The Sephardic Revolution or the Jewish Republic of Israel

 

Alik Bakhshi

The Sephardic Revolution or the Jewish Republic of Israel

 

 

   The words, dropped in the form of a threat to the Ashkenazi community about an impending Sephardic revolution by the member of the Israeli parliament, Rabbi Eliyahu Suissa, in his angry speech regarding the upcoming imprisonment of the former leader of the Shas party, Rabbi Aryeh Deri, unfortunately correspond quite well to the real prospect awaiting Israel. This prospect has serious objective reasons behind it. The revolution planned by Shas could, of course, be called “Judaic,” by analogy with the Islamic Revolution in Iran; however, the roots and goals of this revolution lie primarily in the sphere of national relations, and the rabbi did not misspeak when he called it Sephardic.

In Israel, various national communities professing Judaism have found a second homeland. Each of them has its own language, traditions, and culture — all the features that distinguish one people from another. And the fact that the famous Israeli “melting pot” turned out to be without fire is once again confirmed by the latest statements of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef about the Holocaust of European Jewry as a deserved punishment for sins against the Faith. Apparently, the spiritual shepherd of the Moroccan community worships, unlike the Ashkenazim, a different God — one capable of punishing six million Jews, including thousands of infants whose lips could utter only one word: “mama.” To what level of absurdity must one descend to hold such misanthropic views! Following this logic, I will allow myself to complete the thought of our philosopher of religion — a thought he will no doubt express among ayatollahs and Hamas members — that Hitler was the Messiah sent to punish a sinful people, and that as a reward for his godly deed he now rests in paradise surrounded by beautiful houris.

The statements of the father of the future Sephardic–Judaic revolution reveal far‑reaching political intentions. These intentions must be viewed primarily as the tactical move of a clever politician whose ultimate goal is power. Fully understanding that the Ashkenazim are his main opponents, Ovadia Yosef brands them as sinners and points out to his flock what place they should occupy according to the halachic hierarchy — and who will be milking cows on Shabbat in the future Judaic Republic of Israel. One must assume that this honor will first be granted to Ashkenazi rabbis, who have failed in their duties.

The Great Aliyah significantly disrupted Israel’s national balance by increasing the number of Ashkenazim. However, considering the political spinelessness of Russian‑speaking immigrants and their party Yisrael BaAliyah, the Sephardim still retain a chance to seize political leadership. Mr. Sharansky, at this difficult time for the governing coalition and for the country as a whole, found nothing better than to erect a “protest tent,” within whose enclosed space hovers the spirit of national unity — an absurdity made especially clear against the backdrop of the racist musings of the spiritual father of the Moroccan community.

Much of what is happening in Israel today resembles the situation in Iran before the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The reformer of Iranian society, Shah Pahlavi, faced desperate resistance from the clergy, who did not wish to lose their power over a religiously obedient people. The leader of the religious establishment, Ayatollah Khomeini, exiled by the Shah, acquired the image of a martyr for the Faith and managed to raise the masses against the Shah’s reforms. A black veil of religious obscurantism descended upon the country. The Guardians of the Islamic Revolution ruthlessly destroyed everything that did not conform to religious dogma; cinemas burned with audiences locked inside; women accused of infidelity or daring to appear with uncovered faces were subjected to horrific executions. The Shahanshah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was forced to flee his country and spend the rest of his life in exile.

The Eastern mentality of Moroccan Jews does not accept the guilt of the swindler and bribe‑taker Rabbi Aryeh Deri and may elevate him to the rank of a holy martyr who suffered for the Faith at the hands of hated Ashkenazi sinners. The cases of arson of cinemas and non‑kosher shops that we have already witnessed are not yet widespread, but they may well become harbingers of political clashes on religious grounds. And the fact that Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a religious fanatic should already alarm the public, which ought finally to draw the proper conclusion that a serious threat hangs over the institution of Israeli democracy.

While Labor and Likud argue over who has the right to sign a peace agreement with Arafat, the clerics are slowly but surely approaching power. Thanks to them, the Knesset has turned into an Eastern bazaar where trading and speculation in votes have become commonplace. The immoral image of politicking rabbis is complemented by the fact that among them were found thieves and fraudsters who care nothing for the fate of the country and who, for the sake of power and money, are ready even to violate the commandments of the Torah. The blackmail used by the Sephardic Shas party to extract money for its community and to push through halachic laws that contradict democracy paralyzes the normal functioning of the government.

Yes, rabbis in politics can be bought by both the right and the left. However, it would be a mistake to consider Shas’s apparent lack of principles in political matters as boundless. The reason Shas left Barak’s governing coalition — despite the phenomenal gains it had achieved through its usual blackmail — lies much deeper than the explanation they offered. The issue is not that Shas opposes the creation of a Palestinian state (if Shas were in power, signing a final agreement with the Arabs would not be a major problem for them), but that after peace is established in the region, the arrival of genuine democracy becomes inevitable — with a Constitution separating religion from the state. The leaders of Shas are not fools, and such a prospect cannot suit them, for it not only deprives them of the possibility of coming to power but also undermines the ideological foundation of their party. Therefore, Israeli clerics will do everything possible to prevent the adoption of a Constitution.

All religious politicians have one common enemy: Democracy. An ideology that claims to be the ultimate truth must not be the ideology of a state — especially a democratic one. All known historical cases where this occurred were accompanied by colossal losses for humanity. The era of medieval religious obscurantism and the times of communist and fascist regimes share one feature: the unquestionability of their ideologies. Unfortunately, even today we see a relapse of this disease in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Against the backdrop of growing pressure from the clerics and considering the latest statements by Shas political leaders, the question arises whether they might come to power in Israel. Believers, though a minority, are strong in organization and discipline. The Bolsheviks in Russia were also fewer than the Mensheviks, yet thanks to iron discipline they seized power and then physically eliminated all their political opponents. What is surprising is the extremely indulgent attitude of the secular population toward the antics of the Orthodox. By surrendering Jerusalem to the believers, the secular population will lose the city — and then, perhaps, the establishment of yet another state like Iran will not be far off, a state in which power will belong not to a king or dictator but to an almost divine representative whose will will not be questioned — and we can only hope it will not come to crucifixions. One does not need a rich imagination to picture Israel’s future if the clerics come to power: citing the chosenness and exceptionalism of the Jews, their qualitative difference from the gentiles, they will not hesitate to isolate themselves from all humanity behind an “iron curtain,” just as the communists in the Soviet Union isolated their people from foreign ideologies.

After a law banning the import of non‑kosher meat will come a ban on ballet and all forms of art — as the machinations of gentiles. The only permitted songs will be psalms, and the only musical instrument the ram’s horn. The expectation of the Messiah will become analogous to the communist “bright future.” It is not impossible that the only friendly country to us will be Iran. And that will be the end of the State of Israel.

In the end, the politicking rabbis, like the Israeli right‑wing opponents of the peace process, oppose peace because peace and democracy are as inseparable from each other as totalitarianism and war.

While in power, Likud avoided democratic reforms, although they were one of the party’s main programmatic goals. The fact is that the existing socialist economic system, in which political and economic levers are concentrated in the hands of the state, is quite suitable for achieving Likud’s political aims. In a free‑market economy, it is impossible to create settlements or build entire cities for strategic purposes. And such a necessary attribute of a democratic state as a Constitution does not suit Likud, because it has no desire to equalize the rights of Palestinians and Jews — one cannot introduce a Constitution only for the chosen. Considering this, the statements about the need for a Constitution for Israel coming from the former Likud member and current leader of Yisrael Beiteinu, Mr. Lieberman, look purely populist. True, he has some experience from his past life in the Soviet Union, where a dictatorial regime existed perfectly well under a democratic constitution. All that remains is to establish a dictatorial regime here in Israel — and then one can adopt any Constitution, even one that would suit the Judaic Republic of Israel.

 

    Israel. Our country. 14.09.00.