For starters, Jordan’s large Palestinian population, a group which comprises roughly 70% of Jordan’s total population, has finally entered the fray with many in this somewhat disenfranchised community openly calling for the king to be ousted. Equally significant the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that traditionally has been treated well by the king, has also begun to take part in the escalating protest movement. However, unlike the Palestinians, the Muslim Brotherhood is not calling for the king to be toppled but rather for the regime to be reformed. Although they clearly understand that the king is slowly losing his grip on power, tactically it’s in their interest to gradually gain control via reforms instead of taking a chance with the all-out chaos that is likely to prevail should the king suddenly fall.

With the post-Mubarak Egypt already in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with the Hamas regime in Gaza and the Hezbollah domination of Lebanon, western and Israeli leaders are understandably concerned about the future in Jordan. The question is, what should they do?

While some will suggest that the king needs to be supported at all costs in order to maintain the relatively peaceful border with Israel, this approach seems short-sighted since it’s only a matter of time before the unstoppable events which have been sweeping the region for the last two years will finally bring down the king and end the Hashemite rule in Jordan.

Another option is to simply stand aside and do nothing. However, since the Muslim Brotherhood, thanks to its close association with the king, already has the inside track for gaining power in the post-Hashemite Jordan, and due to the fact that a similar course of action in Egypt backfired and brought Morsi to power, this approach also does not seem to be the most prudent.

Thus the only logical option is to strengthen the large Palestinian population and to facilitate their rise to power in such a way as to prevent yet another needless civil war and bloodbath in the region. Moreover, by already forging contacts with various Palestinian leaders in Jordan, the seeds can be set for the development of the Arab world’s first true democracy. Finally, regarding the king it’s a near certainty that if done peacefully he and his family will be granted asylum in a European capital, a fate infinitely better than that of either Mubarak or Gaddafi.

The question is, will the world sit idly by and allow yet another Arab country, one that is bordered by a warring Syria to the north and an unstable Iraq to the east, to either be taken over by Muslim fundamentalists or to deteriorate into civil war and bloodshed? Or will they spend a tiny fraction of the time and money that is invested in endlessly trying to force Israel to accept the ill-advised and impractical two-state solution and instead help develop a stable Palestinian state east of the Jordan River, one that can be developed to satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinians and in doing so finally lay the groundwork for solving the supposedly unsolvable Arab-Israeli conflict?

However, a few verses later it says “It was told to the king of Egypt (Pharaoh) that the people had fled ….” (chapter 14, verse 5). Thus perhaps this sentence is correct and the Jewish people were not thrown out by Pharaoh as originally thought but rather they took matters into their own hands and simply checked out of Egypt.

Then just six sentences later in verse 11 a third possibility is introduced. As the Jewish people are encamped by the sea and the mighty Egyptian army is approaching for the slaughter, they turn to Moses and say “Were there no graves in Egypt that you took us to die in the wilderness? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt?” So perhaps it wasn’t Pharaoh that kicked them out nor was it the Jewish people themselves who took the initiative and simply left but rather it was one man by the name of Moses who was the actual one responsible for taking the Jewish people out of Egypt.

Of course each one of these options is merely a subjective interpretation of a current event. In the eyes of the all-powerful Pharaoh, he probably believed that he was the one responsible for sending the Jewish people away. Contrasting this were Pharaoh’s ministers and advisors who believed that the Jewish people had simply fled. Finally the Jewish people themselves were convinced that it was Moses who had taken them out of Egypt.

The truth, however, was that the ultimate one responsible for taking the Jewish people out of Egypt was neither Pharaoh, Moses or the Jewish people themselves but rather God. The language of the Torah (chapter 13, verse 14) clarifies the matter:

And it shall be when your son will ask you at some future time “What is this?”, you shall say to him “With a strong hand God removed us from Egypt ……”

The point I believe the Torah is trying to teach us here is that in the present moment, man, using his subjective interpretation of current events, tends to attribute everything to the actions or policy of some key political or social figure. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to rise above this and to actually see the divine factor at play. Hence it is usually only “at some future time“, with plenty of hindsight, that one can fully understand the role that God plays in shaping history.

If this understanding that was granted to me a few weeks ago is correct, then perhaps we can try to search for a bit of the divine in the recent Israeli elections. In other words, rather than relying on the standard reasons that are being given for the shocking success of Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party, perhaps we can rise above our normal limits and actually discern a possible reason for God elevating this party to such a lofty level. Having said this, it should be clear that what I’m about to say here is mere speculation since no one knows for sure what are the intentions of God. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that I might be 100% wrong, I’d like to suggest the following.

One of the key components of Yair Lapid’s party is that everyone needs to share in the twin burdens of Israeli society – army service and the work world. With this call he is touching upon a frustration of many in Israel with the broadly defined Haredi community. Although this sector is not as black and white as the Israeli press tries to depict it, it is nevertheless a fact that many adult males in the Haredi community do not serve in the army or participate in the tax-paying work force.

For many in Israel there’s a feeling that this issue can no longer be swept under the carpet. Moreover, this feeling exists not only amongst the “anti-religious”, as some try to portray it, but even amongst many observant Jews themselves.

Moreover, unlike his father, the late Tommy Lapid, who was stridently anti-Haredi, and unlike Avigdor Lieberman who tried to advance similar ideas but also with respect to the Arabs (something that is not P.C. in Israel), Yair Lapid has managed to promote the issue in a somewhat non-abrasive manner. This being the case, there’s a real chance that this issue will actually be dealt with in the not too distant future.

If so, then perhaps this is where we can detect the “God factor”. In other words, despite the fact that some people here in Israel undoubtedly want to promote this issue because of hatred, perhaps this is God’s way of introducing into our consciousness a more expanded, more holistic, understanding of Torah and Judaism. While some believe that a Torah lifestyle is limited to the study hall and fulfillment of practical mitzvoth, thereby excluding seemingly external endeavors such as making an honest living and serving in the army, perhaps God is coming to teach us that they’re all part of the Torah since by its nature the Torah is broad and inclusive as opposed to being narrow and restrictive. Stated differently, taking the ideas and lessons of the Torah and going out with them into the world in order to develop and build the world is not an action that is outside the realm of Torah but rather it is the very essence of the Torah.

Thus, while some amongst us try to promote exalted ideas such as the declaration of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, perhaps God is coming to tell us that as a people we’re just not there and that it is far more important at the present moment to first acquire a more expanded understanding of Torah and Judaism. Moreover, maybe it is this expanded understanding and changed mindset on the part of the collective Jewish people which is the necessary precursor for eventually internalizing and accepting the concept of expanded Israeli sovereignty and other lofty ideas.

If my theory is correct, then this is something that is much bigger than Lapid or the Haredim. Nevertheless, since God works through humanity to advance His divine plan, perhaps He has chosen, for reasons known only to Him, to bring about this expanded understanding to the Jewish people davka now at this particular point in time and davka via a freshman politician by the name of Yair Lapid.

The problem with such a claim, however, is that the reality in Israel is far more complex than two clear cut black and white blocs and as a result such an overly simplistic analysis is quite misleading.

Therefore, in order to attain a more accurate picture of the election results it would be more helpful to first define the different types of parties, or groups of parties, that exist in Israel and then afterwards analyze each group independently.

Looked at this way, the “right-wing” parties are for the most part those which both prefer a strong Jewish component in Israel and a firm attachment to the land of Israel. Included in this group are the combined Likud/Yisrael Beiteinu which dropped from 42 seats to 31 and the merged Jewish Home/National Union which increased from 7 to 12. Overall this group witnessed a net loss of 6 (49 to 43).

Opposing this are the classic “left-wing” parties, which usually means those that are in favor of Israel being a nation of all of its citizens as opposed to a uniquely Jewish one, and are also diehard supporters of the two-state solution. In this category there is Labor, which increased from 13 to 15 and Meretz, which doubled from 3 to 6. Thus the left gained 5 seats from 16 to 21.

Between both of these groups are the “center” parties, those which in terms of their outlook bounce somewhere between the defining characteristics of the previously mentioned groups. While in 2009 the only party in this category was Kadima and its 28 seats, in the recent elections there were three parties in the center: Kadima (2), Hatenua (6) and Yesh Atid (19). Thus the center dropped from 28 to 27.

Next in line are the Haredi parties. Although it’s true that most of the people who vote for the Haredi parties as well as the Haredi MKs themselves are right-wing in the way explained above, they shouldn’t be lumped together with the other right-wing parties since historically they’ve had a different agenda and for this reason have occasionally been ready and willing to sit in a left-wing coalition. When analyzing this group we see that Shas remained the same with 11 seats while United Torah Judaism picked up two seats, climbing from 5 to 7. Hence, overall the Haredi parties grew from 16 to 18.

Rounding out the picture are the two Arab parties, Balad and the United Arab List, as well as Hadash, a communist party that draws much of its support from Israeli Arabs. Together these three parties received 11 seats back in 2009 and 11 seats once again in last week’s elections.

Analyzed this way we see that the right-wing parties are twice as large as the left-wing parties (43 to 21). Moreover, since it’s safe to assume that part of the six seats which were lost by the right signified a shift of some right-wing voters towards the center and concomitantly the five seats that were picked up by the left was most likely the result of previously center voters turning leftward, then the average center voter of 2013 is probably more right-wing in his outlook than his 2009 counterpart.

If this is the case, then perhaps the parties that comprise the two main blocs mentioned above should be right-center and left rather than left-center and right. Needless to say, if things were analyzed this way then the whole discussion of a 60-60 tie would be thrown in the trash. Moreover, this is even before the Haredi parties and their mainly right-wing voters are factored into the picture.

Finally, outside of Meretz and perhaps Labor, there is no chance that any other party would form a coalition with the Arab/communist parties which once again shows that the whole 60-60 discussion is meaningless.

Therefore, any way you slice it there is no fictitious 60-60 tie. Moreover, the majority of Israeli voters are far more right-wing in their outlook than certain figures in the media would like to admit.

For me, however, the choice is rather simple and the title of The Who’s classic rock and roll hit “We Won’t Get Fooled Again” says it all. In other words, although the candidates with a more nationalistic orientation certainly fared well in the recent Likud primaries, and Moshe Feiglin instead of Dan Meridor will undoubtedly strengthen the ideological backbone of the party, for the most part it’s basically the same people who were elected in 2009 and who were subsequently unable despite their good intentions to prevent the building freeze, the Bar Ilan speech and the evictions from both the Ulpana neighborhood and Migron. Similarly, they failed to prevent the Prime Minister from caving in to pressure from both the media and the attorney general on several key bills designed to curtail the ever-expanding power of the courts and they were likewise unsuccessful in their attempts to have the Prime Minister adopt the findings of the Levy Report.

This being the case, why should we expect anything different this time around? After all Benjamin Netanyahu is still the head of the Likud and as the last four years have taught us he is the one who ultimately makes the decisions.

Moreover, although most agree that the Likud merger with Yisrael Beiteinu was simply a way for Netanyahu to all but guarantee a victory in the upcoming elections, it’s quite possible that the Prime Minister had another reason for joining forces with Avigdor Lieberman. Assuming that politically speaking Netanyahu is the same Netanyahu, then the merger with Yisrael Beiteinu will easily allow Netanyahu to continue with his policy of neutralizing what he considers to be the more right wing elements of his own Likud party.

For in the event that the Prime Minister is unable to enforce party discipline on a key ideological issue, a scenario in the Likud that is almost certain to happen, his partnership with Lieberman means that he will now have at his disposal a party that is based upon near total discipline to the demands of its own chairman. Thus, even if several members of his own Likud party are opposed to his stance on a certain issue or on a specific vote, all Netanyahu needs to do is to close ranks with Lieberman in order to circumvent the will of his own party.

Equally important, on the key issue of Palestinian calls for statehood west of the Jordan River, the realization of which many consider would pose a threat to the continued existence of the Jewish state, Lieberman, like Netanyahu, publicly supports a version of the two-state solution.

Considering all of the above, it’s difficult to take serious the recent declarations about building in E1 or ads being placed in right-leaning newspapers with pictures of Netanyahu, Feiglin and Hotovely ironically appearing on the same page. After all, the real test is not a month or two before the elections but rather a month or two after the elections. Moreover, the fact that Netanyahu supposedly doesn’t want the Jewish Home in any future coalition only strengthens the point that the Prime Minister, despite his newly discovered right-wing stance, really doesn’t intend on veering to the right after the elections.

For all of these reasons, the choice for the Jewish Home should be obvious. For not only do the respective leaders of the two merged parties, Naftali Bennett and Uri Ariel, oppose the suicidal two-state solution, from the outset they have projected a clear pro-Israel line that resonates with more and more Israeli voters from all walks of life. Moreover, the genuinely positive atmosphere being created by diverse candidates relinquishing their own individual egos in order to harmoniously work together for a larger cause has left many in Israel with the feeling that finally something positive is happening in the ugly world of Israeli politics.

In addition, the greater the party’s success in the January elections the more difficult it will be for Netanyahu to keep them out of any future coalition. Needless to say, the Jewish Home’s presence in the next coalition would make it more difficult for the Prime Minister to continue with his habit of ignoring the more right-wing members of his own Likud party.

This personal endorsement of the Jewish Home, however, and in fact the future growth of the party, is contingent upon the Jewish Home finally parting ways with its “sector mentality” background. Although people like Naftali Bennett, Ayelet Shaked and many others appear to understand this point, there are still some voices in the larger Jewish Home world that are stuck in the sector mentality. Such people fail to understand that although the party sprouted from the beautiful ideals and morality of the Religious-Zionist world and even still carries these assets with it, it is no longer a narrow “Religious Zionist party” which is meant to cater to the needs of one specific sector but rather it has evolved into a broader party which is meant to embrace and eventually provide leadership for all of the Jewish people. If Naftali Bennett and others around him can succeed in conveying this message both internally to the party and externally to the voters, then the sky is the limit for the party.

The ultimate goal however, in spite of everything written above, is that eventually all the good, quality MKs will sit together in one party. For that to happen, the Jewish Home needs to blossom into a party of at least 15-20 seats while concomitantly the Likud needs to continue to strengthen itself ideologically. If both of these happen then it’s realistic that within 5-10 years a true nationalist leader will be elected as the head of the Likud. When that happens, the two parallel parties will truly be superfluous, a precondition which will then allow them to merge into one in order to finally have a powerful leadership party based upon the requisite ideals and vision to lead the nation. Moreover, it’s irrelevant whether this merged party will be called the Likud, the Jewish Home, or some other name, since the party is merely the vessel to provide the leadership. God willing, that day is drawing close.

Further to the right there were voices saying that since the Palestinians clearly violated the Oslo Accords with their unilateral action, Israel should act accordingly by taking the unilateral step of declaring Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea & Samaria.

For his part the Prime Minister had harsh words for both Abbas and for all the countries that helped secure a landslide victory for the Palestinian leader.

On top of this, while most political commentators in Israel were quick to add that from a legal perspective the symbolic vote has no binding aspect, many of the same commentators conceded the fact that it does nevertheless represent some sort of advancement in the direction of Palestinian statehood.

Once again, to anyone familiar with the Israeli political scene there was nothing new in any of these reactions.

Lost in all the fuss, however, is the fact that for years Israel itself has been encouraging the creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. In other words, the point is not whether or not the Arabs sidestepped Israel but rather the fact that the only one to blame for the approaching reality of an Arab state in Judea and Samaria is not Abbas, the UN or any of the hypocritical countries in the world but rather one of the most democratic, stable and tiniest countries in the entire Middle East, Israel.

After all, with successive Israeli leaders, including current Prime Minister Netanyahu, supporting the establishment of yet another Arab state in the region, this time in Judea and Samaria, rather than confidently and unabashedly asserting the rights that the Jewish people have to the land, be it the Biblical rights or the legal rights (Mandate, San Remo, etc), is it any wonder that we’re heading in the direction of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?

However, rather than taking responsibility for this fiasco, Israeli leaders are throwing sand in our eyes by merely focusing on the qualitative difference of whether or not a Palestinian state will eventually be thrust upon us via the international community or whether one will be reached via an accord and a few signatures on a piece of paper called a peace agreement. Needless to say, for anyone who is genuinely concerned that an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, regardless of how it is established, will pose a threat to the very existence of an even smaller and more vulnerable State of Israel, the focus on the alleged difference in how the Palestinians achieve their state is not very comforting.

Moreover, as the last twenty years have shown us, whatever red lines Israel declares today will most likely melt away in a few years time. A clear case in point is the fact that there are already voices in Israel proposing that a dialogue be opened with the Hamas government in Gaza, a suggestion that just a few short years ago would have been roundly condemned across the political board. Thus, as much as Israel currently cries foul over Abbas’ unilateral move, history has shown us that within a short time period Israel will, in all likelihood, simply readjust its red lines and learn to live with the type of infraction that once upon a time we were told would nullify the Oslo accords.

Having said all this it’s clear that Israel’s long-term survival, something which will be endangered should an Arab state be established in Judea and Samaria and which therefore can no longer be taken for granted, is dependent on the emergence of a new type of Israeli leader, one that will no longer blame others for our difficult predicament but rather will look in the collective national mirror, draw the obvious conclusions and with full responsibility initiate the long overdue and necessary change in direction.

In addition, by placing an exaggerated emphasis on this non-essential point, as was the case before the 2009 elections, Israel is in effect questioning its own role as a fully sovereign state. Needless to say, this is not the type of message that any self-respecting country should be broadcasting either internally to its own citizens or externally to the world.

Thus, rather than giving any attention whatsoever to this non-issue, as certain politicians and their supporters in the media tried to do prior to the recent hostilities, the focus should be on “trivial items” such as the ongoing financial crisis in Europe and the potential ramifications for Israel, the excessively high cost of housing, food and many other basic products, the continued carnage on the roads due to an overly aggressive driving culture, the growing violence in the schools and society, the Bedouin land-grab in the Negev, the large poverty stricken Haredi population that needs to be integrated into the work force and the general breakdown of a shared sense of purpose and unity amongst the population.

There are other issues as well that merit attention, albeit ones far less important than the personal relationship between our next prime minister and Mr. Obama, such as missiles from Gaza, infiltrators from Africa, an Al-Qaeda presence in the Sinai, a Muslim Brotherhood president in Egypt, a civil war in Syria that is threatening to spill over into the Golan and a madman in Iran that is threatening to annihilate us.

This is not to imply that all is gloom and doom in Israel since this is certainly not the case. There is a lot of good here, but at the same time there are many serious issues and challenges that need to be dealt with and Israeli simply does not possess the luxury to continue wasting it’s time discussing non-issues at the expense of real ones.

Moreover, although we shouldn’t expect too much since after all Israel is unfortunately no different than much of the world in that election campaigns based upon empty promises and catchy slogans have for the most part done away with serious discussions of issues and ideas, at the very least we should demand that the relationship between the next Israeli prime minister and the American president not be the top subject of the upcoming elections.

Nevertheless, should certain candidates pick up where they left off before the recent hostilities and shamelessly continue to stake their claim for leadership simply by promising that “they will improve the relations with America that Netanyahu destroyed”, which all of us know is just another way of saying they will be totally submissive to the White House and will do what they can to help ram the suicidal two-state solution down our throats, such candidates should be reminded that there are a zillion more pressing issues for the average Israeli than the personal relationship between our prime minister and the American president. Finally and perhaps most importantly, such candidates should then be totally ignored at the polling stations on election day.

Although I’m not against having a little peace and quiet and Israel is certainly justified to do whatever it must in Gaza or any place else in order to prevent enemy attacks and hopefully attain some of that peace and quiet, unfortunately the same worn-out approach of reacting to Arab aggression in order to achieve nothing more than some temporary tranquility in the region will not prevent the next flare-up with Hamas, Hezbollah or whoever in another six months, one year or two years. It’s simply inevitable as long as Israel continues to play a game of make believe by pretending that the whole dispute with the Arabs is based upon land and therefore by solving the land issue, reconciliation with the Arabs is ultimately possible.

Although such an assumption provides hope, and perhaps because of this it has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by nearly the entire world, the truth is that the dispute with the Arabs has nothing to do with land. Had it really been a land issue it would have been solved years ago. Anyone who is familiar with the situation knows this, as well as the bitter fact that the larger Arab world will never reconcile itself to having a Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East. True, such a statement may not sound nice and it’s certainly not politically correct, but that’s just the way it is. Israel needs to accept this fact, internalize it and stop pretending that things are otherwise.

Moreover, by finally admitting the truth Israel will be released from its own shackles in order to start heading in the opposite direction. Politically speaking this means first declaring that the Oslo process and the foolish discussion of the two-state solution are history and then planning for the eventual implementation of Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria. Although it certainly would have been easier had Israel chosen this path years ago, long before it raised the expectations of the world by recklessly supporting the division of its own land, it’s never too late to change direction. It might be difficult, but certainly not impossible.

Although anyone who advocates such a change of direction will probably be accused of being an “extremist”, that’s no reason to turn back, especially if the attack comes from all the gurus who predicted a new Middle East with the launch of the Oslo process or by those who promised enduring security for the south with the implementation of the Gaza Disengagement. They were wrong in every way possible, even if they never admitted it or apologized for their mistakes. Thus, anyone who feels the burning need to raise his voice and speak the truth, regardless of how it may resonate in the ears of certain people, should not be deterred for fear of attack by those who have continually led us astray without repenting.

The point here is not to blame but rather to help initiate a badly needed change of direction. Moreover, the real voice of the Jewish people in Israel must be heard. The average, regular Jew knows that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people and that all the historical lies and distortions that are bantered about, as well as all the slanderous incriminations that are hurled against Israel, cannot change this fact.

Furthermore, the Jewish people were not brought back to the land of Israel after an incredibly long and bitter stay in the exile in order to merely strive for the attainment of a nice, quiet American type of lifestyle on the western tip of Asia. We’re here for a purpose, whether we like it or not. Moreover, the longer we avoid really understanding and internalizing this truth and instead merely spend our time trying to emulate America in order to achieve that ever-elusive peace and quiet, the longer the bloody and senseless wars with the Arabs will continue.

Although obviously the previous claim cannot be proven empirically as it falls with the realm of “faith”, the opposite approach of just skidding along and attempting to survive in a very difficult neighborhood, equipped with no greater goal than the attainment of some sense of western normalcy, has clearly proven ineffective in realizing even this somewhat limited goal. Likewise, as much as we repeatedly try to convince the Arabs to join us in this endeavor, they’re simply not interested. As Einstein once said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Thus, if Israel is seriously committed to its own long-term survival as a sovereign nation in this part of the world, it must try a different approach. The question is, how much suffering must there be, for both Jews and Arabs alike, before we finally change direction?

For starters, when he was first elected Prime Minister in 1996 there was anticipation amongst many in Israel that the newly elected Likud prime minister would stop the Oslo process which the previous Labor government had initiated a few years earlier. However, rather than acting forcefully to halt an obviously irresponsible political gamble, one which included such insanities as arming Arafat’s “police force” in return for his solemn promise that the weapons would not be used against us, the new prime minister not only failed to stop the Oslo train but he even gave it a push by handing over control of nearly all of the ancient city of Hebron to the Palestinians. Thus a golden opportunity to stop Oslo early on, preventing much of the damage and destruction it eventually caused the Jewish state, was missed.

Then a few years later when all eyes from the right were focused on Netanyahu, waiting for the only man who was believed capable of stopping Ariel Sharon and his Disengagement Plan to finally take charge and lead the revolt, Netanyahu once again failed to live up to expectations and meekly backed down. Thus with no one left to stop Sharon the plan was eventually implemented and roughly 10,000 Jews were thrown out of their homes and into a life of misery, while the Gaza Strip was transformed into one of the hugest missile launching pads in the world.

Even now during his second stint as Prime Minister, one in which he has been rewarded with a coalition very much to his liking, Netanyahu has continued to shy away from taking decisive action on certain key issues, perhaps most notably vis-à-vis the State Attorney’s office and its total disregard for the government in issues related to Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.

Although his propensity to avoid taking a stand on issues which would require him to directly oppose various elements of the establishment has irritated many, on the issue of Iran, and regardless of what they’ll say about him in the New York Times, Netanyahu can no longer procrastinate. Even the United Nations, not exactly a good friend of Israel, has recently stated that by February 2013 Iran will have everything that is required to build a nuclear bomb.

True, many will say that having the necessary parts and the ability to build a bomb is not yet a bomb and therefore Israel should not take unilateral action. Of course many of these same people were also big supporters of Oslo and the Gaza Disengagement, political undertakings that led to the death of many Israelis and which in retrospect were based upon assumptions that were clearly wrong. Additionally, some of the statements against unilateral Israeli action are coming from people, many even with good intentions, who are living in countries very far from Israel and from any direct threat from Iran. Whatever the case, for the most part such voices should be discounted and I can only hope that Netanyahu is not being influenced by them.

Likewise, any opposition to Israeli action from President Obama, the man whose naïve policies have empowered extremist forces in the Arab/Islamic world, or from Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State who displayed her total lack of understanding of the Arab/Islamic world with her recent “how could this happen in a country we helped liberate?”, should not stop Israel from doing what is in its best interest.

At the end of the day, Netanyahu is going to have to make a decision and make it soon. Moreover, he will have to do this without the comfort of relying on the United States. Perhaps in some way this is heavenly justice since for years Israeli leaders have been saying “never again”, meaning that we will never again sit back and passively be slaughtered while waiting for the world to help us, while in reality Israeli leaders for years have been shying away from taking bold action in dealing with various threats and instead have increasingly turned time and again to the United States and the rest of the international community for help.

Although the result of an Israeli strike, either alone or with the United States, will possibly mean war, the cost of Israeli inaction might be far worse. This is certainly clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu. The question is whether he will finally rise to the occasion and overcome his tendency of failing to act.

Although for many years after its inception the NRP was consistently a ten to fifteen member party, ever since the end of the 9th Knesset in 1981 the strength of the party has been drastically reduced. With the brief exception of the 14th Knesset of 1996 when the party managed to climb back over the ten member threshold, for years the party hovered between four to six members before finally crashing down to its current level of three.

Some of the reason for the loss of power was due to the endless splintering in the national camp throughout the years as internal disputes regarding direction and vision frequently led to the creation of new parties. Similarly, for some on the left the party was seen as focusing too much on communities in Judea-Samaria-Gaza while to some on the right the party was seen as being too wishy-washy and unwilling to take a forceful stand. As a result the party witnessed an erosion of power as voters from both sides slowly drifted away.

Even the recruitment ten years ago of Effie Eitam and all the excitement that his name and presence generated couldn’t reverse the trend. Similarly, the various mergers or attempted mergers in recent years with the National Union have failed to stop the bleeding.

The result of this process is that some members of the national camp have turned to the Likud, some to the National Union and yet others to Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu.

Thus there exists today the absurd situation where on the one hand the national religious community excels and even leads in some key areas of the country – the military and hi-tech to name just a few – while in the political realm their power is diffused and hence their collective influence is nearly non-existent.

Only with both an understanding of this background and with the knowledge that unless there is a radical change the Jewish Home Party might simply disappear from the political map in the coming years, can one truly appreciate the events surrounding the upcoming party elections.

For starters, while two of the candidates for the party leadership, Zevulun Orlev and Daniel Hershkowitz, are rightly or wrongly associated with the old guard that has made the party nearly irrelevant, the third candidate, 40-year-old Naftali Bennett, is creating much excitement and anticipation. The former chief of staff of Netanyahu prior to the 2009 elections, Bennett is trying to move the party away from its traditional role of being a small sector-related party that is usually satisfied with only trying to influence the larger ruling parties and instead transform it into a significantly broader and larger party that is finally involved in leading.

Moreover, Bennett’s approach and the high hopes that are being placed on him has convinced a wide range of candidates – such as Ayelet Shaked, the secular co-founder of the MyIsrael national movement, Moti Yogev, the former Secretary General of Bnei Akiva and Dr Yehuda David, the Israeli physician who fought for the truth in the Mohammed al-Dura story – to enter the elections for the party list which are being held one week after the elections for the party leader.

Nevertheless, while Bennett’s race for the leadership and his plan to open up the party to the wider national camp in order to include traditional and secular members side by side with religious ones has earned him the support of many, including perhaps most importantly that of current Jewish Home Party member of Knesset Uri Orbach, his two opponents are still confident that they can defeat their relatively young rival.

Thus as the race to sign up members to the party comes to a close on September 9, the three candidates for the party leadership are preparing for the final push to the November 6 elections. The results of that day will probably mean the continued irrelevance of a once proud party or a breath of fresh air and hope for a frustrated and splintered national camp.

With all eyes understandably focused on Iran and Egypt it’s a shame that most people are missing out on the drama that is currently taking place in the Jewish Home Party.

The co-founder and former chairman of the MyIsrael (Yisrael Sheli) national movement, the recipient of the 2012 Abramowitz Israeli Prize for Media Criticism and a close associate of Naftali Bennett – the two worked together in the office of Benjamin Netanyahu prior to the 2009 elections – Shaked is raising some eyebrows due to the fact that she, unlike Bennett, is a self-declared secularist.

Thus while Naftali Bennett is seen as taking on the old guard in his bid to become the new chairman of the Jewish Home Party, Ayelet Shaked is facing an equally difficult task in attempting to become the first secular member of Knesset for a party that was formerly known as the National Religious Party (Mafdal). While no one doubts her strong pro-Israel credentials, not surprisingly the voices are divided within the national religious world regarding a secular candidate for a traditionally religious party.

After reading much about her in the Hebrew press, I decided to meet with her in a Tel Aviv café in order to get an up close impression of this up and coming star.

……………………

Yoel Meltzer (YM): You grew up in Northern Tel Aviv, not exactly the breeding ground for future right-wing stars. This being the case, from where did you acquire your strong connection to many of the ideals of the religious Zionist world?

Ayelet Shaked (AS): I think originally a bit came from my home. My mother was a teacher of Bible in Tel Aviv and my father was masoriti (traditional). Every Saturday we went to synagogue and we made kiddush. However, since the discussions at home tended to stay away from politics most of my political views I eventually developed myself.

Later on when I was in the army I served in the Golani and I became close friends with many religious Zionist soldiers. This in turn strengthened my ideology. I also spent part of my army time in Hebron and became friends with many people there, which also had an influence. But overall most of my political views I just developed on my own.

YM: Was there any one person or a particular event that had a profound influence in shaping your world outlook and political views?

AS: Yes. I remember when I was very young, perhaps 8-years old, I saw a debate between Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Shamir and I really liked Shamir. So I think since then, even though I was just a child, I’ve considered myself right-wing.

YM: Before you announced your intention to run in the primaries of the Jewish Home party, did you expect the reaction your candidacy has triggered?

AS: I must admit most of the people are very warm and happy with my candidacy. I receive many emails and messages in Facebook, people saying we support you and we’re very glad you’re with us. They’re in favor of opening the divides and having real cooperation between different people in Israel. I’ve also met many yeshiva students who have told me that their rabbis are very excited that I’m getting involved since they’ve been waiting for years for the party to stop being a closed one-sector party. So overall I really believe that those who are opposed to my entering the party are a minority.

Having said that, I definitely expected there would be some opposition and I understand it. I realize that my presence within the party makes some people uncomfortable.

YM: Have you been contacted by any of the rabbis or public leaders who are opposed to your candidacy on the grounds that you’re secular?

AS: No, none of them have contacted me directly.

YM: If one of them were to contact you, what would you say to him?

AS: First of all it’s his right and I respect that. Even though we may have different views we need to respect each other. Nevertheless I would tell him that if we want to have a large party to the right of Netanyahu, one that is based on the Bible and Jewish values, then the party needs to be opened to secular and traditional Jews that identify with the values of the religious Zionist community.

I truly believe that if they open their heart and open their mind to cooperate with other people that share the same values, then we can have a big party. Otherwise the party will continue with three mandates.

YM: Do you feel offended by their opposition or take it personal?

AS: No, this is politics. I don’t take it personal. As I told you I respect their view and it’s also a legitimate view.

YM: Given all of the above, why on earth are you getting involved davka in the Jewish Home Party? Do you really need the headache?!

AS: I’m doing this because I believe in it. I have many close friends who are religious Zionists and I think if we can be good friends, work together and serve in the army together, then there is no reason we should not be part of the same party. Moreover, since we believe in the same values and hold similar opinions then I think we should go fight for them in the Knesset.

YM: It’s better to do this via the Jewish Home Party than via the Likud?

AS: It’s a dilemma. I was a Likud member for many years. The problem in the Likud is that every leader takes the Likud to the left. It wasn’t easy for me to take this step.

YM: Okay, now that you’ve decided to go full steam ahead, what are the burning issues you’d like to address if and when you become a member of Knesset?

AS: The first item is to develop a strong Jewish identity in all of the Jews in Israel. This needs to be part of the education system, not just in the religious schools but in the school of my son as well. When Zevulun Hammer was the Minister of Education there was a specific department responsible for the Jewish identity in the schools. This needs to be reestablished.

I’m also already very involved, personally and via MyIsrael, in all the issues regarding the post-Zionist organizations and their attempt to change Israel from a Jewish democratic state to a “nation of all its citizens”. So if I become a member of Knesset I want to be involved in hasbara (public diplomacy) in Israel and around the world in order to expose the intentions of some of the extreme left-wing organizations and stop their penetration into the country. These organizations are involved in a wide range of anti-Israel activities such as the delegitimization of IDF soldiers, divestment of Israel around the world and aid for what they call African refugees even though most are in fact infiltrators.

Finally I’d like to encourage women to go out and work, to become involved in the business world, in public life or whatever they want. Of course I’m only talking about women that want to do this. I have friends who prefer to stay at home and raise their kids and I respect this. But regarding those who want to work and have a career we need to find ways to enable this.

YM: Even if you should succeed in addressing these issues, what other areas of Israeli society need to be changed in order for Israel to become more in line with the type of country you’d like it to be?

AS: First of all I want to say that I believe Israel is a miracle and I think we’re a very healthy country. We have a strong economy, a high level of mutual concern compared to other countries and overall there is a lot of good here.

The most important thing we need to do to make it even better is to reduce the socioeconomic gaps in the society. This needs to be done through the education system so that a child in the periphery will have the same opportunities like a child in my Tel Aviv neighborhood.

YM: Let’s change the subject to Naftali Bennett. After meeting a few years ago while working together in Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, when did the two of you decide to join forces in trying to make an impact in Israel?

AS: After both of us left Netanyahu’s office we tried to decide what is the best thing to do; to go back to the private sector or to remain in public life? Personally I strongly admire the private sector and I told Naftali many times that if you can establish a big company that can create thousands of jobs, do it. It’s one of the most important things in life to provide someone with a job.

For many months we continued debating this subject until Naftali decided that he wanted to devote his life to the people of Israel and that the best way to do this is through the public sector. So he went to work with the Yesha Council and I returned to the private sector.

It was at this time, on the side from our new jobs, that we jointly created together the MyIsrael national movement.

YM: What exactly is the MyIsrael movement?

AS: It’s a national movement of about 100,000 people that are mainly right-wing and share the same values and ideas. There are so many people that want to be involved and give of themselves for various causes yet they don’t want to stop their lives. So MyIsrael is a way, via the internet and Facebook, to activate these people for certain issues. In many ways we’re like a large lobby group. For instance we’ve pressured Knesset members to pass certain laws, we fought a campaign against Galei Tzahal (Israel Army Radio) and their predominately left-leaning agenda in order to have more balance in their programs and we stopped some boycotts of Israel. Believe me, when 20,000 emails are sent to someone overseas who wants to boycott Israel he’s going to think twice.

YM: In addition to you and Naftali, who are the other members of your group that are trying to get in to the Jewish Home Party?

AS: First of all there is Rabbi Ronsky, the former chief rabbi of the IDF. He actually hasn’t made up his mind if he wants to be a candidate but he’s very involved with us. He shares the same views as us and believes it’s very important that religious and non-religious work together. Naftali introduced him to me a few months ago and he’s actually the one who pushed me into this. We’ve become very close and the three of us, Naftali, Rabbi Ronsky and myself, speak every day.

In addition there is Moti Yogev, the former Secretary General of Bnei Akiva, and Dr Yehuda David, the Israeli physician who fought for the truth in the Mohammed al-Dura story.

Of course there is also current MK Uri Orbach who was very instrumental in convincing Naftali to get involved and run for the chairman of the party.

YM: Regarding Rabbi Ronsky, is he a sort of spiritual advisor providing guidance to you and Naftali?

AS: He’s much more than just spiritual. He’s working very hard, going to chugei bayit (parlor meetings), giving interviews and basically doing everything that I do. Personally I really admire him.

YM: What does he have to say about all the controversy regarding your candidacy? Has he spoken to you about it?

AS: Sure, he’s spoken to me many times about the issue and he encouraged me to run in the primaries. He’s so against the splitting up into separate sectors.

YM: What would happen if you receive a top spot in the primaries but Naftali loses in his bid to become the chairman of the party? Do you think the party has a chance of making a real impact without Naftali as the leader?

AS: No, I don’t think so. Without Naftali we’ll probably just get a few mandates. Although personally I’ll still run it would be very sad if Naftali is not with us.

YM: On a technical note, what happens to the two candidates (out of a total of three – Naftali Bennett, Zevulun Orlev, Daniel Hershkowitz) who lose in the election for the party chairman? Are they guaranteed a spot in the party or are they out of for good?

AS: They’re not guaranteed a spot but they can run in the list since the election for the head of the party is one week before the election for the rest of the list. Therefore if someone wins by a big margin and there is no need for a second round, then the two that lose can run in the list with everyone else. By the way, Orlev and Hershkowitz said that if they lose the election for the head of the party they’re not going to run in the list.

YM: I recently read that an internal committee of the Jewish Home Party decided to lower the amount of candidates that voters can choose in the primaries from five to three. In comparison to the Likud primaries of 2008 where members were allowed to choose 12 candidates for a general list as well as a few more for regional spots and new immigrants, these numbers are ridiculously low. They’re also lower than the 2008 Labor primaries where members chose between 5-8 candidates for a national list.

Why then, following the warmly received decision to finally open up the party to primaries, are they going in the opposite direction? Do you think there are certain people that are trying to prevent your group from getting in?

AS: First of all I respect the tremendous effort of Rabbi Tropper to bring primaries to the party and I also respect the work of the committee. However in this issue I think they made a mistake. Although people were definitely pushing them, in the end it was their decision. They said that it’s for the good of the party in that it will prevent the formation of internal groups.

Nevertheless, we asked for a revote of this decision since many voters are not happy with it. Obviously most voters want to choose more than just three candidates.

YM: Let’s assume that everything goes as planned and one day Naftali becomes the Prime Minister of Israel. If this were to happen, what would be your dream role? Would you like to serve as his Foreign Minister? Or perhaps Defense Minister or Finance Minister would suit you better?

AS: I think I’d like to be either Education Minister or Foreign Minister since both education and hasbara are close to my heart. Then again, if Naftali becomes Prime Minister I think I can retire and enjoy life!