editorials
Mounting Discomfort With
Netanyahu’s Choices
W e have counseled restraint in reacting to
reports of leadership appointments in the
new coalition government being hammered out
by Israel’s prime minister-designate, Benjamin
Netanyahu. And we continue to believe that
appointees and holders of significant government
portfolios should be given a chance to do their
work before being judged or criticized. Still, we are
concerned. While we deeply respect the will of the Israeli
electorate and accept the fact that Israel’s voters
have chosen by a wide margin to support an array
of hard-right, nationalistic and religiously assertive
members of Knesset — many of whom will become
ministers or senior portfolio holders in an expand-
ing universe of significant government positions
with direct impact on every segment of Israel’s
diverse society — nothing in that respect and def-
erence needs to tolerate racism, religious intoler-
ance, homophobia or other discriminatory agendas.

In the opening round of reports concerning
coalition discussions, we saw a number of famil-
iar names. We heard a lot about Itamar Ben-Gvir,
Bezalel Smotrich and Aryeh Deri before, during
and after the November elections, and watched
the chess-like moves Netanyahu made as he navi-
gated ministry allocations among the leaders of his
emboldened and demanding right-wing and haredi
coalition partners.

And yes, we wonder with the rest of the world
about the wisdom of appointing the avowed
nationalist and proponent of more confrontational
security measures like Ben-Gvir to the newly cre-
ated position of National Security Minister. And we
wonder about the package of ministerial positions
reportedly promised to Smotrich and his Religious
Zionist Party in exchange for Smotrich stepping
back from his impossible demand to serve as the
country’s defense minister. Further, we can’t quite
understand why the Knesset should be asked to
change existing law in order to enable twice-con-
victed Deri to become a minister in the government
and serve as deputy prime minister. Nonetheless,
we are willing to wait and see what these newly
minted ministers do with their new portfolios.

But even our deference can’t abide Netanyahu’s
announced agreement to appoint Knesset member
Avigdor (“Avi”) Maoz to be the next head of “Jewish
Identity” for the Israeli government. Maoz is the
single lawmaker of the fringe Noam Party (which
partnered with the Religious Zionists for election
purposes) and is one of the Knesset’s most extreme
far-right politicians. He espouses non-pluralist
Jewish views and anti-LGBT, sexist and anti-Arab
positions. Maoz wants to change the Law of Return
to exclude non-halachic Jews from immigrating to
Israel; he wants to impose stricter Shabbat obser-
vance on Israelis and strengthen the Orthodox
Rabbinate’s monopoly over Jewish life in Israel; and
he espouses a self-righteous program of “family
values” as part of his multi-pronged, homophobic
campaign against the LGBTQ community.

The appointment of Maoz to any position of lead-
ership and authority in the new Israeli government
is a declaration of war against any effort to create
a cooperative and accepting civil society in the
State of Israel and a startling slap in the face to the
overwhelming majority of Diaspora Jewry. Maoz’s
intolerance and the policies he promotes threaten
to create deep rifts within Israel and extreme dis-
comfort and rejection in the Diaspora. That is not
in Israel’s interests. JE
A Stain on the World Cup
A lmost every country wants to host the World Cup.

The competition for hosting rights, however, is
corrupt. How else does one explain that this year’s
World Cup kicked off last month in Qatar after more
than a decade’s worth of controversy?
The questions about Qatar, a Persian Gulf emir-
ate smaller than the state of Connecticut, have
very little to do with what the world calls “foot-
ball.” Instead, inquiry focuses on a global corrup-
tion scandal in which Qatar is alleged to have
paid bribes for the award of hosting rights, the
sky-high price tag Qatar spent to build facilities
to host the event, serious human-rights concerns
about Qatar’s treatment of migrant workers and
outrage over Qatar’s treatment of women and
LGBTQ people.

Qatar, of course, denies the allegations of brib-
ery. But according to the U.S. Department of
Justice, multiple officials of FIFA — the governing
body of the World Cup — received bribes to vote
for Qatar as the host of the tournament. And a
simple analysis of the Qatar bid shows how weak
the application was.

12 DECEMBER 1, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
For example, at the time of its bid in 2010,
Qatar didn’t have sufficient stadiums to host the
World Cup or places to house the million-plus
fans who would come to watch the games. Since
then, Qatar has built seven new stadiums and
renovated an eighth; accelerated the building of
an entire new city and a subway system to sup-
port it; expanded its airport; and constructed a
massive number of new residential buildings and
hotels. The cost incurred by Qatar (exclusive of
bribes) is estimated to be in the range of $300
billion — more than all the previous World Cups
and Olympics combined.

Qatar has a population of 3 million, only about
300,000 of whom are Qatari citizens. The rest are
foreign workers, and it is they who do the hard
and dangerous labor in the emirate, including con-
struction for the World Cup. Human-rights groups
accuse the Qataris of using forced labor under
abusive conditions and report that 6,500 migrant
workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh
and Sri Lanka died in Qatar since 2010, mostly in
service of the World Cup construction projects.

Qatar has the world’s third-largest natural-gas
reserves and is one of the top oil producers. Qatar
hopes to use the international visibility of the
World Cup to help grow its non-energy economy,
with ambitions to become a regional business and
tourism hub.

In the euphoria of the soccer competition, we
hope that Qatar’s record of human rights abuse and
mistreatment does not get lost. In addition to its
migrant worker victims, Qatari women are denied
by the country’s male guardianship rules the right
to make key decisions about marriage, choice of
work opportunities, travel abroad and reproductive
health care. The country’s laws also criminalize
all forms of sex outside marriage, including sex
suffered by rape victims. Sex between men is pun-
ishable by up to seven years in prison.

We worry about the “split screen” on which fans
watch this year’s World Cup — as they celebrate
the sport they love and a tournament that has
meaning — being played in a country that has built
the games on corruption, exploitation and human
suffering. JE