On December 9, the Likud Central Committee voted in favor of allowing Ariel Sharon to begin negotiations with the Labor party in order to bring it into the government. It was a watershed event for the nationalist camp. Sharon came another step closer towards the expulsion of Jews from Gaza. Correspondingly, Sharon's opponents in the Likud failed. The already loud voices of those who do not believe in Moshe Feiglin's approach to revitalizing the Likud from inside became much louder.
Feiglin's critics claim that his Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction has not achieved anything within the Likud and only demoralizes the nationalist camp, which believes that the Likud is a nationalist party. By retaining his affiliation with the Likud, Feiglin and Manhigut confuse people, prompting them to vote for the Likud thus weakening the nationalist camp. Therefore, critics argue, Feiglin and his supporters should immediately leave the Likud and create a new nationalist party uniting all nationalist forces around it.
These and similar accusations and suggestions not only lack logical coherence, but are also devoid of common sense in the context of the Israeli reality. First of all, Feiglin was not the one who wrote the Likud platform. On the contrary, he came to the Likud precisely because he believes in what is written in its platform. If the Likud's Central Committee continues to almost unanimously vote against the creation of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is it Feiglin who ignores the party platform or Sharon, who advocates such a state? If the Likud platform declares that the Jews have "unquestionable rights to reside in Judea, Samaria and Gaza." As Sharon has developed a plan to expel Jews from those areas, is it Feiglin or Sharon who rejects the Likud's political line?
The answer is unambiguous ? there can be no doubt that it is Sharon, and not Feiglin, who violently bends the Likud in order to squeeze it into his personal mold. Even worse, the Procrustean bed into which Sharon is trying to fit the Likud more and more resembles the broken bed of the Israeli Left, which was twice discarded by the Israeli voters into the dustbin of history.
Certainly, the question arises as to why the Likud permits Sharon this unceremonious behavior. The answer has many sides. First of all, it is based on people's selfish nature. Many Likud Knesset members simply do not want to part with their comfortable chairs, sizable salaries and lucrative perks. Since they are not sure that new elections will bring them back into the Knesset, they prefer to remain glued to their seats even if this contradicts the Likud's official platform. Moreover, since internal Likud polls indicate that if the elections for party leader were held today, then Sharon would win again, why bother replacing Sharon with Sharon?
In another category are those who comfort themselves with the thought that all the promises they have made to themselves to stick to the Likud's values still remain intact. After all, though they support Sharon's disengagement plan, the votes taken so far have not yet been the critical ones. And during the vote that will really, really decide the fate of the Jews in Gaza and the Northern Samaria, they intend to vote with their conscience, meaning against disengagement. Meanwhile, many other things might happen and Sharon's expulsion deal might not go through. So why should they risk Sharon's anger and show disloyalty when they can avoid manifesting their real feelings for now?
And last but not least, Sharon won the Likud vote on December 9 because he had many supporters whom either he managed to convince, or they wanted to be convinced, that the expulsion of the Jews from Gaza is good for Israel in the long run. Sharon keeps hinting that it will save a lot of other settlements. And while this fantasy of Sharon's does not have any substance to it, it is very easy to become self-delusional.
In summary, it's safe to say that Sharon's victory on December 9, was fully predictable and therefore should not warrant any critique of Manhigut. Actually, Feiglin himself was not concerned with this "defeat." As he wrote in the Jerusalem Post on December 7, "Speaking of political parties, I believe that bringing Labor into the government will actually quicken the process of the Likud returning to itself."
Those who blame Feiglin for betraying the nationalist camp somehow keep forgetting that the Likud was created as a nationalist party. When Sharon was active in its formation, he was very vociferous in declaring that it must be a clear alternative to the Labor party. From the beginning, the Likud was and still remains a nationalist party, since its platform still speaks of the "unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel." It states, "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. ...The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
It is obvious that this philosophy is completely opposed to the Labor party's. Therefore, when Sharon accepts Labor's party platform principles that call for "dismantling isolated settlements" this does not make the Likud stop being a nationalist party, but means that Sharon no longer fits in the Likud. He has usurped the party ideology, declaring that he is the party, and whatever he decides will be the party's line.
It is because of this usurpation that there was so much talk on reforming the party when Feiglin and Manhigut joined the Likud. Perhaps even Feiglin and his colleagues believed in this reform themselves. But they found out quickly that the Likud platform was a healthy platform of a nationalist party. It is the leader of the party and his cronies who are distorting the party's image, deceiving people by making them believe that they are the party's real voice.
Thus, Feiglin's original idea of bringing more people into the Likud and by this process to reform the party became obsolete. The Likud is a nationalist party and it does not require ideological changes. On the contrary, it needs only to stick to its original ideology and platform. All that is required is simply to repeat verbatim what is written in the Likud's platform and follow through on it.
This did not make Manhigut's life easier. Instead of working to reform the party's ideological-political structure, it became necessary to lead its members back to the original path. At first glance the task did not seem too difficult. If almost 100% of the Likud Central Committee voted against the creation of a Palestinian state one should expect that a similar fraction of Likud members of the Knesset should be in line with this position, since they were all put on the party list by the Central Committee. However, people's self-interest is so strong that it sharply distorts the picture. Ideology has been suppressed by egotism.
It has, therefore, become necessary to wake up the members of the Likud and remind them that they affiliated with the Likud because of its ideology. The difficulty of this task was exacerbated by the fact that because of the Oslo process, Jewish and Zionist ideological values have been severely damaged. For ten consecutive years, the official Israeli press has drummed into people's heads that ideological principles should be abandoned for the sake of an ephemeral "peace". And the terrorist war of the last four years has suppressed all ideologies, except that of survival.
[Part 1 of 2]
Feiglin's critics claim that his Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction has not achieved anything within the Likud and only demoralizes the nationalist camp, which believes that the Likud is a nationalist party. By retaining his affiliation with the Likud, Feiglin and Manhigut confuse people, prompting them to vote for the Likud thus weakening the nationalist camp. Therefore, critics argue, Feiglin and his supporters should immediately leave the Likud and create a new nationalist party uniting all nationalist forces around it.
These and similar accusations and suggestions not only lack logical coherence, but are also devoid of common sense in the context of the Israeli reality. First of all, Feiglin was not the one who wrote the Likud platform. On the contrary, he came to the Likud precisely because he believes in what is written in its platform. If the Likud's Central Committee continues to almost unanimously vote against the creation of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is it Feiglin who ignores the party platform or Sharon, who advocates such a state? If the Likud platform declares that the Jews have "unquestionable rights to reside in Judea, Samaria and Gaza." As Sharon has developed a plan to expel Jews from those areas, is it Feiglin or Sharon who rejects the Likud's political line?
The answer is unambiguous ? there can be no doubt that it is Sharon, and not Feiglin, who violently bends the Likud in order to squeeze it into his personal mold. Even worse, the Procrustean bed into which Sharon is trying to fit the Likud more and more resembles the broken bed of the Israeli Left, which was twice discarded by the Israeli voters into the dustbin of history.
Certainly, the question arises as to why the Likud permits Sharon this unceremonious behavior. The answer has many sides. First of all, it is based on people's selfish nature. Many Likud Knesset members simply do not want to part with their comfortable chairs, sizable salaries and lucrative perks. Since they are not sure that new elections will bring them back into the Knesset, they prefer to remain glued to their seats even if this contradicts the Likud's official platform. Moreover, since internal Likud polls indicate that if the elections for party leader were held today, then Sharon would win again, why bother replacing Sharon with Sharon?
In another category are those who comfort themselves with the thought that all the promises they have made to themselves to stick to the Likud's values still remain intact. After all, though they support Sharon's disengagement plan, the votes taken so far have not yet been the critical ones. And during the vote that will really, really decide the fate of the Jews in Gaza and the Northern Samaria, they intend to vote with their conscience, meaning against disengagement. Meanwhile, many other things might happen and Sharon's expulsion deal might not go through. So why should they risk Sharon's anger and show disloyalty when they can avoid manifesting their real feelings for now?
And last but not least, Sharon won the Likud vote on December 9 because he had many supporters whom either he managed to convince, or they wanted to be convinced, that the expulsion of the Jews from Gaza is good for Israel in the long run. Sharon keeps hinting that it will save a lot of other settlements. And while this fantasy of Sharon's does not have any substance to it, it is very easy to become self-delusional.
In summary, it's safe to say that Sharon's victory on December 9, was fully predictable and therefore should not warrant any critique of Manhigut. Actually, Feiglin himself was not concerned with this "defeat." As he wrote in the Jerusalem Post on December 7, "Speaking of political parties, I believe that bringing Labor into the government will actually quicken the process of the Likud returning to itself."
Those who blame Feiglin for betraying the nationalist camp somehow keep forgetting that the Likud was created as a nationalist party. When Sharon was active in its formation, he was very vociferous in declaring that it must be a clear alternative to the Labor party. From the beginning, the Likud was and still remains a nationalist party, since its platform still speaks of the "unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel." It states, "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. ...The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
It is obvious that this philosophy is completely opposed to the Labor party's. Therefore, when Sharon accepts Labor's party platform principles that call for "dismantling isolated settlements" this does not make the Likud stop being a nationalist party, but means that Sharon no longer fits in the Likud. He has usurped the party ideology, declaring that he is the party, and whatever he decides will be the party's line.
It is because of this usurpation that there was so much talk on reforming the party when Feiglin and Manhigut joined the Likud. Perhaps even Feiglin and his colleagues believed in this reform themselves. But they found out quickly that the Likud platform was a healthy platform of a nationalist party. It is the leader of the party and his cronies who are distorting the party's image, deceiving people by making them believe that they are the party's real voice.
Thus, Feiglin's original idea of bringing more people into the Likud and by this process to reform the party became obsolete. The Likud is a nationalist party and it does not require ideological changes. On the contrary, it needs only to stick to its original ideology and platform. All that is required is simply to repeat verbatim what is written in the Likud's platform and follow through on it.
This did not make Manhigut's life easier. Instead of working to reform the party's ideological-political structure, it became necessary to lead its members back to the original path. At first glance the task did not seem too difficult. If almost 100% of the Likud Central Committee voted against the creation of a Palestinian state one should expect that a similar fraction of Likud members of the Knesset should be in line with this position, since they were all put on the party list by the Central Committee. However, people's self-interest is so strong that it sharply distorts the picture. Ideology has been suppressed by egotism.
It has, therefore, become necessary to wake up the members of the Likud and remind them that they affiliated with the Likud because of its ideology. The difficulty of this task was exacerbated by the fact that because of the Oslo process, Jewish and Zionist ideological values have been severely damaged. For ten consecutive years, the official Israeli press has drummed into people's heads that ideological principles should be abandoned for the sake of an ephemeral "peace". And the terrorist war of the last four years has suppressed all ideologies, except that of survival.
[Part 1 of 2]