The Jewish Democratic State

Hol HaMo'ed Sukkoth 5771

*Please go to the original YNET article, and join in the debate in the comments section!

The Jewish Democratic State

Op-ed: Israel must make a choice, as it cannot be both truly Jewish and democratic.

Yoel Meltzer
September 22, 2010

Roughly 60 years after the establishment of the modern State of Israel, by far the most ubiquitous term employed today to describe the political and social nature of the country is that Israel is a Jewish democratic state. Be it in the media or on the lips of politicians, the use of the term has become so widespread that most people in Israel simply accept it as a given truth without so much as a passing thought. Nonetheless, despite the extensive usage of the phrase, it should be clear to anyone with a discerning eye that the term resonates with cognitive dissonance.

The term, or more properly the confusion that led to the term, started in the early days of the state. In May 1948, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel proclaimed the Jewish nature of the country by declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael." However, the same declaration also promised to “ensure complete equality of…. political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion….”

Thus, on the one hand Israel was to be a Jewish state while on the other hand it was declared to be a state of all its citizens regardless of religion. As a result of this ambiguity, right from the start there was a built-in contradiction of terms. Namely, was Israel to be a Jewish state that would incorporate some democratic aspects or was it to be a democratic state with a “Jewish feel?" Since these terms describe situations that are mutually exclusive, Israel could not possibly be both.

The Jewish component in the above equation was given precedence by the 1950 Law or Return, which stipulated that every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel. However, the subsequent 1952 Nationality Law reestablished the confusion by stating, inter alia, “A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen…. shall become an Israel national….” Thus citizenship, and with it the right to vote, was further anchored for the non-Jewish population.

This lack of clarity continued for decades and then in 1992 under the activist court of Justice Aharon Barak, the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom was passed in order to “establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Moreover, according to Justice Barak’s subsequent writings on the meaning of the vague phrase “Jewish democratic state,” it became apparent that his intention in the law was to define Israel as primarily a democratic state, albeit one that also encompasses a variety of Jewish aspects. Of course, Barak’s litmus test for these Jewish aspects was that they must be consistent with the values of a democracy.

Despite Barak’s true intention as to what actually took precedence, namely the democratic aspect, the neutral phrase “Jewish democratic state” has been promulgated ever since. This is a shame since the term is problematic for several reasons.

Most importantly, the term perpetuates confusion and avoids dealing with a very serious issue. Israel has a large Arab minority, the majority of which will never connect to the collective dreams and aspirations of the Jewish people and likewise will never really feel part of a Jewish state. To think otherwise is foolish. In addition, it is demeaning to the Arabs to expect differently since they naturally have pride in their own culture and a bond to the larger Arab nation.

Downplaying Jewish Component
Thus, in order not to antagonize or alienate the Arabs, as well as to avoid being condemned for making statements that are not politically correct, Israel downplays the Jewish component and promotes the democratic one. To its own Jewish residents, however, the majority of which has some connection to the land and the tradition, it sells the Jewish component under the amorphous “Jewish democratic state.” Thus, the term is very useful for placating the Jewish population, even if doing so is somewhat misleading. More importantly, by hiding behind the term “Jewish democratic state” Israel continues to shirk its responsibility in dealing with a very complex and difficult issue.

If Israel is a true democracy of “one man-one vote” then the Arab minority could hypothetically take over the country via the election process and change the nature of the state. However, since this is a scenario that most of the Jews in the country would never agree to and even fear, the phrase “Jewish democratic state” should stop being rammed down the collective mindset of the nation since it is only seeding more confusion. Moreover, should the Arabs ever get close to taking over the country, it’s a sure bet that most of the advocates of the phrase “Jewish democratic state” would be out of here in a flash, leaving the rest of us to deal with the mess.
On the diplomatic front, a Jewish state connected to its inner meaning, its heritage and its land, would never consider relinquishing part of its ancestral homeland. However, a democratic state for which the Jewish component is weak or sentimental at best has no qualms under difficult times of relinquishing land since ultimately the land has no deeper significance.

This fact is clearly understood by the Arabs as well as by all those who are pressuring us to surrender land. For this reason, the supremacy afforded the democratic component at the expense of the Jewish component has severely weakened Israel’s bargaining position vis-à-vis the Arabs. Moreover, since everyone knows that the term “Jewish democratic state” does not mean Jewish in any profound way, then constantly using the term to describe the State of Israel is only helping to facilitate its downfall.

At the end of the day, Israel must choose. Either it is a Jewish state with some democratic aspects or it is democratic state with a Jewish flavor. It cannot be both. The continued use of the term “Jewish democratic state” is simply a way to avoid making this choice. Moreover, it represents a state of denial that underlies all the confusion and weakness that abound here. For the survival of the country, the term “Jewish democratic state” must be discarded and in its place the real “Jewish state” must rise.

Esser Agaroth:
*This is my talkback which YNET has yet to publish,...and probably will not.

Meltzer is essentially correct. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The Israeli government is hardly Jewish, and hardly a democracy. It can't be a democracy without true freedom of speech, which we absolutely do NOT have. It is a crime to call goverment officials a name, so called racist incitement is a crime. Asking to vote for whether Jews should leave Gaza or hostile Arabs should leave instead is a crime.

Yet leftists protesting at the so-called security fence get away with violence toward Israeli law enforcement.

Clearly the famous line at the end of George Orwell's Animal Farm applies here:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

However, the eventual goal of the Jewish People is too have a Jewish government in the Jewish Homeland.

What is a Jewish government? ...one based on Torah with a king or a nassi and a Sanhedrin, the hachamim making the decisions which the masses should not have anything to do with.

See “Governance Of A Jewish State” for more information on this.

In the mean time, perhaps we could have a temporary democracy, yet those claiming the need for a constitution are mistaken. We already have one,...the Torah.

Cross-posted on Esser Agaroth.

Why Make Aliyah?

7th Candle of Hanukkah 5770

For a Jew there is no better place than the State of Israel.

Yoel Meltzer

30 Kisleiw/December 17, 2009

Roughly 15 years ago I made a personal decision to leave the comfortable lifestyle and familiar surroundings of America in order to settle down and build my life in Israel.

As important as this decision was, it had nothing to do with any negative feelings that I had towards the US. In fact, just the opposite is true and most of my memories of life in America are very positive. From childhood vacations in the Lake George region of upstate New York, to a couple of cross-country ventures in my mid-20s, to a few years of life in the middle of New York City, I can honestly say that the United States is really one incredible, beautiful country. Furthermore, the variety of quality choices and lifestyles that are available in an enormous country of nearly 300 million residents truly makes settling down in America such an attractive option.

Nonetheless, despite all the wonderful things that can be said about America, I would not trade for a second the life that I have built in Israel. Moreover, I am 100% convinced that there is no place in the world that is potentially more suitable for a Jew to live than in the Land of Israel. To someone living outside of Israel this may sound like quite a bombastic declaration, but nonetheless this does not detract from the veracity of the statement.

The problem is the chicken and the egg factor. Only by living here and experiencing the reality of life in Israel can one honestly come to such an internal realization. Thus, to a Jew who still lives outside of Israel, it is only natural that such a statement will be somewhat incomprehensible or perhaps even irritating.

Nonetheless, I would like to present a short list of positive reasons for a Jew to consider building a life in Israel:

1. Percentage-wise the best chance to find a Jewish spouse is in Israel.

2. Statistically the lowest rate of intermarriage is in Israel.

3. Within a few short hours one can hike in the desert, swim in the Mediterranean, ski on the Hermon or float in the Dead Sea.

4. Jewish holidays are a natural part of the lifecycle here.

5. There is no Christmas shopping season in Israel.

6. The cost of Jewish education in Israel is a fraction of the cost in the US.

7. In Israel there is a feeling of "home" for the Jewish people.

8. Israel is the only Jewish country in the world. There are no others.

9. In Israel a Jew does not have to integrate into a non-Jewish society.

10. Although like any country there are many problems and issues, at least they are our problems and issues.

11. Mitzvah observance and their significance take on a whole different meaning in the Land of Israel.

12. There is only one Jerusalem in the whole world and it is here, in the Land of Israel.

13. After a few thousand years, Hebrew, the language of the Prophets, is once again heard throughout the Land of Israel.

14. Israel boasts the fastest growing Jewish population in the world.

15. After a long respite of nearly 2,000 years, Israel is once again the physical and spiritual center of the Jewish people.

16. History is literally unfolding here in front of our eyes. All that has transpired here during such a relatively short time period is nothing short of mind-boggling. As such, there is an incredible and unique opportunity available to any Jew throughout the world to come to Israel and to actually have an impact on the shaping of history.

Cross-posted on Esser Agaroth and YNET.

Good Zionists, Bad Zionists

Erev Shabbath Qodesh Parshath Pinhas 5769

Actually written seven years ago, this article is still relevant today.

Good Zionists, Bad Zionists
Yoel Meltzer, 18 Tammuz 5769/July 10, 2009

"Arabs don't make such trivial distinctions."

One of the unwritten laws of war is that the winning side is allowed to do as it pleases after the cessation of hostilities. This law is even more relevant when the victor turns out to be the side that didn't initiate the war, or didn't want the war to occur in the first place.

Thus we find Israel, after its victory in a war that it initially tried to avoid in 1948, utilizing its victory to expand its territory. For several years after this war, new communities started to appear on the map, such as Ashdod in 1956, Karmiel in 1964, Dimona in 1955 and Arad in 1962 (to name just a few).

Then, nearly 20 years later, and faced with the prospect of an Arab onslaught, Israel was forced to fight another war in 1967. Like the war in 1948, that war resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Then, once again, as it had done after its 1948 victory, Israel utilized this victory to embark on a campaign of expanding its territory. New communities started to dot the map, such as Kiryat Arba in 1972, Kedumim in 1975, Karnei Shomron in 1977 and Efrat in 1983 (to name just a few).

However, this is where the similarities stop. For some reason, the communities that were founded after 1948 have always been considered legitimate by the Israeli public, while the communities that were established after 1967 never quite managed to gain the same degree of legitimacy in the eyes of some sections of the Israeli public. They are, in fact, considered illegitimate by some here in Israel.

Of course, the argument that the latter communities were established in the midst of, or near, large Arab population centers, or "on Arab lands", doesn't hold much sway. This is so especially since the same can be said of many "more legitimate" communities started after 1948, and even of some communities started before 1948. If this is the case, then what is the reason for the different treatment of post-1967 communities as compared to that of their pre-1967 counterparts?

It seems that the only logical answer is that the earlier communities were founded by the Good Zionists (David Ben-Gurion and friends), while many of the latter, post-1967 communities were founded by a different type of Zionist; namely, by the type that believes settling Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah, and who draws his inspiration and motivation for such ideals straight from Judaism. This is the only plausible answer as to why this second group of Zionists and the communities they have built have become stigmatized and deemed illegitimate by so many here in Israel.

Unfortunately, what many here in Israel who deem such post-1967 communities as illegitimate fail, or perhaps refuse, to understand is that in the eyes of the Arabs, all of the communities (pre-1948, post-1948, post-1967) are illegitimate. The Arabs don't make such trivial distinctions. Only we, the silly Jews, make such distinctions.

Cross-posted on Esser Agaroth.

Speaking The Truth

30 Sivan 5769

YNET: Speaking The Truth

"Various parts of Land of Israel are more than just strategic security assets."

The original title was "Confusing Means and Goals." YNET also edited out a few sentences, found below in blue italics.

Yoel Meltzer
24 Sivan 5769/June 16, 2009


It is occasionally said that keeping the Shabbat is a good way to strengthen family unity and closeness. Since parents and children are together for a day without the usual weekly distractions, they are forced to spend quality time together. The problem is that this assumption reduces the Shabbat to a means for fostering better family ties. If it is only a means for nurturing better family ties, then someone else can rightly claim that a Shabbat barbecue on the beach with the whole family also fosters family unity. If so, what need is there to observe the Shabbat? The point is that the Sabbath has tremendous value in and of itself, regardless of what benefits one may or may not receive from observing it. Of course to make Sabbath observance a goal rather than a means and also to appreciate its true value, it must be concomitantly practiced and understood in its fullness. Otherwise it can turn into an external empty act devoid of any meaning.

The same can be said regarding the Land of Israel. Many good intentioned people state that the only reason Israel cannot relinquish any territory in Judea and Samaria is because these lands are vital for the strategic depth they provide to Israel. Once again, the problem with this approach is that it conveys the message that an Israeli presence in certain areas in the Land of Israel is only important as a means for acquiring security.

However, if this is true, then other means can be found to supposedly provide security, such as a 20 meter-high security fence, international observers, electronic surveillance equipment, etc, etc. The point is that the Land of Israel - be it in Tel Aviv, Shiloh, Karmiel, The Jordan Valley or Arad - has tremendous value and meaning in and of itself, regardless of what benefits settling it might provide. Yet to make settling the land and establishing Jewish sovereignty a goal rather than a means and also to appreciate the real significance of the Land of Israel, the subject must be seriously studied and internalized.

In light of Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent Bar Ilan speech, this point should be kept in mind. The "taboo" has finally been broken and now every major Israeli political party officially endorses the "two-state solution." Moreover, the prime minister's stated conditions for the establishment of such a state – Arab recognition of Israel as Jewish state and an eventual demilitarized Palestinian state – will quickly be sidestepped or forgotten. Unless something miraculous happens we will be staring at a new Arab state in our midst within the coming years.

Security Argument Will Be Defeated
Of course this new entity, which in all probability will be quite hostile towards Israel, will require the forced removal of tens of thousands of Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria. In such an environment, all that remains is to speak the truth. Therefore, anyone with influence who really cares about the Jewish people and the divine mission they've been entrusted with, a mission which is integrally related to establishing Jewish sovereignty throughout the Land of Israel, needs to speak up.

However, if their defense of the Land of Israel is based solely upon security issues, they will eventually be defeated. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but with time they will be defeated since other means, no matter how problematic or controversial, will be adopted to allegedly provide security.

As appealing as the security argument might be, the truth is that various parts of the Land of Israel are not simply strategic assets that must be held on to for security reasons, any more than the entire land itself is merely a safe haven for Jews to escape pogroms and anti-Semitism. At this point in time, anything other than the truth will not hold up.

Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.

Cross-posted on Esser Agaroth.

Towards A Jewish Mindset

Towards a Jewish Mindset

There are no shortcuts.

Yoel Meltzer
11 Sivan 5769/June 3, 2009

For more than 15 years Israel has been plagued by the "Oslo mindset". This way of thinking, which did not appear out of a vacuum but slowly evolved over the course of years, is still alive and kicking despite all that has transpired. Its current outward manifestation, the much talked about "two-state solution", is gaining momentum every day despite the obvious danger that undertaking such a measure would entail to the state of Israel.

Although the "Oslo mindset" has had many opponents, most have invested their energy in opposing the various outward manifestations of the mindset, rather than focusing on the faulty mindset itself. The result of this has been that Oslo opponents simply gained a reputation of always "opposing", like a group of pessimistic naysayers, without ever proffering any alternative of their own. Moreover, by constantly focusing on the outward manifestation, they repeatedly engaged the Oslo proponents in a battle they were sure to lose, since who can appear victorious when arguing against measures allegedly designed to bring "peace" or "improved security"?

Unfortunately, the Oslo opponents continue to make the same mistake. The real battle should have been, and still needs to be, against the mindset. Moreover, rather than simply wasting negative energy attacking a certain way of thinking, positive energy should be invested in promulgating a different way of thinking. This point is crucial, since changes in the way one thinks, be it as an individual or a nation, are frequently the catalyst for changes in the physical realm. Obviously, it would have been preferable if such an approach had begun 15 years ago, but nonetheless it's never too late to start. Therefore, I would like to briefly present some key points of what can hopefully become the cornerstone of a proper and healthy "Jewish mindset".

Although the following is certainly not an all-encompassing list and many of the points are not new, it is my firm belief that these ideas need to first be outlined in a clear and concise manner in order for them to be easily disseminated, discussed and internalized by as many Jews as possible.

The 18-point list, the basics for a healthy "Jewish mindset", is as follows:

1. There is a purpose to the unfolding events of history and there is a purpose to life. It's not all random.

2. Real, authentic Judaism is much more than what it has been reduced to, to a black and white system of "do's and don'ts". The halachic side, although very important, is only part of the picture.

3. The Jewish people have been chosen for a special role in the world.

4. This role can only be fulfilled by the collective Jewish nation living in the Land of Israel.

5. Establishing complete sovereignty in the Land of Israel and creating a model society, from top to bottom, according to the ideals and morality of Judaism, is essential for fulfilling this role. However, the nationalistic aspect of Judaism is not an end-goal in and of itself, but rather a platform that will enable us fulfill our lofty "international role" of being a "light unto nations".

6. Israel must interact with the world in order to have an influence, but at the same time must remain separate and independent, in order not to be further confused and fragmented by the assimilation of non-Jewish ideas and values.

7. Israel can and must sever the dependency on US economic aid.

8. The real goal of the Jewish state must be alive in our hearts and minds in order to affect our daily lives.

9. Without internalizing these ideas and changing our mindset, and eventually our lives, the endless killing in this region, as well as in the world, will continue.

10. The future of the world is dependent on the Jewish people getting their act together.

11. Properly understood, the real goal of the Jewish state is the most idealistic undertaking in the history of mankind.

12. Continuing along on the same path, functioning within our individual and collective "comfort zones", will not lead us out of the mess. We must, as individuals and as a nation, constantly strive to expand and stretch our comfort zones.

13. Every Jew should feel proud, yet humbled, in the role he has been given, and totally motivated and inspired to do his part.

14. Complaining will not change a thing and it is a waste of precious energy.

15. A positive, vision-oriented way of thinking is essential.

16. The Arab and Iranian threat are serious problems facing the Jewish state and, like any problem, they must certainly be dealt with. However, they are not the source of our problems, but the outward manifestation of our own internal problems. Thus, dealing with them alone will not bring us the desired harmony and salvation. The real problem is internally, within the Jewish people themselves, and stems from a lack of clarity as to our true purpose in the world. This problem, which is largely the result of a non-Jewish mindset prevalent amongst the Jewish people, is the real obstacle that stands in the way of ultimate salvation.

17. There are no shortcuts.

18. The world is waiting.


Yoel Meltzer has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel.

Cross-posted on Esser Agaroth.

What Is "Extremist?"

7 Adar 5769

YNET: What Is "Extremist?"
I have A LOT of acquaintances, yet very few friends. I consider Yo'el Meltzer one of them. I hope my saying so publicly will not hurt his writing career. Yo'el has a certain knack for saying it like it is, reaching a relatively wide audience, yet without compromising principles.

The above link is to YNET, which published this article first and which has already hosted some lively debate on it. See my comments #20 and #25. If you prefer Arutz 7, you can click here.

Yoel Meltzer
5 Adar 5796/March 1, 2009

As coalition talks heat up, the phrase "extremist coalition" is frequently heard. At times, it is Kadima stating that they will not join an "extremist coalition", while at other times it is the leadership of the Likud saying they will form a right-wing coalition, albeit not an "extremist" one. With the term being bantered about so regularly, perhaps it should be clarified what exactly this term means.

For starters, according to one dictionary, "extremist" means "one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm." Hence, right from the start, it should be clear that "extremist" is a relative term. Moreover, something is determined as extremist only in relation to its position vis-a-vis the "norm" (which, of course, is also a relative term). Thus, for example, we find that according to this definition, Zeev Jabotinsky's frantic pleas in the 1930s to European Jewry "to liquidate the exile before the exile liquidates you," would certainly be considered extremist, since the majority of European Jewry (the "norm") did not agree with Jabotinsky's prediction. Nonetheless, history proved that Jabotinsky was unfortunately correct, while the majority (the "norm") was clearly wrong.

This is just one example of many to show that what occasionally is considered an extremist approach is, in retrospect, correct, while what is considered the norm is, in retrospect, mistaken. Of course, this is not a fixed law and sometimes the opposite is true. What is important, however, is to understand that these terms are purely subjective and relative. Thus, whoever designates an idea or approach as "extremist", and by default what is the norm, is doing so from his own personal, subjective point of view and world outlook. This is an important point that should be kept in mind when confronted by such terms.

A much healthier approach would be if public officials would clearly state what they consider extremist in another party, and why, and in the process clarify what is their own unique point of view and world outlook. Thus, for example, if Kadima or Likud were to state why they believe that Yisrael Beiteinu's calling for citizenship based on loyalty is extremist, perhaps Yisrael Beiteinu would respond with their own reasoning of why they believe that such a position is legitimate and required. Whatever the outcome of such a dialogue would be, at the very least the public would be presented with some clear ideas of what our public officials actually believe in, rather than being fed the usual cliches.

Turning to another dictionary, we find that "extremism" is "any political theory favoring uncompromising policies." Thus, for example, based on this definition Kadima could easily claim that HaIchud HaLeumi has an extremist point of view, since they are 100% opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state in any shape or size, in any part of the Land of Israel. In other words, they are totally uncompromising and therefore extremist. However, similar to the case above, if Kadima would only state this clearly, rather than talking in general terms about an "extremist coalition", perhaps some genuine public dialogue would ensue.

In such a scenario, HaIchud HaLeumi might respond by saying that Kadima's determination to establish a Palestinian state in the majority of Judea and Samaria - despite the experience of missile attacks from Lebanon and Gaza during the past few years and despite the direct threat that such a state would pose against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem - is not only foolish, but it is also extremist, due to Kadima's uncompromising commitment to bring such a policy to fruition. Or perhaps they would respond by explaining in an intelligent way that from a Jewish perspective their position is actually the norm, while everything else should be viewed relative to their position.

The debates could go on and on, but the point here is that rather than continuing to spend endless time delegitimizing and vilifying other parties who have different points of view, the time has come for Israeli pubic officials to start engaging in real discussions based upon actual ideas and approaches, rather than mere sound bites and cliches such as "extremist". The Israeli public deserves this from their elected officials.


Yo'el Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization.

Cross-posted on Esser Agaroth.

Confusion On The Right

5 Shevat 5769

A7: "Confusion On The Right"
Apparently, YNET left out a sentence, when it published this article. So, I have changed the link to the Arutz 7 (Israel National News) version which published the article in its entirety. The sentence in question is marked in red.

Yoel Meltzer
3 Shevat 5796/January 28, 2009

Following the disengagement from Gaza in the summer of 2005 and the complete negligence on behalf of the government to properly handle the forced evacuees, the subsequent war in Lebanon one year later, the endless missiles fired upon the south and the recent war in Gaza, many good-minded Israelis are clearly against the establishment of a Palestinian state, in any shape or size, in Judea and Samaria.

The direct threat that such a state would impose against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, as these two large population centers become incredibly vulnerable to missile attacks, is quite obvious. In addition, in light of the disastrous handling of the disengagement refugees, it is inconceivable to think that Israel would succeed with the much larger Jewish population currently residing in Judea and Samaria.

However, despite the opposition of many Israelis to the “two-state solution,” it is quite clear and understandable that the United States has a different agenda. As a result of both an economy in disarray and widespread dissatisfaction with the continued participation of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new president will likely do his utmost to bring the American troops back home and “turn inward” in order to deal with the faltering economy.

It is also just as clear that Israel will likely be required, as usual, to “pay the price” for American appeasement with the various Arab and Muslim countries. Moreover, this is not something that theoretically might happen a few years down the road, but rather, something which will most likely happen within the coming year. Once again, from an American perspective this is quite clear and understandable, since America needs to do what it must do in order to preserve its teetering empire.

Just as clear, however, is the relentless and intense pressure that will be applied to Israel within the coming year in order to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in either all or part of a Jewish-free (or somewhat Jewish-free) Judea and Samaria.


Don’t be fooled
Having said all this, and in light of the quickly approaching national elections, it is truly amazing to see that the confusion on the Right is once again rearing its all too familiar head. Although there are several political parties that define themselves as “national” or “right-wing” - Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, The Jewish Home, The National Union – only one of these parties says, in clear and straightforward terms, that it is 100% opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, in any shape or size, in any part of the Land of Israel.

This party, The National Union, speaks clearly and directly with a real Jewish soul without worrying about political correctness. Moreover, its message, which is correct from a security perspective, is correct from a Jewish perspective as well. On the other hand the Likud, including several of its key members who recently cried “we told you Gaza would turn into Hamastan”(while conveniently forgetting to mention that these same key members voted in favor of the disengagement!), speaks about a demilitarized Palestinian state with Israel controlling the border security.

Yisrael Beiteinu, although different than Likud, also supports a two-state solution and suggests the trading of large population blocs (for example, Umm Al-Fahm and the “triangle” would be transferred to the Palestinian Authority in return for Israel officially annexing some Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria.) Finally, there is The Jewish Home, which is basically a reincarnation of the increasingly parve and boring National Religious Party. Some nice people, but not the type of party I would turn to when the future of the country is literally on the line.

It should be obvious then that anyone who truly cares about the future of this country should be voting for The National Union on Election Day, since it is the only party that is 100% dedicated to trying to stop the madness here. For this reason I am alarmed to hear of many good intentioned right-wing voters who are ready to place their vote with either the Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, either because they are unaware that both these parties support a two-state solution or because they think that strengthening these parties will somehow “provide the answer.” Please don't be fooled. The future of our country is at stake.

Yoel Meltzer lives in Israel and works in the finance department of a non-profit organization. More of Yoel's articles can be found by clicking here.


Cross-posted on Esser Agaroth.