Jewish Statecraft in Israel: From Ben-Gurion and Begin To Bibi (Daled Amos) ~ EoZ

Friday, August 25, 2023

Jewish Statecraft in Israel: From Ben-Gurion and Begin To Bibi (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The modern State of Israel, during its short history, has been blessed with many great leaders. They have been instrumental both in establishing the Jewish State, nourishing its growth and leading it past the numerous hurdles that have confronted Israel during the first 75 years of its existence.

But there is more to the Jewish State than just the modern State of Israel. There is the ancient, historical Jewish State as well. And don't forget that even after its defeat at the hands of the Romans and the dispersion of Jews into the Diaspora, there continued to be Jewish leaders both among the Jewish communities that remained in the land and among the Jewish communities in the Galut.

These leaders and their statesmanship are covered in Meir Y. Soloviechik's new book, Providence and Power: Ten Portraits in Jewish Statesmanship. He writes that

Statecraft is, at its essence the marshaling and application of available power on behalf of one people--and also in the Jewish case, the representation of one's people before the powerful. (p. xii)

In the case of the Jewish people in history, statesmanship applies both to the Jewish people when they are in their own land and when they live in the lands of other nations. It applies both to King David, Shlomtsion, Yohanan ben Zakkai, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin on the one hand -- and Queen Esther, Don Isaac Abravanel, Menasseh ben Israel, Benjamin Disraeli, Theodor Herzl and Louis D. Brandeis on the other.

Queen Esther in particular plays a transitional role in the evolution of Jewish statesmanship. Previously, under the leadership of the prophets, their job was to "proclaim what was true, what was just, what was righteous." It is the approach of Mordechai -- but Esther does not take a direct approach. Meir Soloveichik quotes his great-uncle, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, known as The Rav:

Esther, with her incisive intelligence, understood that no plea addressed to the king would produce any results. Hysterical crying supplication, begging would at best be ineffectual. At worst, they might cause the infliction of more harm. Since Haman had succeeded in brainwashing Ahasuerus and in arousing in him paranoid, mortal fear of assassins and rebels, there was no power in the world capable of dissuading him from destroying all of his imaginary enemies Could anyone sway Stalin form his mad designs? [p. 26]

Instead, Esther "could avail herself of one method, namely, to turn the tables on Haman...to arouse doubts in the sick king's mind concerning Haman's loyalty and devotion." Esther's strategy of inviting both Ahasuerus and Haman to two private parties raises suspicions in the king, which she takes advantage of when he becomes inebriated. Then, revealing she is Jewish, she turns the tables on Haman painting him as the one plotting -- against the queen. And we all know the rest of the story.

Esther's innovative approach is based on her understanding

that the new situation requires a new mode: a more flexible and realistic approach to safeguarding the Jewish people in a hostile environment, an approach that in large part must rely on instinct and an innate mastery of realpolitik. [p. 29-30]

He concludes that "Esther emerges as the originator, the inventor--the mother--of Jewish Diaspora politics."

Today, even at a time that the Jewish People have returned and re-established the Jewish State of Israel, they are surrounded by enemies. As a result, in addition to its advanced armaments and military strategy, Israel continues to have to utilize "Jewish Diaspora politics."

One practitioner of course is David Ben-Gurion, whose grasp of realpolitik made that re-establishment possible and enabled him to lead the country during its initial, formative years.

Another practitioner was Menachem Begin. Ben-Gurion and Begin are similar, yet different.

Meir Soloveichik writes:

The Zionism of David Ben-Gurion was driven by, in the Hebrew phrase, ahavat Eretz Yisrael: a fierce love for the land of Israel informed by close study of the Jewish history upon that land. Begin's Zionism, for its part, while no less profoundly connected to the land, was motivated first and foremost by what he would have learned in his childhood to call simply ahavat Yisrael (or, in the Ashkenazi pronunciation, ahavas Yisroel): the love of Jews and of the Jewish people, a deep respect for their beliefs, and a reverence for the covenantal bonds among them. [p. 166, emphasis in the original]

The latest practitioner of Jewish statecraft is Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not discussed in this book, maybe because the final chapter has not been written on Netanyahu's service to Israel.

As to whether Netanyahu's statesmanship more closely resembles that of Ben Gurion or Begin, recent events suggest a comparison with Begin. Remember when Begin was elected Prime Minister in 1977? Critics claimed that the new leader posed a serious threat to Israel as a democracy.

Sound familiar?

Abraham Foxman, the former director of the ADL, draws the connection between Netanyahu and when Begin came to power:

It was a shock to the American Jewish system because they didn’t know him. It was a very scary time. I personally knew Begin and I knew what he believed in. It wasn’t a shock to me, but to the American Jewish community it was horrifying.”

At the time, the Jewish leader who stood up for Begin was the leader of the Reform movement, Alexander Schindler, who -- according to Foxman -- made clear that "as long as Israel is a democracy and as long as Begin was elected by the Israeli public, we will find a way to work with them." Schindler got the Jewish establishment in the US to give Begin a chance.

These days, Netanyahu has the Jewish establishment up in arms, but without American Jewish leaders who are increasingly vocal in refusing to stay on the sidelines and are instead critical of his right-wing coalition and plans for judicial reform.

So just what convinced this prime minister that he could engage in such radical change to an established element in the government?

Maybe it is because this is not the first time Netanyahu has attempted a large-scale and controversial reform -- or has everyone forgotten the role Netanyahu played as Finance Minister in the modification of the Israeli economy?

An article on the MarketWatch website notes how Ariel Sharon, as prime minister, "paved the way for Israel’s transition from socialism to capitalism", but the finance minister is the one who put in place the necessary belt-tightening measures.

In 2004, The New York Times reported Netanyahu Gets Tough to Transform Israel's Economy:

As Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushes to reshape Israel's economy, he makes a similar warning to almost everyone: expect to feel some pain.

Mr. Netanyahu, a former prime minister and potentially a future one, has spared no one during his 19 months in his current post.

But he says an improving Israeli economy justifies his tough approach.

At the time, Netanyahu did not declare war on the Israeli Supreme Court. Instead, he decided to "battle strike-prone unions that he says are dragging down the economy." Then, as now, his measures were considered controversial and generated push-back:

In a country that is now mostly middle class but that has never completely abandoned its working-class roots, Mr. Netanyahu's efforts to make broad, market-oriented changes have met resistance at almost every turn...frequent protests against Mr. Netanyahu's policies may have political repercussions.

These were also large-scale protests as "demonstrators opposed to his welfare cuts have maintained a presence in tents just outside the Finance Ministry for more than a year" and political adversaries were outspoken:

Shimon Peres, leader of the opposition Labor Party, has denounced the government's economic program as "swinish capitalism."

Back then, too, the finance minister was accused of trying to do too much at once:

"I view his program as very destructive," said Barbara Swirski, director of the Adva Center, a private research group in Tel Aviv that studies social issues. "He tries to do everything in one giant step, and it damages the whole system."

Also, it was apparently not possible for Netanyahu to implement all of the measures he wanted:

heninHe is determined to go with a free-market approach, but there has been so much resistance that he has not accomplished as much as he thought he could," said David Levhari, a professor of economics at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

In another parallel, Bibi was accused of underestimating popular opinion amidst predictions that "the minister would continue to battle ingrained Israeli attitudes that favor a large government role in the economy."

Unlike now, back then Netanyahu was aided by the courts:

But the court also said that municipalities would have to agree to an economic recovery plan sought by Mr. Netanyahu, who has charged the local governments with widespread mismanagement.

But unlike then, today he faces unified opposition that is organized and well-financed and is succeeding in making the judicial reform into an anti-Netanyahu issue instead of addressing the reform on its own terms.

A good deal of Netanyahu's own statecraft has been focused on strengthening the state in the face of established political-economic interests. In the one case, he was clearly successful. In the current one, the jury is still out.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!