Are Israelis Following Netanyahu Into The Dark?

The following blog is about the article Peace talks cannot take place in the dark written by Moshe Arens.



Democracy, according to dictionary.com, is government by the people. This means that the citizens decide how they want their country to be run and how things are handled in politics. They elect someone who is best fir to run their city, state, or country and that person is responsible for a larger area of people. Moshe Arens argues that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is handling politics in the dark of the people and is not informing them of what deals are being made. Netanyahu is trying to make a deal with Mahmoud Abbas, and he is not letting his board or the people of Israel know what is happening in the negotiations.

When opening up his article, Arens states a quote from President Woodrow Wilson that says that peace talks and all international diplomacy should be seen in the public view. He then mentions times in the past that leaders have kept their people in the dark. One of the people he compares Netanyahu to is Adolf Hitler. This comparison sparked a sense of hurt when reading the article. The author was trying to show that although the deals might not seem like a big deal at first, people’s lives do depend on the agreement.



When you are a child, it is easier to get forgiveness from your parents after you do something bad than to ask for permission. Getting permission for eating a cookie before dinner never happens, but getting away with it is a lot easier. Arens uses the same kind of analogy to explain how Netanyahu is approaching the state of Israel. Arens feels that the reason that Netanyahu is making deals in private is because it would be easier to get people to agree with a deal that is already made than one that has not been finalized yet.

Arens writes about Ehud Barak and the negations he attempted to make in 2000. He kept the information from the public and the views on him plummeted. His ratings went down, and he lost in the election in February 2001. Arens is making another comparison and clearly showing that he believes that Netanyahu should not keep his people in the dark and inform them of the deals that are being made.



At the end of his article, Arens stats that, “Some would say that the end justifies the means. But that is a principle applied in totalitarian regimes. It is not fit for a democracy.” He believes that not allowing the public to help make decisions is not democracy at all. Although I agree that the public should be able to see what is going on, the citizens of a county elect a President, Prime Minister, or other political figures because they believe they are competent enough to make decisions for them and help better their country. Netanyahu might be capable, but the fact that he is making deals in secret is what is making him look bad. Netanyahu is making poor decisions on not allowing Israel to see what decisions he is making, but I have faith that he will make a good deal and everything will calm down in short time.

Moshe Arens is a reliable source for this article because he lives in Israel. He is also involved in politics and was elected to the Knesset as a lawmaker for the Likud. He has need the ambassador for Israel to the United States, an Israeli Defense Minister, and also served as a Foreign Minister. All of these political ties give him the background he needs to write this educated article on one of Israel’s political leaders.

Beloved Emblem Of A Conflicted Israel

The following blog is about the article Beloved Emblem of a Conflicted Israel written by Daniel Gordis.

Gilad Schalit is an Israeli soldier who was kidnapped, along with two other soldiers, back in 2006. He was voted as the person of the year, for 5770, by The Jerusalem Post. The author of this article, Daniel Gordis, claims that Gilad “has become a metaphor for Israel, and for Israel’s condition.” Gordis begins his article by connecting with the reader, and attempting to create a sense of sympathy with Schalit’s parents and for all of Israel. Schalit’s parents are not the only ones who are suffering: we all are. The author combines all of Israel: the political left, the political right, parents, siblings, even Americans. He expresses the idea that the kidnapping has brought us all together to find one common cause, to bring Gilad Schalit home safely, unlike the outcome of the other two soldiers that were taken with him.

The author then begins to write about Schalit’s parents. He states that Israel’s media is “heartless” sometimes and his parents have not hid anything from the media. They want their son to be brought back home. They have not fought with the Israeli army. In contrast, they sent their daughter to go to the army without asking for media coverage on the issue. They are not abusing the media or using to gain fame. Gordis shows that this family has good virtue and has what most Israelis strive to have. They are good people who believe in their country, even after their son was kidnapped.

Gordis then makes a really good point. As much as we want Schalit to be brought home and many have his picture posted on Facebook and on their computer desktops, we really do not know who he really is. We might now some facts that can be found online, but his feelings, hopes and dreams are not known to the general public. Even though we know so little, we care so much about his safe bringing and the outcome of the scenario. This is how he ties together Gilad Schalit’s situation to the situation of Israel.

The inability to recover him and bring him home is eerily connected to the fact that Israel is having troubles keeping peace. Gordis states that the fact that Israel cannot find Schalit just makes it harder for Israel. He also mentions that although it would be nice to make the trade and bring Gilad home, the stakes are too high. How many more people will die from freeing the murderers that the ransom wishes? Is the death of one soldier equal to the possible deaths of many?

Gordis’ point of view is interesting. Comparing one person to the entire state of Israel is a tough job, but I think he nails it perfectly. When reading the article, I felt connects to Gilad Schalit and although I already have dog tags of the three kidnapped soldiers’ hanging in my rear view mirror, I felt more attached to the soldiers and their families. This article has so much imagery that the author really makes the reader feel that they have something to relate to the kidnapped soldier. Towards the end of the article, Gordis creates a picture of a ceremony for Schalit in Israel and explains that there were tourists present that were unaware of the situation. He shows that although they were ignorant to the kidnapping, they understood what it meant to the Israelis during the ceremony. Gordis uses Gilad Schalit to show a situation in Israel, which I believe can be solved. In the article, he claims that Israel is failing at finding peace and it might not ever happen. I do not believe in this section of his article.

I believe this article is mostly based off of opinion. There are some facts, but as the author states, they all can be found on the internet.  I believe Gordis is a reliable author because he is an Israeli who has experienced the situation of Gilad Schalit and who better to write a piece on it than someone who was affected. He also is the senior vice president of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and he wrote a book titled Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War that May Never End (Wiley, which won the 2009 National Jewish Book Award. He is knowledgeable in the history of Israel and also in modern day Israel and the war in the Middle East. Gordis wrote an interesting and inspiring article that connects Gilad Schalit to the conflict in Israel and brought a new viewpoint on Israelis in general.