Yisrael B?Aliya has attracted many new supporters in recent years and months, mostly prior to this hasty (and rather shallow) election campaign. These new members and activists (and voters) join for a myriad of reasons, including some related to the points raised by Rafi Lisker in his article in favor of the National Union party: trust in the party leadership, as people of the greatest integrity and moral authority; recognition of the party?s record of serving both its initial constituency, the Russian immigrant community, its new constituency, the Anglos, and the wider Israeli community; and mainly in recognition that the party has a concrete set of detailed plans to address the ills of Israeli society, from political malaise and corruption to economic malaise and stagnation, including the existential issues of relations with our Arab neighbors and within our own house. I?m disturbed by Mr. Lisker?s need to denigrate the motivations of Western immigrants who have chosen to support Yisrael B?Aliya. It reminds me of the thugs who have torn down the Yisrael B?Aliya banners around my hometown, a fascist practice which basically says ?you can?t believe what you want to believe.?
Yet, what is most disturbing about the article in question is the author?s inability to follow his own logic. Having suggested that it is the principles - the platform - of the party that ought to be the ultimate deciding factor for the voter, and having suggested that our platform is somehow inferior to those of other parties, he then both relates only to one issue in that platform, and says nothing as to that of his newly adopted party. I would invite the intelligent voter, which description I am confident applies to all Arutz-7 readers, to look at our platform, at http://www.aliya.org.il/eng, and at that of the National Union, at http://www.leumi.org.il/en/index.html, and compare. I am confident that the depth and breadth of our practical solutions to many of our country?s challenges will appeal to the reader far more strongly than the shallow and unrealistic proposals of the National Union.
Most particularly, anyone who really thinks that we, as a Jewish nation or as a democratic state, can solve our security problems by transferring (by choice? What does that mean?) two million people, simply lives in a different reality. We might all wish the Arabs were not here tomorrow morning ? not as racists, merely as a matter of self-preservation ? but the demagogic sloganeering of ?transfer? is no less short-sighted than that of ?Peace Now? or ?Withdraw now? or any other. Neither the Arabs, nor the international community, nor the Jews themselves (of the world or of Israel, religious and otherwise) will accept such a proposal, irrespective of the historical justice of it as a ?population exchange? with the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. That was then, this is now. Different reality; different solutions are needed.
YBA's position is clear, concise, and historically proven: any concessions to a dictator are a mistake. As such, even discussing the creation of a Palestinian state, initiated by our Prime Minister, was a strategic mistake. When ? and yes, it is possible to say ?when?, not ?if?, though we accept this may be a matter of years, even decades ? the Arab world, and Palestinian society in particular, is open, free, and democratic, then we would and could entertain the possibility of negotiating with them, in a context of two democracies sorting out their differences peacefully and amicably. Until that time, terror, and its supporters, must be destroyed.
Mr. Lisker also casts aspersions on Yisrael B?Aliya?s record, and suggests that somehow the National Union has done more either for Israel?s security or for our Jewish settlements in Yesha, and is more dedicated to the Land of Israel, than Yisrael B?Aliya. Excuse me? Over the past six years, Natan Sharansky and Yisrael B'Aliya have done more in the Ministry of Industry and Trade, in the Ministry of the Interior, in the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption and in the Ministry of Housing to strengthen Yesha than any other ministers in the last decade - in any one of those ministries.
It is not accidental that Benzi Lieberman, head of the Yesha Council and of the Shomron Regional Council, says, "Two years without precedent! This is what Sharansky, Minister of Housing, has given to the development of Yesha and the Golan."
"There are ministers who speak out against a Palestinian state, and there are ministers who do everything in order to prevent its establishment!" says Benni Casriel, mayor of Ma'ale Adumim.
"Davka in these hard days, Natan Sharansky must continue his dedicated mission of development of the settlement in all the Land of Israel," says Tzvi Katzover, Kiryat Arba local council head.
Heads of councils from Beit El, Beitar Elite, the Jordan Valley, Efrat, Oranit, Elkana, Ma'ale Efraim, Emmanuel, Ariel, Karnei Shomron, Gush Etzion, Kedumim and other Jewish communities throughout the country signed a letter, saying (inter alia), "We thank Natan Sharansky for his great contribution to the development and building of our communities. With Sharansky's help, Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria has been strengthened, and we look forward to his continued activities on behalf of the country as a whole and Yesha in particular."
Having a strategic vision of a realistic future for Israel, at peace with democratic neighbors, is not at odds with a staunch, unflinching and proven commitment to Israel as the land for the Jewish people.
As to tax reform, well, before Uri Bank was anywhere on the political map, and before Zvi Hendel and Benny Elon knew anything about tax reform, YBA fought tooth and nail against double taxation on passive incomes of Western olim. On November 7, 2000, Minister of Finance Avraham ?Beiga? Shochat changed the tax reform proposals for the first reading because YBA threatened to vote against the entire tax reform in the Knesset. We are certainly appreciative, though, that the National Union joined the effort - as opposed to the NRP and the Likud, who have consistently not supported the issue other than with occasional statements to the press.
It is almost not worth discussing the claims regarding Jewish ?unity? in Mr. Lisker?s article. Natan Sharansky and Yuli Edelstein have done more for Jewish unity than any other living Israeli leaders, both practically and philosophically. In fact, it is perhaps of interest to compare Yisrael B?Aliya, which has more religiously observant Jews in the top five places on its list (though not considered a ?religious? party) than both Labor and Likud in their top forty, with the National Union, which is composed of three separate units without any real ?unity? between them except a desire to be rid of the Arabs. Furthermore, Yisrael B?Aliya?s slate was chosen in open and democratic elections, with no reserved places for religious or other representatives; whereas, the National Union?s slate was appointed by the respective constituent parties? leaderships.
Unfortunately, I think it is also imperative to note Ariel Sharon's recent statement that he will not take extremists into his cabinet. So, while the National Union may get more mandates, by appealing to the baser instincts of the population, they will likely be sitting in opposition with the Arabs, while Yisrael B'Aliya will be returned to another ministry or two or three, where we can continue to churn out consistent and wide-ranging results for Zionists on both sides of the ?Green Line?. We will continue our partnership with a prime minister who listens to and trusts Sharansky as a strong voice on the Right that seeks practical solutions to intractable problems; and we will continue to work with our friends in the US, who, after 9/11, now understand the dangers of dictators and who also listen to Sharansky as the barometer of reason, honesty and steadfastness in Israel.
Rather than ?uniting? various fragments of the extreme Right together in a patchwork quilt of blatant political marriages-of-convenience, founded on unworkable demagogic ideologies, as the National Union has attempted to do, Yisrael B?Aliya offers the thinking Westerner ? strong on security, dedicated to the Land of Israel, committed to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state ? a realistic alternative to ?politics as usual? in Israel and to the ideological battles of this society-in-crisis, with a real vision for the future of our country.
--------------------------------------------------------
Aryeh Green is Director of the Anglo Division of Yisrael B'Aliya. He can be reached at aryeh@aliya.org.il.
Yet, what is most disturbing about the article in question is the author?s inability to follow his own logic. Having suggested that it is the principles - the platform - of the party that ought to be the ultimate deciding factor for the voter, and having suggested that our platform is somehow inferior to those of other parties, he then both relates only to one issue in that platform, and says nothing as to that of his newly adopted party. I would invite the intelligent voter, which description I am confident applies to all Arutz-7 readers, to look at our platform, at http://www.aliya.org.il/eng, and at that of the National Union, at http://www.leumi.org.il/en/index.html, and compare. I am confident that the depth and breadth of our practical solutions to many of our country?s challenges will appeal to the reader far more strongly than the shallow and unrealistic proposals of the National Union.
Most particularly, anyone who really thinks that we, as a Jewish nation or as a democratic state, can solve our security problems by transferring (by choice? What does that mean?) two million people, simply lives in a different reality. We might all wish the Arabs were not here tomorrow morning ? not as racists, merely as a matter of self-preservation ? but the demagogic sloganeering of ?transfer? is no less short-sighted than that of ?Peace Now? or ?Withdraw now? or any other. Neither the Arabs, nor the international community, nor the Jews themselves (of the world or of Israel, religious and otherwise) will accept such a proposal, irrespective of the historical justice of it as a ?population exchange? with the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. That was then, this is now. Different reality; different solutions are needed.
YBA's position is clear, concise, and historically proven: any concessions to a dictator are a mistake. As such, even discussing the creation of a Palestinian state, initiated by our Prime Minister, was a strategic mistake. When ? and yes, it is possible to say ?when?, not ?if?, though we accept this may be a matter of years, even decades ? the Arab world, and Palestinian society in particular, is open, free, and democratic, then we would and could entertain the possibility of negotiating with them, in a context of two democracies sorting out their differences peacefully and amicably. Until that time, terror, and its supporters, must be destroyed.
Mr. Lisker also casts aspersions on Yisrael B?Aliya?s record, and suggests that somehow the National Union has done more either for Israel?s security or for our Jewish settlements in Yesha, and is more dedicated to the Land of Israel, than Yisrael B?Aliya. Excuse me? Over the past six years, Natan Sharansky and Yisrael B'Aliya have done more in the Ministry of Industry and Trade, in the Ministry of the Interior, in the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption and in the Ministry of Housing to strengthen Yesha than any other ministers in the last decade - in any one of those ministries.
It is not accidental that Benzi Lieberman, head of the Yesha Council and of the Shomron Regional Council, says, "Two years without precedent! This is what Sharansky, Minister of Housing, has given to the development of Yesha and the Golan."
"There are ministers who speak out against a Palestinian state, and there are ministers who do everything in order to prevent its establishment!" says Benni Casriel, mayor of Ma'ale Adumim.
"Davka in these hard days, Natan Sharansky must continue his dedicated mission of development of the settlement in all the Land of Israel," says Tzvi Katzover, Kiryat Arba local council head.
Heads of councils from Beit El, Beitar Elite, the Jordan Valley, Efrat, Oranit, Elkana, Ma'ale Efraim, Emmanuel, Ariel, Karnei Shomron, Gush Etzion, Kedumim and other Jewish communities throughout the country signed a letter, saying (inter alia), "We thank Natan Sharansky for his great contribution to the development and building of our communities. With Sharansky's help, Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria has been strengthened, and we look forward to his continued activities on behalf of the country as a whole and Yesha in particular."
Having a strategic vision of a realistic future for Israel, at peace with democratic neighbors, is not at odds with a staunch, unflinching and proven commitment to Israel as the land for the Jewish people.
As to tax reform, well, before Uri Bank was anywhere on the political map, and before Zvi Hendel and Benny Elon knew anything about tax reform, YBA fought tooth and nail against double taxation on passive incomes of Western olim. On November 7, 2000, Minister of Finance Avraham ?Beiga? Shochat changed the tax reform proposals for the first reading because YBA threatened to vote against the entire tax reform in the Knesset. We are certainly appreciative, though, that the National Union joined the effort - as opposed to the NRP and the Likud, who have consistently not supported the issue other than with occasional statements to the press.
It is almost not worth discussing the claims regarding Jewish ?unity? in Mr. Lisker?s article. Natan Sharansky and Yuli Edelstein have done more for Jewish unity than any other living Israeli leaders, both practically and philosophically. In fact, it is perhaps of interest to compare Yisrael B?Aliya, which has more religiously observant Jews in the top five places on its list (though not considered a ?religious? party) than both Labor and Likud in their top forty, with the National Union, which is composed of three separate units without any real ?unity? between them except a desire to be rid of the Arabs. Furthermore, Yisrael B?Aliya?s slate was chosen in open and democratic elections, with no reserved places for religious or other representatives; whereas, the National Union?s slate was appointed by the respective constituent parties? leaderships.
Unfortunately, I think it is also imperative to note Ariel Sharon's recent statement that he will not take extremists into his cabinet. So, while the National Union may get more mandates, by appealing to the baser instincts of the population, they will likely be sitting in opposition with the Arabs, while Yisrael B'Aliya will be returned to another ministry or two or three, where we can continue to churn out consistent and wide-ranging results for Zionists on both sides of the ?Green Line?. We will continue our partnership with a prime minister who listens to and trusts Sharansky as a strong voice on the Right that seeks practical solutions to intractable problems; and we will continue to work with our friends in the US, who, after 9/11, now understand the dangers of dictators and who also listen to Sharansky as the barometer of reason, honesty and steadfastness in Israel.
Rather than ?uniting? various fragments of the extreme Right together in a patchwork quilt of blatant political marriages-of-convenience, founded on unworkable demagogic ideologies, as the National Union has attempted to do, Yisrael B?Aliya offers the thinking Westerner ? strong on security, dedicated to the Land of Israel, committed to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state ? a realistic alternative to ?politics as usual? in Israel and to the ideological battles of this society-in-crisis, with a real vision for the future of our country.
--------------------------------------------------------
Aryeh Green is Director of the Anglo Division of Yisrael B'Aliya. He can be reached at aryeh@aliya.org.il.