza, and other areas, are simply ignoring the historic reality of recent decades.