Letter to the
Editor - Foreign Affairs
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 facts1.
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 represents 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
[NRPS] 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.
 |
| Prof. Ehud Sprinzak |
In variance to Prof. Sprinzak’s findings, the ultra-Orthodox
associated with the Shas movement do not have animosity towards the
Arabs7. 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 Labor
party’s leading members of the Knesset.
Prof. Sprinzak interpreted the proclamation ''Netanyahu id
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 than 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 worse.
The writer suggest that the new Russian emigrants brought
Netanyahu to power10. I am disturbed with 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 later11. Indeed, the consideration for the
‘’shift’’ in the voting policy of the Russian immigrants was not
politically oriented but had strict economic considerations.
The writer also suggests that ''of the ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim
who voted in 1996, 95 percent cast their ballots for Netanyahu12''.
Indeed. Alas, this had nothing to 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, 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 any
political atmosphere, but simply the ability to gain more than one party.
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