opinion
hawks consider the war to be in America’s inter-
est, since it is helping to weaken Russia — a geo-
political foe of the United States and ally of China,
an even more dangerous potential enemy. From
that point of view, it is a grand military exercise
in which Western military and intelligence capa-
bilities are being field-tested in real time against
Russian materiel and that of its Iranian allies, who
have supplied drones to their ally in the conflict
in Syria.

The above argument is undermined, however,
by the spectacle of Russian incompetence that
has rendered untenable the idea that it poses a
conventional, as opposed to a nuclear, threat to
the West.

Dismissing talk of peace
The international community has always opposed
allowing Israel to achieve the kind of complete
military victory over its enemies that would force
them to give up their struggle against its exis-
tence. World opinion also dismisses terrorist
attacks on the lives of Israelis as being part of
a “cycle of violence” that ought to be stopped,
regardless of who is in the right.

In contrast, many otherwise sensible people
think Ukrainian ambitions for a military victory
over Russia should be indulged, including if that
means, as even President Joe Biden recently
acknowledged, a risk of a nuclear confrontation.

Anger and disgust with Russia are justified, as
are economic sanctions, even if they are clearly
hurting the West more than the Putin regime. Yet,
now that Ukraine’s extinction is no longer possi-
ble, a rational rather than an emotional response
to the situation shouldn’t involve an open-ended
commitment to an endless war that — Zelenskyy’s
boasts and Biden’s promises notwithstanding —
isn’t going to end in a total Ukrainian victory or
anything like it.

Instead of ganging up on Israel in an effort to
force it to join a war that has nothing to do with its
security, perhaps the virtue-signalers should start
considering whether it wouldn’t be more sensible
for the United States to begin exploring a way to
end the war. Instead, they are supporting policies
geared to ensure it goes on indefinitely, and
speak as if advocacy for a negotiated settlement
is Russian propaganda. They have no coherent
exit strategy or achievable goal and accuse those
who point out this inconvenient fact of being
insufficiently supportive of the cause of freedom.

The idea that Israel should be dragged into this
morass simply for the sake of a dubious romanti-
cizing of the conflict, to assert its status as a world
power or any other reason is as irresponsible as
it is reckless. JE
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS.

Israelis Should Vote Their
Conscience No Matter What
BY DAVID M. WEINBERG
W ith only a few days to go until the Israeli
election, the message one hears from almost
all the various party leaders is: Vote for me to block
the other guy. Vote for me to stymie the other guy’s
potential coalition.

Such “tactical” voting is rotten. It completely
ignores the critical diplomatic, defense, economic
and social issues at hand. It guts Israeli politics of
any serious ideological argument. It reduces our
serial election campaigns to yet another round of
sumo wrestling. It is a mind-numbing approach to
determining Israel’s future.

Worse still is the oft-heard admonition not to
“waste” your vote, not to vote for a political party
that teeters at the so-called “threshold.” (The cur-
rent electoral threshold, the minimum for gaining
Knesset representation, is 3.25% of all valid votes.

In practice, this means that a party that fails to gain
votes equivalent to about four Knesset seats is
wiped-off the political map.)
This, too, is a terrible contention. It strips voters
of their right to vote their conscience in an unadul-
terated manner. It reduces election day to tactical
play, instead of it being a celebration of democ-
racy in action. It is a dispiriting approach to Zionist
and Jewish political commitment.

I say, forget the “threshold.” Be a strategic and
principled, not a tactical and cynical, voter. Vote
your conscience, even if it means your ballot might
“go to waste.”
Voting in such upright fashion is a healthy and
satisfying form of political engagement. Selecting
the political party and political leader that most
closely represents one’s worldview without slav-
ish reference to the latest polls proffered by
biased media outlets and various political huck-
sters is a corrective to the cynicism that almost all
Israelis feel about the political system.

It might mean that your vote “goes to waste,”
but guess what? It could also mean your vote
does not go to waste. If enough people in your
“sector” vote their conscience and best ideologi-
cal judgment, your preferred political party might
be elected to the Knesset. Your vote could make
the difference.

And what’s the worst that can happen? Israel
seems headed towards another political stale-
mate, with repeat elections likely in April 2023.

So, you’ll get another chance at that time to recon-
sider your vote and make a greater impact on the
overall result. (And perhaps, hopefully, by then the
range of political party options and especially their
leaders will be better and broader.)
To be clear, I am not suggesting that Israelis vote
for any one of the two dozen super-fringe factions
that will have ballot slips on Nov. 1. Doing so would
be truly silly. These splinters are too wacky to be
taken seriously and too tiny to have any chance
whatsoever of being elected to the Knesset.

But I am suggesting that left-wing Israelis who
believe in the principles espoused by Zehava
Galon of Meretz should vote as a matter of princi-
ple for Meretz, even though the pollsters question
whether the party will cross the threshold. They
should not be off put by the pollsters.

I am suggesting that Arab Israelis who are
impressed by the bravery of Mansour Abbas of
Ra’am in joining an Israeli government (the first
time that an Israeli Arab party has done so), and by
his achievements in government, should vote as a
matter of principle for Ra’am. They should not be
deterred by doubts that the party can surmount the
threshold this time (nor should they be threatened
by radicals in their sector for identifying with Ra’am).

I am suggesting that right-wing and/or reli-
gious-Zionist Israelis who deem Ayelet Shaked to
be an honest, effective and weighty conservative
leader should vote as a matter of principle for
Yamina. They should not be daunted by threshold
uncertainties, nor frightened by angry accusations
of “disloyalty” to the Netanyahu bloc. If enough
people in this sector vote their conscience and
best ideological judgment, Yamina may indeed be
elected to the Knesset.

The same goes for potential voters for Merav
Michaeli. Her version of the Labor Party, and
each of the above-mentioned parties, has a clear
identity and political history and there are tens of
thousands of votes behind it, making it a passable
choice. Alas, Israeli voters face another muddy election
in a convoluted Israeli political system where
negative campaigning and personal animosities
are at a peak. Most politicians are selling fallacies
instead of tackling real issues with concrete solu-
tions. They are selling tactical calculations instead
of purposeful policies. They tell Israelis to vote to
sidetrack the other guy.

Israelis ought to ignore such soul-destroying rat-
a-tat and proudly vote their principles, even defi-
antly vote their conscience. Worse come to worst,
there will soon be another election. JE
David M. Weinberg is a senior fellow at the Kohelet
Forum and Habithonistim: Israel’s Defense and
Security Forum. This article was originally pub-
lished by Israel Hayom.

JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 17