If it wants to survive and thrive, Israel must base itself upon three key concepts: identity, meaning, and liberty.
More than any other reason, “social justice” killed Moshe Silman. Here’s why: Who confiscated his truck and for what purpose? Social security. After all, what is social security, if not the mechanism established by the state to ensure so-called social justice? It is an institution authorized to take from the “haves” and give to the “have-nots.” And from whom will the Institute for Social Justice take if not from the owner of a moving company? And to whom will it give the value of the truck? To the tycoons? Of course not. It will give the truck’s value to the have-nots, or to those who know how to hide what they have.
If it weren’t so sad, the draft brouhaha in Israel would be the greatest show in town. It is a masquerade ball, a tragicomedy whereby each actor says the complete opposite of what he really wants.
The Levy Report on the settlements in Judea and Samaria was like cold water on a parched landscape. The committee members who drafted the report and dared to publicly say what every child in Israel can and should know deserve credit and appreciation. The report factually states that there never was an occupation in Judea and Samaria because no entity there was ever occupied.
The State of Israel is bickering over nothing. It is like a fight between a seller who has nothing to sell and a buyer who has no intention of buying.
During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to Israel, his Israeli counterpart, Shimon Peres, emitted the following pearl of wisdom: “The peace treaty with Egypt saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers from both sides.”
Those who read my book, Where There Are No Men, already know that no real struggle can be conducted by the Yesha Council. We understood that the hard way when we established the Zo Artzeinu movement, and we have since explained how we reached this conclusion in detail.
The photo of homosexual soldiers on the IDF’s official website should have set off many alarm bells for many public figures. But they were all afraid. The heavy-handed politically correct code paralyzes our representatives. They prefer to remain silent and let somebody else fend off the arrows that are sure to come. MK Uri Ariel (National Union) deserves our appreciation and admiration, as he was the only MK to courageously state the simple truth by calling on the IDF to conduct itself on this issue as it has in the past.
It is impossible not to notice the similarity between the Ulpana situation and the Sharon-led Expulsion from Gush Katif. In both cases a prime minister elected by the Right, whose ideology certainly does not endorse destruction in Israel’s heartland, veers sharply left and compels his ministers and coalition to support a Peace Now move – a move completely against their will.
The simple conclusion from the Right’s recent failure to pass the Regulation Law, intended to protect Jewish homes from being uprooted in Judea and Samaria, is that the fateful, strategic decisions are determined by one man: the prime minister.
It is difficult for some to accept the connections being made between Manhigut Yehudit and those who, when push came to shove, voted in favor of the Expulsion from Gush Katif. Both MK Miri Regev, who works tirelessly on behalf of every nationalist issue – be it the Ulpana Hill or the African infiltrators – and Minister Silvan Shalom, who has been a very positive force for the settlements and other national interests, were not in the right place at the critical hour. Many find our renewed friendship hard to swallow.
Some still think that the rightist leadership is actually capable of getting the State of Israel off the route previously charted out by the Zionist Left. They really think that the reason why our national train continues to speed down the Oslo track is because of the people in charge.
Unease. Déjà vu from Sharon's great Expulsion. It began with a column by Hagai Segal, who depicted the insistence of Migron’s residents not to move from their current location as a sort of childish stubbornness. After all, Kedumim was founded after it was moved from its original location and ultimately grew into a thriving community. So how dare those “children” of Migron, who never heard of settler leader Ze’ev “Zambish” Hever, think otherwise?
Is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s politically “brilliant move” just the opening shot? Will his next move be an attempt to inject the Kadima Knesset members into the Likud? Or is the prime minister planning another Sharon-style bombshell, such as enticing Likud MKs to join him, Kadima and Ehud Barak’s party in forming a new balloon party?
Two weeks ago, in my weekly column on the NRG website, I wrote, “Nobody really understands why Israel is going to early elections.” So when I heard that the election merry-go-round had been cancelled, I was pleased.
The Knesset factions are pursuing legislation that will institute an equal draft into the IDF – but something is fishy. The New Israel Fund’s propaganda has made inroads, and it looks like the upcoming elections will focus on haredi-bashing.
This is how it works: A minister or MK who steps out of line – opposing the destruction of the Ulpana neighborhood, for example – is immediately accused of “Feiglinism.” It makes no difference if the accuser is Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak. “This is simply terrible,” Kadima MK Nachman Shai explained on the afternoon news. “Feiglin determines the fate of the Likud MKs.”
Recent warnings by President Obama to Israel against an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities are reminiscent of the period prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. Then, as now, Israel was faced with an existential threat. Then, as now, the U.S. pressured Israel not to take action.
At the end of his column, “The Feiglin Bang” (published in Makor Rishon on March 23), editor Amnon Lord predicts one of two possibilities: Either I will lead the Likud with approximately 35 mandates or I will turn into the Uri Avnery (the radical leftist writer and media figure) of the Right.
The recent Israeli High Court ruling striking down the compromise agreement between Israel’s government and the residents of Migron was logical. It was a realistic commentary on the state of affairs between the government and the court. In truth, the question that was laid at the High Court’s doorstep was not about Migron and not about property rights. It was much more basic than that. The question that the High Court was asked to decide was to whom the Land of Israel belongs.