Assessing Lisa Liel’s Response to Benjamin Kerstein's Essay about "Zehut"

[This essay has also been Posted on my Times of Israel Blog]

Since the word "screed" has become so popular in discussions of essays about the upcoming Israeli elections, this essay can be described as a response to the screed by Lisa Liel which attacked Benjamin Kerstein’s composition and argued in favor of the Zehut Party!

First of all, Definitions (from Merriam-Webster online):

Screed has 3 meanings in Merriam-Webster relating to compositions:

1. 1. a lengthy discourse
2. 2. an informal piece of writing (such as a personal letter)
3. 3. a ranting piece of writing

Rant, as a verb (of which ranting is a participle) has 3 meanings in Merriam-Webster:

1. 1. to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2. 2. to scold vehemently
3. 3. to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

Therefore, both Lisa Liel’s essay supporting Zehut, and Benjamin Kerstein’s essay exposing certain aspects of Zehut, are legitimately “screeds” – as they are both pieces of writing which scold vehemently. They may scold different things, but they certainly scold vehemently.

If some Zehut supporters have called Kerstein’s composition, “rubbish” because of its inaccuracies, which they don’t view as being as minor as they appear, then it is certainly appropriate to call Liel’s composition “rubbish” for running off in many directions which avoid actual response to the basic complaints against Moshe Feiglin and Zehut!

Liel’s title “The true danger comes from lies” is certainly correct (though that is NOT the only danger), but it applies to her and Zehut’s misrepresentations as well!

On a relatively minor issue: Liel even admits that what she calls ‘Kerstein’s misquotes’ “stem from the English translation of the previous edition of the ZEHUT platform which appears on the ZEHUT International website” – which leads to the question of why Liel thinks that something on the ZEHUT International website doesn’t represent Zehut’s outlook!

My views on the Zehut Party and Moshe Feiglin, and the basic complaints against them (based upon years of examining their statements and actions), can be found in my previous blogPost on that topic, and now I will relate to Lisa Liel’s essay, which, in truth, requires little response, since it doesn’t truly respond to the basic complaints against Moshe Feiglin and Zehut. Nevertheless, I’ll run through some things quickly, though I DO mean quickly, so I won’t delve too deeply – just comment “on the fly” about things that it sure seems that Liel has simply “gotten wrong”.

Liel begins with a picayune argument as to whether Moshe Feiglin’s attempts to gain power in the Likud were “quixotic” or not, and then she concludes that paragraph hinting that Netanyahu used his power within the party to make it difficult for Feiglin to succeed! What a surprise for that to happen in politics! Ask Gidon Saar and Moshe Kachlon about it! But for Moshe Feiglin who repeatedly proclaimed that the ONLY way to get his policies implemented was through a large party (and the Likud was the only appropriate large party), his “taking his marbles and running away” exit from the Likud, just because the fight had become “dirty”, sure seems like hypocrisy to me (but that is also a side issue)!

Liel then begins a name-calling type of game with the “Third Paragraph”. Really! Calling claims against your party (which are supported by some clear evidence) “lies” is just sooo convincing!

Then Liel goes on to argue about some more terms, in a picayune fashion. Though I don’t think anyone truly cares about the term “theocratic” (they are simply concerned that Feiglin may be planning to introduce religious coercion, through the “back door”, on topics he feels particularly strongly about), it WAS totally unnecessary for Kerstein to mention it – he simply opened himself up to a fight about that term instead of Liel having to deal with the real issues!

Then some more disputing of terms like “Christian Dominionism,” –  which, depending upon how you define it, COULD have things in common with Feiglin’s statements – so we waste some more space on that, and on the Jewishness of liberal democracy (which many Zehut supporters have told me IS un-Jewish, so Kerstein’s claim is not the “wild jump” that Liel wants it to be)!

Then Liel goes on to “misquotes” which however “stem from the English translation of the previous edition of the ZEHUT platform which appears on the ZEHUT International website” as we have noted above!

On and on, capitalizing on Kerstein’s admittedly poor choice of words in many cases, Liel continues to be combative, but does nothing to dispel the clear indications that the basic complaints are very likely to be true!

In her paragraphs about the “Eighteenth Paragraph”, at least Liel translates the Zehut platform correctly, in my opinion, but the term “hostile elements” is still vague enough that Kerstein’s concerns about it may even be too limited – it could easily include lots of Jews who don’t think as Feiglin does, as well as Arabs!

Then arguments about who is the bigger liar and who is laboring “under a demographic fantasy,” along with other demographic claims, which may have some basis, but are not as verified as Liel claims.

Liel also has a dispute about how bloody the removal of the Palestinian Authority could be, somehow assuming that the “rising unrest in the territories” would help ISRAEL in the end!

Then Liel has the temerity to compare the first Lebanon War – which, you may have noticed, occurred in LEBANON – to the situation in Judea and Samaria, a totally unwarranted comparison in my opinion!

Next Liel continues into arguments about “ethnic cleansing” instead of relating to the unethical nature of refusing citizenship to people (who have the Halachic status of “Ger Toshav”, for those of you interested in the Halachic [Jewish Law] aspects of this, as noted in my previous Blog Post, linked to above) whose living area you are annexing.

It just goes on and on, and in her comments on “the Thirty-fourth paragraph”, Liel states that ‘in a Jewish Press interview in 2013, Feiglin spoke well of Rav Meir Kahane, and said, “But I can definitely say that the slogan ‘Kahane tzadak — Kahane was right’ has proven itself many times.” Does anyone seriously dispute this?’

Leil is totally disconnected from the Israeli political discourse if she doesn’t know that most people very seriously dispute the statement that ‘Kahane was right’.

Specifically, Kahane’s statements of support for Jews who attacked innocent Arabs (which I personally heard at least once, and I heard several reports of other such incidents) – though he appears never to have made a statement inciting violence against Arabs before it happened – render him beyond the pale to all moral people (including Halachic Jews, of course).

Therefore, I certainly feel that what Liel says about Kerstein’s opinion (with appropriate emendations) is applicable to her pronouncements, “[She]’s entitled to h[er] opinion, but it’s a pretty sad opinion”!

Food for Thought about the Zehut Party and Moshe Feiglin

[This essay has also been Posted on my Times of Israel Blog]

Moshe Feiglin’s Zehut Party has been discussed quite a lot, especially recently, and I feel that it would be a public service to point out the core reasons for being very wary of what the messages transmitted by Moshe Feiglin and his Zehut party might mean, and to advise people not to vote for Zehut – therefore, I shall work toward those goals here.

Some of the people whom I have seen supporting the Zehut Party have even given justifications from Halachah (Jewish Law) for their support. Therefore, I will also relate to Jewish Law in certain parts of this essay.

To be absolutely clear, the basic complaints against Moshe Feiglin and Zehut are:

1. 1. Political Chauvinism (in the sense of “undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs” – the group being “correctly thinking people,” according to Feiglin’s definition of that), if not outright totalitarian thinking;
2. 2. Abusive, racist attitudes toward innocent Arabs (who clearly fit – even nowadays – the category of “Ger Toshav,” according to the Kesef Mishneh [who is Rav Yosef Karo, composer of the Shulchan Aruch] on the Rambam, Hilchot Avodah Zara 10:6, who states that the Rambam also accepts this – for those of you who wish to relate to the Jewish Law aspects of this).

Complaint #1 certainly seems supported by various statements by Feiglin over the years, including his statements along the lines of “Oslo traitors must be brought to trial,” which he reiterated to me personally in one of his visits to Bet Shemesh as part of his campaigning to gain power within the Likud. This attempt to make political decisions, as naïve and incorrect as the philosophy behind them may be, into something justiciable reeks of totalitarian regimes, and should be a red flag for all moral people to question the wisdom of voting for the Zehut party.

Complaint #2 also certainly seems supported by various statements by Feiglin over the years. One of them was the statement that ‘Kahane was right’ (from his 2013 Jewish Press interview), since, among other things – though Kahane appears never to have made a statement inciting violence against Arabs before it happened – his statements of support for Jews who attacked innocent Arabs (which I personally heard at least once, and I heard several reports of other such incidents) rendered Kahane beyond the pale to all moral people (including Halachic Jews, of course).

Additional support for Complaint #2 derives from the Zehut platform (the options for Arabs of Judea and Samaria given in section 5 [ה] of the “Stages of the [Judea and Samaria] Political Program” [שלבי התכנית המדינית] – which appear on pages 181-182 of the current Hebrew version of the Zehut platform which I have downloaded as a PDF file from the Zehut website).

• a. Option #1, with its “emigration package” for Arabs who agree to leave the territories, based upon an overly optimistic estimate of how many Arabs would emigrate if given the chance, is something that could easily degenerate into violence fomented by Jewish extremists desiring to “encourage” Arabs to accept the emigration package. The atmosphere that I have observed in almost all of the Zehut gatherings, leads me to fear that a Zehut government might be quite likely to “turn a blind eye” to such violence “to promote the cause,” and might even discreetly encourage it! Of course, the likelihood is high that Arab extremists would employ their own violence against any Arabs willing to emigrate – though I doubt that a Zehut government would “turn a blind eye” to that violence!

• b. Option #2 is simply granting second-class citizenship to Arabs, and even that is “after a period determined by security considerations” – a phrase open to many possible interpretations!

• c. Option #3 is a “long term track” subject to all kinds of examination of those Arabs who wish to achieve Israeli citizenship! It appears that this would be possible only for a minute fraction of those Arabs in the annexed territory, which, as we all know, is in direct contradiction to the behavior of democratic countries toward people living in territories that they have conquered (and I use the term “conquer”, since that is what we did in a defensive war for our survival, as we had the right to do!).
  
  
  Despite the claims of various apologists for Zehut that this is not so, the vast majority of the conquests by democratic countries resulted in citizenship for the residents of the areas conquered. One must relate to the major, large-scale conquests – like the United States conquest of “the Mexican Cession” – rather than to the minor holdings the USA has in the Micronesia area, whose final status has not yet been decided. In Puerto Rico the denizens have been granted US citizenship, and it even appears to be on its way to statehood – so that example does not support the Zehut apologists either!

In closing, I must point out that after encountering many cases of a person who opposes Zehut, or Moshe Feiglin, being called someone who doesn’t “value an authentic Torah government,” and/or other phrases implying that only those who support Feiglin are Torah-true Jews, I must comment that this type of behavior is atrocious, ad hominem attacking of people whom the attackers rarely even know much (or anything) about!

Of course, it is extremely difficult to communicate any facts which dispute the views of “True Believers” to those believers, but I am hopeful that people with open minds will, at the very least, be wary of what the messages transmitted by Moshe Feiglin and his Zehut party might mean, and perhaps reconsider if they were thinking of voting for that party.