The Editor,
Foreign Affairs,
58 East 68th
Street,
New York, N.Y. 10021,
U.S.A.
Dear Editor;
I would appreciate the
publication of my letter as comments to
the article of Prof. Ehud Sprinzak,
Netanyahu’s Safety Belt Foreign Affairs, July/August,
1998, [Page 18].
Prof. Sprinzak's article is
- with all due respect - grossly one sided, inaccurate contradictory to the
facts, and almost mirrors Richard Sheidan’s reflection -
''The honorable gentlemen is indebted to his memory of
his jets and to his imagination for his facts[1].''
Prof.
Sprinzak writes that “...Menachem Begin... pursued a hard line agenda, urging the settlements and eventual annexation of
the occupied territories”[2]. Not so. It was Menachem Begin who withdrew from Sinai, thus
enabling the peace process with Egypt to be concluded. Moreover, the writer suggests that the Likud represented the “pragmatic and parliamentary politics of Israel’s territorial maximalists”[3]. Indeed? It was the Labor government who
built Kiryat Arba at the outskirts of Hebron, Gush Etzion
further to Beith Lehem, Elonei Mamre next to Nablus, or Yamit
in the Sinai Dessert.
The
writer also compares the National Religious Party [NRP] to Kach
of Rabbi Meir Kahane. Prof.
Sprinzak should know that within the NRP there are those who will withdraw from
all areas in the West Bank. Comparing
the NRP to Kach is a gross unjust accusation. Indeed in order to ”make a point” the
honorable writer - if we may paraphrase the words of Thomas Hughes - “never wants anything but what is
right and fair; only when you come to settle what is right and fair, it is everything that he wishes
to prove, and nothing that you might think right.”[4].
Indeed,
many within the ultra Orthodox movement do not serve in the army as the writer
suggests[5],
but as the writer himself points out there are many who now do[6].
In
variance to Mr. Sprinzak’s findings, The ultra Orthodox associated with
the Shas movement do not have animosity towards the Arabs[7]. Indeed, many Arabs voted for Shas
in the general elections and Shas is doing well with the Arab
community. They dispute the “Israeli
left”[8]
but they did join the government of the
Late Yitzhak Rabbin together with Yossi Sarid of Meretz. Moreover, to date, the informal strongest
ties in the Knesset are between Arye Deri, the chairman of Shas
and Haim Ramon, one of the Labor party’s leading members of the Knesset.
Professor
Sprinzak
interpret the proclamation ”Netanyahu is good for the Jews” as “anti Arab”[9]. I fail to understand Prof. Sprinzak’s
interpretation. He knew well that the
slogan was “a reply” to the challenge of the negotiations with the PLO,
and an encouragement in regards to Israel’s difficult position with the Palestinians. What Habad meant - rightly or wrongly - was that Netanyahu
would represent the Interests of Israel better then Perres. To
conclude that same proclamation was “anti Arab” is grossly
misleading.
Indeed,
the writer did not forget to point to the corruption associated with Shas. Being a dedicated member of the Labor party,
he forgot that such corruption is not restricted to the Shas party, and
that both Labor and Likud suffered from such corruption all
through the years, and leaders in both parties faced legal proceedings and
penalties. Shas regretfully, was
neither better not worst.
The
writer suggests that the new Russian emigrants brought Netanyahu to power[10]. I am disturbed by Prof. Sprinzak’s
selective memory. The Russian emigrants
supported the Labor in 1992, brought down Yitzhak Shamir and crowned Yitzhak
Rabbin as Prime Minister of Israel as the writer himself writes later[11]. Indeed, the consideration for the “shift” in
the voting policy of the Russian immigrants was not politically
oriented but had strict economical
considerations.
The
writer also suggests that “of the ultra Orthodox Ashkenazim
who voted in 1996, 95 percent cast their ballots for Netanyahu”[12]. Indeed. Alas, this had nothing to do with these voters personal choice. As the writer knows well, these people follow
instructions of a restricted number of
leaders who guide their disciples in every aspect of life. Indeed, this is an issue to be attended to, alas, it does not reflect the
“political atmosphere” in the ultra
Orthodox Ashkenazim community. The political leaders of the ultra Orthodox community negotiated with both
Labor and Likud and the Labor
leadership invested efforts and time to win the hearts of these leaders, but to
no avail. These negotiations - by both Labor
and Likud - were severely
criticized, and justly so. The voting
does not mirror on any political atmosphere, but simply the ability to gain
more from one party.
 |
| Benjamin Netanyahu |
Regretfully,
the article reflects the writer’s unreserved resentment of Netanyahu, alas, unfortunately, this
resentment severely compromised the objectivity of the presentation expected,
thus reflecting a grossly mistaken analysis.
Zalli
Jaffe,
Jerusalem,
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה