If you think that Israel has been left on its own in the world, then Dr. Yoram Hazony might just be able to surprise you.  We meet at his home in Jerusalem a week before Passover, against the background of the most difficult period in the history of the State of Israel, not only in terms of its security but also global public opinion. Hazony provides a relatively sober view of the crisis facing Israel's diplomatic relations with the West in the wake of the War in Gaza, but he also identifies an opportunity to revamp them.

"The West is suffering from an immense post-biblical void," says Hazony. "They have removed the Bible from the curriculum of the US and Europe, and the outcome is that they are simply falling apart at the seams internally and too weak to deal with their external threats. Whenever I meet with my colleagues from all over the Western world, I claim to them that they have a cultural heritage that was part and parcel of the DNA of their civilization. They are itching to hear what we, the representatives of the Jewish people, have to say about the crises that the West has been undergoing in the last few decades. From numerous points of view, they regard Israel as a role-model state.

"The festival of Passover," continues Hazony, "is the first independence day of any nation in history. The Bible describes how a nation goes out of Egypt, which was a regional empire at the time, 'The House of Bondage', and then establishes an independent state in its own land, and that is without aspiring to establish an empire to rule over other nations. The Exodus is, of course, the crowning story of Jewish history, but the truth is that this story has had an unparalleled impact on the political order of the entire Western world. It gave birth to the idea of national freedom and the concept of a nation-state that gives expression to the unique nature of a defined group of people, and which usually rise up to resist empires threatening to swallow them up."

To validate this statement, Hazony moves on to provide a short historical review: "From the time of King Alfred the Great, who succeeded in uniting the English tribes and establishing the 'United Kingdom' in the tenth century based on the precedent of the unification of the tribes of Israel, until the Czechs in the 14th century, the Dutch in the 16th century, the Poles and the French in the 17th century – everybody has turned to the Bible to establish their own nationhood. The same dynamics occurred in perhaps the most prominent and famous manner in the US: there is a good reason why the founding fathers of America kept going back to the scriptures, and claimed to be 'The New Israel.' Not in the Christian sense, in which the church declared that it had come to replace the people of Israel, but in the sense that they saw in our story an example to be followed, and they sought to imitate our ancestors."

"In the twentieth century, the sense of national freedom that was based on the Hebrew Bible was an idea that reached even the farthest corners of the world. That idea does not stem from the other cultural pillars of the West – neither from ancient Greece, where the Greek city-states constantly fought one another, nor from Rome, which was underpinned by a clear imperialist tendency. Passover might well be our national holiday, but its voice is heard far away."

Q: You write in a number of places about English philosophers from the 15th and 16th centuries who read the Bible and from it they came to their ideas of nationalism and freedom. Others will claim that here you are adopting a Protestant-Christian reading of the scriptures, something that is not entirely in the spirit of Judaism. 

"When people in the academic world tell me that 'we had no impact on the world of politics in the West,' I show them that there has been a tremendous Jewish impact on the West, which also occurred due to a number of important Protestant thinkers, whose reading was based on the 'p'shat' (the plain literal meaning of the verse) of the Biblical text. That doesn't mean that everything that the Christians adopted from us has authentic Jewish roots, but the messages that I am talking about are indeed deeply rooted in our tradition."

Q: Conservative speakers in the West often talk about the "Judeo-Christian tradition". What is your take on that term?

"I never use that term," says Hazony, disapprovingly. "Judaism is one thing and Christianity is something else entirely. These are very different religions and the confusion between them is not good for us or for them. Biblical and rabbinical ethics do not extol weakness; while Christianity, from the New Testament to the important Christian thinkers throughout history, systematically tries to say that being a poor person is a good thing, and that we should 'turn the other cheek' to the enemy. However, it is important to know that today not all Christians agree with that. Currently, it is important for us to nurture the shared interests with the Christian world that seeks this; we share a common belief in one God and in the sanctity of the Bible. Having said that, I never hide the fact that I am a believing Jew. When Christian colleagues ask me whether I think that Judaism has the edge over Christianity, I say to them: you should begin by learning the tradition that you received in your churches, but remember: the most direct path to God is Judaism."

Q: And just how well does this go down with them?

"Well, as you can clearly see, I am not everybody's cup of tea."

The successors of Roman imperialism

Dr. Yoram Hazony is one of the most outstanding intellectuals of the conservative right in the US and Europe. He is a highly sought-after interviewee on various stages across that camp. In Israel, he is known as one of the founding fathers of the conservative discourse. In the nineties, he was one of the founders of the Shalem Center and the now defunct journal Tchelet. The meteoric rise in Hazony's status among conservative circles worldwide occurred mainly after the publication of his book "The Virtue of Nationalism" in 2018. "I was in the middle of writing a book on God, when in 2016, only three months before the referendum on Brexit (the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union), a colleague from abroad who predicted just how nationalists in Britain and Europe would be attacked as 'fascists,' phoned me and said, 'put everything else on hold and write something about nationalism.' So, I sat down and began to write."

His main argument in the book is that in contrast to historical imperialism, a world order founded on nation-states, the roots of which Hazony identifies in the Bible, as we have said, is the most ethical order of all. The idea of the nation-state is the subject of attacks today from liberal and multinational institutions such as the UN and the EU, as well as from the progressive left and the "Islamic supremacist movements," as Hazony refers to them, which have penetrated the West. He regards them to be the material successors of Roman imperialism, brimming with the fundamental tenets of Western culture and competing with its biblical heritage, which places national freedom on a pedestal.

In the National Review, the established flagship magazine of American conservatism, the book was described as one that "would become a classic." The late British philosopher, Sir Roger Scruton, told Hazony that his book had been released just at the right time and had "changed the public atmosphere only a moment before it was too late." The Financial Times even reported that American diplomats had distributed the book to their German colleagues to explain the US policy regarding Europe in the era of President Donald Trump. "When Trump declared himself to be an American leader who 'believes in nationalism, this was only two months after my book was released. I am not saying that this was because of me, I never got to meet with him in person, but I do believe that the atmosphere that the book created turned the term 'nationalism' into one that was now easy to re-identify with," says Hazony.

About two years ago, Hazony published an additional book, "Conservatism: A Rediscovery," in which he describes the relationship between the Bible and Ango-American conservatism as the tradition that stands up to counter liberalism and reveres the God of the Bible, the nation-state, family values and a social hierarchy based on respect and honor – compared with the liberal aspiration for equality. These bedrock elements, claims Hazony, are vital for the West if it desires to survive the current crises that have erupted as a result of the liberal tailspin into which the West has been plunged since the end of the Second World War.

One of the liberal ideas that Hazony critiques is the "social charter," according to which all forms of national amalgamation result from the decision of individuals to come together, and this may be abandoned when the state no longer serves the interest of the individual. "According to liberal propaganda, a people is born when the individuals choose to join forces and to conclude a 'social charter.' In other words, the people do not exist before it has an official state, he explains. "In practice, from a historical point of view, there is not one single state that has been established in this manner; there is always a situation in which a people exists before its nation-state is founded. For example, there are 30 million Kurds, a people that has been in existence for hundreds and perhaps even thousands of years without a state. So, does it not exist as a nation? And there are numerous other examples of this. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and a people or a nation is not merely a collection of individuals. Despite that, the liberal perception has educated the West into looking at reality in that way."

Q: Your book creates a feeling that a society seeking to live and thrive cannot allow itself to be liberal. Do you agree?

"Yes, I really do think so. In other words, liberalism is a philosophy that does not address the main question that a society seeking to live must address: what needs to be done to maintain and bolster the good things we received from our fathers for the sake of the continued existence of future generations. When I was a young high school student, I said to a girlfriend that just as my forefathers prayed and thought of me when they lived their lives, so too I will live my life while dedicating my thoughts to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I have never forgotten her response. She said to me 'I can't believe that you are walking around the world with all that baggage on your back!' In her defense, I should say that she was the product of the liberal education that surrounds us. It is no coincidence that those circles who laid the foundations of liberalism, such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, or Spinoza, did not lead a family life themselves nor did they raise children."

Q: What is the place of individual freedom in a well-ordered society? 

"In the right dose, individual freedom is a vitally important value, but when you make individual freedom into the be-all and end-all, then every public question is met with the same answer: Is there any reason to maintain and preserve our boundaries? Individual freedom will tell you no. Is there a good reason to educate our children to serve in the military? To celebrate the Shabbat, festivals, and other important events for our collective Jewish identity? It is always the same answer – the individual should decide what to do with his life. When you espouse only that value without adding additional components to public life, the liberal government collapses within the space of two generations, simply as it has no mechanism that knows how to preserve traditions that are vital to society."

It is the same war

Q: Today's world is no longer liberal, today we are already deeply entangled in the revolution of the progressive "woke" movement. So why still attack liberalism?

"You are right. If in the sixties you would have spoken with leading liberals, they would not have thought that they were about to launch a revolution against all spheres of society's existence, but everything is now already there. For the last three generations, liberalism has been winning everywhere. The first thing that it did was to convince the masses that they needed to remove religion from public life. The US presidents at the time of the Second World War, Roosevelt and Eisenhower, on a number of occasions said that they regarded their war against the Nazis as a 'war for Christianity.' Can you imagine the current US President Joe Biden saying something similar today? Back in the sixties, following the legal rulings of the US Supreme Court, Bible studies were removed from public schools and were made illegal. Since then, religion has been afforded less and less respect in American public life."

"Following the fall of communism, we thought that Marxism was a thing of the past, but then professors from the deep, radical left began to appear, equipped with neo-Marxist theories according to which society is built from a struggle between groups of oppressors and oppressed, and there is no choice for the oppressed but to revolt and to destroy the ruling class that is oppressing them, whether these are men, whites, and following October 7, the Jews too. Precisely as the liberals currently have no tools to fight against the Islamic supremacist movements in the West, so too they will lack the tools to prevent the neo-Marxists from taking over the universities in the USA."

Q: How do you understand the alliance between the left and the Muslims? At a glance, these appear to be two opposites.

"In order to understand that bizarre alliance you really need to know that it has foundations among neo-Marxist thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse, who believed that in order to launch the revolution it is necessary to make a pact to unify all the oppressed. Thus, transgenders can ostensibly demonstrate on campus together with Muslims, against the 'privileged' white Jew."

"Since the riots following the killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, a real 'cultural revolution' has been raging across the US," says Hazony, using the term to describe the 'cultural revolution' in China, which was conducted under the communist regime of Mao Zedong and led to the eradication of all traditional fundamental elements in Chinese culture. "Instead of the slow infiltration of new ideas into the cultural mainstream in the US, an active revolution is being staged – in the New York Times, at Harvard, and throughout all the other liberal systems in America. Its declared objective is the destruction of the conservative whites. Their explicit dogma is to overturn and destroy the West. They are trying to take control of the Democratic Party and later on the White House, and for the moment they appear to be succeeding."

Q: What is the place of the Jews in this cultural revolution? The Jews were considered to be part and parcel of the US success story.

"For about three years, the progressives succeeded in running this cultural revolution without having to address the Jewish issue. But since October 7, they have launched a new front against Judaism and Zionism. In practice, they are trying to throw out the liberal Jews from the liberal institutions in order to get rid of the 'oppressive rule' against the minorities in the US. Our war against Hamas has an additional front in the US, against the left and the Islamic supremacist movements.  We need to understand what some on the American right have already begun to understand: it is the same war."

The Chinese threat and the Indian hope

Towards the end of 2016, a short while after the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections, and only several months after the British people had decided to break away from the European Union, Hazony and his colleague Dr. Ofir Haivry, together with additional partners from around the world, took part in founding the National Conservative Movement. Some fifty academics and journalists were invited to a closed conference in New York, where the movement was launched. Since then, it has held a series of conferences around the world, attended by a whole array of the who's who from the global right; from Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, to the renowned British journalist, Douglas Murray. This week, the movement held a conference in Brussels, Belgium, and a large conference is scheduled to be held in Washington in six months.

"The conferences are a tool, the essence is to give conservatism intellectual backing and to persuade people that there is ideological depth behind their basic intuitions," says Hazony. "People in Europe think that they are out of order if they do not support incessant immigration of Muslims to the continent, or that they don't want the EU officials in Brussels to run their lives. We have active members in all democracies, from the USA to India, and the objective is to restore the importance of the nationalist perception and to link up conservatives from different countries. I absolutely regard the movement's activity as strengthening democracy around the world, as there is no democratic life without nationalism. History has no democratic empires."

"Since the end of the Cold War, there has been conscious consent among all the large political parties in the West that there is a need to eradicate the borders, and that nationalism is anachronistic. In 1992, all the European states signed the Treaty on the European Union, better known as the Maastricht Treaty, which essentially led to the foundation of the European Union. It was against this background, that Israel's former president, Shimon Peres, spoke about a 'New Middle East' and began to initiate the Oslo peace process. This was a cheap imitation of the liberal utopianism that had taken over European thinking at that time."

"A similar process occurred too in relation to China; suddenly the West 'discovered' that China no longer needs to be a communist pariah state. In 1997, Hong Kong was handed over from British to Chinese rule, and China entered the World Trade Organization. This was a decision that emanated from precisely the same logic of the Oslo process: the West's desire for a liberal utopia without any enemies or borders, with everybody gladly embracing the rational order of thin liberalism. In practice, with its own hands, the West built up the Chinese into being its toughest enemy since the Nazis. This state of mind was curbed to some extent in the West in 2016 – in Europe by Brexit, and in the US following Trump's unexpected presidential election victory."

Q: On the Israeli right, many regard Europe as a lost cause and wonder if it is at all possible to repair the damage there. Do you agree?

"I agree that the situation in Europe is difficult, perhaps even dire. If I were to wager as to what will happen in Europe based only on what we can see today, then the Western world will probably not be able to contend with the domestic Muslim and neo-Marxist threat, as the only tools it has to do so are liberal tools, which are not really capable of confronting these threats."

Q: If that prophecy of doom is fulfilled, what will Israel do? At this moment in time, we fully understand the importance of the few alliances that still remain with us in the West.

"Firstly, we do need to look the stark truth squarely in the eye: "Wherever the belief in God and respect for the Bible and the Christian tradition are lost, there is no vacuum; this almost always gives rise to antisemitism. This is the reason why the revolutionary left is awash with antisemitism. Historically, the main reason why the US, Britain, and the West in general chose to help Zionism was its respect for the Bible and the contribution of the Jews to the West, as well as the belief that God will help the Jews." Once this has been taken off the table, you can look at Israel as an anachronistic project of a strong nation-state preventing a much weaker group from attaining self-determination."

Q: That is a prophecy of doom, where is the prophecy of comfort?

"It is important to remember that God is omnipotent. We humans are not so gifted at knowing what the future holds in store. Nobody predicted the fall of communism and the world market crash in 2008. We must believe that we can do what is possible, and if we are able to do the right thing, then maybe God will save us. I draw hope from meetings with nationalist and Christian groups, unbelievably staunch supporters of Israel; it doesn't matter whether this is in England, Hungary, Italy, or the US. I have been profoundly impressed by their determination and willingness to struggle against the strong forces of the global left. Every one of these people is seriously concerned about the future of his nation and they are really not sure that they will be able to win, but they are investing everything they have in the effort to do so. It is precisely because we are the people of the Bible that we must help them. If there is any chance that the European countries are to recover and regain the status of something that is capable of communicating with us, then we must invest in this effort. Many of the right-wing circles in Europe have a clear philosemitic and pro-Zionist tendency, and many of them have never even visited Israel. This is the most important objective of all."

From a global perspective, Hazony points to an additional source of hope: "Even if Europe and the US are finally completely taken over by the left, I have a hidden hope in the form of India, which is currently a significant source of support for Israel. Many Indians admire Israel as a nation-state that stands on its own two legs against Islamic supremacism and succeeds in creating technology and progress combined with its ancient tradition. If we fail to promote and expand our relations with the Indians this might well turn out to be a serious missed opportunity that we shall regret for generations."

Coming out of the conservative closet

Q: From the impression you have gained, has your movement already begun to set in motion the wheels of change?

"'The National Conservative Movement' is an ideological movement rather than a political entity, so we are not looking for rapid results in the field. Having said that, the conference that we held in Britain last year served as a catalyst to revive the members of the UK Conservative Party. The party, headed by the current UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, is currently in power – but this is a party that is conservative only in name. Part of the party is actually liberal and another part is even neo-Marxist. While the majority of its voters are in favor of limiting immigration to some extent, for example, they are unable to do anything about it. Our conference was a watershed event; prior to it, talk about the failure of the Conservative Party was heard only behind closed doors. Many felt that the party had been emptied of any real content but were reluctant to come out with this, as they feared that they were alone. Some fifty speakers attended the conference. All of them came to the podium and said one after another, 'I have been holding back for years, but can no longer do so: the Conservative Party has failed.' Everybody 'came out of the closet' on that issue, some of them in relation to the very fact that they were conservatives."

"Many people in the academic world feel that if they speak out in favor of the nation-state, religion, and family values – they will be dismissed and thrown aside, left with no existence. It was a tremendously powerful experience when fifty people, some of whom had never dared to speak about this in public, began to talk about conservative values. For many of them, Israel is no less than a model state. "We wish that we could be like Israel' – is something you hear everywhere across the global right. In a country with a high rate of natural increase, a large percentage of the population fasts on Yom Kippur, holds a Seder on Passover, gets married at a religious ceremony, and serves together in the army. As far as they are concerned, this is something quite inconceivable. It is a pity that the opinions voiced by these people are not heard in Israel."

About two months ago, the British weekly The Economist dedicated an extensive article to the National Conservative Movement. Alongside the critical tone of the article, it did acknowledge the movement's strength and warned of its influence. The main criticism leveled in the article related to a claim of ideological confusion among the movement's rank and file: some of the figures in Europe's right-wing movements, such as France's Marine Le Pen or Holland's Geert Wilders, who in the name of secularism are bitter critics of the spread of Islam across the continent, in the name of that same ideology also put forward ideas of freedom and LGBT rights. This is in stark contrast to other figures on the conservative right who tend to underscore the strict Christian line and are staunch opponents of those very same rights.

"First of all, in that article, they did have the decency to point out that we are not 'fascists', and that in itself is some form of progress," says Hazony. "Having said that, there are people who intentionally try to mislead and confuse matters when they are actually crystal clear. I do not get upset by this; the movement has a very distinct and coherent statement of principles signed by more than eighty conservative leaders. In contrast to the considerable lack of clarity that exists in the world today, such as the pact between Islamism and the neo-Marxists, the values that we stand for are precise and well-defined: in favor of nationalism, against continued mass immigration, in favor of family values, religion and fond respect for biblical tradition."

Q: Perhaps the ideological line is still not sufficiently clearly defined, which might give way to populist ideas. Do you agree?

"We are not looking for any rigid ideological uniformity. In contrast to what is written there, also on the topic of the transgender revolution, which threatens not only family values but also the very existence of a stable human identity, everybody in our movement understands that this is part of the neo-Marxist revolution and that this is a component that might destroy everything we hold dear."

Q: There are also antisemitic parts of the European right. How do you deal with that?

"Yes, there are also antisemites, both on the right in Europe and the US, and we are perfectly aware of this. But we must put these matters into proportion: the danger of antisemitism on the right today is no more than a grain of sand compared with the danger of antisemitism from the left."

Q: This current war has shown us that there are opponents to Israel in the American right too. For example, the popular journalist, Tucker Carlson, who is closely associated with Trump and Russia's President Putin, and who has been leading a constant approach against Israel since the outbreak of the war. He too spoke at one of your conferences. What do you say to that?

"At present, almost all members of the right in the US have a pro-Israel tendency and support Judaism, but that really doesn't mean that this will remain the case forever. There are those who are working in the opposite direction, so it is imperative that we continue to work among them and do our utmost to ensure that they stay with us. I don't wish to turn Carlson into an antisemite. On occasions, when people are presented with the correct information they change their minds. For that to happen, we need to maintain more of a presence there." 

Q: Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is also part of your movement. At the time of the fierce dispute on the judicial reform, Orbán was depicted as a sort of semi-dictator as well as a close ally of Putin. Orbán's Hungary was described as a threat, something that Israel might turn into should the reform be passed. What do you think about this?

"Orbán has one source of gas for his country that passes through Russia. If we were in his shoes, would we really be looking to enter into a war with Putin? Today, he is investing considerable efforts into turning Hungary into an energy-independent state, a move that will also reduce his dependency on Russia. As regards the accusations that Hungary is not democratic, that is absolute nonsense. I have visited Hungary on several occasions and have met not only with Orbán but also with dozens of figures from his administration. All of them, without exception, are staunch supporters of democracy. Hungary is a country with freedom of expression and freedom of religion."

Q: Jews in Hungary say that Orbán is bad for the Jews. What do you think?

"Following my first meeting with Orbán, I had a long meeting with the heads of the Jewish community in Budapest. I sincerely tried to understand just how Orbán is bad for the Jews there. I told them that what they were describing to me was the best situation of the Jews in Europe, so why did they believe that Orbán is bad for the Jews? They told me that 'He is fighting against George Soros (a Jewish Hungarian-American tycoon, who donates large sums to human rights organizations and liberal groups around the world). I told them that all conservatives around the world are fighting against Soros and that the fact that Orbán is doing so is a good thing."

Staying at aunt and uncle's place

Yoram Reuben Hazony was born in Rehovot in 1964. He grew up in New Jersey, to where his family emigrated due to the academic career of his father, Yehonathan, a professor of computer science who worked at Princeton University. "Though I did not hail from a religious home, my parents did have a leaning towards tradition," he recounts. "Zionism and the love of tradition were ingrained in me from an early age. My grandparents, the Hazanovich family, came to Israel from Poland and Ukraine at the end of the 1920s. My father was raised in a pro-Ben-Gurion home and he went to the 'HaNoar HaOved VeHaLomed' (The General Federation of Working and Studying Youth) youth movement."

Another figure of influence was his father's brother, who lived in Elon Moreh and was one of the founders of the settlement of Kedumim. "When I was just a boy, my father used to tell me that we do not adhere to Jewish tradition as a Jew really should do, and that if I wish to know just how a Jew should live, I should go and visit my Uncle Yitzhak." At the age of 18, Yoram came to Israel with the Zionist youth movement Young Judea. He would spend his time on Shabbat and the festivals with his Uncle Yitzhak and his Aunt Linda, who at the time lived in an extremely minimal, "cubicle-sized" apartment in Elon Moreh with their six children, and they demonstrated to him how a model Jewish home should be. It was here that he made up his mind to make Aliyah and to become an observant Jew.

"I used to drag along my friends with me to spend time on Shabbat and festivals at Elon Moreh, and that drove the program directors crazy, as they didn't want them to visit any settlements. Even back then, I took the position of youth provocateur in a more conservative, Jewish, and Zionist direction," says Hazony with a wry smile.

During the time Hazony spent studying at Princeton University and the exposure to the culture of his American peers, he felt a growing urge to voice conservative opinions. At Princeton, he founded a conservative journal that caused a stir on campus, which continues to be published to this day. His girlfriend from college, Julie, converted to Judaism and eventually became his wife. Yoram and Yael, as she is now called, are the parents of nine children and currently live in Jerusalem. At Princeton, Hazony also met his future partners, who would share a staunch Zionist and conservative outlook, make Aliyah, and establish the Shalem Center – Daniel Polisar and Joshua (Josh) Weinstein.

In 1993, Hazony completed writing his PhD thesis at Rutgers University in New Jersey on the subject of "The Political Philosophy of Jeremiah." Later, he published a book on the political philosophy of the Book of Esther as well as another book, "The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture." He has authored a number of additional books and publications, some of which deal with the study of Zionism.

"My study at Rutgers involved a unique experience, which in today's prevailing political and cultural climate of silencing opposition voices that has taken over the universities, is something either extremely rare or even impossible for conservative students to enjoy currently," says Hazony. "I was the only conservative student in the class. The lecturers and almost all the students were liberals. I remember how in a certain course, in which both the students and the lecturer were Marxists – precisely when the students began to get irritated at my questions, the lecturer actually encouraged an open discourse in class. At the time, it was still possible for an orthodox Jewish student to speak his mind in class and to take part in a civilized discussion. Nowadays, the academic establishment in the West has turned into an instrument of oppression that is not willing to accept even one conservative professor. The situation now has radicalized and gone downhill, as they are constantly seeking to even push out those liberal lecturers who do not toe the line with the rising absurdity of the progressive left."

Hazony's impression of the situation in Israel is not much different. "The academic world in Israel is no more than a branch of global academia. All the humanities and social sciences faculties in Israel are rife with competition between the philosophies of neo-Marxism and liberalism. Here too, there is hardly any room to even consider studying ideas that point towards a more conservative direction."

After they made Aliyah to Israel, the Hazonys lived in Eli, a settlement in the Binyamin region, north of Jerusalem, and Hazony began to write the Jerusalem Post's editorials. In 1991, the then editor of the newspaper, David Bar-Ilan, paired him up with Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Deputy Foreign Minister; Hazony was an advisor to Netanyahu and also served as an assistant researcher working on Netanyahu's books "A Place under the Sun and Fighting Terrorism." Their working relationship lasted for five years and then their paths parted, while Hazony continued to fulfill his dream of establishing a "Jewish Princeton," as he put it.

"Our objective in founding the Shalem Center was to shore up Zionism," he says. "Today it might be difficult to remember, but in the nineties, the prevalent atmosphere was one of post-Zionism and of debunking national myths." In 2000, he published his book "The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul," which sparked much debate, mainly among the Jews in the US. One of his claims was that leading cultural icons such as Amos Oz and David Grossman belong to a post-Zionist elite that is aiming to pull apart Israel's Jewish identity. This was an elite, he claimed, whose roots could be traced back to such ideological heavyweights as Hannah Arendt, Martin Buber, and Gershom Scholem, alongside additional German-Jewish intellectuals who regarded the establishment of the state as a deviation from the path of Jewish ethics.

Back to the Scriptures

For eighteen years, Hazony served as president of the Shalem Center, one of whose key ventures was the journal Tchelet which was published for sixteen years and featured articles with content of an extremely rare type: right-wing, Zionist, and intellectual. The Shalem Center succeeded in pushing the envelope for the Israeli right also thanks to a series of Hebrew translations of classic works in the field of political philosophy. He recruited both public figures and people from the academic world to take part in his activity, some of whom are identified with the Zionist left, including the renowned professors of law Ruth Gavison and Amnon Rubinstein.

Following the disputes on the path being taken at the Shalem Center, which in the meantime had evolved into the Shalem College, Hazony left the institution. Since 2013, he has been serving as President of the Herzl Institute, which he founded. He hosts researchers from Israel and around the world for study programs and seminars. Hazony is currently considering establishing an academic institution to study the political ideas in the Bible. "In the academic establishment, there is an underlying tendency to cut out the roots and they make sure to conceal the biblical foundations on which the West is built," he says. "We need to establish new institutions where it will be possible to research and teach freely the political ideology of the Bible. We have much to give to the world and are far from having exhausted all the political messages in the scriptures. Such academic research can only take place today in an independent institution."

Q: Many regard you as being the person who laid the foundations for the conservative discourse in Israel. How do you see the institutions of the right in Israel after the failure of the judicial reform?

"In my opinion, the current ideological situation is akin to 1993, after the Oslo Accords. One sunny day, we woke up to discover that the entire ideological map was about to be turned on its head, and there are currently no strong institutions that know what to do with the situation. There are many good people in the conservative right in Israel. From an organizational point of view, the right's ideological institutions were dealt a severe blow over the last year. We must now focus our efforts on recovery and rebuilding."

Q: There are people on the right who did support the reform in principle, but who thought that the manner in which it was being implemented was too revolutionary. Do you agree?

"I really do not share such views; the judicial reform was intended to restore the judicial system in Israel to a state of health, and to roll back Aharon Barak's 'constitutional revolution,' which changed Israel's constitutional tradition without transparency or engaging in any discourse. The beginnings of that effort can readily be seen in the articles of critique of the doctrine of activism adopted by the High Court of Justice published in Tchelet."

I asked Hazony what his ambitions are, as a thinker who seeks to have an impact on Israeli society, alongside his international activity. "Truth be told, I have never intended to be involved in Christian countries," he replies. "My wife and I made Aliyah to Israel to contribute here in Israel. In 2016, I was sucked into the world of Western ideology. There was nobody else to pick up the gauntlet and deal with this; the truth is that at that time I thought that Israeli society was in a much better position than that of the West, so I had no pangs of conscience. After October 7, it is clear to me that the situation has changed and that there is much that needs to be done. I am ready to pitch in and play my part wherever I am needed."

The post 'The West is suffering from a post-biblical void' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Demonstrations against the government's judicial reform continued Saturday, for the 15th consecutive week, despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to pause the highly contested proposals.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Protest organizers, who have held suck weekly demonstrations since January when the legislation was first announced, aim to maintain momentum and increase pressure on Netanyahu and his government until the proposed changes are scrapped.

Video: Reuters

Bending to the mass protests, Netanyahu paused the overhaul plans in March, saying he wanted "to avoid civil war" and give sincere negotiations a chance.

However, in a new ripple, thousands of heretofore quiescent supporters of reform also attended protests across the country.

Matan Peleg, chairman of Im Tirtzu, a Zionist NGO, said, "We thank the tens of thousands who came out to the streets to express their support for the judicial reform. We won't let the anarchists harm the voter's decision. There is a duty to pass the reform so that there will be democracy here."

Members of government joined the crowd in the coastal city of Netanya, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Otzma Yehudit Party and Likud members of Knesset Tali Gottlieb, Nissim Vaturi, Ariel Kallner, Sasson Guetta and Avichay Buaron.

"After 75 years, the time has come that the nationalist camp will be a true partner in running the state, and that starts with real involvement in the Supreme Court. The judicial reform will pass," said Buaron.

Pro-reform protesters also gathered in front of the President's Residence in Jerusalem. Among the signs at the protest: "Honorable President, you don't have the mandate to cancel our vote."

Critics have said the judicial reform would destroy Israel's system of checks and balances by concentrating power in the hands of the government. In addition, they say that Netanyahu has a conflict of interest as he is currently on trial for corruption charges.

Proponents, however, say the legislation would balance the power of the executive, judicial and legislative and bring Israel more in line with other democratic nations.

 JNS.org contributed to this report.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Protests against judicial reform show no signs of slowing appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

An estimated 30,000 took to the streets in a "real show of support for the reforms," said attorney Daniel Tauber, a member of the Likud Central Committee.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

On Thursday evening in Tel Aviv, supporters of judicial reform – about 30,000 by some estimates – rallied in Tel Aviv. Photos and videos on social media depicted masses of people and seas of Israeli flags.

Although judicial reform has been shelved until the beginning of May, those in favor of the effort nonetheless gathered publicly to express support for the government.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin wrote in Hebrew on Facebook that "photos of throngs of dear citizens demonstrating in favor of judicial reform strengthen me and warm my heart." He encouraged those rallying to remain peaceful.

"Our justice and truth are stronger than anything," he added.

Attorney and political commentator Daniel Tauber told JNS "the fact that supporters of the government, who would typically be thought of as the silent majority, are coming out to the streets is a real show of support for the reforms."

The demonstrations are driven by millions who voted for the current government feeling "rightly" that their say in society counts for less, said Tauber, who is a member of the Likud Central Committee that approves changes to the party constitution and primary rules, and elects a portion of the list for Knesset.

"Instead of the Parliament deciding the laws and destiny of the country, based on the democratic process of open debate, elections and legislation, we have vetoes being cast by various unelected and undemocratic bodies, from the Supreme Court in its current composition, elite units in the army, the Histadrut, not to mention pressure from the Biden administration and the open prejudice against the reforms from the media, much of which is state-funded

"In the face of all that, it's important that demonstrations of support like this be held to ensure that the reforms, especially on the selection of judges, don't get compromised to smithereens and actually get approved," he added.

'A delicate and sometimes chaotic balance'

Daniel Pomerantz, CEO of RealityCheck Research and former HonestReporting head, told JNS that those following the protests from afar may not realize that they are "democracy in action."

"They are free, safe and incredibly patriotic," he said. "At the same time, there is a legitimate need for certain judicial reforms – but to preserve Israel's democratic character they must be carried out properly. Both sides focus on different concerns, but both sides are characterized by patriotism and a genuine disagreement on what is best for Israel."

Israel does not have a constitution, so it has to navigate a "delicate and sometimes chaotic balance between the judiciary and the legislature," according to Pomerantz.

"The current pause in the rush to pass judicial reform legislation indicates that a compromise may be possible, but it's not clear what form that compromise might take. Whether it would preserve and strengthen Israel's delicate balance or disrupt it and endanger fundamental rights as provided in Israel's Basic Laws. For this reason, there is a feeling among the protesters that to ensure the former, a degree of sustained pressure is necessary.

"Israeli internal disagreement has come a long way since the sinking of the 'Altalena,'" in 1948, "and the country may very possibly be on its way to becoming a more mature, stable and free democracy even than it was before," stated Pomerantz as modern-day Israel approaches its 75th year.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Knesset member Simcha Rothman, who chairs the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, said in Hebrew in a recent television interview: "There is a huge public here with a voice that wants the judicial system repaired."

"When there was a concern that it would be shelved, it came out to protest," he said.

Also on Twitter, Miki Zohar, Israeli culture and sports minister, said the demonstration "expressed the pain of an entire camp that won the elections and feels its voice is being disrespected."

"We promised reform, and God-willing, we'll bring it," he added.

James Marlow, an Israel-affairs and political analyst, shared images of the rally on Twitter. "At least 30,000 pro-government, pro-reform supporters are on the streets of Tel Aviv from across the country. Sadly, some news networks are calling this a far-Right demonstration, but I know many normal, mainstream government supporters who traveled to Tel Aviv to show support."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Tens of thousands rally in support of judicial reform, lament media narrative appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Years overseas far from the madding crowd have given me the opportunity to view Israel from a different perspective. Many of the debates that I am familiar with from the past seem to regurgitate themselves. From a distance, they seem like an argument between children playing in a sandbox. From a distance, the challenges and dangers that Israel faces dull the differences between worldviews and shine a light on what we have in common.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

In any event, these endless and exhaustingly recycled arguments are futile. What we have here are different interpretations of Zionism, different possibilities for Israel's path. In most of these arguments, we do not try to persuade, rather we simply declare our point of view. Beyond the amusement for viewers and listeners, there is no real dialogue in which each party sees the claims of the other as a legitimate matter and debates them.

Is what we are hearing in public discourse, since the crystal-clear results of the elections, anything new? "The end of democracy" and "Fascism"  have been with us since the establishment of the state. As I write, I am looking at a poster with two images: Menachem Begin shaking his clenched fist in the air at an election rally and Benito Mussolini speaking with his arm raised in the Fascist salute. The headline on the poster reads: "The same salute, the same content". Below the images of Begin and Mussolini, the caption makes a comparison between "Il Duce" and "the leader" (The quotation marks are in the original)  In other words, Begin is not only a fascist but also not a leader. The poster is signed "The Workers' Party of the Land of Israel" (Mapai, i.e. the precursor to the Israeli Labor Party). So, did anything happen after Begin was elected prime minister?

The threat of a halachic state is no more than a scarecrow. Shulamit Aloni made a career out of it and after her, other well-known politicians took things to greater extremes hoping to gain the votes of the ultra-Secular. Did anything like that even happen? Did we go in that direction? On the contrary, under the rule of the Right, Israel became more open and liberal. See what goes on in public on the Sabbath today compared with what we were familiar with in our youth. Those who complain bitterly over the introduction of Jewish studies into schools, themselves studied far more of the same subject in their youth. In all indexes measuring democracy over the past years, we have seen how, contrary to the discourse of fear, democracy in Israel has grown and strengthened. Now we are being threatened with "civil disobedience." The level of provocation rises in accordance with the reaction of the other side. And the land is filled with madness.

2.

These vivid public arguments are theater in which we are participants of our own free will. What is said in most of these debates and talk shows? "We are not the first; the outgoing government and its members did similar things, and what hypocrisy it is to preach morals to us" and more such statements aimed at justifying the actions and the direction of the incoming government. The deeper significance of these statements however is that we desire legitimization from the losing side. Our ideological and political rivals determine for many among us the boundaries of political legitimacy and legitimate public thought. This is a testimony to the well-known lack of confidence and even inferiority of the conservative, right-wing camp. The roots of this phenomenon are to be found back in the early 20th century, when the pioneers of the Second Aliyah, the socialist avant-garde, came to Israel. Whoever reads their works notices that despite the fact they were a minority, they felt and acted as if they represented the majority. They acted as if they were in charge, and the future was theirs, while the spokespeople for the old Yishuv (pre-state Israel) and for the First Aliyah, whose numbers were far greater, spoke as if they represented a minority on the defensive. Thus, we hear endless quotes from the leaders of the outgoing government and their spokespeople, not in order to argue with them, but as if to say: "If they did it, then we can as well." That isn't how we should act. That isn't how to create a real toolbox for public leadership. It isn't enough that the Right won the elections. Power begins, first of all, from consciousness.

3.

If you really want to rule you have to aspire to lead history or at least to lead the nation in this historic period. Historical consciousness is a sine qua non: To where do we raise our eyes and set our vision? If being in power is just a function fulfilled by those elected to the institutions of the state – an  important role and that's it – we will always remain in a position where we are justifying ourselves: "We can, because they did." That is the way that those whose consciousness and perception were for years dependent on the legitimization of the opposing political camp. Statements such as "they did so as well" imitate the ideological and political rival and that is the opposite of an independent consciousness.

It is still the losing camp that sets the boundaries of legitimacy of public discourse, not because it has power (traditional media is weak in comparison to social media) but because the other camp accepts this as a methodology and echoes the bitter cries of the end of democracy and other such fallacies. Why do we ask spokespeople for the outgoing government, and its supporters, to agree to our actions? Because they did the same thing when they were in power? That in itself is a mistake.  When they were able to, they didn't carry out their policies because we did so before them. They didn't ask us for legitimacy (the adjective radical hasn't stuck to any representative of the left). They behaved as if they were in charge and sought to lead history. I'm not talking about a grade card for the previous government – even if it didn't excel and often failed. That isn't the point. I'm talking about possessing an independent consciousness through which one acts and changes.

4.

My friends, you were elected to lead. Charity begins at home, in other words in our consciousness. When Menachem Begin was elected, he noted that our camp had walked 46 years in the desert since the 17th Zionist Congress in 1931 when Ze'ev Jabotinsky ripped up his membership card and resigned, together with his colleagues, from the World Zionist Organization, leaving the stage to David Ben-Gurion and his party. Since the first political "upset" (Mahapach) 45 years have gone by. Now, more than 90 years later after Jabotinsky's walkout, we can free ourselves from the need to ask for legitimization. We must cease the comparisons and cease searching in the other camp for affirmations of our ideas. Only those who are in a state of spiritual or mental slavery look into the eyes of their masters to see whether their behavior satisfies their desires. We must strengthen our conceptual and conscious independence and clear our thoughts from background noises – from verbal provocations – and focus on our goals, principles, and ideas.

Those ideas are well known: First and foremost, a reform of the judicial system and the return and the resurrection of the balance of powers. At the same time, we must return governance to those parts of the land where it has been lost, and with it restore personal security; the result will be the strengthening of the Negev and the Galilee. We must deal with terrorism, both external and internal, and we must fight the antisemitic propaganda spread around the globe by the Palestinian Authority, especially in the institutions of the United Nations. On the economic front, we must continue to remove bureaucratic obstacles to deal with the cost of living and especially with the housing crisis. We must strengthen our grip on the Land of Israel and support the pioneers in Judea and Samaria. In education, we must restore the requirement to study history, Bible, and literature and allow those who wish to strengthen Judaic studies. Through thousands of years, the Jewish People built a great textual and intellectual skyscraper; our children should visit it there.

This term in power, we must be reborn and rebuild ourselves; a renaissance. More than anything, we should know that not only are we allowed to, but it is our duty to govern and to implement our ideas. Don't ask for permission. Just do it! That is the will of the people in these elections. That is the test of maturity for our camp.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post The Right moment: Why the Netanyahu government must break from the past appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

We have never been so divided, so angry, so hateful. We have been fractured and set against each other. The bonds, the unity, our famous "togetherness" – which kept our heads above the stormy waters is wearing thin and fading away.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

One might think so, on the condition that they understood it to be a subjective feeling. Social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, encourage extremism and provide social payoffs to whoever shouts loudest.

The various trolls secure status through their success in offending others or leading an internet lynch on their rivals. But the streets are restive, too – Israelis of Ethiopian descent, Israeli Arabs, the disabled, the LGBTQ community, opponents and supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – everyone is out blocking traffic arteries, clashing with the police, and sometimes with each other. The atmosphere is tense, the conversation is adversarial, and the daily friction is starting to hurt.

But in spite of the levels of hatred and violence, a booming industry on their own, a "mood" isn't something objective that can be measured imperially. We need to look at this story with a degree of skepticism. First of all because crises of values, as any political strategist can tell you, are very profitable for those who trade in morality. Sometimes, you need to look for the people who benefit from creating an atmosphere of crisis in order to put themselves forth as the solution. That doesn't mean the crisis is invented, but it's a hint that it might be exaggerated.

Think about it seriously for a moment: When, for example, was the Jewish-Arab divide worse: Now, at the end of a decade of unprecedented integration of Israeli Arabs in the Israeli economy and culture (despite the hateful discourse from the Right); or the decade that began with the events of October 2000 and … in the Second Intifada? When was there a bigger rift between right-wingers and hawks – in the decades of the Oslo Accords and the disengagement from Gaza, or this past decade, when neither side had a reason to threaten a "war between brothers?" It seems as if we've known decades much more rife with debate and unrest, in which Israeli society was under a burden that truly threatened to break it apart.

Is it possible we've gotten addicted to the myth of societal rifts? Maybe it pleases us, and gives us a little certainty in a time when the old doctrines are becoming irrelevant? For example, this myth of "splits" allows us to perceive time in terms of the perfect, idyllic "yesterday" and the catastrophic, depressing "today." It also explains who the bad guys are (the ones responsible for the factionalization and rights) and who the good guys are (the ones who pursue unity, but if possible, only with those that resemble themselves). And mostly, the myth explains what the biggest problem facing us at the end of this decade is – around which national goal we should come together. Paradoxically, the myth of "schism" is actually a kind of tie that binds. The deeper meaning of that insight is a surprising one. First of all, it signals that the external threats to which we have become accustomed, especially pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict – have become less relevant. They haven't disappeared, but there has been a relative sense of security that has made domestic issues – like relations between different sectors – seem more important to the functioning of society. That is an encouraging development of historic importance – it could be that this decade, we emerged from the bunker even though most of us still can't stray too far from safe rooms.

But the deeper truth is that the rifts between us, the ones that Israeli sociologists have been pointing out for decades, are more exposed than ever. They always existed – the ethnic divide, the national divide, the religious divide – we just talk about them more, dig into them, and fight about them. That isn't necessarily a negative process. The opposite – is says that our society has matured or is now able to focus seriously on divisive issues like ethnic or socioeconomic gaps, religion and state, methods of government and law – matters we were always forced to shove to the side because "life" always took precedence over "quality of life."

Naturally, these issues cannot be confronted over a cup of tea. The process is vocal, from the gut, and sometimes aggressive. Maybe, the "divides" and the "rifts" are how certain social forces are trying to steer us away from the debate. If that's true, we need to ask for whom it's so urgent to put these cats back in the bag and cover the sack with an imaginary blanket of warm unity?

If you reject that theory out of hand, we can also take comfort in the other possibility – if the divide is real and the panic about it is justified, at least something good will come out of it. We will start the new decade united in our hatred of being divided! Our rifts unite us.

The post The decade when what divided us united us appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to the party leader, "It [the bloc] was the right move at the time. It was something that was important to do in order to prevent the rise of a left-wing government. But next time, it won't happen," he said.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"We will not run as a bloc, hampering other political moves. If [Prime Minister] Netanyahu cannot put together a government, we won't go back to what happened these past few months. We will have to look at other options and other mergers," the leader continued.

Meanwhile, Channel 13 reported Tuesday that New Right MKs Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked were slated to meet on Wednesday to discuss their political future. Shaked is expected to make a decision about which party she will join in the next election – the New Right, or one of the religious Zionist parties.

On the Left, there is also talk about possible mergers and moves ahead of an election. On Tuesday evening, MK Stav Shafir told Radio Kol Barama that she saw potential success in the Democratic Union and Labor running as a joint list, despite criticism of "ideological differences."

"I'd like to hear where the chasm between the Democratic Union and the Labor Party lies," Shafir said.

"There are no gaps. Anyone who claims otherwise wants us to go down together. Most Labor voters want to run together with the Democratic Union. In the end, it's [Labor] chairman Amir Peretz who has to decide. When [Gesher leader] Orly Levy-Abekasis says that there is an 'immense gap,' she is essentially saying that our positions are not legitimate. We can't bring each other down,' Shafir said.

The post Leader of right-wing party: After the election, there will be no more 'bloc' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A well-known figure in the Likud approached TV reporter Zion Nanous and told him, "If you're here, we must be winning." Then other big media names showed up, which was seen as good news. Netanyahu fought tooth and nail until the very last minute, including an amazing last-minute push.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Cafés on the outskirts of Tel Aviv were awash in venom. Tough, evil people, as rusty as old nails, left their homes in Zahala and Ramat Hasharon, packed up their portable oxygen tanks, and set out to vote. What did it mean for them to vote? To order that Netanyahu be thrown to the lions. Netanyahu, meanwhile, headed to the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem and from there to the Jerusalem Central Bus Station. His goal: to shove more and more voters to the polling stations. He was everywhere and doubtlessly caused his security staff quite a headache. He didn't forget to remind people that the Palestinian Authority was pushing to bring him down.

At one polling station at a school in central Jerusalem, possibly even the same polling station where the prime minister voted, the committee was headed by an Arab Israeli, who was flanked by two haredim and a secular Meretz voters. A Muslim woman in a hijab was driving the No. 13 bus. In the end, an election is one thing, but real life is something else.

Later, we could see that 10 p.m. was approaching and there was no tension ahead of the exit polls. At the last minute, it turned out that the Central Elections Committee had banned the exit polls from being broadcast in the election headquarters of any party. Why? Who knows? People still managed to get their hands on the early results, which this time were fairly close – not exact, but they gave the basic picture of what was happening.

Veteran pollster Camil Fuchs was wrong, very wrong. The numbers he gave Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, especially the electoral disaster he predicted – 15 seats to the Joint Arab List – did not come to pass. But even 13 seats for Ahmad Tibi and Ayman Odeh (at the time this went to print) don't make it easy for the Israeli people to assemble a government. The sense is that a unity government based on Likud-Gantz is what people want.

"Based on the results we are starting to see, Netanyahu won't succeed in his mission," Gantz said in a speech at 2 a.m. Wednesday. That might be the only statement that came close to characterizing the electoral tie as a loss for the Right.

At the end of the day, Netanyahu was right: Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid come close to the numbers of the right-wing bloc only when they stand on the shoulders of MKs from the anti-Zionist, Islamist Joint Arab List, which supports the Palestinian war against Israel and partly supports terrorism. Gantz apparently made a mistake by calling Odeh on Tuesday night and setting up a meeting. It could prevent any chance of Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman recommending him to form the next government. Lieberman knows that if he recommends Gantz, he won't be setting Gantz up to be prime minister. It will be Odeh who picks Gantz as prime minister.

Lieberman and Rivlin

Lieberman's campaign can't be summed up as anti-haredi. Now he must broker a unity government and work together with President Reuven Rivlin.

Let's put aside Lieberman's record as defense minister. We can focus on his political decisions over the past several years. He is the one who upped the minimum electoral threshold ahead of the 2015 election, thereby forcing Arab parties that represented fewer than 10 seats to join forces.

Arab unity in the form of the Joint Arab List, under Ayman Odeh, was a game-changer. The Jewish Zionist parties found themselves with less room to maneuver. Since 2015, it has been much harder to assemble a coalition, because instead of 120 MKs, there are in effect only 107 or 108. Raising the minimum electoral threshold wiped out the small right-wing parties. It didn't strengthen governability as Lieberman supposedly hoped it would. This election greatly increased the chances that in the not-too-distant future, a government that verges on anti-Zionist will come to power in Israel.

Despite Lieberman's stately and moderate performance on election night, his decision in May not to allow Netanyahu to assemble a coalition has not proven itself in terms of the country. But as a political leader, Lieberman has achieved his goals, one after the other. He nearly doubled his own power, and the media is casting him as the person who will tip the scales.

That doesn't mean any of it is real. In the end, the tie is an illusion. The left-wing bloc under Gantz comprises only 43 seats. And if Lieberman is the tie-breaker, that means that Gantz, Lapid, and the rest of the generals in Blue and White are standing on the shoulders of Odeh and Tibi.

Today, Lieberman has a different kind of power: he can lead us to a unity government, but force Gantz to accept Netanyahu as prime minister. The right-wing camp is clearly bigger. It is standing on its own feet, and not on anti-Zionist scaffolding erected by supporters of terrorism. That is what Netanyahu's rival Gideon Sa'ar meant when he said, "Look for cracks elsewhere, not in the Likud." The Center-Left's Joint Arab List base is also keeping the confused leaders of the religious Zionist Right, Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, from joining Gantz.

Can Lieberman act as a mediator between Netanyahu and Gantz? Thus far, his skills in that direction have not been tested. There was once a political leader who was capable of things like that – the late Ariel Sharon. He knew how to find common ground between Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres, between Yitzhak Rabin and the haredim.

Lieberman would not have gotten to where he is if it hadn't been for his anti-haredi campaign. The question is whether or not he knows how to climb down. In any case, it won't be via Ayman Odeh. The person who can get Gantz to forgo his taboo against Benjamin Netanyahu while moving Netanyahu toward Gantz is President Reuven Rivlin.

That unity government

When talking about the next government, Netanyahu and Gantz must look at what was successful in the 2009 government.

Shortly after Gantz made his "We fulfilled our mission and stuck to our path" speech, Netanyahu arrived at the Tel Aviv Fairgrounds. Likud spokesman Yonatan Orich introduced him: "The next prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu."

As usual, the Likudniks didn't let him speak for several minutes. They welcomed him with shouts of "We don't want unity! We don't want unity!" He was a little hoarse after visiting the city squares, the conference, and the markets, and said, "It's better to lose your voice than lose the country."

Over the course of the night of disappointments, Netanyahu was the first to tell the bitter truth. The story about a "center-left bloc" is a media lie. There is the Joint Arab List, with its large Islamist sector. What's absurd is that it's no longer "politically correct" to say what Bibi did: "Israel needs a strong government – a Zionist government that is committed to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. It cannot have a government that rests on Arab parties that cause deaths among our soldiers. That is unacceptable."

He said that he was working "to prevent the establishment of a dangerous anti-Zionist government." Apparently, there are plenty who now prefer the Joint Arab List over the Likud; they can more easily identify with Tibi, Odeh, and the Islamists than with Benjamin Netanyahu.

It was not a joyous evening of victory. If there is one good thing in the Israeli political system, it's that sometimes there are moments of ecstasy when one side wins. The Likud experienced victorious nights in 2015, and this past April. The disappointing result of this election stems from the failure to assemble a government and all the confusing and infighting on the Right. Netanyahu should have won big based on his achievements as a national leader and a diplomat. But various mechanisms were at work against him, especially the "biased media," as Netanyahu repeatedly says.

Netanyahu is an unusually great leader. He based the economy and made it grow while waging an immense diplomatic battle over the Palestinian issue, and especially about Iran. Moreover, he managed to wage a defensive war against Iran and Hezbollah in two senses: he prevented Iranian entrenchment in Syria and prevented Hezbollah from obtaining precision-guided missiles while also avoiding a war. He avoided complications in Syria, and as a friend with a strong revisionist background put it, he stood up like an iron wall between the Right and the Left, which aspired to bog us down in a terrible war that would begin in the Gaza Strip and who knows how it would end. Netanyahu thinks for himself and doesn't depend on a panel of advisers.

The last unity government in Israel was in power from 2009 to 2013. The Labor party, which still hadn't buckled to the Haaretz editorials, joined it and the resulting cumbersome government was one of the best in the history of the country. To understand the deep-seated problem on the Right, one needs to understand what Yamina leader Ayelet Shaked thinks about the 2009-2013 government – she told me it was a bad one. Well, that government saved the Israeli economy, stood up to the hostile American administration, and led a successful strategy against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

The Right isn't trustworthy

Shaked's lack of leadership and the exchange of blows with Netanyahu caused the right-wing public to pull its leaders down.

To understand the issue of the religious Right: the Arabs' level of citizenship is much higher than the citizenship of religious Zionist voters. How can that be? Why? Voters for the National Religious Party/ Habayit Hayehudi/ the New Right/Yamina/National Union – they will have to answer to themselves. The problem is a national one. They have become elements that weigh down the Likud and bring down the entire Right.

The infighting in the religious Zionist Right, the lack of leadership by Shaked and Bennett, who pushed out Rafi Peretz, Bezalel Smotrich's outrageous demands in coalition negotiation and Peretz's embarrassing gaffes all caused fatigue among religious right-wing voters, which had ramifications for the Likud and for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The religious Zionist Right, and especially the responses of its spokespeople to every important event during the campaign, increased the sense that it was hard to have faith in the Right. That the Right wasn't trustworthy. When the prime minister made an important, historic declaration about his decision to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea – who tried to paint it as a betrayal? Bennett. The same thing happened in Ashdod when the prime minister found himself under rocket fire from Gaza. The prime minister conducted himself excellently. But Bennett called it "a national humiliation."

Shaked and Bennett didn't take votes from Gantz or Lieberman – they were supposed to be the liberal, national Right. Instead, they battled tirelessly against Netanyahu, who fought back. That's exactly what caused voters to head for the beach or stay home on Election Day. When all is said and done, another seat for the Right from the soldiers' vote will bolster the bloc, and give the Likud more bargaining power.

The post Results, of a kind appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

According to the revised data, the Joint Arab List is expected to get 15 seats, giving the overall center-left bloc 59 seats, compared to the Right's 53. While this still means neither bloc has a majority, it makes it much harder for Likud to claim victory and for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to secure a fifth term.

The data was revised after it became apparent that some participants interviewed for the exit poll had lied. This was verified in part by the real vote count from certain ballots, Channel 13 News said.

Despite the overall advantage, the Center-Left is unlikely to get a majority of the Knesset to support it without Avigdor Lieberman's party, Yisrael Beytenu, which has vowed it would only sit in a unity government comprising Likud and Blue and White.

Analysts expect the deadlock to remain for at least several weeks until one of the major parties agrees to modify its terms.

The post Revised exit poll shows dramatic gain for left-Arab bloc appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Many attribute that victory to the blitz of interviews Netanyahu gave on Election Day, as well as the unforgettable warning that "the Arabs are flocking to the polls." In 2019, Netanyahu did it again and closed the lead polls had predicted that Blue and White would keep over the Likud – this time, by broadcasting a live feed on his Facebook page.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

But this time, Netanyahu won't be alone. The other parties learned their lessons and intend to fire back on Election Day, but they mean to focus not on the rivalry between blocs, but on internal strife within the bloc.

While Likud and Blue and White will try to collect as many seats as possible at the expense of the other parties in their respective blocs, the smaller parties will take advantage of the final day to drive home the message that it isn't the size of the party that matters, but the size of the bloc.

According to one Likud official, "In general, the Likud doesn't comment on its campaign, and the plan for the final stretch is under wraps and known to only a few very workers at the campaign headquarters, who have signed secrecy agreements."

However, we do know that the Likud will be investing millions, mostly in identifying clusters of potential – a process of data analysis that has been underway for two months already. The Likud will be integrating figures from the field with information from social media and cellular phones in an attempt to deploy targeted ads at specific sectors.

We also know that because of the battle with Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman, heavy resources will be invested in bastions of Yisrael Beytenu voters, including hostels and retirement homes, including free rides to the polls on Election Day.

Blue and White

Blue and White is also getting reading for the election by using technology to identify potential voters, as well as a targeted campaign that will call on members of the left-wing camp to support the biggest center-left party, one that is capable of posing a challenge to the Likud government.

Last time, Blue and White attracted the support of many left-wingers, prompting them to abandon satellite parties like Meretz and Labor. This time, Blue and White will try to recreate their April success, but it comes after the rest of the left-wing parties already learned their lesson and are getting ready for a final Election Day push.

Blue and White campaign staffers have set up 200 headquarters nationwide to coordinate fieldwork. On Election Day, a Blue and White-branded bus will travel to various areas. Party activists will be assigned to 9,300 polling places to observe the voting and ballot count.

The Blue and White election office has divided the country into 26 zones, each of which is assigned to a Blue and White MK. A special "situation room" will be in operation from 6 a.m., with legal counsel, logistics coordinators, and computer techs.

The HQ will keep tabs on which voters have and have not voted, thanks to technology that will send the information to special staff who will spend the day calling potential voters.

The Democratic Union

The Democratic Union (the joint list comprising Meretz, the Israel Democratic Party, the Green Movement), for example, intends to run a scare campaign, not about the possibility of the party disappearing because it might fail to make it over the minimum electoral threshold, but about the possibility that "Israeli democracy might be obliterated."

Party leaders will speak out against Netanyahu and the Likud and accuse Blue and White of intending to join a Netanyahu-led government after the election.

The joint party plans to use technological means to find potential voters, all from the left-wing camp, and drive home the message that any party that does not declare that it will work to replace the Netanyahu government is not a viable option.

Labor-Gesher

In recent weeks, the Labor party has set up a special office to create a campaign for the last week of the election, as well as a special headquarters for Election Day itself. Labor party officials say that the last-stage campaign will include a surprise that will "shake up" politics – especially Blue and White. According to the officials, the campaign will keep Labor votes from migrating to Blue and White, and will also cause potential Blue and White voters to vote for Amir Peretz.

In addition to a special Election Day HQ, the party will be sending volunteers to knock on doors in strategic areas identified ahead of time to convince left-wing voters, as well as residents of the periphery, to throw their support behind Amir Peretz and Orly Levy-Abekasis. Labor officials are also saying that one of the sectors they will be focusing on is former supporters of Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu party. The party says that this is the largest field operations program it has ever organized and that millions of shekels were invested in its activities.

Yamina 

Yamina (formerly the United Right, the joint list of Habayit Hayehudi, the National Union-Tkuma, and the New Right) is also gearing up to fire back at the Likud's last-minute efforts at scaring voters. The list plans to station about 1,000 volunteers at polling places to give the party visibility. The list will make use of existing databases from its constituent parties. Yamina is planning a campaign of phone calls to urge supporters to go out and vote.

To thwart any attempt by Netanyahu to siphon off votes on Election Day, Yamina does not plan to wait until the last minute and is already planning to convince voters that the size of the bloc, not the party, will be the deciding factor in the election.

Yamina leader Ayelet Shaked said, "This time, Netanyahu is starting to try and siphon off votes from the [other] right-wing parties early, and that allows us to make our voters able to withstand the intense messages that will flood in on Election Day, and realize that the size of the bloc, not the biggest party, is what will decide."

The post The big parties head into the final stretch appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Bennett and Shaked split from Habayit Hayehudi in December to form their party with the hope of pulling votes away from both Likud and the national-religious Right but the maneuver backfired, and the New Right failed to pass the 3.25% electoral threshold in the April 9 election.

The 3.25% electoral threshold amounts to 140,052 votes. The New Right had won 138,598 ballots, meaning it failed its bid by only 1,454 votes.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Shaked initially said she was exploring her future in politics, but once the repeat elections were called, she began exploring her options.

A controversial but very popular politician, many said after the elections that had Shaked led the New Right from the start, the party would have been elected to the Knesset.

Bennett and Shaked called a press conference for Sunday evening, ahead of which Bennett tweeted, "The country is more important than personal advancement. The country needs a unified Right."

Addressing a raucous crowd that chanted her name, Shaked called on smaller right-wing parties to unite saying it would be an "insurance policy" that will "preserve Israel's values."

"I call upon the heads of the ideological parties to the right of Likud [to unite]. The differences between us are minor given the challenges that lie ahead," she said

The New Right has expressed interest in teaming up with the more radical United Right, a faction formed ahead of April's elections that comprises Habayit Hayehudi and National Union parties.

Untied Right is headed by Habayit Hayehudi leader Rafi Peretz, with National Union head Bezalel Smotrich as his second.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly summoned Peretz and urged him not to yield the top spot to Shaked in the event of a merger.

Peretz poked fun at Shaked for her long-awaited decision. "I am happy to see that the New Right's people finally came to an understanding. Now is the time for real unity on the Right."

He invited Shaked and Bennett to start negotiations late Sunday night.

Smotrich, for his part, tweeted a warning: "It is looking like Bennett and Shaked still have not learned their lesson. We apparently were mistaken in accommodating their dangerous adventures. Let us be clear: If they repeat their mistake and divide the Right, they will be held accountable for the results. This time they will not be forgiven for toppling a right-wing government and the formation of a left-wing government for personal motives."

The post In attempt to broaden voter appeal, New Right names Shaked as leader appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.