Likud Clown in the Main Act

That Bibi Netanyahu was going to win the Likud primaries was a no brainer. The only question mark was how much of the vote extreme rightist Moshe Feiglin would garner. He managed to captured as much as 23%.  That such a fanatic could gain so much support within a mainstream Israeli political party is extremely disturbing.

Almost 5 years ago, I had the misfortune of meeting Mr Feiglin at an international Zionist conference in Jerusalem. My first impression was that he had gatecrashed the event. His appearance was scruffy and he ranted and raved like a lunatic. He was demanding that the Jewish Agency immediately bring all Diaspora Jews to Israel (even potentially against their will) in order to prevent the impending Islamic holocaust.  At the time it was more laughable then disturbing. No-one in the audience could possibly have imagined that this madman would become such a powerful force in the Likud. But 5 years later it has happened.

Feiglin is not a home-grown member of the Likud. He and his supporters have infiltrated it in an attempt to hijack it. They believe a well established major political party, as opposed to a new start up, would be the best vehicle to advance their lunatic agenda among mainstream Israelis. His ‘Jewish Leadership’ faction has signed up hundreds of Likud members who have the right to vote in the primaries. Absurdly, these ‘new members’ do not vote for the Likud in the national elections. They vote for parties much further to the right.

The Feiglin take-over is a classic case of using the democratic institutions of an entity to effect its destruction. Ironically this is a charge that rightists often level against Israeli Arab politicians. Putting poetic justice aside (for those of you on the Left), it is important to find a democratic way to combat this threat.

Many may argue that given Feiglin’s call to ethnically cleanse Israel of Arabs, he should be banned. But I doubt that his rantings would meet the legal definition of hate speech. More over I don’t believe it is in the long term best interests of the Jewish people to ignore this abomination. Forcing these people underground will only create sympathy for them among Jewish rightists.

I think it is time for us to take Feiglin and his ilk on in the battlefield of ideas. Mainstream Jewry from across the political spectrum needs to publicly declare that ‘transfer’ is incompatible with Jewish values and human rights. Most of us engaged in Israel advocacy spend our time explaining why Israel must be a Jewish state. From now on, we need to start explaining why Israel must be a democratic state as well.

Comments

So why not seriously engage him on the "battlefield of ideas"? What need all the invective? An unusual piece for the supernatural blog.

[Gary]

Mike.
Although I am NOT advocating any population transfer at this stage, one must ask why is it more immoral for Arabs to be transferred from where they reside in the Land of Israel, than for Jews to be transferred from Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Also Jews, whether they be left or right,who do not live in the diaspora must be very casreful of taking sides with different Israeli political parties.
Our duty is to support all of our Jewish brothers and sisters who live in Israel, and to alwayts defend and fight to the death for the continuatuion of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel, and the right of Israel to defend itself as it see's fit.
If you were wondering what my views are in regard to a 'two state solution', I will not oppose it if the majority of Israeli Jews support it, but I would caution against creating a terror state on Israel's doorstep as this could threaten Jewish land and Israel's existance.
The solution I believe in is to transfer Gaza to Egypt, and most of the West Bank to Jordan, while absorbing the major settlement blocks into Israel.
Jerusalem hada Jewish majority from 1840, and must remain united under Jewish sovereignty.

[Mike]

Garry I agree with you forcibly evicting Jews from the West bank is as bad as expelling Arabs from Israel. I have said before that I believe that the settlers should be given the option to stay in the West Bank and live under Palestinian sovereignty or return to Israel and receive compensation.

I am happy to engage with Mr Feiglin’s views. But that doesn’t mean I have to like him or his political tactics.

I do not think it is ok to expel all non-Jewish Israelis so that there can be a Jews only state. How can anyone justify that? And worse to do so in the name of Judaism. But I am happy to debate the issue if anyone wishes.

[Brett]

Mike, you're falling into the same trap most extremists do. In your all out attack on Feiglin you spent so much time attacking him and using emotive insults that the few good points you made were lost in the diatribe. His is right, he doesn't deny it. But he is not a lunatic. Study the population transfer logic and you will see that it is not lunacy but has merit, whether you agree with it or not. But there are other issues that you totally failed to discuss. This may be because, as Gary pointed out, you don't live in Israel and are therefor less sensitive the nuances of Israeli politics (although I disagree with Gary on whether or not non Israelis can take sides - they can and should, just realise that you are probably lacking some information). The 23% of the Likud that voted for Feiglin represents a substantially larger number than the few hundred infiltrators that you quote - there are obviously alot of people that agree with him, and whilst it may be tempting to do so you must not forgot that democracy is not reserved only for the left. I believe there are two reasons people voted for Feiglin. Firstly, more and more people are realising that the Arab world wants Israel dead and any negotiating they do is nothing more than a means to this end. If you wish to debate the validity of this I am happy to do so. Feiglin's policies are tough on security and do not bow to a population that is actively trying to blow us up. But there is another reason, the reason that had I been a Likud member would have caused me to vote Feiglin. Trust. The Israeli political system is perfectly designed to attract scum. Leaders can't be trusted. Each is more corrupt than the next and policies are dictated not by beliefs but by election polls. People are tired of being stabbed in the back. Sharon got in on the 'strong on Terror' card and what his voters got in return was the disengagement - a programme that has resulted in homeless Jews, countless Kassam rockets and many argue 3 Israeli MIAs and a war. Olmert is....well lets not get into that. People want someone they can trust and you can trust an extremist because he is in it for ideological reasons.

I would just like to reiterate the point, Mike, that democracy doesn't mean everyone who is right of you is an extremist and everyone left of you a moron.

[Hillel]

I've been a little too busy to follow the Feiglin issues in detail as it wasn't personally relevant and pressing (thank G-d the Israeli economy has what to keep us busy). I am therefore not in a position to comment on Feiglin personally (unlike Mike who has some personal experience there) and I'm also not that au fait with his position in more detail than the sound bites and adverts.

Nevertheless I do have a few points, and I suggest everybody who wishes to be fully au fait with who Feiglin is and what he represents spends some time reading his position papers: http://www.jewishisrael.org/

To the issues:

Suffice it to say that of all the soundbites going around, "transfer" seemed to be a non-issue. If anything the big fear mongering from Haaretz et al, had to do with Feiglin's "faith-based" notions. The rest of the press dealt with Bibi's dirty tactics and the obvious fear he displayed.

Feiglin's Position Papers

I spent a brief few minutes, (as I said the economy has been keeping me busy), going through Feiglin's position papers: while the website isn't clear (unsurprisingly) on whether he thinks hostile arab populations should get a vote he doesn't appear to be advocating transfer, maybe you have a source for that? (I'm trying to gather info)

___________________________________--

THE REAL ISSUE

I think though that the real question that Feiglin and his campaign raises is far more fundamental. The question is, what is a Jewish State, and to what extent is the Jewish State democratic and to what extent does democracy fit with Jewish Values etc.

As you said Mike:
"Most of us engaged in Israel advocacy spent our time explaining why Israel must be a Jewish state."

I.e. if anything, Feiglin is putting forward the proposition that Israel is currently cultureless and needs to be brought back to Jewish roots. It needs to move away from the corrupt secular leftist mindset and re-discover it's heritage.

i.e. Feiglin's definition of a Jewish State is not Olmert's. (Or maybe it is, just Olmert doesn't want a Jewish state?)

A return to a "Jewish State", as opposed to a Hebrew America has a big appeal in large sections of the population, both "right" and "middle". In fact, it should have appeal to anyone in the left who thinks that Globalisation is a lousy idea and is anti-america (but then, we never expected logic from the fringe loonies ...) Note that Feiglin has also been at pains to point out that a "Jewish State" wouldn't involve compulsion in religion unlike say a few countries in the general neighbourhood who believe they have a monopoly on truth.

"We" very often tend to talk about Jewish Values in rather vague and general terms, assuming most people sort of know what we're talking about, and tend to lump in things like "human rights", "freedom of choice", "freedom of ideas" and a couple of terms pleasant to the ear of the post-post-modernist.

[We similarly talk about the "Jewish State" in terms of "Jewish Values".]

These imprecise platitudes and weakly defined terms are a step in the general direction of what reform and conservative jewry often preach, i.e. various nice sounding principles, usually grounded in Jewish thought but packaged for modern consumption. (This is a topic for another day). In other words, concepts loosely translated and then the concepts assume the context of the translation as opposed to the original term.
_________________________________________

My point: (sorry for the delay)

There are two pertinent questions being implicitly asked by Feiglin's campaign:

1 - What are "Jewish Values"/What is a "Jewish State"?

2 - Where do I get these values from?

(By the second question I mean:
* How do I know the values are authentically "Jewish"? or
* If I don't know what "Jewish Values" are, where do I go to get them?)

_______________________________________
I'm not going to answer this question, each person needs to answer it for themselves. But be very critical of your answer and think what it means for the future. Think carefully of the source of your current notions of "Jewish Values" too.

[Walton]

That's not a bad post, Mike. Pity about some of the comments.

[mike]

Brett,

I was arguing that Feiglin, no matter how repulsive I find his ideas, has a place in a democracy. I am sorry that my post came across as a diatribe and not a thought out argument. When I met him, I thought he was a loon. If you want to be ‘tough on terror’, I think there are far better people to support than Feiglin.

I completely agree with you about Israeli leadership. I think they stink. But electing an extremist is not the answer. It’s the same logic that brought the Ayatollah to power in Iran.

Hillel,

I think you made some excellent points. I make no secret of the fact that I am no fan of modern Israeli culture. I too wish that there was a much great emphasis on Judaism. I have of late come to believe that civil society and not the state maybe the best vehicle for remedy the situation. I have some friends in a Mizrachi yeshiva in Jerusalem and they often talk about the Kiruv work they do among secular Israelis. I believe that organizations like the National religious party are key to Israel’s survival. I just wish they would be less political and more civil in their activities.

The “Jewish values” point is taken. I think you are 100% correct in that regard. But do you think transfer would be Halachically permissible?

My criticism of Feiglin was not on his ‘faith based’ notions. It was on his political program and his anti-democratic tactics. If I am wrong and he does not support a Jews only state or expulsion, I am happy to retract my comments. From my personal experience meeting and hearing him speak, I have no reason to doubt the reports in the Israeli press that those are his positions. My assessment of the man, for what it is worth, is that he is the sort of person to use a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut.

[Gary]

I am not saying that Jews in chus l'eretz cannot have their political preferences in Israel. I do myself. But we canot highhandedly lecture Israelis on what political decisions to make.
For one thing diaspora Jews currently do not live under the constant threat of terror and anihilation that Israeli Jews do.

Also we are not familiar with economic conditions in Israel, if we do not live there.
Therefore we cannot lecture Israelis on what economic system to maintain, due to Anglo-American thinking. AS mike did when last year, when he was angry that Israelis voted for a modicum of social welfare to be maintained, and were not ready for American style laissez faire libertarian capitalism.

[ZionistYoungster]

A disappointing post from a blog I usually like reading.

"Extreme rightist Moshe Feiglin" - this ("extreme rightist") is playing directly to the hands of our enemies. The world considers a Muslim who wants all of the 1967 territories Jew-free, and agrees to defer the question of the 1947-9 refugees, a moderate, while it considers a Jew who dares to say Israel should stay a Jew-majority state an extremist. Since we're, increasingly, nearly all extremists in the world's eyes, calling Feiglin an extremist is ill-advised. It's just like an Israeli in Tel-Aviv fancying himself clean-handed, contrasting himself with the "colonizing, land-stealing settlers on the West Bank", while disregarding the fact that the world increasingly sees him and them the same way.

"He managed to captured as much as 23%. That such a fanatic could gain so much support within a mainstream Israeli political party is extremely disturbing." - I think it might be the result of having gained absolutely nothing positive from the withdrawal from Gaza, and only negative things: Kassam rockets and the continuation of world opprobrium (the calls for boycotts you rightly condemn). That the Israeli Jewish public has made an enormous shift rightward in the last seven years (and I should know, I was a leftist peacenik in the past) is to their credit. It shows that this nation is aware of where its interests lie, even if the world decries such shifts as "fanaticism". "Being radicalized" isn't a process reserved to the Fakestinians, it can happen to Jews as well.

"Mainstream Jewry from across the political spectrum need to publicly declare that 'transfer' is incompatible with Jewish values and human rights." - Wrong. It is compatible with Jewish values. See Numbers 33:50-56 for one of the most prominent examples. It may not be compatible with international law, but our situation means international law must given secondary importance, the primary factor being our survival. This isn't even a uniquely Israeli point: throughout all the world, the threat of Islamization calls for expulsion of all Muslims from within or near the non-Muslim states. It's not a nice reality, but I don't think "Death before being called a racist" is a slogan to live by.

We need to start explaining how Israel's struggle is the same struggle as all the world--the resistance against Islamic imperialism. Put this way, all this talk of Feiglin being an extremist is seen to be misplaced, a bit like when they called Winston Churchill a warmonger back in the day.

[Hillel]

Mike

I kept my comments general because I assumed that since you'd had more contact with him you might know him better. While your points on appointing an extremist are perfectly valid, I get the sense that the Israeli press unfairly paints Feiglin and his supporters as your stereo-typical hard right "settler", and i'm not sure if the evidence is there on Feiglin, but certainly a following of some 23% suggests that he appeals to more than "the fringe". Don't forget how the Israeli press views itself.

I'm also basing my comments on the press, but more specifically on Feiglins stated objectives. Your comments appear to stem from a more personal encounter. I can't argue.

If you want to know if transfer is halachically acceptable, ask a competent authority! I doubt the answer is either "yes" or "no".

In any event it's a hypothetical question, but if it were to come down to it in practice, all the necessary experts in the necessary fields would need to be consulted. Presumably from Feiglin's perspective that would include security experts, political experts, legal experts and "Jewish" experts.

As to the issue of democracy, at the same time you're claiming that he's too good at manipulating the system to his ends, and that he's anti-democratic. Is that not contradictory?
_______________________________________
A final comment, something I think we tend to overlook.

I realise the point you're making with our good friend the ayatolla, and this is in no way a personal attack. BUT. And this really is an extremely big "but", as much of an extremist and rightist Feiglin may be, we all know that his views are a "little" more "left" than a few of our other favourite rightists (e.g. Eugene TB, The BNP, the KKK as examples).

It concerns me that in referring to people like Feiglin as right wing/hard line extremists we end up lumping him with such people, whereas in practice all we really mean is that he's right of Labour & Meretz. On most issues you'll probably find that the Liberal and Labour parties in other countries are right of Meretz too.

In other words, while the term is meant to be relative it is not seen as relative and thus provides a mountain of ammunition for the unholy (and entirely illogical) alliance of the Islamic activists, the liberal left, and the die hard commies. Walton's comment hints as much.

A simple comparison of the extreme views of Feiglin/Lieberman with those of Hamas/Fatah shows up the same issue as a simple comparison of the IDF and Hamas/Fatah/Al-Qaida/Islamic Jihad.

Your thoughts?

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Gary,
I agree with your comment.
Perhaps I have missed the raison d'etre of this blog, but it seems to
me that most of the debates are virtually irrelevant.
Mike,
I know I am not the blog editor... however, we should be discussing
Pollak's interview with the SAfrican ambassador in Israel.

[mike]

I am please to see that my post has generated such strong reactions. I think debate on this topic is healthy. Although I am feeling a little outgunned.

But I take Anthony’s point. Joel’s interview with the Ambassador was interesting and important. This Feiglin story was very personal for me and I felt I needed to say something. But it does take time away from our core mission.

Suggestions for posts are always welcome. Even post themselves.

So I will try be brief in my response to this barrage of criticism.

Zionistyoungster, I know that many see me and Feiglin as one in the same. But I don’t believe that external perceptions should dictate that I must thus behave/support him. I know Israelis have moved to the right and its understandable.

My Tanach is not what it should be but I do recall some line along the lines of treat strangers within your land well for you were stranger in Egypt. I stand to be corrected. I had that in mind when referring to Jewish values. But I agree that passage seems to justify transfer. But I would be interested in a detailed halachic opinion (maybe diverse ones as Hillel pointed out)

Now on the issue of international law. Humans rights organization, the UN, the Palestinian lobby have turned many Israel’s against international law. This is unfortunate. Because it should be the foundation for providing Israel with security. I don’t think we should ever have to make a choice between international law and survival. International law should guarantee that survival.

I completely support the Islamist imperialism thesis. And I think it is important hat we muster the strength and courage of Churchill to fight them. But I really doubt Feiglin is our man. I think we can roll back Islamic extremism without expelling Israeli Arabs.

Hillel, I would like to see a breakdown of the votes. I read somewhere that he got almost none in the cities. Only 40% of all Likud members voted. So a small number could easily be overstate their significance.

I think it is anti-democratic to hijack a political party whose platform you do not support. Why does he not form his own new party or join Lieberman.

It would be nice to have a scale from right to left. We could say Hitler was about a 10 to the right and Stalin about a -10 to the Left. Slot everyone in their appropriate place. I think Feiglin would probable be an 8. Hamas say 9.5, and Bibi 3 Olmert -2, Beilin -5 and well Ronnie Kasrils -9. I am sorry that my comments made Feiglin seem like the equivalent of Hamas. I don’t believe he is.

If you don’t like my ratings please feel free to add your own.

[ZionistYoungster]

Thanks for the response, Mike.

"I know that many see me and Feiglin as one in the same. But I don't believe that external perceptions should dictate that I must thus behave/support him." - I don't think it's a question of supporting him. He's a politician, so that already means he's problematic. (Half-joking, half-serious.) My point is this: if your condemnation of Feiglin is because he could sully Israel's image, then there I must differ with you, because Israel's image seems not to be connected much to what Israel does. I've seen on Daily Kos so many comments on how Israel's evacuation of Gaza was for "strengthening the West Bank settlements" or for "turning Gaza into a free-fire zone". The evacuation of Gaza was such a painful sacrifice, and now I see that, in addition to the Kassams, we didn't even get a raise in world opinion. My conclusion: Israel's image shouldn't be a factor. If, on the other hand, it's the future of Israel's democracy that's on your mind in your criticism, then that's something else. That can be the subject of debate.

"My Tanach is not what it should be but I do recall some line along the lines of treat strangers within your land well for you were stranger in Egypt. I stand to be corrected. I had that in mind when referring to Jewish values." - no, that isn't incorrect, it's just the definition of "stranger" that's often overlooked. "Stranger" means a non-Jew who accepts that the Land of Israel is under Jewish sovereignty. When he no longer does, he loses that status. For example the Circassians in Israel are in the category of "stranger", because they have never engaged in seditious activities; while there are quite a few Arab Knesset Members who don't qualify, such as Azmi Bishara and (recently) Jamal Zahalka.

"But I agree that passage seems to justify transfer. But I would be interested in a detailed halachic opinion (maybe diverse ones as Hillel pointed out)" - strictly speaking, those passages are about the Canaanites. Halachic opinion is to determine whether they are applicable to the situation of today. Also, the opinion can change: Rabbi Ovadyah Yossef, an Ultra-Orthodox Sephardi rabbi in Israel, formerly decreed it permissible to give lands to the Arabs for the sake of preserving Jewish lives, but has since repealed that decree, no doubt because of the reality on the ground (the reality that land concessions have only made things worse).

"Because it should be the foundation for providing Israel with security. I don't think we should ever have to make a choice between international law and survival. International law should guarantee that survival." - I'm afraid that, without a substantial rewrite, this isn't possible. And here again, Israel is hardly the only one suffering here. An example: the past weeks, the media has been all abuzz about the killing of civilians in Afghanistan. International law is clear about this, but it is oblivious to the context in which the civilians were killed: the Taliban have no compunctions about hiding among women and children, just as Hizbullah didn't have any a year ago, leading to the killing at Qana. International law, in its current state, has the effect that if enemy combatants use civilians as their shields, then we have no choice but let the enemy win.

"I think we can roll back Islamic extremism without expelling Israeli Arabs." - only if we can find out a sure-fire way of distinguishing between the extremists and the moderates. So far, attempts at this have not succeeded anywhere in the world.

[Hillel]

I'd also like to return to the subject of Pollack's interview with the SA ambassador, I thought it was very interesting both in what it said, and what it didn't. I look forward to your analysis.

My final comments:
- Mike, I don't expect you to support Feiglin, and though I was surprised at your thoughts of him, I admit that you clearly have more personal experience than I in that regard. I didn't intend to put you against the proverbial wall!

- Supporting the man though, and supporting the ideas his faction represents are two different (but admittedly related)things.

- Have a look at the likud website, there's a breakdown by voting station - I assume you'll get by with the Hebrew since it's place names, but if you need a hand you got my address.

- As to your right-left scale, I get your general point, but the idea needs a lot of refinement - I'm convinced that a single dimension is woefully inadequate. (Just a small point, if genocide buys you a 10, and calls for genocide + lame attempts at genocide buys you a 9.5, calling for population transfer, assuming this is genuinely his position, buys you an 8 - this puts Olmert, Livni, Sharon and Meretz also at 8, or -8, ?) What solution to a hostile population can be considered moderate? Is moderate then a good thing to aim for? Does the scale then imply moderate means passivity and inaction?

- I think ZionistYoungster is spot on with the comments on international law and Israel's public image. Feiglin's message is to stop believing Olmert et al when they claim Israel's image is important and to start doing what's "right/correct". (Note you can agree with this, without agreeing with Feiglin!) In particular, what's right in terms of Jewish Values, not what's right in terms of World Values which is hardly a well defined position.

- Finally, a little cynicism. International Law is a lovely concept but I have difficulty seeing where it is fairly and actively applied. My empirical evidence based impression is that it's used to beat Law Abiding States over the head and used as a shield for Rogue States. This should be a debate! The extent to which America is taken to task for Guantanamo vs the prisons in Iran/Nigeria/Zim as an example, and the concomittant press coverage illustrate my point.

If Israel relies on the international community to help with it's problems, which it largely has until now, it will have the same fantastic assistance that Kosovo, Darfur, Sudan, Ethiopia, Zim, Burma, Afghanistan and Iraq got/are getting.

That's not to suggest it should be flouted, but really, what use does it have at the moment?

Iran isn't attacking Israel because of international law, it's not attacking because they're not ready yet. Instead they have their proxies doing it on their behalf, until they're ready to launch.

[Mike]

I happily concede that my scale is simplistic. I was just trying to make the point that I do not believe he is on the same level as Hamas. I was attempting quantify my perception of his level of extremism to clarify my criticism.

I don’t believe International Law is the problem. It’s implementation and interpretation is at fault. I believe that there are strong legal arguments to support most of Israel’s actions.

I agree that Islamic extremists that reside in Muslim minority communities in Israel and the West present a difficult conundrum for roll back. I believe for what its worth that the great weapon against terror and Islamism will be moderate Muslims. We have to empower these people to fight against and expose the extremists that live within their midst. Alienating and demonizing the entire population will only create more sympathy for extremism.

[Gary]

Mike
Hamas is 9.5 and Kasrils is -9.
Doesn't that make it all the more bizarre how vigorously Kasrils and his ilk support Hamas: "We stand by you and support you".
The mind boggles.

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Mike,
It seems that the British Govt are following the strategy that you
suggest with regard to Muslims living in The UK. However, it is
problematic since many influential leaders within the Muslim community
hold extreme views.
I wonder whether The British would have adopted a :softly softly"
approach if elements within UK Jewry had started threatening them with
terrorism. My guess is that the whole lot of them would have been
shipped off on the next boat to Haifa.

[Gary]

Anthony
For that reason let us hope that the Conservative Party win power in the next British elections.

[Mike]

Anthony, I spent some time in London last year. There is a very serious debate raging on how to relate to the Muslim minority. Home grown terror as they call it, is a very frightening development.

I actually don’t support they way the British government has handled it. For many years they just ignored the problem. And now as you point out they look to be cutting a deal with extremist leaders. When I was talking about moderates, I did not mean those who on British TV talk about co-existence while in the mosque preach Jihad.

But there are liberal British Muslim intellectuals, I met some, who should be engaged with and strengthened.

I dont know how they would have responded to Jewish terror. They did once expel all the Jews of England (but arguably a long time ago). How were British Jews treated during the mandate years when Zionist resistance groups targeted British institutions in Palestine?

[Jak]

How de we differentiate between the "liberal British Muslim intellectuals" and the "extremists". Look at the recent terror arrests in Britain - most of the suspects were doctors in state hospitals. Surely these men would all be classified as "Westernised" "cultured" "intellectual" "liberal" and the like.
I'm not saying the moderate population doesn't exist, but the lines are very blurred. And especially with the two-facedness of the extremists (one message in English and the opposite in Arabic) how can you be sure that your "moderate" neighbour/doctor/colleague is not amongst the supporters of the global jihad?

[ZionistYoungster]

Mike,

"I don't believe International Law is the problem. It's implementation and interpretation is at fault." - reminds me of what people said (and some still say) about Communism. But the thought needs to be entertained that the problem is with the tree and not just a few bad apples. Especially when the bad apples aren't few (see Hillel's examples of atrocities unhindered by international law).

"I believe for what its worth that the great weapon against terror and Islamism will be moderate Muslims." - unlikely, because even non-Muslims are loathe to speak against Islamic extremism. Robert Redeker, a French philosopher, had to go into hiding after he published an article critical of Mohammed in Le Figaro. The reception of Pope Benedict's medieval quotation by the Muslims is well-known. Anyone who calls himself a Muslim and does the same things is in an even worse position, because he is then branded an apostate and marked for death. A stark example: The Rise and Fall of a British Muslim MP.

As things stand, what empowers the Muslim extremists is actions that reinforce the idea, "Jihad Pays". The various concessions--not just land concessions, but cultural ones as well--feed their notion that jihad is the right way to go. Christianity didn't moderate until the utter ruin brought by the Thirty Years War (1618-48) led people to rethink the idea of state-sponsored crusading; Islam is like Christianity once was, and needs its own set of shocks in order to initiate the process of sobering.

"We have to empower these people to fight against and expose the extremists that live within their midst. Alienating and demonizing the entire population will only create more sympathy for extremism." - that's the very mindset that led President Bush to his misadventure in Iraq. He thought democratization and "winning hearts and minds" could create "Iraq the Model" bringing to a new Middle East. Instead, democracy only meant people were free to elect Islamic parties to power, just as Carter's (spit) pressure on the Shah of Iran to loosen his reins made possible the rise of Khomeini.

I reiterate: Islamic extremists aren't caused by our "demonization"; quite the opposite, they're caused by our accommodations and concessions, which send the message that terrorism brings rich dividends. A forceful hand that shows them terrorism only makes their situation worse is required in order to make them have second thoughts about it.

Gary,

"Hamas is 9.5 and Kasrils is -9. Doesn't that make it all the more bizarre how vigorously Kasrils and his ilk support Hamas: 'We stand by you and support you'." - no more than seeing far-right themes used on far-left events. The political compass is not a line but a circle, and when you go far enough to one of the sides, you end up having a lot in common with the other extreme.

[Mike]

Zionistyounger great point on a political circle as opposed to a line. Hitler/Stalin pact is another example. As I said before the line was meant to be a very simplistic tool to quantify my perception of Feiglin’s ‘extremism’.

I don’t doubt for a minute the very real obstacles moderate Muslims face. The ‘Bush doctrine’ is not a quick fix or easy route. It is a decade’s long strategy.

Now to the only option is to crush them all. It sounds very convincing but is completely impractical. Even if Western morality could accept the wholesale killing of millions of non-Western people, the sheer size of the world Muslim population makes it impossible to take on all Muslim everywhere. I mean where would you like to start? If the west was to engage in a war with Islam as a whole, I have no doubt it would lose.

[Gary]

The point about the political circle as opposed to a line.
Far-Left groups like the Workers World Party in America for example support suicide bombings and the killing of Israeli children, which makes them the same as the Nazi Party as they both support the killing of Jews.
The disclaimer by the Left that they only hate Jews who live in Israel is simply sickening, as living in Israel does not disqualify a Jews from being a Jew.

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Gary,
Traditionally, The Foreign Office has been pro- Arab and it might
re-assert its influence, if it has not already done so since blair left
office, under a Conservative govt.
I think that the current foreign secretary, David Milliband, is Jewish.
Of course, by itself, that means nothing ( as we have learnt from Ronno
Einstein)
The horrible truth is that dealing with " the terrorist within" is an
impossible task, especially since there are about 1.8 million Muslims
in The UK.
A Conservative politician ( Enoch Powell) in the 1960's warned the
British public that immigration would lead to "rivers of blood". I
don't think that even knew just how accurate this diagnosis would be.

[Hillel]

Mike, I doubt ZY meant murdering millions is the way to crush the ideology. But a concerted effort would go a long way to reduce the pockets that at the moment are growing pretty much unhindered. I don't think carpet bombing the whole of iraq will sort out the problem (as an example) but pulling back and trying to negotiate and make concessions won't help either. It's more complicated than that and although we'd all like a panacea, it's a little short sighted.

As ZY points out, at the moment we're losing ground, we need to turn the tide both in the physical battlefield as well as the battlefield of ideas.

We can't just preach ideas of freedom, we actually have to fight for them ... and maybe "impose" them despite the irony in such a statement.

[Gary]

Hamas and Hezbullah have to be destroyed completely and regimes in countries like Syria, Libya and Iran removed just like the Nazis were removed from power in Germany in 1945.

[Gary]

My first choice in England is actually the English Democrats
http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/
And no they are not a racist party and have put up several Black and Asian candidates for election.

[Gary]

By the way the SAJR have just shown how leftwing they really are with your contention that the Labour Party and Ehud Barak are too leftwing?
What do they want?
Hadash?

[ZionistYoungster]

I did not advocate genocide anywhere--neither here nor on my blog nor elsewhere. The question of what to do when combatants hide among civilians is a question of rules of warfare; intentionally lining up civilians to kill them is something else entirely, and I don't even try to begin to approach it.

The Allies did not have to kill all the Germans in order to stamp out Nazism. But they didn't try to "win the hearts and minds" of the conquered Germans either. What they did was, they took over the education of Germany entirely, so that by 1960 there was no German child who had any inkling of a Nazi upbringing. In the meantime, of course, the Allies suppressed the insurgency of the Nazi remnants with an iron fist.

But I think even the US invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake. It was a mistake because it was premature--dealing with the enemy far away while there are so many of the enemy at home. First step, before going on to the offensive, must be to expel all the Muslims where we are now--from within and near every non-Muslim state. Then the war can be taken abroad. Step Zero is to cut out all the appeasement--no more concessions to the Muslims in either land or culture, and no more wrong-headed "tolerance" in the guise of "listening to the Other's narrative". They want the whole world under shariah law; we don't want to live under shariah law; therefore our only choice is to fight them until they permanently give up on their dream of putting us under shariah law. That's all there is to it.

[Simple Jew in Jerusalem]

I am an ex South African who has been living in Israel for the past 15 years.

I enjoy reading this blog and I have read every post since I first learned of it. You generally do an excellent job, in a professional manner. Far better than I would be able to do.

I am a member of the Likud, and I voted for Feiglin.

Here is why:

All the comments here have completely missed the point - and the main reason he did so well in this election.

It is not surprising, because it would be extremely difficult for non residents of Israel to appreciate and understand what traditional and religious Jews of all stripes is Israel are going through lately.

The majority of people who voted for Feiglin, voted for him NOT because of any policy he may have toward the Arabs and terrorism (Bibi may have better or more practical ideas), but because of how traditional and religious Jews have been treated in Israel by the Israeli government and "law" enforcement authorities.

There is a general feeling among traditional and religious Jews in Israel that the democratic nature of the state is a facade or at least does not exist for them. That the government constantly perpetrates crimes of Anti Semitism that would create a complete uproar if they were to occur in any other country

Traditional and religious Jews in Israel are treated like third class citizens or worse! The evidence and cases are so overwhelming it is difficult to know where to start. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head.

* Several years ago a Yeshiva in the old city called the police to complain about being harassed by a gang of Arabs. The police yassam unit certainly arrived. But before asking any questions, they immediately began beating people in the yeshiva mercilessly. The Rosh Yeshiva was hospitalized. I personally know people who were there and can verify the story. Needless to say it was not reported in the mainstream Israeli press.

* Last Rosh Hashanah there was a minyan at the Kottel HaKatan - the little Western Wall. At Mussaf time the Shaliach Tsibbur - Chazan - was blowing the shoffar in the middle of the main Amiddah as is Sfardi custom. An Arab called the police to "complain" about the shofar blowing. They immediately arrived and declared "that's enough blowing" and dragged the still davening Chazan away in the middle of the main Amidah and placed him under arrest.

* Police are routinely given illegal orders to beat religious Jews "to teach them a lesson". The victims range from elderly Haredim in Mea Shearim, to women and young children in or near legal demonstrations, to simply individuals in public parks minding their own business. The evidence and case history for this is just too overwhelming. I will be glad to provide more evidence and specific names and dates if requested.

* Complaints are routinely ignored by the "justice" Israeli system, and police involved go on to get promotions.

* As opposed to this, yesterday a female police officer was suspended for striking an Arab.

* When two identical cases are brought to an Israeli court, they give one ruling if the defendant is a religious Jew and another if he is an Arab or "enlightened" Jew. There have been cases where the same court in the same week has given different rulings depending on the identity of the defendant. I will be glad to provide more evidence and specific names and dates if requested.

[Steve]

Wow Simple Jew.

That is terrible. It must be horrific living there. Diaspora communities should start raising funds in order to help rescue the Jews of Israel.

[Hillel]

Steve, are you suggesting that the complaint isn't valid, or that you think some people are more equal before the law than others?

Indeed, SJ's comment is, as (s)he rightly points out, one of the few that actually go to the substance of the post i.e. Feiglin's appeal.

It's always easy being an arm-chair general and then deciding when it's time to bring the troops home. Maybe if diaspora Jews stopped collecting money and started making aliya things would improve.

[Steve]

Hillel please tell me you don't believe that bull.

"Police are routinely given illegal orders to beat religious Jews...in public parks minding their own business."

Such horrors. Diaspora Jewry should act to rescue Jews suffering from this brutal fascism. We should collect money to ship Jews out of Israel.

[Brett]

Steve

'Bull'??

There is proof, never mind evidence. I'm sure SJ would like to elaborate more but I'll mention the event that has stuck in my mind. During the disengagement the chief of police in charge of troops doing the forced evacuations was caught on news camera telling his men to beat the religious Jews. He was not removed from his position.

SJ exaggerates in that he gives the impression it happens everyday, but is does happen and does happen regularly!

Your sarcasm is also in bad taste - Hillel makes a good point

[Steve]

I don't get Hillel's point.

Why should Diaspora Jews make aliya to a place that routinely beats religious Jews simply minding their own business in parks?

Is Israel more dangerous for religious Jews than the Diaspora where they can get a fair hearing?

[Simple Jew in Jerusalem]

I am sorry if I implied that it happens every day, but it does happen way too often. I will try to compile some more clips from the news.

There was also an incident where the police submitted a false video of a briefing to investigators, where "the bad parts" were edited out

This from today's headlines:

Legal Forum: Why the Police Bias Against Jews?

The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel has demanded that police immediately dismiss policemen who beat Jews, just like it immediately dismissed the female border policeman who reportedly hit an Arab last week. “We are sorry that to punish violent policemen who beat Jews in Amona we had to go the Supreme Court, while policemen who hit Arabs are dismissed immediately,” said Nahi Eyal, Director of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel. Eyal demanded that a single standard be employed for both Jews and Arabs

[Steve]

If it does occasionally happen then it is a shame. But should fight to get equality for all before the law? Feiglin would not bring balance for Arabs who suffer discrimination.

You make it sound as if these problems occur as a matter of 'routine'.

There is also context. Amona was basically a conflict area.

But I still await evidence about the police who were ordered to beat religious Jews who were minding their own business in the parks.

Lets hope that all policemen who break the law (or follow their illegal orders to beat religious Jews) are punished. Lets also hope that the Haredim who intimidate and attack people in mea shearim also meet their justice.

A Rabbi from South Africa's wife told me last week how her daughter (a frum girl) was attacked and had dust thrown at her in mea shearim. She said the police told her that there is nothing they can do.

I cant believe how the police will beat religious Jews in parks (not every day but occasionally) yet put such small efforts into curbing the violence in mea shearim.

Maybe it's all about "violence begets violence" as Kasrils says?

[Hillel]

Steve, you make a good point. Why should they make aliya to an anti-Jewish country? Maybe you should ask Yuli Tamir that, maybe she'll include that in her next syllabus rewrite.

While you're considering where to move to, I think you should consider South Africa. In SA, Jews are routinely portrayed in a balanced fashion and they don't have to obsequiously suck up to the national broadcaster to get a fair hearing. In addition, Jews are not regularly meeting with government to beg for equal treatment and to get empty assurances of their rights, place in SA and freedom to support the causes of the conscience.

There's even a body called the Freedom of Expression Institute that specifically endorses everybody's right to hold the same opinions as government and various approved and endorsed terrorists.

If SA is a little too far south, I hear the weather in Zim is lovely, prices are particularly cheap. If you're looking for something a little intellectual and cultured I here France is lovely this time of year, especially for young girls riding the trains with a Magen Dovid.

Perhaps my point is that I naively thought diaspora Jews would provide a balanced external opinion on the rubbish and anti-semitism that goes on in Israel in the name of balance, liberalism and pluralism.

[Steve]

Hillel,

Lets not confuse the wave of post Zionism with overly dramatic accounts of religious Jews being physically beaten ("routinely") for no reason.

I definitely am not a post Zionist and believe that there have been problems in the education ministry way before Yuli Tamir arrived on the scene. (The book "the Jewish State - the battle for Israel's soul gives a great account of this.)

[Brett]

Steve and SJ

You're both exaggerating. I have been here a while and have not heard of any 'random' beatings of religious Jews - there is always some conflict that sparked it. But there can be no doubt that there is a police bias against religious Jews. But that police bias was one aspect of SJ's point - this bias is pervasive across Israeli society and the pseudo-intellectual Israeli left have spawned some of the most vile anti semitism I have seen yet. And the press is simply disgusting in its distortion of the truth. That said I expect no better from reporters anyway.

Regarding the Aliyah issue - whilst it may be bad here in terms of academic anti semitism you cannot compare it to the violent (or possibly so on to be violent) anti semitism in the rest of the world. If more religious Jews made aliyah then the situation will improve. The opposite is true for the diaspora.

Regarding the behaviour of 'religious' Jews in Mea Shearim - assaulting other Jews. This is disgusting and not religious in any sense of the word. There is no excuse other than to point out that it is a miniscule number of people and condemned by any legitimate Jewish authority.

[Hillel]

1) I don't agree that Feiglin wouldn't aim to achieve impartiality before the law. In any event, it can't be worse than the ridiculous and untenable situation at the moment, not to mention that Feiglin isn't running for the Supreme Court but for Prime Minister ... two different things.

2) These things are in fact a matter of routine, maybe not daily but definitely underreported.

3) Evidence (and a pretty good summary of the problem you're so easily dismissing too):
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557466184&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[Sarah Honig, JPOST, Another Tack: Niso, Nadia and others]

4) How exactly are the actions of private citizens in Hotspot neighbourhoods relevant to police action (or inaction) for that matter?
What have you achieved by slandering a sizeable percentage of the Israeli population on the basis of isolated (although altogether too frequent) incidents?

[Hillel]

"Lets not confuse the wave of post Zionism with overly dramatic accounts of religious Jews being physically beaten ("routinely") for no reason."

I assume you're referring to Israeli post Zionism.

1) The accounts, though dramatic, are not "overly dramatic". The overly dramatic is the machismo coming from the police. 3000 people to evacuate 30 people, of whom 12 are children?

2) I strongly believe the two are in fact related (post-Zionism and the anti-religious hatred) - they stem from the same place, and manifest in the same ways ... indeed, it's often the same victims.

[Steve]

Brett,
Of course I support aliya. My sarcastic response is purely directed at SJ's overly dramatic depictions of the situation.

The secular-religious divide is perhaps the most pressing conflict that Israel faces today and the Palestinian issue only serves to sideline it.

So Hillel, sarcasm aside -
Is Israel an anti-Jewish country?

[Hillel]

Sarcasm aside ...

A few serious thoughts:

1) I reiterate that I don't think SJ is being overly dramatic.

Other than this line:
Traditional and religious Jews in Israel are treated like third class citizens or worse! and the word "dragged", (which I assume was used in non-litteral sense, though indeed if he was in the middle of Shmona Esre and refused to move his legs maybe not be metaphorical), I don't think the post was particularly emotive.

2) Is Israel anti-semitic
There isn't space here, send me your email address, I'm sure Brett will have a few points too.
If the idea is simple enough to summarise, and it's not, I would suggest the key point is as follows. The country is not anti-semitic so long as you believe in the version of judaism being preached by the government of the day, and agree with the government's definition of "jewish".

[Simple Jew in Jerusalem]

Steve,

You are putting words into my mouth.

I never said that the people in the park (Gan Sacher) were beaten.

The examples that I gave were just off the top of my head, and were gathered from incidents that occurred over a period of about 2 years. They were NOT exaggerated - unfortunately

Police do beat Jews - elderly, women and children - but there is always an "excuse" - not "random"! The people in the park were all wearing kippot and were in a small group of about 5/7. They were from Efrat and had come to the spacious park to practice martial arts. Since they were not from Jerusalem, somehow the police did not think they had the right to be there and arrested them for some unspecified reason. The fact they had Kippot raised the police's "suspicion".

That is DISCRIMINATION only because they were religious and (gasp) "settlers".

What about the many young girls 12 -14 who sat for many months in prison with out trial because some of them were participating in LEGAL demonstrations, and others just happened to be passing by.

What other country would "evacuate" 10 000 Jews from their home simply because they were Jews, and - for all intent and purposes - leave them to fend for themselves.

Hillel - he was indeed literally dragged as he was still in the middle of the Amida and refused to walk.

I find it ironic that I, who live here, am accusing the government of the "Jewish" country of Anti Semitism, and you who live there (and asks why bother making Aliyah) are defending them.

[Brett]

Amidst all the Israel bashing myself and others have been doing here I would like to add perspective.

The country is still the best place to be for a religious Jew. The infrastructure and even tolerance is better than anywhere else (except perhaps NY but America has other problems).

Religious Jews are discriminated against at times but the incidents while regular are isolated and even though the secular left has a general anti religious bias this is not felt on a day to day basis. The friction between religious and not happens in, and is stoked by, the media and in politics - on the ground many, if not most secular Israeli are tolerant.

One great irony - secular Zionism was n=built on the idea of settling the land - the great heroes of the left have been settlers. Settlements in outlying areas was what defined secular zionism until less than 2 decades ago. And now, that same ideology, championed by the left for more than 100 years has become one of the main excuses for hating religious Jews today. Just a thought.

[Simple Jew in Jerusalem]

Brett

Agreed!

Hillel - my last paragraph was directed to Steve (in case that was unclear)

[Steve]

SJ,
Once again - i was being sarcastic about aliya. I support it. I support it because i think Israel is the best place for all Jews, secular and religious, to live.

If Israel was as anti-semitic as you say then explain why so many Jews go to live there. Are they all being conned? Is there another country where all hotels are Kosher?

Perhaps you should make a real aliya to the US where it is a crime to beat other Jews.

You ask what other country would evacuate 10 000 Jews? No other country has a situation anywhere near to the situation Israel faces. Your statement/question is illegitimate in the context of anti-Semitism.

But go ahead. Make a real aliya to the US where it is illegal to force thousands of Jews to leave their homes.

Putting words in your mouth? Lets go back to what you originally wrote:

You said

"
Traditional and religious Jews in Israel are treated like third class citizens or worse!

* Police are routinely given illegal orders to beat religious Jews "to teach them a lesson". The victims range from elderly Haredim in Mea Shearim, to women and young children in or near legal demonstrations, to simply individuals in public parks minding their own business. The evidence and case history for this is just too overwhelming. I will be glad to provide more evidence and specific names and dates if requested."

Brett - i completely agree with your last comment. There are problems, there is discrimination (from both sides), the issued need to be investigated.

It's amazing - Arabs are treated like third class citizens, Ethiopians are treated like third class citizens, Sefardim are treated like third class citizens, all religious are treated like third class citizens (or worse!)...perhaps Israel should just disappear!

Not once last week was I subjected to any suspiciousness in Jerusalem nor Tel Aviv for wearing my yarmulka.

[Hillel]

Thanks SJ, I gathered.

I've spent the last two hours deeply considering the comment I made (about Israel being "anti-Jewish") and I hope it's clear it was meant in a very specific and limited sense. I agree whole heartedly that Israel is in general the best place for a Jew to be, and I often complain that people are ungrateful for all the state provides.

That said, there is a lot of insight to be gained from speaking quietly and intimately with a spectrum of the Israeli population. In addition, there is much insight to be gained by "dressing up" as one of the stereotypes (Jewish and other) and moving around in different parts of the country. Step into "the other's" shoes, if you will.

[Hillel]

Steve, I think you're being unfair in your interpretation of SJ's comments, and the discussion is going around in circles.

I also have a good sense of your dress sense and it's obvious why you weren't "suspicious". Try the same things dressed differently and you'll see.

In any event, this all boils down to the fractious nature of the society, peoples need to have an identity in a large melting pot and the unfortunate inadequacy of mixing (not to mention tolerance) amongst different groups. I think a longer trip next time will help you appreciate some of the nuances more.

[Steve]

On that note - I'll apologise to SJ for my extreme sarcasm.

Hearing the type of criticism that I typically hear from the Palestinian lobby coming from Jews triggers an emotive response.

The triangle of problems facing Israel could ultimately destroy her. (Sefardi - Ashkenazi, Israeli-Palestinian, Religious Secular).

I guess I should also be more careful when i use the word "we" because its obviously a very superficial notion nowadays.

I am not anti-religious. I am Shomrei Shabbat and fully Kosher. But I am glad that all Jews - religious and secular - can live by their own belief systems in Israel.

Ain lanu Eretz Acheret.

[Mike]

I feel a little out of my depth on this conversation. I am not religious and could not possibly understand the anguish that many religious (even religious Zionist) Jews feel towards the state. I was shocked to read SJ’s comments. Not only at the incidents cited but by his/her feeling of alienation from the state (real or imagined).

Form my outside perspective, I cant help but notice that disengagement seems to have brought all these emotions to the fore. When the state ‘turned’ on the settlers many religious Jews saw this as an attack on the land of Israel and the very core of their beliefs. This government has failed to promote post disengagement reconciliation and healing (along with many other failings).

If I have learnt anything from reading Joel Pollack’s blog over the last few months (while he ahs been in Israel) it is the need for us to get away from this notion that the ‘state must’. The only thing the state must do is enforce its laws equally. That includes dismantling the illegal outposts in the West Bank. This clearly is not happening at many level of Israeli society. As Steve pointed out voting for Feiglin will not solve this problem. It will probably make it worse.

I think we as Jews (of all stripes including myself) need to liberate ourselves from our individual shtel’s and look at things from a wider perspective.

SJ why don’t you start a movement not to stop anti-Semitism in Israel but to pressure the government into adhering to the rule of law in all cases. I have often found that when we fight against injustice generally we actually do more to end our own personal ‘oppression’ than when we only fight for ourselves.