Did You Know...?

That...

the longest street in Jerusalem is Menachem Begin Avenue.

15.7 kilometers long.

^

The Sputtered Upset of 1977

The beginning paragraphs of Prof. Asher Cohen's The unfinished victory Although it’s been 35 years since the historic political upset that brought the Likud to power, the Ashkenazi, secular, old guard, socialist, and liberal monopoly on power is far from over.

At first glance, although it may be somewhat simplistic and partial, the events of May 2012 appear to provide the perfect backdrop for the 35th anniversary of the 1977 political upheaval, when the Likud became the largest party in the Knesset.

The right-wing bloc appears stable, the main opposition party has been effectively shattered in the wake of its entry into the coalition, and the Likud's historic rival — Labor — has about as much clout as the old Herut party did in the 1950s. Was the late sociologist Baruch Kimmerling correct more than a decade ago when he described “the end of the ASOSL rule?" ASOSL — Ashkenazi, secular, old guard, socialists, and nationalists — ruled the state and society with a heavy hand while dictating social and cultural, political and economic norms. That is, until the upheaval. When we refer to them as the ASOSLs, we are also referring to their heirs, the ASOLLs – Ashkenazi, secular, old guard, leftists, and liberals.

Although it has been 35 years since Begin's stunning upset, and despite the events of the last month, Israel is still a ways away from the end of ASOSL rule. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that a political regime cannot foment change when it is devoid of a mindset befitting a regime that seeks to rule. The second reason is that the political regime has limited capabilities when it cannot wield influence in other key positions of power in the state. Those with the mindset befitting a regime that wishes to rule repeatedly return to their ideologies and their policies, which leads them to lose elections time after time. Their positions are not those that are taken up based on populist considerations, but rather they are absolute truths. Without political control, they will try to conquer other positions that enable them to wield influence. The opposite is the case with those who lack such a mindset. They make do with the political refrain that they will carry out their adversaries’ policies better and more effectively, an attitude that is encapsulated by the campaign slogan, “Only the Likud can.” They do not foment wholesale, comprehensive change that is predicated on an ideology that they espoused while in opposition.

The first symbolic event that foreshadowed this occurred after the upheaval. To everybody’s surprise, Menachem Begin insisted that Moshe Dayan accept the foreign minister’s post despite Dayan’s role in the government’s failure to anticipate the Yom Kippur War. Dayan was one of the driving forces that led Begin to sign the peace agreement with Egypt. In hindsight, it is easy to portray these agreements as a national achievement. It doesn’t change the fact that within a short time after the upheaval, the Likud orchestrated a move that was first conceived by a political rival that was defeated in the recent elections.

The settlement blocs that were built by the ASOSLs, including Yamit and Gush Katif, were evacuated by Likud governments. What is left of the proposed laws that provoked such an outcry in the recent winter session? The ASOSLs relentless attack effectively did away with elements that represented initial sparks of a ruling regime mindset.

^

Lessons of 1977

From Tzipi Hotovely

Lessons from 1977

Thirty-five years ago today, Israel's most famous political upset took place, catapulting Menachem Begin and his Likud party into power and ending their "long public service in the opposition." Since then the Right has held a tight grip on the reins of power, albeit with brief interruptions by the Left. But despite this ostensibly unchallenged control, at times it seems as though the Left has been at the helm of the ship.

In many ways, Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the strongest prime ministers Israel has ever had. His mega-coalition of 94 MKs only proves that there is no real opposition in Israel. Such a reality is largely a result of the Left's political demise and the Right's success in winning over the public's hearts and minds. The Left is more preoccupied with protecting foreign workers and reinstating socialism than with demonstrations against the occupation.

But alongside the seemingly all-powerful government there is also an outrageous sense of weakness. While the Right may be in power, on core issues it has remained mute. The fact that the much-derided Oslo Accords still govern our political thinking and that the concept of a two-state solution has still not been discarded in favor of a more appropriate alternative is a case in point. During Netanyahu's second term in office, most Likud members have endorsed the notion of applying Israeli sovereignty over Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Nevertheless, the fear of acting has trumped the same common sense that guided Begin when he decided to annex the Golan Heights despite the international community's hostile stance on this issue.

This is also the case when it comes to the so-called outpost arrangement bill. This huge government keeps embarrassing itself in the face of five buildings in Beit El's Ulpana neighborhood — homes that have been purchased lawfully. Once again, another case of governing phobia.

The media and the High Court of Justice have also played a supporting role in creating this situation. In most outpost court cases, the state, through the State Prosecution, failed to provide support to the Jewish residents there. A normal right-wing government would not let 350,000 citizens be at the mercy of the army and the minister of defense, which must approve every construction permit and land purchase there. A normal right-wing government would apply the state's sovereignty on Judea and Samaria's Jewish communities. A normal right-wing government would have continued the fight to cut funding to the Left's nongovernmental organizations, which have caused tremendous damage to the state.

This weakness should not be treated as a fact of life. Past national unity governments formed when the right-left divide could not be resolved; but this political gridlock has long been decided in favor of the Right. The stability of the current government relies on a solid majority on the Right, which would be happy to see Israeli law applied in Judea and Samaria.

There is a general feeling that every right-wing government harbors a fear of governing from the right. Every time someone cries out "fascists," we are struck with anxiety even if this is shallow demagoguery. We must make it clear to the chorus of reporters — those who like to wave at us the magic words "destruction of democracy" to protest any move that has a hint of right-wing ideology — that respecting the majority's view is an important democratic principle.

We now have a window of opportunity for this unity government to put its historical stamp on the Iranian issue and the issue of mandatory service for all. But this is also the time to change the status of Judea and Samaria communities so as to establish a fait accompli and to create the right balance between the legislature and the judiciary. Only then will the political change of 1977 be complete.

Tzipi Hotovely is a Likud MK.

Menachem Begin: Hawk & Liberal Democrat

At the Israel Democracy Institute site:

Is it possible to be a nationalist hawk and a liberal democrat?


Two IDI scholars argue that the answer to this question is a resounding "yes."

Although some people in Israel hold nationalism and liberalism to be mutually exclusive, former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was both a proud nationalist and an unwavering guardian of liberal principles.

Last month, the Jewish world marked the 20th anniversary of Begin's death. In honor of this occasion, IDI is pleased to present Menachem Begin on Democracy and Constitutional Values, a booklet by IDI Vice President of Research Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and IDI Researcher Attorney Amir Fuchs. Originally published in Hebrew on the eve of Yom Kippur, 2011, this fascinating booklet was distributed to thousands of readers of Israel Hayom, Israel's largest daily newspaper, and is now available in English.

Find out more here.

^

Does 2012 Recall 1967?

Charles Krauthammer recalls 1967:

On June 5, Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts. The Six-Day War is legend, but less remembered is that, four days earlier, the nationalist opposition (Mena­chem Begin’s Likud precursor) was for the first time ever brought into the government, creating an emergency national-unity coalition.


Everyone understood why. You do not undertake a supremely risky preemptive war without the full participation of a broad coalition representing a national consensus.

^

Will The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty Survive The Upcoming Elections?

In a story on the recent electoral debate in Egypt, the conadidates expressed a vow to review Camp David - In first-ever presidential debate in the Arab world, Abol Fotouh calls Israel an enemy, Amr Moussa calls it an adversary; both promise review of Israel peace treaty.

^

Begin and Jabotinsky and Israel's Economy

Zev Golan, who directs the Center for Public Policy at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies (JIMS), published an appreciation of Milton Friedman which included this relevant material:-

Ze’ev Jabotinsky was another major figure in the Zionist movement opposed by the establishment because of, among other things, his support for economic freedom.


Jabotinsky believed “every individual is a king” and the state should not impair his freedom. He noted that freedom of speech and assembly, majority rule, equality for all – are ideals that socialism combats. Practically, he advocated an end to the Histadrut’s monopoly over labor in Eretz Israel, which was preventing non-socialists from getting work.

This summer marks the centenary of the birth of economist Milton Friedman...Academics are divided on the question of whether Friedman influenced the policies of Menachem Begin, who became prime minister in 1977, the year after Friedman won his prize. The truth is Begin’s commitment to economic liberty drew from the teachings of his mentor Jabotinsky, as well as from the time he spent in Soviet jails and labor camps, and he advocated free markets all through the 1950s and 1960s.

“Private initiative is the least expensive and most efficient system,” said Begin, but he said his commitment to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the Bible’s statement that man – all persons of all religions, nationalities and races – is created in God’s image.

Jabotinsky wrote that the Bible is full of social protest, but not socialism. Its economic and social policy is one of freedom; rather than forbid or control economic activity, it deals with any negative results by means of institutions such as the Sabbath, tithing, the gleanings and corners of the field that were left for the poor, and the Jubilee.

Begin had always opposed Israel’s state-based centralized economy and as prime minister worked to end the government’s foreign currency controls and liberalize the economy.

The current prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is from the Jabotinsky-Begin school, and he, too, emphasizes the importance of markets and liberty.

Over the decades, Israel’s leaders have sought charity and foreign aid rather than investment. Herzl, Brandeis and Jabotinsky must have turned over in their graves.


...The irony is that though Zionism was long identified with the socialist kibbutzim, even they have been bailed out by taxpayers and are now building shopping centers. Yet the bureaucracy still wants to grow at the expense of private individuals. Israelis would do well to reflect on the relationship between their heritage and economic liberty. It’s all so ironic – for if the vision of such greats as Herzl, Brandeis and Jabotinsky were to be realized, Israel would not need foreign aid, its citizens would not need to take to the streets to protest high prices and taxes, and secular Israelis might not be so put off by their encounter with state-enforced religion.

^