Yaacov Ben-Shemesh: Is it really a question of left to right?

Dr Yaacov Ben-Shemesh, law professor at Ono Academic College, is one example of an Israeli whose views began to change before Oct 7th, and perhaps one can say that after the Simchat Torah atrocities, he now more clearly aligns himself with the “disenchanted.” Matan Hasidim interviewed him recently on the podcast series in which he looks at various aspects of Israeli society.

In Hebrew, the term used to describe leftists who move toward the right is “mitpackhim” (מתפכחים), which comes from the root-word meaning sober (פכח), with a derivative (מפוכח) meaning clear-headed. I find this somewhat judgemental both toward those who have and who have not changed their views after Oct 7th and prefer to use either “disenchanted” or “disillusioned” regarding their previous assumptions concerning Israel and our neighbours. However, I would like to see what readers considering themselves in this category prefer. (You can leave a comment at the end of this article.)

Hasidim introduced the interview by quoting from an article in which Ben-Shemesh said:

I enthusiastically supported both disengagement and Oslo in the sincere belief that there was someone to talk to, that the other side wants to live in peace with us and that these steps would be the best for Israel in the long run, I made a grave mistake. Gaza and Jericho first turned out to be the hollow reality already in the second intifada and what happened to us in the disengagement — there is no need to say anything, it’s just a disaster.

Then Hasidim quotes a Facebook post by Ben-Shemesh:

It is necessary and important to think about what we are doing now and where we go from here, what do we do in the reality that has been revealed to us, and again, it is not that the reality was previously hidden from us. We simply allowed ourselves to be blinded … We have to think about how we can live here.

But peace, peace, with whom, peace, over what? Whoever keeps talking like that is, in my eyes, a delusional messiah, am impatient messiah, … a truly dangerous messiah. It is true, we must be wary of delusional messianics but there are, it turns out, no fewer of these on the left than there are on the right.

Ben-Shemesh responded to Hasidim’s question about whether he belonged to the left in the past or still belongs to it in the present:

Great question. I think we are really in a time of finding out what it is to be liberal left and all these concepts are undergoing change. So if I belonged or I still belong, it also really depends on the question of what will happen to the liberal left and whether it will have a resurgence, I think there could be [a resurgence]. Then, I will continue to belong.

Hasidim asks Ben-Shemesh to expand on the idea of the resurgence of the left.

The liberal left has not always succumbed to the temptations of peace. There was left-wing – I don’t have to remind everyone who founded the state. …

The left was not a left of returning territories in exchange for peace and the left was not a left that referred to the word settlement with contempt or hatred, rather that was the flag under which they stood.

And again, I don’t need to tell you, that in ’67, when the manifesto of the Movement for Israel Hashlema [the Greater Land of Israel] was published, who signed it?

Hasidim reponded: [Israeli socialist poet and journalist] Natan Alterman.

In fact, the manifesto was signed by about fifty people from both sides of the political spectrum, artists and writers, and former soldiers in the IDF.

Ben-Shemesh went on to say that when the Levi Eshkol government suggested returning all the land conquered in 1967 (Judea & Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai, and the Golan) in exchange for peace:

They [the Movement for Israel Hashlema] said, God forbid! Such a historic opportunity and no one has the right, and who said that?  Not Ben Gvir and Smotritz who were not yet born in ’67, but those who were the leaders of the labour movement. So, at least, we have a place to go back to, if we want.

Hasidim and Ben-Shemesh discussed the meaning of Zionism and Jewish identity, tradition, and culture in the Land of Israel. There is much more in the interview than I can bring you in this short article and if you want to view the entire interview, click here. You can turn on English subtitles. They are not great, but perhaps you can get enough from them for personal reflection or conversations with others.

For the remainder of this article, I would like to paraphrase a few points from the interview that struck me as important:

About land and peace

1. Once, settlement was a supreme value in the land and the farthest settlements were markers for the borders. Now the left values evacuation of settlements, i.e., there has been an incredible transformation.
2. We have now reached the inevitable point at which we understand that our fantasy of peace is dangerous and we have no one to talk with about peace. He does not just mean Hamas, but, because 80% of the population supported what Hamas did on Oct 7th, we cannot distinguish between Hamas and the general Gazan population. We need to recognize that the idea that peace depends on Israel’s willingness to give up land blew up in our faces.
3. The current reality is not a reality of peace but a reality of conflict. And conflict is not over some of the land, but over all the land, over the existence of a Jewish state.
4. If someone comes and says it’s all mine and we answer, let’s divide it half and half — “that’s already stupid.” If he says it’s all mine, we can also say it’s all mine, and we have a historical basis for that. “So if it is about everything, then it is about everything.”
5. I don’t think we will have to fight each and every day, he says, but we have to be strong each and every day.

About disenchantment

1. Ben-Shemesh claims there are many “disenchanted” in Israeli society today. It is not a small phenomenon. But if they were suddenly struck, as if by lightning, it remains to be seen if the change will be long lasting.
2. If what changed one was shock of Oct 7th, then that person cannot stay in the air for long. If you were already, before Oct 7th, in a process of re-examination of your assumptions, you might find a new frame of reference.
   1. What he understood from the unrest around judicial reforms was the hostility, hatred, and fear of one political camp toward the other that it thought was leading Israel to dictatorship. Do any of them really know Likudnikim, he asks? “Never mind Likudnikim — Ben Gvir! Does anyone know any of Ben Gvir’s people? Does anyone think that any of them would agree to live under a dictatorship? They would be the first to make a fuss if anyone tried to bring on a dictatorship. The readiness to demonize the other side, …” and then he goes back to the question of longevity of change — if you were already used to listening to other ideas, then you might find it reasonable to accept new understandings and the change may be deeper and long lasting.
   2. But if you regarded the other side as the embodiment of evil, if they aroused in you resistance and disgust, then, even though you cannot stay in limbo after the initial shock of Oct 7th, you will find a way to go back to where you started from. Therefore, the “disenchantment” will be superficial and temporary.
3. Hasidim brings the words of one of the first well-known “disenchanteds,” the author Roni Gelfish who said her ideological world looks like Gaza after an Israeli air bombardment. She is not quick to decide where she belongs, not sure that the right would accept her and not sure that moving right would mean having to give up her humanitarian values. Hasidim suggests that work needs to be done to show people that growing more nationalistic and caring more about Jewish identity does not mean giving up universal values.
4. Ben-Shemesh says: people like Roni and I will find certain things about the right wing ideology distasteful and that may prevent us from feeling connected, so the work needs to be done on both sides. “Smotrich cannot stay Smotrich if he wants Roni Gelfish or I to move in his direction.” He adds that the bulk of Israeli society is not among the inflexible extremes that are not prepared to move toward each other. And he repeats the experience of reserve soldiers who find, while serving together, that those on opposite sides of the political map actually agree on 90% of the issues.
5. Therefore, getting toward more unifying conversations depends on the left being willing to engage in that and the right in responding to the challenge.
6. Something he says he would not have felt comfortable saying a year ago is that Israeli society needs to unite, not just to survive, but because we have a destiny — to bring higher values and morals as if we are good and they are evil. And yes, what we saw on Oct 7th was pure evil.
7. Hasidim raises the issue of the nature of man — can we still say that all people, regardless of race, religion, culture, want essentially the same things? Ben-Shemesh says that Oct 7th was such a shock also because it forced us to reconsider what we regard as human nature. In other words, if they could do what they did, and humanity is all the same, does that mean that I could do that as well? Not really, he answers. There have been many peoples in history (not just the Jews) who suffered greatly but did not do what Gazans/Hamas did. It depends on culture and on one’s willingness to do evil.

And this brings us just under half-way through the interview.

In the last few minutes of the interview, they talked about Judaism; let me paraphrase Ben-Shemesh’s words: He says that Judaism was his salvation at different points of his life, even as he resists the religious aspects. Judaism has given him a sense of significance and purpose. We are here to do good in the world and to fight evil and for that we need our country to be strong, he says. We did not come here just because we were persecuted; we came here because we have a role. And for us to be a great, strong, united nation. For him, Judaism gives answers to deep questions liberal concepts do not. Moving forward, Judaism today has to be strongly connected with nationhood and, Hasidim adds, understanding how the mitzvot (commandments) are connected to national and universal values, something ben Shemesh said would speak to liberal Israelis, even if they do not plan on following them.

I hope that this article serves as a trigger for interesting discussion among people who agree and those who disagree with what it says here, and with each other.