Ben-Ami: The Idea of a Palestinian State Has Been Cremated

by Nitzan Keidar, translated by Hillel Fendel

Former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami says the right-wing was right: The Palestinians never wanted a state, and won't get one.

For many years, the Israeli left pegged the Oslo Accords as the basis for the solution of a Palestinian state to be established in Judea and Samaria. Barely a voice was ever heard from the left saying otherwise. However, many who believed in this approach have recently changed their position, especially in light of the Abraham Accords that showed that normalization with Arab countries does not require a prior agreement with the Palestinians.

One of those who has been looking on for years at the large disparity between the Oslo dream and its manifestation – and in his case, with sadness – is Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami. He is a historian and diplomat who served as Foreign Minister, among other positions, in the short-lived Ehud Barak government, and later backed the far-left Meretz party. Even more significantly, he took part in the Camp David talks in which Barak agreed to a Palestinian state on some 97% of Judea and Samaria – to which Yasser Arafat did not agree. 

Thirty years later, it is his estimation that nothing at all is left of the Oslo Accords – as he explained in his book published last year, "Prophets without Honor: The 2000 Camp David Summit and the End of the Two-State Solution."

A frequent lecturer on Israeli-Palestinian relations, Ben-Ami agreed to grant an interview to the Besheva weekly. By way of introduction, he said: "The Oslo Accords had two objectives. One was a permanent solution between us and the Palestinians, which of course was not achieved – and in fact we are now perhaps further than ever from an implementation of the two-state solution. The second goal was to form some type of Palestinian entity with which we could talk and have some stability; this was achieved only partially."

He added that the Palestinian Authority that was formed as a result of Oslo "is largely a handicapped entity – due to factors that include the culture of the Palestinian nationalist movement, the fragility of the situation, the Israeli occupation, the deep divide that exists [in Palestinian society], and of course its culture of corruption." 

Q. Some blame the failure of Oslo on the Israeli politicians involved, primarily Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. Do you agree?

A. No, nor do I agree that "Israeli evil" is at fault. The problem is much deeper than that. There is no denying that the Palestinians are an uprooted and divided people*, a nation that never had a leadership with a vision for statehood. The idea of a Palestinian state is alien and foreign to the Palestinian national movement. Unlike the Zionist movement, which saw a state as the end-goal of the process, the [Arabs in the Land of Israel] do not see a state as the end of the process. Rather, their movement simply wanted only a return of what [they felt] was stolen from them, namely lands and refugees. It's true that in 1988, Arafat made a declaration in Algeria about Palestinian independence, but with Arafat you could never tell what he really meant. I spent a lot of hours with him, and not one word of his could be taken at face value. I really don't know what he actually wanted, and I don't think anyone did."

The failure of Oslo "is not a question of blame. It's a very complex issue that involves not only the players in the negotiations, but also the circumstances. Some say that Barak didn't offer enough – [but in fact] he offered 97% of the territory, more land outside [Judea and Samaria] to complete it to 100%, a de-facto division of Jerusalem, total Palestinian control of the Temple Mount – so how can he be blamed for not offering enough? … Then Olmert came and offered even more, things that no one ever dreamt of."

*[HF: Many, in fact, do deny that they are a people, much less that they were uprooted]

Q. There have been claims that if Rabin had not been assassinated, Oslo could have succeeded. What's your opinion?

A. "I don't think so. If Rabin would have lived to lead the negotiations, he would have gotten to the same point that we reached. The maximum that Rabin was willing to give did not meet the minimum that the Palestinians demanded."

[HF: Rabin was actually on record as saying that he would grant the Palestinians only "something less than a state." He also explained that he saw Oslo as leading to the "preservation of the unity of Jerusalem under our sovereignty; keeping the settlements intact; preserving our right and duty to ensure the security of settlements and safeguard the lives of all Israelis staying in the territories; and naturally, our responsibility for external security."] 

Ben-Ami reiterated often in the interview that it was never clear what exactly the Palestinians really wanted: "Even when Israeli leaders agreed to make great concessions on their behalf, Arafat and his negotiators never agreed to anything. They never agreed to the interim agreement… I remember I said to Arafat, 'Let's take care of the burning issues, and push off the issue of Jerusalem for two years.' He said: 'Not even two hours!' The entire idea of Oslo was that it was predicated on what Henry Kissinger called 'constructive vagueness,' in that it stated that issues such as a state, Jerusalem and refugees should be discussed, but without setting any [objective or framework]. Anyone who came afterwards to try to negotiate these points found himself in a minefield."

Q. What types of "mines" were these?

A. "Those who came to negotiate the permanent solution meant to discuss the problems of 1967 [i.e., the issues resulting from the Six Day War in 1967], but we found ourselves discussing the issues of 1948. In addition, I can't guarantee that Arafat even read the Oslo Accords. All he wanted was to be allowed back into the territories, and for this goal he was willing to sign on Oslo. Even in his car on his way to Gaza, he brought with him a terrorist about whom Rabin expressly said would not be allowed in."

"Oslo was Arafat's ticket back into the Land of Israel. He was the founder of the nationalist Palestinian movement, and this was his great historic role. He detached the PLO from the grasp of the Arab states' leaders and made it an autonomous movement. The most important event that happened after the PLO's establishment [in 1964] was the first intifada [which began in late 1987] – and he wasn't around to lead it! He desperately wanted to return to the territories so that he could supplant the local Arab leadership that he hated."

On the other hand, Ben-Ami continued, "You could never make a concrete offer to Arafat, because he was never clear about what he wanted. So then you give another bit and another bit so that maybe it would appease [him]. But Arafat didn't want to make any decisions that would give up any of his movement's nationalist principles, nor did he want to do anything that would cause an internal war. So therefore it's very hard to say that if Barak or Rabin would have done something differently, the results would have been different."

Q. Could it be that the very approach of holding direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians for the purpose of a final solution was wrong?

Ben-Ami agrees with that premise, and says that the Jordanians should have been included: "I was a member of the Israeli delegation at the Madrid Conference of 1991 when I served as Israel's Ambassador to Spain. The Palestinians were represented by a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation – and this, in my opinion, was the main strategic problem of Oslo, in that it side-stepped the Jordanians and went straight to the Palestinian nationalist movement. Kissinger has said that Israel would never be able to meet all the PLO's demands, and that's why he tried to advance the dialogue via the Jordanian-Palestinian channel. He admitted that he made a mistake during the post-Yom Kippur War talks when he did not agree to give King Hussein a foothold in the West Bank [of the Jordan River]."

When talking with the Palestinians about Judea and Samaria, Ben-Ami said, "there is no constellation in which Israel can meet their demands. The nationalist Israeli Zionist movement when led by the left, and all the more so when led by the right, simply cannot meet these demands, which have always been simply too much." 

Even the Arab countries are not interested in a Palestinian state, Ben-Ami says: "Jordan never wanted a state, but caved in to the dictates of the Arab League. Egypt, too, never wanted a state; its president, Anwar Sadat, is quoted as having told Menachem Begin in Camp David that Jordan must be involved in the Palestinian solution. Carter agreed, and even Donald Trump asked King Abdullah to get involved – but he refused." 

The Right was Right!

Ben-Ami acknowledges that the nationalist camp was more correct in its analysis of future peace prospects than the left-wing: "The concept we always worked with was that if we solve the Palestinian problem, we'll have peace with the Arab world. This is what the left-wing camp – of which I am a part, intellectually – always thought. But the right-wing felt differently. I talked with [late Likud party prime minister] Yitzchak Shamir, who told me that we must first make peace with the Arab countries and then the Palestinians will follow along – and he was right. The left-wing mocked him, but the right was right, and the paradigm was in fact changed [with the Abraham Accords]."

"We can actually say that if we come to an agreement with Saudi Arabia*, the Israeli-Arab conflict will have ended before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." 

It was actually Menachem Begin, according to Ben-Ami, who first detoured the Palestinian issue, by making peace with Egypt while simply mentioning the Palestinian issue in the agreement.  "This made way for a different type of solution to the Palestinian issue than that which the left-wing always strove for, without success." 

*[HF: assuming that this country does not make far-reaching demands on the Palestinian issue – an uncertain assumption at present]

Q. Will an agreement with Saudi Arabia require Israeli concessions on the Palestinian front? 

A. "Most certainly. I don't think the Saudis will demand a Palestinian state, but very likely they will speak of an Israeli construction freeze [in Judea and Samaria], and more… But I don't think that Netanyahu wants a Saudi diplomatic process that will bring down his own government."  

Ben-Ami added that even if a centrist-right government is formed, in which Benny Ganz's party replaces the parties of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, "will such a government be able to talk about a Palestinian state in [all the land liberated by Israel in] 1967? That won't happen. This solution is no longer on the table – not because it's bad, but primarily because it has been proven that it is simply unattainable, and today even more so than before."

Translator's Note: Just today, Thursday, US President Joe Biden reiterated his country's commitment to achieving "two states for two peoples." Even prior to this, reports have been streaming in that Saudi Arabia won't agree to normalization with Israel without clear progress towards a "two-state solution." Based on his words in this interview, however, Prof. Ben-Ami still believes it won't happen.

Overriding the Supreme Court the Smart and Democratic Way

by Emanuel Shilo, Editor, Besheva Newspaper, translated by Hillel Fendel

1. The weekly anti-judicial reform protests have waned considerably in recent weeks, and it's not only because of the summer heat. Nor can it be attributed solely to a mass exodus to summer vacations abroad, or to the fact that the Knesset is in recess, or to the general tiredness, both physical and ideological, that has overtaken many of the protestors. A more precise reason would be that everyone is anxiously awaiting the results of the petitions against the recently-passed judicial reform outlawing "Not Reasonable" as a reason to nullify a duly-passed Knesset law; these cases are scheduled to be heard by the entire Supreme Court in another ten days or so. 

But the most precise reason for the ebbing of the protests is that there is barely anything to protest against! From the large, far-reaching judicial reform package that Justice Minister Yariv Levine presented several months ago, barely any of it is left on the table. 

It's true that for the hard core protestors, judicial reform had nothing really to do with the protests in the first place; they wanted nothing less than the toppling of the government, with judicial reform just their excuse. These professional protestors began their demonstrations years ago outside the Balfour St. home of Prime Minister Netanyahu. The main excuse then was the indictments handed down against him. Even before the judges in the case told the prosecutors how weak their bribery case against the prime minister was, the protest leaders quickly pivoted and adopted the judicial reform as their new "main" reason for protest. If judicial reform truly drops from the public eye, a new excuse can be expected to be used – for as long as the government still stands. 

But while the hard core can be expected to keep the protests going even for years, these will just be a nuisance, not more. To maintain a long series of genuine country-paralyzing protests, they need hundreds of thousands of people. How were these attained until now? Simple: they came out in droves only because of the lying propaganda that presented the judicial reform legislation as a bona fide drive to turn Israel into a dictatorship. No other excuse would actually get reservists in the Air Force, IDF Intelligence and the like to threaten not to serve. They are basically patriotic Israelis, after all, who agreed to weaken Israel militarily and economically only because they were lied to that Israel's government ministers and Knesset majority are preparing a revolution to overthrow Israel's democracy.  

2. There are in fact indications that the nationalist government's plans for genuine judicial reform are waning and ebbing away. For one thing, there are those on the right who see the societal crisis that has developed, and the threats of civil war, as well as the economic and security damage that has resulted – and feel that the government should unfurl a white flag and announce that further judicial reform has been placed on hold. And there are others on the right who agree with them simply because of the cold reality that a Knesset majority to pass additional such legislation is not likely to be found. Still others say there's no point in continuing since in any event the Supreme Court will do as it pleases, including abolishing any judicial changes it doesn't like. 

However, to give up now is not a good idea. For one thing, it would mean the perpetuation of the judicial system's many egregious faults and distortions, and this is a high price to pay. In addition, though it can be hoped that ending judicial reform will ensure that the protestors go home and leave us in peace, there is no guarantee that this will happen. After succeeding in thwarting a homogeneous, stable, 64-MK government, why should the coalition of leftists and elites not continue to use the same unconventional weapons to further trample the democratic majority and the government on every issue regarding which it holds a differing opinion? Since it is far from clear that this will not happen, why should we cave in now and possibly motivate them to continue their destructive and non-democratic behavior?

3. It has been reported that Netanyahu intends to pass into law only one more judicial reform: a change in the composition of the Committee for the Selection of Judges, to give the largely left-wing judges less of a decisive say in the appointment of new High Court judges. In this scenario, further changes would be made only in consensus with the opposition. 

Allow us to note that if it has been decided to suffice with only one more change, it is far from certain that the most important of the planned reforms is a change in the Committee.

As far as is currently known, the idea of giving the Committee a clear government majority, so that it could fill Supreme Court vacancies as it pleases, is no longer on the table. There are other proposals instead that would simply provide more balance. One idea, which might be the most far-reaching compromise the coalition would be willing to accept, is that the Committee would be comprised of an equal number of members from each of the coalition and the opposition, with no judges or Bar Association members. 

Certainly this idea is considerably better than the present situation, in which the government and the coalition have only three representatives out of nine. But still, it is not at all democratic, in that it gives the opposition minority equal power to that of the coalition majority. In any case, this formula is also not expected to pass without a strong fight – for why should Chief Justice Esther Hayut and her colleagues give up their place and power in the committee?  If we have to fight, then, why should we not fight for an even better proposal for the nationalist camp, such as having the judges elected in the Knesset Constitution Committee or in the Knesset itself, where the coalition always has a majority?

Another proposal, suggested by former Justice Minister Chaim Ramon, would also be a slight improvement for the right-wing – but very slight. Not for this did we make such a major effort to introduce judicial reform. If it is impossible today to make a major change in the composition of the Committee, it would perhaps be better to wait for a more favorable opportunity rather than to suffice with such a minimum achievement.

4. In any event, many years will pass before a change in the Committee for the Appointment of Judges will actually make a real difference in the High Court's decisions. Even if right now, judges with a Jewish-national outlook would be appointed, years will pass before they amass sufficient seniority to hear important cases. In fact, the composition of the Supreme Court for the coming few years does not look very good for the nationalist camp. Activist judges will control the Court for the coming years, which will continue to chip away at the authority of the government to rule and of the Knesset to legislate. It appears that the only way out is to restore these bodies their original authorities via a general, gradated "overruling clause." 

That is, it is hereby proposed as follows: The law must state that if the Supreme Court wishes to hear a case involving the possible overturning of a Knesset law, all 15 of its justices must hear the case, and may overrule the law only if at least 10 justices vote to do so. In such a case, the Knesset can then overrule the overruling with a majority vote of 61 MKs. If 13-14 justices vote to overrule the law, then a special Knesset majority of 65 would be required in order to restore it. And if all 15 High Court justices feel the law must be overturned because it violates a Basic Law, then 80 MKs would be needed to override the overruling and reinstate the Knesset law. 

It would seem that if the coalition has the power only to pass one law of judicial reform, the above would be the correct law to pass. 

Big News: Haredi Students Receiving Degrees, Entering Workforce, in Droves

by Kobi Nachshoni, Besheva Newspaper, translated & by Hillel Fendel

It's hard to remain unmoved by the findings of a survey publicized earlier this month showing the rapid growth of haredim (sometimes called ultra-orthodox Jews) in Israel's workforce. The numbers, crunched by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, show that the percentage in haredi society of those who officially work has reached a record high of 55.8%. This is still a far cry from the 63% target set by the government back in 2020, and much further still from the 87% of the general Jewish populace. But the trend is positive and very encouraging: After nearly a decade with no real change in the percentages, the number of gainfully employed haredim is clearly rising, and appears on track to continue to do so. 

Just a few days after the release of the above, apparently coincidentally, another report was published indicating a similar trend. This time it was the Council for Higher Education that released its findings that the 5782 school year (2021-22) showed a jump of over 25% in the number of haredi recipients of academic degrees. Among men, the increase was 18%. That is, 4,725 haredi students received degrees last year (up from 3,760 the year before), which is double the number six years ago, and three times that of a decade ago. Even more significantly, the number of M.A. and Ph.D. degrees awarded to haredi candidates this past year was up 45%, reaching a record high of 1,085. This indicates clearly that the haredi sector is taking the idea of higher education and making a comfortable living more seriously now, and no longer suffices with the very basics. 

What has brought about this change? The sour-faced commentators, such as Nechemia Strassler of Haaretz, have various ideas, such as that the jobs being filled by the haredi graduates are unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers' money. Politicians also have their explanations, having to do with themselves, such as that of Labor Minister Yoav Ben-Tzur (Shas), who said that the welcome increase is "the fruit of our efforts, and thanks to wide-spread investment." Not too surprising.

But the true experts, those who have no position to defend, have a different approach. They mainly attribute the change to economic circumstances in which the government cannot really take pride, such as the rising cost of living and interest rates. These incentivize young haredi parents to realize that they must place full-time Torah study on hold while they seek ways to increase their income. 

Economist Dr. Eitan Regev, Deputy Director of Research at the Haredi Institute for Public Affairs, predicted some months ago that the new economic circumstances, including the changes in the mortgage market, would have this effect. He now estimates that "this is only the tip of the iceberg," and that the percentages of haredim in the workforce will soon reach 60% of their sector. "There's no doubt that the trend will continue," he said. "The only question is how fast." He added that the rise of interest rates, affecting mortgages quite significantly, could even have an effect on haredi-sector birth rates. 

According to Dr. Regev, haredi families with only one breadwinner have always lived on the edge financially, consistently managing to overcome the periodic "bumps in the road" that hit their pockets. These included the cutting of child allowances, reductions in other government stipends, and the tax on disposable dishes and sugary drinks (both of which are consumed in large measures in large families). But the latest developments, Regev says, are more significant than what they have experienced until now, and are actually "a watershed event." The increase in interest rates not only costs them hundreds of shekels a month in mortgage payments, but actually affects the mechanism by which they survived such challenges in the past and still managed to both buy apartments and save money for their children. How so?

Regev explains that these young families no longer have the strong financial backbone that their parents used to provide, enabling them to purchase an apartment with no need for a large down payment. This, together with increased mortgage prices, "was a sharp and very unexpected jump that threw them off balance. Not only can't they buy apartments, but they also face climbing rent prices."

Until now, the rising cost of living caused these families to turn first to seek to increase the wife's earning capacity, by choosing more lucrative professions than those they had customarily worked in, and by increasing the number of hours they worked. The main goal was to maintain the husband's level of Torah study. But around four years ago, this began to change, leading to the great increase in academic degrees this past year, most of which was due to women who began their studies around 2018 and graduated now.

Regev feels that the current trend will not stop even if interest rates begin to drop. This is because the increasing numbers of young haredi husbands in the labor market has already had its effect on their society, and the resulting cultural changes are already in place. Regev says that the next step may well be that many parents will provide their young children with math and English studies at home alongside their Cheder learning, to ease their expected integration into higher education and employment.

Itzik Krombi, who heads an employment and innovation center for haredim, and who authored the curiosity-piquing book, "When the Haredim Become the Majority," has his own opinions on this topic: "It's not just because of the current economics. Certainly that has some influence, but the bottom line is that it's happening now, and not during the previous government, when Lieberman was Finance Minister [and enacted some decrees that particularly hurt the haredi public], but rather now, when monthly allowances to young Torah scholars are at a record high!" 

Krombi feels that the main difference now is a result of changes that the State and many employers have made to facilitate comfortable work and study environments for haredim, suited to their needs without a danger to their spiritual needs or religious life-style. This paved the way for many haredim looking for an economic solution to take the first not-simple step with relative ease. 

"The Council for Higher Studies opened new tracks, the Labor Ministry opened more guidance centers, and the MeGo Program for haredi integration in hi-tech has expanded," Krombi numbered off some of the factors. "Many employers now better understand how to work with haredim. There are also increasingly more opportunities for men and women to work and study separately, and this is the result."

Krombi also notes another very welcome aspect of this story: the choice of many of the haredi graduates to move into new professions such as medicine and engineering, as opposed to the traditional education and law careers of many of their predecessors. "We have here an upgrade not only in quantity but also in quality, and this is our biggest challenge," he said.

Krombi agrees with Dr. Regev that the new situation is likely to have a broad societal influence, way beyond just the families whose income has now increased. "The young fathers and husbands see their friends who have gone out to work and still remained haredim, and this gives them the confidence that they can do the same thing," he said. "The rabbis, too, see their students leaving the kollel but remaining men of Torah just as they were before – and they can thus encourage others to take this step as well. It's a process that takes time, but it is clear that the sharp increase we're seeing is not just temporary, but rather a trend that is here to stay. We see this on the ground as well."

Attorney Avraham Yustman is the Deputy Director of the KEMACH Foundation <https://kemach.org>, whose website says it "provides effective solutions to increase the income and welfare of Haredi society in Israel, through career guidance, scholarships, job placement, encouragement of entrepreneurship, and developing future employment leaders." He has another explanation for the change: "This trend started already two years ago, and is the result of a few factors, primarily the historic detachment between army service and making a living. [Working gainfully without having performed military service or received an exemption is not permitted – ed.] Lowering the age of exemption [at which one who has not served may receive an exemption], and the possibility of its further lowering, certainly contribute to the increase in employment."

Yustman does not attribute great significance to the removal of government subsidies to some kollel families as a factor in the change, as these sums are "negligible in comparison with a regular salary that one receives from a steady job, not to mention the possibilities for future increases and promotions."

Like Krombi, Yustman also has compliments for the Council of Higher Education, which of late has been "investing more in creating a positive atmosphere for haredi students. Scholarships alone are not sufficient." As a top figure in KEMACH, which has been active for years in the field of finding economic incentives for haredi students, he certainly knows what he is talking about.

Did You Sit Back When They Tried to Destroy the State?

 by Emanuel Shilo, Editor of Besheva, translated & by Hillel Fendel

Where are our pilots, hi-tech workers, doctors and professors? Why aren't they calling out the politicization of our precious institutions? If not now, when?

1. The parties of the coalition government – the nationalist/right-wing/religious/hareidi coalition – cannot really afford to give up seeking to reform the judicial system. Despite the temptation to say, as some of us are saying, "We tried, it didn't work, oh well; let's turn to other challenges," the fact is that this is untenable. If the current situation continues, our very large camp, the camp of the majority, will be stricken again and again, as will the values it holds holy and precious. 

If the composition of the High Court, and consequently its attitude and spirit, do not change – the ongoing erosion of any national or religious issue will simply continue, and the judicial system's intolerable takeover of the powers of the Knesset and the government will only intensify. If the legal establishment comes out of this confrontation with a resounding victory, its leaders will continue to trample us, knowing that any threat from the political system to restrain them no longer exists. 

2.  As of now, the justices of the Supreme Court, both past and present, show no signs of willingness to soften their stance. As if they have no responsibility for what is happening! As if it were not they who caused the entire problem by adopting such a forceful and trampling activist approach. All indications show that there is a broad public consensus that changes are needed in the judicial system, and that the question is just how much. But our Chief Justice, Esther Chayut, Attorney General Gali Bahrav-Miara, and their colleagues are totally apathetic, and show no signs of willingness to compromise.

The Knesset and government and at least half the nation are groaning under their heavy yoke, but their response is like that of the Biblical King Rehavam: "Former Chief Justice Aharon Barak flogged you with whips, and we will flog you with scorpions. Barak claimed that he is authorized to abolish laws that he believes stand in opposition to Basic Laws, but we will take the authority to nullify Basic Laws themselves!"

And then when we complain that they are selectively enforcing the law, dealing with the left-wing protestors infinitely more leniently than they treated the Gush Katif protestors 18 years ago, they roll their eyes and say they don’t know what we're talking about. When we compare the kid gloves of today and the draconian measures against the "orange" protestors then, they either lie and deny; explain with impressive pilpul why the two can't be compared; or ask self-righteously, "Two wrongs don't make a right! Should we repeat today the injustices of yesteryear?!"

As if there are only two options! As if we must either extend "until the end of the proceedings" the custody of masses of teenage protestors for having tried to block a road somewhere for a few minutes, or totally ignore the adults who block the main highway in Tel Aviv for hours at a time, with police officers marching in their ranks! Did they never consider that the correct approach might run somewhere in the middle? How about arresting the leaders of the protest and the adult road-blockers for 2-3 days and handing down serious indictments against them? 

3.  It's true that given the paltry gains we have made so far, and given the tremendous damage the unrestrained, anarchistic, criminal, fight-picking protestors have caused the State, it is definitely worthwhile to ask whether our stubborn insistence on improving the judicial system is actually worth it. But the damage that can be expected from a long-term suspension of our efforts in this area – as opposed to a limited, tactical suspension – will be no less grave. 

It must also be remembered that the other side likes to exaggerate, and this must not intimidate us. Just as they constantly overstate the number of demonstrators in Tel Aviv, so too do they embellish the threats to the country's security and economy, and constantly warn of civil war. This psychological warfare has served them well until now, so why shouldn't they continue? In actuality, however, the economy is holding up, and the IDF's readiness has not declined as much as they would have us believe.

4.  Why is there a sense of helplessness in the right-wing public and in the government? It is because we seem to believe we are facing forces that are much stronger than us. Yes, they have extensive resources and much money, including significant amounts from abroad. And just like in Gush Katif 18 years ago, there are those who seek to have us "make peace" with our failure, and to take comfort in the fact that our influence and numbers are growing and that very soon in the future we will be more successful. 

But is it really true that we are so weak? Are we truly not yet sufficiently represented in the various power centers of the country for us to have practical influence today? 

In Gush Katif, we were told that we should not even try to win – for if a group of protestors would defeat the government and army of Israel, that would be the end of our democracy, not to mention the end of the IDF's deterrence power against our enemies! Yet, that is exactly what is happening today, except even more so: We ourselves are the government! We ourselves are the majority! And still we're being told that we are too weak – while at the same time, the left-wing is doing exactly what we were told we should not do! If the left's protest is successful, would that not be the end of our democracy?!

5.  I would like, with all modesty, to propose here a new approach. We are simply not doing enough. The other side is totally enlisted for the struggle, and each one does what he can to make a difference. But us? Every two months we come out to a giant demonstration, and then go home. This is not the way to win a public struggle.

The fact is this: The religious-nationalist public is already sufficiently integrated into the various sectors of the State – academia, the army, the economy, public service, and even the media – but yet, simply does not dare to stand up for its rights and to struggle for what it believes!

It's not that each of us has to be an avid supporter of every aspect of the judicial reform package. All that is needed is to strongly oppose the politicization of institutions that are supposed to be apolitical! Why should the many right-wingers in hi-tech not stand up and oppose the hijacking of some of their companies for clearly political purposes? The poor excuses provided for the companies' political stances clearly do not camouflage their obvious political motives. The same is true for academia, the media, and the army – where is everyone?!

Of course, it's easier to leave the hard work to the government. After all, we voted for them precisely so that they can work for us. This is true in normal time, but behold – we clearly see that the government cannot do the work by itself! It needs a home-front backbone for the civilian struggle. The other side is enlisted totally and disproportionately – and we must respond in kind. Are we too busy with "meetings of the minds" and looking for dialogue? Not that these aren't important; I've been to some of those get-togethers myself. But when the other side has no restraints and is not willing to budge even a millimeter, we have to be willing to fight as well.  

The anti-reform campaign has a giant budget and over 100 (!) organizations and associations devoted to toppling the government and perpetuating the continued control of the elites over the democratic majority. Even if we don't have the hundreds of millions that they have, we most certainly do have manpower and the spirit of volunteerism. We are lacking in leadership, initiative, and organization. It is easier to sit on the fence – but will we think the same after we lose the battle??

What will we answer in a few years when we ask ourselves, or our children ask us, "Where were you when they destroyed the State? What were you doing when they disintegrated the IDF? Did you lift a finger when the attempt to restore to the democratic majority the authorities that were stolen from them scored a decisive defeat at the hands of an anarchistic, irresponsible, unrestrained minority?" 

Where are our pilots? Why do I know only one IDF pilot – Shai Kelach is his name – who runs from studio to studio to protest against his refusenik colleagues, those who are willing to abandon their critical roles in our military for political purposes? I am working hard to restrain myself from mentioning the names of senior and admired pilots in our circles, whose silence is enabling the refusals in the Israel Air Force to become a threat to the security of the State of Israel. Why are our senior army officers in the reserves, from the rank of Lt.-Col. and up, – aside from isolated individuals, such as Gen. Yaakov Amidror – not making the effort to sound their voices heard and organize themselves into a contra force opposing those who are willing to dangerously politicize our precious army? They don't even have to publicly support the judicial reform; all they have to do is fight against the phenomenon of desertion in the IDF. Do we not have sufficient courage to express this elementary message? 

And where are our doctors? Why aren't they demanding the resignation of the Chairman of the Israeli Medical Association, who took full, shameful advantage of his position to call a wildcat strike and thus abandon the patients for whom he and they are responsible? 

Here are two exceptions: Veteran journalist and broadcaster Kalman Liebskind announced today that he is suspending his purchases of Strauss products, after Strauss announced that it was boycotting the right-wing Channel 14.  "I am ending my monthly subscription for Tami-4 water [produced by Strauss]," Liebskind tweeted. "We want to drink water, not politics." 

 In this week's edition of Besheva, you can read an interview with a young and promising doctoral candidate who is endangering her future advancement in order to call out Haifa University's entry into politics. 

If the examples of these two would be replicated a hundred-fold or more, the chances are overwhelming that sanity will return to our country, and the State will be run by the Knesset and government that were democratically elected precisely for that purpose. 

As long as we have not tried this method, it is still way too early to declare defeat. 

Photo Essay: Signs at the Pro-Judicial Reform Demonstration

Pro-government protesters came out 300,000 strong Sunday night in Tel Aviv’s Kaplan Square to express support for changing Israel’s judicial system to be comparable to those of normative Western countries like the USA. Bet El Institutions’ Baruch Gordon captured the slogans on the signs which are an indicator of the crowd’s sentiments. Translations to English are below each image.

click here to see