aliza@manhigut.oaliza@manhigut.
23 Nov 2004
Totalitarianism of Ideas
By Moshe Feiglin
Israel is apparently a democratic country, and those who dispute this are not taken seriously. Every few years we all put a voting slip in the ballot box, the various parties compete for our votes, the elected representatives take up their new jobs, the losers give up theirs. So how can it be argued that Israel isn't a democracy? However, a strong sense of totalitarianism is felt by a broad section of the public.
Some people associate this feeling with external defects in the Israeli method of government, an accusation that is well justified. Israel is one of the few countries in the world in which regional elections are not held, so that the elected representative is not obligated to the voter but to his party. Furthermore, the judicial branch in Israel is in fact an oligarchy far above the people, that appoints and perpetuates itself, promotes values and interests remote from the basic values of the nation, and makes increasing inroads into the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Consequently the gut feeling regarding the real nature of Israeli democracy is well founded.
However, the method of government is only a symptom of the problem. Israeli totalitarianism is not one of people. A far more sophisticated form of repression is involved - totalitarianism of ideas.
Let's imagine a game with dice. Each child in turn tosses the dice, and records the results. To their surprise the children see that they get the same result all the time. They realize that something is wrong, and decide to check the dice. It turns out that the same number appears on all the faces.
This is more or less what happens in Israeli democracy. You can go and vote, or in other words participate in the game and throw the dice. You can replace the people in government, thus allowing the dice to fall in a different way from the previous time. But you can't change the number appearing. On all faces of the Israeli dice the same ideas are engraved.
On four different occasions the national camp has created an alternative leadership to the Left. In the first turnaround in 1977 Menahem Begin came to power.
Begin, an ideologist of the first rank, promised to set up "many Alonei Moreh", and then rapidly handed over all of Sinai, destroyed an Israeli city and an entire region of settlements. He was succeeded by Shamir, who valiantly resisted the continuation of the drift, but was in the end enticed into agreeing to the Madrid Conference, that formed the opening for the Oslo process.
Netanyahu, a gifted person, was elected in order to halt the madness of Oslo. This time also the dice fell on the right side from the personal aspect, and Peres lost the contest - but the result was the continuation of precisely the same process.
The last to appear in the gallery of leaders of the right was Ariel Sharon, the great general and builder of the country. He contested Mitzna, who supported unilateral withdrawal. Here also Sharon won personally, but implemented the ideas of his defeated opponent.
These four leaders were not trivial figures. Apart from Ben-Gurion, the Left has never succeeded in putting forward leaders having such ideology, persistence, ability, military record, and capability of getting things done.
It seems that in Israel the voters can choose between people (if only to a limited extent) but not between ideas. We need hardly say that democracy is designed to permit choosing between different people, in order to advance different ideas. The moment this principle was eliminated from Israeli public life, democracy turned into a means of handing out power and benefits. This is the explanation of the despair and lack of trust displayed by Israeli society towards its elected representatives and its democratic system. This is also the reason for the contempt displayed by the Prime Minister for the most fundamental principles of a democratic regime, for the aid he receives from the media and the judicial system for this behavior, and the inability of public opinion to influence this dictatorship.
The Left claims that because the Right is in the end always forced to implement their policy, this proves the correctness of their views. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that not only is the Right unable to act otherwise, but in fact does not possess, and never has possessed, another ideology.
The national camp certainly has different intentions, and has authentic links with Eretz Israel and its Jewish identity. But it has never had an ideological basis permitting it to meet the challenges presented by reality to the Jewish people in this country.
The fundamental tenet of Zionism, based on solution of the Jewish problem by means of a state awarding it entry to the family of nations - that is, by becoming a nation like all the others - is common to both the Right and the Left. The Left has attempted to implement this solution by blurring the distinction between nations ("integration in the region", to quote Shimon Peres). Jabotinsky wished to implement this solution using a diametrically opposed approach - integration in the family of nations by nationalist self-determination.
In one way or another, the people in Israel can only choose a single idea - that of being a nation like all the others.
The religious parties don't even participate in the game, since they propose a religion divorced from history, not a culture acting inside it.
Manhigut Yehudit is currently acting inside the national framework created by Jabotinsky. Obviously this framework is based on a real concept of nationalist self- determination, but the Jewish people is not just another nation. It has an exceptional history, other roots, and a different objective. The Jewish spirit introduced by Manhigut Yehudit creates a new idea. If the idea succeeds in advancing and presenting itself for real choice, Israel will cast off the chains of the totalitarianism of ideas and become a democracy, or more precisely a state of liberty.
(For more on this subject, view the article Democratic, Because it's Jewish: http://www.zionet.co.il/manhigut/en/view_article_manhigut_en.php3?article_id =425.)
--
Editorial Posting
at 6:41 PM
incredulous
Planning Institute (JPPPI) headed by former US envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross - the interaction between the State of Israel and the Diaspora strengthens Jews everywhere and is a crucially important factor in shaping the future of the Jewish people.
JPPPI was established by the Jewish Agency for Israel.
The JPPPI recently released a 600-page assessment, titled "The Jewish People 2004,: Between Thriving and Decline," that addresses physical, economical, cultural, and spiritual resources that are available to the Jewish people. The report also evaluates threats and weaknesses which worldwide Jewish communities face today.
The report accuses the government of not thinking through the possible outcomes of its actions, which sometimes have a negative effect on Jewish communities around the world.
One solution the institute offered is creating a consulting world-Jewish body, which would participate in the decision making process in Israel.
The report also points to the rising numbers of mixed marriages and declining number of Jews in the world, which currently stands on 13 million, of them under half living in Israel. Its states that the government should consider "accelerating religious conversion procedures in Israel."
The report spoke of five major dimensions to the complex dynamics governing the relations between Israel and the Diaspora.
The first dimension is the cultural and ethical aspect of Judaism. The report says that Israel unites and divides Jews at the same time, and that while Israel provides a source of honor, solidarity, and pride, it can also attract much criticism.
Politics and security was the second dimension mentioned. According to the JPPPI, the political and security situation in Israel directly affects the Diaspora. Increase in terrorism and perceived media propaganda in favor of Israel have increased solidarity, yet these factors also create confusion and have caused many Diaspora Jews to feel disenfranchised and helpless in influencing events in a significant way.
The view that Israel still lags behind the most affluent western countries, where large numbers of Jews live and prosper, directly affects the rate of immigration to Israel, and the immigration to the Diaspora, and creates the JPPPI's third and fourth dimensions: Economic, Social, and geographical issues.
The fifth dimension is institutional and organizational cooperation between Israel and the Diaspora.
The report states that Diaspora leaders and organizations have had limited impact on Israeli politics. It expresses the view that few organizations represent the Jewish people as a global "whole".
While major organizations such as the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress are used as a global platform and political instruments, the JPPPI feels that they do not represent the Jewish people in its totality.
political topics at the website,