Analysis from Israel
Recent news reports offer many reminders of Israel’s greatest strength: Israelis’ devotion to their state.
In Jewish tradition, the Sabbath after Tisha B’Av is known as Shabbat Nachamu, the Sabbath of Consolation. After the three-week mourning period that culminates in Tisha B’Av, which commemorates the destruction of both Temples and the Jews’ subsequent exiles, Shabbat Nachamu marks the start of seven weeks in which the prophetic readings accompanying the Torah portion promise that someday, the Jews will return to their land.

In Israel, there is never any lack of dangers to mourn during the three weeks, and this year was no exception. Iran appears to be racing unchecked toward nuclear weapons. Egypt, once a reliable ally, is now either unable or unwilling to stop the repeated attacks on its Sinai pipeline that have devastated Israel’s gas supply; it is allowing arms smuggling into Gaza to rise to alarming  proportions; and it may yet turn openly hostile after its upcoming elections. The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition as a state in September, which could lead to a third intifada and/or international sanctions against Israel. And added to all these external woes is growing economic distress at home, as reflected in the ongoing tent protests.

Yet in the spirit of Shabbat Nachamu, recent news reports have also offered grounds for consolation. For they show that ordinary Israelis, despite all the country’s real problems, remain passionately committed to the ongoing project of the Jewish state.

Last month, several papers reported on a group of Israeli college students who have launched a private effort to improve the country’s international image: They plan to send student delegations to overseas college campuses, many of which are hotbeds of anti-Israel activism, to meet their peers and explain Israel’s positions face to face. This month, the first delegation of 27 students will tour six campuses in South Africa, a country notoriously hostile to Israel; subsequent missions will target other countries, including the US and Canada.

Reading the Hebrew media reports, two things stand out: First, all the students agreed to put up $1,000 of their own money and will be running various fund-raising activities to raise the rest. In short, this isn’t an all-expenses-paid vacation funded by some Jewish organization; they’re investing significant amounts of their own time and money in trying to help their country.
Even more remarkable, however, was the group’s political diversity. Two members, for instance, work as parliamentary aides – one to a National Union MK and one to a Meretz MK. These parties represent the right and left flanks, respectively, of the Jewish political spectrum.

Nevertheless, everyone in the group agrees on the basics. “We all agree that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, and we all agree that Israel is not an apartheid state,” said the group’s unofficial spokesman, Roi Wolf. “That is what we want to show the students on campus.”

The Israeli politicians, journalists and academics from whom the world normally hears often seem unable or unwilling to articulate this consensus, preferring instead to engage in demagogic attacks on their ideological rivals. That it nevertheless remains vibrant among such a diverse group of ordinary Israelis is surely grounds for consolation.

A family from the Negev is beginning a year-long tour of 27 countries this month to try to change ordinary people’s perceptions of Israel. The Zemachs conceived this idea after the condiment business they started began attracting tourists to their Kadesh Barnea home by word of mouth.

The tourists’ reactions to meeting and talking with them convinced the Zemachs that perhaps other people – those not committed enough to visit here – also needed to meet more ordinary Israelis. They consulted the Foreign Ministry, and ministry professionals enthusiastically concurred: A new focus-group study had just found that Americans view Israelis as cold people who don’t like having children and don’t welcome guests – a portrait stunning in its inaccuracy; the Zemachs’ tour could help dispel such stereotypes.

The Zemachs obviously aren’t paying for the entire tour themselves, but they certainly are devoting considerable time and effort to it: taking three children out of school for a year (the fourth, a college student, won’t be coming); living out of suitcases for the entire year; planning activities to do with those they meet (including cooking sessions and musical evenings – they all play guitar); finding contacts in every community on their itinerary who can organize meetings for them. Why bother? Because they care about their country – and “as people come to know us, to meet and talk with us, their perceptions of Israel will change,” said Chami Zemach.

Israelis constantly gripe about their country, but that’s because they take their devotion to it so much for granted that they feel it doesn’t need saying; they can afford to focus solely on all the ways they think Israel still needs improving. That’s also why there’s no contradiction between the real unhappiness fueling the tent protests and the fact that Israel ranked seventh out of 124 countries in Gallup’s latest wellbeing survey: The unhappiness is merely the surface layer of Israelis’ deep love for their country.
Still, all the griping can get depressing, which is why sometimes, it’s instructive to see Israel from an outsider’s perspective. So I’ll close with a quote from Molly Tolsky, who last month described her Birthright trip in an article for The Forward. Physical Israel left her unmoved. But not so the people:

“The Israelis from the trip [were] by far the most passionate and strong-willed people I had ever met. They were 20-somethings, most of them younger than I, with more love for their country and understanding of its history and current situation than I can possibly fathom as an American. They are not afraid to fight for Israel, and they are not afraid to admit that they are scared while doing so. And the best part is, they have fun, too.”

Israelis are indeed all that. And that is ample reason for consolation. For as long as this remains true, Israel will survive.

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Why Israel Needs a Better Political Class

Note: This piece is a response to an essay by Haviv Rettig Gur, which can be found here

Israel’s current political crisis exemplifies the maxim that hard cases make bad law. This case is desperate. Six months after the coronavirus erupted and nine months after the fiscal year began, Israel still lacks both a functioning contact-tracing system and an approved 2020 budget, mainly because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more worried about politics than the domestic problems that Israel now confronts. The government’s failure to perform these basic tasks obviously invites the conclusion that civil servants’ far-reaching powers must not only be preserved, but perhaps even increased.

This would be the wrong conclusion. Bureaucrats, especially when they have great power, are vulnerable to the same ills as elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they are completely unaccountable to the public.

That doesn’t mean Haviv Rettig Gur is wrong to deem them indispensable. They provide institutional memory, flesh out elected officials’ policies, and supply information the politicians may not know and options they may not have considered. Yet the current crisis shows in several ways why they neither can nor should substitute for elected politicians.

First, bureaucrats are no less prone to poor judgment than politicians. As evidence, consider Siegal Sadetzki, part of the Netanyahu-led triumvirate that ran Israel’s initial response to the coronavirus. It’s unsurprising that Gur never mentioned Sadetzki even as he lauded the triumvirate’s third member, former Health Ministry Director General Moshe Bar Siman-Tov; she and her fellow Health Ministry staffers are a major reason why Israel still lacks a functional test-and-trace system.

Sadetzki, an epidemiologist, was the ministry’s director of public-health services and the only member of the triumvirate with professional expertise in epidemics (Bar Siman-Tov is an economist). As such, her input was crucial. Yet she adamantly opposed expanding virus testing, even publicly asserting that “Too much testing will increase complacence.” She opposed letting organizations outside the public-health system do lab work for coronavirus tests, even though the system was overwhelmed. She opposed sewage monitoring to track the spread of the virus. And on, and on.

Moreover, even after acknowledging that test-and-trace was necessary, ministry bureaucrats insisted for months that their ministry do the tracing despite its glaringly inadequate manpower. Only in August was the job finally given to the army, which does have the requisite personnel. And the system still isn’t fully operational.

Read more
Archives