Yisrael Medad is an American-born Israeli journalist, author and former director of educational programming at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center. A graduate of Yeshiva University, he made aliyah in 1970 and has since held key roles in Israeli politics, media and education. A member of Israel’s Media Watch executive board, he has contributed to publications such as The Los Angeles Times, The Jerusalem Post and International Herald Tribune. He and his wife, who have five children, live in Shilo.
(Oct. 20, 2026 / JNS)
Grand chess master Garry Kasparov (born Weinstein, but self-identified as Christian following his mother), chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, in The New York Times, instructed Israelis that when they go to vote, they face the choice “whether the Jewish state leans in the direction of a secular Hebrew republic or a rigid rabbinical theocracy.”
His concern, he explains, comes from his commitment to liberal democracy.
The column is essentially anti-Haredi, though he also writes: “Without the ultra-Orthodox, Mr. Netanyahu would not have backing for many of his authoritarian endeavors.”
While many Israelis are quite uncomfortable with many of the Haredi parties’ political positions, including their coalition partners, Kasparov’s characterization of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions and policies as “authoritarian” ruins a good argument.
In another instance, the NatCon Jerusalem Conference, several speakers also spoke in a sense of instruction, although adding that their support of Israel was unwavering. Matthew Peterson, of the Claremont Institute, said that denunciations of antisemitism had a “boy-who-cried-wolf problem.” Film director Amanda Milius described accusations of antisemitism as “a fit of hysteria.” Jonathan Keeperman criticized appeals to the Holocaust and Jewish suffering as grounds for supporting Israel.
Ed Miliband, foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, said, in response to Israel’s closing of the British Consulate in Jerusalem, whose consular services are reserved only for non-Israelis (although its cultural events are open to all): “We have been clear that we do not accept that the Government of Israel has the legal right to close the British Consulate General in Jerusalem.”
Actually, it’s not that clear.
The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations set out that consular relations between states are conducted by mutual consent and that a consular post may be established in the territory of the receiving state only with that state’s consent. Miliband’s argument depends on its position that eastern Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory and that Israel possesses no sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Mutuality, therefore, appears to be lacking.
The above three examples all point to one major problem that Israel and the Jews have not fully overcome. To be blunt, Israel and the Jews have not fully liberated ourselves from the tendency, if not the preferred predilection, of others always telling us what to do. A good friend of mine wrote of the Jews as still being “a disfavored minority that is loath to speak up for itself [which] presents a very, very tough population to protect.”
Sometimes, “advice” of what to do comes disguised as a magazine piece. I am referring to what Vivian Salama published in The Atlantic, in which she authoritatively wrote “on September 26, 2023 … a chartered Cessna jet linked to Egypt’s intelligence service had touched down at Ben-Gurion Airport … Abbas Kamel, Egypt’s intelligence chief … had come to Israel on a most sensitive mission” to warn that “Hamas … appeared to be mobilizing for a major attack.”
How could Israel, and specifically Netanyahu, disregard that warning? Was this another “proof” that he was negligible and irresponsible and could have prevented the Hamas invasion?
As it turned out, there was no warning because Kamel was not on that plane.
I don’t know if Salama herself or her sources wished to interfere with Israel’s elections and indicate how incompetent Netanyahu is, thus influencing voters to lean toward another candidate, but, for a short while, it was having that effect. It almost worked, as the Israeli media was promoting the story vociferously.
I am sure many in the United Kingdom would take umbrage at Israeli interference in the matter of its Muslim population. According to The Telegraph, the surname “Khan” is set to replace “Smith” as the most popular surname for newborns next year. I am not intimating that all Khans are subversive. However, it’s obvious that a changing demographic is in the works and that anyone reading the news from that island recognizes it has led to some domestic issues.
Of course, I do expect that in private conversations, Israeli political figures and perhaps diplomats are expressing what their interlocutors could consider critical, if constructive, remarks. Nothing, however, would compare to the French ambassador to London, Daniel Bernard, who spoke about “that shitty little country Israel” in a social conversation.
If only once in a while, European or American diplomats would verbally berate Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did when he muttered, “Sign, you son of a dog,” at the signing of Oslo II in Egypt in September 1995.
But no, it is overwhelmingly Israel that is lectured, pressured and given a dressing down. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her 45-minute rebuke phone call on March 12, 2010, over plans to build 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo in northern East Jerusalem is an example.
The only comparable situation is the United States refusing Abbas a visa to the United Nations. I’ll add that in his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly shouted at Abbas on May 23, 2017, accusing him of misleading him about Palestinian incitement against Israel.
Every rule and every example has an exception, though Trump is an exception in many ways. Now, Obama has come back to haunt us.
In Ireland last week, he spoke at Queen’s University Belfast, issuing these words: “The citizenry of Israel has to rethink, to reimagine. How are your children and grandchildren going to live in this region? Are you just going to be behind walls and wipe out everybody around you, or are you going to find some just way of defending yourself while still acting in an ethical, moral way?”
But what caught my eye was his history misrepresentation, which drives him to issue such moral instructions. He also said that as a result of Jews being oppressed and killed, they “understandably sought a refuge.” In doing so, Jews “took land off people, and they were excessive ... those people understandably said. ... I want my land back.”
The truth? For 18 centuries, Jews returned to their homeland whenever possible. They did so not as a place of refuge but because they wished to reside on the land God granted them. And when Israelis gave land back—“gave Gaza back”—in the summer of 2005, it didn’t help at all. In fact, it came back to haunt us.