Israel Awakened

This book chronicles three intertwined developments of great urgency for Israel. First is the strange and eventful election campaign of Ehud Barak vs. Ariel Sharon, a contest on which Israel’s existence seemed to hang in balance. Coincident with it was the ongoing Oslo war launched by the Arabs in late September 2000, the violent and inevitable result of the false premises of the "peace process." Thirdly, this study chronicles the overwhelming victory the citizens of Israel gave Ariel Sharon at the polls on February 06, 2001 and the disturbingly familiar ambivalence about national direction that soon settled upon his government. Pervading and generating these intertwined strands of events, people and ideas is the core fact of the re-born Israel’s national life: a crisis of identity and purpose, and a resulting chronic uncertainty about the nation’s borders and its relation to the Land. Examining the consequences and symptoms of this confusion enables one to identify what is needed for malaise to give way to assurance and genuine (as opposed to paper) peace. Peace results from knowing and insisting on who you are, not by signing codicils and amendments, not by posing for photographs or from receiving awards. Peace depends on distinguishing self from not-self, friend from enemy. By February 2001, most Israelis had awakened to these truths but their political class would not, or could not. They continued to cry for, "‘peace, peace!’ but there was no peace." Reacting piecemeal to chronic violence, they stumbled toward inescapable choices.

Indeed, as Passover approached, there was a steady escalation of violence, as if in horrid parody of commentaries on Isaiah 60:22 and Zechariah 9:9 regarding the painfully slow approach of Messiah, "like a pauper riding a donkey’s foal." The Arabs shot mortar shells at Israelis within the pre-1967 borders (March 18 and April 05). These were acts of war outright. Retaliation was limited. Officers, like Brig. Gen. Yair Naveh who called for sustained deterrent action were silenced and IDF coffers and morale exhausted by a back and forth ‘zipper policy’ (04-18-01). With the intention (or in the guise) of instructing Arafat and his top militia commanders face-to-face that violence had to stop, Sharon and his security officials met with them in Tel Aviv and Ramallah, a form of the very negotiation he was promising would not proceed while there was shooting. On their way back to Gaza, the bodyguards of these militia leaders shot at Israeli border patrols (April 05). When the Israelis returned fire, the BBC and CNN blamed Israel. It seemed like a divine punishment for meeting with terrorists like Amin al Hindi and Mohammed Dahlan. The former routinely used his Israeli-issued VIP pass (part of the Oslo legacy of legitimizing the PLO) to stake out the houses of Israeli officers. The latter planned numerous bombing attacks on Israeli civilians, including one on a school bus November 20 that left two dead, 11 injured, and three children with amputated limbs.

The fact that the new government continued to speak of achieving "security and genuine peace on the basis of stable peace agreements" suggested at best a desire to placate the Labor Party. And indeed, Shimon Peres continued to meet with Arafat at European venues as if conducting foreign policy opposed to that of his Prime Minister, as he had done to Yitzchak Shamir in the 1980s. This was predictable, and raised questions about Sharon’s relationship with Peres. Sharon, too, was always a politician of the left, despite being a great General. In any case, well before Sharon settled into office, it had become clear that the "Genuine peace and security" promised by his governing platform will arise only through Israeli victory and clarification of defensible boundaries rooted in its history and heritage. Retreat from them projects confusion and invites attack.

If it does not identify itself and its legitimacy with its divine covenant, Israel will have neither peace nor life. It must take itself seriously. It must live its heritage rather than consign it to museums, study halls or lecture rooms. That truth is the upshot and subtext of these essays. The "peace process" and renewed War of attrition that was its inevitable consequence embodied a continuing identity crisis reflected in chaotic politics and uncertainty about borders. This crisis can be resolved in a way that leads to life and strength for Israel only if it takes its character and goals from the Books of Moses. Regardless of their degree of observance, Israelis (and all Jews) must recognize that Israel’s claim to its Land rests in its Holy Scriptures and in their Sovereign Authority. Israel is not a nation that can flourish or even live by being agnostic, much less, atheist or secular. If it turns its back on the Torah of the Land, there will be increasing violence and then another exile. Conversely, when Israel is Jeshurun, the "upright ones," forthright and brave in living its heritage, God will "ride across the heavens to help them." If they debase their singular inheritance into a series of bargaining chips they will suffer the fulfillment of the verse, of being afflicted "by a non-nation and a vile people," that violent historical fiction, the living and deadly lie that is the "Palestinians" (Deuteronomy 32:21). This verse has been painfully, instructively fulfilled since Israel failed to complete its victory in June 1967. The pain seems meant to awaken and lead it into the path of victory and life. As one disillusioned proponent of Oslo admitted, Israel "needs a spiritual revolution and a generation of leaders that acts out of concern for the nation and country. The youth [and not only the youth] must re-discover their Judaism. Otherwise, Israel will disintegrate because of its loss of identity" (journalist Dan Margalit, excerpts of interview by Hatzofeh, Israelnationalnews.com, 04-19-01).

During the first decades of the re-born nation, and especially after the miraculous victory of 1967, it became clear that Israel (at least its ruling classes) perceived themselves much as the first king of Israel did: small, weak and apologetic to enemies. After Saul won what should have been his greatest and most decisive victory, the prophet Samuel had to rebuke him for sparing the hostile king of the defeated Amalekites. "Is it not so? Though you are small in your own eyes, yet God has appointed you as head of the armies of Israel" (1 Samuel 15). The kingship had to be torn from Saul and given to another generation and tribe who understood that Israel had been commanded to destroy its enemies, not to conciliate or treat with them. One would think that the experience of the past decades had proved this point. By Passover 5761 (April 07, 2001) most Israelis had awakened to this truth. But much of the government seemed committed to sleepwalking its way through a problem that would not go away. The Jordan remained to be crossed. The Land had yet to be fully and lovingly embraced.

Jacob who became Israel was blessed with the patrimony and covenant of his forefathers Abraham and Isaac because he cherished and eagerly besought their birthright, despite the dangers and pain foretold for it (Genesis 15:12-14). His embrace of this heritage must be the pattern for the Jewish people and Israel as a nation. When Israel espouses its Land and heritage, confusion and surrender will yield to clarity of purpose and strength. Then and only then will there be peace.

These essays were written in the midst of rap