Time for Regime Change
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
1) The people of Israel know that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is incompetent, that he not only tolerates missile attacks on Sderot, but also enormous arms shipments to terrorists in Gaza . The people also know, or have reason to believe, that Olmert should be indicted for various criminal offenses .
2) The people know that Amir Peretz is not qualified to be Israel ’s Defense Minister .
3) The people know—and high-ranking reserve officers have publicly declared—that Chief of General Staff Lt . -Dan Halutz should resign in view of his abysmal failure in last summer’s war in Lebanon .
4) Further, the people have no confidence not only in the Olmert government, but also in Israel ’s system of governance, whose fragmented and dysfunctional nature has fostered widespread corruption at home and existential dangers from abroad.
Faced with this internal malaise on the one hand, and genocidal threats on the other—and seeing only a further deterioration of Israel’s security—a group of eminent civilians and generals should call upon Mr . Olmert and tell him to dissolve his government, that failure to do so will compel them to call for mass demonstrations which will not cease until the government resigns .
New elections should be held within 21 days to place competent people in key positions of government . While the new government conducts the affairs of state, it must appoint a committee to draft a national constitution within two months . A sound constitution for Israel —conceived preeminently as a Jewish nation—will include these features:
-
1) The inept and corrupt system of multi-party coalition government will be replaced by a nationally elected President having Executive powers and a fixed term of office .
2) Members of the President’s cabinet will hold no other public office .
3) Contrary to the plan of Avigdor Lieberman, the Executive branch will be checked by a strong Legislature possessing the power of administrative oversight to prevent corruption .
4) Members of the Legislature will have a fixed term of office and will be individually elected by the people in regional elections .
5) The President’s appointment of cabinet ministers will require the Legislature’s approval .
6) All treaties will be ratified by an extraordinary majority of a plenum of the Legislature
7) The President, with the advice of a council learned in secular and Jewish law, will nominate Supreme Court judges whose appointment will require the approval of the Legislature.
8) The Constitution will stipulate, as its paramount principle, that Israel is a Jewish nation, and that all other principles are subordinate thereto.
9) The draft Constitution will be submitted to the legislature for approval, and the legislature will have 21 days to make amendments. The draft Constitution will be submitted to a Committee on Style to make it comprehensible to the general public. (This latter consideration should guide the constitutional committee.)
10) The Constitution will be submitted to a national referendum .
The first priority, however, is to rid Israel of its disastrous Olmert government. But to minimize the probability of political incompetents and scoundrels returning to power, a high-toned constitution must be established. It must be designed in such a way as to promote professionalism as well as Jewish national pride. Nothing less will spare this country from looming disaster.
I wonder how he would describe a “Jewish Nation”.
I have long recommended that peace agreements require a super majority. Thus if land is to be ceded in a peace agreement, it should require a super majority. This reinforces Jewish power in Israel.
Another way to do it is to legislate that only Jews can vote to cede land.
After all the Palestinian Mandate was to enable close settlement of the land by Jews. Thus only Jews have a right to give up this right.
Comment by Ted Belman
— November 17, 2006 @ 6:44 am
I second the ideas of Professor Eidelberg here. When survival is at stake, we cannot just sluggisly go forward and wait for the next election to come by, for then, it would be too late– we have to act. In a crisis of this magnitude, feebleness = death for us.
What angers me so much about the Olmert government, more than even their many other undoubted blunders in Judea and Samaria, is their abject passivity in the face of Iran– at least until recently, and even then, I highly doubt that Ehud’s action remotely matches his rhetoric.
Iran is on the verge of becoming a massive nuclear weapons state, covering perhaps the most strategic region in Eurasia, with a large population, united in hatred against Israel, and led by a messianic bunch of nuts (not just Ahmedinejad) would be proud to “martyr” their people in exchange for wiping out Israel. Bush and Condi Rice are wallowing in their own political excrement too much to actually deal with this threat, so that they punt it over to “diplomacy,” aka giving Iran ample breathing room to pretend to be cooperative while further developing its arsenal. Hmm, I’ve seen this revolting movie before– 1938, the Munich Pact, Neville Chamberlain, selling out the Jews to protect their own sorry hides.
Even worse, now the Bush Administration seems to be planning to unequivocally take the side of the Shiites in Iraq as the most politically expedient course of action– with the Shiites, of course, being loyal to Iran. So Iran also gets almost complete control of southern Iraq, perhaps the most resource-rich region in the world!
So much for the USA being a friend of Israel– just like I always suspected, the United States gives lip service to allying with Israel but where the rubber meets the road, sells us out and offers us up as a sacrifice to Iran to help smooth its own humiliating exit in defeat out of a mess of its own making.
Our survival can only come from our own actions, and we need to stop pretending that everything we do has to be convenient for the United States. They’ve shown how eager they are to appease Iran, and whether or not they have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, they clearly intend to do nothing to confront the Iranian nuclear menace– the Bush/Rice plan seems to be, let’s just passively acquiesce and let Iran rule the Gulf.
Not only does Iran have its own nuclear program to rely on, which is only about 6 months away from having nuclear arms– the Iranians have links with Pakistan, India and North Korea. Also with this recent looming US nuclear agreement with India, lots of US nuclear technology is being transferred to New Delhi which has a well-demonstrated record of such technology sharing with Iran, which means that even the 6-month calendar is probably too generous– perhaps 3-4 months for an Iran Bomb is far more realistic.
Our survival as a people now depends on having a government that’s willing to take action against Iran, as well as against Iran’s Hezbollah proxies across the border– but the Iranian nuclear facilities first and foremost. If we fail to take these out, nothing much else we do will help us much.
Iran is laughing at us, laughing cynically at the idiots in the US and Europe who meekly do Iran’s bidding with their Neville Chamberlain method for confronting them. They’re also laughing at Israel, because they know that Kadima is far too timid to act. Iran is preparing to wipe us out for good, and they have the satisfaction of knowing that they effectively have accomplices in charge of Israel itself.
It must immediately be demanded that Kadima act– not talk, not bluster, but act, and stand up and fight this Iranian threat. Right now, the Iranians see us as paper tigers, as cowards and as incompetents incapable of taking out their nuclear arsenals, which they continue to rapidly advance daily. If Kadima fails to correct this impression, they must be replaced, immediately.
Comment by Pauli
— November 17, 2006 @ 8:20 am
One thing to add to this– Iranian territory sits atop what is perhaps the world’s largest natural uranium depot. This is another reason that these idiotic “sanctions” that Bush and Condi Rice seem to have an adolescent infatuation for, can have no effect. Basically, Condi’s proposing that if Iran continues its nuke program, then its leaders would be denied the right to attend cocktail parties at big diplomatic outings. Wow, Condi, you sure showed them– that’ll teach ‘em.
The fact is, there’s a good chance Iran has already imported technology from other nuclear states as it is– there’s already a black market for it, especially from Pakistan, India and North Korea. Moreover, unless this US nuclear agreement with India, which recently passed the Senate, is defeated or blocked in the House-Senate Conference Committee which is to follow– which would be an excellent idea for too many reasons to name– then US nuclear fuel and technology passes to South Asia without even allowing US or IAEA inspectors to access where all that technology goes, and considering past cooperation with Iran, you can bet that Iran is whetting its appetite for more.
North Korea has decided that its only prospect for regime survival is to sell its nuke technology, about its only tradable asset, and Iran is obviously just about first in line here. So Iran has extra help on top of its own capabilities.
Again, the time constraints here are overriding. Iran along will go nuclear in 6 months, and with help from other nuclear nations, that perhaps shrinks to 3-4 months, at most.
This messianic theocracy headquartered in Tehran is on the verge of having its own arsenal of the world’s deadliest weapons, focused right on Israel, along with what amounts to control over the southern Iraqi oilfields and, crucially, acquiescence by Bush, Rice and Olmert and its plans. The US and Britain (historical ironies abound) are now in full Neville Chamberlain appeasement mode toward Iran, and Kadima seems happy to follow them like sheep to the slaughter.
Either Kadima finds its inner wolf and takes action, or they get replaced. We need to be active, right now, in pushing this. Israelis and Diaspora Jews, whether or not they soon plan on making aliyah, must unite to pressure the Knesset and Kadima in particular to change policy toward Iran to one of concrete action. If they fail to do this immediately, then we must immediately call new elections to replace them with someone else who can. This isn’t a time for misguided niceness or deference. For this reason I wholeheartedly agree with the need to institute some regime change of our own in Tel Aviv, and without delay.
Comment by Pauli
— November 17, 2006 @ 8:38 am
Sadly, the era of ‘great leaders’ is over. With very few exceptions (Australia, Danemark) they vanished. We live in the era of the Visigoths (Putin, HU, Chirac, Prodi, Erdogan). Olmert is a small fry and the entire team is over their sell by date. Bibi, an ethically challenged demagogue, whose main theme is:making a comeback.Anyone familiar with Bibi’s uneven history knows that under pressure according to Arik:”He panics”!
Labor’s Ayalaon is one of the few who could handle the job but I cannot see him doing it well with all the tired unfocused retreads he has to carry with him from the old Labor. There is an old saying:There was no porphet in his town! (crude translation) which is similar to David Gross’s allusion to “Holow leadership”!
Israel is in trouble!
Comment by ARamy
— November 17, 2006 @ 8:57 am
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1106/glick111706.php3?printer_friendly
Caroline Glick explains it much better!
Comment by ARamy
— November 17, 2006 @ 9:09 am
Some Questions to Answer and Some Considerations to Be Had
While generally concurring with Prof. Eidelberg’s views, there are some questions and considerations that come to mind that hopefully Prof. Eidelberg or others can address and thereby add to our understanding.
A. A Group of Eminent Civilians and Generals
1. Who comprises this group and who is the leader?
2. If this group does not yet exist, who will bring it together or what will be the catalyst for it coming together?
3. With the disappointment and anger Israelis had with Olmert over the war with Hezbollah, one would have thought that would have brought all of the grievances Israelis have had with Olmert and his government to the forefront and motivated Israelis to march en masse to the Knesset demanding Olmert resign, Kadima step down and that new elections be called.
That did not happen. Why not?
There were certainly those who eloquently spoke or wrote of the need for such action being taken, but no leader emerged to rally the public to express their demands in mass demonstrations and the like.
4. Who does Prof. Eidelberg say should comprise this group, who should lead it and what is it that each member brings to the table to qualify them for inclusion in the group that will be charged or take upon themselves the responsibility for such an important task as to force the government to resign and force elections within 21 days?
5. With the wave of public resentment and anger towards Olmert following the Hezbollah war, there were politicians clamoring for Olmert’s head. What prevented them from forcing Olmert to resign and to call elections?
6. Is it that the political system and structure affords Olmert the opportunity to stick handle around all calls for him to resign and call an election?
7. Just what does it take to force the government to fall and by when from such time does the law demand that an election be held?
8. Who does Prof. Eidelberg consider competent persons to form the next government of Israel, what are their backgrounds, their politics and what in his view makes them more competent then the current crew of politicians?
B. Appointing a Committee to draft a new national constitution which is premised on the pre-eminence of Israel being a Jewish nation
Changing the status quo and the established order of things that people and especially politicians have come to rely on is no easy task.
Prof. Eidelberg has written extensively on the matter of a new Israeli constitution along the lines that he sets out in his article. I suspect Prof. Eidelberg’s views in this regard have not gained general acceptance amongst Israelis and his views may well meet with opposition from even more right wing politicians for they too might feel they would have something to lose if such change came about.
1. How does Prof. Eidelberg propose to gain popular and majority support for his views on constitutional and political change in Israel and which eminent Israeli(s) can he count on for support?
2. Since these views initiate with Prof. Eidelberg, he would if he can gain support to bring his views to fruition in reality, who would he like to have by his side to make that happen?
2. What does a Jewish nation mean? Will Judaism be enshrined as a state religion? Will the constitution and the laws follow ancient Judaic laws? Who will Israel’s chief Rabbi be? Will he be drawn from the Haredim and if so what powers if any will he have?
3. Will the Knesset regardless of conceivable demographic changes, maintain a majority of Jewish Knesset members that will be at least enough to constitute a super majority of votes, with some numbers to spare that would be required to pass major legislation and constitutional amendments?
4. The Arab Israeli population’s birthrate far exceeds non Arab Israeli birthrates so at some point if things go the way they are, Arab Israelis could in time exceed the number of Jewish Israelis. It is not difficult to imagine the tensions between Arab and Jewish Israelis growing as Arab Israelis in spite of increasing size perceive they are being governed by Jews and that because Israel would be a Jewish nation with Jewish laws and laws that favored Jews in order to maintain the Jewish character and identity, that their rights are not equal.
It seems that Prof. Eidelberg’s proposed constitutional changes to ensure the pre-eminence of Israel being a Jewish state for Jews first creates potential for conflict, internal strife and ultimately a civil war between Israel’s Jewish and non-Jewish and especially Arab citizens.
What provisions could be incorporated within such constitution that would prevent such conflict from happening without watering down or undermining those provisions that directly or indirectly favor Jewish Israelis over non Jewish Israelis in order to maintain the integrity of Israel as a Jewish nation?
There are many more questions and subquestions that come to mind. These questions and considerations however are enough for now. I began and end with the expressed hope that Prof. Eidelberg or others will provide answers to the questions and further comments that will aid in our greater understanding.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— November 17, 2006 @ 9:35 am
On the question of Israel as a Jewish state. I can explain my position like this. If I was to live in Israel I would be in total support of Israel but I would insist no matter how long I lived there I would not be given a vote.
The reason being that Israel was set up in one regard as a place where Jewish people would be safe. That was recognised and forced onto Jews by the presence of anti-Semitism in the world. I do not think therefore that Arab Israelis should have the vote on the same basis that I as an Irish man living in Israel would not either.
This is not exactly what Professor Eidelberg is saying, in my opinion. For him what would be the position of a Jewish person who lives in Israel but is an atheist. This person would have studied history and would support and see Judaism as the key factor in the developing of the Jewish nation. He would respect Judaism. He would defend Judaism but he would not pray to a supernatural being because such a person, man or woman, would be a principled person in every respect.
And do not forget Professor Eidelberg attacked Theodor Herzl here just a week ago. I doubt if his programme can unite the Jewish people in this era.
I disagree basically with the approach of Professor Eidelberg. Bill above pinpoints some of the strife that would occur while the main problem, the existence of a fifth column in the form of Arab Israelis remain in the country, and they are a fifth column in the majority because they in the majority supported Hezbullah in the last war. And Prof. Eidelberg does not address that.
Nor does he put forward a clear political programme.
Yet it is a political issue, not a religious issue, and the political issues are paramount.
1. Israel must block the Iranian nuclear bomb
2. Israel must block the Palestinian fascist terrorist state being born.
These are the two issues that have to be pushed to the forefront.
I certainly agree with a group of leaders putting themselves forward, calling for a new consitution etc. I think that is essential and is part of a political programme.
But the two issues above are the ones which must be made central.
No Jewish person or politician should be dismissed so easily. We do not know Netanyahu’s present position because we have not heard from him. Find him and ask him.
The key may still be in the US and with the US people. Israel may have to act alone on both the issues above but it should not have to. The American people must not allow Israel to have to act alone.
I think that places a great responsibility on US and Canadian leaders, including Israpundit, Instapundit, Mere Rhetoric, Alice Springs and many others I do not yet know and the Jewish traditional organizations like ZOA etc.
We see now this Gay March thing was really a terrible evasion.
We actually have a programme for action… a very fine programme, well argued, which is based on the recent book published here for a Greater Israel. No question we have the programme that the majority of Jews and supporters can unite behind. What we are lacking is the organization. What the Professor says is welcome because although it is not the answer it can be part of the answer.
Bill, I talked to you before on this. You have a wrong idea on how the masses move.
I explained to you before that the masses of Jews in Israel did move decisively from the time of the Gaza withdrawal when Sharon was able to lull them to sleep, to the Lebanon War when all the polls showed the Israeli masses were ahead of Olmert and in full support of the IDF, and wanting much more.
The masses become energised when they see hope. THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADERSHIP. Bill, please do not go all Ms Glick on us and start blaming the masses.
WE have to solve this issue of leadership. Why else does Israpundit exist?
The Israeli mass movement is really the key and we must have confidence in that, or else there is NO point in continuing.
What we do from here on in is going to be decisive.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— November 17, 2006 @ 10:31 am
Paul
This is excellent . A couple of questions .
What is a “Jewish nation”? I notice that you didn’t say Jewish law would have precidence . Do you forsee that the legislature would have the power to pass a Bill of Rights or law which would take precidence over Jewish law . This would enable the country to solve the problem of the Aguna for instance .
Can agreement be reached for such a constitution? What are the stumbling blocks . As I understand it, the main problem is that the religious blocks won’t agree to limiting their power .
Comment by Ted Belman
— November 17, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Ted,(from Prof Eidelberg)
You have important raised questions .
I used the term “Jewish nation” because “Jewish state” has become am oxymoron .
I have a Bill of Rights in my draft Constitution .
Agreement? Unlikely, but we must get a constitution on the public agenda .
Jewish law? Tough question . Requires an essay.
Best regards,
Paul
Comment by Ted Belman
— November 17, 2006 @ 11:07 am
Some Further Thoughts and Observations
Felix,
I do not blame the masses for failing to march en masse to the steps of the Knesset and once there to remain and continue screaming their anger until Olmert and his government cry uncle.
Whenever there is general anger and dissatisfaction with government over policies or governance, there is no more than a lot of sadness, griping and grumbling heard unless it coincides with an election being called and the dissatisfied can voice their displeasure at the polls. Failing that, someone has to come to the fore to lead and give the masses focus and direction for their displeasure.
I noted that in spite of many in Israel who have spoken or written about the failings of Olmert that reflects the general mood of the majority of Israelis, no one took the lead and inspired the masses to follow to the steps of the Knesset and force change.
With all the great voices within Israel who have spoken out over the last year or so against Olmert, his weakness, his mindset, his thinking and his policies I am left to wonder why not even one of those persons was able to galvanize public opinion to stand with and behind them to carry out what they stated must be done to effect real and beneficial change for Israel in both the domestic and foreign spheres of Israel’s state of being.
When Prof. Eidelberg speaks of a group of eminent citizens and generals, I expect that group has yet to be formed and it won’t be until a leader emerges that can gather such group together.
As to your criticism that Prof. Eidelberg has failed to lay out a clear political program, what he has written here is merely the broad skeletal structure of what he proposes. I believe he has fleshed out his thinking to an extent in his other writings.
Still, before one can address a clear political program or agenda, I believe it important that Prof. Eidelberg indicates, if he knows, just who will comprise this group that he puts his faith in to lead Israel out of its quagmire and constitute Israel a Jewish state.
One can I think make the fair assumption that he would advocate that this group be drawn from the more conservative ranks of Israelis including the religious ranks, albeit not from the Neturei Karta and perhaps not from the more ultra orthodox factions of the Hassids or Lubavitch.
Felix, you state that political issues for Israel supercede and are therefore paramount to religious issues.
In respect of those political issues you identify two as being of utmost importance:
1. Israel must stop Iran from getting the bomb;
2. Israel must block the Palestinian state from being borne.
Without necessarily disagreeing with you, I believe that what Prof. Eidelberg is advocating is that Israel must be reconstituted from the ground up as a new constitutional state that while democratic, incorporates religious structure as well. The constitution he advocates will be to ensure that the state of Israel is first and foremost a structure to provide a home to the Jews as a nation and that the new constitution will also ensure that the Jewish identity and character of Israel shall be hereafter protected and preserved.
In a way, Prof. Eidelberg is advocating a state that does not follow the modern Western view of separation of church and state, but rather seeks to meld of the politics and religion of state in a way that will avoid the conflicts and difficulties that separation of church and state were intended to avoid.
It would be helpful as I indicated in my earlier post for Prof. Eidelberg to advise in this regard as well.
As to the political issues you raise Felix, the first of these issues is very much on Olmert’s mind as it is on every Israeli’s mind. Where controversy lies is in just how is Israel to manage to keep Iran from gaining WMD capacity.
I am not confident that Israel does have the resources to carry out an attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, let alone in so trying to avoid igniting a conflagration in the Middle East with all Muslim nations combining to attack Israel.
Compelling arguments have been made that Israel is merely the first in Iran’s sights to launch a nuclear strike and America and the EU nations are definitely next on Iran’s agenda. Those arguments certainly caused a great deal of concern and consternation within Europe, but not so as to have swayed the EU to adopt any different policies than the feckless appeasement policies they have been resorting to.
It appears that as of now and in the foreseeable future, the EU nations will not prepared to lift a finger to save Israel or even to save themselves.
As for America while it is militarily positioned in both Afghanistan and Iraq, such that it is strategically positioned to mount an attack on Iran, it is increasingly appearing that it has no will to carry out such attack. Rather Bush’s foreign policy is in a shambles and the entire American mood as to what to do about Iran is characterized by confusion rather than clarity.
Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that Iran poses a danger to Americans and American interests and they may even agree that the threat is immediate and grievous in all respects. Still their focus is more on what divides them as Republicans seek to hold onto and regain support and Democrats seek to keep Republicans going downhill in the polls so as to gain a full head of steam going into the next election two years away.
A lot can happen in two years and with Ahmadinejad declaring Iran will have nuclear capacity by February 2007 and findings of traces of plutonium lend credence to that boast, Americans do not have 2 years to make a decision as to what to do about the ever increasing danger Iran poses to America. In fact it looks like they have no more than 2 months to get their bi-partisan act together to decide that America will stand together and will use its might to remove Iran as a threat to America and in so doing it will remove Iran as a threat to Israel and a destabilizing threat overall to American interests in the Middle East.
Israel very much needs America to take the lead in taking out Ahmadinejad, his government and Iran as a threat and danger.
Whether America will be able to get its act together in time to gain the will and match it to its state of readiness and its military ability to take out Iran before it is too late, is a question that will keep many including all of Israel, on the edge of their seats.
The second issue about whether to block Palestinians from ever forming a state is the subject of much controversy in Israel with the left, the centrists and the right offering solutions conflicting solutions.
How all of these issues, political, religious and whether Israel can be forever constituted as a Jewish state contemplated by Prof. Eidelberg, very much depends on both circumstances Israel does have control over in terms of choosing the right leader if the right leader is there to be chosen and circumstances that are beyond Israel’s control but depend very much on what happens with America and the EU, if they can ever be moved to do anything but whimper, whine and appease.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— November 17, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Do not think for a moment that prominent Jews are not mobilizing. They know who they are. Sooner or later a letter to Olmert will be written and signed by all the prominent citizens of like mind calling for the government to resign. Don’t forget, Jews have always been leaders of revolutionary movements. They are agents for change.
It will be difficult to get a new constitution approved but it can be done. Likud and Lieberman are likely to 50 seats between them. If Kadima falls apart as a party then they will get a majority. They will be able to agree on a constitution and will not need the religious parties to consent.
Such a constitution should also solve the endless fighting between the Religious and secular. Civil marriages should be made legal and the exemption from the draft should end. The Haredim must be prepared to live in the real world and be exposed to its influences. The state should not be a party to there isolation. Solve these two issues and you’ve come a long way to ending the acrimony.
Comment by Ted Belman
— November 17, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Israel Risks Much If It Tries to Cut Itself Off From Orthodox Jewry
Ted,
I am pleased to hear that prominent Jews are mobilizing to confront Olmert and his government.
If those who characterize Olmert as being power hungry and willing to do just about anything to hold onto it, even to the point of putting his political interests ahead of the country are correct, then this group of prominent Jews will need more then a letter to convince Olmert to bow out and step aside as gracefully as he can.
They will need a hammer and convince Olmert they are ready to use it if necessary.
I hope therefore these people do have a hammer and can make Olmert realize they will be ready to use it if Olmert does not step aside.
You say this group will sign and send that letter sooner or later. I wonder what is keeping them and just what are the right circumstances for them to act?
While it may be easier to get a constitution agreed to without the consent of the religious parties, I am not so certain that is wise.
As I understand it, the religious parties have often been the tail wagging the dog.
The kind of constitution you envisage that will, as you say solve the endlless fighting between the religious and the secular, is I gather one that favours the secular over the religious or renders the religious voice of Israel irrelevant and no obstacle to the secular Israelis having a constitution to suit their particular needs.
In my view that could create a situation where it increases tensions between the religious and the secular Israelies, especially if the religious Haredim are disenfranchised by the constitution or are made to feel that way.
That sets the stage for considerable bitterness and rancour down the road between the secular and non orthodox Israeli communities and the Haredim communities. that spells strife that could break into civil hostilities that serve neither side nor Israel.
This group of prominent Jews also had better have the goods in terms of wisdom.
It seems that if things do turn out that Olmert is shoved aside and elections follow with Likud and Lieberman’s party forming a majority, prudence dictates that their power be exercised so as to garner as much broad support amongst all Israelis as possible.
That means that with the Haredim in a weakened position in the sense that they cannot keep a new constitution from becoming a reality, they must be made to see that their only option is compromise.
Faced with no option but to yield ground or be rendered completely irrelevant or permanently weakened, the Haredim likely would adjust their expectations and seek compromise as a means of ensuring that in Israel’s new constitutional society, their voice will still be heard and their influence still felt, even though they will no longer be in the privileged position of virtually exercising a veto on the will of the people.
I had previously noted my metaphorical view of orthodox or ultra-orthodox Jewry as being the sturdy tough root of Judaism and the less orthodox sects being the various branches and flowers of Judaism. If those flowers and branches wither or are pruned away by assimilation or the shears of anti-Semtic hate, history strongly suggests that orthodox Jewry will survive to grow branches, leaves and flowers yet again.
If my long held metaphorical view of orthodox Judaism does reflect historical and religious realities, then it would be courting disaster and risking cultural and religious suicide in the long run for Israel, to cut itself off from its orthodox Jewish roots.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— November 17, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
I don’t wish to cut them off and wish to make certain concession to them such as the predominance to Jewish law as opposed to western law. There are many things that can be ceded to them but I do beleve they must give up the exemption and accept civil marriages.
Comment by Ted Belman
— November 17, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
I am a conservative with regards to politics; however, I hang my head in shame for voting for Bush. On the other hand, I could not vote for Kerry.
Comment by Ed D
— November 18, 2006 @ 1:33 pm