Tzipi Hotovely
Photo: Gil Yohanan
Israel’s leaders unjustly abandoned Hotovely for spurious political ends
Op-ed: Hotovely’s comments about a specific group of US Jews that caused such an unjustified uproar were entirely correct, but were distorted by the media, and Israel’s top leaders shamefully caved to undue pressure in a bid to mend fractures that had developed between Israel and US Jewry after the Kotel controversy. She was abandoned by those who should have defended her.
The criticism to which Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely has been subjected since making remarks
in which she highlighted the fact that some, though not all,
Jews in the US and the Diaspora have failed to understand the complexities of Israel’s challenges is not only disproportionate and unjustified, but it is a political tactic by Israel’s politicians designed to win back favor with liberal streams of US Jewry.
Speaking about some Jews in the US who are critical of Israel’s policies, whether they be on construction in Judea and Samaria, or on military operations and responses to provocations from one enemy or another, Hotovely merely stated a fact.
“I think the other issue is not understanding the complexity of the region. People that never send their children to fight for their countries. Most of the Jews don’t have children serving as soldiers, going to the Marines, going to Afghanistan or to Iraq,” Hotovely said.
“Most of them are having quite a convenient life. They don’t feel how it feels to be attacked by rockets and I think part of it is to actually experience what Israel is dealing with on a daily basis."
While these two statements triggered so much outrage, who can possibly argue with them?
Hotovely and Netanyahu (Photo: Ehud Zwigenberg)
Many Jews in the diaspora cast negative judgements on IDF soldiers—boys and girls—who courageously and selflessly defend that precious country about which they so readily opine.
Those same Jews have absolutely no idea what the experience of being a soldier means, and the outrage that has ensued by uttering this simple fact can perhaps be attributed to collective guilt, rather than serious objection regarding its accuracy.
Notably absent from the media hype that followed her interview was any context. The reports deliberately isolated one quote and distorted it for the sake of the headline and whipping up the hysteria.
Hotovely was speaking in reference to the fact that a Jewish group had recently stifled free speech by stopping her from speaking at Hillel in Princeton University. She was also speaking about, as the interviewer put it, “those Jews who no longer feel they have a connection with Israel on any level.”
It is no coincidence that not a single one of the main online newspapers, including the one that broke the story, saw fit to mention that Hotovely also said during her interview: “This is the home of all Jews from all streams. Everyone is welcome to come here to influence Israeli politics. Please come.”
This was nowhere to be seen in the stories about the interview.
Most of the Jews to whom she was referring—save those who have served in the IDF or other militaries—cannot possibly know how it feels to lie in the freezing or almost unbearably hot field for days on end, to have a tank become your home, to face a Palestinian terrorist coming to kill you, your comrades and your fellow civilians—and may they never know.
When Hotovely declares that Jews who are sometimes particularly critical of Israeli policies or have become estranged from the country don’t “understand the complexity of the region” or merely notes that those very same Jews have never kissed their children goodbye as they march toward an enemy craving their blood, she is merely stating a fact.
To deny it and then express rage about it reflects unmitigated arrogance.
Is it really so inconceivable that a Jew living in a country, with its vast expanses stretching from the Pacific to the Atlantic, with no immediate neighbors bent on its destruction, may not understand the “complex realities” that haunt a country whose borders stretch from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River at their widest, with neighbors obsessed with achieving its ultimate demise?
Frankly, the fact that the Hotovely has been forced to grovel to save her political career after making these overdue remarks, is a travesty.
The din surrounding her comments could have been lowered by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Rivlin by simply contextualizing her comments. They did not have to allow her to fall on a sword which the Kotel crisis has sharpened.
The spurious anger voiced by some politicians in the government is nothing more than a political ploy calculated to mend the fractures that have formed over religious differences between Israel and liberal streams of US Jewry.
Hotovely is simply the sacrificial lamb tossed onto the altar. Excessively castigating her, and possibly firing her—they misguidedly presume—could regain the favor for Israel of liberal US Jews. This, they believe, could extricate them from their political tribulations which have befallen them since the Kotel controversy.
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Photo: Gil Yohanan)
The hysteria surrounding her comments is insincere and sadly lends credence to the notion that Israel is merely a subservient mouthpiece for some US Jews who, if unpleasant truths are spoken, may take umbrage at the implication that their knowledge and understanding is imperfect.
Moreover, the opprobrium which has been levelled against Hotovely here in Israel is also illustrative of the fact that Israel too suffers from an extreme form of political correctness that defies logic.
Netanyahu should not have said “her remarks do not reflect the position of the State of Israel” because had he actually listened to what she had said in full, he would have surely realized that—on the contrary—they precisely reflect his government’s unspoken position.
Rivlin decided to throw Hotovely out into the cold when he referred to an agreement signed two years after Israel gained independence by Ben Gurion and the American Jewish Committee President Jacob Blaustein, which sought to determine the nature of the relationship between the Jewish communities of Israel and the US.
“Israel represents its citizens only, and speaks only in their name,” Rivlin said as he listed what he said were some of the agreement’s main clauses.
It is worth noting that Hotovely’s comments, in no way, undermined this principle.
“American Jews are citizens of the US and the US alone has their loyalty,” he went on. “No side will intervene in the political decisions of the other.”
Does this apply to groups like J-street? Does it apply to prominent liberal Jews who seek to defame the Israeli government and lash Israel’s Orthodox population for policies relating to the Kotel? Or is the obligation to comply with the principle strictly reserved for Israelis?
Should Hotovely and any other Israeli, whether in the government or not, be compelled to stay mute on an important issue that should be brought to some Jews’ attention while a significant number of those same Jews are freely and publicly able to censure Israel—all too often unjustifiably?
In an address by Jacob Blaustein at the meeting of its th AJC’s executive committee on April 29, 1950 entitled “The Voice of Reason,” he made two crucial comments that Rivlin failed to mention.
Rivlin and Hotovely (Photo: AFP, Motti Kimchi)
“The future of American Jewry, of our children and of our children's children, is entirely linked with the future of America. We have no alternative; and we want no alternative,” Blaustein said during a speech in New York.
Essentially, Hotovely was simply applying this same principle to Israel. Why American Jews, not to mention Israeli leaders, should be enraged by this is a mystery.
Finally, Rivlin, and indeed some Diaspora Jews who are prepared to persistently slam Israel’s domestic and military policies, would be wise to remember perhaps the most pertinent point mentioned by Blaustein in his speech about American Jewry:
“We shall not assume that we know all the answers.”
Hotovely should be proud of finally speaking the truth. She should be hailed, not assailed, for reminding a certain section of the Jewish Diaspora of Blaustein’s words. Israel’s leaders should be firmly backing her, and not for a moment consider sacking her.
