In the elections of 5741 (1981), the Labor party received
forty-seven seats. Four years earlier in 5737 (1977), the
Labor party had crashed and only got thirty-two seats. In a
short period of time, the party increased its power by fifty
percent. A mighty victory in Israeli politics.
A short time after the elections, however, members of the
Labor party gathered to discuss their defeat. Instead
of a victory party, they held intense discussions on the
reason for defeat. The reason: Likud, under Menachem Begin's
leadership, received forty-eight seats in that election, and
Begin had the seat necessary to establish the government.
Labor's forty-seven seats left them in the opposition for
another three years, and that was a defeat.
Victory and defeat are not absolute terms. They are measured
according to expectations, goals and chances. In 5741 (1981),
the Labor party wanted to regain control of the government
after four years of opposition. The fact that the party
successfully regained all the seats it lost in 5757 (1977)
did not comfort its leaders, because they had failed in their
main goal. Conversely, the Labor party lost seven seats in
the last elections, bringing them down to twenty-six, and
these include several guaranteed to Gesher and Meimad, but
they still celebrated their main victory: their candidate was
elected Prime Minister.
Any aspect of victory or defeat, therefore, must be put in
the proper perspective. Shas, for example, gained seventy
percent more power in the last elections, but even its
staunch supporters admit that the ten seats they had in
Netanyahu's days were worth a lot more than the seventeen
seats they have under Barak. Yahadus HaTorah (UTJ) also
gained twenty-five percent more representatives (1) and broke
the four-seat-barrier. This is quite an accomplishment, the
result of much toil and hard work. But success must be
measured against the goal. If this amounts to more and more
people who voted for the movement that promotes Torah ideals,
then there's a reason to rejoice. One cannot belittle this
achievement; it was a great kiddush Hashem. But if the
goal was to become a force against the extreme, antiJewish
left, then it is doubtful if there is cause for
celebration.
These elections empowered the antiJewish camp. For the first
time in the history of the State, a party competed whose sole
slogan was the battle against Judaism. In a few short weeks,
it did the unbelievable, and over 150,000 Israelis voted for
it. Correspondingly, Meretz, a longstanding antiJewish party,
did not weaken, but grew from nine seats to ten. Altogether
sixteen seats -- over 400,000 voters -- voted against every
dovor shebikedusho. Although that is less than the
religious representation in the Knesset, it is a lot more
than in the past. The antiJewish camp, whose goal is to
uproot any trace of Judaism from the State of Israel, gained
power in the last elections.
Three years ago, when Netanyahu won the elections and the
antiJewish faction -- Labor and Meretz -- was weakened, the
commentators and journalists tried to explain the phenomenon.
Professor Yechezkel Dror, an expert in Israeli politics from
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said in a newspaper
interview: "I think that Labor made a fundamental mistake.
They did not take into account that most people are not
against religion. Most Israelis have a certain relationship
with tradition, and Labor overly identified itself with
Meretz on the topic of religion. This alliance with Meretz on
the subject of religion harmed Labor and caused them to lose
many votes in the elections." This is an exact quote from
only three years ago!
News reporter B. Yemini, a left winger, analyzed Labor's
downfall and wrote: "In the past few months, the debate over
the State's character intensified. At first, they promised
the undecided, who determined the outcome of the last
elections, that they are withdrawing from the territories to
ensure a country with a Jewish majority. That passed. When
peace seemed to be a realistic option, the enlightened began
to bombard us with the message of a "citizen's country." In
other words, not a Jewish country in any shape or form, but
an exact replica of New York. However, for such an exalted
goal, if the enlightened will excuse me, one does not need
the State of Israel. That is exactly what the many
traditional voters understood and they were hurt. . . They
did not need Peres' declarations against religion. They
absorbed and internalized the peace supporters' declarations
against religion. They read in the newspaper about the peace
supporting journalist who related how he specifically ate
bread on Pesach in front of the eyes of the chareidim, out of
spite. Although unintentionally, he became the symbol of
everything they do not want."
Journalist David Landau wrote: "Yossi Sarid, head of Meretz,
bears direct responsibility for the fact that Peres lost to
Netanyahu. Because of Sarid and his harsh stance against
religion and the broadcasting he authorized, many voters
refrained from voting for Peres. Their support of Netanyahu
stemmed from a feeling of embarrassment and revulsion for
what they saw in Meretz's rejection of religion -- the
secularism, a vision of a citizen's country, the call for
religious polarization, the demand for separation of religion
and state -- these issues are endorsed by only a minority of
the nation. In the last elections, Meretz tried to put the
(currently lost) battle of secularism on the bandwagon of the
(certain) battle for peace. Like the scorpion in the well-
known fable, they forced themselves on Peres and drowned him
and themselves together."
Only three years have passed since these words appeared in
the Israeli media. Only three years ago, the anti-religious
slogans knocked the Left out of the government and promoted
the Right. It was only three years before the upheaval of
5759 (1999), when the anti-religious slogans displaced the
Right and installed the Left! What happened in the last three
years? Did the State of Israel become more chareidi, more
Jewish, taking on a new image that aroused the ire of the Jew
haters? Did the Knesset pass any new laws curtailing the
reckless freedom of the secularists, that created a
nationalistic uprising against unbearable religious
coercion?
We all know the truth. In the three years of Likud's rule,
the disassociation between the State of Israel and religion
only grew. All the religious power in the Knesset was unable
to combat the legal agenda that catered to the desire of
every poreik ol who hates Judaism. Basic Jewish values
that had still been kept here and there, at least in public,
were completely disregarded. The religious camp in the
Knesset put all its energy into preventing anti-Judaism laws.
No secularist, even Tommy Lapid's sworn supporters, can point
to even a small point in which he will have to change his way
of living due to "religious coercion". No poreik ol is
prevented from eating whatever his heart desires, any day of
the year, when ever he wants. Everything is hefker.
Why, then, did the secularist uprising break out and promote
Lapid and strengthen Meretz? Why was Ehud Barak able to
become Prime Minister by riding on the waves of anti Jewish
incitement, when three years ago Netanyahu won due in no
small measure to the nation's revulsion to the very same type
of incitement? There is no one answer to these questions. An
intense reckoning must be made, far away from the tumult of
the victory parties. We must draw conclusions that compel us
to try to fix past mistakes today. As a gut feeling, it seems
that one conclusion is to minimize provocative words while
attempting to mix into the secularists' lives.
During Netanyahu's government, there were a number of
chareidim who appointed themselves watchmen of the secular
camp, and contributed in no small measure to the public's
anger against chareidim. Their actions did not gain anything.
Their words had no practical influence, but merely served to
incite and anger. When a chareidi man, especially if he is a
communal figure, speaks against a secular event and threatens
to thwart it in one way or another, although he knows in
advance that there is nothing backing up his words, that is
enough to create an image of unbearable chareidi control of
the secularists' lives. We wrote about this in the past. We
protested this many times, but there are those who thrive on
this type of advertisement. What do we have to do with
abominable productions? What do we have to do with strange
processions that no Jewish foot would approach? Why does
there always have to be some chareidi volunteer to assault,
threaten and intimidate, as if an Iranian revolution guard
has begun to function?
The basic fact that these headline-seekers forget, is that
they are playing into the hands of those who oppose Judaism,
who cultivate the group of vocal reactors, wanting to present
them as representatives of Judaism who want to conquer
everything good in the secularists' lives. What do we have to
do with the abominations of the secular camp? There are those
who speak about the "obligation to protest," but this protest
endangers our small accomplishments as chareidim. After all
is said and done, we are a minority in a majority of
secularists; even if most of them are not anti-religious,
they do not want any interference in their personal lives.
Definitely not by force.
The foundation of chareidi representation has to be a feeling
of the golus we are in. A bitter golus among
misguided brothers. One must take positive steps to ignite
the light of Judaism in every corner. But not to anger or
incite in a nonconstructive fashion. That is not our job.
Only last week, there was a media event (Eurovision, a song
competition) that was considered a highlight of the secular
culture. Once again, irresponsible chareidim threatened to
explode the event, as if nothing had changed since 3
Sivan.
Once again the headlines proclaimed that the police force
will protect the event from Palestinian terrorists and
chareidi demonstrators . . . If we do not learn our lesson,
we will find ourselves in the next elections, up against an
increasingly powerful secular protest. Only if we work on
building a spiritual infrastructure far from the public eye,
diligently and with self sacrifice, will we be able to reach
our goal.
