As a general rule, generals make lousy prime ministers. Why the general public in Israel refuses to accept this axiom is worth exploring. We do adore our men in uniform, but once they remove that army-issued footwear and enter public office, the whiff of clay feet permeates the Knesset floor.
Now we expect Yossi Beilin to be a calculating weasel and Shimon Peres a shrewd diplomat, but our generals are supposed to be made of honest, earthy stuff. An up-close and personal confrontation with war and death has been known to shed translucent light on a lot of life's issues. And because, purportedly, "there are no atheists in fox holes," we imagine that career officers are perhaps a bit G-d-fearing in addition to being straight-forward and no-nonsense. So when our intellectually arrogant career diplomats and politicians start with the evasive doublespeak, we Israelis instinctively know that trouble is lurking around the corner, and we subsequently turn to our decorated heroes for protection and leadership.
Is it any wonder that when our generals-turned-politicians do an about-face on issues they once held sacred, the public feels an immense sense of betrayal? We are all too familiar with this distressing pattern, and yet a rather pathological electorate is driven to repeat the same mistakes. Could it be because there really is no choice and we're entangled in some type of time warp? I mean, when faced with the option of a Shimon Peres or Ariel Sharon, many of us would still cast our lot with the old, confused lion rather than the scheming vulture.
Up until recently, Sharon's three-year record with regards to ensuring the security of the citizens of Israel had been dismal. Yet, he didn't budge on the issue of territorial compromise. Now we see an astounding about-face. Suddenly, the security of Israel's citizens are a top priority, but portions of the Land of Israel are (G-d forbid) negotiable. Although Sharon is to be commended for the termination of Sheikh Yassin's reign of terror, his either/or policy with regards to the life of Israelis and the Land of Israel spells further tragedy.
There is a common mistake that all of our contemporary Jewish leaders seem to make, regardless of their background or political persuasion. The integrity of the Land and the People of Israel are bound together. Neither component can be negotiated or compromised. Any attempt to separate either one of these elements results in disaster. The "land for peace" equation is simply not available as an option for the Jewish people. It should be noted that even an erudite and G-d-fearing leader like Menachem Begin stumbled on this issue. In fact, he set a catastrophic precedent by both negotiating with Egypt and surrendering Sinai.
Some will say that Sharon, the once brilliant soldier and strategist, has fallen out of line in order to dodge a deadly volley of corruption charges. That may be true, but I believe the overall problem runs much deeper.
Could it be that military protocol and democratic process are about as congruous as war and peace? What about the personality of a warrior when compared to that of a politician?
Yitzchak Rabin looked like a perplexed, pathetic soul after Oslo. Observe the forlorn expression he exhibited when he shook hands with Arafat in 1993. The photo-ops at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in December 1994 show a beaming Peres and Yasser Arafat flanking a rather dejected general. Yitzchak Rabin couldn't even hold his prize up straight (and no, I don't believe he was drunk, as some say). It was the expression of capitulation.
For an exercise in nausea, check out the image of Ehud Barak as he and Arafat playfully nudge each other in front of a chuckling President Clinton in the doorway at Camp David in the summer of 2000. Our warrior turned buffoon.
If your soul can take it, notice the rather heavy-handed hand of restraint that President Bush lays on Ariel Sharon's upper arm at the Jordanian summit in June 2003.
A few weeks ago, Arutz-7 reported that back in 1970, the Lubavitcher Rebbe advised Arik Sharon not to enter politics.
"My opinion is that there is no logic at all for his honor to leave and turn to other pursuits - and certainly not in the political sphere.... Even a ministerial position [is not recommended], as this is not your task, and will not utilize your talents and knowledge. I have no doubt nor shadow of a doubt that your task and success are specifically in the army..."
There is no shame having to be a warrior. King Solomon, who enjoyed a reign of unprecedented peace knew this. "There is a time for war and a time for peace." His father, King David, longed for peace, but spent his days defending his people, pursuing and being pursued by his enemies. Yet, he lay the groundwork for an era of peace.
This is indicative of a classic Jewish problem. Every one of us wants the peace and order, but few of us are willing to do the dirty work (I came to that revelation while up to my neck in pre-Pesach clutter).
Sharon the peacemaker isn't going to happen. He has made two dreadful mistakes. He tried to play politician and compromised the lives and safety of Israel's citizens. And by proposing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, he has compromised the integrity of the Land of Israel He's broken an eternal covenant. His term as Prime Minister of the State of Israel appears to be coming to a close.
What kind of footnote Sharon receives in history's chronicles remains to be seen. If he chooses to do the right thing by using the rest of his time in office to relentlessly pursue the enemy and protect his land and people, then history will be a bit more kind.
As for the Israeli public, well, we have a lot to think about. Our consistent longing for a general to keep us in line may be indicative of something profound. Perhaps, as a people, we are not yet mature enough to accept the responsibilities that come with freedom. Or maybe the type of free choices and liberties made available in an open, democratic society are not compatible with the true aspirations of the Jewish people.
Just something to grapple with on this Festival of Freedom.
Now we expect Yossi Beilin to be a calculating weasel and Shimon Peres a shrewd diplomat, but our generals are supposed to be made of honest, earthy stuff. An up-close and personal confrontation with war and death has been known to shed translucent light on a lot of life's issues. And because, purportedly, "there are no atheists in fox holes," we imagine that career officers are perhaps a bit G-d-fearing in addition to being straight-forward and no-nonsense. So when our intellectually arrogant career diplomats and politicians start with the evasive doublespeak, we Israelis instinctively know that trouble is lurking around the corner, and we subsequently turn to our decorated heroes for protection and leadership.
Is it any wonder that when our generals-turned-politicians do an about-face on issues they once held sacred, the public feels an immense sense of betrayal? We are all too familiar with this distressing pattern, and yet a rather pathological electorate is driven to repeat the same mistakes. Could it be because there really is no choice and we're entangled in some type of time warp? I mean, when faced with the option of a Shimon Peres or Ariel Sharon, many of us would still cast our lot with the old, confused lion rather than the scheming vulture.
Up until recently, Sharon's three-year record with regards to ensuring the security of the citizens of Israel had been dismal. Yet, he didn't budge on the issue of territorial compromise. Now we see an astounding about-face. Suddenly, the security of Israel's citizens are a top priority, but portions of the Land of Israel are (G-d forbid) negotiable. Although Sharon is to be commended for the termination of Sheikh Yassin's reign of terror, his either/or policy with regards to the life of Israelis and the Land of Israel spells further tragedy.
There is a common mistake that all of our contemporary Jewish leaders seem to make, regardless of their background or political persuasion. The integrity of the Land and the People of Israel are bound together. Neither component can be negotiated or compromised. Any attempt to separate either one of these elements results in disaster. The "land for peace" equation is simply not available as an option for the Jewish people. It should be noted that even an erudite and G-d-fearing leader like Menachem Begin stumbled on this issue. In fact, he set a catastrophic precedent by both negotiating with Egypt and surrendering Sinai.
Some will say that Sharon, the once brilliant soldier and strategist, has fallen out of line in order to dodge a deadly volley of corruption charges. That may be true, but I believe the overall problem runs much deeper.
Could it be that military protocol and democratic process are about as congruous as war and peace? What about the personality of a warrior when compared to that of a politician?
Yitzchak Rabin looked like a perplexed, pathetic soul after Oslo. Observe the forlorn expression he exhibited when he shook hands with Arafat in 1993. The photo-ops at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in December 1994 show a beaming Peres and Yasser Arafat flanking a rather dejected general. Yitzchak Rabin couldn't even hold his prize up straight (and no, I don't believe he was drunk, as some say). It was the expression of capitulation.
For an exercise in nausea, check out the image of Ehud Barak as he and Arafat playfully nudge each other in front of a chuckling President Clinton in the doorway at Camp David in the summer of 2000. Our warrior turned buffoon.
If your soul can take it, notice the rather heavy-handed hand of restraint that President Bush lays on Ariel Sharon's upper arm at the Jordanian summit in June 2003.
A few weeks ago, Arutz-7 reported that back in 1970, the Lubavitcher Rebbe advised Arik Sharon not to enter politics.
"My opinion is that there is no logic at all for his honor to leave and turn to other pursuits - and certainly not in the political sphere.... Even a ministerial position [is not recommended], as this is not your task, and will not utilize your talents and knowledge. I have no doubt nor shadow of a doubt that your task and success are specifically in the army..."
There is no shame having to be a warrior. King Solomon, who enjoyed a reign of unprecedented peace knew this. "There is a time for war and a time for peace." His father, King David, longed for peace, but spent his days defending his people, pursuing and being pursued by his enemies. Yet, he lay the groundwork for an era of peace.
This is indicative of a classic Jewish problem. Every one of us wants the peace and order, but few of us are willing to do the dirty work (I came to that revelation while up to my neck in pre-Pesach clutter).
Sharon the peacemaker isn't going to happen. He has made two dreadful mistakes. He tried to play politician and compromised the lives and safety of Israel's citizens. And by proposing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, he has compromised the integrity of the Land of Israel He's broken an eternal covenant. His term as Prime Minister of the State of Israel appears to be coming to a close.
What kind of footnote Sharon receives in history's chronicles remains to be seen. If he chooses to do the right thing by using the rest of his time in office to relentlessly pursue the enemy and protect his land and people, then history will be a bit more kind.
As for the Israeli public, well, we have a lot to think about. Our consistent longing for a general to keep us in line may be indicative of something profound. Perhaps, as a people, we are not yet mature enough to accept the responsibilities that come with freedom. Or maybe the type of free choices and liberties made available in an open, democratic society are not compatible with the true aspirations of the Jewish people.
Just something to grapple with on this Festival of Freedom.